Jordan vs Shaquille O'Neal

[Shanghai Kid]

MJ is better IMO.

And he's better than Lebron also.

[pipfan]

Shaq could have been the GOAT, maybe should have been the GOAT. But, his work ethic was not there.

Top 10 for sure, I have him in the 2nd tier with Magic, Duncan, Wilt, Russell. But KAJ, LBJ and MJ are the GOAT tier for me

Of course, MJ has the near-perfect narrative that helps his case

[Cavsfansince84]

Shaq could have been the GOAT, maybe should have been the GOAT. But, his work ethic was not there.

Top 10 for sure, I have him in the 2nd tier with Magic, Duncan, Wilt, Russell. But KAJ, LBJ and MJ are the GOAT tier for me

Of course, MJ has the near-perfect narrative that helps his case

Idk, I think we say that about Shaq but the truth is that he a. lacked great defensive awareness and mobility(ya sure people bring up very early Shaq but he was going to fill out eventually) and b. had the ft flaw regardless so even if he stays closer to 300lb and misses less games does it really make him a goat candidate? idk. I think he'd still be just below that tier(which is sort of where he is now). I think people sort of wrongly assume he could have been a Hakeem level defender had he kept his weight down and I don't think he had it in him.

[lessthanjake]

There's a very big gap in their stats. Traditional and advanced. https://stathead.com/basketball/versus-finder.cgi?request=1&seasons_type=perchoice&player_id1=jordami01&p1yrfrom=1985&p1yrto=1995&player_id2=onealsh01&p2yrfrom=1994&p2yrto=2004

You can pull up stathead and compare their stats like this to see who has more green boxes filled with other players yet they aren’t better. Watch the game and look at meaningful stats to determine who impacts the court more.

I think it’s safe to say that a lot of people *did* watch the game when these two guys played, and the vast majority came away with the conclusion that Jordan was better. This isn’t an issue of advanced stats running contrary to peoples’ general consensus from watching the game. It all goes in the same direction.

[EmpireFalls]

Shaq definitely drew more attention from defenses, but I hesitate to say that means he is truly better.

[OhayoKD]

I don't see how it was close on offense, to be honest.
jordon was easily a tier above.
Shaq was LOOKING dominant because of HOW he was dominating, but real Shaq was not always getting the ball deep to dunk over people, And he was not really winning big when he didn't have an all time great guard next to him. The guy went from Penny to Kobe to Wade!

You don't win repeat titles without a really, really good team. That's basic. Extended contention occurs with dynasty-level talent.

If it's a basic fact then I presume you've made some attempt at seeing if it can be falsified?

Going off what you have presented as evidence for team-quality:

The Celtics were a 39-33 team the year prior to Russell's rookie season. Cousy and Sharman were both top-5 in the MVP vote and All-NBA 1st Team.

The following repeat titles would have come without a "very good team"

-> Russell, 60-62, 68/69
-> Hakeem, 94/95
-> Shaq, 2000-2002
-> Lebron Miami, 2012/2013

If we are open to near-repeat titles being used as evidence, the 15/16 cavs and the 88/89 Lakers also seem pretty damning for this theory.

Maybe you reject this standard, but if there is not an acceptable level of evidence that can render you unsure of your assumption, then there' no real reason to treat that assumption as a "basic" fact.

[tsherkin]

The following repeat titles would have come without a "very good team"

-> Russell, 60-62, 68/69
-> Hakeem, 94/95
-> Shaq, 2000-2002
-> Lebron Miami, 2012/2013

Have you looked at their performance during the actual title run? The Rockets overperformed their RS selves pretty notably in the playoffs. The roster name talent wasn't remarkable, but the system/fit was, and then they got quite a lot from Cassell and Horry in particular.

Maybe you reject this standard, but if there is not an acceptable level of evidence that can render you unsure of your assumption, then there' no real reason to treat that assumption as a "basic" fact.

