#1 Highest Peak of All Time (Jordan '91 wins)

[C-izMe]

If I never changed my first vote post that's still official right? I'm going 2000 Shaq on this one. Gives me complete flexibility with a team around him. Everyone is a good fit when 2000 Shaq is out there.

[ElGee]

Since no one else seems to be making a case for Jordan -- and he's my vote, as of now -- I'll go ahead and explain how I see his peak.

We have to use a lot of inference to get an idea of how much Michael Jordan impacted the Bulls SRS. I'm going to shelve the defensive side of the ball more a minute and focus on the offensive impact -- that's obviously where Jordan made his name and fame. Here are Chicago's team ORtgs, RS then PS:

1990 +4.2 PS +3.7
1991 +6.7 PS +10.9
1992 +7.4 PS +6.0
1993 +4.9 PS +8.9
1994 -0.2 PS +8.4

Basically the Bulls were a ridiculously good offense in 1990. By 1991, with a few jump shooters and Scottie Pippen fully blossoming, they were historically good. They carried that offense through their 3-peat, with a RS dip in 1993. The 1993 PS performance of the team (114 ORtg) coincided with Michael Jordan's individual explosion (34.7 pts/75, second highest PS rate ever for more than 1 series, on +2.9% TS%, 7% TOV%).

In 1994, with Jordan gone, the offense completely regressed. The PS performance is a 10g sample that, while a solid testament to what a Scottie Pippen/Phil Jackson could do, is only one 10g stretch. We see the same team in 1995 without Jordan chug along at +2.1, before Jordan returns -- the rusty, 2-year-off Jordan who posted a 49% TS -- and the offense still jump to +5.6 for the final 17 games.

1995 no Jordan +2.1
1995 w Jordan +5.6
1995 PS w Jordan +4.2

Of course the 94-95 Bulls upgraded on offense (something we see reflected in 96 and 97), namely with Toni Kukoc (stretch big), Steve Kerr and the short 3-line helping as well.

Put it all together and we can say the following with some degree of certainty: Michael Jordan can take a marginal offense and make them historically good. To what degree one thinks the Bulls offense was "marginal" without Jordan, and to what degree they really were historically good ("+7? +8? +9?) isn't clear yet based on what I've presented, but this is the ballpark we're talking about here.

So how does Jordan do this?

Well, we can crudely label him a volume scorer. But the reality is that his efficiency comes from being able to get such good shots. Those shots pressure the defenses so immensely that it opens up massive creation for him -- and he's an excellent passer and decision-maker. He does all this in a super low-turnover manner, adding to the efficiency of the team given how much he has the ball (his "offensive load," not usage). This means instead of teammates forcing to create and turning it over at 13-14% rates, the numbers are closer to Jordan's low TOV% because he just feeds them open shots. Indeed, the biggest difference in 1995, even with a rusty Jordan, was the Bulls TOV% fell from 14.6% to 11.6%.

Does this translate to many teams, or is there the fear of redundancy with a volume scorer? Well, Jordan is an upgrade over *every* "volume scorer" in NBA history. Similarly to someone like Magic or Nash, he can "lead guard" or "ball dominate" an offense to fairly impressive heights without specific constructions -- decent shooters, a decent "second option," and some kind of mid-post shooter will seemingly do the trick just fine. Jordan doesn't even need to be paired with a classic post option, and he doesn't need to be paired with a good PG -- arguably a shooting "PG" (Paxson, Armstrong, Kerr, etc.) would be better, and those are a dime a dozen.

A fair question to ask is about the triangle and how much the structured or post-spacing nature helped Michael's impact as a volume scorer. In 1989, we saw this with the Bulls and Jordan even playing time at PG. That offense was only +1.3...but then again that team probably would have an offensive disaster without Jordan as Pippen and Grant were quite green.

Yet when Jordan famously played "point" (google archangel offense) at the end of the 89 season after the Mar 8 loss to Boston, the Bulls offense would jump to +5.3 on offense for the next 18 games and +3.3 for the rest of the season. (The PS offense was +3.1.) The DRtg barely changed, suggesting there wasn't a strategic shift, and again, the team TOV% dropped from 14.7% to 12.9%. To me, these are encouraging signs that "Michael Jordan, Lead Guard" is going to give you a pretty darn good offensive team, triangle or not.

