#2 Highest Peak of All Time (Shaq '00 wins)

[kabstah]

Ironically, I think Lebron could've had that #1 offense + #1 defense in Cleveland if Bosh were willing to sign there in 2010. The 2009 Cavs were #4/#3, and a front line of Varejao/Bosh is an upgrade both offensively and defensively over Varejao/Ilgauskas.

[Doctor MJ]

The underlineds here tell the story here, and the underlined-bolded part is the huge crux of where we disagree and why I say scoring is overrated. Scoring is NOT, repeat NOT!!! the whole point of playing basketball. OUTSCORING your opponent is the whole point of playing basketball. In that post you just gave to defend scoring, you mentioned offense or scoring more than 10 times...and didn't mention defense as a key aspect of winning a single time.

But the thing is, what you just wrote fits right in with the default attitude of the basketball public in general, and even a large component of this board. So it's not that you're offering some type of minority opinion. Which is, again, the point. Because the ability to prevent your opponent from scoring is just as large of a part of the actual point of winning basketball as the ability to score.

And in addition to purely scoring, or purely preventing your opponent from scoring, there are the other aspects of the game. The ability to use passing to help make your team offense more potent than scoring on your own (even at good efficiencies), the ability to dominate the glass and generate more possessions for your team, the ability to space the floor so that others can score more easily, the ability to help your team prevent opponents from scoring when it's not your man with the ball. These are all definite, tangible basketball abilities that, in the correct proportions, can be more valuable in a player than the ability to efficiently score.

Basketball is much, much more than just high efficiency scoring. And success in that area doesn't remotely mean that a player is definitely better or more impactful than a player that makes their mark in other ways.

Some great points here. It brought up an anecdote to my mind, bear with me:

Y'all know Colin Cowherd (if you don't, national ESPN radio show guy). Do you remember his favorite way to bash David Beckham?

"You pay him all this money, and he doesn't even score"

Now at first this was just your basic scoring-focused guy, but then he started getting it in his head to compare Beckham to Tom Brady, and so multiple times we got to experience the joy of him saying,

"and unlike Beckham, Brady actually SCORES!"

Absolutely mind-blowing, because of course, if your definition apply the standard of scoring of soccer to American football, Brady scores even less than Beckham. Brady, as a quarterback, his job is to get what soccer fans call "assists". Cowherd was watching two somewhat analogous players and what they did registered in his brain in two completely different ways. In Cowherd's brain, there's nothing more important than an American football assist, not even an actual American football goal (he loves to rant about how running backs and wide receivers aren't that important), but he doesn't respect assists in soccer.

I say this not to knock specific posters here, or worse, to claim you're like Cowherd, but just to emphasize how much your perception can get shaped by things that don't actually matter very much. I tend to knock volume scorers not because I think scoring is unimportant, but because I see scoring as something that takes a village to do well.

It's easy to see it differently when you watch an iso play, and see the parallels with a true one-on-one game, but it's important to remember that such a play only exists for one of 3 reasons:

1) The defense is being stupid

2) The offense is being stupid

3) However dangerous the guy with the ball is, the threats of the other 4 offensive players are strong enough that the other defenders cannot risk leaving them.

[MisterWestside]

What post option did Nash have in Phoenix? Don't say Amar'e.

Shaq was in Phoenix for a bit, and before that Boris Diaw could actually play the post. No one's calling him the next coming of Hakeem, but he did provide some post play when the Subs usual PnR heavy offense called for it.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9p5xr6rnsc[/youtube]

And Magic was a above average shooter from 89-91. Lebron has only been above average once.

From three? Give me LeBron.

[colts18]

Amare actually was a pretty decent post scorer, and he's one of the best ever in the PnR. Offensively speaking, the only player on his level or higher that LeBron's played with has been Wade, and he doesn't fit. LeBron and Amare would be pretty awesome together offensively.

LeBron+Amare+Mo would have been a deadly offensive combo. Add in a 3 point shooter like Gibson and it could be a 120 offense.

