RealGM Top 100 #5

[An Unbiased Fan]

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.

DRob was battling Hakeem's Prime(94-95'), and MJ in the 72 win season for MVPs. And yet still beat out KG's entire career of MVP shares. It's not like he had great support either, especially after Rodman left in 95'.

Again, as a player DRob was better offensively, and a better defensive anchor. It seems like people are reaching like Mr. Fantastic to find points to defend KG. All the criteria we have been using before, clearly points to DRob.

[drza]

I'm in the process of finishing my job, packing my house, and moving cross-country over this time period. And it's driving me crazy, because I just can't weigh in on these threads like I'd like. I actually started this particular response this morning when there were only 7 posts in this thread, and now it's likely to be the 100th post overall. Oh well.

I've seen several posts in these threads to the extent that LeBron had a GOAT-level peak, clearly above the Garnetts of the world, that in itself could be enough to make up for others having more longevity. I happen to think that LeBron's thus far has been ridiculous, but as yet I don't see where his best tops KG's best. LeBron's advantage, IMO, comes from having hit his career marks EARLIER than KG did, but to date he hasn't surpassed him yet. I participated in an in-depth thread about this earlier this year (can't find at the moment, will link when I do) but for here let's take a look at the absolute best season from each of them so far. LeBron's 2008-09 and KG's 2003-04. If you really look, I don't see how you can say that there's a clear difference either way. But, I've been wrong before. Anyway, here it is:

Accolades:
2009 LeBron: MVP (.969 MVP shares), 1st team All NBA, 1st team All Defense
2004 Garnett: MVP (.991 MVP shares), 1st team All NBA, 1st team All Defense

These were two of the most decorated regular seasons in NBA history, with almost unanimous MVP votes. LeBron's .969 MVP share was, I believe, 5th or 6th best ever while KG's .991 was second only to Shaq's 2000 MVP vote for highest ever. And both were ultra consistent, with '09 LeBron and '04 Garnett as the only 2 players in history to win Player of the Month 4 times in a single season ( http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/19 ... Award_List ).

Traditional box score stats: regular season:
’09 LeBron: 28.4 ppg, 7.6 rpg, 7.2 apg, 1.7 spg, 1.1 bpg, 3.0 TO, 59.1% TS
’04 Garnett: 24.2 ppg, 13.9 rpg, 5.0 apg, 1.5 spg, 2.2 bpg, 2.6 TO, 54.7% TS

It should be noted that ‘09 LeBron was second in the NBA in both ppg and total points, and turned in one of the very few 28/7/7 seasons in league history. ’04 Garnett was also second in the NBA in ppg, led the league in total points, and led the league in rpg as well. In fact (double-check me on this), I believe ’04 Garnett was the only player to lead the NBA in both total points and total rebounds since the NBA/ABA merger almost 35 years ago.

Advanced box score stats: regular season
’09 LeBron: 31.7 PER (1st in NBA), 20.3 WS (1st), 27.8 Wins Produced
’04 Garnett: 29.4 PER (1st in NBA), 18.3 WS (1st), 30.5 Wins Produced

Once again, LeBron and Garnett dominate the league, going easily first in the main public advanced stats. And again, not a lot to separate the two.

Team Results and Individual Impact: Regular season
’09 LeBron: Cavs 66 – 16 (1st NBA), APM +16 (basketballvalue), Cavs 21 points better/48 on court
’04 Garnett: Wolves 58 – 24 (1st West), APM +16 (Winston), Wolves 20 points better/48 on court

Both LeBron and Garnett led their respective teams to the top of the league, with individual impact stats that were off the charts. IIRC, ’09 LeBron and ’04 Garnett posted the second and third highest on/off net +/- for a full season since 82games started keeping the stat. Here you could argue a very slight edge for LeBron, but really, it’d be extremely slight.

Box score stats: Playoffs
’09 LeBron: 35.3 ppg, 9.1 reb, 7.3 ast, 61.8% TS, 37.4 PER, 0.399 WS/48
’04 Garnett: 24.3 ppg, 14.6 ppg, 5.1 ast, 51.3% TS, 25 PER, 0.163 WS/48

Finally, we have separation! LeBron blew up the box score stats in the post season, scoring at Jordanesque rates on Shaq-like efficiency with an outstanding All Around game. KG pretty much carbon-copied his box score stats from the season, but at a lower shooting efficiency which led to the lower advanced stats. We have a winner! Or do we?