[JordansBulls]

I like the thaRegulr point on 2000 Shaq. He basically won because another team choked in the end. Up 15 going to the 4th quarter in a game 7. Basically what we are saying by choosing 2000 Shaq is that that is the best peak ever even though he nearly lost and probably should have even with outstanding support. Just don't see how that is the best peak ever.

Despite that, MJ still had better all around numbers than Shaq. He still had a higher PER, WS, WS/PER 48 minutes in the season and playoffs and even had a finals as good if not better against a much better player in Magic. My vote is on page 1 - MJ 1991 Season.

[ElGee]

I don't think it was bigger at all. This doesn't even seem like a radical thought. Nash has bigger impact years than Jordan does because of team circumstance. I don't expect 77 Walton to have the same impact on every team he goes to. As I've said before, if David Robinson backs up David Robinson, it doesn't make him a lesser player! His impact would look totally minimal...because his backup is awesome. That's the difference between conditional "value" and how good someone is. We are saddled with a sample size of ONE (team setting) and we need to be aware of that when he evaluate players.

This distinction is one of the places where player comparisons start getting really complicated. It really came to a head in '10-11 with Derrick Rose. No one but Bucher though Rose was the best player in the league, but in terms of value added in a specific circumstance Rose was very much in that debate.

For this project, and for the RPOY, I've tried to be very careful putting certain boundaries up, but letting people use their own judgment about specifics within those boundaries. If someone wants to rank a player purely on the value he contributed in a given season, that's okay. If they want to do something more sophisticated where they rate a player based on a landscape of scenarios to eliminate luck, that's certainly encouraged as well.

Try to emerge at how "good" a player is, is an ideal I think is quite good for this project, with the caveat that when we imagine a player in different circumstances, it is not acceptable to essentially ignore what actually happened in a season.

In a different circumstance, Kobe undoubtedly has a far superior '04-05. This is worth noting, and it's perfectly understandable for someone rating Kobe's career to not take '04-05 that seriously, but calling Kobe's '04-05 POY worthy is ridiculous. During the RPOY, I actually rejected one voters' vote after he ranked Wilt #1 in '68-69 based on this same reason. (Incidentally, I did not boot him from the project, or even refuse to let him re-vote based on reasoning that with the project, but he ended up leaving the project anyway.)

I touched on this in my first post in this thread, but just to be clear...

When someone asks me "who is the best player at basketball?" that is synonymous with "who gives random teams the best chance of winning?" If one player needs a certain setting to have an impact, that's fine and well, but I can't trade for him and get the same results, can I? And then how "good" really is that player?

Your point about "ignoring what actually" happens is excellent so I want to make it clear how I handle the question -- I'm not ignoring anything. I'm using exactly what happens, and what I see on the court, as the basis for trying to answer my first question ("how good are you at basketball?"). This means I want to know a player's situational value on his team, but I also want to know:

-who his backup was
-who is coach was
-who his teammates were
-what happened when he played different types of opponents
-what happened when he was paired with different teammates

Sometimes, I have to look at SURROUNDING seasons to answer those questions because my sample size is too small. I may only get to see 5 or 10 games where a player has to adjust his role because of injury in a single year. If I look at surrounding years, and I know the player hasn't changed much (this involves lots of paying attention), I might get 20 or 30 such games and I might get a variety of different lineups or PS opponents to look at.

But to be clear, all this is done by evaluating what the player actually does on the court in those situations. And if you're thinking, "well, Tim Duncan's situation didn't change much through his prime," I'd say OK, I do give him the benefit of the doubt because I can't realistically know what the heck would happen if he were drafted by Minnesota instead of SA (ITO of coaching, culture and management, or even, gasp, usage leading to injuries). Nash changed situations fairly drastically, so I have to kind of marry the two -- and this should intuitively make total sense. LeBron didn't become "worse" when he went to Miami...although many people think he did!

