RealGM Top 100 #5

[Fencer reregistered]

If this were a competition for "greatest ever at filling a box score", Shaq would have a strong claim over Bird.

I'll repost this Shaq vs. Bird:

More seasons: 19-13 That advantage goes down a lot when you compare minutes played.
More prime seasons: 15-12
Better Prime: Shaq was 30-15 for 3 straight playoffs. Bigger numbers doesn't prove "better".
Longer Peak: 12 years-10 years
All-star games: 15-12
All-NBA teams: 15-10 (Shaq had harder competition) Given that Shaq played much of his career in an era legendarily weak for centers, that' claim is one of the reasons I didn't take this post seriously before.
Better Peak: Shaq 2000-2002>Bird 84-86 On what do you base that?
Better PER and WS
More rings: 4 to 3
Better defender On what do you base that?
-Shaq had 5 straight PER titles, and 10 FG% titles
Playoffs:
-Shaq's Pts, rebs, asts went up
-Bird's numbers declined in the playoffs
This is what Shaq did in the playoffs from 98-03:
31-10-3
27-12-2
31-15-3
30-15-3
29-13-3
27-15-4


If you just put up Shaq's first 13 seasons vs. Bird, it's no comparison.

Shaq averaged 26-12-3, 3 blks, 58 FG%, Better PER, better WS. In the playoffs he averaged 27-13-3.

I don't think anyone in history can compare to Shaq's 98-03 6 year prime other than MJ and Kareem.

I've yet to see anybody respond to this post.

For the sake of accuracy, Shaq did not have three straight 30-15 playoffs, he had two.

[lorak]

A couple people are wondering about Garnett vs Robinson, and I think it's a good question for them to be asking.

I think one thing to really understand is the longevity here. Y'all have probably seen my statements about Garnett's defense based on +/-. By those metrics, Garnett is still the best defender in the league per minute in his 16th year, and in the top 2 or 3 by total impact. That's stunning.

Now remember: Robinson only played 7 years before his big injury, and after that you could only even argue for 1 more year as being within his prime. This gap is a big difference.

It's sad that Robinson lost two years in the army.
In comparison with KG, he also lost four in NCAA. That's total 6 years, most of them his athletic prime.

[ronnymac2]

If this were a competition for "greatest ever at filling a box score", Shaq would have a strong claim over Bird.

I'll repost this Shaq vs. Bird:

More seasons: 19-13 That advantage goes down a lot when you compare minutes played.
More prime seasons: 15-12
Better Prime: Shaq was 30-15 for 3 straight playoffs. Bigger numbers doesn't prove "better".
Longer Peak: 12 years-10 years
All-star games: 15-12
All-NBA teams: 15-10 (Shaq had harder competition) Given that Shaq played much of his career in an era legendarily weak for centers, that' claim is one of the reasons I didn't take this post seriously before.
Better Peak: Shaq 2000-2002>Bird 84-86 On what do you base that?
Better PER and WS
More rings: 4 to 3
Better defender On what do you base that?
-Shaq had 5 straight PER titles, and 10 FG% titles
Playoffs:
-Shaq's Pts, rebs, asts went up
-Bird's numbers declined in the playoffs
This is what Shaq did in the playoffs from 98-03:
31-10-3
27-12-2
31-15-3
30-15-3
29-13-3
27-15-4


If you just put up Shaq's first 13 seasons vs. Bird, it's no comparison.

Shaq averaged 26-12-3, 3 blks, 58 FG%, Better PER, better WS. In the playoffs he averaged 27-13-3.

I don't think anyone in history can compare to Shaq's 98-03 6 year prime other than MJ and Kareem.

I've yet to see anybody respond to this post.

For the sake of accuracy, Shaq did not have three straight 30-15 playoffs, he had two.

What claim does Bird have over Shaq? If Shaq does indeed have the advantage in the stats, where does Bird make it up?

And once again, your claim that Bird doesn't have black marks is incorrect. He had a back injury that robbed him of at least some of his prime; therefore, he lacks longevity of prime that the other players he is being compared to possess.

BTW, you say Shaq played in a weak era. Yet, pre-peak Shaq held his own against some of the best centers ever at their absolute peaks.

To be fair, Bird played in the golden age of the small forward. However, the power forwards of the age sucked, and the small forwards, though great players, didn't have anybody- outside of Julius Erving in the beginning of the decade- who could make a claim as a top 15 peak/prime player all-time. Pre-peak Shaq had to face Hakeem and Robinson at their peaks.