I very much disagree with your assessment of those Celtics. And the Rockets, frankly, since they played at a different level in the PS compared to the RS. And the three-peat Lakers were a very good team. They were, of course, HEAVILY top-loaded rather than deep, but they had excellent spacing and sound roleplayers. Their bench was weak, that's about it.

And Lebron's title Heat? Also very good. Not really sure how you could try arguing otherwise...

[OhayoKD]

The following repeat titles would have come without a "very good team"

-> Russell, 60-62, 68/69
-> Hakeem, 94/95
-> Shaq, 2000-2002
-> Lebron Miami, 2012/2013

Have you looked at their performance during the actual title run? The Rockets overperformed their RS selves pretty notably in the playoffs. The roster name talent wasn't remarkable, but the system/fit was, and then they got quite a lot from Cassell and Horry in particular.

And by performance you mean their BBR box-stats next to a center who drew triples at the post on one end, and was the most effective deterrent in the league on the other? This is why we isolate for variables. And there is no better way to isolate for the variable of the player you are trying to take out of the equation, then to see how that team is able to do without benefitting or struggling from that player's strengths or weaknesses. The Rockets were bad without Hakeem, didn't suffer when his second most acclaimed teammate(most acclaimed of the 94 run) missed a substantial stretch of games and then improved in the playoffs coinciding with a massive jump from Olajuwon both in terms of scoring and in terms of creation(the latter likely greatly benefitting the other player's "performance"). What is your basis for arguing they'd be very good with an average center?

Maybe you reject this standard, but if there is not an acceptable level of evidence that can render you unsure of your assumption, then there' no real reason to treat that assumption as a "basic" fact.

I very much disagree with your assessment of those Celtics.[/quote]
Yeah but the only evidence you've offered with meaningful explanatory value is their record without Russell, something that immediately turns against you if you look at anything other than a year 11 years removed from the titles in question. The Celtic's most dominant stretch came with Russell playing 12 more minutes than anyone else, being bad without him, and the most decorated of the teammates you brought of playing low minutes or retiring.

You've also danced around 1971, where the Celtics replaced Russell and were still not very good despite having a better team than the russell-less celtics of 1969(who looked as bad without as the 1970 celtics).

You do not have evidence to offer here yet you are presenting "you can't win repeat titles" as some universal truth. It's just poor empirical practice. Theories need to actually be able to explain/predict things to be taken as more than convenient narratives

And the Rockets, frankly, since they played at a different level in the PS compared to the RS.

And do you think that they'd be capable of doing to the same degree with an average center as opposed to the biggest postseason elevator of the era?

And the three-peat Lakers were a very good team. They were, of course, HEAVILY top-loaded rather than deep, but they had excellent spacing and sound roleplayers. Their bench was weak, that's about it.

Not by the evidence you've chosen to use.

And Lebron's title Heat? Also very good. Not really sure how you could try arguing otherwise...

Because I believe in using evidence to check my priors not reinforce them. By your line of reasoning, they were average/slightly below average without Lebron those years and that doesn't change if you adjust for wade no lebron games or minutes.

Whether I think the team was truly that in the playoffs(When healthy yes, overall, no), is not a good reason to be inconsistent with reasoning. What evidence would you need to see to accept that "you can't win back to back titles without a very good team" is unlikely to be true?

I would hope there is some treshold because if there isn't, then I'm not sure why you're making these sorts of claims. "This is basic but also I refuse to accept anything that might call into question it being true as legitimate" is not a valid approach imo

[DCasey91]

Majority vs minority + outliers always happen.

You don't need basketball evidence, it's statistical governance. Through and through

The majority of the time very good teams backed behind a 1/2 punch and some cases of 1/2/3 traditionally speaking is the way to go.

Now depth and quality can vary greatly from side to side per championship year, strength of comp, strength of team once again has the same peer view

Majority/minority + outlier

Laments terms some lists have definetly gone or gone way over .500 without their 1st option and sometimes way under

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realise for example the Bucks with Jrue/Lopez/Middleton out performed the Nuggets when Jokic/Giannis missed time (not that Jokic missed much).

