RealGM Top 100 List #4

[Baller2014]

From 60-66 his average FG% in the playoffs was 50%.
That isn't bad for a decent FT shooter but it is bad for a power C who is only shooting around 41-55% from the line.

You're missing the point - 50% was great - In 1965 the record for FG% was 52.8% - he was shooting close to the season record each year and people are saying it is bad.

In fairness, this should cut both ways (like when people look at his team mates mediocre FG% and say "see, he had nobody!")

I admit, I have been moved slightly more positively towards Wilt from reading this thread, but I still think he's going too high.

[trex_8063]

If there were all star quotas then please provide a link, I appreciate learning.

But even if that's true, so far I have to agree to disagree based on the evidence I've found (and still finding) Wilt had great team support relative to Hakeem. Those guys were quality players and did contribute imo.
Wilt played in an isolation-heavy low post volume scoring role from when he came into the league until 65-66. For the first five years of career, while had some good teammates (Rodgers was a terrific ball-handler and passer, for instance, and Nate was possibly the GOAT man defender in the post and the GOAT non-Russell defender overall), he wasn't surrounded with shooters to space the floor, and prevent defenders from cheating/sagging off their assignments and crowding the paint. There have been some good posts on the matter in the thread.

I don't think anybody is suggesting Wilt's casts with the Sixers and Lakers were subpar (though some have mentioned that in 66 they underperformed and there were injuries in 68, I don't think anybody is saying his casts were poor those years). People are just stating that in 5 of the 7 years Wilt was asked to score, there was little outside game to speak of on his teams.

I can believe that Wilt faced swarming defenses in the early 60's but in all honesty so did guys like Jordan, Shaq & even Kareem over more of their careers.
Those guys also had to deal with constant double & triple teams and were still expected to remain efficient offensively.
I am sure they also had years and I know they had playoff series where their shooters weren't showing up but it didn't prevent them from remaining efficient and effective individually.

Plus Wilt's average offensive efficiency even in the late 60's/early 70's (when he had good teams/shooters) wasn't exactly stellar considering the average volume at which he was scoring.
This consistent trend of Wilt not consistently being efficient at various points of his career and in different roles leads me to believe that his halfcourt offense wasn't exactly on the GOAT level.

wrt to the bolded part.....

His single season WORST TS% in his final six seasons was .554 (injury year: 12-game sample size, averaging >27 ppg); his cumulative TS% for those six seasons was .581 (while cumulatively averaging 18.9 ppg---which matches Russell's career best mark, fwiw)......this in a time period when the league avg TS% was .500 (as low as .491, never higher than .511). In '70 he would have ranked 16th in the league in TS% (but not considered due to sample size--->injury year); that was the only one of his final six seasons where he was NOT in at least the top 8 in TS% (was three times in the top 3, twice #1, including one which is still the 5th-highest TS% of all-time).

So I don't exactly know how you came to that conclusion.
EDIT: read later post and saw the playoff focus......it's true his scoring numbers and efficiency are less impressive in the playoffs during that time period, although still hardly mediocre: avg .523 TS% in the playoffs his final six seasons (I'd have to do some number harvesting, but most players' efficiency goes down in the playoffs, so I'd imagine the league playoff average thru that same time period to be around .480-.490 maybe??).

EDIT2: .....which considering this is aging/post-prime Wilt, and he's still giving you 17 ppg on above average efficiency while also 1) acting as defensive anchor, 2) averaging 4.0 apg in the playoffs during same time period, and 3) is the playoff's leading rebounder in 4 of 6 years (22.6 playoff rpg cumulatively)......idk, I'm still reasonably impressed.

EDIT3: Looked at another way: he had a cumulative playoff PER in that 6-year span of 19.1 while playing a WHOPPING 47.0 mpg! Shaquille O'Neal in the same-ish age range ('04 thru '08, and '10 playoffs) had a 20.9 PER on a much leaner 33.6 mpg (minutes relevant because other than a the 3 years Shaq's team was maybe fortunate enough to turn to post-prime Zo Mourning when Shaq sat, they'd otherwise in that 13.4 mpg gap have to turn to guys like Brian Cook, Michael Doleac, or old Ilgauskas). Not to mention that---during these spans of their respective careers---Wilt was generally the better overall defender.

