RealGM Top 100 List #7

[34Dayz]

I think with Shaq every little tiff he has is blown up to some huge proportion, he never had any issues with Wade until after he declined past the point of being a title run type of guy, and I cant say for sure but didnt all the storys of beef between the two start after Shaq had already changed teams and It was between him and the management not him and Wade.

I acknowledge Shaq has a big ego but no ones Ego is bigger then Kobes.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Did we imagine Kobe's massive ego and inability to accept his role on the team leading to frequent arguments not only with Shaq but with PJ and most of the Veterans on that team. Did I imagine Shaq turning down a more lucrative offer LA offered him to go to Miami due to this?

Shaq was always a great lockerroom guy and very rarely had trouble with his teammates, he was the GOAT level player and at that point of time a better player then Kobe, he was right to be alittle upset when Kobe was trying to determine the direction of the team and change the nature of the offense when it had already led to 2-3 championships..

I personally don't give a crap about off-the court stuff, because Shaq/Kobe were still the greatest duo in history, and 3-peated with Rick Fox being their 3rd best player. On the court, these two players were amazing.

My problem with your posts, is that your putting all the blame on Kobe, when both Shaq/Kobe are to blame & frankly Jerry Buss too, to a certain degree.

[lorak]

Hard to argue against going through Ewing, Robinson and O'Neal, but as noted earlier -- which you predictably downplayed -- guys like Mutombo and the tag-team of Robinson/Duncan were no slouches, either.

And Shaq played worse against Robinson/Duncan, it was Kobe who was Lakers best player in these series. On the other hand Hakeem played very good offense against one of the best defensive team of all time (NYK 1994) and at the same time was also great on defensive end of the floor. Shaq never done something like that.

As for Mutombo he is overrated as defender and never was great man to man defender, his team defense was the most valuable (and if you disagree with that - which you probably do - for sure Deke wasn't as good defender as Ewing or Robinson) so I don't know how it proves anything.

[34Dayz]

Shaq was immature sure.. he could have handled it alot better then he did, but its to often the blame is fully put on him.

Yes your right I should have pointed out his role in that dispute but I did feel like the main reason for it starting was because of Kobes inability to accept his role on the team. Despite his abnormal talent they were winning and winning alot couldnt he have put aside his need to be the alpha dog for the sake of winning more championships?

Shaq was the Veteran and Kobe was the new guy.. if it was the opposite way around I'd be saying the same things about Shaq.

[34Dayz]

And Shaq played worse against Robinson/Duncan, it was Kobe who was Lakers best player in these series.

I disagree, Shaq was the most valuable player in those series and was sucking in the defenses allowing Kobe and the wing players countless open shots and freedom on the court besides the fact that he still averaged what 22/13/3/3 or something? I have the numbers somewhere ill look them up.

If you want to say that one of the best defenses in the league with two exceptionally good post defenders managed to slow down Shaq slightly then your probably correct but to act like they nerfed him or something is ridiculous he was still incredibly dominant in that series and was the main focus of SA's defense.

[OldSchoolNBA]

Shaq vs Hakeem

Shaq 29PPG on 60%
Hakeem 32PPG on 47%

Haha, for Shaq you rounded up, for Hakeem down. Your lack of consistency is in the same tier as Shaq's lack of consistency on defensive end.

In reality in1995 finals Shaq averaged 28.0 PPG on 58.4 FG% - but that includes stat padded game 2 (22 pts in second half) so it significantly affected average when sample is so small (4 games).
Hakeem 32.8 PPG, 48.3 FG%

I was quoting this from memory my mistake if I was a %Point or Two off.

Still shows that when matched H2H Shaq was far better offensively and has always been a better offensive player then Hakeem.

If you compare careers its pretty clear Shaq was a far more dominant offensive player.

and for all the flack about Shaqs defense covered Hakeem 1on1 he held him to 48% shooting.

Shaq did not guard Hakeem 1 on 1. People who didn't watch the series love to say that but that's blatant revisionism. The only game where Shaq guarded Hakeem 1 on 1 was the first half of G2 where Hakeem drew 2 fouls on Shaq and they had to guard him with Horace Grant the rest of the half. That was a crucial mistake Brian Hill made and that's the main reason Houston established a huge lead at halftime. Hill tried changing the strategy after the Magic were double and triple teaming Hakeem in game 1 which led to wide open 3s for guys like Kenny Smith and Horry.