[Doctor MJ]

I disagree that LeBron wouldn't lead all-time great offenses if you gave him Nash's Phoenix support, Bird's Boston support, or Magic's LA support...maybe not quite on the same level, but in terms of "all-time" stuff, I think they would still be up there.

Well, again - all of those guys stayed with their original franchises and had pieces fit around them. LeBron can't be part of a GOAT-level offense? You couldn't put awesome shooters and an awesome low-post player and put together an awesome offense?

Magic wasn't a 3-pt shooter. LeBron can give you that. Nash can't give you the low-post/production at the rim like LeBron can. And even though Bird can pass the ball well, I'd still take LeBron's ability to create a shot.

Not saying that LeBron is better than Magic or Bird, and Nash is great. But let's stop acting as if LeBron is some one-trick pony. And with him getting comfortable in the Heat offense, he's scratching the surface of moving without the ball (which he's become more adept at).

I don't really disagree with you here, but I feel compelled to object at the way you compare him to Magic/Bird/Nash. Yes, LeBron can do things those guys can't, but the notion that LeBron can be a Magic-type player has gone by the wayside. In retrospect, it's funny people ever thought that way given that the way he played never looked anything like Magic did.

LeBron can play on a 115 ORtg level offense, an that puts him on an all-time great level offense. However, the look of that offense is probably going to have more in common with Jordan's Bulls than Showtime or SSOL. You might say "who cares?", but what I'm saying is, it's not as easy to get there with LeBron as it is with some of these other guys. I'm sure people will disagree with that assessment, but I'd venture most of the people who disagree, would have told me in 2009 that if LeBron had other stars on his team the offense would get far better.

There is also the matter that 115 is a bit of misleading ceiling, because it's not like we haven't seen lineups tear right past that, it's just the bench time that's kept the ceiling from being broken.

It is worth noting that in 2005, when the Suns actually needed everything Nash could give, he went from playing 65% of the team's minutes to 84%, and despite playing 3 well above average defenses, the team's ORtg went up ANOTHER 4 points beyond their already "all time great" levels.

(Incredibly ironic btw that people instantly used - and still use - that post-season as part of the 'proof' that the Suns' offense wouldn't work in the playoffs. People were actually seeing that offense improve by HUGE amounts, and they not only couldn't tell, but thought they had seen the exact opposite of what actually happened. As ElGee is fond of saying, many people, if they couldn't see the scoreboard, they'd have no idea who was actually playing well.)

[Chris435]

LeBron can play on a 115 ORtg level offense, an that puts him on an all-time great level offense. However, the look of that offense is probably going to have more in common with Jordan's Bulls than Showtime or SSOL. You might say "who cares?", but what I'm saying is, it's not as easy to get there with LeBron as it is with some of these other guys. I'm sure people will disagree with that assessment, but I'd venture most of the people who disagree, would have told me in 2009 that if LeBron had other stars on his team the offense would get far better.

The ceiling of what a player can provide to a team would pretty much depend on the style/type of player in question.. wouldn't it? I think you're saying that James doesn't fall into the class of the Magic/Nash type of player, but is that really a problem since you mentioned that the offense would look more like a Jordan offense?

Anyways, I think the points that are being discussed here are about the style/game of a player. I get the sense that you think James in Jordan style of class as opposed to the Magic/Nash type.

I've asked you a similar question about these 2 before (about their peaks)... perhaps I'll search for it later and post it in this thread.

[Doctor MJ]

LeBron can play on a 115 ORtg level offense, an that puts him on an all-time great level offense. However, the look of that offense is probably going to have more in common with Jordan's Bulls than Showtime or SSOL. You might say "who cares?", but what I'm saying is, it's not as easy to get there with LeBron as it is with some of these other guys. I'm sure people will disagree with that assessment, but I'd venture most of the people who disagree, would have told me in 2009 that if LeBron had other stars on his team the offense would get far better.