[Doctor MJ]

It's sad that Robinson lost two years in the army.
In comparison with KG, he also lost four in NCAA. That's total 6 years, most of them his athletic prime.

Agreed.

[Doctor MJ]

If this were a competition for "greatest ever at filling a box score", Shaq would have a strong claim over Bird.

In all honesty, I think Shaq has a great claim over Bird based on peak, and it's hard to give Bird a clear longevity edge.

For me personally, the problem for Shaq comes from his negative intangibles and their effects on his teams over his career. Easier to do the big man comparison, and there it's really hard for me to see drafting Shaq on my team over Hakeem or Duncan. Bird's a less apple to apple comparison, but obviously I'm a big believer in the non-stats impact of Magic & Bird.

[Dr Positivity]

Just realized, giving Duncan credit for a longer prime was a mistake because he misses the 00 playoffs. Both guys give 9 years in the playoffs in their prime.

I'm still voting for Duncan because I feel like their careers line up very nicely, with both guy's early cores and titles bleeding into the Parish/McHale and Manu/Parker years where they win 2 in 3 years in their complete prime - and winning %s, 57 W+ contending seasons every year no matter the team are there for both. Duncan's impact is as apparant to me, it's not as flashy or "transcendent", but it's in the results. But IMO you can draw a serious connection between Duncan's 4 titles and Bird's 3 and some of Bird's playoff years vs Duncan's 2003. In particular you look at 82, 83, 85 vs 2003. Did Bird leave a title on the table in 82, 83 or 85? Did Duncan add an extra title in that Robinson-ManuParker bridge year that team had no business getting? I think you can make the case that it's on Duncan's merit that he found a way to sneak in that extra title through superior playoff consistency, and then matched Bird the rest of their careers. The counter would be Bird's Celtics would've won more if not for jacked Lakers and Detroit teams, San Antonio got to play a disassembling 03 Lakers and lost to an even more disassembled 04 team, lost to the 06 Mavs and beat a soft 07 Suns. The counter to that would be the Celtics played more talented teams, but had more talent and more years of it together, with 84-88 being nearly all cylinders Bird/McHale/Parish/DJ vs really just 05-07 for full cylinders Duncan/Manu/Parker and they almost 3peated. The big counter for Bird would be "who cares, Bird was better". But the real reason I'm talking about this is I don't see clearly more impact on Bird's end, when you look at how many games the Spurs won year in and out with all different cores. Magic, Bird, Duncan is a virtual tie to me. So you have to look deeper to break it. And to me Duncan was the most consistent playoff performer and was rewarded for it

[Fencer reregistered]

It's sad that Robinson lost two years in the army.

On the other hand, he DID have a chance to be a four-star admiral.

[Fencer reregistered]

What claim does Bird have over Shaq? If Shaq does indeed have the advantage in the stats, where does Bird make it up?

Intangibles, passing, handle, shooting range, defense, diversity of skill set (for those who care about the golly-gee-whiz factor).

Shaq scored after somebody threw him an entry pass. Bird threw the entry passes to Kevin McHale.

Bird led the break. Bird threw the outlet pass to start the break. Bird threw the full-court inbounds pass. Bird made one of the most famous defensive plays in NBA history. Bird wasn't a crunch-time liability due to free throw shooting.

Bird did many things that Shaq didn't, and that may or may not have gotten on the stat sheet.

[colts18]

Shaq was a better defender than Bird. There is a reason why his team tried to avoid him matching up against the top SF of that era (Wilkins, Dantley, etc.)

I posted this in another thread, but it's relevant here:

Here are Shaq's numbers head to head vs. some of the top centers of his era:
Mourning:
Shaq: 30-12-3 57 FG% (13-3 W-L)
Mourning: 21-9-1 44 FG% (Mourning's decline doesn't factor because Shaq played him 1 time after 2002)

Mutombo:
Shaq: 22-12-2, 52 FG% (17-7)
Mutombo: 8-9-0, 50 FG%
playoffs:
Shaq: 33-16-5, 57 FG% (4-1)
Mutombo: 17-12-0, 60 FG%

Robinson:
Shaq: 26-12-2, 54 FG% (11-12)
Robinson: 19-10-3, 47 FG%
Playoffs:
Shaq: 25-13-3, 52 FG% (9-8)
Robinson: 10-7-1, 45 FG% (all past Robinson's prime, but he had Duncan for help)