[Sedale Threatt]

And Shaq played worse against Robinson/Duncan...

He still put up great numbers against arguably the best front-court defensive tag team in history, with all due respect to Chamberlain and Thurmond.

As for Mutombo he is overrated as defender and never was great man to man defender, his team defense was the most valuable (and if you disagree with that - which you probably do - for sure Deke wasn't as good defender as Ewing or Robinson) so I don't know how it proves anything.

For sure, how? Because you say so? All I know is, Dikembe was 7-2, super long arms, could block shots like few others, and Shaq reduced him to a grease spot. Led the league in rebounding that season, too, and Shaq got him for almost 16 per.

[Sedale Threatt]

Shaq was immature sure.. he could have handled it alot better then he did, but its to often the blame is fully put on him.

It's not all on him, but again, what was the common denominator throughout his career? As such, I don't have any problem using locker room issues -- in addition to the injuries/conditioning, or inattention to defense -- against him. Indeed, if anybody is going to mark him down, those are the biggest check marks against him. Frankly, the only ones, that I can see.

[lorak]

Look at their peaks in the playoffs (that's what really matters, not some stat padding during regular season ;] ):

Why is it that you consistently relegate Shaq's achievements to "stat padding"?

I agree that playoffs count way more than the regular season, but it still has value -- especially when there's a substantial edge, as is the case when it's recorded over the course of an entire decade.

Ok, so let's look at their careers:

Code: Select all

REGULAR SEASON
stat   HO   SO
MPG   35.7   34.7
PPG   21.8   23.7
TS%   58.6   55.3

PLAYOFFS
MPG   39.6   37.5
PPG   25.9   24.3
TS%   56.9   56.5


So yeah, Shaq was better scorer during regular season, but not much better. If we adjust that for quality of competition they are probably the same.
Playoffs are equal even without adjusting for quality of competition, after adjustment Hakeem gains advantage.

And that's only scoring, Shaq biggest value, Hakeem beats him totally on defensive end and is more or less equal in other aspect of offense.

[lorak]

And Shaq played worse against Robinson/Duncan...

He still put up great numbers against arguably the best front-court defensive tag team in history, with all due respect to Chamberlain and Thurmond.

Great numbers?
Shaq vs Spurs
2001
27 ppg, 54.7 TS%
2002
21.4 ppg, 48.7 TS% (!)
2003
25.3 ppg, 59.2 TS%

As for Mutombo he is overrated as defender and never was great man to man defender, his team defense was the most valuable (and if you disagree with that - which you probably do - for sure Deke wasn't as good defender as Ewing or Robinson) so I don't know how it proves anything.

For sure, how? Because you say so? All I know is, Dikembe was 7-2, super long arms, could block shots like few others,

For example beacuse Mutombo FOUR times was "anchoring" team to defense above league average (so very, very bad) and on three other occasions his team drtg relatively to league average wasn't lower than -1.7
Not always shot blocking = good defense.

[MacGill]

Good post Sedale!

I can concede that on a consistent YoY basis Shaq's defence was a bit below that of Duncan and Hakeem however neither of them really slowed down Shaq on a man to man basis and I believe that is a big factor when evaluating them. All were better than 99% of the league in their primes but it's not like we could see how 5 Duncan's would have made out against 5 Shaq's and coaching, management, drafting selections all become part of the equation.

Duncan's teams were amazing defensively but also fell 3-2 against Shaq led teams. Shaq played Hakeem in his first finals his third year in the league without another All-Star veteran by his side. Hakeem was a veteran, defending nba champion, and given those circumstances how can we not give shaq credit for his performace? He was even so humbled by what had happened that he even stated he got outplayed but no one truly puts this on Shaq or you need to go back and rewatch the series.