[C-izMe]

Since no one else seems to be making a case for Jordan -- and he's my vote, as of now -- I'll go ahead and explain how I see his peak.

We have to use a lot of inference to get an idea of how much Michael Jordan impacted the Bulls SRS. I'm going to shelve the defensive side of the ball more a minute and focus on the offensive impact -- that's obviously where Jordan made his name and fame. Here are Chicago's team ORtgs, RS then PS:

1990 +4.2 PS +3.7
1991 +6.7 PS +10.9
1992 +7.4 PS +6.0
1993 +4.9 PS +8.9
1994 -0.2 PS +8.4

Basically the Bulls were a ridiculously good offense in 1990. By 1991, with a few jump shooters and Scottie Pippen fully blossoming, they were historically good. They carried that offense through their 3-peat, with a RS dip in 1993. The 1993 PS performance of the team (114 ORtg) coincided with Michael Jordan's individual explosion (34.7 pts/75, second highest PS rate ever for more than 1 series, on +2.9% TS%, 7% TOV%).

In 1994, with Jordan gone, the offense completely regressed. The PS performance is a 10g sample that, while a solid testament to what a Scottie Pippen/Phil Jackson could do, is only one 10g stretch. We see the same team in 1995 without Jordan chug along at +2.1, before Jordan returns -- the rusty, 2-year-off Jordan who posted a 49% TS -- and the offense still jump to +5.6 for the final 17 games.

1995 no Jordan +2.1
1995 w Jordan +5.6
1995 PS w Jordan +4.2

Of course the 94-95 Bulls upgraded on offense (something we see reflected in 96 and 97), namely with Toni Kukoc (stretch big), Steve Kerr and the short 3-line helping as well.

Put it all together and we can say the following with some degree of certainty: Michael Jordan can take a marginal offense and make them historically good. To what degree one thinks the Bulls offense was "marginal" without Jordan, and to what degree they really were historically good ("+7? +8? +9?) isn't clear yet based on what I've presented, but this is the ballpark we're talking about here.

So how does Jordan do this?

Well, we can crudely label him a volume scorer. But the reality is that his efficiency comes from being able to get such good shots. Those shots pressure the defenses so immensely that it opens up massive creation for him -- and he's an excellent passer and decision-maker. He does all this in a super low-turnover manner, adding to the efficiency of the team given how much he has the ball (his "offensive load," not usage). This means instead of teammates forcing to create and turning it over at 13-14% rates, the numbers are closer to Jordan's low TOV% because he just feeds them open shots. Indeed, the biggest difference in 1995, even with a rusty Jordan, was the Bulls TOV% fell from 14.6% to 11.6%.

Does this translate to many teams, or is there the fear of redundancy with a volume scorer? Well, Jordan is an upgrade over *every* "volume scorer" in NBA history. Similarly to someone like Magic or Nash, he can "lead guard" or "ball dominate" an offense to fairly impressive heights without specific constructions -- decent shooters, a decent "second option," and some kind of mid-post shooter will seemingly do the trick just fine. Jordan doesn't even need to be paired with a classic post option, and he doesn't need to be paired with a good PG -- arguably a shooting "PG" (Paxson, Armstrong, Kerr, etc.) would be better, and those are a dime a dozen.

A fair question to ask is about the triangle and how much the structured or post-spacing nature helped Michael's impact as a volume scorer. In 1989, we saw this with the Bulls and Jordan even playing time at PG. That offense was only +1.3...but then again that team probably would have an offensive disaster without Jordan as Pippen and Grant were quite green.

Yet when Jordan famously played "point" (google archangel offense) at the end of the 89 season after the Mar 8 loss to Boston, the Bulls offense would jump to +5.3 on offense for the next 18 games and +3.3 for the rest of the season. (The PS offense was +3.1.) The DRtg barely changed, suggesting there wasn't a strategic shift, and again, the team TOV% dropped from 14.7% to 12.9%. To me, these are encouraging signs that "Michael Jordan, Lead Guard" is going to give you a pretty darn good offensive team, triangle or not.