[PaulieWal]

Lebron doesn't have the career value yet to pass any of these guys, but I think by the next list he'll be much higher. Lebron's boxscore to team impact ratio seems off too. he's had 7 contending teams since his prime started in 2009, yet got just 2 rings in that span(good, but not better than the others listed), and his teams lost to inferior opponents 3 out of the 7 years.

Where do you get 7 contending teams from? What are the 3 inferior opponents that LeBron lost too?

Miscounted, it should be 6, not seven. 2009-2014

First off, you are off on all 6 being contending teams and out of those 2011 is the only year where LeBron deserves the blame and criticism. You can try and make a case for 2010 if you want to repeat the 'He quit' narrative but 09 and 14 are not because he was lacking (though he could have played better in 14 but that goes for almost any player anytime you lose a series).

[colts18]

Re: point #1) I specifically brought up missed games as a concern for me, but it's something Shaq supporters haven't addressed, as they're trying to sway people to vote for their candidate.

Yet Shaq played a mere four more games than Bill Walton played in ’1976-77 on average for his first 13 full seasons. I've wondered how one can reconcile that Walton is "fragile" for only playing 65 games, yet Shaq averages 69 for 13 years, but that isn't a problem. Wilt, on the other hand, was an ironman. He had only one major injury in his career, when he missed 70 games in 1969-70. Outside of that season, he averaged 79.5 games a season. Phil Jackson wrote of Shaq:

Shaq did miss a lot of games. No one is questioning. It's the reason why he doesn't have more MVP's. According to ElGee, missed games in the RS don't matter as much until you get to 20 games missed. Even though Shaq missed games, it never hurt his team in the long run. On a few occasions it gave his opponents HCA in the playoffs but Shaq always played well enough to overcome that. For example, his team won in 01 vs the Spurs without HCA. They won against the Kings in 02 without HCA. They won in 03 against the TWolves without HCA. They won in 04 against the Spurs without HCA. They also beat the TWolves without HCA. In 2006, Shaq led his team to one of the most impressive team accomplishments: beating 2 60+ win teams without HCA. In 1998, Shaq's team won against the Sonics without HCA. As you can see, Shaq's teams never lost a series because they didn't have HCA due to Shaq's missed games.

Then, as I brought up, by the time Shaq reached his absolute peak in 1999-2000, when the Lakers’ season began on Nov. 2, O’Neal was 27 years, 241 days old. Olajuwon was 36 years, 285 days old; Robinson was 34 years, 88 days old; Ewing was 37 years, 89 days old. I posted articles of the time commenting on the lack of competition for Shaq now that he was at his best. There was no answer for this because there is none. The assumption made is that if Shaq "handled himself well" against the elite centers pre-peak, then it would be reasonable to assume he would do just fine against elite competition in his peak. Though that doesn’t change the fact that that competition wasn’t there when Shaq reached his zenith, as was commented on at the time. Phil Jackson before the start of the 2000-01 season:

I already posted what Shaq was doing against the elite centers of his era while they were still in their primes. Shaq was still dominating them.




Total numbers (per 36 minutes), 66 games:
Shaq: 24.7 PPG, 11.5 Reb, 55.6 FG%
Elite: 22.3 PPG, 10.1 Reb, 45.7 FG%

Expected vs. Actual numbers:
Elite guys:
Expected: 22.0 PPG, 50.8 FG%
Actual: 22.3 PPG, 18.6 FGA, 45.7 FG%
+0.3 PPG, -5.1 FG%

Shaq's numbers:
Expected: 25.4 PPG, 57.8 FG%
Actual: 28.6 PPG, 56.2 FG%



Head to Head, advantage in each category:

Shaq vs. Ewing 93-98, 18 games:
Pts advantage: Shaq 11-6
Reb: Shaq 11-7
AST: Shaq 8-6
blk: Shaq 10-5
FG%: Shaq 14-4
W-L: Shaq 11-7

