Lowest reasonable all-time ranking for Shaq?

[Matt15]

What would you say is the lowest reasonable all-time ranking for Shaq? Top 15? Top 20?

[AEnigma]

10-12. I think eight players have a relatively intuitive case over him. Everyone knows Garnett’s argument; I value Shaq’s postseason play more, but I do not see those who prefer Garnett as unreasonable. Curry has a reasonable enough case projecting out a bit and giving a boost to what he accomplished in a more developed league, although again the postseason is a clear distinction for me. Bird and Kobe is where I pause and start struggling to see the argument… but I can entertain it for at least one (both is difficult).

I do not think anyone else has an especially reasonable case right now, although Jokic with a sustained prime is on a decent trajectory.

[lessthanjake]

I’d say the lowest reasonable ranking for Shaq would be 13th. If you look at the current RealGM top 100 list, I don’t think you can reasonably slot Shaq below anyone who is below Kobe. You’d have to have some pretty unflattering views on things to even get Shaq that low, but I think it’d be in the realm of reason.

[70sFan]

I’d say the lowest reasonable ranking for Shaq would be 13th. If you look at the current RealGM top 100 list, I don’t think you can reasonably slot Shaq below anyone who is below Kobe. You’d have to have some pretty unflattering views on things to even get Shaq that low, but I think it’d be in the realm of reason.

I think you can slot him reasonably below George Mikan.

[lessthanjake]

I’d say the lowest reasonable ranking for Shaq would be 13th. If you look at the current RealGM top 100 list, I don’t think you can reasonably slot Shaq below anyone who is below Kobe. You’d have to have some pretty unflattering views on things to even get Shaq that low, but I think it’d be in the realm of reason.

I think you can slot him reasonably below George Mikan.

Are you saying one can reasonably have him below just Mikan or below the others on the RealGM top 100 between Kobe and Mikan (i.e. Oscar and West)? I guess I’m comfortable with the idea that you can reasonably put Mikan above Shaq (a conclusion you can squint and get to if you don’t discount Mikan for his era). I’m not sure I could reasonably put Shaq below West or Oscar though.

[70sFan]

I’d say the lowest reasonable ranking for Shaq would be 13th. If you look at the current RealGM top 100 list, I don’t think you can reasonably slot Shaq below anyone who is below Kobe. You’d have to have some pretty unflattering views on things to even get Shaq that low, but I think it’d be in the realm of reason.

I think you can slot him reasonably below George Mikan.

Are you saying one can reasonably have him below just Mikan or below the others on the RealGM top 100 between Kobe and Mikan (i.e. Oscar and West)? I guess I’m comfortable with the idea that you can reasonably put Mikan above Shaq (a conclusion you can squint and get to if you don’t discount Mikan for his era). I’m not sure I could reasonably put Shaq below West or Oscar though.

Below just Mikan.

[lessthanjake]

I think you can slot him reasonably below George Mikan.

Are you saying one can reasonably have him below just Mikan or below the others on the RealGM top 100 between Kobe and Mikan (i.e. Oscar and West)? I guess I’m comfortable with the idea that you can reasonably put Mikan above Shaq (a conclusion you can squint and get to if you don’t discount Mikan for his era). I’m not sure I could reasonably put Shaq below West or Oscar though.

Below just Mikan.

Okay, I can agree with that. I definitely wouldn’t have Mikan above Shaq (I wouldn’t even have him close), but I think doing it is within the realm of reasonableness (i.e. it is within the realm of reason to not downplay Mikan’s era like I do). So, with that in mind, I’d say 14th is the lowest for Shaq, rather than 13th.

[LukaTheGOAT]

It would be #10 for me.

I don't include intangibles though, because that can be messy and a slippery slope. But I guess if you thought honestly any player was a character concern, you could use that to lower them as much as you want.

[tsherkin]

Top 15 seems about as low down as makes sense. He loses out a lot in terms of his personal accolades and what-not relative to his peers at the absolute apex of NBA dominance, but he was a part of multiple different contending teams, won a pile of titles, has a rack of statistical achievements, was a playoff monster, etc.

