does shaq have a case for #2 GOAT

[RandomKnight]

No

This.

great contribution to the thread

This

[colts18]

1. MJ
2. Kareem
3. Magic
4. Shaq
5. Wilt
6. Russell
7. Duncan
8. Olajuwon
9. Kobe
10. Bird

That is how I see it. You can't make a case for Shaq over Kareem.

So you're both a Colts and a Lakers fan, I presume?

Or is it just coincidence that you have Lakers ranked #2-5 and Celtics lower than just about anybody else on the planet has them?

Definitely not a Lakers fan or else I would be a Kobe Homer which by my past posts (IE: LeBron) shows that I am not. I am a Wizards fan.

I have Russell lower simply because he never really carried a team other than maybe in 69. He always had someone to take care off the offense for him, yet he was still relatively inefficient after his first 4 years. Bird, I made the case he is overrated in numerous threads. Because of the Magic-Bird narrative, people ignore Bird's faults.

[NYK 455]

If you can make a case for Russell or Wilt at number 2, you can easily make a case for Shaq.

[Darain]

He has as much as a shot as Dirk does

[NYK 455]

Sure, he has a case . . . but there are about 4 guys with stronger ones (MJ, Russell, Wilt, Kareem) and another 4 with cases about as strong (Duncan, Bird, Magic, Kobe) plus 4 more that have vaguely plausible arguments (Mikan, Hakeem, Dr. J, LeBron).

I won't even bring era into the equation, but what case does Wilt have over Shaq? Shaq has more Titles, more longevitey, similar stats, and was much better in the playoffs.

[Doctor MJ]

generally people say he had one of the GOAT peaks of all time. Well he had a pretty damn long peak of about a decade, 4 championships, finals MVPs...what do you say?

If you go just by pure peak, absolutely.

If you go by the net good he did for his teams over the years and start thinking about his slacking off and drama queen tendencies, no. The #2 player of all-time doesn't bounce from team to team.

[penbeast0]

Sure, he has a case . . . but there are about 4 guys with stronger ones (MJ, Russell, Wilt, Kareem) and another 4 with cases about as strong (Duncan, Bird, Magic, Kobe) plus 4 more that have vaguely plausible arguments (Mikan, Hakeem, Dr. J, LeBron).

I won't even bring era into the equation, but what case does Wilt have over Shaq? Shaq has more Titles, more longevitey, similar stats, and was much better in the playoffs.

Similar stats? Not even close. Like saying Shaq has similar stats to Amare only the gap between Wilt and Shaq is larger.

[Fencer reregistered]

1. MJ
2. Kareem
3. Magic
4. Shaq
5. Wilt
6. Russell
7. Duncan
8. Olajuwon
9. Kobe
10. Bird

That is how I see it. You can't make a case for Shaq over Kareem.

So you're both a Colts and a Lakers fan, I presume?

Or is it just coincidence that you have Lakers ranked #2-5 and Celtics lower than just about anybody else on the planet has them?

Definitely not a Lakers fan or else I would be a Kobe Homer which by my past posts (IE: LeBron) shows that I am not. I am a Wizards fan.

I have Russell lower simply because he never really carried a team other than maybe in 69. He always had someone to take care off the offense for him, yet he was still relatively inefficient after his first 4 years. Bird, I made the case he is overrated in numerous threads. Because of the Magic-Bird narrative, people ignore Bird's faults.

I wouldn't call Kobe at #9 being strong evidence of non-homerism, but OK -- you just happen to be very negative on both Russell and Bird.

I guess I can see that, if one assumes their personal box score results represent (almost) the full worth of a player.

[ThaRegul8r]

I have Russell lower simply because he never really carried a team other than maybe in 69.

People are so biased in favor of offense that they can't even comprehend the possibility of someone carrying a team defensively. The only way in their minds to carry a team is offensively. And by "offensively," what they really mean is through volume scoring, since there's more to offense than scoring, but it only goes to show how deep the offensive bias is. But then, this shouldn't come as any surprise seeing as how the second-greatest defensive dynasty the league has ever seen was perceived as boring by "most people," and the ratings were always low when they were in the finals.

