RealGM Top 100 List #4

[Baller2014]

Shaq in 2011 was in his 19th season. Duncan will likely be retired by before his 19th season.

I'm not trying to compare them season to season, I'm comparing them at the same age. If I was comparing Kobe to Shaq, I wouldn't start the narrative from when Kobe was a rookie getting no minutes, I'd start from 99 when Kobe was an all-nba player, or 98 when he was an all-star with a pulse, not 97 when he basically didn't exist as a player. If you want to give Shaq credit for starting his career marginally earlier than Duncan, you're welcome to do so. So right away, your response isn't really relevant to what I'm saying.

I also think it's a bit much to say "Duncan couldn't have beat himself" and act like that should be held against him. For those years, replace Duncan with that years version of Shaq. Needless to say, that switch doesn't do Shaq any favours.

[DQuinn1575]

Many regular players back then didn't make the salaries they could now to live on, so many had second jobs and had to practice on weekends.

This is an untrue statement.

Players in the 60s weren't making big money, but the average salary was better than an average salary
The average salary in 1967 was $13,000 (http://www.apbr.org/apbr-faq.html); almost double the average household income of $7,200 (http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-062.pdf)

Some players may have had off-season jobs, like selling insurance, but there weren't any players were working second jobs like this.

These guys were full-time professionals.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Shaq in 2000 was in his 8th season. 05 Duncan was very good but not good enough to replace 00 Shaq.
07 Duncan isn't gonna get LAL past the Kings in 02.
08 Duncan isn't gonna get LAL past the real Spurs in 03.
09 Duncan isn't gonna replace 04 Shaq and lead the Lakers anywhere.
10 Duncan is worse then 05 Shaq
11 Duncan is worse then 06 Shaq
12-13 Duncan isn't winning with an injured Wade.

Duncan came into the NBA later than Shaq.

02 Duncan could get LA past the 02 Kings with Kobe.
03 Duncan with Kobe would have beat the 03 Spurs
04 Duncan with Kobe would have beat the 04 Spurs
05-07 Duncan on the Heat might have 3 peated
08-14 Duncan has had a better post-prime than Shaq did.

[Baller2014]

Question, what's your take on Duncan vs Kobe vs Shaq? They met 6 times in the playoffs, with the Lakers winning 4 of them. I have all 3 pretty close together.

Kobe: 28.2 ppg, 47.2% FG, 54.3% TS, 5.9 rpg, 4.7 apg, 1.4 spg, 3.3 tpg

Duncan: 25.2 ppg, 47.3% FG, 53.7%, 13.6 rpg, 4.2 apg, 2.3 bpg, 3.7 tpg

Shaq in the first 5 playoffs: 23.9 ppg, 53.6% FG, 55% TS, 13.5 rpg, 2.5 apg, 2.8 bpg, 3 tpg

Kobe's name shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as Duncan or Shaq.
1) Duncan didn't match up with Kobe, so I have no idea why we'd compare them. Duncan had to fend with Shaq in the middle even when they didn't match up directly, while Kobe had was often guarded by some of the garbage players I mentioned (like A.Daniels). Sure, he got Bruce Bowen in 02 (when Duncan was the best player in the series) and 03 (when Duncan was the best player in the series) and 04 (when Duncan was being swamped by Malone and Shaq and his shooters played like garbage in the playoffs), but in 99 and 01 Kobe was guarded by junk players.
2) In 2008 Duncan wasn't in his prime anymore, I have no idea why we'd look at that in a comparison v.s Kobe, anymore than we should be too harsh on Kobe for losing in 99. There were 4 series match-ups during their overlapping primes- 01, 02, 03 and 04. Duncan was the best player in 2 of those series, and Shaq was the best player in the other 2 (though it's a push between Duncan and Shaq in 04 given the circumstances I discussed at length). The 08 spurs also had Manu badly injured, he was doubtful for the Olympics months later.
3) Kobe was the 2nd best player on his own team in all the match ups with prime Duncan, hard to see how Kobe is even in the discussion.

[RayBan-Sematra]

I'm not trying to compare them season to season, I'm comparing them at the same age.

I think it is more logical to do it my way.
If we are hypothetically replacing Shaq with Duncan then wouldn't Rookie Duncan start for the 93 Magic?

I also think it's a bit much to say "Duncan couldn't have beat himself" and act like that should be held against him. For those years, replace Duncan with that years version of Shaq. Needless to say, that switch doesn't do Shaq any favours.

Not holding anything against him.
Merely pointing it out that if you replaced 11th year Shaq with 11th year Duncan they would still lose.

