RealGM Top 100 List #6

[mysticbb]

Vote: Larry Bird

Nomination: Kevin Garnett


Well, same as for #5, and count me as someone who is surprised that Wilt Chamberlain and Oscar Robertson won the poll the last time.

[FJS]

Vote: Larry Bird

Nominate: Lebron James

I don't get all the people so high in Garnett.
James already has done more individually than him, and he will finish up.

[drza]

May be my only post in this thread. Hope not.

Vote: Shaq
Nominate: Garnett

(Same reasons as I posted last thread)

[colts18]

The case for Shaq here especially over Bird:

Shaq vs. Bird:

More seasons: 19-13
More prime seasons: 15-12
Better Prime: Shaq averaged 30-15 for the 3peat playoffs
Longer Peak: 12 years-10 years
All-star games: 15-12
All-NBA teams: 15-10 (Shaq had harder competition)
Better Peak: Shaq 2000-2002>Bird 84-86 (at least its arguable)
Better PER and WS
More rings: 4 to 3
Better defender
-Shaq had 5 straight PER titles, and 10 FG% titles
Playoffs:
-Shaq is better in the playoffs and finals
-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.

The more I look at it, the more I think that this span could be the greatest 6 year uninterrupted peak in history.

Regular season:
28.1 PPG
11.8 Reb
3.1 AST
2.8 Turnovers
2.4 Blk
.577 FG%
.585 TS%
29.9 PER
.255 WS/48

He lead the league in PER and FG% every year from 98-02

Postseason:
29.3 PPG
13.7 Reb
3.0 AST
2.4 BLK
.554 FG%
.565 TS%
29.6 PER
.228 WS/48

During the 3peat years he averaged 30-15-3, .55 FG%, 29.3 PER (that's right, his PER was better outside the 3 peat years than during them). In the finals he averaged 36-15-4, 3 blk, 60 FG%. To put Shaq's finals run into perspective, he had a 25-10 and 52 FG% in every single game of the 15 game finals run and had 30-10 in 13 out of 15 games (including every game of Nets and Pacers series).

During this span, The Lakers are:
290-106: .732 With Shaq
33-31: .516 without Shaq

214-79: .731 with Kobe
28-7: .800 without Kobe

It's clear that Shaq was the catalyst in this run.

Here are Shaq's numbers head to head vs. some of the top centers of his era. Pay attention to the first 3, those guys combined for 10 DPOY in a 12 year span in the middle of Shaq's prime:
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%

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)

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)

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 47 FG% in both the playoffs and regular season.

This vote has to be Shaq. Longevity, Peak, Prime, accolades, playoffs all favor him.

[colts18]

My issue with this whole thing is the changing benchmarks. First guys like Wilt and Robinson are getting punished for lack of postseason success, and Russell and Magic is getting rewarded. So that would mean a guy like Shaq or Duncan would get a huge boost for his playoff success. But then, the goalposts change and now Bird gets the vote for peak play, but ignoring his playoff failures. Why is that?

[Snakebites]

Yeah, as great as this discussion has been, there have been some undeniable double standards that have emerged in these threads.

I don't think any grevious mistakes have been made, but there's simply no denying that some players have been placed under a harsher microscope than others.

I'm not really sure why. The ebb and flow of trends in Realgm opinion has always fascinated me.

[colts18]

More on Shaq's dominance from 2000-2003. He played 70 playoff games in that span. I will also put Tim Duncan's playoff numbers from 2001-2005 (79 games) in his playoff prime where he won 2 titles and coincidentally lost to Shaq in the playoffs the other 3 years. I will also add KG from 00-04 (35 games).

20 points/10 rebounds games:
Shaq: 60/70 (85.7%) games
Duncan: 48/79 (60.8%)
KG: 23/35 (65.7%)

25/10:
Shaq: 46/70 (65.7%) games
Duncan: 30/79 (38%)
KG: 13/35 (37.1%)

30/10:
Shaq: 31/70 (44.3%) games
Duncan: 17/74 (23.0%)
KG: 7/35 (20%)

30/15:
Shaq: 15/70 (21.4%) games
Duncan: 12/79 (15.2%)
KG: 6/35 (17.1%)

So in 6/7 games Shaq had 20/10, close to 2/3 of his games Shaq had 25/10 and almost half he had 30/10 and in 1/5 of his games he had 30/15.