Problem with this post is that it focuses more on Jordan and not 91.

Since I'm voting Jordan for my #2 spot I guess I'll jump in here.

The reason I think this season deserves heavy consideration is not that he was the most "impactful" player. It's because he was the most FLAWLESS player ever.

Jordan played 99 games this season. Only one of those would qualify as "bad" (I call bad below your average player". His 20/5/5 in 40min with 23 shots Philly game is legitimately bad. The next worst game is the last game of the year in a win against Detroit (where he really wasn't trying). In the playoffs MJ played 17 games And his worst game was a 22/6/3 with 6TO performance against Detroit in a win. I watched the game online yesterday and I wouldnt call it "good" but it's far from bad. He forced the issue and played excellent defense.

He averaged 31/6.5/8.5 on 60TS in the playoffs. Honestly the only issue with this year was that he didn't rely on the three point ball too much because he felt it made him complacent. His midrange game was the best ever (for a guard), his outside shot was at least average, he was the GOAT slasher, and he had great defensive instincts. He also capped off the season by helping to lockdown Magic Johnson (contrary to popular belief Jordan played Magic for most of games 3, 4, and 5. This was literatel the perfect season for a SG.

Another positive is that the defensive attention he drew helped Scottie mature as the season went on. By the PS Scottie was in Prime Scottie mode.




That being said I believe the GOAT SG season <<< GOAT C season.

[An Unbiased Fan]

I like the thaRegulr point on 2000 Shaq. He basically won because another team choked in the end. Up 15 going to the 4th quarter in a game 7. Basically what we are saying by choosing 2000 Shaq is that that is the best peak ever even though he nearly lost and probably should have even with outstanding support. Just don't see how that is the best peak ever.

I think the even bigger point is that his 2000 peak really wasn't the best in any category. It wasn't the best offensively, nor the best defensively. He didn't have the GOAT playoff run, nor the GOAT regular season. He didn't even face tough competition at his position in the PS, but instead 4 straight past-primes big men.

I would also point out that Lakers vs Blazers were the real Finals that year. Both teams had the Top 2 SRS in the NBA, and the Pacers were only 4.16, which is worse than the Suns.

In the WCF, Shaq put up 26/12/4, which is great, but not GOAT. And this was against a 35 year old Sabonis. In game 7, Shaq put up 18/9 and was bailed out, frankly. He only had 9 points going into the 4th with LA down double digits. If Sabonis doens't pick up that 5th foul early in the 4th, Portland probably wins.

I don't see how 2000 Shaq is the GOAT peak. MJ in 91' did more against better competition in the PS. I don't see how it's over 1967 Wilt, or peak KAJ, and maybe even peak Hakeem. And that's just centers. I would throw Bird, Magic in the mix too.

[Vinsanity420]

Why MJ over Wilt, Elgee?

[NO-KG-AI]

I think the even bigger point is that his 2000 peak really wasn't the best in any category. It wasn't the best offensively, nor the best defensively. He didn't have the GOAT playoff run, nor the GOAT regular season.

That's how I feel. I don't think Shaq's offense is as good as someone like Mike or Magic on the perimeter at all, and his defense isn't close to the level of making up for it. I think his scoring and "domination" is becoming severely overrated.

[C-izMe]

I think the even bigger point is that his 2000 peak really wasn't the best in any category. It wasn't the best offensively, nor the best defensively. He didn't have the GOAT playoff run, nor the GOAT regular season.

That's how I feel. I don't think Shaq's offense is as good as someone like Mike or Magic on the perimeter at all, and his defense isn't close to the level of making up for it. I think his scoring and "domination" is becoming severely overrated.

What player can honestly say they had an offensive peak like MJ (both of them)? His value was in being the best offensive player in the league, the second best defender, and best playoff performer. He is the only player (IMO) that you can put on any 10-8th seed ever (no matter how the team is built) and instantly have a contender. Most players don't have that type of versatility/ability to draw so much attention. People mention the Portland games but he was still commanding triple teams. It's like what Ray Allen brings to a team. Many said after that record breaking game in the 2010 Finals he didn't play well, but the fact that they committed a defender to stick to him every play (and when he ran off screens multiple defenders) means he brought a major impact and forced the Lakers to play Kobe off ball (with any PG but Rondo the Lakers would've been screwed).

