RealGM 2023 Top 100 Project - #8 (Shaquille O'Neal)

[iggymcfrack]

It's a shame that KD has his decision to go to the Warriors held against him, even though he's always played hard like a pro on the court and never hurt the on court product, while Kobe forcing his way to the Lakers and demanding a trade later while actively damaging their on court results at times is apparently fine.

We just voted in Wilt, who refused to live in Philly while he played there and commuted from NY for games, and we're about to vote in Shaq, but KD of all people is being dinged for being Toxic... in a comparison with Kobe! Kobe is one of the most toxic superstars we've seen. Really amazing stuff. I may have to focus on supporting Dirk for now if this 'yeh ok, he was better, but I just don't like him' stuff continues. I'm not a big fan of people with Kobe's rap sheet either tbh.

I hold the decision against him on an all-time rating scale, but only because he arguably made the team WORSE replacing Harrison Barnes. They went 67-15 in 2015, 73-9 in 2016, and 29-4 when Steph played and KD didn’t from 2017-2019. That’s a record of 169-28 (.858) over a 5 year span.

When KD played over that same 5 year span, they went 51-11, 49-19, and 54-24. That’s a combined record of 154-54 (.741). Yeah, KD was a more resilient scorer in the playoffs and I’m sure he did at least make them a little better in the playoffs, but was he even as valuable as Draymond while he was with the Warriors? I doubt it. He basically hasn’t done anything to suggest to me that he was a top 5 player since 2014 and that makes it hard for me to take him seriously above Wade and Kawhi, let alone D-Rob and Giannis.

[OldSchoolNoBull]

It's a shame that KD has his decision to go to the Warriors held against him, even though he's always played hard like a pro on the court and never hurt the on court product, while Kobe forcing his way to the Lakers and demanding a trade later while actively damaging their on court results at times is apparently fine.

We just voted in Wilt, who refused to live in Philly while he played there and commuted from NY for games, and we're about to vote in Shaq, but KD of all people is being dinged for being Toxic... in a comparison with Kobe! Kobe is one of the most toxic superstars we've seen. Really amazing stuff. I may have to focus on supporting Dirk for now if this 'yeh ok, he was better, but I just don't like him' stuff continues. I'm not a big fan of people with Kobe's rap sheet either tbh.

I hold the decision against him on an all-time rating scale, but only because he arguably made the team WORSE replacing Harrison Barnes. They went 67-15 in 2015, 73-9 in 2016, and 29-4 when Steph played and KD didn’t from 2017-2019. That’s a record of 169-28 (.858) over a 5 year span.

When KD played over that same 5 year span, they went 51-11, 49-19, and 54-24. That’s a combined record of 154-54 (.741). Yeah, KD was a more resilient scorer in the playoffs and I’m sure he did at least make them a little better in the playoffs, but was he even as valuable as Draymond while he was with the Warriors? I doubt it. He basically hasn’t done anything to suggest to me that he was a top 5 player since 2014 and that makes it hard for me to take him seriously above Wade and Kawhi, let alone D-Rob and Giannis.

I don't want to get too hard on KD, but to answer your question:

KD's RAPM 2016-2019
2016-17: 3.24
2017-18: 1.56
2018-19: 4.92

Draymond RAPM 2016-2019
2016-17: 4.80
2017-18: 2.79
2018-19: 2.84

It looks like Draymond had higher RAPM two out of the three years they played together.

I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from it, but it's an answer to your question.

[Doctor MJ]

But I do rank Oscar comfortably ahead of Nash by career. The difference between having the GOAT offensive season as a rookie, and not really getting an opportunity to shine for a number of years.

What do you think of Cinci missing the playoffs 4 times in his decade with the Royals, and being sub-.500 the same number of times? What about how trash they were defensively that entire stretch? Just team context and disadvantage from roster issues? Offense seemed to click at a similar-ish level the whole time, but just not having enough of a frontcourt to win, coupled to smaller league and fewer playoff slots?

So, in the 10 years Oscar played on the Royals, there were 5 teams that had above (regular season) .500 winning percentage while playing more than just a couple years (shout out Bucks), and here's wat their win percentage was:

1. Celtics .677
2. 76ers .599
3. Lakers .581
4. Hawks .553
5. Royals .522

I would argue in that time period it's hard to really fathom justifying anyone not on the 4 teams above the Royals over Oscar.

I think it's not really a knock on Oscar that the first 3 are ahead of the Royals, but feel free to argue it.

The Hawks are the concern because they don't have anyone on their team that I would consider to be Oscar's equal throughout the entire decade. But let me put it to you this way, if I make a list of the greatest careers between guys who were on the Royals and guys who were on the Hawks over this time period while in-prime, here's how it would look:

1. Oscar Robertson (Royals)
2. Bob Pettit (Hawks)
3. Cliff Hagan (Hawks)
4. Zelmo Beaty (Hawks)
5. Lenny Wilkens (Hawks)

So yeah, in a nutshell, I think the Hawks had considerably more overall talent than the Royals did.

I think I'd draft West ahead of Oscar - better scorer,

Was he? He has a couple seasons at a slightly higher rate per 75, but only one with comparable relative efficiency. Slightly worse free throw shooter, not better at drawing fouls, similar ScoreVal (though a shade higher, tbf). It's close enough that I'm not quite sure why you say that so confidently, so perhaps there's a discussion which has been had somewhere which I've not yet read (which, given my lengthy absence, is easy enough to believe), wherefore my question.

I think the playoffs are the key. Jerry West had the highest scoring playoff season of the '60s with 40.6 PPG in '64-65. In that post-season he had a TS% of 53.4. So with that in mind, let's put a threshold of 30 PPG and 53% TS. How many seasons do we get per player?

Jerry West 6
Elgin Baylor 2
Oscar Robertson 2
Wilt Chamberlain 1
Bob Pettit 1

One might think this is bias toward volume over efficiency, so now let me list out the top 10 30 PPG post-seasons in the duration by TS%.

1. Jerry West 59.6
2. Jerry West 58.1
3. Oscar Robertson .574
4. Jerry West .564
5. Elgin Baylor .547
6. Jerry West .544
7. Wilt Chamberlain .543
8. Bob Pettit .543
9. Jerry West .542
10. Elgin Baylor .538

And the count of those guys:

Jerry West 5
Elgin Baylor 2
Wilt Chamberlain 1
Bob Pettit 1
Oscar Robertson 1

So yeah, I consider West to be not simply a better post-season scorer than Oscar, and not just the best post-season scorer of the era, but I don't really think anyone else was close. West towers over Oscar, Wilt, Baylor & Pettit, and those 5 guys are in a class of their own.

I do think Kobe played more effectively in the playoffs compared to the regular season on average,

Is that true?

01-13 RS: 28.1 ppg, 5.7 rpg, 5.2 apg, 45.4 / 33.6 / 84.1 / 55.7% TS
01-12 PS: 28.5 ppg, 5.5 rpg, 5.2 apg, 45.1 / 33.4 / 82.5 / 54.6% TS

His average PS rTS was +2.04. He had fairly tepid postseason in 02-04 and was generally bad in the Finals, apart from 2002 (leastwise in terms of shooting and scoring efficiency, I should clarify), but was also very commonly brilliant in the WCFs. The average delta in his rTS from PS to RS is -0.06. Some of that is how much his scoring efficiency tanked from 02-04, and then you can argue that perhaps 2011 and 2012 are far enough outside his prime to be not worth considering. If you remove them, PS to RS change averages -0.13, so it doesn't actually help because of precisely how much he dropped off in 02-04, where his worst drops are larger than his best improvements. So certainly from a scoring efficiency POV, he didn't play better in the playoffs compared to the RS on a regular basis, even if you adjust that efficiency to look at it relative to league average the postseason, and even if you look at it from a POV of PS vs. RS.