[Vinsanity420]

See, you don't have to list the raw stats between Bird and Shaq. You have to look deeper to know what Shaq's problems were. Like the ones Kobe informs us of here -

GRAY: What was your reaction to Shaq saying the Lakers are his team, and everybody knows it?

BRYANT: It doesn't matter whose team it is. Nobody cares. I don't, Karl [Malone] doesn't, Gary [Payton] doesn't, and our teammates and the fans don't either. There's more to life than whose team this is. But this is his team, so it's time for him to act like it. That means no more coming into camp fat and out of shape, when your team is relying on your leadership on and off the court. It also means no more blaming others for our team's failure, or blaming staff members for not overdramatizing your injuries so that you avoid blame for your lack of conditioning. Also, "my team" doesn't mean only when we win; it means carrying the burden of defeat just as gracefully as you carry a championship trophy.

GRAY: Do you consider Shaq to be a leader?

BRYANT: Leaders don't beg for a contract extension and negotiate some 30 million [dollars] plus per year deal in the media when we have two future Hall of Famers playing here pretty much for free. A leader would not demand the ball every time down the floor when you have the three of us [Malone, Payton, Bryant] playing beside you, not to mention the teammates you have gone to war with for years -- and, by the way, then threaten not to play defense and rebound if you don't get the ball every time down the floor.

GRAY: Shaq says that you have not been a team player. Is he right?

BRYANT: That's ridiculous. I have been successfully sacrificing my game for years for Shaq. That's what Phil [Jackson] wanted me to do, so I did it. Last year Phil told me Shaq was not in physical condition to carry the trust of our offense, so he asked me to do it. But then he saw Shaq was getting upset that the team wasn't running through him, so Phil asked me to pull back and I did. This year is no different; my role is whatever Phil wants it to be. Period.

GRAY: Through out the preseason, your leg and conditioning has been lagging. Are you in the proper shape to start the season?

BRYANT: My knee is not strong enough to play yet. I know it. When it is I will play.

GRAY: Does that mean you will miss the opener [Tuesday] night and other games?

BRYANT: I probably won't play tomorrow night or until I'm ready. But I don't need Shaq's advice on how to play hurt. I've played with IVs before, during and after games. I've played with a broken hand, a sprained ankle, a torn shoulder, a fractured tooth, a severed lip, and a knee the size of a softball. I don't miss 15 games because of a toe injury that everybody knows wasn't that serious in the first place.

GRAY: Kobe, Shaq said if you didn't like what he had to say you can opt out and leave next season. Will you leave the Lakers?

BRYANT: I won't make that decision until the end of the season. I told Shaq last year that I was planning on opting out. He knew before anyone. I told him out of respect for what we have been through together. I thought he should be the first to know. The fact that he acts like this is such a big shock is a mystery to me. If leaving the Lakers at the end of the season is what I decide, a major reason for that will be Shaq's childlike selfishness and jealousy.

GRAY: Do you feel Shaq has been supportive in regards to your legal situation?

BRYANT: He is not my quote unquote "big brother." A big brother would have called to lend his support this summer. I heard absolutely nothing from him. I spoke to Devean [George], Rick [Fox], Mitch [Kupchak], Phil, and our owner Jerry Buss. And Shaq's own Uncle Jerome called and left three messages. Other teammates like Derek [Fisher], Mark [Madsen], and [Stanislav Medvedenko] left messages as well. Opponents called like [Chris] Webber, [Mike] Bibby, and many others. So did a lot of coaches. Michael Jordan, who didn't have my home phone, tracked it down to lend his support. So did Tiger Woods. But yet from my so-called big brother, I heard nothing.

GRAY: Why not resolve this behind closed doors? Why is this so public?

BRYANT: I asked Phil on Sunday [yesterday] to say something to calm this situation down before it boiled over. But he backed away, so now here we are. I have been a bigger person every time something happened with Shaq, and I don't expect this to be any different. But somebody in this organization had to speak up, because his unprofessionalism hurt us last year, and I don't want it to hurt us this year.

- Bird's 3 year stretch is every bit as good as Shaq's 3 year peak stretch.
- If his longevity edge is so amazing, why is he 6th in MVP shares, compared to Bird's 3rd? OR 8th in the RPOY project, compared to Bird's 7th?