[Dribble Handoff]

Well, this is my list in no order:

Hakeem
Jordan
LeBron
Kareem
Magic
Bird
Kobe
TD
Shaq
Curry

I can’t see anybody else over him. I don’t like to rank pre-merger players for a lot of reasons. In that realm of greatness, only Kareem is a safe commodity to me. So the worst I could reasonably put him at is #10.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

11th

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Well, this is my list in no order:

Hakeem
Jordan
LeBron
Kareem
Magic
Bird
Kobe
TD
Shaq
Curry

I can’t see anybody else over him. I don’t like to rank pre-merger players for a lot of reasons. In that realm of greatness, only Kareem is a safe commodity to me. So the worst I could reasonably put him at is #10.

For me guys who might have been better than Shaq list modifications:
Maybe Wilt
Bird is a maybe.
Kobe is a no.

What does all time mean?
If Berard King played 8 seasons like his 12 1984 playoff games I might rank King above Shaq. King had a tremendous very short peak.
Duncan is a no unless longevity counts for more than I usually care about longevity.

[70sFan]

Well, this is my list in no order:

Hakeem
Jordan
LeBron
Kareem
Magic
Bird
Kobe
TD
Shaq
Curry

I can’t see anybody else over him. I don’t like to rank pre-merger players for a lot of reasons. In that realm of greatness, only Kareem is a safe commodity to me. So the worst I could reasonably put him at is #10.

For me guys who might have been better than Shaq list modifications:
Maybe Wilt
Bird is a maybe.
Kobe is a no.

What does all time mean?
If Berard King played 8 seasons like his 12 1984 playoff games I might rank King above Shaq. King had a tremendous very short peak.
Duncan is a no unless longevity counts for more than I usually care about longevity.

King had no value outside of his scoring, he was a bad defender, weak passer and not much of a spacer. Don't get me wrong, he was amazing in 1984 playoffs, but being hot for a dozen games doesn't turn you into GOAT-level player.

At the same time, Duncan arguably had better peak than Shaw himself, while outplaying him more times than not H2H and you don't see his case outside of longevity?

[Special_Puppy]

If you base your ranking solely on RAPTOR (which is one of two reliable advanced stats that go back to the merger) then Shaq is as low as 19

[Djoker]

Since I rank players largely based on quality of prime and not longevity (which is largely circumstantial) I'd have a hard time having Shaq below the top 7 or so. So anything below that would be unreasonable to me.

[MacGill]

SMH at anyone thinking you could reasonably rank him outside of the top 10 with a straight face. Almost 14 years of 20/10, 3-peat with 3 FMVP's, and a top 3 peak of all-time. All the couch coaches using modern formulas to once again diminish what he actually did in his time or are more focused on him 'reaching his true potential' like the dude was a Dragonball Z character. He certainly has his flaws and limitations but he was the last true titan from the big-man era before everyone wanted to be like Mike and the 3-ball era eventually took over. Did he overstay his welcome, 100% but I'll take Shaq's first 15 years in the league over most that ever played in the history of the game.

[VanWest82]

Most people seem to have Shaq in the 7-13 range, so clearly there's at least an argument for having him outside the top 10. I will make that argument.

From 96-06 Shaq played an average of 63 games while his contemporaries from that period were typically in the mid-high 70s. This happened because Shaq was routinely not in shape and so he was constantly battling nagging injuries. And then 99-00 happened. Shaq could actually run back on defense. His lateral movement improved. He was good defensively, and we all marvelled at his brilliance as he deservedly won his only MVP and first title.

So he'd finally changed, right? Nope. Start of 00-01 Shaq was woefully out of shape again and Lakers defense falls off a cliff. No one remembers this of course. We just remember 01 Lakers running roughshod through the playoffs (largely on the back of Kobe until the Finals, but whatever).

By the end of Shaq's Lakers tenure, he was something like 70 lbs overweight by his own admission. Then he got back in shape again for one last throwback Shaq season in 05 with Miami.

Shaq's tale is as much what if as one of greatness. He should've been the GOAT. The only reason we're talking about him top 10 as appose to top 1 is because Shaq didn't take the game or his conditioning seriously. This is why he and Kobe fought because Kobe actually cared.

So if you guys want to put Shaq 5th or 7th or 9th or whatever, and justify it because when Shaq was at his best he was virtually unstoppable, go ahead. I won't disagree with that premise. I will disagree with the notion that Shaq's effort, impact, and behaviour for most of his prime gets left out of the discussion. It should count too beyond just those three playoff runs and some gaudy stats.