A few things I would like to add: I think people are mistaking maturity with leadership. No doubt Duncan was more mature coming into the league than O'Neal (and throughout) but being more mature doesn't neccessarily mean or translate to you are the better leader. I am not slighting Duncan here in anyway but Duncan went to SA who had acquired Pops with his no BS ways and Duncan was the perfect student for his style. He also had a great veteran All-Star with Robinson who gave no ego whatsoever with no one else even in the mix. Duncan's maturity, personality meshes well with most players but Duncan also never really had a teammate who had Alpha Dog syndrome with superstar potential to rivial his position.

Basically, all of Shaq's teams either drafted or had players who at some small point were dubbed the 'next MJs' and that alone is a receipe for disaster. Shaq was already dubbed of this for centers and well he never had a great coach until PJ who even as great as he was/did never had to manage 2 ego's the size of MJ. I manage a team of 65 employees at my job and I can tell you I don't earn my paycheque off the ones who are happy to come into work, be successful in production, smiling and take all their breaks on time. It's the 10% who think they are better than they are, who challenge these other workers and while have potential, think they can immediately be the top dog. Again, I can only imagine how difficult getting through to these young players is, if you are not mature like Duncan, but adding another 'EGO' to the mix makes it almost impoossible.

It's like reading these posts, LOL I see so many Shaq/Kobe imitations of posting on this board, yet none of us play in the nba, but we act no different. It's human nature for us to act 'defensive' like that and no one on this board can say 'they are the Duncan of posting'. So imagine having posters 'David Stern' teaming up with '34Dayz', how long before disagreement leads to one being waived or traded if you will. I am sure you can see where I am going with this.

The question I have is why people discount who Shaq went up against but yet truly only have 5 (center)rivals who get placed against him throughout the history of the game. Do we really believe anyone from any time period could stop a prime Shaq? The senior posters would have you believe how easy Wilt/Russell would dominate today's era but act like the vice versa wouldn't happen for Shaq? Shaq's dominance factor has to be added into the equation the same as it was for Wilt. Shaq didn't need to league the league in rebounds or blocks and he had more team success than Hakeem. His defence was good enough where all he asked was to be fed the ball, like WIlt had, but that never happened as much as it should have and we seen what happened when he played on caliber teams, he won.

Maybe being a more offensive center when being compared against Hakeem & Duncan but his sheer dominance of the game when compared aginst those two is noticeable, otherwise why would all of the nba have said this? I mean being doubled teamed when he didn't even have the ball

I agree with questions around health/maintaining a more mobile weight but Shaq's leadership was great maybe where his maturity at times wasn't. Everyone can be a great leader at work but make poor decisions at home which may cost you your marriage. Doesn't mean you treat work like your wife or vice versa.

[Sedale Threatt]

Great numbers?
Shaq vs Spurs
2001
27 ppg, 54.7 TS%
2002
21.4 ppg, 48.7 TS% (!)
2003
25.3 ppg, 59.2 TS%

Yes, I'd say 24.5 ppg, on 54.3 TS%, with 13.3 rpg, 3.2 apg and 2.5 bpg, against one of the best front-court defensive tandems in history, respectively, constitutes great numbers.

Are his numbers and shooting down? Yes, of course. I think that's reasonable to expect that matching up with two excellent 7-footers, and a defensive team that ranked no worse than third in the league.

For example beacuse Mutombo FOUR times was "anchoring" team to defense above league average (so very, very bad) and on three other occasions his team drtg relatively to league average wasn't lower than -1.7
Not always shot blocking = good defense.

Most of KG's defensive teams in Minnesota were mediocre at best, and I don't see anybody calling him overrated.

[Sedale Threatt]

Code: Select all

REGULAR SEASON
stat   HO   SO
MPG   35.7   34.7
PPG   21.8   23.7
TS%   58.6   55.3

PLAYOFFS
MPG   39.6   37.5
PPG   25.9   24.3
TS%   56.9   56.5


So yeah, Shaq was better scorer during regular season, but not much better. If we adjust that for quality of competition they are probably the same.
Playoffs are equal even without adjusting for quality of competition, after adjustment Hakeem gains advantage.

And that's only scoring, Shaq biggest value, Hakeem beats him totally on defensive end and is more or less equal in other aspect of offense.

A. I'm pretty sure you mixed the TS% on the regular season numbers.

B. Nobody can argue with what Olajuwon did in the playoffs. He was stellar. This is the biggest argument for Olajuwon, besides defense.