(Of course, the people who played with Russell and competed against him didn't know anything, so when, say for example, K. C. Jones makes a statement like this: “We won the 1959-60 championship in a tough seven game series with St. Louis. So, I was two for two with the Celtics and it felt good, but what felt even better was being associated with people like Bob Cousy, Frank Ramsey, Bill Sharman, Tom Heinsohn, Sam Jones, Jim Loscutoff, Gene Conley, Ben Swain, Lou Tsioropoulos. Somehow all of these guys and myself managed to fit onto Russell’s shoulders...,” it doesn't mean anything, because he didn't score enough to suit modern day fans who were born decades after the fact and know nothing about Russell other than the fact that he won 11 rings. )

[Doctor MJ]

I have Russell lower simply because he never really carried a team other than maybe in 69. He always had someone to take care off the offense for him,

You really need to get your head around how team offense and defense work.

1) The gap between good and bad offense is typically only a difference of about 1 basket per 20 possessions. No matter how good or bad you are at offense, you're going to score about half the time. No matter how good or bad you are at defense, you're going to stop the offense about half the time.

A bad offensive team is not being carried by anyone. If that guy ceased to exist, the offense wouldn't get that much worse. That's the situation Russell's Celtics were in. Their offense totally sucked because they realized that around Russell they had the ability to produce a defense so far from the norm they'd be unstoppable. It's the very definition of carrying a team.

[34Dayz]

generally people say he had one of the GOAT peaks of all time. Well he had a pretty damn long peak of about a decade, 4 championships, finals MVPs...what do you say?

If you go just by pure peak, absolutely.

If you go by the net good he did for his teams over the years and start thinking about his slacking off and drama queen tendencies, no. The #2 player of all-time doesn't bounce from team to team.

Think you are going a bit far with this.

Sure Shaq by the end of his Tenure with LA had a pretty big ego but he was deserving of it. He had just carried the franchise to 4 Finals and 3 Titles. He also had to put up with disrespect from a young kid in Kobe who despite his own greatness was never in the same league as Shaq and had no excuse for disrespecting the dude.

Perhaps if the franchise showed him some well due respect and put a leash on Kobe he never would have left them for Miami. I admit Shaq was never the most mature person in the world "he is like a big kid at heart" but the team should of known that and known how to deal with him in a better way. The LA franchise is pretty lucky they were able to rob Mempis of Gasol or they would truly regret letting Shaq leave.

So for your comment of bouncing from team to team I disagree he played the entirety of his useful career on 3 teams and all but two years with 2 teams Orl, LA and like I said before if not for the stupidity of the LA management he would have spent his entire career on two teams. Still.. 3 teams is not exactly a "Team Bouncer"

I am pretty confident drafting Shaq that if I treat him with respect and pay him what he deserves I shouldn't have a problem keeping him his entire career with my franchise.

[Doctor MJ]

Think you are going a bit far with this.

Sure Shaq by the end of his Tenure with LA had a pretty big ego but he was deserving of it. He had just carried the franchise to 4 Finals and 3 Titles. He also had to put up with disrespect from a young kid in Kobe who despite his own greatness was never in the same league as Shaq and had no excuse for disrespecting the dude.

Perhaps if the franchise showed him some well due respect and put a leash on Kobe he never would have left them for Miami. I admit Shaq was never the most mature person in the world "he is like a big kid at heart" but the team should of known that and known how to deal with him in a better way. The LA franchise is pretty lucky they were able to rob Mempis of Gasol or they would truly regret letting Shaq leave.

So for your comment of bouncing from team to team I disagree he played the entirety of his useful career on 3 teams and all but two years with 2 teams Orl, LA and like I said before if not for the stupidity of the LA management he would have spent his entire career on two teams. Still.. 3 teams is not exactly a "Team Bouncer"

I am pretty confident drafting Shaq that if I treat him with respect and pay him what he deserves I shouldn't have a problem keeping him his entire career with my franchise.

In 2003, Karl Malone and Gary Payton signed with the Lakers for peanuts in order to be a part of a team that cared for nothing but winning. Almost immediately afterward Shaq began publicly whining about not having a new max contract even though he had 2 years left on his current deal, and a new max deal would put him in $30 mill per year range at a time where the salary cap was less than $45 mill per year. It was among the most clueless self centered things I've ever seen any athlete do, let alone someone in their 30s by which point you are supposed to be a real leader.