Also for fun let us put Shaq on Duncan's Spurs.

98 - Probably still lose in the playoffs.
99 - Probably still win. Shaq is an offensive upgrade and is really good defensively in his youth due to effort.
Not gonna say it is a sure thing but I see them having a good chance.
00 - Probably contend this year. Not sure they'd knock off the real LAL or Portland though.
01 - Lose to the Lakers
02 - Probably lose again to the Lakers.
03 - Probably contend this year but perhaps they lose to the Lakers.
04 - Lose to the Lakers
05 - Win Championship
06 - Beat the Mavs, win Championship
07 - Win Championship
08 - Good chance to knock off LAL. Decent chance to knock off Boston.
09 - Shaq is a big pretty upgrade this year. Not sure how they do in the playoffs though. Might contend? Might be too thin outside of Shaq/Parker.
10 - Still lose
11 - Still lose (06)
12 - Still lose
13 - Still lose
14 - Shaq is an offensive upgrade and can match Duncan's rebounding. Duncan is way better defensively though. I don't see them winning but I suppose it might be possible.

So Shaq wins 3 Rings with some other years where he has a pretty decent chance.

[Baller2014]

No, the logical way to compare them is at the same age, and then factor in bonuses for starting earlier/finishing later. Just as it'd be absurd to compare the support casts of 97 "rookie" Kobe and 98 "rookie" Duncan, I think it's fairer to compare Duncan v.s Shaq at the same age.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Question, what's your take on Duncan vs Kobe vs Shaq? They met 6 times in the playoffs, with the Lakers winning 4 of them. I have all 3 pretty close together.

Kobe: 28.2 ppg, 47.2% FG, 54.3% TS, 5.9 rpg, 4.7 apg, 1.4 spg, 3.3 tpg

Duncan: 25.2 ppg, 47.3% FG, 53.7%, 13.6 rpg, 4.2 apg, 2.3 bpg, 3.7 tpg

Shaq in the first 5 playoffs: 23.9 ppg, 53.6% FG, 55% TS, 13.5 rpg, 2.5 apg, 2.8 bpg, 3 tpg

Kobe's name shouldn't even be mentioned in the same breath as Duncan or Shaq.
1) Duncan didn't match up with Kobe, so I have no idea why we'd compare them. Duncan had to fend with Shaq in the middle even when they didn't match up directly, while Kobe had was often guarded by some of the garbage players I mentioned (like A.Daniels). Sure, he got Bruce Bowen in 02 (when Duncan was the best player in the series) and 03 (when Duncan was the best player in the series) and 04 (when Duncan was being swamped by Malone and Shaq and his shooters played like garbage in the playoffs), but in 99 and 01 Kobe was guarded by junk players.
2) In 2008 Duncan wasn't in his prime anymore, I have no idea why we'd look at that in a comparison v.s Kobe, anymore than we should be too harsh on Kobe for losing in 99. There were 4 series match-ups during their overlapping primes- 01, 02, 03 and 04. Duncan was the best player in 2 of those series, and Shaq was the best player in the other 2 (though it's a push between Duncan and Shaq in 04 given the circumstances I discussed at length). The 08 spurs also had Manu badly injured, he was doubtful for the Olympics months later.
3) Kobe was the 2nd best player on his own team in all the match ups with prime Duncan, hard to see how Kobe is even in the discussion.

1) Wait, Duncan didn't guard Shaq, and Shaq didn't guard Duncan. Duncan was guarding the likes of AC Green, Ho Grant, or Samaki Walker. Shaq was dealing with Malik Rose.

None of the 3 guarded each other much.

2) I included 99' Kobe in the numbers. Uh, but how can you say Duncan was the best in 2 of the series and Shaq was in the other two? Pre-Prime Kobe was the best player on the floor in the 2001, 2002, 2004 series.

[RayBan-Sematra]

No, the logical way to compare them is at the same age, and then factor in bonuses for starting earlier/finishing later. Just as it'd be absurd to compare the support casts of 97 "rookie" Kobe and 98 "rookie" Duncan, I think it's fairer to compare Duncan v.s Shaq at the same age.

I still disagree.
If we were replacing Duncan with Kobe then we would note that the Spurs would definitly not be winning anything in their first few years but at the same time Kobe being better later on (when Duncan was perhaps slowing down) would give some of the Spurs team a better chance to win then with Duncan.

If we are replacing a player with another then we do it by the season they were in.
Rookie blah is replaced by rookie blah. 11th year blah is replaced by 11th year blah.

Duncan entered the league at the age he did and if he happened to be joining the Magic in 93 he would still be the same age.