This is something of a narrow slice, focusing on scoring efficiency, to be sure. That said, Kobe's most know and most emphasized attribute was his scoring prowess/volume/etc. He was also a very adept playmaking wing, and when he was younger, an especially good man defender. And there is truth to be found in the idea that his Finals may be overemphasized in his scoring efficiency numbers across the smaller sample of a playoff run. There is also some consideration to be had for Kobe having his worst troubles when feuding with Shaq; after Shaq was traded, Kobe's average change from PS to RS was +0.91, making him a slight playoff riser. He also had his best and third-best postseason rTS performances during that stretch, though he was notably less effective during the regular season, which perhaps might be the genesis of your comment?

Just some thoughts to chew on.

Well, I think the part after the comma in my sentence there was critical:

I do think Kobe played more effectively in the playoffs compared to the regular season on average, and I think his defensive focus had a lot to do with that

What I'm essentially alluding to here is the apparent discrepancy between Kobe's reputation as a great defender and his inability to actually yield regular season defensive +/- impact. I think Kobe had the physical tools to be a great man defender, but in the regular season he spent a lot of time pacing himself defensively, and he often seemed more interest in gambling for steals that would lead to easy scoring opportunities than on really locking a guy down.

[70sFan]

You've quoted 70s fan, but he is engaged in some cherry picking that Tserkin was querying too. He's taken Kobe's literal best years, and he's comparing them to KDs worst years, then he's limiting the comparison to the playoffs only. It's clearly not a holistic analysis. We call them averages for a reason. But it's also not appropriate because RS impact has alot of weight also. We don't just toss it in the bin.

He was looking at seasons where Durant and Kobe were both primary drivers, so he was excluding seasons with Harden/Irving (not sure why) and when he wasn't on Golden State (which makes sense to me). At least as far as I can tell. I don't know if that makes when you consider Westbrook, but excluding Golden State certainly made sense. Not quite sure why he ignored Brooklyn, but I guess the efficiency in the Boston series would harm things, even if that's a series of a sort Kobe has had before (and against a Boston defense, no less). Perhaps a little more questioning on the subject would make sense; in the other thread, he did state he was focusing on KD's "best stretch with OKC," FWIW.

I also want to mention that I included 2021-23 after the exchange and the difference still wasn't noticeable. Durant's career playoff TS% is highly inflated by his GSW years.

[iggymcfrack]

Nah Duncan was POY for sure in 99. I'd agree that Doc is not being too charitable to Shaq tho. He was definitely top 5 more than 5 times.

Like I said, I’m not confident on Shaq being POY in ‘99. Sometimes I even think of it as Duncan and Shaq each getting half a POY in ‘99 and half a POY in ‘02. But I don’t know how you rate Shaq lower than 3rd at the absolute worst that season. Looking at the voting in the RPOY project, out of 22 voters, Shaq had 3 first place votes, 9 second place votes, 8 third place votes, and 2 fifth place votes. No one had him outside the top 5. He had pretty much identical box and on/off numbers to his peak 2000 year in the regular season and was only slightly worse in the playoffs. He also had better block and steal numbers in both the RS and PS in 1999 suggesting that he was probably pretty close to his defensive peak.

[70sFan]

I’m not really sure there’s anyone left on the board who can make a good claim to having been the best player in the league in a 5-year span (besides perhaps Kobe, who will very likely be nominated this time around).

Cough... Mikan... Cough.

Mikan didn't play in a pro-league by today's standards. He's got no business being in the top 100.

With all respect, it's not your job to say who's got "business" and for top 100 here. People disagree with your takes often, you should respect it more.

[One_and_Done]

It's a shame that KD has his decision to go to the Warriors held against him, even though he's always played hard like a pro on the court and never hurt the on court product, while Kobe forcing his way to the Lakers and demanding a trade later while actively damaging their on court results at times is apparently fine.

We just voted in Wilt, who refused to live in Philly while he played there and commuted from NY for games, and we're about to vote in Shaq, but KD of all people is being dinged for being Toxic... in a comparison with Kobe! Kobe is one of the most toxic superstars we've seen. Really amazing stuff. I may have to focus on supporting Dirk for now if this 'yeh ok, he was better, but I just don't like him' stuff continues. I'm not a big fan of people with Kobe's rap sheet either tbh.

I hold the decision against him on an all-time rating scale, but only because he arguably made the team WORSE replacing Harrison Barnes. They went 67-15 in 2015, 73-9 in 2016, and 29-4 when Steph played and KD didn’t from 2017-2019. That’s a record of 169-28 (.858) over a 5 year span.

When KD played over that same 5 year span, they went 51-11, 49-19, and 54-24. That’s a combined record of 154-54 (.741). Yeah, KD was a more resilient scorer in the playoffs and I’m sure he did at least make them a little better in the playoffs, but was he even as valuable as Draymond while he was with the Warriors? I doubt it. He basically hasn’t done anything to suggest to me that he was a top 5 player since 2014 and that makes it hard for me to take him seriously above Wade and Kawhi, let alone D-Rob and Giannis.

That's just the law of diminishing returns. The Warriors were going to drop from 73 wins no matter what they did the next year, just like the Bulls in 97 or the Lakers in 01. The team isn't going to have the same night to night energy to prioritise RS wins, especially after losing in the finals. All the emphasis was always going to shift to the postseason, because nobody would care if they had 73 wins again unless they won it all.

[tsherkin]

I also want to mention that I included 2021-23 after the exchange and the difference still wasn't noticeable. Durant's career playoff TS% is highly inflated by his GSW years.

Yup, s'why I mentioned that 2022 Boston series, for sure.

I think it's not really a knock on Oscar that the first 3 are ahead of the Royals, but feel free to argue it.

Nah, I'm good. I really just wanted to get your thoughts because I don't actually know much about Oscar's team context. And with only 4 playoff spots per conference, it's a bit of a different environment that the contemporary league, for sure.

So yeah, in a nutshell, I think the Hawks had considerably more overall talent than the Royals did.

That makes sense to me.

I think the playoffs are the key. Jerry West had the highest scoring playoff season of the '60s with 40.6 PPG in '64-65. In that post-season he had a TS% of 53.4. So with that in mind, let's put a threshold of 30 PPG and 53% TS. How many seasons do we get per player?
...


So yeah, I consider West to be not simply a better post-season scorer than Oscar, and not just the best post-season scorer of the era, but I don't really think anyone else was close. West towers over Oscar, Wilt, Baylor & Pettit, and those 5 guys are in a class of their own.

That also makes sense to me.

Well, I think the part after the comma in my sentence there was critical:

I do think Kobe played more effectively in the playoffs compared to the regular season on average, and I think his defensive focus had a lot to do with that

What I'm essentially alluding to here is the apparent discrepancy between Kobe's reputation as a great defender and his inability to actually yield regular season defensive +/- impact. I think Kobe had the physical tools to be a great man defender, but in the regular season he spent a lot of time pacing himself defensively, and he often seemed more interest in gambling for steals that would lead to easy scoring opportunities than on really locking a guy down.

Sure, so his man defense improved in the playoffs. I can't really recall him playing against too many guys I'd worry about as relevant checks for him on defense, so I don't know much I really care about that, personally. His help defense was a little more locked in, for sure. He had some big games defensively at times in the postseason. But I wonder after his playoff scoring a fair bit, and his Finals performances a lot, and it makes me try to juggle his efficacy as a defender from the perimeter against that offensive performance.