Shaq vs. Hakeem 93-99, 14 games:
Pts: Shaq 7-6
Reb: Shaq 10-3
AST: Hakeem 7-4
blk: Hakeem 9-2
FG%: Shaq 13-1
W-L: Shaq 10-4

Shaq vs. Robinson 93-99, 12 games:
pts: Robinson 6-5
Reb: Shaq 8-4
AST: Robinson 6-3
blk: Shaq 5-2
FG%: Shaq 9-3
W-L: Shaq 6-6

Shaq vs. Mourning 93-00, 14 games:
pts: Shaq 11-3
reb: Shaq 11-3
AST: Shaq 13-0
blk: Shaq 9-2
FG%: Shaq 11-3
W-L: Shaq 11-3

Overall, 58 games:
pts: Shaq 34-22 (.607)
reb: Shaq 40-17 (.702)
AST: Shaq 28-19 (.596)
blk: Shaq 26-16 (.591)
FG%: Shaq 47-11 (.810)
Overall stats: Shaq 175-85 (.673)
W-L: Shaq 38-20 (.655)

Games:
<45 FG%: Elite 30, Shaq 11
>60 FG%: Shaq 21, Elite 6
30 pt games: Shaq 20, Elite 19

[ceiling raiser]

In fairness, this should cut both ways (like when people look at his team mates mediocre FG% and say "see, he had nobody!")

I admit, I have been moved slightly more positively towards Wilt from reading this thread, but I still think he's going too high.

I don't know about anyone else, but I haven't been too down on Wilt's supporting casts in general. I just don't think his teammates (from 59-60 through 63-64) provided adequate spacing for a low-post isolation-heavy offense.

FG% in a vacuum isn't important to me. If someone can provide some evidence (quotes from guys back then would be great) suggesting that Wilt's teammates from 59-60 through 63-64 were good enough shooters that defenses respected them enough not to sag off and crowd the paint, I'll happily alter my stance.

[ThaRegul8r]

Re: point #1) I specifically brought up missed games as a concern for me, but it's something Shaq supporters haven't addressed, as they're trying to sway people to vote for their candidate.

Yet Shaq played a mere four more games than Bill Walton played in ’1976-77 on average for his first 13 full seasons. I've wondered how one can reconcile that Walton is "fragile" for only playing 65 games, yet Shaq averages 69 for 13 years, but that isn't a problem. Wilt, on the other hand, was an ironman. He had only one major injury in his career, when he missed 70 games in 1969-70. Outside of that season, he averaged 79.5 games a season. Phil Jackson wrote of Shaq:

Shaq did miss a lot of games. No one is questioning. It's the reason why he doesn't have more MVP's. According to ElGee, missed games in the RS don't matter as much until you get to 20 games missed. Even though Shaq missed games, it never hurt his team in the long run. On a few occasions it gave his opponents HCA in the playoffs but Shaq always played well enough to overcome that. For example, his team won in 01 vs the Spurs without HCA. They won against the Kings in 02 without HCA. They won in 03 against the TWolves without HCA. They won in 04 against the Spurs without HCA. They also beat the TWolves without HCA. In 2006, Shaq led his team to one of the most impressive team accomplishments: beating 2 60+ win teams without HCA. In 1998, Shaq's team won against the Sonics without HCA. As you can see, Shaq's teams never lost a series because they didn't have HCA due to Shaq's missed games.

The number of MVPs Shaq does or does not have is irrelevant to me. From the criteria I posted:

I don't need an award to tell me how much a player helped his team win. An example I often use is the 1970 NBA Finals. I don't need any award to tell me that Walt Frazier made the biggest contribution to help his team win, and I evaluate him accordingly. That he didn't win an award means nothing to me.

Awards will not factor into my rankings. They're meaningless as far as helping your team win is concerned. As far as the missed games, can you link me to ElGee's post? Or, ElGee, if you should happen to read this post, can you link me to it? I need to read it for myself in order to determine if I need to rethink that. I'm not above doing so if there's evidence to support it.