C. I'm looking at Shaq's first 11 seasons, at which point he hit 30, and obviously began to decline. During that extremely lengthy period, his average scoring season would have been comparable to Olajuwon's best, while putting up 10 seasons of at least 57 TS% or better.

Even then, obviously past his prime, he put up another couple of seasons that were equivalent to anything Olajuwon was doing as a scorer for most of his earlier career.

Multiple advanced measures -- PER, offensive win shares, offensive ratings, TS% -- would seemingly indicate, to me, that outside of a handful of seasons/circumstances in his career, Olajuwon wasn't on the same level as Shaq as an offensive player.

And obviously, you can say the same thing about defense in Olajuwon's case.

[An Unbiased Fan]

Individual offense vs Individual defense, seems to be a constant theme throughout the project. Wether it be Bird vs Duncan, or KAJ vs Russell.

Of the Top 4 guys left, TD & Hakeem are the all-time great defenders, and Kobe & Shaq are all-time great offensive players.

It's we look at their PTS% & AST% numbers, Kobe & Shaq are ahead by a decent margin....

Code: Select all

Kobe:
       PTS%   AST% 
1999   25.6%  17.5%          
2000   28.2%  22.4%
2001   33.5%  23.0%
2002   31.4%  25.9%
2003   35.0%  27.2%
2004   31.4%  24.4%
2005   33.1%  28.5%
2006   42.1%  24.1% 
2007   36.6%  25.5%
2008   32.3%  23.9% 
2009   33.5%  23.8%
2010    33.0%  23.8% 
2011   35.6%  26.7% 

Code: Select all

Shaq:
       PTS%   AST%   
1993   28.3%   8.5% 
1994   33.6%  11.0% 
1995   34.7%  13.3% 
1996   34.1%  15.9% 
1997   33.5%  17.3% 
1998   35.8%  13.5%        
1999   36.8%  14.4%           
2000   35.5%  19.3% 
2001   33.6%  18.8% 
2002   35.8%  16.4% 
2003   35.3%  16.2% 
2004   28.8%  14.8% 
2005   32.5%  15.7% 
2006   31.5%  12.4% 
2007   31.1%  14.3% 

Code: Select all

Duncan:
       PTS%   AST%   
1998     28.2%  13.7%        
1999   28.7%  12.1%           
2000   30.1%  15.5% 
2001   28.8%  15.3% 
2002   31.4%  18.3% 
2003   29.9%  19.5% 
2004   32.1%  17.4% 
2005   30.6%  16.1% 
2006   27.0%  16.5% 
2007   28.7%  18.9% 
2008   28.7%  15.7% 
2009   28.7%  19.3% 
2010    27.2%  17.8% 
2011   22.1%  15.7%

Code: Select all

Hakeem:
      PTS%   AST%
1986   27.3%   8.0%
1987   28.7%  12.6%
1988   28.1%   9.2%
1989   30.0%   8.2%
1990   28.9%  12.1%
1991   26.1%  10.2%
1992   27.2%   9.9%
1993   30.6%  15.8%
1994   31.8%  16.4%
1995   32.7%  17.2%
1996   32.6%  18.3%
1997   30.6%  16.2%


Now the question is whether TD & Hakeem's individual defensive impact is enough to overtake Shaq & Kobe offensive impact. Kobe was an elite defender in his own right(though a perimeter defender doesn't have as much impact as a defensive anchor), and SHaq was an elite defender in his peak years. TD & Hakeem were solid scorers in their own right too.

[ElGee]

Look at their peaks in the playoffs (that's what really matters, not some stat padding during regular season ;] ):

Why is it that you consistently relegate Shaq's achievements to "stat padding"?

I agree that playoffs count way more than the regular season, but it still has value -- especially when there's a substantial edge, as is the case when it's recorded over the course of an entire decade.

Ok, so let's look at their careers:

Code: Select all

REGULAR SEASON
stat   HO   SO
MPG   35.7   34.7
PPG   21.8   23.7
TS%   58.6   55.3

PLAYOFFS
MPG   39.6   37.5
PPG   25.9   24.3
TS%   56.9   56.5


So yeah, Shaq was better scorer during regular season, but not much better. If we adjust that for quality of competition they are probably the same.
Playoffs are equal even without adjusting for quality of competition, after adjustment Hakeem gains advantage.