Shaq put in two bad games but when your being constantly watched by Scottie, Sabonis, and Sheed (three defenders) you are impacting the game by being there.

[ElGee]

Why MJ over Wilt, Elgee?

So did you catch my Wilt post in this thread? If you're looking for one concrete reason why I've moved Wilt down off that top line, again, look to my post earlier in the thread on him. He's having great impact, but I definitely think that if Jordan had as many ups and downs as Wilt did and then the 96 Bulls had the same season they had that people would look at 96 Jordan as some GOAT season...because of the freakish team success. Know what I'm saying? (It's easier to look statistically dominant on loaded teams.)

I just don't see the impact being as impressive because of what happened in surrounding seasons, and certainly not because of his raw box numbers that were assisted by the pace of the game then. Am I supposed to be impressed and won over by his box score numbers??

-His rebound rate was around 20.5% for the 67 PS. Dwight Howard's was 24.5% in 2009. Barkley's 22.2% in 1990. Kareem's 21.6% in 1977. Duncan 21.4% in 2008. Robinson 21.2% in 1998. Shaq in 2000 was 20.4%.

-His scoring rate, per 75 possessions, was around 13. Is this supposed to make me think "amazing offensive impact player!!!! Unstoppable force!!!"

-His TS% is +14.4%...which is astounding except when you stop and consider than Tyson Chandler posted a +15.1% TS last year...while scoring MORE frequently than Wilt did in the 67 PS (14.3 pts/75).

-His assists are fantastic...but assists are an unstable stat. What is that telling us? If he's "creating" for his teammates, how much is he helping them? If he's feeding them good shots, to what degree is it helping. THIS is more important to me than a guy who is part of a 5-man scoring attack, distributing the points themselves fairly equally. We look Wilt's statline in these threads, but no one mentions because of the pace and construction of the team that Greer averaged 28 ppg (49% TS), Walker 22 ppg (55% TS), Jones 18 ppg (49% TS) and Cunningham 23.9 per36 off the bench.

To me, people should really be trying to figure out how Wilt was interacting with his team while volume scoring the year before (was he "holding them back" so to speak, or in my parlance, being incredible non-portable), and then what kind of "impact" does that mean his 1967 passing role had? People sometimes refer to him as a 5th scoring option on the 67 team -- I don't believe that's true. I believe he was still a primary offensive hub from the mid-post area, looking for cutters and open men constantly.

But Steve Nash creates offense that way off the pick and roll. I'm LESS concerned about Nash's final assist, scoring and TS% numbers than I am about his impact on those other 4 guys. And in Wilt's case, that's the same question people should be asking: What does putting Wilt Chamberlain in the mid-post and having him draw defensive attention do for a decent (or good) offensive team? An equally good question might be, "why did the GOAT-level player go play with an all-time level guard (West) right after this and not seem to do much of anything?"

[An Unbiased Fan]

I think the even bigger point is that his 2000 peak really wasn't the best in any category. It wasn't the best offensively, nor the best defensively. He didn't have the GOAT playoff run, nor the GOAT regular season.

That's how I feel. I don't think Shaq's offense is as good as someone like Mike or Magic on the perimeter at all, and his defense isn't close to the level of making up for it. I think his scoring and "domination" is becoming severely overrated.

What player can honestly say they had an offensive peak like MJ (both of them)? His value was in being the best offensive player in the league, the second best defender, and best playoff performer. He is the only player (IMO) that you can put on any 10-8th seed ever (no matter how the team is built) and instantly have a contender. Most players don't have that type of versatility/ability to draw so much attention. People mention the Portland games but he was still commanding triple teams. It's like what Ray Allen brings to a team. Many said after that record breaking game in the 2010 Finals he didn't play well, but the fact that they committed a defender to stick to him every play (and when he ran off screens multiple defenders) means he brought a major impact and forced the Lakers to play Kobe off ball (with any PG but Rondo the Lakers would've been screwed).