That said, there are some other things I raised there which are more beneficial to Kobe. Post-Shaq he either maintained or improved on his RS efficiency come the playoffs. He was neutral in 2011, but he was realistically post-prime then, 2013 notwithstanding. So apart from a trash run from 02-04, and then generally being notably worse in the Finals, he actually has a slight net rise. And then we can add that to your remark about his defense, though I don't recall him being that impressive during the repeat titles. I remember him really shamming it against Boston in 2010 because Rondo was so useless, which let him roam freely almost without penalty, so that helped him exert defensive force there. I remember him being quite an effective rebounder during that series for that reason.

I think Kobe's playoff performances are perhaps overrated on the balance of his career, but there were some that were pretty remarkable, like the WCFs against Portland and Sacramento.

I guess I'm still trying to parse the idea of his efficacy in the playoffs versus the regular season. I suppose it depends on which slice you examine, and how much you favor his net rise in 06 and 07 over those 7- and 5-game matchups with Phoenix, which wasn't a particularly impressive defensive team at the time. It makes me ponder. Kobe was very good, but he had a very specific approach to the game which I do not think always lead to him being more effective in the postseason than the RS, but it's interesting to pick your brain about it for an alternate POV.

[One_and_Done]

The numbers that One And Done laid out do a good job showing that KD is clearly a more efficient scorer than Kobe was... but the game is about winning... the fact is that Kobe won two championships as the undisputed #1 option. KD has never done that... KD's decision to join the Warriors will always be held against him...if he'd won those two titles anywhere else this would be a different conversation.

This basically encapsulates the absurdity of the anti-KD crowd. The same people who voted in Wilt, who are about to vote in KG with just 1 title, are holding KDs lack of 'ringzzz' against him, or just coming up with any excuse like 'he's toxic' to avoid voting for him. Will there be an apology next year if/when the Suns win the title?

It's almost like, I don't know, KD faced tougher teams than Kobe did? Who was tougher; the 09 Magic or the 14 Spurs? The 2010 Celtics or the 16 Warriors. I think the answer is kind of obvious. Guys got injured in OKC in 2013 and 2015, and in 2012 Brooks played Perkins and wouldn't stagger, even after everyone was saying he should. I'm impressed KD could even get the Warriors to 7 games against the 16 Warriors with a starting line-up that was so spacing challenged; Westbrick, Adams AND Roberson!?

[iggymcfrack]

It's a shame that KD has his decision to go to the Warriors held against him, even though he's always played hard like a pro on the court and never hurt the on court product, while Kobe forcing his way to the Lakers and demanding a trade later while actively damaging their on court results at times is apparently fine.

We just voted in Wilt, who refused to live in Philly while he played there and commuted from NY for games, and we're about to vote in Shaq, but KD of all people is being dinged for being Toxic... in a comparison with Kobe! Kobe is one of the most toxic superstars we've seen. Really amazing stuff. I may have to focus on supporting Dirk for now if this 'yeh ok, he was better, but I just don't like him' stuff continues. I'm not a big fan of people with Kobe's rap sheet either tbh.

I hold the decision against him on an all-time rating scale, but only because he arguably made the team WORSE replacing Harrison Barnes. They went 67-15 in 2015, 73-9 in 2016, and 29-4 when Steph played and KD didn’t from 2017-2019. That’s a record of 169-28 (.858) over a 5 year span.

When KD played over that same 5 year span, they went 51-11, 49-19, and 54-24. That’s a combined record of 154-54 (.741). Yeah, KD was a more resilient scorer in the playoffs and I’m sure he did at least make them a little better in the playoffs, but was he even as valuable as Draymond while he was with the Warriors? I doubt it. He basically hasn’t done anything to suggest to me that he was a top 5 player since 2014 and that makes it hard for me to take him seriously above Wade and Kawhi, let alone D-Rob and Giannis.

That's just the law of diminishing returns. The Warriors were going to drop from 73 wins no matter what they did the next year, just like the Bulls in 97 or the Lakers in 01. The team isn't going to have the same night to night energy to prioritise RS wins, especially after losing in the finals. All the emphasis was always going to shift to the postseason, because nobody would care if they had 73 wins again unless they won it all.

And yet they only dropped in games where KD played. When Steph played without KD over a 33 game sample, they played at exactly the same pace they did in 2016.

[iggymcfrack]

The numbers that One And Done laid out do a good job showing that KD is clearly a more efficient scorer than Kobe was... but the game is about winning... the fact is that Kobe won two championships as the undisputed #1 option. KD has never done that... KD's decision to join the Warriors will always be held against him...if he'd won those two titles anywhere else this would be a different conversation.

This basically encapsulates the absurdity of the anti-KD crowd. The same people who voted in Wilt, who are about to vote in KG with just 1 title, are holding KDs lack of 'ringzzz' against him, or just coming up with any excuse like 'he's toxic' to avoid voting for him. Will there be an apology next year if/when the Suns win the title?

It's almost like, I don't know, KD faced tougher teams than Kobe did? Who was tougher; the 09 Magic or the 14 Spurs? The 2010 Celtics or the 16 Warriors. I think the answer is kind of obvious. Guys got injured in OKC in 2013 and 2015, and in 2012 Brooks played Perkins and wouldn't stagger, even after everyone was saying he should. I'm impressed KD could even get the Warriors to 7 games against the 16 Warriors with a starting line-up that was so spacing challenged; Westbrick, Adams AND Roberson!?

Kevin Garnett
Net Rtg (reg season): +5.2
PD when on bench: -6.1
On/off: +11.3

Net Rtg (postseason): +2.5
PD when on bench: -12.0
On/off +14.5

Kevin Durant
Net Rtg (reg season): +5.9
PD when on bench: +0.2
On/off: +5.7

Net Rtg (reg season): +4.8
PD when on bench: +1.3
On/off: +3.5

Basically, KD’s played with some of the best teammates of any superstar all-time while KG’s played with some of the worst and KD just barely managed to make superteams better than KG made bad lottery teams. He doesn’t impact winning on a top superstar level. And yes, KG’s 2008 ring as the best player in the league is worth waaaaaay more than KD’s bus rider rings as the 3rd best player on the Warriors.

[Doctor MJ]

Accidentally posted this on the last thread, so re-posting it here:

A note on Shaq in comparison to Magic with both playing a bunch of great teams, and Shaq playing longer:

First I think everyone needs to consider for themselves the negative effects of Shaq's tendency to blow things up as soon as he got jealous of his co-star...which happened everywhere he went during his prime. I've long said the choice between drafting Shaq & Duncan is no choice at all. One guy gives you a chance to build a sustainably great culture, one guy just can't help but become dissatisfied even when his team is winning titles.

This just doesn't seem like an accurate assessment based on everything I know. I don't think he ever left a team because he was jealous of anyone.

He left Orlando because they lowballed him. Unrestricted Free Agency was instituted in 1988 and 1996 was the NBA's first big FA summer. Mourning and Howard got these huge contracts, and while what Orlando offered Shaq was comparable to what they got, it was still less. It's true that Shaq also had eyes on LA because of off-court interests there, but I still think it's very possible he stays if Orlando doesn't make one of the dumbest front office mistakes of all-time in LOW-BALLING ABOUT-TO-BE-PRIME SHAQ.