The ceiling of what a player can provide to a team would pretty much depend on the style/type of player in question.. wouldn't it? I think you're saying that James doesn't fall into the class of the Magic/Nash type of player, but is that really a problem since you mentioned that the offense would look more like a Jordan offense?

Anyways, I think the points that are being discussed here are about the style/game of a player. I get the sense that you think James in Jordan style of class as opposed to the Magic/Nash type.

I've asked you a similar question about these 2 before (about their peaks)... perhaps I'll search for it later and post it in this thread.

To your first, it absolutely depends on the player in question, but some things are easier to find benefit of in role players than others. Chief among them is 3-point shooting, which even terrible free throw shooters are typically able to do pretty well if they practice a bit at it, and they're wide open. Without question, when you're talking about a top of the line offense, you're wanting to have a star who can turn every player on the floor into a dangerous threat.

So offensively, I am saying that Magic & Nash are a class above LeBron based on the standards I use, but only because they the role they play best inherently scales better than LeBron's optimal role. (All around, I definitely side with LeBron over Nash. LeBron vs Magic, I look forward to discussion on that particular dilemma.)

[C-izMe]

Let me ask you this.. is it any harder to structure an offense around James compared to what Jordan provided his teams? Do you think it's easier for a team offense to peak higher with Jordan as opposed to James? I guess another way to put this is what makes it any easier for teams to peak higher with Jordan as opposed to James (assuming you think their styles are similar..)?

It's harder simply because Lebron isn't as good as Jordan offensively. He turns over the ball a ton more, is on a lower level when it comes to scoring ability, and well below Jordan when it comes to scoring versatility. Also (IMO) Lebron has become an overrated playmaker (not passer). We've seen Wade, Jordan, TMac and a few other high scoring guards have better playmaking seasons then him due to their ability to draw doubles and on rare occasions triples (which Lebron usually doesn't get due to his passing ability).

[Chris435]

So offensively, I am saying that Magic & Nash are a class above LeBron based on the standards I use, but only because they the role they play best inherently scales better than LeBron's optimal role. (All around, I definitely side with LeBron over Nash. LeBron vs Magic, I look forward to discussion on that particular dilemma.)

now that you mention it, I also asked you about Magic/Lebron. Perhaps what you mentioned on that topic is relevant here.. I'll search for that thread and post in a bit..

EDIT: Here's the post

http://forums.realgm.com/boards/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1196064&start=15#p32774136

would anyone here vault Magic's 87 season above Lebron's past year?

Yup. In fact if I'm totally honest, my clear choice of LeBron over '91 Magic is in part because I know it's not quite peak Magic.

So here's the thing:

LeBron in '09 was more valuable to the Cavs than I think Magic ever was to a Laker team. He was also more valuable than Jordan was to a Bull team, so put that in perspective. Very, very few players have ever had arguably 40 wins of impact.

However, I don't think it's enough to just go by who had the most impact in their biggest impact year to ask who the better player was. As we've seen with LeBron in Miami, even this year, he's amazing, but the team isn't going to fall apart without him. That doesn't make him a worse player, and it doesn't make Magic or Mike worse players that they weren't in LeBron-in-Cleveland scenarios.

Additionally, there's the factor of what ElGee's been calling "portability". For LeBron to have that kind of an impact, he needs to be doing all the heavy lifting himself, which means that if he has a teammate who could do more, there's going to be a lot of redundancy. Magic on the other hand, is a lot more flexible player with a game optimally suited to scale with the talent around him.

As a result of this, I take Magic's offense over LeBron's offense generally without much hesitation, and the debate then becomes whether LeBron's edge elsewhere makes up for that. If that seems to make it an easy argument for LeBron, be careful, even though LeBron is an excellent defensive player, his defensive impact is nowhere near his offensive impact. Both sides of the court are not equal here.