Shaq put in two bad games but when your being constantly watched by Scottie, Sabonis, and Sheed (three defenders) you are impacting the game by being there.

If the debate was about who the best player of 2000 was, then I could see these points swaying me, but we're talking about the GOAT peak here.

1) Offensively, Shaq was great, but where do we really rank his RS performance of 29.7 PPG on 58% TS, or 30.7 PPG on 56% TS? Is that even Top 10 ever on offense? His playoff competition was 31, 31, 35, 33 years old, and not exactly defensive juggernauts.

And while I do take the attention Shaq got from opposing defenses into account, that's more a function of the crop of centers he faced in 2000, and the philosophy of "using 6 fouls" on Shaq due to his FT shooting. Opposing teams had the option to swarm and foul Shaq since the odds were good that he would miss at least one.

2) I don't get the "you can put Shaq on any 10-8th seed and their an instant contender" argument. The same thing is true of about 20 other players. In fact...

1996 Lakers - 4.21 SRS (this is before Shaq even got there)
1997 Lakers - 3.65 SRS (It actually went down his first year in LA)
1998 Lakers - 6.88 SRS
1999 Lakers - 2.67 SRS
2000 Lakers - 8.41 SRS (Phil comes, Kobe is full-time starter)
^
So for the 1st 3 years, LA only performed better in 1998, and worse in the other 2 years. In 2000, the major difference was Phil, and Kobe's development. I don't get this notion that Shaq = instant contender. He did play great D that year, but it's a bit of hyperbole to put him up as god-like.

3) I'm not sure how Pippen was all over Shaq, when he was man2man with Kobe the vast majority of that series. It's a bit of an overstatement to say he was triple teamed all game long. And those weren't the only 2 bad games he had. He also was a bit stifled in game 3 & 4 against Sactown.

Now I will give Shaq credit for consistently hitting the boards, but again, we're talking about the GOAT peak here. I'm not overly impressed by Shaq dominating the boards over Divac, Longley, Old Sabonis, and Smits.

4) Ask yourself...

Did Shaq have a Top 5 offensive year in 2000?
Did Shaq have a Top 10 defensive year in 2000?
Did he have a Top 10 year on the boards in 2000?
Did he have a Top 5 playoff run in 2000?
Did he have a Top 5 Regular season?

If not, then how is his peak the GOAT?

[Doctor MJ]

Since I'm voting Jordan for my #2 spot I guess I'll jump in here.

The reason I think this season deserves heavy consideration is not that he was the most "impactful" player. It's because he was the most FLAWLESS player ever.

...

That being said I believe the GOAT SG season <<< GOAT C season.

Whoa. Hold on here, I want to get some things clear.

When you use "<<<<" to state your preference, that implies a ridiculously huge difference. If you're using hyperbole, and you just mean "#1 vs #2 is very clear for me", that's cool.

However, if you are putting Jordan at #2 simply because it's the best season by a non-big, this doesn't seem appropriate to me. I don't know your specific players off hand, but if you believe that the peaks of, say, Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, and Russell all surpass Jordan's based on your measurement of peak, then they should all go above Jordan. Jordan got his MVPs (and POYs) by beating out big men, he should earn his place here the same way.

[ronnymac2]

I said this in the other Highest Peak thread...if you have a problem with the competition Shaq faced during the 2000 playoffs, use the 2001 playoffs to at least inform yourself about how Shaq reacts to different (or elite) defensive frontcourts. Smits and Longley were switched with Robinson/Duncan and Mutombo (Por and Sac stayed constant), yet Shaq's 2001 playoff numbers were remarkably similar to what they were in 2000.

[rrravenred]

Well the obvious comeback to that is that he was better in 2001, when healthy and focused (2001 Lakers being the poster child for one of the most bi-polar teams of all time). Having said that, his stats are all slightly down that year... except for FTA, which rose by almost 3 per game... it's a big jump.... any insights?