You're certainly not wrong about it being about money. Some quotes from Shaq:

link

When my deal was up, they didn't want to give me the money that I wanted and they said it was Penny's team. So instead of me talking to Penny, ego kicked in a little bit, and then, I tested out free agency,"

link

I asked John Gabriel why they wouldn’t pay me what he knew I deserved and he said, “We don’t want to upset Penny. We can’t pay you more than Penny.”

link

“You pay him $30 million, you gotta pay me $60 million. I created jealousies for myself.”

Well and good to say that if the Magic would have just offered Shaq the kind of money other teams were spending on bigs he'd have stayed, but both he and the Magic were focused on the comparison with Hardaway, and Shaq would insult Hardaway years after the fact ( ""He thinks he's smart, but he's really not.") continuing to hurt Hardaway who looked up to Shaq as a big brother, and who went through absolute hell with injuries for years by that point.

If you want to take issue with my choice of words because they don't tell the whole story that's fine, but the emotion I attributed Shaq was absolutely accurate by his own admission.

Incidentally I think Orlando was silly for trying to pinch pennies, but they weren't actually wrong to think that Hardaway was the superior franchise player...except for their ignorance of his future injury issues.

He left the Lakers for two reasons.

First, he was looking for an extension the Lakers didn't want to give in 2004. He signed a 7-year deal in 1996, and a three-year extension to that in 2000, so in the summer of 2004 he had two years left, and he wanted another deal locked up. I guess Dr. Buss was hesitant because he wasn't sure Shaq was going to be worth the money anymore.

Second, Kobe was UFA that summer and it seems pretty obvious that Kobe was not going to re-sign there unless Shaq was gone. Kobe has said this himself.

Between the disagreement about the extension and the threat of losing Kobe, it was Dr. Buss that made the decision to move on from Shaq. Shaq never decided to leave the Lakers. (And Miami gave Shaq his five year, hundred million dollar extension the following Summer after their 2005 ECF appearance.)

All conversations along these lines need to start no later than '00-01 when the Shaq-Kobe feud went from a simmer to a boil. From there things just got worse and worse until the relationship between the Lakers and Shaq exploded in early 2003 when Shaq demanded a massive extension immediately after Malone & Payton took huge pay cuts to play there, and when Shaq didn't get what he wanted he publicly taunted Buss mid-game.

There's really no reason to think that the Lakers would have insisted on moving on from Shaq if he'd have been a good soldier, but the way his behavior escalated after Kobe became his more popular co-star ruined it.

He wanted out of Miami because the team had fallen apart. They were, apart from Wade, an old team when they won in 2006 and an older team when they got swept in 2007. Miami blew that whole team up and essentially started over with Wade, and Shaq spent his twilight years ring-chasing with Nash, LeBron, and KG.

You're talking as if Wade was a young prospect at the time. Wade led the team to a title in 2006. Miami had no intention of tanking after that. Rather what was happening is that most of the core was old (a bunch of guys north of 30 and even 35) and getting worse - Shaq included.

Further, Shaq was literally complaining about not getting when he was in Miami. The irony of an aging post-prime star being pissed off that Wade was getting all the shots and yet also bashing his old teammates as if they were the ones getting in the way.

All of this just gets back to the central thing:

When things didn't go just the way Shaq wanted, he'd act out. He wouldn't just leave, he'd become a drama queen along the way...which had everything to do with why the relationships went from tense to explosive.

Beyond that, while +/- data initially painted Shaq in a very positive light for me, it became a little bit less impressive.

First, there's the matter that Penny Hardaway actually looks more impactful than Shaq once Penny comes into his own in Orlando. In both '94-95 and '95-96, Penny has a higher raw +/- than Shaq.

In 1995-96, Shaq's final season there, Orlando's SRS was 5.40 and their Net Rtg was +6.0. In 1996-97 - and Penny did play 59 games - Orlando's SRS was -0.07 and their Net Rtg was -0.4. They fell from 5th place to 16th place in both categories. I understand what the on/off data you cited says, but I've never seen anyone suggest that Shaq wasn't clearly the #1 guy on those teams.

I mean, you're just posting stats that say that the team was worse without Shaq, nothing that's pointing to Shaq actually being more valuable than Penny.

Let's note that in '96-97 the Magic had a +4.5 rating per 100 possessions with Hardaway on the court along with a double digit on/off. The idea that something more than that would be expected if Hardaway were really "that good" just isn't realistic to me. Those are fantastic numbers.

Re: Never seen anyone suggest Shaq wasn't clearly the #1 guy. I mean the Magic literally said it, and Hardaway finished 3rd in the MVP during Shaq's final year in Orlando. Shaq was injured for a chunk of the year of course...but that was part of the concern, ironically given how things turned out with Hardaway's health.

Second, there's the matter that when Shaq hits certain matchups, it's like kryptonite. The best OnCourt +/- per 100 rate of his career comes in '97-98 where the only reason his team doesn't have HCA throughout the playoffs is because of the time Shaq missed (22 games, more than 1/4th of the season). Without realizing this, one might think a 61 win Laker team losing to a 62 win Jazz team in a sweep is embarrassing but really in essence just what we'd expect...but really the Lakers were the superior regular season team when they had Shaq, and so this is effectively Shaq's team getting upset in a sweep.

Here's how the Jazz ORtg looked in their 4 series that year:

Rockets 103.7
Spurs 101.5
Lakers 116.1
Bulls 96.1

See the problem? The Jazz have long been criticized as having an amazing regular season offense that ran into trouble when they played serious playoff defenses. In '97-98, they got held WAY under their 112.7 best-in-league regular season ORtg by all of their opponents except Shaq's Lakers, where they did better than they did in their best-in-league levels.

This despite the fact that the Lakers had an above average NBA defense, and were even better in the time they had him out there. It was an epic drop off in effectiveness the Lakers had in the face of the Sloan offense, and it was Shaq's mobility vulnerability was certainly part of the equation.

This is a convincing argument that Shaq's Lakers had one bad series.

Are you really unaware of Shaq's team's tendency to lose easily, either 4-0 or 4-1?

'93-94: Lose 3-0 to Indiana (Orlando had HCA)
'94-95: Lose 4-0 to Houston (Orlando had HCA)
'95-96: Lose 4-0 to Chicago
'96-97: Lose 4-1 to Utah
'97-98: Lose 4-0 to Utah (as noted, should be seen as an upset by Laker RS performance with Shaq)
'98-99: Lose 4-0 to San Antonio

Literally, the first 6 times Shaq got eliminated, it wasn't close, and half those times, it was against a team that in theory shouldn't have been able to beat them at all.

I honestly don't know if there's any other all-timer with such a consistent run of blow out series losses.

This was part of a broader trend where Shaq's teams tended to lose in sweeps. I wouldn't say it was always about his defensive vulnerabilities, but I also think that it's hard not to think Shaq being such an extreme body had something to do with it. If you could handle Shaq...you handled him and tended to win fairly easily.

Yeah, but a lot of those need context.

In the 1996 ECF, his team was hit hard by injuries. Horace Grant, their #3 guy, went down in Game 1 and missed the rest of the series. That was the big loss, but in addition to that Nick Anderson, their starting SG, missed a game, and Brian Shaw, a key bench piece, missed two games. All this while going up against the 1996 Bulls, a first-ballot greatest-team-ever contender.

In the 1999 second round, the Lakers were swept by the eventual champion Spurs. In the history of the NBA, I'm not sure there's a frontcourt better-equipped to beat a Shaq-led team than the 1999 Spurs with already-looks-prime-in-his-second-year Duncan and still-80%-of-his-prime Robinson. He got swept by one of the greatest defensive frontcourts that ever played the game.