EDIT: Now that I think about it, it would probably have to be around the RPOY Project when '68 West was being discussed.

Then, as I brought up, by the time Shaq reached his absolute peak in 1999-2000, when the Lakers’ season began on Nov. 2, O’Neal was 27 years, 241 days old. Olajuwon was 36 years, 285 days old; Robinson was 34 years, 88 days old; Ewing was 37 years, 89 days old. I posted articles of the time commenting on the lack of competition for Shaq now that he was at his best. There was no answer for this because there is none. The assumption made is that if Shaq "handled himself well" against the elite centers pre-peak, then it would be reasonable to assume he would do just fine against elite competition in his peak. Though that doesn’t change the fact that that competition wasn’t there when Shaq reached his zenith, as was commented on at the time. Phil Jackson before the start of the 2000-01 season:

I already posted what Shaq was doing against the elite centers of his era while they were still in their primes. Shaq was still dominating them.

Spoiler:

Total numbers (per 36 minutes), 66 games:
Shaq: 24.7 PPG, 11.5 Reb, 55.6 FG%
Elite: 22.3 PPG, 10.1 Reb, 45.7 FG%

Expected vs. Actual numbers:
Elite guys:
Expected: 22.0 PPG, 50.8 FG%
Actual: 22.3 PPG, 18.6 FGA, 45.7 FG%
+0.3 PPG, -5.1 FG%

Shaq's numbers:
Expected: 25.4 PPG, 57.8 FG%
Actual: 28.6 PPG, 56.2 FG%



Head to Head, advantage in each category:

Shaq vs. Ewing 93-98, 18 games:
Pts advantage: Shaq 11-6
Reb: Shaq 11-7
AST: Shaq 8-6
blk: Shaq 10-5
FG%: Shaq 14-4
W-L: Shaq 11-7

Shaq vs. Hakeem 93-99, 14 games:
Pts: Shaq 7-6
Reb: Shaq 10-3
AST: Hakeem 7-4
blk: Hakeem 9-2
FG%: Shaq 13-1
W-L: Shaq 10-4

Shaq vs. Robinson 93-99, 12 games:
pts: Robinson 6-5
Reb: Shaq 8-4
AST: Robinson 6-3
blk: Shaq 5-2
FG%: Shaq 9-3
W-L: Shaq 6-6

Shaq vs. Mourning 93-00, 14 games:
pts: Shaq 11-3
reb: Shaq 11-3
AST: Shaq 13-0
blk: Shaq 9-2
FG%: Shaq 11-3
W-L: Shaq 11-3

Overall, 58 games:
pts: Shaq 34-22 (.607)
reb: Shaq 40-17 (.702)
AST: Shaq 28-19 (.596)
blk: Shaq 26-16 (.591)
FG%: Shaq 47-11 (.810)
Overall stats: Shaq 175-85 (.673)
W-L: Shaq 38-20 (.655)

Games:
<45 FG%: Elite 30, Shaq 11
>60 FG%: Shaq 21, Elite 6
30 pt games: Shaq 20, Elite 19

I explicitly said I said your numbers, and in the very post you quoted, I said: "The assumption made is that if Shaq "handled himself well" against the elite centers pre-peak, then it would be reasonable to assume he would do just fine against elite competition in his peak. Though that doesn’t change the fact that that competition wasn’t there when Shaq reached his zenith, as was commented on at the time."

To take a popular culture reference, I wonder if people read my posts or do they just skim through them?

[Baller2014]

First off, you are off on all 6 being contending teams and out of those 2011 is the only year where LeBron deserves the blame and criticism. You can try and make a case for 2010 if you want to repeat the 'He quit' narrative but 09 and 14 are not because he was lacking (though he could have played better in 14 but that goes for almost any player anytime you lose a series).