Team results and individual impact: Playoffs
’09 LeBron: Cavs lose in 6 games of ECF, Cavs 11.6 points better/48 with LeBron on court
’04 Garnett: Wolves lose in 6 games of ECF, Wolves 25.7 points better/48 with KG on court

Both teams lost in 6 in their conference finals. For the Cavs, it seemed to be about matchups. Orlando’s frontcourt was just too long and productive for the Cavs to stop, and none of LeBron’s teammates seemed to step up to help him on offense. For the Wolves, it was about injury. Both starting point guards were injured, Wally was playing with fractured vertebrae in his back, and KG was having to do EVERYTHING for his team against the Shaq/Kobe/Malone/Payton Lakers, including running the PG, playing center, and making the popcorn.

Interestingly, despite LeBron’s video game stats in the postseason, his on/off +/- wasn’t as large as it was in previous and future seasons. Garnett, despite his lower box score stats, had a MUCH higher on/off +/- in their respective postseasons. Granted, any one postseason is a relatively small sample size, especially for players that play as much as LeBron and KG. But we are talking 3 full rounds of playoffs (I rarely give much credence to on/off +/- for less than that), and across that kind of time period the numbers can start to show a clear trend. At the least, it’s another data point.

Conclusions: When looking at the absolute best seasons that LeBron and Garnett have put up to date, I just don't see how anyone could say that LeBron peaked clearly higher. From top-to-bottom, from team results to accolades to box scores to impact stats, those two seasons are about as strong and as similar as could be. The only area for potential separation is the playoffs, but while LeBron put up video game numbers Garnett still delivered at least as big of an on-court impact, if not larger (if you believe the postseason +/-). The one thing that the box scores don't measure well is defense, and while '09 LeBron was a great defender, '04 Garnett was at his defensive peak right in the time-period when he was breaking the defensive APM scale in the Ilardi measurement. If anything, to me, this is a draw. I certainly don't see a separation for LeBron that would warrant him being lifted above Garnett in a career-sense solely on the back of their peaks. LeBron's still young and still has time to improve on his peak. But to date, his peak is right there with Garnett's. If LeBron's peak is "GOAT-ish", all that says is that KG's was as well.

[colts18]

LeBron had more playoff victories in 1 playoff run before his prime than KG had in his whole 12 year Minnesota career combined.

[ElGee]

I was going to wait, but the amount of discussion Shaq and D-Rob are garnering dictates a response now I suppose. (Absolutely can't believe D-Rob is being discussed now)

First, the posts listing Shaq's accolades don't do much for me. I have him in the 6-9 pod of big men we (potentially) are all about to debate, but it's clear they are all behind Larry Bird and the first 4. Listing basic stats and accolades is something we know.

So how do I see Shaq's career? (And am I the only one who goes year-by-year through a career??)

The Salad Days
1993 - all-nba player out of the gate
1994 - same, but slightly better. First time at the dance with big boys and I think it showed
1995 - BIG year from Shaq. MVP-level stuff that I'm taking over ANY season from David Robinson.
1996-97 - I thought lowly of these years (worse than his rookie year?) because of the injuries and how well the team did without him. He just didn't seem to be there. "We will not get swept!" Only, you will, Shaq. Maybe I'm crazy and 96 and 97 are my deciding years in the Shaq saga. Maybe if you value these seasons, you should take Shaq over Bird.

The Pre-Peak
1998 - Another big year from Shaq, although I'll take the earlier defense despite slightly improved offensive game.
1999 - A small notch below the 99 season. At this point, if I'm counting, I'm giving Shaq 3 elite years -- all of which fall well short of Bird's peak run -- and a few other good all-NBA years which are worse than any Bird year from 80-88.

The Peak
2000 - GOAT-level season. It's on the super short list of peaks for me. Bird's might be better, might be worse, but it's like a coin toss. Seems like trying to argue one way or the other in this case is useless as a differentiating factor since both were so good.
2001 - Probably around KG's peak season. Defense is a little down but it's the same diesel from 00.
2002 - Misses 15 games, but basically the same as 01.