In the 2007 first round, it was an old Heat team and Shaq's time as an impact player was winding down. There's a reason they pretty much got of everyone not named Wade(or Haslem) the following season. Not fair to blame him when he really wasn't prime anymore and the team around him outside of Wade wasn't doing much.

The 1995 Finals don't look good, I'll give you that, but still, he was being guarded by the guy just voted #6 all-time in this project(even though I really don't agree with that), who clearly was a GOAT-tier defender and in the midst of an all-time run himself.

Ah, right, I did mention the sweeps, and you came back talking as if the one series I went into detail was an anomaly. Well, your comments here are noted, please feel free to get into all the other years where this happened.

I'll throw in the 2004 finals against the Pistons where the Lakers were fortunate to even win a game.

My tone is getting pithy here and I'm sorry about that, but look, I'm not even calling Shaq a choker. I'm just pointing out that he lost 4-0 & 4-1 as a matter of course, and I'm suggesting that it says something about how an extreme-sized guy like Shaq fared over the course of a series that basically if a team had the advantage, they were able to not just win the series, but win close to every single time.

All of this then contributed to Shaq doing surprisingly poorly in my last run year-by-year run through.

The only times where I rated Shaq as having a Top 5 season were:

'94-95
'97-98
'99-00
'00-01
'01-02

I think it's worth others exploring the same thing. My guess is that most would end up being more charitable to Shaq than I was, but remember when comparing him to a guy like Magic who was having Top 5 seasons as a matter of course all through his career when healthy and did so with a massively positive effect on his teammates rather than an eventually-negative effect on them.

It also means, I actually think Shaq vs Kobe is actually a pretty good debate (Kobe clocks in with 7 Top 5 seasons for me).

I will respectfully disagree and say that Shaq is clearly, without any question, a more impactful player than Kobe.

Feel free to disagree and elaborate.

What I'd say that is that in general Shaq was a vastly more impactful regular season player, but come playoff time, it was considerably closer.

[70sFan]

This basically encapsulates the absurdity of the anti-KD crowd. The same people who voted in Wilt, who are about to vote in KG with just 1 title, are holding KDs lack of 'ringzzz' against him,

Or maybe they are holding KD on lower level because he's simply a clearly worse player than Wilt or Garnett?

or just coming up with any excuse like 'he's toxic' to avoid voting for him.

That's literally only Doc's statement and he stated that Durant isn't good enough to overcome his off-court issues at that point of the list.

Will there be an apology next year if/when the Suns win the title?

Well, that would be something considering that Durant never showed he was capable of winning the title with such supporting cast...

It's almost like, I don't know, KD faced tougher teams than Kobe did? Who was tougher; the 09 Magic or the 14 Spurs? The 2010 Celtics or the 16 Warriors. I think the answer is kind of obvious.

So instead of cherry picking (your favourite words recently) opponents, maybe do a calculation and present who faced better teams in the postseason on average? That would be something useful for all of us.

I'm impressed KD could even get the Warriors to 7 games against the 16 Warriors with a starting line-up that was so spacing challenged; Westbrick, Adams AND Roberson!?

Yeah, poor Durant had to play with "Westbrick" who literally outplayed him in that series...

[One_and_Done]

So what exactly is the reason to take Kobe over Dirk? Because if nobody will support KD that's where I'm leaning tbh.

[homecourtloss]

Came down to KG, Magic, and Shaq for me.

Official vote: KG

His highly versatile skill set on both offense and defense show up in his box score metrics as well as his gaudy impact metrics. It is highly rare that you see someone with his skill set and physical attributes also possess a nonstop motor that made him an impact monster second year out of high school. Anyone remember him in 1997 or 1998 switching out on the guards out on the perimeter and doing an incredible job? It’s likely that he would be highly, highly impactful regardless of what era he played in, as all of his attributes would translate, including his creation skills, which are always a huge plus for bigs. A player like this is so incredibly easy to build around in a variety of ways.

I want to put a few things out there about Kevin Garnett and his impact signals, i.e., longevity of impact, prime stretches with possible peaks though know that we need, at least about three years worth of data for some sort of stabilization in RAPM.

Just below LeBron, KG has been the dominant databall monster.

Englemann’s 1997-2022 PI RS+PS RAPM with confidence levels we have some Interesting data for CP3 and Stockton as when they come around as well.

1. LeBron, +9.1, lower bound +7.9, upper bound +10.3 [absurd lower bound here that’s higher than most upper bounds]
2. KG, +8.4, lower bound +7.0, upper bound +9.9 [also absurd lower bound]
7. Jordan, +6.9, lower bound +4.9, upper bound +9.4 [strong signals from small sample]
10. Draymond, +6.6, lower bound +4.5, upper bound 8.6
11. Curry, +6.4, lower bound +4.7, upper bound 8.2
17. Shaq, +5.8, lower bound +4.3, upper bound 7.4

Look at JE’s 95% confidence levels for KG’s LOWER BOUND. Along with LeBron’s lower bound, it far outpaces everyone’s on the list by an astounding amount.. KG’s lower bound, for example, is close to Curry’s UPPERBOUND.

In Cheema’s 1997-2022 PI RS+PS RAPM Five Year Intervals

1. LeBron, 2012-2016, +6.46
2. LeBron, 2013-2017, +6.27
3. KG, 2003-2007, +6.17
4. LeBron, 2006-2010, +6.10
5. KG, 2000-2004, +6.01
6. Duncan, 2001-2005, +6.00
7. Duncan, 1993-2004, +6.00
8. KG, 2002-2006, +5.98
9. Curry, 2014-2018, +5.81
10. KG, 2001-2005, +5.76
11. Lebron, 2016-2020, +5.76
12. Wade, 2006-10, +5.73 2
13. LeBron, 2005-09, +5.73
14. LeBron, 2008-12, +5.71
15. Duncan, 2000-04, +5.68
16. KG, 2004-08, +5.64
17. Chris Paul, 2012-16, +5.64
18. Chris Paul, 2013-17, +5.61
19. Curry, 2013-17, +5.60
20. Duncan, 2003-07, +5.58

In Englemann’s 1997-2019 PI RS+PS RAPM single seasons

Player, Year, Offense, Defense (+ is good in this case), Total

1. Kevin Garnett, 2003-04, +5.5, +4.51, +10.01
2. Kevin Garnett, 2008-09, +3.06, +6.68, +9.73
3. LeBron James, 2010-11, +6.24, +3.27, +9.5
4. LeBron James, 2011-12, +6.35, +2.94, +9.29
5. Tim Duncan, 2002-03 , +4.01, +5.11,+9.11
6. LeBron James, 2009-10, +7.05, +2.01, +9.05
7. Kevin Garnett, 2007-08, +3.00, +5.96, +8.97
8. Draymond Green, 2015-16, +3.94, +4.91, +8.85
9. LeBron James, 2008-09, +6.28, +2.56, +8.84
10. LeBron James, 2014-15, +6.82, +1.95, +8.77
11. LeBron James, 2015-16, +5.52, +3.1, +8.62
12. Shaquille O'Neal, 1999-00, +6.21, +2.31, +8.52
13. Tim Duncan, 2004-05, +3.07, +5.4, +8.47
14. Kevin Garnett, 2004-05, +4.71, +3.54, +8.25
15. Stephen Curry, 2016-17, +6.68, +1.47, +8.15
17. Kevin Garnett, 2002-03, +4.5, +3.5, +8.00
18. Alonzo Mourning, 1998-99, +2.99, +4.87, +7.85
19. Manu Ginobili, 2006-07, +5.11, +2.56, +7.67
20. Tim Duncan, 2003-04 , +2.67, +4.97, +7.64
21. Shaquille O'Neal, 1998-99, +5.93, +1.7, +7.63
22. Shaquille O'Neal, 1997-98, +5.06, +2.5, +7.55
23. Shaquille O'Neal, 2003-04, +4.75, +2.74, +7.49[/quote]