For point of reference, Engelmann has a 6-year RAPM analysis from '05-'11. I'll say up front that there are pros and cons to doing a 6-year study. Pro: Reduction in basketball randomness is great. Con: Players change. So keep that in mind, especially with LeBron here. It's not the same player the whole time. Anyway, here's the leaderboard:

1. LeBron 9.6
2. Nash 9.2
3. Wade 8.2
4. Nowitzki 7.9
5. Garnett 7.8

(I'll add in that Kobe was 6th at 7.4 simply because I know people would be curious about that)

I think this is quite telling first because it has LeBron at #1, and has him at #1 despite the fact that it starts when he's a teenage and ends with him in Miami (where his impact was less) - peak LeBron in this span would rate higher.

However, it's also interesting to see that Nash rates almost as highly as LeBron despite major turnover on his roster and aging and, of course, the fact that LeBron is a MUCH better defensive player than him. LeBron actually ranks 5th in the league in defense (where Nash is nowhere near the leaderboard), but that only warrants a defensive rating of 2.8.

It would not be unimaginable at all in my book then for Magic's offense to make up for the defense edge of LeBron then given that I rate him above Nash.

Just to be clear about that thread, that was a discussion about Lebron in his 2012 season in comparison to Magic's 1991 season. I brought up Magic's '87 season in comparison to James' 2012 season. So, I don't know if the discussion changes a bit if we were talking more about James 2009/2010 years in comparison to Magic's peak year.

[therealbig3]

Yes, but like I did before, if we compare Nash and LeBron offensively using RAPM over the years, including the 4 year study, we're not seeing a big difference between them at all (and keep in mind that they're both playing the role of ball-dominant playmaker):

2006: +4.4 (Nash) vs +3.9 (LeBron)
2007: +7.9 (Nash) vs +7.1 (LeBron)
2008: +7.4 (Nash) vs +5.3 (LeBron)
2009: +6.2 (Nash) vs +6.6 (LeBron)
2010: +6.3 (Nash) vs +7.1 (LeBron)
2011: +6.2 (Nash) vs +4.1 (LeBron)
2012: +4.7 (Nash) vs +4.2 (LeBron)

LeBron's best finishes are very comparable to Nash's. Looking at the 07/08-10/11 RAPM study (LeBron was not having optimal impact in 08 or 11, and Nash was not having optimal impact in 09 or 11...so it seems to even out, with 2 "peak" offensive seasons between them):

+7.7 (Nash) vs +6.6 (LeBron)...and LeBron was far and away the best overall player in this study, at +10.2. The next closest player was ironically Nash, at +7.8.

It seems to tell me two things: LeBron's "winginess" is being used to detract from him a bit too much...first of all, his ability to score is a good thing; second of all, RAPM is not bearing it out that his penchant for volume scoring is really holding him back all that much as an offensive anchor compared to the greats. Nash ranks better, but not by much, even in his best offensive seasons. I understand RAPM is not perfect, and that on/off data and LeBron's somewhat disappointing results in Miami seem to tell us that he's not on the Magic/Nash level...but I think analyzing his roster situation both in Cleveland and Miami is pretty telling in terms of why he's not leading a +7 offense.

The second thing it tells me is that LeBron's defensive impact, although not on the same level as his offense, is not small, and is not really "a cherry on top" in terms of his contributions. His defense is a pretty big deal for a non-big, and it definitely contributes in a major way to his overall impact. I mean, in that 4-year RAPM study, his defense is coming out close to +4. That actually is big man level.

[MisterWestside]

Yes, LeBron can do things those guys can't, but the notion that LeBron can be a Magic-type player has gone by the wayside.

Don't see why he still can't do that, actually. During the 2011 Sixers playoff series, he did a great job playing a "Magic" role, facilitating and setting up his teammates. The Heat doesn't call for it as much however, simply because the Heat outside of the Big 3 were not consistent offensively and demanded more scoring from LeBron. But the guy loves to set teammates up - just look at the Olympics game the other day. Yeah, "not NBA competition"; yadda, yadda, yadda...but he's certainly capable of playing more "Magic" if he wants to.