MVP accolade lovers -

1993--Hakeem 2nd, Ewing 4th, Robinson 6th, Shaq 7th
1994--Hakeem 1st, Robinson 2nd, Shaq 4th, Ewing 5th
1995--Robinson 1st, Shaq 2nd, Ewing 4th, Hakeem 5th
1996--Robinson 2nd, Olajuwon 4th, Shaq 10th
1997--Hakeem 7th, Ewing 8th, Shaq 10th

I would imagine he should've stood out and dominated his center competition? He didn't.

Peak competition is a case against Shaq as well, like it or not. That was a time when the C's of the era were relatively weak - in 00, Shaq vs well past prime Hakeem, 4 matchups -

Shaq 39 MPG 22.8 PPG 47% TS 3.2 TOV
Hakeem 27 MPG 11 PPG 54% TS 0.2 TOV

Why is Shaq having trouble dominating?

- Conditioning - Larry Bird isn't coming to camp out of shape in his prime, and missing regular season games due to toenail injuries.
-Playoffs - Oh yes, times when he was thoroughly outplayed by Duncan and still got past him - like 02. There is no significant advantage for Shaq here.
- Leadership/Intangibles/Competitive Fire - Numerous examples of Shaq's general laziness are littered across the RPOY project. All this goes to Bird by a good margin.

[Vinsanity420]

But then, the goalposts change and now Bird gets the vote for peak play, but ignoring his playoff failures. Why is that?

Where has Bird failed?

[ElGee]

vote: Bird
Nominate: Garnett

Is it possible to add to the thread when the voting ends? Thanks

[34Dayz]

sorry but I had to lol @ vinsanity posting a Kobe interview in reference to Shaq.. when we discuss Kobe lets bring up old Shaq interviews im sure those aren't biased at all.

[Vinsanity420]

sorry but I had to lol @ vinsanity posting a Kobe interview in reference to Shaq.. when we discuss Kobe lets bring up old Shaq interviews im sure those aren't biased at all.

But there is proof that whatever he said wasn't all that off base. How about a direct quote from Shaq?

"Everybody knows that. You [media] guys may give it to [Bryant] like you've given him everything else his whole lifetime, but this is the Diesel's ship. So ... if you ain't right [physically], don't be trying to go out there and get right on our expense. Use the people out there, then when you get right you [can] do what you do."

SO I guess we should just cast aside the fact that he was willing to give up defense and rebounding if he didn't get his touches?

I still think Bird and Shaq are fairly close based on impact - but I don't know how you could pick Shaq over Bird in a team oriented game.

[ElGee]

Vote Duncan

Nominate Garnett

Same as last time for me.

Duncan over Shaq due to regular season health and leadership/intangibles.

I choose Duncan over Bird because of playoff consistency. Bird has years like 82, 83 that should be questioned. 85, while otherwise just about his best year, goes downhill in the last 2 rounds. Duncan is reliable in the playoffs constantly and his defense is always there.

Both deserve to be called top 5 regular season performers ever. Their run of 57 W seasons and guaranteeing statistical contention is remarkable. Both proved they didn't need Parish/McHale or Parker/Manu to guarantee that either. I believe both could have ended up with 5 or 6 titles with a 3peat included if everything went their way. The beauty of both these teams is giving themselves like 9 kicks at the can. So even when injuries, all time clutch shots against, jacked competition got in their way, they had enough years to withstand it and get the breaks back. But my personal feeling is Duncan's consistency gave him a bit more kicks at it and that's why he gets my vote

Aaron Rodgers has more playoff consistency than Tom Brady. Is he a better quarterback?

I like that you always have outlying views Julien, but you're losing me on some of these votes (unless I'm not following your criteria).

I think there's one legit year -- when he was playing Julius Erving, without Tiny Archibald, in which Bird didn't really come up big. That said, how much are you downgrading what Larry Bird gives you in 1982 anyway? He's still a top guy in the league that year.

In 1983 and 1985 injuries are in play. That's a mark in its own right -- Bird would be more valuable if not for durability -- but what does it mean to call them "failures?" I suppose then that Tim Duncan totally and completely failed in 2000? How good, exactly, do you think Tim Duncan was in 2008? I ask because he looked old and wearing down and shot 49% TS. What about his 2006 campaign with plantar? 98-07 is 10 years, but he missed 2000, so that's 9 years...or the number of times Larry Bird was top-3 in MVP voting from 1980 to 1988.

Duncan's defense "was always there..." except in 2006 when SAS gave up 111.6 pts/100, for instance. I don't like these blanket statements and I'm not seeing how Duncan gives you more kicks at the can, and I certainly have no idea how Duncan's kicks at the can are better than Bird's.