Alternate: Magic Johnson

An offensive savant with a natural feel for the game whose impact signals look as strong as anyone’s in the ‘80s and early ‘90s (WOWYR, Squared2020’s partial RAPM samples). One of my favorite things to watch is Johnson dribbling the ball up to the left side of the court turn his back, dribble from the post, make a move into the lane, naturally bump off body, contact, and work his way into a little skyhook or a little finger roll. He also had that hard dribble to his left, starting from the right side of the key, and then finishing in the lane to be honest with you, he probably should have taken more shots given how highly efficient he was in his half court office se but then again he was a creator par excellence. How many times have you watched him at the top of the key and throw a pass onto the right side of the lane by the basket seemingly into the middle of nowhere, but somehow those seemingly nowhere passes would find his teammates coming off of the double picks set on the left side…he was brilliant.

[OhayoKD]

And while defense was an inconsistent thing during his career, in that particular year he was simultaneously anchoring the league's best defense......in a defensive-dominated league environment. They dominated in DREB% and opp eFG%, the factors a big man has the largest impact on.

Will point out that "best defense in the league" became bad in the playoffs largely because of what big-men have the biggest effect on:

Spoiler:

I know nothing about this source, but these numbers don't line up with NBA.com stats:

https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/opponent-shooting?Season=1999-00&dir=A&sort=Less%20Than%205%20ft.%20FG%20PCT

If you take a look on Lakers opponents shooting profile, it looks quite odd. Lakers were 8th in opp. FG% in the paint, which is good of course but not top tier. On contrary, Lakers seems to look like absolutely elite at defending jumpshots. They were the best in opp. FG% both from midrange and three point line. Although some of it certainly was the fact that Shaq was a solid rim protector (allowing his teammates to be more agressive on perimeter), giving Shaq all the credit for that doesn't sound reasonable to me. Like, you can't convince me after watching over 30 2000 Lakers games that Shaq was the reason for their best 3P shooting defense...

About rim protection - it's true that Shaq was a solid rim protector. Lakers finished 3rd in opp. FGA and 8th in FG% in the paint that season, which definitely puts them among the best in the league. Unfortunately, it didn't translate to the playoffs, coming from 57.5% on 22.9 FGA to 59.6% on 23.6 FGA (and keep in mind that defensive environment became way better in the playoffs). Part of that is because Shaq was intimidating, but fairly limited rim protector. He could make you rethink it twice with his sheer size, but you can also take him away from actions relatively easily - as he had low motor and rarely got advanced reads right.

You actually bring up very solid point regarding Shaq's man defense. That's definitely his strength and here is where I'd see his highest value. We do know that man defense has his ceilling in value though, you usually don't become the best defender in the league strictly because of his man defense.

All in all, I didn't want to call Shaq bad defender but he's not elite. He's a player with some very important strengths and weaknesses, depending on matchup he could either be key factor on defense or be exploited.

Not the first time his defense has been turned into a negative in the playoffs:

Karl Malone teaches the pick and roll, calls Shaq and Barkley the worst PnR defenders

So many things to love in this clip of Karl Malone demonstrating the pick and roll on the NBA TV set recently.

It’s all great, but I especially enjoyed his point of emphasis to “make sure Ostertag is out of the way.” Other great lines:

“If he’s not going to put any pressure on me, I’ll slip that all day long–and I mean all day long.”

“I didn’t try to catch the ball all the time; I just wanted to knock it down.”

Karl even names names:

“The pick and roll is designed to put pressure on people who didn’t want to [defend] it. Shaquille O’Neal and Charles Barkley, the absolute worst big men to ever play the pick and roll. We loved it coming down the stretch, because we knew they didn’t want to play it.”

Malone’s eyes are also like dinner plates at the end when Sam Mitchell is explaining how he would guard Karl in the post. It’s all Malone can do to resist saying “That’s what you’d do??? No wonder I scored a million points on you.”

https://saltcityhoops.com/karl-malone-teaches-the-pick-and-roll-calls-shaq-and-barkley-the-worst-pnr-defenders/[/quote][/quote][/spoiler]
During his prime the Lakers were actually worse defensively without him...

[trelos6]

Going to put down some thoughts on Magic v Bird, since I have Shaq and KG ahead of them both, and I think Curry's not quite there yet.

I give them both half to 1 season of being the best player in the world type of season. '86 Larry, '87 Magic.

Arguably top 3 in nba type of seasons, I have Bird at 9 and Magic at 9.

All NBA quality seasons, Bird 10, Magic 10.

All Star seasons, Bird 12, Magic 12.

All D level seasons, Bird 3, Magic 0.

Bird Career PIPM +4.61, Career O-PIPM +3.32, Career D-PIPM +1.29, Career Wins added: 187.01

Yearly returns are: +3.7, +3.7, +4.4, +5.2, +5.5, +5.5, +6.1, +5.4, +5.6, +0.2, +3.6, +2.6, +2.0

He graded out as a positive defender every season.

Magic Career PIPM +4.82, Career O-PIPM +4.22, Career D-PIPM +0.6, Career wins added: 188.27

Yearly returns are: +3.5, +4.0, +4.7, +4.6, +4.6, +4.7, +5.2, +6.0, +4.0, +6.0, +5.9, +5.6, +.4

He was a positive defender in every season except 95-96.

It's convenient that Bird was injured one year, and Magic's year return were both outlier seasons, and can safely be ignored.

Bird's scoring peak was 28.2 pp75 with +7.0 rTS%. The team had a rORTG of 7.3. His 3 yr PS was 23.8 pp75 at +4.7 rTS%. A fair decline, which I believe is the biggest criticism around Bird.

Magic's scoring peak like Bird's came a few years after his peak. 22.5 pp75 on +8.5 rTS% with a team rORTG of 5.9. His peak, the team had a rORTG of 7.3. 3 yr PS peak was 21.2 pp75 on +7.5 rTS%.

Looking at creation metrics, Bird peaked with a passer rtg of 7.9, but in his peak he had an adjusted creation of 11, with adjusted passer rating around 7.6.

Magic however, is the creation god. Peaked at 19.3 adjusted creation, and an adjusted passer rating of 9.8. That's a higher peak than Lebron (16.1, 9.0), Steph (16.2, 8.2), MJ (16, 7.0).

So what does this all tell us?

Bird was the better shooter, scorer, defender, while Magic was the superior creator and passer, and kept his efficiency up in the PS.

Both players suffered career defining setbacks, Bird his back injury and Magic HIV.

It's incredibly close between these 2. I think Bird might be just ahead, because I'm a Celtic fan and have some bias, but also because we've seen the effect of gravity that Curry possesses, and while I haven't watched all of Bird and Magic's games, I can appreciate Bird's off ball ability, scalability, and gravity, which all shows itself in the team's stellar ORTG, both RS and PS.

I have stated in an earlier post that I have Shaq 8, KG 9, so this would mean Bird is 10, Magic 11.

[trex_8063]

And while defense was an inconsistent thing during his career, in that particular year he was simultaneously anchoring the league's best defense......in a defensive-dominated league environment. They dominated in DREB% and opp eFG%, the factors a big man has the largest impact on.