The Final Run
2003 - Now we have a year comparable to his 99 campaign IMO. Dude was fat at this point. I thought wasn't the same guy anymore.
2004 - Very similar to 03, but slightly worse.
2005 - Last elite season basically. Another small decline from 04.

That's it for prime really. (Only 13 years) 2006 is more of an all-star type season. There were many guys in the league I'd take ahead of him that year. After that, Shaq never really has any season of any relevant impact to me.

For me, a deciding factor throughout his prime is that I consider the league a little weak from 99-04. I consider his positional competition a little weaker then too. These are small things, but that, coupled with my treatment of his 96-97 season, keep O'Neal on the same line with the other 3 bigs.

[UDRIH14]

drobs first 7yrs till his injury season is still anything better then what KGs 12 seasons at the wolves...

[Fencer reregistered]

To repeat, I think we have an "Immortal Five" in Jordan, Russell, Kareem, Magic, and Bird, wherein I mean that if any of them were the GOAT in the sport, we wouldn't need to feel the sport had been deprived of admirable greatness. Just give us one of them, and we've had our Gretzky or Pele.

The next tier are guys who would be in that top tier "If only X", where X isn't that big.

Wilt -- X = more understanding of what it takes a whole team to win
Shaq -- X = a little more commitment (to staying in shape but more so to keeping his ego in check)
Duncan -- X = a little more flair
Moses -- X = a longer stretch at the top
Hakeem -- ditto, or you could call it consistency

[rrravenred]

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.

Out of interest, do you have pre/post prime figures for Ewing, Olajuwon and Robinson? Combined they played quite a few decline years against Shaq, who didn't return the favor.

[Baller 24]

He's got serious flaws in his game, and although Garnett's playoff numbers don't suggest his numbers increase, Robinson's have a significant decrease in comparison.

DRob was battling Hakeem's Prime(94-95'), and MJ in the 72 win season for MVPs. And yet still beat out KG's entire career of MVP shares. It's not like he had great support either, especially after Rodman left in 95'.

Actually in the '95 playoff run to the WCF, Robinson was at times being carried by his cast (especially games where the likes of Campbell, Divac, and Mutombo had exposed him), his numbers were dipping even before the Rockets series, he's been an underachiever in the playoffs, his style of play is consistently very easily exposed, and what exact prime was he battling of Olajuwon? even though he was the reigning champion and MVP, he still didn't receive as much recognition as Robinson or O'neal (All-NBA Third Team).

Again, as a player DRob was better offensively, and a better defensive anchor. It seems like people are reaching like Mr. Fantastic to find points to defend KG. All the criteria we have been using before, clearly points to DRob.

I don't understand this. I've been repeating arguments and you have yet to justify any of your claims to mine. Garnett's the best player on a championship team where he anchored a historic defense. Playoff numbers still side with Garnett, and the evidence suggests it isn't even close.

Better offense? In what context? Robinson's game is flawed and exposed, he has serious weaknesses in his game due to his main ability to play face-up, while he clearly has inefficiencies playing back-to-basket/low-post ball (Mutombo, Malone, Olajuwon, Williams, Campbell, Divac and Kersey), exposed them all.

Most importantly, I'll consider it debatable, but you're suggesting as to if Robinson has some kind of significant advantage over him. While you're throwing accolades out there, by your measuring metric (hate using this), you consistently nitpick statistics, where Garnett defensively is a 9x All-NBA First Team defense, compared to only 4x by Robinson, so are you going to say next that it's not a good measure of defense?

[ElGee]

LeBron had more playoff victories in 1 playoff run before his prime than KG had in his whole 12 year Minnesota career combined.

We have all agreed to acknowledge that basketball is a team sport, and individuals DON'T win games or series.

As for David Robinson, well, I have him 23rd on my sketched out list. So it's weird to be comparing him with a guy I have 11th and someone I just broke down with Magic Johnson near the top of the basketball mountain. Nonetheless, instead of going year by year (which can be done later), here's the gist of the problem with David Robinson...

He was a player whose value was arguably overstated by raw stats. I value Tyson Chandler more than most, but I don't think anyone believes he was the 5th best player in the NBA as WS/48 suggests. Robinson rebounds well, blocks shots and scores at a high efficiency. And so he looks fantastic on paper.