Ewing:
Shaq: 29-12-3, 54 FG% (15-11)
Ewing: 21-11-2, 44 FG%

Olajuwon:
Shaq: 22-12-4, 54 FG% (14-6)
Olajuwon: 18-9-3, 45 FG%
playoffs:
Shaq: 29-11-5, 56 FG% (3-5)
Olajuwon: 23-9-3, 47 FG% (so much for him dominating Shaq in the playoffs)

Ben Wallace:
Shaq: 25-10-3, 59 FG% (13-10)
Wallace: 6-9-1 51 FG% (his offensive numbers are irrelevant)
playoffs:
Shaq: 22-9-1, 61 FG% (8-14)
Wallace: 8-11-2, 47 FG% (again its irrelevant)

So Shaq was over 50 FG% against every single one of these guys and had a better FG% than these guys in the regular season and postseason with the exception of Mutombo's 2001 playoff which Shaq makes up with his dominating performance. He had a 63% regular season win% against these guys. He held all the guys who were good offensively (Robinson, Ewing, Olajuwon, and Mourning) to under 50 FG% in both the playoffs and regular season.

[Fencer reregistered]

When Bird was finally beaten for all-NBA team slots, it was by guys like Malone and Barkley and Pippen and Nique and Worthy, all of whom will make our Top 100 list, and in most cases Top 50.

When Shaq was finally beaten, it was by Dwight Howard, Amare Stoudamire, and Yao Ming.

[An Unbiased Fan]

What claim does Bird have over Shaq? If Shaq does indeed have the advantage in the stats, where does Bird make it up?

Intangibles, passing, handle, shooting range, defense, diversity of skill set (for those who care about the golly-gee-whiz factor).
.

Even though I'm down on Shaq's defensive effort, he was still better than Bird.

[Baller 24]

That criteria is kinda arbitrary. KG won the MVP in 04', and lost in the WCF. DRob won the MVP in 1995, and lost to Hakeem's Rockets. It's hard give KG so much credit for 08' when his Minny team was awful the year before. He went to a team with Pierce & Allen. And had Thibs install that great defensive scheme(which also turned around the Bulls). DRob was a huge part of the 99' title. He still put up 16/10 on 56% TS.

Yes, but the sole found core of that team was Garnett, not Pierce, not Allen, not Rondo, you need the right players to make a defense that strong, and Garnett got it done. He was the sole foundation of how that team played, and while I acknoledge Robinson's significant impact on the '99 Spurs, but Garnett's was much more essential--Duncan-esque.

As for defense......

Drob's team's DRtgs:
1989, before DRob - 107.9(#13)
1990 - 104.2(#3)
1991 - 103.3(#1)
1992 - 104.1(#1)
1993 - 106.8(#10)
1994 - 104.6(#9)
1995 - 105.4(#5)
1996 - 103.5(#3)
1997, DRob's hurt - 112.3(#29)

1998, paired with TD - 99.4(#2)
1999, paired with TD - 95.0(#1)

So what we see is that DRob is the better defensive anchor. And that when he finally got defensive help, the Spurs were even better.


KG's team;s DRtgs:
1996 - 109.8(#20)
1997 - 107.1(#15)
1998 - 107.1(#23)
1999 - 101.5(#11)
2000 - 103.4(#12)
2001 - 103.7(#16)
2002 - 105.3(#15)
2003 - 103.8(#16)
2004 - 99.7(#6)
2005 - 106.6(#15)
2006 - 104.5(#10)
2007 - 107.9(#21)
2008 - 98.9(#1)
2009 - 102.3(#2)
2010 - 103.89(#5)
2011 - 100.3(#2)

I don't see how KG is an equal defensive anchor. I didn't even inlcuded the 00' Spur years.

Lol, so you're saying Garnett doesn't even compare with Robinson as a defender anymore (despite him anchoring a historically defensive team)? Also are you looking at the actual numbers? Garnett is actually better in overall defensive rating. Either way Doc MJ, RonnyMac, ETC have summed it pretty well.

Post game isn't soley about back to the basket. DRob's post moves usually came after he blew by the defender and entered the paint. The major knock on DRob wasn't that he had no post game, but that he was soft. Hence the Mermaid tag.