Will point out that "best defense in the league" became bad in the playoffs largely because of what big-men have the biggest effect on:

Spoiler:

I know nothing about this source, but these numbers don't line up with NBA.com stats:

https://www.nba.com/stats/teams/opponent-shooting?Season=1999-00&dir=A&sort=Less%20Than%205%20ft.%20FG%20PCT

If you take a look on Lakers opponents shooting profile, it looks quite odd. Lakers were 8th in opp. FG% in the paint, which is good of course but not top tier. On contrary, Lakers seems to look like absolutely elite at defending jumpshots. They were the best in opp. FG% both from midrange and three point line. Although some of it certainly was the fact that Shaq was a solid rim protector (allowing his teammates to be more agressive on perimeter), giving Shaq all the credit for that doesn't sound reasonable to me. Like, you can't convince me after watching over 30 2000 Lakers games that Shaq was the reason for their best 3P shooting defense...

About rim protection - it's true that Shaq was a solid rim protector. Lakers finished 3rd in opp. FGA and 8th in FG% in the paint that season, which definitely puts them among the best in the league. Unfortunately, it didn't translate to the playoffs, coming from 57.5% on 22.9 FGA to 59.6% on 23.6 FGA (and keep in mind that defensive environment became way better in the playoffs). Part of that is because Shaq was intimidating, but fairly limited rim protector. He could make you rethink it twice with his sheer size, but you can also take him away from actions relatively easily - as he had low motor and rarely got advanced reads right.

You actually bring up very solid point regarding Shaq's man defense. That's definitely his strength and here is where I'd see his highest value. We do know that man defense has his ceilling in value though, you usually don't become the best defender in the league strictly because of his man defense.

All in all, I didn't want to call Shaq bad defender but he's not elite. He's a player with some very important strengths and weaknesses, depending on matchup he could either be key factor on defense or be exploited.

It's semantics, but saying the defense "became bad" seems like a slight overstatement [to me]; at least without a modifier like "somewhat bad" or similar. Relative to offenses played against, they averaged at +1.15 rDRTG per series, or +1.4 rDRTG if weighted for games played.
That's a little bad, sure. But not BAD bad.

Anyway, I don't know that I'd fully agree that the decline is primarily related to failing of big man factors; at least not consistently (or even mostly):

+0.5 rDRTG against Sacramento, which is only slightly "bad". Though fwiw their DREB% was elite (had been #5 in the league in the rs, and was actually 0.6% better in this series), and their opp eFG% was still elite despite Sacramento shooting hot from behind the arc [because their 2pt defense was 0.9% BETTER in this series than their already league-leading rs standard].
However, opp TOV% [mediocre in rs] was bad in this series, and their opp FTAr (poor in the rs) was downright putrid (and fwiw it doesn't appear to be Shaq who was committing lots of fouls).
So while their defense faltered in this series, it doesn't look like the big-man infuenced factors that were failing. It looks like perimeter defense was the primary culprit (though I haven't watched any of the series since it played live).

-3.5 rDRTG against Phoenix, which is actually still very good, though some of the data is suggestive that the perimeter core should get a lot of credit: Opp eFG% was still elite, though it does appear to be in no small part due to 3pt defense (though opp 2pt% is also still good). DREB% suffers in this series, while opp TOV% and FTAr were both respectable.

+1.6 rDRTG against Portland. This is the first one that is truly getting kinda bad, though it doesn't look like the big-man factors can easily be pegged as the primary cause: Their opp eFG% fell to kinda mediocre, but both opp 2pt% and 3pt% appear at fault here (Blazers shot 37.9% on 14.7 3PA/game [which was somewhat a lot for the time period]). Meanwhile, the Laker DREB% [which again, had already been #5 in the league in rs] was 2% better than their rs standard in this series. And the opp FTAr (more related to perimeter defense, typically) was atrocious.

+6.0 rDRTG. Straight up bad. However, it again does not appear the big-man stuff that is mostly to blame.
Opp eFG% is awful, but while 2pt defense doesn't look good, it's also in no small part because of 3pt defense: Indiana lit them up to the tune of 42.2% from 3pt (+9.6% worse than the Laker rs standard; and though Indiana was a good 3pt shooting team, this is +3% better than their rs standard) on a whopping 19.3 3PA/game (which is also +1.2 more than Indiana avg during the rs).
The Laker DREB% is +4% better than their already elite rs standard in this series.
The opp FTAr is again atrocious, and opp TOV% is also unimpressive (again, these things being mostly influenced by perimeter defense).


So while I note their opp eFG% gets dinged in most of these series, it's at least in part related to the 3pt defense in two or three of them.
I also note their DREB% was either elite or super-elite in three of four series (ironically, the ONE time it wasn't was the series their defense held up well regardless).
And lastly I note their ability to keep opponents off the FT-line was not just bad, but downright awful in three of four series.

So the water is more than a little muddy as far as the blame can be placed more on the Laker big men.


And fwiw, if pointing out how the defense declined in this particular season, we might also point out that their already good offense (of which he was also the anchor) became even better in the playoffs. Relative to defenses played against:

+12.2 rORTG against Sacramento, in no small part due to a ridiculous 38% OREB%, with Shaq grabbing a series best 5.8 OReb/game. Their TOV% was also elite, and [despite avg 29/17/3] Shaq committed just 2.2 topg.

+10.6 rORTG against Phoenix, again in no small part because the Laker OREB% was through the roof (with Shaq snaring 6.0 ORebs per game.......more than Phoenix's top two offensive rebounders COMBINED; the next-highest Laker averaged just 1.6 oreb/game).

+6.5 rORTG against Portland, mostly due to eFG% (with Shaq +2.5% to the full team average in the series), and FTAr (with Shaq garnering 14.1 FTA/game).

+9.0 rORTG against Indiana, with Shaq dropping 38 ppg (no other Laker managed even as much as 16) on 61.1% FG%, while turning it over only 2.2x per game, and grabbing 5.7 oreb/game (next highest on the team was 1.5). And though he couldn't make them worth a damn, he avg 15.5 FTA/game (no one else on the team even avg as many as 3.5). I rarely use the term, but he was truly "carrying" the offense in that series.


I might also mention, as counter-point to this criticism, that the very next year we saw the exact OPPOSITE phenomenon: the Laker defense was mediocre to slightly poor in the rs, but then became ELITE in the playoffs.

[iggymcfrack]

OK, well I said I had Shaq and KG in a virtual tie before and I was open to arguments. Well, I'm switching my vote.

Vote: Kevin Garnett
The upper and lower bound data homecourtloss posted was the last straw showing just how clear KG's edge is, but honestly I was pretty convinced already. I wanted to give Shaq credit for being more of a playoff riser, but not only is KG's playoff on/off better, it actually rises more as well. The impact data suggests he easily could have gone as high as #3.

He had maybe the worst situation of any superstar in history, originally getting put at the 3 when he's a natural 5 and not put in position to maximize his defensive skills until he went to Boston at age 31. When he was put where he belonged as a rim protecting center, he was basically the most dominant defensive player in the league through a very advanced age, with his defensive on/off ranking in the 88th, 96th, 91st, 96th, 73rd, 99th, 95th, 79th, and 100th percentile from age 31-39. If he was positioned properly on defense in Minnesota, he could have been even more dominant, but as it was, he still had 2 of the most dominant seasons of all-time in 2003 and 2004, putting up insane on/offs of +24 and +21 in the regular season and +10 and +27 in the playoffs.