So yes championship winning teams can have "sub par" ish lists outside the superstar/superstars compared to the overall totality of all championships and these are just a few points as to but the majority of the time they were good/great lists because you would think that would be the case the majority of the time basic logic applies here.

For dynastic potential you'll need continuity for starters, and a level of elite excellence across the board. Bulls, Lakers, Celtics, GSW, Spurs share common denominators from top down starting at the FO It's a very very basic way of achieving sustainable models.

Anyway thanks for reading my rant.

It's Jordan but ill always dispel mythos when it comes to him or anyone else for that matter.

It's a fact Shaq got doubled and triple teamed a f ton more than the other did, doesn't mean he's better.

[OhayoKD]

Majority vs minority + outliers always happen.

You don't need basketball evidence, it's statistical governance. Through and through

You used an abudance of words, and space, to say "the outliers are noise because I think so"

[DCasey91]

Majority vs minority + outliers always happen.

You don't need basketball evidence, it's statistical governance. Through and through

You used an abudance of words, and space, to say "the outliers are noise because I think so"

?? Go read the meaning of comprehension

Where did I say noise ??

I really cbf with posters that are bad at comprehension

Read back what you wrote a couple of posts ago something you said was straight out illogical.

I actually want to see if you can find it

[lessthanjake]

The problem with a statement that you need a “very good team” to win repeat titles is that “very good team” is a wholly subjective bar. And when given leeway to apply subjective judgments, people’s judgments will inevitably be affected by their ideological commitments to downplay the contribution/value of their favorite players’ teammates. So any debate about the underlying question of whether you need a “very good team” to win repeat titles will basically just devolve into someone saying “My favorite player(s) had no help, so you’re wrong” and responses saying “No, his team was very talented and/or fit really well.” It doesn’t seem productive, and just seems like it’d involve going down almost entirely irrelevant rabbit holes about the favorite player(s) of whoever decides to challenge the assertion.

I believe the way this came up here was someone pointing out that Shaq only really won big when he had all-time great guards, and then tsherkin said you don’t win without a very good team. And, since then, there has been multiple people doing variations of the “My favorite player that this thread is not about had no help, so you’re wrong” thing. I think that’s mostly just missing the forest for the trees, though, and getting too hung up on feeling the need to dispute the potential implications on other subjects of someone’s exact wording. But I don’t think the specifics of tsherkin’s statement matters that much. Tsherkin was basically just saying that Shaq had good teammates and that he’s not alone in that regard when it comes to great players that have won a lot, so we shouldn’t hold it against Shaq much that he didn’t win titles without an all-time great guard. And that seems right to me. Importantly, it’s also directionally right when it comes to the actual comparison in this thread, since Jordan had Pippen (though of course people can differ on exactly who was better between Pippen and Shaq’s best teammates).

However, I think the counterpoint to what tsherkin said is that it may not be addressing one of the main implications of the point he was responding to. In particular, I think the argument tsherkin was responding to wasn’t just downplaying Shaq’s success when his teams were winning titles, but also implicitly talking about what Shaq looked like in the brief periods in his career where he didn’t have that. And this raises an interesting question. Do we think Shaq looked as offensively dominant in his early years with the Lakers? His early Lakers teams were still pretty good, but he didn’t have an all-time great guard with him (of course, he did have Kobe, but Kobe wasn’t great yet). I’m inclined to say Shaq was still pretty offensively great in those years, such that I wouldn’t really say Shaq looked like a particularly different player simply by virtue of having or not having an all-time great guard with him (though having an all-time great guard naturally helped Shaq achieve more team success). But it’s an interesting question IMO. And definitely more interesting and more on-point than Round #19840983024 of “Did LeBron have no help?”

[Joao Saraiva]

Well to start... accodales and team results. Very big gap in MVPs and FMVPs. Also more rings for MJ.

Game wise...
MJ is the ultimate perimeter scorer. His scoring and efficiency is absurd for a guard in an era where he wasn't jacking 3s at a superb rate.