2) I included 99' Kobe in the numbers. Uh, but how can you say Duncan was the best in 2 of the series and Shaq was in the other two? Pre-Prime Kobe was the best player on the floor in the 2001, 2002, 2004 series.

01 is debatable between Shaq & Kobe. No problem with siding with Kobe here.
02 was definitely Duncan. Shaq and Kobe were equally stinky in that series. They were lucky Duncan had less support.
04 was Shaq imo. Not sure Kobe has a case. Maybe he does.

[Baller2014]

Go back and read my OP. Duncan and Shaq were each others primary covers in 02. Because they were both inside scorers they also had to fend each other plenty of times, or switch onto each other, unlike Kobe who was a perimeter player.

Kobe put up bigger numbers because he was guarded by worse players, and didn't have to fend with Shaq/Duncan for good chunks of the game. Rather, the presence of Shaq ensured better shots for Kobe, and only single coverage. Duncan had no Shaq/Kobe, so he could frequently get doubled, especially when his shooters couldn't hit anything.

You claim Kobe was the best player in 01, 02 and 04. In 01 he was guarded by garbage, so scrub that. In 02 Duncan and Shaq had to guard each other, while Kobe had no such player to wear him out on both ends. Yet his numbers are plainly worse, scoring 26ppg on 486TS% (worse than Shaq). How on earth could you think Kobe, scoring 26ppg plus 5-5 on 486TS% was the best player that series, when Duncan put up 29-17-5-3-1 on 517TS% (while being matched up with freaking Shaq on both ends!). I watched that series, and the games are on youtube (see my OP), Kobe was the 3rd best player that series by a clear margin.

In 04 his numbers are plainly worse than Shaq, and his impact was worse too. Raw numbers don't capture the huge defensive impact guys like Duncan and Shaq have on games, impact that a wing like Kobe could never hope to match (and never came close to on the defensive end). Kobe has no case v.s either of these two. I'm not sure he has a case over KG, K.Malone or Erving tbh, you should focus on preparing arguments v.s those guys IMO, since they're his actual competition.

[An Unbiased Fan]

01 is debatable between Shaq & Kobe. No problem with siding with Kobe here.
02 was definitely Duncan. Shaq and Kobe were equally stinky in that series. They were lucky Duncan had less support.
04 was Shaq imo. Not sure Kobe has a case. Maybe he does.

2001 was pretty clearly Kobe.

2002 had Kobe leading 3 double digit 2nd half comebacks. Not sure where you get Kobe was "stinky". http://www.nba.com/playoffs2002/west_round2_02.html

2004 was Kobe again.

[magicmerl]

Now that the clear top 3 are out of the way, it gets interesting again. Before joining RealGM, I had WIlt in the #4 slot, based largely on his absurd scoring numbers. However, I've cooled on him considerably since then on learning about how he chased stats in blowout losses (when he shouldn't even be in the game) and how the higher pace inflated his stats.

Now that we have the per 100 stats for everyone but Wilt, we can attempt to showhorn something in there. Here's the careers of the people I am considering:

All stats are per100Poss
Magic .610TS% 25.4PTS 9.4REB 14.5AST 3.0STL+BLK 5.0TOV 2.9PF
Shaq .586TS% 35.2PTS 16.1REB 3.7AST 4.3STL+BLK 4.1TOV 5.1PF
Hakeem .553TS% 30.3PTS 15.5REB 3.4AST 6.7STL+BLK 4.1TOV 4.9PF
Duncan .551TS% 30.4PTS 17.0REB 4.7AST 4.5STL+BLK 3.9TOV 3.7PF
Wilt* .547TS% 26.1PTS 19.9REB ?AST ?STL+BLK ?TOV 1.7PF

*My methodology for estimating pace for WIlt's era: Possessions end in a made field goal, a defensive rebound, free throws, or a turnover. I assumed 20 TOV a game during the period prior to 1973, 20% of free-throws were on an 'and-1', and that 70% of rebounds were defensive rebounds. This resulted in league pace calculated using the following formula:
League Pace = FieldGoalsMade + 0.7 * TotalRebounds + 0.4 * FreeThrowAttempts + 20 (Turnovers)

The result shows that when you adjust for pace Wilt isn't nearly the scorer that his competition in this thread were, but still a beastly rebounder for the ages.

It's really hard to compare magic with these big men. Obviously his assists and steals are much better, and his rebounds and blocks are worse, but that's just a function of position rather than a reflection that he is better at anything. Similarly, I'm surprised that Duncan has such a relatively high AST total, especially when the narrative was that Shaq is such a good passer out of the double-team.