This is just one of many, many things Shaq has done that have nothing to do with being proud of himself, and everything to do with destroying the things around him that have nothing to do with Kobe. They do explain though how Kobe came to be what he is.

[NYK 455]

Similar stats? Not even close. Like saying Shaq has similar stats to Amare only the gap between Wilt and Shaq is larger.

I meant to add, after adjusting for pace.

[34Dayz]

Think you are going a bit far with this.

Sure Shaq by the end of his Tenure with LA had a pretty big ego but he was deserving of it. He had just carried the franchise to 4 Finals and 3 Titles. He also had to put up with disrespect from a young kid in Kobe who despite his own greatness was never in the same league as Shaq and had no excuse for disrespecting the dude.

Perhaps if the franchise showed him some well due respect and put a leash on Kobe he never would have left them for Miami. I admit Shaq was never the most mature person in the world "he is like a big kid at heart" but the team should of known that and known how to deal with him in a better way. The LA franchise is pretty lucky they were able to rob Mempis of Gasol or they would truly regret letting Shaq leave.

So for your comment of bouncing from team to team I disagree he played the entirety of his useful career on 3 teams and all but two years with 2 teams Orl, LA and like I said before if not for the stupidity of the LA management he would have spent his entire career on two teams. Still.. 3 teams is not exactly a "Team Bouncer"

I am pretty confident drafting Shaq that if I treat him with respect and pay him what he deserves I shouldn't have a problem keeping him his entire career with my franchise.

In 2003, Karl Malone and Gary Payton signed with the Lakers for peanuts in order to be a part of a team that cared for nothing but winning. Almost immediately afterward Shaq began publicly whining about not having a new max contract even though he had 2 years left on his current deal, and a new max deal would put him in $30 mill per year range at a time where the salary cap was less than $45 mill per year. It was among the most clueless self centered things I've ever seen any athlete do, let alone someone in their 30s by which point you are supposed to be a real leader.

This is just one of many, many things Shaq has done that have nothing to do with being proud of himself, and everything to do with destroying the things around him that have nothing to do with Kobe. They do explain though how Kobe came to be what he is.

I never said Shaq was perfect and asking for an extension at that time was a selfish thing to do, but at the same time considering how great he was, especially from 00-02 and the fact that he was the main reason that franchise had 3 new banners to hang I think it makes it slightly more acceptable or less obnoxious..

I think if LA was smart they could have found a way to sign him for the Max but on a shorter contract.. maybe 2-3 years like Miami did.

Maybe if he hadn't just carried the franchise to 3 Titles I would be as disgusted and say wow.. he is asking for all this money and he hasn't even won anything for them, but the fact is he played his ass off especially in the playoffs and won Titles for them.

People forget Kobe was seriously considering leaving LA for Chicago or the Clippers. And signed what the biggest contract in the history of the league a few years ago for 7 years and 100 something million.

Still.. I dont see how being on 3 teams is a "Team Bouncer" when many ATGreats have played on 2-3 teams.

[LascelleL]

You must jump through several hoops, but it is not impossible. No way he passes Jordan, but if you firmly believe that

- "Russell, Kareem, Magic and Bird had much more support"
- "Hakeem won less rings, and he beat Duncan head to head"
- "Shaq's low points don't matter, just look at the peak"

he has a #2 case. It is a bit rosy tinted, but not outlandish.

Pretty much this....on some days have him at #5 on others he's like #7

[penbeast0]

Similar stats? Not even close. Like saying Shaq has similar stats to Amare only the gap between Wilt and Shaq is larger.

I meant to add, after adjusting for pace.

That IS after adjusting for pace and era.

[Fencer reregistered]

Still.. I dont see how being on 3 teams is a "Team Bouncer" when many ATGreats have played on 2-3 teams.

Wilt gets downgraded as Shaq does.
Kareem only switched teams once.
Jordan, Russell, Magic, Bird, Hakeem, and Duncan built their reputations with single teams.

[Doctor MJ]

I never said Shaq was perfect and asking for an extension at that time was a selfish thing to do, but at the same time considering how great he was, especially from 00-02 and the fact that he was the main reason that franchise had 3 new banners to hang I think it makes it slightly more acceptable or less obnoxious..