And that's only scoring, Shaq biggest value, Hakeem beats him totally on defensive end and is more or less equal in other aspect of offense.

Shaq played the hardest defenses throughout the meat of his career: http://www.backpicks.com/2011/06/29/who ... on-part-i/

Olajuwon improves more than any other recent superstar in the postseason, across the board ITO of scoring, efficiency and overall box metrics (WS). And for those knowledgable of his career, I looked into it and it seems to have nothing to do with Ramadan (he played well during Ramadan in his prime, actually).

[Baller 24]

Shaq/Kobe were still the greatest duo in history, and 3-peated with Rick Fox being their 3rd best player.

Lakers supporting cast shouldn't be discounted either, it's not like it was "just" Bryant & O'Neal. The '00 team was very stacked in terms of talent, we saw what players like Harper, Green, Fox and Horry can do in situations like the WCF.

'01 sometimes gets even *more* underappreciated I feel, despite how big of a tear Bryant and O'Neal were on, some of the players brought key contributions--especially defensively. I love the fact that Fisher today is considered to be a sub-par defender, when in fact they forget how solid of a defensive asset he really was, especially in '01.

Derek Fisher in the playoffs was averaging 13/3/3/42%/51% 3PT
- Held Damon Stoudamire to 41%, and 15% 3PT shooting.
- Held Jason Williams; after scoring 14 on 62% to just 2pts on 00%, 2pts on 167%, and finally in the series clincher 3 pts on 20%, even Bobby Jackson with an increase of minutes against Fisher failed 6 PPG on 35%
-Spurs guards didn't fair well either:
Porter 8.3pts on 34%
Johnson 6.2pts on 39%

Rick Fox contributed very well 10.0/4/4/45%
Holding guys like:
- Pippen 13.7pts, 4 TOs, on 41%
-Peja 20pts on 39%

I mean I can bring up countless examples, but I'm just explaining the gist of it.

[keysoftheraw]

Vote for Shaq, best peak of anyone.

Nominate - LeBron James

[Sedale Threatt]

A.C. Green was pretty average. That's putting it nicely. He was just holding a spot in the lineup because Jackson preferred bringing Horry off the bench.

I wouldn't say those teams were "stacked" -- that's got to be one of the most overused terms at RealGM -- but rather, those teams fit well together. With the exception of Rice, and he still contributed. Otherwise Harper and Shaq were good, steady vets. Horry, Fish and Fox were cut from the exact same cloth.

All in all, a multitude of quality role players who regularly stepped up when needed.

You can't discount having the best big and best perimeter player in the game as reasons A, B and C why those teams won, but the supporting cast definitely did its job.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Shaquille O''Neal

Nominate: LeBron James

I feel bad for 99 percent of the people who have ever played in the NBA. Because of their lack of talent, their leadership and intangibles apparently didn't exist...

[Baller 24]

A.C. Green was pretty average. That's putting it nicely. He was just holding a spot in the lineup because Jackson preferred bringing Horry off the bench.

I wouldn't say those teams were "stacked" -- that's got to be one of the most overused terms at RealGM -- but rather, those teams fit well together. With the exception of Rice, and he still contributed. Otherwise Harper and Shaq were good, steady vets. Horry, Fish and Fox were cut from the exact same cloth.

All in all, a multitude of quality role players who regularly stepped up when needed.

You can't discount having the best big and best perimeter player in the game as reasons A, B and C why those teams won, but the supporting cast definitely did its job.

Exactly my point. I just wanted to make the point clear that while we have the impression of Fisher and how he plays today fresh in our minds, that he wasn't just considered a player to fill a post at PG, or Fox wasn't just a player to fill the spot at SF.

They adapted to their roles perfectly, did what they were told, I just don't think they can be considered "oh it was just Fisher or Fox", when they were key contributing players---especially defensively, under-appreciated at times, forgotten, and very well discounted. Sometimes I feel that way about Gasol's defense, in our minds there's a fresh image of him getting punked by Okafor, Landry, and Chandler, taunted the label soft, but it goes beyond that and when you look at his defense individually from '08 to '10, it was under-appreciated.