In the end though, I think that combination of the high scoring totals on excellent efficiency and no real glaring weaknesses makes me lean towards Shaq.

[Baller2014]

Who cares how big Kobe's 01 numbers were? He was being guarded by scrubs, while Shaq and Duncan had to fend with real defensive players in the paint (like Shaq/Duncan&D.Rob).

[Baller2014]

In the end though, I think that combination of the high scoring totals on excellent efficiency and no real glaring weaknesses makes my vote for Shaq.

How can you say that a guy like Shaq, whose antics and injuries led gravely limited his career impact, had no weaknesses? Those seem like pretty freaking huge weaknesses to me. Shaq played with a tonne of superstars, all-stars, great role players and good coaches, and he won only 4 rings (3 as the best player on his own team). He was a career underachiever.

[Doctor MJ]

Where does the myth that Shaq didn't play defense come from? The stats certainly don't bear that.

RAPM stats for Shaq:

93: +4.1 def (8th overall in xRAPM)
94: 4.0 def (2nd overall)
95: 2.5 def (2nd overall)
96: 2.2 def (2nd overall) (93-96 stats are from xRAPM)
97: 2.1 def (18th overall)
98: 2.50 def (1st overall)
99: 1.70 def (2nd overall)
00: 2.31 def (1st overall)
01: 0.7 def (2nd overall)
02: 3.4 def (1st overall) (better defensive RAPM stats than Duncan, Robinson, and KG)
03: 0.7 def (3rd overall)
04: 1.8 def (1st overall)
05: 1.4 def (3rd overall)
06: 1.5 def (5th overall)

That's really elite production. In overall RAPM he finished in the top 3 every year from 98-05 (8 straight years) and had a top 5 finish in 12 out of 14 years. His defense was positive in every single one of those years.

Again: The stuff Engelmann lists as RAPM for the 90s is NOT anything resembling RAPM.

For anyone seeing this for the first time please forgive my curt tone as it's not your fault.

The statistician in question is good with the math but he's astonishing unprofessional in how he presents his work. The 90s stuff from is nothing but a guess at what RAPM would say based on box score data from the time...which makes it a kind of statistical
+/- which is in the same mold as PER or most other numbers

Hence if Shaq only looks really nice on defense with the 90s stuff, well, that means his defensive impact looks great until you actually look closely at it.

Not that I'm saying Shaq is a crazy choice here though. He's on my mind but there are negatives to consider.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[magicmerl]

In the end though, I think that combination of the high scoring totals on excellent efficiency and no real glaring weaknesses makes my vote for Shaq.

How can you say that a guy like Shaq, whose antics and injuries led gravely limited his career impact, had no weaknesses? Those seem like pretty freaking huge weaknesses to me. Shaq played with a tonne of superstars, all-stars, great role players and good coaches, and he won only 4 rings (3 as the best player on his own team). He was a career underachiever.

I'm not saying that Shaq had no weaknesses. I posted some per-100 stats, and am using those stats to directly compare those players to each other (hence the red and green colouring). Shaq doesn't look like a liability in any of those areas significant enough to offset the significant advantage he has in terms of offensive efficiency and scoring. His only 'bad' score was on personal fouls, which I'm inclined to discount a little because he played a style that forced the refs to call the whistles early and often (just like I'm inclined to penalise Wilt a little for his low foul rate, given the anecdotal evidence that he shied away from defense to avoid foul trouble).

All of that obviously ignores intangibles like injuries, feuding with teammates etc etc.

Really my goal in doing that analysis was to try and place Wilt within a context that could be compared to the other great centers we are considering.

[RayBan-Sematra]

2001 was pretty clearly Kobe.

2002 had Kobe leading 3 double digit 2nd half comebacks. Not sure where you get Kobe was "stinky". http://www.nba.com/playoffs2002/west_round2_02.html

2004 was Kobe again.

Not sure I would say pretty clearly for 01.
Kobe had the best box score stats and in fairness he was spectacular but Shaq put up great numbers himself while being the main focus of the Spurs defense and while anchoring the LAL defense.
He also played a big part in shutting down Duncan in the final 2 games.
So taking the bolded into account one could still say Shaq was the MVP for the Lakers in that series. Not saying I do or don't but I think it is debatable.

Regarding 02.
Why do you think the Lakers had to make so many comebacks?
Part of it was Kobe struggling to turn it on until late in the game.
I am not gonna say Kobe was better then Duncan simply because he played better down the stretch of games.
Overall Duncan had much better production, efficiency and impact.
If you switched Kobe onto the Spurs and Duncan onto the Lakers do you think Kobe would still win that series?