Don't worry, nobody else is buying that guy's bizarre narrative of when Lebron should have won. Prior to 2011 Lebron didn't have a team good enough to win a title, and in 2011 they actually weren't the favourites entering the season... the Lakers were. So it should be Kobe and the Lakers taking heat for failing to meet expectations, not Lebron and the newly formed Heat, who still lacked a point guard, 5 man, shooters, depth and an offensive system that let them all play together. They got to the finals in 2011 on talent alone, and then finally all those structural flaws caught up to them. I don't know what Kobe's excuse for being swept is though.

[therealbig3]

I don't have a lot of time to go in-depth, but I picked Shaq...WHY did I pick Shaq over the others?

Shaq vs Wilt: These guys are very often compared, and they both actually suffered from similar criticisms (lazy on defense, bullies, weak FT shooters, underachievers)...however, the separation for me is: there's a decent amount of evidence (the numbers have been posted in this thread) that show that Wilt was not really a high impact player...in an era that imo was PERFECTLY suited for a superstar big man to dominate. That's why I was hesitant to vote for Russell and considered other players over him this time around...but at least in his case, he ACTUALLY dominated when put in that environment. The evidence isn't really there for Wilt taking advantage of his environment and dominating the league the way he really should have imo.

For all of Shaq's flaws (and he certainly has flaws...poor FT shooting, immaturity, and laziness are the big 3), I haven't seen anything to dispute the fact that he was having superstar impact, even in down years. Offensively, the +/- data we have seems to rank him among the very best in the league, and he's been the offensive anchor for some historic offensive teams. So that right there makes his FT shooting kind of irrelevant to me...because despite that, he was still an ELITE offensive force. Couldn't be defended 1 on 1, drew a ton of fouls, couldn't be stopped from getting whatever low post position he wanted, and forced the entire defense to collapse when he caught the ball and made a move. On top of that, he was an excellent passer. The only way to stop him was hope that he was injured or to deny him the basketball (which wasn't easy, because of how big and strong he was, and how great his hands were), and denying him the basketball meant that the team defense was compromised and other players on his team could now start doing damage.

Shaq vs Duncan: I love Tim Duncan, he's my favorite player maybe ever, but Shaq was simply the better player when both of them were at their best. Shaq clearly peaked higher. And usually, when someone peaked higher, you need to have outstanding longevity to compensate...Duncan does...but Shaq does too. Another big criticism of Shaq is his injuries and how much time he missed during the RS...but a lot of that was "coasting", as Shaq was resting himself for the PS and always had a big impact in the playoffs. Duncan has "coasted" too, simply by playing less minutes and getting games off. Shaq missed a lot of games from 96-98, averaging only 55 games/season...but he never missed a playoff game in those years.

And like I give Duncan a lot of credit for his rookie year and even consider it part of his prime, Shaq had a great rookie year as well, and was a superstar as soon as he stepped on the court. And he remained a superstar every year through 05. 06 he took a step back, and was clearly more of a complementary piece in the playoffs, and he clearly wasn't an effective role player after that, since after his offensive skills declined, he was pretty bad at the one thing he could do to still have value (defense). But a superstar stretch from 93-05 is pretty fantastic, and along with a monster peak, I have to give him the edge. Yes, Shaq's antics to the point where you really have to consider docking his career value are a legitimate cause for concern, which is actually why I can't give him the edge over Kareem...but he was just that much better of a player than Duncan to me, with great longevity in his own right, that I just have to give him the edge in that comparison.

Shaq vs Garnett: Pretty similar argument to Shaq vs Duncan. I have Garnett and Duncan as basically a toss-up, slight edge to Duncan.

I have my reasons for Shaq over Magic and Hakeem as well (the other two big contenders for this spot imo), but I've got to go, so I'll come back with my reasons for that later.

[DQuinn1575]

Shaq's ranking in TS% top 10

94 - 5th
99 * 9th
01 - 9th
03 -2nd
09 - 4th

Wilt
61 - 6th
62 - 5th
63 -- 5th
64 - 6th
66 - 4th
67 - 1st
68 - 6th
69 3rd
71 -8th
72 -1st
73 -1st

11 times in top 10 versus 5 -

[therealbig3]

In 2006, Shaq led his team to one of the most impressive team accomplishments: beating 2 60+ win teams without HCA.

