RealGM Top 100 List #6

[Greatness]

Runoff Vote: Shaq

Between Shaq and Magic (I wish it was LeBron because he has a better case over Shaq than Magic does imo) Shaq has had the better career. Much higher peak, better longevity, and comparable prime. Shaq was a better playoff performer in his prime and was the best finals performer ever. While Magic was the better offensive player, Shaq was considerably better and more impactful on the defensive end and the gap on the offensive end isn't that large due to Shaq's volume scoring.

[MacGill]

MacGill just criticised him for "forcing" his way to the Lakers.

I don't think he gets any blame for the coaching firing either, because off the court stuff should only count against you if it adversely affected the team. Magic getting the wrong coach fired so a better system and coach could be used didn't hinder the team, it helped it.

Well 'yes' to me that counts as well. Regardless of how much stock you put into it, is on you...but to me, it's a factor. In contrast, posters want to hold Shaq, LBJ among others guilty as charged for jumping ship, when they were actual free agents, but at least they did their time with where they got drafted.

If LBJ said in 03 that he would go to college unless he got drafted to the Spurs to play with Duncan, you can't tell me this wouldn't be more of a factor today. Especially, since he went to join Wade, Bosh it was certainly made into one. When the difference was LBJ was already in the league and an actual free agent, he could pick and choose where he wanted to go.

And for the second point, team success seems to make the actual point null and void here, but actions are actions and it still happened. If players were meant to have that type of pull, then nothing any star player ever did would matter or be criticized. But that isn't the case, even though it happens more than any of us know I am sure.

[90sAllDecade]

My runoff vote is for Shaq.

He provides elite offense with some years as a defensive anchor. Being a center he's still naturally more impactful as a two way player than a PG. Magic is likely the greatest offensive player, but he had one of the greatest supporting casts around him to enhance that, although Shaq had great casts as well he too was a dominant offensive player. Although it matters less than offense at PG, Magic was never dominant defensively imo.

Both had issues that affected their teams on the court, but Magic's lower peak and longevity versus Shaq are points in O'neal's favor as well imo.

[Mutnt]

Can someone explain to me how Magic is 'the greatest offensive player ever'?

[Owly]

No, I think the key with Shaq are his pre-00's seasons. Just how good were they? What were the box score numbers hiding?


Traditionally, Magic ranks above Shaq. So what's changed for some people? Ignoring his missed games? Valuing his non-three peat seasons more?

It may not be a re-evalutation of Shaq but of Magic.

If so ...
- It could be Magic's D
- It could be a more critical evaluation of his 80s competition (whether at his position, of the era as a whole or of his team's rivals in the West)
Just throwing a couple of possibilities out there.

Does Shaq have a stable all-time ranking yet that you could say he has a "traditional" placing?

[colts18]

Can someone explain to me how Magic is 'the greatest offensive player ever'?

The 1987 Lakers had the highest O rating in history for the regular season. Then in the playoffs they upped that and broke the record for highest O rating in a playoff.

[Owly]

I totally agree Bird's first year is amazing, and shouldn't be underrated, it proves right off the bat how huge his impact was. That said, I have no idea how we can penalise Magic for the machinations of his agent before he even got into the NBA. That had no impact on the career he actually had. Worse, Shaq and others being discussed here did the exact same thing... including Bird! Other teams wanted to draft Bird, but he wouldn't give them assurances about when he would come into the league... so they passed, letting the Celtics get him (who Bird had given assurances to I assume). Off the court stuff should only matter if it effected on the court play. Deciding what team to sign with before you enter the NBA hardly qualifies.

I have no reason to believe Bird gave Boston any assurances. That would have substantially reduced his negotiating leverage. And then he made Boston sweat a for a large part of the following year. Plus why would he have withheld reassurances from other teams to give them to Boston? Bird could have stayed in Indiana at the 3rd pick, both teams were lousy, but Indy were at least a little younger. Portland (with or without Walton) had a fairly young, talented team if winning was a preference.

Unless you have any evidence I would be very surprised if anyone will be persuaded that Bird gave Boston any assurances.

[Jim Naismith]

Does Shaq have a stable all-time ranking yet that you could say he has a "traditional" placing?

From my high-low survey of 2014 RealGM opinion, it seems that Shaq's ranking is now more stable than Magic's:

Player....High, Low
Shaq.......3, 10
Magic......3, 13

In fact, Shaq is one of the only four unanimous top-10 players, the others being Jordan, Kareem, and LeBron.

[An Unbiased Fan]

I have no idea why people are bringing up off court "issues". isn't this project about on court play?