But as others have noted, his game had flaws and really was different against higher quality defenses because of this. Look at Robinson's peak years from 94-96:

David Robinson 1994-1996
per 36 vs. below average defenses (over 107.4): 27.1 pts 11.0 rpg 3.4 apg 61.1 TS%
per 36 vs. above average defenses (under 107.4): 24.3 pts 10.1 rpg 3.3 apg 56.4 TS%

By comparison, here is KG vs. the same defensive splits from 03-05:

Kevin Garnett 1994-1996
per 36 vs. below average defenses (over 104.2): 21.3 pts 13.1 rpg 5.5 apg 55.8 TS%
per 36 vs. above average defenses (under 104.2): 21.0 pts 12.0 rpg 4.8 apg 54.5 TS%

KG's numbers look like something we might expect. Maybe even better than expected. Whereas Robinson, over 3 years shows the same trend reflected in the playoffs. He feasts on crappy teams. Body him up like Karl Malone did and you aren't talking about a top-of-the-league offensive player anymore.

His PS declines weren't merely luck or a single series or two of defensive strategy, they were a reflection of this. His playmaking dropped too from what I saw because of this lack of a threat. And let's put it this way, there were key times during key series where it was hard to tell that he was a 25-27 point high efficiency scorer based on what was being run down the stretch by SAS. Whereas Karl Malone had a crapload run for him (and he made a lot of it) in many many series, even poor shooting ones. (Malone only had a few games in which he didn't see the rock down the stretch, and those haunt his reputation, but by all accounts this was an active shooter/creator for most of his PS career). KG is like Malone, in that watching the series one notes the overload on him and the role he is carrying leads to a decline in his SHOOTING, but all the other aspects of defense and playmaking seem to increase. The stats suggest similarity, but I see players going in the opposite direction.

Defensively, I've never really seen evidence that Garnett's defensive impact wanes in the playoffs (I always thought his rebounding was bonkers). But it was outlined more than once in the RPOY that D-Rob's teams often had defensive lapses in the playoffs.

I wondered why this was case and so I started watching a number of games. For whatever reason, he just doesn't seem to anchor himself well in the PS. He'll get lost higher in the key at times or leave his feet for blocks too often. It might be a coincidence, or what I was seeing might be overly simplistic, but it's also arguable that his defense declined too in the PS. SAS certainly had a number of playoff series with way below average defensive performances...

[Vinsanity420]

But as others have noted, his game had flaws and really was different against higher quality defenses because of this. Look at Robinson's peak years from 94-96:

David Robinson 1994-1996
per 36 vs. below average defenses (over 107.4): 27.1 pts 11.0 rpg 3.4 apg 61.1 TS%
per 36 vs. above average defenses (under 107.4): 24.3 pts 10.1 rpg 3.3 apg 56.4 TS%

By comparison, here is KG vs. the same defensive splits from 03-05:

Kevin Garnett 1994-1996
per 36 vs. below average defenses (over 104.2): 21.3 pts 13.1 rpg 5.5 apg 55.8 TS%
per 36 vs. above average defenses (under 104.2): 21.0 pts 12.0 rpg 4.8 apg 54.5 TS%

I think I am missing something - but how is this clearly in KG's favor? D-Rob dropping off against top defenses seems to descend to... KG's level?

[ElGee]

But as others have noted, his game had flaws and really was different against higher quality defenses because of this. Look at Robinson's peak years from 94-96:

David Robinson 1994-1996
per 36 vs. below average defenses (over 107.4): 27.1 pts 11.0 rpg 3.4 apg 61.1 TS%
per 36 vs. above average defenses (under 107.4): 24.3 pts 10.1 rpg 3.3 apg 56.4 TS%

By comparison, here is KG vs. the same defensive splits from 03-05:

Kevin Garnett 1994-1996
per 36 vs. below average defenses (over 104.2): 21.3 pts 13.1 rpg 5.5 apg 55.8 TS%
per 36 vs. above average defenses (under 104.2): 21.0 pts 12.0 rpg 4.8 apg 54.5 TS%

I think I am missing something - but how is this clearly in KG's favor? D-Rob dropping off against top defenses seems to descend to... KG's level?

(1) KG's defensive environment was way tougher (3.2 points worse)

EDIT: League TS% for KG was 52.1% in those years, 53.8% for D-Rob

(2) It's not a linear stats comparison. It's to illustrate their performance change against good and bad defenses.