Not gonna go into 04. I thought Shaq was better but you are free to disagree.

[DQuinn1575]

I'm likely going with Wilt here. I'm looking to learn a few things about him in this thread:

1) How big a deal was the poor spacing when he played? In particular, prior to the trade to the Sixers, which of his Warriors teammates were good enough shooters to draw defenders away from the paint?

2) How do we feel about Wilt's longevity? How many more seasons on the level of 72 and 73 could Wilt have produced if he'd stayed in the league longer? Were there any signs of slowing down, or could he have maintained his level/style of play?

3) What about Wilt's horizontal game defensively? How did it change over the years? How does Wilt (all three versions physically: young Wilt, the bigger/stronger Wilt from 63-64 until the injury in 69-70, and old Wilt after the injury) rate in terms of mobility/defensive range compared to other all-time great defensive big men?

1. 1960 - Arizin was a good shooter, Gola a fairly good one. Guy Rodgers, who played with Wilt a lot, was a terrible shooter, but a fantastic ball-handler - rivaled Cousy for dribbling and ball-handling.
1961 Arizin slowed down some, Gola still there as well as Rodgers. Al Attles other guard was not a good shooter, he was a defensive stopper
1962 - same as 61, Arizin another year old, Tom Meschery forward was okay shooter.
Backcourt of Attles and Rodgers are two lousy shooters
1963 - Lost Arizin, Gola minutes down - lousy shooting team- Top FT shooters in top 6 players were 72%- Meschery, and Rodgers, and Rodgers shot underhand. No one capable of hitting 15 footer with Arizin gone.
1964- Needing a shooter they bring in Nate Thurmond? No outside shooter again.

Most of his career he had a backcourt of Attles and Rodgers. Attles was a 63% career ft shooter. Rodgers shot 54% and 61% from the line his first two years, and then switched to shooting underhand.

2. Wilt went to the ABA as player-coach. The Lakers blocked him from playing for a year, He coached for a year and left the ABA. The way contracts worked at the time, the Lakers still owned his NBA rights. He received offers as late as 1979-80 from Cleveland for 2 years, as well as the Bulls in 1978-79 (Chicago Tribune 11/16/79).
He played 2 years at ages 35 and 36, and those are the 2 highest win share seasons for players 35 and over.
The Bulls seriously thought he could play in the league 6 years later, and Cleveland offered him a deal for the 2 years after that.

3. I only saw Wilt after his knee injury. He blocked a lot of shots on help defense the time I saw him. I don't know how much his mobility declined; but he was a threat to block any shot within 6-8 feet of the basket.

[Doctor MJ]

-You'll note my fixation on Duncan here. In part that's always because these two players are so closely linked. In part it's because Duncan's riding a new wave of enthusiasm. The pre-list Top 50 saw Duncan rise to the 4th spot while Garnett lingers at the 13th. I actually don't think that placement of Duncan is all that crazy...but the increased separation over Garnett is an issue.

Don't you think increased separation and distinction between players as they get to the later stages of their career is a natural thing? As young power fowards, fans had no idea who would end up being remembered as the better of the two, however as with all great players, as it moves towards the end of their career everything about them starts to be put into perspective and compared with the players that have come before them. I think you see a similar thing with Dirk, fans are looking at him much more favorably as his career comes to a close, and are starting to realize how special of a talent he really was. What makes that really interesting is that Dirk was largely overshadowed by Garnett and Duncan during his career,and not considered as good a player. However now the separation between him and Garnett is at an all time low in the year 2014, and a lot of people actually rank him higher.

I'm not saying its a problem that a separation has occurred over time between veterans I'm specifically arguing that there's not justification for it happening in this particular comparison.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[RSCD3_]

No, the logical way to compare them is at the same age, and then factor in bonuses for starting earlier/finishing later. Just as it'd be absurd to compare the support casts of 97 "rookie" Kobe and 98 "rookie" Duncan, I think it's fairer to compare Duncan v.s Shaq at the same age.

So in place of shaq's rookie and sophmore years are we using college duncan

Sent from my SCH-I800 using RealGM Forums mobile app

[magicmerl]

No, the logical way to compare them is at the same age, and then factor in bonuses for starting earlier/finishing later. Just as it'd be absurd to compare the support casts of 97 "rookie" Kobe and 98 "rookie" Duncan, I think it's fairer to compare Duncan v.s Shaq at the same age.

So in place of shaq's rookie and sophmore years are we using college duncan

Sent from my SCH-I800 using RealGM Forums mobile app

Maybe 'years in the league' is a better comparison. And for players who came out of high school and weren't ready, I'd be happy to write off their first few years as 'college'.