[shutupandjam]

Can someone explain to me how Magic is 'the greatest offensive player ever'?

The 1987 Lakers had the highest O rating in history for the regular season.

But that season is 19th(!) in relative O rating. The 2004 Mavs have the best relative O rating of all time, so why not call Dirk or Nash the greatest offensive player ever? In fact, if we're attributing team offensive success to the guy who runs the offense, Nash would be the clear favorite here - 5 of his teams are in the top ten relative O ratings ever.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Can someone explain to me how Magic is 'the greatest offensive player ever'?

The combination of his offensive skillset as a playmaker/scorer, his utilization of teammates, and the correlation to his consistently great offenses.

It's all hyperbole like Russell as the GOAT defender, but clearly Magic is deserving of the title.

[MacGill]

I have no idea why people are bringing up off court "issues". isn't this project about on court play?

Well, my response here is that Magic was able to place himself into a much better situation than what should of happened. And with that also comes the benefit to your on court play by having a much better team and mates. Again, the stock you place into it is up too you. But it's a little hard for me to completely ignore given as a rookie you come straight into the league, to a team where they win a title. Hey, maybe I am completely alone on this, and I am fine with that, but that's how I honestly feel. I've always placed Magic in my top 5, so it isn't like it's a deal breaker to me, but as his career showed 9 finals in 12 years, he knew what he was doing

[ronnymac2]

Can someone explain to me how Magic is 'the greatest offensive player ever'?

— He might be the greatest transition offensive player in NBA history because of his awesome finishing ability and GOAT passing/creative playmaking.
— GOAT offensive rebounder for a non-big
— Ridiculous foul draw rate because he was such a mismatch, and became a 90 percent free throw shooter
— GOAT passer/playmaker in the halfcourt, could make any pass from any position on the court
— Created opportunities with his low post game, which he could initiate himself because of his ball-handling
— Ultra-efficient scorer on strong volume, could have scored more if need be
— Used his teammates optimally
— Developed a potent 3-point shot by 1990

[ElGee]

I still want to engage the KG supporters on why they think KG is such a tier above Dirk and deserves to be discussed in the top 5 while Dirk doesn't.

Let me show you some numbers.

...

So here's my case: Dirk is basically providing you more volume (6 more ppg/100 poss over their primes), on VASTLY superior efficiency. I mean look at the numbers, the gap is gigantic. Dirk has an edge of 14 ORtg points over their primes, and 8 TS% on better volume.

Ah, so you think Dantey is better than Duncan? You will be championing Reggie Miller right after Dirk?

I'm going to assume that you aren't being intellectually dishonest here and this kind of information is paramount to how you evaluate players. I see this as perhaps THE single most fundamental element in player (and team) evaluations in basketball: Scoring is not replaced in basketball, it's redistributed.

These ideas -- volume scoring, volume relation to efficiency, etc. -- that lead to a side-by-side comparison would be great in baseball where we are analyzing discrete events. In basketball, because of the interactive nature of the game (and only 1 ball), you can't say "Dirk's 'used' possessions (scoring attempts + TOV) are X points better than Garnett's...how does he make up those points!?"

There's no "making up points" in those categories. Simply put, this is because when you put Garnett on the floor instead of Dirk, the team will redistribute the possessions around Garnett's game. That means completely different possessions for the entire team. It's the reason why replacing Michael Jordan with Pete Myers doesn't cause the Bulls to lose 21 points on their offense.

(I'm going to sell my explanation short there because I go into great detail on this topic in something I'll be publishing in the future.)

[Texas Chuck]

Can someone explain to me how Magic is 'the greatest offensive player ever'?

The 1987 Lakers had the highest O rating in history for the regular season.

But that season is 19th(!) in relative O rating. The 2004 Mavs have the best relative O rating of all time, so why not call Dirk or Nash the greatest offensive player ever? In fact, if we're attributing team offensive success to the guy who runs the offense, Nash would be the clear favorite here - 5 of his teams are in the top ten relative O ratings ever.

Because the 04 Mavs werent a very good basketball team. Who cares about some arbitrary offensive rating if your team is mediocre?

[An Unbiased Fan]

I have no idea why people are bringing up off court "issues". isn't this project about on court play?

Well, my response here is that Magic was able to place himself into a much better situation than what should of happened. And with that also comes the benefit to your on court play by having a much better team and mates. Again, the stock you place into it is up too you. But it's a little hard for me to completely ignore given as a rookie you come straight into the league, to a team where they win a title. Hey, maybe I am completely alone on this, and I am fine with that, but that's how I honestly feel. I've always placed Magic in my top 5, so it isn't like it's a deal breaker to me, but as his career showed 9 finals in 12 years, he knew what he was doing

So because Magic said he might stay in college...that takes away from his career in the NBA??