It's harder simply because Lebron isn't as good as Jordan offensively. He turns over the ball a ton more, is on a lower level when it comes to scoring ability, and well below Jordan when it comes to scoring versatility. Also (IMO) Lebron has become an overrated playmaker (not passer).

Agreed with your post up to that last part. LeBron forces teams to send extra defensive attention to him often, whether on the wings to cut off the dribble-drive or in the post.

I understand RAPM is not perfect, and that on/off data and LeBron's somewhat disappointing results in Miami seem to tell us that he's not on the Magic/Nash level...but I think analyzing his roster situation both in Cleveland and Miami is pretty telling in terms of why he's not leading a +7 offense.

Well, you gotta keep in mind that the Miami free agent coup was an unprecedented pairing of three high-usage players in history. One basketball statistician put it best: Miami was like a black hole, and the basketball metrics were the laws of physics.

[drza]

I understand RAPM is not perfect, and that on/off data and LeBron's somewhat disappointing results in Miami seem to tell us that he's not on the Magic/Nash level...but I think analyzing his roster situation both in Cleveland and Miami is pretty telling in terms of why he's not leading a +7 offense.

Well, you gotta keep in mind that the Miami free agent coup was an unprecedented pairing of three high-usage players in history. One basketball statistician put it best: Miami was like a black hole, and the basketball metrics were the laws of physics.

I think the underlined is the crux to the whole "portability" question when it comes to LeBron vs Bird, or Garnett (or Duncan, or even Dirk for that matter), or Nash, or Magic. As a high-usage player that must score at high volume to reach his max individual impact, he cannot be matched with other high-usage scorers and have all involved yield their maximum impact. Bird and Dirk can make their maximum impact on offense without having to do as much on the ball as LeBron, which allows for higher usage teammates. Garnett and Duncan not only can have a maximal offensive impact without dominating the ball, but also can shift energy to take their defense from stifling to "you gotta be kidding me" if paired with other high usage scorers. And Magic and Nash, by dint of their offensive genius, can be ball dominant and still allow other high-usage scorers to maximize to a higher level than LeBron can offensively.

Now, as some have pointed out, some of this is stylistic and match-ups, and the logical counter-argument is to ask what would happen if you matched those other players up with players of similar skill sets. And the difference is, stylistically you could match up two high-volume off-ball scorers and still have synergy...Dirk and Bird would work just fine, as would either with Wade. You could match up two of...whatever the heck Garnett and Duncan are, and have it work just fine (KG and Duncan would be scary ridiculous on the same team...as would either with Wade). Matching up two genius point guards wouldn't match great, I grant you, so Magic and Nash would be a bit hinky. But considering there are two wing positions but only 1 point guard position, there's very little practical chance that any team would attempt to match up two outstanding point guards anyway. And more relevantly, I think either would work better next to just about any offensive situation where they got the keys than would LeBron.

I remember when Jordan came along...the conventional basketball wisdom was that you didn't want a wing dominating the offense to the extent that he did, that he was ball-hogging and not playing winning basketball. 6 championships later, Jordan's style became the template for the next generation. But I think that when you start getting up to these "best ever" type levels, there is some truth in the thought that the super-ball dominant wing is a somewhat flawed style. Jordan made it work due to his once-in-a-lifetime brilliance, and LeBron is in the process of doing the same. But that doesn't mean that it's the best way to accomplish things, and when you have players of the same level that more naturally play a "better" style of play, I can see how that could be a disadvantage in a project like this.

[MisterWestside]

Once again drza, watch the Olympics and see how LeBron meshes with other high-usage players. The other day, commentators talked all game about how LeBron had "modest scoring numbers, but still had his imprint on the game" due to his playmaking and moving without the ball. And he plays with lots of scorers.

You can't compare the Bird/Magic situations with LeBron. He had to joined a brand new team and cast that lacked quality offensive depth and was not optimally built around him. You don't built a team with three people.