Pretty sure a guy named Dwyane Wade was responsible for that, not Shaq.

[Basketballefan]

First off, you are off on all 6 being contending teams and out of those 2011 is the only year where LeBron deserves the blame and criticism. You can try and make a case for 2010 if you want to repeat the 'He quit' narrative but 09 and 14 are not because he was lacking (though he could have played better in 14 but that goes for almost any player anytime you lose a series).

Don't worry, nobody else is buying that guy's bizarre narrative of when Lebron should have won. Prior to 2011 Lebron didn't have a team good enough to win a title, and in 2011 they actually weren't the favourites entering the season... the Lakers were. So it should be Kobe and the Lakers taking heat for failing to meet expectations, not Lebron and the newly formed Heat, who still lacked a point guard, 5 man, shooters, depth and an offensive system that let them all play together. They got to the finals in 2011 on talent alone, and then finally all those structural flaws caught up to them. I don't know what Kobe's excuse for being swept is though.

Lol Kobe and Pau both played like garbage in that series, i remember Stephen A blaming everyone but Kobe.

[ThaRegul8r]

In 2006, Shaq led his team to one of the most impressive team accomplishments: beating 2 60+ win teams without HCA.

Pretty sure a guy named Dwyane Wade was responsible for that, not Shaq.

I expect embellishment from advocates in favorite of their guy, which is why I investigate for myself, not just taking everything at face value. Nonetheless, looking at my notes on Shaq on the '05-06 season:

O’Neal only averaged a career Finals-low 13.7 points on 60.7 percent shooting, 10.2 rebounds, 2.8 assists. However, O’Neal twice had dominant games to close out a playoff series: 30 points on 13-for-24 shooting (54.2%), 20 rebounds, five assists and two blocked shots in Game 6 of the first round against the Chicago Bulls for a 113-96 win (19.8 points on 60.7 percent shooting, 10.8 rebounds, 2 assists and 2.17 blocked shots for the series), and 28 points on 12-for-14 shooting (85.7%), 16 rebounds and five blocked shots in Game 6 of the Eastern Conference Finals against the Detroit Pistons to give the Heat a 95-78 win, averaging 21.7 points on 65.5 percent shooting, 10.5 rebounds and 2.33 blocked shots for the series.

So he did help his team win.

[colts18]

Shaq's ranking in TS% top 10

94 - 5th
99 * 9th
01 - 9th
03 -2nd
09 - 4th

Wilt
61 - 6th
62 - 5th
63 -- 5th
64 - 6th
66 - 4th
67 - 1st
68 - 6th
69 3rd
71 -8th
72 -1st
73 -1st

11 times in top 10 versus 5 -

Less players in the league means its easier to rank in the top 10. But those first place finishes in 72 and 73 are completely meaningless to me. He was shooting less than Tyson Chandler those seasons. I will have a post up soon on that topic.

[ElGee]

A good rule of thumb: Assume on here that any conventional opinion you came here with is completely understood by the regulars and that if they disagree, it's because something powerful changed their mind. If you don't understand what that was, then learn a thing.