MJ was constantly at a very high level. Shaq was not. I'd say it's easier to argue Shaq had a higher peak than MJ, rather than Shaq had a better prime than MJ. MJ sustained that peak, he is the consistency epitome. Shaq 00-02 was fantastic, but even then he played less than 70 games twice. I'd argue there is no chance of taking O'Neals' best years and make them rival 88-93 MJ.

People talk about Shaq's gravity... and rightfully so. But MJ literally isolated and played 1 on 1 a lot and it showed tremendously good results. He was also a good playmaker despite not being a very willing one all the time. Still when needed he was definitely a capable passser. And don't forget the sequence of MJ leading offense and getting asssists in double digits or his 91 NBA finals, when his playmaking rivaled Magic's for the series.

He attacked the rim relentlessly too, so how much less of a gravity thing can he have vs Shaq? Maybe people are thinking way too much about older MJ.

I think peak wise it's a good comparison. Career wise MJ sustained excellence way longer than Shaq. Maybe cause one was working hard all the time and the other didn't, but what ifs can't be used on ranking all time greats.

[OhayoKD]

Still when needed he was definitely a capable passser. And don't forget the sequence of MJ leading offense and getting asssists in double digits or his 91 NBA finals, when his playmaking rivaled Magic's for the series. .

This is grade-a box-score watching:

Spoiler:

For a comparative frame, Hakeem, per-assist, had 2.3 DTOs and 2.9 defenders affected in HOU-LAC game 5 and HOU-SEA game 7(93, 12 total assists). Over 8 assists in the first game of the 2009 ECF I had Lebron with 2.4 DTOs per assist and 3 defenders affected on average. Over 8 on video Jordan assists in the 5th game of the 1991 finals, I gave Jordan, per assist, 1.5 DTOs and 1.9 total defenders affected on average.

...

For Magic’s 17 tracked assists, I gave him 37 DTOs, 19 EDTOs, and a total of 3 ADAs giving Magic a total of 40 defenders affected; This also gives Magic per-assist rates of 2.2 defenders taken out, 1.1 extra defenders taken out, and 2.4 total defenders affected.

Spoiler:

In 40 Possessions I gave MJ 20 DTOs and 11 ADAs. I also credited Jordan with 9 creations: 1 great, 3 good, 4 decent creations, and 1 weak. Part of me wonders if that “great” even qualifies as “good” but generally 3 defenders taken out has been my bar for great and I’ve decided to mostly leave the “contextual” stuff for the analysis section rather than the raw tracking. Jordan showcased pretty good shot-selection and a willingness to pass, but it seems a combination of relative deficits in terms of build and vision prevented Jordan from seeing and/or hitting on some of the more ambitious reads/windows.

...

Over the 40 tracked possessions, I gave Lebron 30 DTOs and an additional 14 ADAs. I also gave Lebron 12 creations: 3 great, 3 good, 4 decent, and 2 weak.

...

Just going by what was counted Lebron has a significant advantage creating 10 more DTOs (66% more) and affecting 14 more defenders overall (40% more). I’m not sure contextual considerations really help Jordan either.

Jordan's playmaking that series didn't even rival a 22-year old Lebron, never mind prime Magic. Being the second-last person to touch the ball as many times as another player does not mean you are a comparable playmaker. See: Point-Jordan:

Spoiler:

jordan archangel, 13-11, +2 net, with a team that won 27 before he got there

lebron archangel, 11-0 +8 net with starters(- mo williams) that won at an 18-win pace(15 by record) without Lebron but with Mo-Williams

Both averaged roughly 10 assists on similar points yet the actual all-time playmaker evidences dramatically more lift than the facsimile.

Lebron has significantly more gravity than Jordan and accordingy outclasses Jordan in playmaking impact, even when Jordan gets the same or more assists. Shaq has even more gravity than Lebron.

Jordan "rivalling" Magic in assist averages does not garuntee he is a better playmaker than Shaq and it certainly doesn't make him a rival in terms of creating for others than the best or 2nd best playmaker in history.