[ElGee]

Look, Bird was a great player. But he had faults. He had tangible faults on the basketball court. His individual play, at times, simply wasn't up to par with what his team needed from him to win.

Is this serious? I can't tell if that whole post was tongue-in-cheek.

[Vinsanity420]

Tentatively,

Vote Duncan -- Just too great a two way anchor. Not as spectacular as a Bird/West/Erving type but won more with less around him than any of them. I have generally had Shaq here but his act has gotten more than a bit annoying. Very willing to be convinced to to change it back though.

I don’t get all the Duncan supporting-cast-weak-and-he-won-titles-so-he-great argument. Is it really that difficult for people to understand that a group of 5 guys working well together led by 1 superstar can outplay a group of 5 guys where 2 superstars do the heavy lifting?

[colts18]

From 84-87, Bird certainly played well in the playoffs, but he wasn't spectacular at all the other years (80-83 and 88-92).

TS%:
80: .511
81: .532
82: .474
83: .478
84: .607
85: .536
86: .615
87: .577
88: .538
90: .539
91: .490
92: .514

So out of 12 years, you get 9 years under .540 TS%, 5 under .520 TS%, and 3 under .500 TS%. From 80-83, he had a 19.9 playoff PER. In that span, Johnny Moore, Franklin Edwards, Gus Williams, and Bob Lanier all had better playoff PER and WS/48. Teammates Parish, McHale, Tiny Archibald, and Cedric Maxwell had better TS% in that span. From 88-92, he had a 18.8 PER which is 25th among players with 10 playoff games played. Players who had better playoff PER's in that span include Fat Lever, Terry Cummings, Roy Tarpley, Cedric Ceballos, and Sarunas Marciulionis. His teammates Reggie Lewis and Kevin McHale had better playoff PER's in that span.

With Bird you get a nice 4 year run that had 4 straight finals appearances but outside of that you get a 4 year span of .505 TS% (80-83) and a .525 TS% span (88-92). Compare that to Shaq who is in first 14 seasons with 13 playoffs (Bird only played 13 seasons and 12 playoffs) went under .550 TS% just twice.

For the Bird supporters, do you value playoff performance? If so, how can you rank Bird ahead of Shaq when Shaq was better in the playoffs, and most definitely was better in the Finals.

[TMACFORMVP]

And aside from his 03' season, Duncan has had an all-star caliber player next to him.

99: Robinson: 16/10 guy in 32 minutes, still providing elite defense.
05: Ginobili was an all-star; averaged 21/6/4 on 52% in post-season.
07: Parker was an all-star, averaged 21/3/6 on 48% in post season.

He never had a superstar in the way Shaq has had, but especially for his last two championships, he's had plenty of help. Though in penbeasts defense, it was in a comparison with Erving, West and Bird when they won their championships, and their supporting casts are clearly better. Duncan's 03 campaign was just remarkable though in how he was able to lead his team, just ridiculous. Saying this, as much as I love Duncan, I don't get the same sense of dominance or transcendental play when you look at a prime Bird or Shaq.

I have a question however, my gut says to vote for Bird, but almost every sign in my head points towards Shaq. What exactly makes Bird the clear cut candidate here? I find it hard to believe that his peak was that much better, so is it just the intangible part of the game? Meaning, we look negatively at the number of teams Shaq has played on, the question of conditioning, and lack of leadership abilities, all of which Bird has clear advantages over -- but still didn't stop Shaq from accomplishing as much as Bird did? I suppose part of the answer would be that Bird had to compete with Erving's Sixers, or Magic's Showtime Lakers implying that it was much more spread out, but while the Lakers had near cake walks in the Finals, the Kings, Blazers, and Spurs during that same era were no pushovers. And Shaq was a great, great playoff and finals performer as well.

[lorak]

Shaq and Duncan before Hakeem? I'm shocked.

[Fencer reregistered]

ignoring his playoff failures.

Maybe somebody should actually itemize Bird's playoff failures, so that we can laugh at the list.

[Fencer reregistered]

Teammates Parish, McHale, Tiny Archibald, and Cedric Maxwell had better TS% in that span.

That's a pretty powerful argument in favor of Bird.

Bird is one of the two greatest players in the history of the Celtics. The other one, Russell, was famously told by the team's boss "I'll never judge you on statistics". Bird had the same team boss Russell did.