Very good rule. These projects have become a bit of a futile effort, I was really hoping we'd see a bit more evolution in the discussion this go around. It's still people posting the same generic conclusions that are short on details, and have been floating around for years and years. Given how much discussion there has been in the past, there is really no excuse to be posting so much of this stuff that's already been addressed. Over time, we should be drawing deeper and deeper distinctions to get a better understanding of a player, but instead it's the same superficial nonsense. I mean, a few pages back there's a quoted post about Wilt in elimination games that I made probably like 6 years ago, and half the pro-Wilt posts here probably accurately represent my opinion of him 6-7 years ago, go back long enough, you might even find a post about why I thought Hakeem was only a borderline top 10 player, but something happened. I̶ ̶l̶i̶k̶e̶ ̶t̶o̶ ̶t̶h̶i̶n̶k̶, I KNOW it was because I continued to evolve and acquire a richer, more detailed understanding of the careers of most of these players (as well as basketball in general) over time and that my previous opinions were due to a lot of gaps in my knowledge (ie. ignorance). I don’t care if someone agrees with my view point or how I choose to rate players, in fact, I like it better when someone brings a new insight that changes or refines my opinion but unfortunately, we're presented with the same stale material and arguments that a) everybody already has or should have a good understanding of and b) doesn't actually address the concerns that people have pointed out over time (which are either totally ignored or misunderstood). It doesn't matter if Wilt goes 4th or 12th, but the discussion surrounding it should be a lot better than it is. I'm assuming a few other posters are also glossing over the pages and rolling their eyes at the reasons being given, it's not some kind of a hipster arrogance, it's because most people are still anchored to opinions that the "hipsters" they are arguing with already had and evolved from over the years in light of acquiring more information, more research and engaging in many discussions. The result is that discussions stalls as there's pages and pages of shallow analysis and things that simply don't matter. 5 years ago it might have been fine, informative even, but now, it's just trite and reeks of ignorance.

Fatal -- I agree 100% with the lack of depth. It's a lot of noise to me.

drza -- That makes posting hard. I'm not sure at what level to come in because it's unclear what people are arguing, what their reasoning and is much importantly, what they know on a topic. Plus I just don't have a lot of time. I'll try and have a Bird post or two in the coming weeks. For now, I want to point out something about Garnett that people are probably unaware from the WOWY post I just made.

Garnett-related WOWY

If we went year-by-year, we'd see the following for KG's teams:

-2000: 52-win pace with Wally and brandon alongside KG.
-2001: Major problem at SG. I don't know what else to call this other than coaching experimentation. Billups didn't work for 33 games, and when Peeler was healthy and started, Minnesota was 53-win team for those 36 games.
-2002 Again, With Brandon and Smith alongside KG, a 51-win team.
-2003 With Wally, a 52-win team
-2005 With Cassell, a 50-win team
-2006 With Wally a 42-win team

It's almost like if they give Garnett a decent situation he can help mold it into 50-wins. If they ever gave him something remotely competent, it would probably be championship-level (that's a reference to 2004, 2008, etc.). This is one of the reasons why I've never bought into Duncan's de facto superiority based on the team result. Better culture? Robinson? Pop? Clearly better constructed team and role players? Better luck (fewer injuries and, you know, penalties and death).

Also, those 2006-07 teams were, IMHO, all-time bad teams. Like, expect to challenge the losses record kind of bad. I think most people have these idea in their head that Minny was around a .500 team constantly and could barely make the playoffs. They were far from it, even in 2005.

The other major point about Garnett that really gets lost in a setting like this, where people seem to be abstracting instead of diving into detail, is that KG improved steadily for a number of years amid roster turmoil on his team. As a result, the team result stays similar but Garnett is expanding as a player and keeping the team afloat as he offsets the difference. This is critical to understand because, unlike Duncan, who came in polished and an MVP-level (GOAT-like) rookie, Garnett was ramping up heavily until about 2002/2003 IMO. Meanwhile, Flip Saunders was doing stuff like playing him at SF, experimenting with a zone, experimenting with Billups at the 2, etc. The organization traded Marbury, weathered injuries to Gugliotta and Brandon, absorbed a death and was voided 4 critical roster spots in the form of 1st-round picks. Yet with his healthy teammates on the court, they still played like a 50-win team...

Depending on your criteria, I can easily see KG here. Or Duncan. Or Hakeem. Or even Shaq. While Wilt is great, with no disrespect to anyone who voted for him, I just haven't seen anything remotely compelling that addresses the analysis of the last few years regarding Chamberlain.

[colts18]

Pretty sure a guy named Dwyane Wade was responsible for that, not Shaq.

Shaq was the best player in the series vs the 64 win Pistons. Wade was certainly the best player in the finals, but Shaq did average like 18-12 in the wins in that finals. Overall he had a solid playoffs

[therealbig3]

Another example of Shaq's longevity would be MVP voting. Maybe he only won 1 MVP, but consistently finishing in the top 10 or so would be a pretty strong example of what kind of player he was, and what the perception of him was, and just how much missed games affected his status. And this is also despite how many times his teams were accused of underachieving.