Obviously, but I think many in this thread in the last page have pretty much summed up the Robinson's post game, or should I say lack of. His style was consistently exposed in the playoffs, check '94 playoff games, Karl Malone consistently figured out his face-up game where he limited him to 41% shooting, check out even the first part of the '95 playoffs, he's exposed by Mutumbo, and his the team is carried with help from Avery Johnson & Sean Elliot. His flaws are obvious, and it's noted that his playoff drop is much more significant than that of Garnett's. Again, there isn't much more to be said, everyone in this thread has pretty much summed it up.

Peak isn't relatively close either, like others have said. And he's very well a much better low-post back-to-basket player, and that part isn't even close, like others have also stated.

And KG wasn't an elite point-forward, that would be someone like Bird or Lebron. KG was a very good playmaker for a big, but it comes nowhere close to making up for his lack of efficiency.

Garnett played significant amounts of SF, and he was very well considered an elite point forward. He would run the offense, it was established around him, and he would get the ball exactly where it belongs. Another example is Chris Webber and his point forward abilities with the Kings, but Garnett is worlds better.

[Fencer reregistered]

Shaq was a better defender than Bird. There is a reason why his team tried to avoid him matching up against the top SF of that era (Wilkins, Dantley, etc.)

A two-word reason comes to mind: Kevin McHale. He was an elite defender.

[Fencer reregistered]

Even though I'm down on Shaq's defensive effort, he was still better than Bird.

I'll confess that they're both contenders for the distinction of most dubious NBA 2nd All-Defensive Team selections (three times each).

[colts18]

That criteria is kinda arbitrary. KG won the MVP in 04', and lost in the WCF. DRob won the MVP in 1995, and lost to Hakeem's Rockets. It's hard give KG so much credit for 08' when his Minny team was awful the year before. He went to a team with Pierce & Allen. And had Thibs install that great defensive scheme(which also turned around the Bulls). DRob was a huge part of the 99' title. He still put up 16/10 on 56% TS.

Yes, but the sole found core of that team was Garnett, not Pierce, not Allen, not Rondo, you need the right players to make a defense that strong, and Garnett got it done. He was the sole foundation of how that team played, and while I acknoledge Robinson's significant impact on the '99 Spurs, but Garnett's was much more essential--Duncan-esque.

As for defense......

Drob's team's DRtgs:
1989, before DRob - 107.9(#13)
1990 - 104.2(#3)
1991 - 103.3(#1)
1992 - 104.1(#1)
1993 - 106.8(#10)
1994 - 104.6(#9)
1995 - 105.4(#5)
1996 - 103.5(#3)
1997, DRob's hurt - 112.3(#29)

1998, paired with TD - 99.4(#2)
1999, paired with TD - 95.0(#1)

So what we see is that DRob is the better defensive anchor. And that when he finally got defensive help, the Spurs were even better.


KG's team;s DRtgs:
1996 - 109.8(#20)
1997 - 107.1(#15)
1998 - 107.1(#23)
1999 - 101.5(#11)
2000 - 103.4(#12)
2001 - 103.7(#16)
2002 - 105.3(#15)
2003 - 103.8(#16)
2004 - 99.7(#6)
2005 - 106.6(#15)
2006 - 104.5(#10)
2007 - 107.9(#21)
2008 - 98.9(#1)
2009 - 102.3(#2)
2010 - 103.89(#5)
2011 - 100.3(#2)

I don't see how KG is an equal defensive anchor. I didn't even inlcuded the 00' Spur years.

Lol, so you're saying Garnett doesn't even compare with Robinson as a defender anymore (despite him anchoring a historically defensive team)? Also are you looking at the actual numbers? Garnett is actually better in overall defensive rating. Either way Doc MJ, RonnyMac, ETC have summed it pretty well.

Post game isn't soley about back to the basket. DRob's post moves usually came after he blew by the defender and entered the paint. The major knock on DRob wasn't that he had no post game, but that he was soft. Hence the Mermaid tag.

Obviously, but I think many in this thread in the last page have pretty much summed up the Robinson's post game, or should I say lack of. His style was consistently exposed in the playoffs, check '94 playoff games, Karl Malone consistently figured out his face-up game where he limited him to 41% shooting, check out even the first part of the '95 playoffs, he's exposed by Mutumbo, and his the team is carried with help from Avery Johnson & Sean Elliot. His flaws are obvious, and it's noted that his playoff drop is much more significant than that of Garnett's. Again, there isn't much more to be said, everyone in this thread has pretty much summed it up.

Peak isn't relatively close either, like others have said. And he's very well a much better low-post back-to-basket player, and that part isn't even close, like others have also stated.