[penbeast0]

My trouble with this comparisom is that having seen Shaq, Duncan, and Bird, none of them came close on the eye test to Wilt except prime Shaq and even prime Shaq didn't match up that well. Plus prime Shaq's intangibles are worse than Wilt's.

As for Garnett v. DRob, good discussion, enjoying it.

[ThaRegul8r]

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.

Out of interest, do you have pre/post prime figures for Ewing, Olajuwon and Robinson? Combined they played quite a few decline years against Shaq, who didn't return the favor.

I hate when people advocating for Shaq include past prime years into the numbers against other top centers in order to make Shaq look better, when one of the debits on his ledger is the fact that there was no "MDE" talk until after the greats had past their prime or retired. It's disingenuous. I've spent years catching people doing stuff like that for their favorite players, and it causes me to disregard everything they say if they're dishonest in one area, since I don't know how many other liberties they'll take. Again, state the pros and cons as they are, without embellishment. If a player is great, the ungarnished truth should be enough. I once did the numbers for Shaq vs. Robinson, Olajuwon and Ewing pre-decline years. I'll have to see if I can find them.

[MacGill]

Nice write-up on Shaq although I just have a couple of questions/comments.

I was going to wait, but the amount of discussion Shaq and D-Rob are garnering dictates a response now I suppose. (Absolutely can't believe D-Rob is being discussed now)

First, the posts listing Shaq's accolades don't do much for me. I have him in the 6-9 pod of big men we (potentially) are all about to debate, but it's clear they are all behind Larry Bird and the first 4. Listing basic stats and accolades is something we know.

So how do I see Shaq's career? (And am I the only one who goes year-by-year through a career??)

The Salad Days
1993 - all-nba player out of the gate
1994 - same, but slightly better. First time at the dance with big boys and I think it showed
1995 - BIG year from Shaq. MVP-level stuff that I'm taking over ANY season from David Robinson.
1996-97 - I thought lowly of these years (worse than his rookie year?) because of the injuries and how well the team did without him. He just didn't seem to be there. "We will not get swept!" Only, you will, Shaq. Maybe I'm crazy and 96 and 97 are my deciding years in the Shaq saga. Maybe if you value these seasons, you should take Shaq over Bird.

The Pre-Peak
1998 - Another big year from Shaq, although I'll take the earlier defense despite slightly improved offensive game.
1999 - A small notch below the 99 season. At this point, if I'm counting, I'm giving Shaq 3 elite years -- all of which fall well short of Bird's peak run -- and a few other good all-NBA years which are worse than any Bird year from 80-88.

Are you comparing pre-peak Shaq to peak Bird here at this point? And really, none of Shaq's seasons up until 99 come close or better any of Bird's 80-88. Could you explain further?

The Peak
2000 - GOAT-level season. It's on the super short list of peaks for me. Bird's might be better, might be worse, but it's like a coin toss. Seems like trying to argue one way or the other in this case is useless as a differentiating factor since both were so good.
2001 - Probably around KG's peak season. Defense is a little down but it's the same diesel from 00.
2002 - Misses 15 games, but basically the same as 01.

Am I to assume here that you really do not think too highly of Shaq? His 2000 year 'might' be better than Bird's peak season??

The Final Run
2003 - Now we have a year comparable to his 99 campaign IMO. Dude was fat at this point. I thought wasn't the same guy anymore.
2004 - Very similar to 03, but slightly worse.
2005 - Last elite season basically. Another small decline from 04.

That's it for prime really. (Only 13 years) 2006 is more of an all-star type season. There were many guys in the league I'd take ahead of him that year. After that, Shaq never really has any season of any relevant impact to me.

You make it seem like a 13 year prime, especially from a center, not to mention pound for pound the largest athlete we have seen playing at a top 10 level, like it is a bad thing? He & Wade won the title in 2006, he was still good enough to get it done, even at an agreed lower level of play from his prime.

For me, a deciding factor throughout his prime is that I consider the league a little weak from 99-04. I consider his positional competition a little weaker then too. These are small things, but that, coupled with my treatment of his 96-97 season, keep O'Neal on the same line with the other 3 bigs.