93 (rookie year): 7th
94: 4th
95: 2nd
96 (missed 28 games): 9th
97 (missed 31 games): 9th
98 (missed 22 games): 4th
99: 6th
00: 1st
01: 3rd
02 (missed 15 games): 3rd
03 (missed 15 games): 5th
04 (missed 15 games): 6th
05: 2nd

Every single year of his prime (93-05...13 years), Shaq finished as a top 10 MVP candidate (top 9, technically). He only finished outside of the top 5 just 5 times, including his rookie year.

So regardless of the flaws...Shaq was someone who was very clearly considered to be a superstar, who was helping his team big time.

[ElGee]

As far as the missed games, can you link me to ElGee's post? Or, ElGee, if you should happen to read this post, can you link me to it? I need to read it for myself in order to determine if I need to rethink that. I'm not above doing so if there's evidence to support it.

I hadn't done the research yet in the RPOY project. The gist of it is this:

-in basketball, the RS simply positions teams in the PS based on opponent and HCA
-the differences between the teams are far more important that HCA
-the matchup issue is rare since typically the CF's and Finals have title-level opponents (i.e. it's rare to be forced to play THREE title-level teams because of a bad RS)

Thus, however good the team truly is at playoff, that's a significantly larger factor in their odds of winning the tournament than their RS win-total. Graphically, it looks like this:



Those are 10 different lines, representing how much an individual plays in a season. The top line is over 95% of the year. The next next 85-95%, the next 75-85%, etc. You can see when you get out to GOAT-level impact, there is a sizable difference (say 25% chance to win for missing most of the year instead of 35%). It's not that missing time doesn't matter, it just matter much. What matters A LOT is how well you are playing in come April.

[magicmerl]

Awards will not factor into my rankings. They're meaningless as far as helping your team win is concerned.

Yeah, I tend to think that the awards tend to follow the team success and greatness, rather than be evidence of greatness themselves.

[Baller2014]

I have a lot to say about KG, but I'm not going to until he's a real threat to be voted in, and at #4 he's still 3-4 places off being in the real discussion. One thing to dwell on though is the myth he had only bad teams in Minny. It's actually not true. Take a look at some of those teams, and they're quite good (relative to what the guys he's being compared to had that is). Take the 2002 Wolves. Was that support cast really worse than what Duncan had from 01-03? I don't see how it was. The outcome KG led that team to was notably worse however. There's a reason for that, his impact just wasn't as large.

[ThaRegul8r]

As far as the missed games, can you link me to ElGee's post? Or, ElGee, if you should happen to read this post, can you link me to it? I need to read it for myself in order to determine if I need to rethink that. I'm not above doing so if there's evidence to support it.

I hadn't done the research yet in the RPOY project. The gist of it is this:

-in basketball, the RS simply positions teams in the PS based on opponent and HCA
-the differences between the teams are far more important that HCA
-the matchup issue is rare since typically the CF's and Finals have title-level opponents (i.e. it's rare to be forced to play THREE title-level teams because of a bad RS)

Thus, however good the team truly is at playoff, that's a significantly larger factor in their odds of winning the tournament than their RS win-total. Graphically, it looks like this:



Those are 10 different lines, representing how much an individual plays in a season. The top line is over 95% of the year. The next next 85-95%, the next 75-85%, etc. You can see when you get out to GOAT-level impact, there is a sizable difference (say 25% chance to win for missing most of the year instead of 35%). It's not that missing time doesn't matter, it just matter much. What matters A LOT is how well you are playing in come April.

Thank you. Much appreciated.

Okay, after considering the new evidence, I've added it to my notes on Shaq as a rebuttal to that particular concern. And this is exactly what I'm talking about. So long as someone can provide me with evidence to alleviate a concern I have, I have no problem with revising my view in light of new information. This is exactly one thing I hope to gain from following this project.