[drza]

Once again drza, watch the Olympics and see how LeBron meshes with other high-usage players. The other day, commentators talked all game about how LeBron had "modest scoring numbers, but still had his imprint on the game" due to his playmaking. And he plays with lots of scorers.

You can't compare the Bird/Magic situations with LeBron. He had to joined a brand new team and cast that lacked quality offensive depth and was not optimally built around him. You don't built a team with three people.

I've seen LeBron with in the Olympics, as well as these last two years in Miami. And I feel like I should repeat the disclaimer, because when arguing "against" someone at these levels it can appear that one is being more critical than intended. I think that LeBron is absolutely the best player in the NBA today, and obviously he can be the best player on a championship team. Obviously he can make it work on a championship level with some talent overlap.

My point is that I think players like Magic or Bird can make team offenses even better with similar offensive pieces around them. That their style of play is more conducive to success in more environments. At least that's the argument that I'm making.

[MisterWestside]

Never thought you were out to bash LeBron at all, dzra. You're a insightful poster.

Bird/Magic are higher than LeBron on my all-time rankings, and they were keys to their teams great offenses. But I guess I would say that it's a little easier to look like you're sitting back and "waving" your hands to produce a magical offense when you're surrounded by players outside your stars like Cooper, Scott, Wilkes, McAdoo, Johnson, Ainge, Maxwell, etc. than players like Bibby, Arroyo, E.Jones, Anthony, Miller with a bum back, Battier, Haslem, etc. And yes, I've watched most of these guys play; not just naming names.

[C-izMe]

Agreed with your post up to that last part. LeBron forces teams to send extra defensive attention to him often, whether on the wings to cut off the dribble-drive or in the post.

Well Lebron is VERY turnover prone when he drives and kicks. Wade is definetly a better playmaker if you ask me.

[therealbig3]

Agreed with your post up to that last part. LeBron forces teams to send extra defensive attention to him often, whether on the wings to cut off the dribble-drive or in the post.

Well Lebron is VERY turnover prone when he drives and kicks. Wade is definetly a better playmaker if you ask me.

Where is the evidence for this?

Wade is more TO-prone than LeBron. I don't know how to break it down specifically to drive and kicks, but their overall TO rates favor LeBron.

Wade has gotten better at taking care of the ball, and since he's not playing on-ball nearly as much now that LeBron's on his team, he doesn't turn it over that much anymore, but when he was the dominant ball handler (pre-2011), he turned it over more than LeBron.

LeBron actually takes good care of the ball considering his usage.

[Doctor MJ]

Never thought you were out to bash LeBron at all, dzra. You're a insightful poster.

Bird/Magic are higher than LeBron on my all-time rankings, and they were keys to their teams great offenses. But I guess I would say that it's a little easier to look like you're sitting back and "waving" your hands to produce a magical offense when you're surrounded by players outside your stars like Cooper, Scott, Wilkes, McAdoo, Johnson, Ainge, Maxwell, etc. than players like Bibby, Arroyo, E.Jones, Anthony, Miller with a bum back, Battier, Haslem, etc. And yes, I've watched most of these guys play; not just naming names.

Right but by '86-87 he doesn't have anyone on his team as good as Chris Bosh, and the Laker offense far, far superior to the current Heat team. I understand the rebuttal of fit/redundancy here, but when Magic continues to be associated with greater offenses throughout all the shifts he went through, and when LeBron has now been in very different situations, to me it becomes a bit silly to keep painting what if scenarios for LeBron. We're never going to see these guys in every possible situation.

I do think you make a good point about LeBron playing a different role on the Olympic team, and doing it well, but I'm not really sure how to use that. I mean, if LeBron gets injured tomorrow, that team likely still destroys the world, so how can anything he does there be used as a trump card in a GOAT-level discussion?