[Doctor MJ]

1996 Lakers - 4.21 SRS (this is before Shaq even got there)
1997 Lakers - 3.65 SRS (It actually went down his first year in LA)
1998 Lakers - 6.88 SRS
1999 Lakers - 2.67 SRS
2000 Lakers - 8.41 SRS (Phil comes, Kobe is full-time starter)

It has to be pointed out that:

In 1997, Shaq missed almost half the season, the team didn't have their star from the previous year (Ceballos)).

In 1998, 6.88 is fantastic, and Shaq still missed a quarter of the season.

1999 was the strike year.

It's fair to criticize for Shaq for things in these years, but still, it wasn't until Shaq's 4th year with LA that they actually got to play a real season with a healthy Shaq and he responded with career high minutes, and rebounding & blocking numbers he hadn't hit since rookie season (when he had a very different body), meanwhile his scoring numbers (volume per minute and efficiency) actually went slightly downward.

I do think that Phil's arrival and Kobe's emergence contributed to his focus that season, but this was not a man only succeeding because others enabling him. This very clearly was an enormous talent, putting it all together.

[NO-KG-AI]

I just never watched Shaq then, nor go back and watch now, and just think "Damn, this is the best basketball that has ever been played."

He was dominant, no doubt, but the ability to create from any spot on the floor and doing it at a higher volume/efficiency just outweighs Shaq's advantages to me.

[SilkStream]

I think it just comes down to no player has ever had the impact that 00 Shaq had.

His offensive impact was GOAT worthy.
31ppg on 56% shooting (has anyone else ever done that?) while attracting more defenders, defensive attention and putting more pressure on opposing defenses then any other player ever has.
Combine that with his excellent passing, low TOV rate and his dominance on the offensive boards and you just have an absolute nightmare on the offensive end.

Defensively he was also a complete terror. He was bigger and more muscled but had yet to start letting himself go so he was toned/ripped and was just an absolute freakish physical specimen.
He dominated the boards, controlled the paint and blocked/altered countless shots.
His defense was really spectacular this year and probably his best ever.

I don't think you can replace 00 Shaq with any other player and still get a Title as a result.
That supporting cast he had was pretty weak.
Young Kobe who was a low to mid level All-Star and very inconsistent and a couple of roleplayers.
The fact that they managed to beat a pretty strong Indiana team with Kobe being more or less a non factor outside of one game is pretty remarkable.

[SilkStream]

I just never watched Shaq then, nor go back and watch now, and just think "Damn, this is the best basketball that has ever been played."

He was dominant, no doubt, but the ability to create from any spot on the floor and doing it at a higher volume/efficiency just outweighs Shaq's advantages to me.

Great as Peak Jordan was the gap between him and Shaq defensively is much larger then the gap between them offensively.


Jordan doesn't come close to having the defensive impact Shaq had in 00 as a truly Elite Defensive Anchor at the C position.

Jordan has one of the best Peaks ever (might be #2 for me) but if I have one season I am taking 00 Shaq over him and anyone else.

I'd also like to reiterate for those who complain about the WCF going to 7 games.
That series should have ended in G5 where Shaq dominated but the Lakers lost because pretty much everyone on his team including Kobe just did not show up.

[ardee]

I just never watched Shaq then, nor go back and watch now, and just think "Damn, this is the best basketball that has ever been played."

He was dominant, no doubt, but the ability to create from any spot on the floor and doing it at a higher volume/efficiency just outweighs Shaq's advantages to me.

This. When you're talking about the GOAT season, Shaq was too limited. Not saying he wasn't effective, but he just wasn't complete enough.

[ElGee]

I just never watched Shaq then, nor go back and watch now, and just think "Damn, this is the best basketball that has ever been played."

He was dominant, no doubt, but the ability to create from any spot on the floor and doing it at a higher volume/efficiency just outweighs Shaq's advantages to me.

Do you mean only offensively? I don't think anyone advocating Shaq (certainly not me) is arguing he's the GOAT offensive player. But you look at his offense AND his defense in that season...his D is seriously good.