How is league strength Shaq's fault? Is it because he didn't have a Bill Russell to go up against along the same time period so we just assume that everyone he faced meant automatic easier road to the finals?

Are you comparing him against who Wilt & Russell went up against and drawing your conclusion here?

Didn't he prove in the quality bigs that he faced in his era, that his game was most dominant and truly had no equal at his position by the time his prime came?

I have ultimate respect for Bird and if I had a vote I would select him here given who is left. Given though the discussion here, especially around Wilt, I am just reading many poster's almost discounting him without real comparision.

You are a respected poster on this board, no doubt, but when reading your post it just came at me very negative about him when as a player he has accomplished so much. No disrepect to you, I believe it was Dr. MJ who was encouraging further discussion and I am always willing to listen to other perspectives.

[ElGee]

@ MacGill

Q1 Yes I am comparing those pre-peak seasons to peak-Bird seasons.

Q2 Not sure what to say -- I just called Shaq's peak one of the 6 best in NBA history. It's on the level of Bird's, and my point was people who try and differentiate them aren't making much of a claim on quality of career or overall package.

Q3 The 13 years line was sarcasm. I've outlined number of top-10 MVPs and length of primes and Shaq is clearly strong there. (Although 2006 is clearly past his prime)

Q4 It's the same strength of league adjustment I discussed with Wilt (maybe you missed it). It's not anyone's fault, it's just a minor adjustment made to understand that as impressive and dominant as someone is relative to league, if I think the league or positional challenge is weak at the time, I'm going to note it.

As for your final point about era changing, that's out of my scope. No one says you can't think about that, but it's way to complicated for me to really even entertain.

[MacGill]

My trouble with this comparisom is that having seen Shaq, Duncan, and Bird, none of them came close on the eye test to Wilt except prime Shaq and even prime Shaq didn't match up that well. Plus prime Shaq's intangibles are worse than Wilt's.

As for Garnett v. DRob, good discussion, enjoying it.

I do not understand the 'eye test' example even if posters lived and watched basketball in both times (it's a 30 year span between). Unless both faced same competition, with same rules etc, how can you say prime Shaq didn't match up that well? Just by what you observed on the court? They are all elite athlete's where the fact that we are debating shows that no one would simply have a cake walk.

No one Wilt faced was of prime Shaq's physical stature and no one Shaq faced was of Wilt's. The only example that I read is that Wilt went up against Russell (ranked #2) and lost to him more times than he won and Shaq played no one close to Russell in his prime.

How does this mean he would have the same success against Shaq? How do we not know that Wilt whips Shaq but Shaq whips Russell, then where are we at?

[MacGill]

@ MacGill

Q1 Yes I am comparing those pre-peak seasons to peak-Bird seasons.

Q2 Not sure what to say -- I just called Shaq's peak one of the 6 best in NBA history. It's on the level of Bird's, and my point was people who try and differentiate them aren't making much of a claim on quality of career or overall package.

Q3 The 13 years line was sarcasm. I've outlined number of top-10 MVPs and length of primes and Shaq is clearly strong there. (Although 2006 is clearly past his prime)

Q4 It's the same strength of league adjustment I discussed with Wilt (maybe you missed it). It's not anyone's fault, it's just a minor adjustment made to understand that as impressive and dominant as someone is relative to league, if I think the league or positional challenge is weak at the time, I'm going to note it.

As for your final point about era changing, that's out of my scope. No one says you can't think about that, but it's way to complicated for me to really even entertain.

Thanks for clarifying

[Vinsanity420]

(1) KG's defensive environment was way tougher (3.2 points worse)

EDIT: League TS% for KG was 52.1% in those years, 53.8% for D-Rob

(2) It's not a linear stats comparison. It's to illustrate their performance change against good and bad defenses.

The raw D-Rating indicates it was way tougher, Yes. But at that time, the league's average D-rating happened to be higher... I don't know if it makes sense to compare D-Rating across eras. No one really takes that into account while comparing shooting stats across eras. (Unless it was way back, like in the 60's). The average league TS% indicates that both D-Rob and KG were shooting around 2% above the average rate vs Elite defenses, and D-Rob was way better vs everyone else.