I think if LA was smart they could have found a way to sign him for the Max but on a shorter contract.. maybe 2-3 years like Miami did.

Maybe if he hadn't just carried the franchise to 3 Titles I would be as disgusted and say wow.. he is asking for all this money and he hasn't even won anything for them, but the fact is he played his ass off especially in the playoffs and won Titles for them.

People forget Kobe was seriously considering leaving LA for Chicago or the Clippers. And signed what the biggest contract in the history of the league a few years ago for 7 years and 100 something million.

Still.. I dont see how being on 3 teams is a "Team Bouncer" when many ATGreats have played on 2-3 teams.

Ima going to start with the caveat that I'm a Lakers fan. If I sounds like a jerk to you, just know that that my emotion isn't directed at you.

Miami signed Shaq to a 5-year contract, plus the last year of the additional contract. So we're talking $100 million extra. What did Shaq do for his teams over the course of the contract? He averaged less than 60 games per season, played less than 30 minutes per game, scored more than 20 PPG only the first year, and never averaged 10 RPG.

It was a tremendously terrible contract that was smart for Miami only because they were able to trade him 2 years into it.

Here's the kick: $100 mill was NOT the max deal. It was a huge pay cut that Shaq had refused to make for the Lakers. It would have been more like $150 mill for them.

So you see, Shaq was putting the Lakers in an absolutely no win situation immediately after Malone & Payton sacrificed tens of millions of dollars in the name of winning.

Okay and the second kicker I guess just to be clear: Were there no salary cap, one could certainly argue Shaq had been so valuable in the last contract that he deserved to be overpaid the next time around. However, there was a salary cap, and if you want to make a roster of 15 players, it becomes essentially impossible when you used up 2/3rds of that cap for a big man who plays 6th man minutes, takes a 1/4th of the year off, can't go for 20/10, and can no longer move fast enough to be useful in either the fast break or defense.

It was an utterly insane move done essentially out of narcissitic bitterness toward a franchise that had done so much for him (given him the contract that was the backbone of making him the highest paid player in the history of the NBA which let him say FU to the Magic, fired coaches for him, traded players for him).

Re: "People forget Kobe...". You know I'm known as one of the big Kobe haters around right (not that accept the title)? I'm happy to knock Kobe for his bad behavior, but it's never been in Shaq's league. Plus there's the matter that Shaq was the star of the team in Kobe's formative years, and had far more power than Kobe for a long time. A Magic Johnson-type leader would have found a way to work things and helped Kobe become a more mature person.

Re: "3 teams is not a team bouncer". For a GOAT candidate, being on more than 2 teams in your prime certainly makes you a bouncer. Teams don't ever want to give up someone if they are that good unless there is a problem...and with Shaq there were always problems. But then there's also the matter that Shaq has now played on 6 teams. I'll grant you that things are a bit different since those last 3 were past his prime, but still, 4 teams in 4 seasons is the definition of team bouncing, and smart players who can adapt and make themselves a net positive in many situations never have this happen to them.

[ThaRegul8r]

I have Russell lower simply because he never really carried a team other than maybe in 69. He always had someone to take care off the offense for him,

You really need to get your head around how team offense and defense work.

1) The gap between good and bad offense is typically only a difference of about 1 basket per 20 possessions. No matter how good or bad you are at offense, you're going to score about half the time. No matter how good or bad you are at defense, you're going to stop the offense about half the time.

A bad offensive team is not being carried by anyone. If that guy ceased to exist, the offense wouldn't get that much worse. That's the situation Russell's Celtics were in. Their offense totally sucked because they realized that around Russell they had the ability to produce a defense so far from the norm they'd be unstoppable. It's the very definition of carrying a team.

The Boston Celtics are like a classic automobile—to be altered only when they can be functionally improved. They sometimes seem to do things backward, like emphasizing defense in what everybody knows is a shooter’s game.

But it is also a fact that a good defensive team can have a poor offensive night and still win. That is, providing it has a center named Bill Russell.

— Apr. 11, 1964

Replace "good" with a stronger adjective, and "night" with "decade plus," and this contemporary writer's described the Celtics dynasty.

[Dr Positivity]

He has a case, it's just a pretty damn small one.