And KG wasn't an elite point-forward, that would be someone like Bird or Lebron. KG was a very good playmaker for a big, but it comes nowhere close to making up for his lack of efficiency.

Garnett played significant amounts of SF, and he was very well considered an elite point forward. He would run the offense, it was established around him, and he would get the ball exactly where it belongs. Another example is Chris Webber and his point forward abilities with the Kings, but Garnett is worlds better.

David Robinson was the anchor of some of the greatest defenses at the end of his career. The 99 Spurs while he was still good had a 95 D rating. The 03 Spurs were a real good defensive team with him on the court. When Robinson was on the court, the Spurs allowed 86 pts/48 minutes. His top 2 5 man combos allowed 84 and 73 pts/48 minutes.

[Baller 24]

Not stating he wasn't, but refuting the point that Garnett was at least his equal counterpart.

[colts18]

I'd argue that Robinson had just as much if not more impact in his 99 Title than KG did in the 2008 finals:

Robinson: 17-12, 3 blk, 1.6 TOV, .518 TS%
Garnett: 18-13, 1 blk, 2.7 TOV, .470 TS%

[An Unbiased Fan]

Nomination: Still, Garnett

A couple people are wondering about Garnett vs Robinson, and I think it's a good question for them to be asking.

I think one thing to really understand is the longevity here. Y'all have probably seen my statements about Garnett's defense based on +/-. By those metrics, Garnett is still the best defender in the league per minute in his 16th year, and in the top 2 or 3 by total impact. That's stunning.

Now remember: Robinson only played 7 years before his big injury, and after that you could only even argue for 1 more year as being within his prime. This gap is a big difference.

Peak-wise is more debatable. I won't say you're insane to prefer Robinson there. However, to those who think Robinson has the clear edge based on statistics, I think they should really look closely at the playoffs before making that call.

People will point out that Garnett's stats in some ways went down to in the playoffs, but I'd say they rely too much on shooting efficiency. Dude averaged about 25/15/5 during his last 3 playoff years in Minnesota (his true peak), and his team never truly got upset (losses to the Lakers were expected). Robinson never averaged 15 boards or 5 assists in the playoffs, and never that amoung of PPG over a 3 year period.

I understand your point, but there's a basic flaw in it. In just those 7 Prime years, DRob's career resume still surpasses KG's. Which is even more damning.

From just 90-96', DRob got 3.081 MVP Shares. From his 94-96' peak, he got 2.089 MVP shares. He also got 4 All-NBA 1st teams in the golden age for centers.

In KG's whole career, he only has 2.752 MVP shares. From his 03'-05' peak, he got 1.735 MVP shares. He also has 4 All-NBA 1st teams.

That's pretty astounding. DRob outperformed KG in his career, was better on offense & defense. I just don't see KG's case.

Also, APM numbers are about lineups, and I think it's fairly obvious that DRob's APM numbers would have been off the charts defensively, based on the talent around him. It's unfair to DRob to use a stat that only applies to KG.

[Baller 24]

EDIT.

[Doctor MJ]

I understand your point, but there's a basic flaw in it. In just those 7 Prime years, DRob's career resume still surpasses KG's. Which is even more damning.

From just 90-96', DRob got 3.081 MVP Shares. From his 94-96' peak, he got 2.089 MVP shares. He also got 4 All-NBA 1st teams in the golden age for centers.

In KG's whole career, he only has 2.752 MVP shares. From his 03'-05' peak, he got 1.735 MVP shares. He also has 4 All-NBA 1st teams.

That's pretty astounding. DRob outperformed KG in his career, was better on offense & defense. I just don't see KG's case.

Also, APM numbers are about lineups, and I think it's fairly obvious that DRob's APM numbers would have been off the charts defensively, based on the talent around him. It's unfair to DRob to use a stat that only applies to KG.

Garnett's MVP shares are clearly messed up because of his team falling apart in the middle of his career. If you truly believe he never deserved MVP-level status to begin with, that's coherent, but there's no reasonable way to look at Garnett as if his yearly MVP shares correlate exactly with his actual level of play. In my POY shares, I've got Garnett well ahead of Robinson, and even there looking at his career only based on those votings underrates him.

Re: "obvious DRob's APM numbers would have been off the charts". Certainly not in his non-existent 16th season which was the where I brought them up. But again, peak-wise, I can certainly see people picking Robinson. I find it quite debatable.