[drza]

For me, this vote is like a game of rock-paper-scissors. If I compare each candidate head-to-head, I might get different winners based on the match-ups. Bird might beat Duncan, for example, who might go on to beat Shaq, who might then go on to beat Bird. Makes it extremely difficult.

The most intriguing candidate, for me, is Duncan. Because on paper, I feel like he should get the vote. He has all of the accolades and awards to battle with Bird, he's got the consistency, he has great longevity, he has no obvious weaknesses. A great candidate. The problem, for me, is that he fails the Bruce Leroy comparison. In my own personal viewing and ranking, I'm just not sure that he had the "glow" long enough. In parlance for those that never saw the Last Dragon, there wasn't a long enough stretch where I felt that Duncan was THE best player in the NBA. He shared a prime with Shaq and a peak with KG, and I thought that Shaq was the better player up until about 2002, that Duncan made a leap in 2002 that eclipsed a fading Shaq, only to then get caught a year later by a peaking KG. I believe Duncan was a beast, absolutely worthy of a potential vote here. And yet...at the moment I'm not quite convinced enough to commit to it.

Bird has a lot going for him here. He definitely had "the glow", and for years at a time. In the early/mid 80s my favorite player was Dr. J and I also liked Magic's Showtime in LA. As a result, I HATED the Celtics. And consequently, I FEARED Larry Bird. I hated how good he was. Which therefore, years later, makes me respect the heck out of him. As my viewing of the game has nuanced I can better understand his strengths and weaknesses, and admire how he utilized the heck out of his strengths and minimized his weaknesses. We've done a lot of talking thus far about the savant scorer not seeming to be the biggest impact players, but though Bird was a great scorer his all-around offense gave him one of the bigger offensive impacts of all-time. The thing is, Bird was a borderline big, and though his defense was smart and savvy it pales against what Duncan could bring to the table. Was Bird's overall impact larger than Duncan's, anyway? I don't know. It's arguable. But Duncan can at least battle with Bird, and he did it for longer. Then, there's the fact that I voted Magic as high as #3 and there's not very much at all to separate Magic and Bird. Does that then obligate me to vote for Bird at #5? Difficult.

And then, there's Shaq. Shaq, who was a dominant scorer, his generation's Wilt (who I'm still not ready to vote for yet)...but who also, as far as I can tell, had a dramatic on-court impact as well. Shaq was really declining off his peak by the time the +/- stats come online, but I'm always struck by his postseason on/off +/- in 2004...it was absurd, something like +28 on a team that went to the Finals. Kobe, Malone, Payton...IIRC their net +/- were all down in the single digits somewhere, making it blatantly obvious that Shaq was by FAR the most important Laker, even in 2004. Makes me really, really curious about what his impact numbers would have looked like closer to his peak. Shaq has the stats, the longevity, the impact on teams that did great things. As Indyfan pointed out, when stacked head-to-head it's hard to find Bird's case quantitatively. A good part of the argument against Shaq stems from his perceived (and possibly deserved) reputation as a questionable teammate/leader and the vague sense that maybe he could have done more. But it's really hard to argue with what he DID do, and...I'm not sure how much I really want to vote on TRUE intangibles. It's one thing if the "intangible" really is just something that isn't well measured, like defensive impact (see Russell) that people have lately found ways to quantify. But Shaq maybe being a poor teammate...I'm not sure how to measure that, or how much to dock him for it. I see the argument that, when compared to a Duncan without any kind of leadership question marks who also achieved similar things to Shaq in an overlapping generation, that could be a tie-breaker against Shaq. But again, there's that "glow", which Shaq did just a bit brighter...

Still undecided. But, with the uncertainty surrounding my move, I don't know what my internet access will be in the coming days so I want to put something out there now just in case. I could (and hope) to be around the re-consider and perhaps even change my vote, but for now:

Vote: Shaquille O'Neal (At the moment, I haven't seen a strong enough rebuttal to the case that Shaq did it as well as Bird at his peak, but overall did it longer. And I think Shaq's impact was just a bit larger than Duncan's. Of course, by the time your read this tomorrow both my vote and my reasoning could have changes).

Nomination: Kevin Garnett

[Fencer reregistered]

Plausibility argument for Bird: Bird's Celtics were approximately as good as Magic's Lakers, and Bird didn't have Kareem.

That said, Bird's Celtics did have more depth than Magic's Lakers.