Does Shaq get penalized for bolting Orlando for a 50+ win Laker team? How about Lebron going to Miami? I don't see how any of that should be a factor in figuring out the Top 100 players. I've also seen people bringing up the coach firing in 82', which is strange considering that Shaq has had multiple coaches fired, and mutliple players moved. I don't see how its relevant.

It seems that after Russell got picked, actual play/impact has taken a backseat to RAPM, PER, off court stuff.

[colts18]

Because the 04 Mavs werent a very good basketball team. Who cares about some arbitrary offensive rating if your team is mediocre?

First off, Offensive rating is not arbitrary. Second, they were a very good offensive team which is all that matters in this discussion. Good enough that they are in the discussion for the greatest offense in history.

[MacGill]

I have no idea why people are bringing up off court "issues". isn't this project about on court play?

Well, my response here is that Magic was able to place himself into a much better situation than what should of happened. And with that also comes the benefit to your on court play by having a much better team and mates. Again, the stock you place into it is up too you. But it's a little hard for me to completely ignore given as a rookie you come straight into the league, to a team where they win a title. Hey, maybe I am completely alone on this, and I am fine with that, but that's how I honestly feel. I've always placed Magic in my top 5, so it isn't like it's a deal breaker to me, but as his career showed 9 finals in 12 years, he knew what he was doing

So because Magic said he might stay in college...that takes away from his career in the NBA??

Does Shaq get penalized for bolting Orlando for a 50+ win Laker team? How about Lebron going to Miami? I don't see how any of that should be a factor in figuring out the Top 100 players. I've also seen people bringing up the coach firing in 82', which is strange considering that Shaq has had multiple coaches fired, and mutliple players moved. I don't see how its relevant.

It seems that after Russell got picked, actual play/impact has taken a backseat to RAPM, PER, off court stuff.

Well I don't know where you have been living the past few years but yes..yes poster's do. That was the point of me bringing it up. But I was clear in stating that once you're in the league and a free agent, you can chose whichever destination you want. And of course, the other part of why you won't place stock into it is because your boy did the same thing. So again, as I've made it perfectly clear and I will again.

Threatening to go back to college unless drafted to LA who happened to have the leagues best player on it, deserves mention. I am not saying that this takes away from what he did on the court but to me he avoided what could have been a much different career than the one he had.

And I am perfectly fine if you don't see it that way or don't agree. To me, it's all part of 'attitude' that we've been discussing.

[shutupandjam]

The 1987 Lakers had the highest O rating in history for the regular season.

But that season is 19th(!) in relative O rating. The 2004 Mavs have the best relative O rating of all time, so why not call Dirk or Nash the greatest offensive player ever? In fact, if we're attributing team offensive success to the guy who runs the offense, Nash would be the clear favorite here - 5 of his teams are in the top ten relative O ratings ever.

Because the 04 Mavs werent a very good basketball team. Who cares about some arbitrary offensive rating if your team is mediocre?

What do you mean "arbitrary offensive rating"? Offensive rating is a team's points per 100 possessions. Relative offensive rating is Team offensive rating - league average offensive rating. This isn't arbitrary.

And how good of a team they are is completely irrelevant to how good they were on offense. They scored more points per possession relative to league average than any team in history. They were an elite offense.

[DQuinn1575]

— He might be the greatest transition offensive player in NBA history because of his awesome finishing ability and GOAT passing/creative playmaking.

- good finisher, not awesome. A great passer in transition, he might be GOAT passing in transition.

— GOAT offensive rebounder for a non-big

Here is list of F and G - top 100 in offensive rebound % with over 5,000 minutes
http://bkref.com/tiny/hzjAd

Magic is not on the list.
It's stuff like this that makes it hard to agree to people making claims.

Ridiculous foul draw rate because he was such a mismatch, and became a 90 percent free throw shooter

True - but for career he was 83.8%

— GOAT passer/playmaker in the halfcourt, could make any pass from any position on the court

Once again one of the very best ever - not sure about GOAT, but in conversation

— Created opportunities with his low post game, which he could initiate himself because of his ball-handling

- okay. Some here go on and on about his low post game, but you didn't.

Ultra-efficient scorer on strong volume, could have scored more if need be

- How about the need in 91 finals where he took 11.6 fga per game and his team lost?

— Used his teammates optimally

pretty strong case yes - but also had optimal teammates.

— Developed a potent 3-point shot by 1990

One season over 32.0% 3 point shooting