[AEnigma]

My list does not change at all even if players were required to retire after 15 years. (And Shaq’s 15th year is irrelevant anyway.) It also does not significantly change just looking at peaks: plenty of players had 2000-esque seasons, just not maybe in some of the superficial ways (e.g. not unless top peaks require you to win MVP, Finals MVP, and the scoring title ).

The problem with this “there is no outside the top ten case” is that basically the flag you are staking is 8/10 or 9/10 or even 10/10 names are absolutely incontrovertible in the top ten. I do not think Bird has a good case over Shaq at all, even if we say only a player’s best nine years matter, but plenty of people do, and I am not going to be adamant that Bird under no circumstances should be in anyone’s top ten (my hard cutoff for him is probably around top eight because at that point even the lazy “titles + MVPs” is not getting it done). And using Bird as a marker, I have an easier time arguing for Curry or Kobe, so either the top ten is almost completely rigid or Shaq needs to be given space outside it.

[The-Power]

So anything below that would be unreasonable to me.

Do you think that any other approach to ranking players, particular one that emphasizes longevity more, would be inherently unreasonable? Because if you don't, then ranking him lower than 7 would not be unreasonable – it would just be different from your ranking.

longevity (which is largely circumstantial)

What do you mean by that? I'm not quite sure I follow.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Well, this is my list in no order:

Hakeem
Jordan
LeBron
Kareem
Magic
Bird
Kobe
TD
Shaq
Curry

I can’t see anybody else over him. I don’t like to rank pre-merger players for a lot of reasons. In that realm of greatness, only Kareem is a safe commodity to me. So the worst I could reasonably put him at is #10.

For me guys who might have been better than Shaq list modifications:
Maybe Wilt
Bird is a maybe.
Kobe is a no.

What does all time mean?
If Berard King played 8 seasons like his 12 1984 playoff games I might rank King above Shaq. King had a tremendous very short peak.
Duncan is a no unless longevity counts for more than I usually care about longevity.

King had no value outside of his scoring, he was a bad defender, weak passer and not much of a spacer. Don't get me wrong, he was amazing in 1984 playoffs, but being hot for a dozen games doesn't turn you into GOAT-level player.

At the same time, Duncan arguably had better peak than Shaw himself, while outplaying him more times than not H2H and you don't see his case outside of longevity?

I am more of a peaks guy or a 3 year prime guy. 2,000 and 2001 Shaq were more impactful then any year in Duncan’s career and something is probably defective with any statistic that tries to claim that Duncan had a better year than those.

I also value playoff seasons more than regular season seasons. 2003 playoffs Duncan is only a little worse than 2,000 and 2,001 playoff Shaq. Close but Shaq is better. Duncan needs longevity to count.

As a Celtic fan in the 1980s before I moved to California I love Robert Parish. Robert Parish, not KG or peak pre-injury Robinson or Hakeem or Bill Russell is the guy I see as most similar to Duncan. I have peak Robinson above peak Duncan based on eye test.

Bernard King played solid defense in his 12 1984 playoff games.
Scoring is a big part of the game. Bernard’s 1984 12 playoff games was such an elite scoring playoff season.

My 1984 Knicks imaginary fusion team.
Let me tack peak Steph Curry onto Ray Williams who was a drug addled mess but who still had speed and athleticism so it is peak Curry with Williams speed. Then tack peak Klay onto Trent Tucker the 1984 Knicks only 3 point shooter. Then tack peak Darryl Walker onto 1984 rookie Walker. Then tack peak Draymond and peak Truck elite garbage scorer onto 1984 Truck. Then tack peak Sonics Marvin Webster shot blocker onto 1984 Webster. Cartwright, Sparrow and Orr as they were in 1984. This imaginary fusion team would beat any real team in an imaginary playoff.

Give 1984 Bernard Kings a tittle more help and he beats the 1984 Celtics and Lakers and has a different legacy and you probably have a different attitude about King. Early King played on bad teams and had drug problems but could be a very good defender when he tried. Late post injury Bernard King was a cripple who could not defend but still could score. Late Bernard King also played on bad teams.

Not many guys look good on defense for than a couple years while playing on bad teams. You need 5 guys playing defense to really look good on defense and losing saps the will to play good defense.

Bernard King with no drugs, no injuries, and good teams would be with Bird, Magic and Dr J as 1980s greats but instead he is thought of as a loser.