More to the point, aesthetically speaking, when you watch LeBron play, he simply doesn't look like Magic or Nash. That of course doesn't mean he must be a worse distributor, but I feel like a lot of people just look at the assists and say, "Ah, triple double machine like Magic!". The reality is that even when he acts distributor first, he has a very different manner about him than Magic which involves a lot less "flow". In theory, this could be worse or it could be better, but it's not the same. With that distinction being realized, it's time to remember that there are a ton of good passers who have racked up 7+ APG in their career. Magic & co get celebrated as something much beyond that for all sorts of details that others aren't doing. Practically speaking, I'm not going to believe LeBron can be Magic until he starts looking like Magic (keeping in mind that Magic looked like Magic at a far younger age, hence the nickname), and I'm not going to believe he can impact offense more than Magic (regardless of how he does it) until I see a good amount of data backing that up.

[C-izMe]

Agreed with your post up to that last part. LeBron forces teams to send extra defensive attention to him often, whether on the wings to cut off the dribble-drive or in the post.

Well Lebron is VERY turnover prone when he drives and kicks. Wade is definetly a better playmaker if you ask me.

Where is the evidence for this?

Wade is more TO-prone than LeBron. I don't know how to break it down specifically to drive and kicks, but their overall TO rates favor LeBron.

Wade has gotten better at taking care of the ball, and since he's not playing on-ball nearly as much now that LeBron's on his team, he doesn't turn it over that much anymore, but when he was the dominant ball handler (pre-2011), he turned it over more than LeBron.

LeBron actually takes good care of the ball considering his usage.

Wade over the last 4 years has had a lower TO% then Lebron. Over that same period he's had way more ball handling turnovers (actually Wade even had more ball handling turnovers then passing turnovers; Lebron however has some of the safest handles in the league).

[Doctor MJ]

Let me just get on topic before a turn in for the night.

I'm expecting I'll wake up tomorrow at vote for Shaq. Wilt is on my mind as well, but I want to just respond to something someone said about Kareem's scoring volume & efficiency:

Shaq & Kareem are two very different players. It's important to understand that the kind of overwhelming physical juggernaut was, Kareem wasn't. It's really just Shaq & Wilt in that territory (and Wilt tried to show he was more than that whereas Shaq embraced it). Yes, Kareem did all sorts of things well, and because of effort and attitude had easily the superior career, but when Shaq was focused he was not only the most powerful man on the court by a large margin, he was explosive.

His attacks on the offensive end were not chess matches that left his teammates twiddling their thumbs, he acted, and the ball was in the hoop. Defenses simply knew that once he got the ball, you either fouled, or took it, or both. Defenses knew that, and hence Shaq created one hell of a gravitational pull which made it very simple for the rest of the offense to do their job. And as infamous as Hack-a-Shaq was, one needs to remember that if the guy you're fouling is shooting 55% from the line, you're still not going to gain ground in the average case.

On defense, when he was on (and in this project, as we've talked about, that was basically all year '99-00), he was leading the best defense in the land for a reason. He put fear into offensive players like nobody's business.

Let's look at some advanced stats for a second here. We don't have them from '71 Kareem, but we do from the also mentioned '77. Let's compare '77 Kareem to '00 Shaq on a few things:

Blocking %
Kareem 4.4
Shaq 5.3

Rebounding %
Kareem 18.4
Shaq 18.3

This is with Shaq playing slightly more minutes in the season, scoring slightly more on slightly less efficiency. This version of Kareem being mentioned, Shaq is right next to him statistically, and he's playing with a frightening further in a far stronger body.

So yeah, I look at that two way impact, and it's hard to put anyone above him who isn't playing just about perfect (like Jordan), a few questions though:

Do we all agree that anyone shooting under 70% from the FT line is a vain fool for not using Barry's granny FTs?

When one considers how much better Shaq (and Wilt for that matter) would have been if he weren't a vain fool just on this one front, does it seem far fetched to think that the GOAT debate we actually have seems as close as it does? Meaning, if we grant that Shaq should have been better than Jordan given decent free throw shooting, are we equivocating by agreeing that the gap between Shaq and the #1 highest peak is THIS close? Is it not more likely that, regardless of the direction, the gap is going to be relatively sizable?