Of course, Minnesota not only coached KG poorly, but also did an all-time terrible job in the front office, giving up FIVE first round picks for tampering with Joe Smith. The cupboard was bare and KG didn't have even one single impactful teammate for most of his prime. The very best player he ever got was a 34 year old Sam Cassell who had been the 3rd banana on a 42-40 team the year before. When Cassell and KG played together, they went 58-24 for the best record in the Western Conference, rolled through Denver 4-1, and then beat an extremely good Sacramento team in Round 2. The Kings were 55-27 with an SRS of +5.4, good for 3rd in the NBA. KG closed out the series with an incredibly clutch Game 7, putting up 32/21 on .575 TS% with 4 steals and 5 blocks!!! The Wolves needed every bit of in the 83-80 victory.

Going into the WCF with the Lakers, it seemed like KG and Sam Cassell could be every bit a match for Shaq, Kobe, Payton, and Malone. Unfortunately, Cassell got injured, sometime between Game 7 against the Kings and Game 2 against the Lakers. He played a total of 64 minutes in the series and was much less effective than he was previously when he did. KG made a heroic effort to send the series to 6 games and the point differential was very close, but he never really had a chance. The following year, Cassell was again plagued by injuries, missing 23 games and causing the Wolves to miss the playoffs. Then he went away to the Clippers and KG wouldn't play with another top 60 player until he went to Boston.

Still, KG's on the shortlist of the absolute tippy top best defenders in the history of the NBA and was a very effective offensive player as well. Every piece of data we have says he was somewhere between the 2nd and 4th best player of the post-Jordan era. Even a broken down post-injury version that couldn't score at the same level late in his career in Boston was having Russell/Wilt level impact as a one-way player whenever he was on the floor. He deserves this.

Alternate: Shaquille O'Neal: Already made the case for him last thread. Impeccable 12 year prime where his teams were just as dominant as Duncan's across a vast variety of different teammates. He won 4 titles over that span without ever winning <50 games or losing in the first round.

Nominate: David Robinson: Much like KG, he's a tippy top all-time defender who was also a force offensively and just didn't have a good supporting cast around him until late in his career. Going back, it's easy to remember the championships as all Duncan, but the 1999 team at least was very much a 1a/1b scenario. You can make a very good case Robinson was more important for that ring than Kobe was for any of the 3-peat rings with Shaq. If we had impact data for Robinson's prime, I think we'd likely be seeing him on a much higher level as even what he did post-prime was incredible. From age 32-37, Robinson had an on/off of +6.1 in the regular season and +18.9 in the playoffs despite trying to stagger with Duncan as much as possible. He's another guy that easily could have been remembered as a top 5 player all-time in better circumstances.

[OhayoKD]

It's semantics, but saying the defense "became bad" seems like a slight overstatement [to me]; at least without a modifier like "somewhat bad" or similar. Relative to offenses played against, they averaged at +1.15 rDRTG per series, or +1.4 rDRTG if weighted for games played.
That's a little bad, sure. But not BAD bad.

Fair enough. Nonetheless it's a pretty big fall from "best in the league". Moreover it's one which is larger than their opponent-adjusted increase on offense.

I also note their DREB% was either elite or super-elite in three of four series (ironically, the ONE time it wasn't was the series their defense held up well regardless).
And lastly I note their ability to keep opponents off the FT-line was not just bad, but downright awful in three of four series.

So the water is more than a little muddy as far as the blame can be placed more on the Laker big men.

Appreciate the breakdown and I'd agree it wasn't all Shaq or the Lakers bigs but
-> shaq probably is not the big you would want if you wanted to limit opponent 3-point shooting
-> to an extent, what a player offers as a paint-protector can influence the freedom perimiter defenders have to contest and defend shots(I would actually say the Lakers had decent perimeter defenders)
-> none of this really addresses what 70's notes about opposing fg% in the paint.

I mantain Shaq is at least partially to blame here though I acknowledge matchups play a factor here(rasheed). If nothing else, it gives me pause when people try to separate 2000 shaq from all the other Shaq's or when he's hyped as "unstoppable". Shaq's teams were never really unstoppable with the exception of 2001 when a certain teammate put up an uncharacteristically fantastic postseason(on both-ends of the court). Why is Shaq being credited as a guy no one could stop?

And fwiw, if pointing out how the defense declined in this particular season, we might also point out that their already good offense (of which he was also the anchor) became even better in the playoffs. Relative to defenses played against:

+12.2 rORTG against Sacramento, in no small part due to a ridiculous 38% OREB%, with Shaq grabbing a series best 5.8 OReb/game. Their TOV% was also elite, and [despite avg 29/17/3] Shaq committed just 2.2 topg.

+10.6 rORTG against Phoenix, again in no small part because the Laker OREB% was through the roof (with Shaq snaring 6.0 ORebs per game.......more than Phoenix's top two offensive rebounders COMBINED; the next-highest Laker averaged just 1.6 oreb/game).

+6.5 rORTG against Portland, mostly due to eFG% (with Shaq +2.5% to the full team average in the series), and FTAr (with Shaq garnering 14.1 FTA/game).

+9.0 rORTG against Indiana, with Shaq dropping 38 ppg (no other Laker managed even as much as 16) on 61.1% FG%, while turning it over only 2.2x per game, and grabbing 5.7 oreb/game (next highest on the team was 1.5). And though he couldn't make them worth a damn, he avg 15.5 FTA/game (no one else on the team even avg as many as 3.5). I rarely use the term, but he was truly "carrying" the offense in that series.

And that is all fair, but just like we do not put all the blame on Shaq for the defense, I do not think he was responsible for all of their offensive increase either. Even if we attributed all of the Lakers improved 3-point shooting to Shaq, that still leaves a massive minutes increase for Kobe(with marginal per-possession improvement if you trust Ben's box-breakdowns)

I might also mention, as counter-point to this criticism, that the very next year we saw the exact OPPOSITE phenomenon: the Laker defense was mediocre to slightly poor in the rs, but then became ELITE in the playoffs.

Sure, though I suppose we get down to how the credit should be distributed(and perhaps also who we blame for the regular season). I would note Horace Grant was added mid-season. Not a big deal for the regular-season, but I do think he was a very valuable playoff player much like a "washed" Ben Wallace was in 2008.

Kobe was also phenomenal those playoffs and unless we think Shaq's "gravity" was only really a factor for the 2001 playoffs, I do not think it is fair to argue that jump was simply a byproduct of Shaq's "dominance". And here in lies part of the rub:

Shaq seems to be given most or all the credit when his teams improve but is spared alot of the blame when his teams regress and I don't think that really tracks with what's going on granularly. And while I can certainly see how Shaq fouling out defenders and forcing teams to put unskilled bigs can benefit the Lakers beyond what is shown in box...can't the same be said for what he doesn't offer(relative to other offensive mega-stars) as a ball-handler/floor-general?

This is part of why I think it's noteworthy that "adjusted" metrics really do not like Shaq the way he seems to be evaluated. Heck in certain sets(cheema), he's really not looking that much better than Kobe in his best stretches despite the latter still not being nominated.

Do I think Kobe was as good as Shaq? No. But it doesn't make sense to me that one is treated as this nebula that generated everything his team achieved, while the other seems to be seen as a guy who wasn't --that-- good and just got really lucky.

Both won a bunch, both have significant holes/limitations to what they can do on both ends, and both aren't really as statistically dominant as their perception would suggest they should be. Yet there seems to be a big gulf in how they're treated and I don't really understand why. Were the 3 fmvps really worth that much more than Kobe's 2?