My new project: top-5 1-year player peaks ever

[MisterWestside]

As you see in my other post though, I too, expect to see a more dominant performance from the Heat if I'm going to anoint LeBron. If I come away from it all feeling like the Heat are simply too vulnerable to a team with a superstar big, then all this optimization they've achieved will feel like a gimmick.

You have to keep in mind that even as they moved to their small ball offense, the Heat were always in the market for a big but have been limited because of cap room; they've either looked to sign players to put in the middle or drafted bigs that don't pan out (like Dexter Pittman). It was what led to their Birdman acquisition, and even then Birdman isn't the traditional big. They would definitely be ecstatic if they can get something of Oden against the Pacers.

But anyway, this to me seems starkly similar to the "rings" argument. Even while the Heat was struggling against the Pacers, for example, I did not watch that series and doubt that LeBron was one of the best basketball players that I've ever seen (not most valuable, best.) They stayed in the series - and won the series - despite getting zilch on offense from Bosh and Wade, and with Battier/Allen in a shooting slump. A lot of things have to occur for a team to be dominant. That's just my take.

I think that MJ has the GOAT peak though, and still has ownership of that peak even as James dominates the league. If James can maintain this level for more seasons however then I'd move him to #1.

[Gregoire]

As you see in my other post though, I too, expect to see a more dominant performance from the Heat if I'm going to anoint LeBron. If I come away from it all feeling like the Heat are simply too vulnerable to a team with a superstar big, then all this optimization they've achieved will feel like a gimmick.

You have to keep in mind that even as they moved to their small ball offense, the Heat were always in the market for a big but have been limited because of cap room; they've either looked to sign players to put in the middle or drafted bigs that don't pan out (like Dexter Pittman). It was what led to their Birdman acquisition, and even then Birdman isn't the traditional big. They would definitely be ecstatic if they can get something of Oden against the Pacers.

But anyway, this to me seems starkly similar to the "rings" argument. Even while the Heat was struggling against the Pacers, for example, I did not watch that series and doubt that LeBron was one of the best basketball players that I've ever seen (not most valuable, best.) They stayed in the series - and won the series - despite getting zilch on offense from Bosh and Wade, and with Battier/Allen in a shooting slump. A lot of things have to occur for a team to be dominant. That's just my take.

I think that MJ has the GOAT peak though, and still has ownership of that peak even as James dominates the league. If James can maintain this level for more seasons however then I'd move him to #1.

So, what are your top-5 peaks?

[Gregoire]

I think if you tone Jordan's shot total down to the point where he's only taking the best of shots, and worrying about his percentages, while using the new rules to exploit how easy it is to get to the line, you'd see ridiculous efficiency like that easily.

Miami has a ton more offensive talent. This declining version of Dwyane Wade is still a more talented scorer than Scottie Pippen, and I don't think either is the perfect fit next to Jordan/LeBron stylistically.

I do think Miami has a little bit of the Phoenix thing going where they sacrifice rebounding and such for offensive efficiency, but once they hit the playoffs they aren't an offensive juggernaut anymore. They've been able to win titles because of LeBron being awesome individually when it mattered.

I think LeBron has great balance, but he could be more aggressive sometimes. I guess the real question is, is the "balance" LeBron more conducive to winning a title than the Jordan or even the 09, monster aggressive LeBron? I don't believe he is, and him trying to find balance and keep the team involved cost him a title against Dallas, and almost did again against SA, IMO.

-All of this assumes that Jordan had the awareness to really recognize what was inefficient, and then to pass to the other guys with an effectiveness similar to LeBron. Jordan didn't do that when he should have in the Olympics, and he didn't do it when he should have in Washington. Are we to insist on looking at Jordan through a "what if" lens where he would have known to do these things in this era because other people would have told him more effectively what good basketball is? I don't think so.

-The Phoenix things, less of an offensive juggernaut in playoffs. Dude, they were MORE of an offensive juggernaut in the playoffs. The entire idea their plan didn't work in the playoffs is based on people simply assuming as such because they didn't win a title. There is no data to back that up.

-Almost lost against IND/SA. Well right but don't erase from the story where the #2 man on the Heat looked terrible through the playoffs due to injury, and possibly aging. The Heat of the past two playoffs are by no means the ideal of talent that we imagined when we first saw this thing come together. To use that against LeBron when they still ended up winning back to back chips is a bit harsh I think.

As you see in my other post though, I too, expect to see a more dominant performance from the Heat if I'm going to anoint LeBron. If I come away from it all feeling like the Heat are simply too vulnerable to a team with a superstar big, then all this optimization they've achieved will feel like a gimmick.

EDIT - Of course as I say this, people have pointed out that the Bulls didn't have a superstar big and there is definite evidence that they were vulnerable to such teams, and were quite fortunate in who their playoff opponents were.

When we imagine a peak Shaq going against this Heat team, it's not like I feel confident in Jordan's Bulls knowing what to do against that Shaq either. (Which is why Shaq is almost my peak GOAT and would be if I had more faith in the reliability of his brain).

I think you overrate the vulnerability of Heat (and Bulls) to teams with superstars bigs... Bulls played against Knicks (Ewing), Hornets, Heat (both - Mourning), Jazz (Malone), Hawks (Mutombo), Orlando with Shaq (and superstar wing) and beat all of them. Heat beat SA and Indiana and only loose to Dallas where Dirk wasnt typical big. How do you expect more from Bulls and Heat? To beat EVERY great center of the era? Or to face elite big in every round?
For Bulls I only see the danger from Hakeem in 90s (but his team was too weak imo), and dont see the chances to win fro Robinson - its only 2 superstar bigs MJ didnt faced in the playoffs (and its golden era of centers).
I didnt see peak Shaq gave much more problems to Bulls than 96 Shaq as a scorer. If we talk about Lakers early 2000s vs Bulls 90s its difficult to predict, but here its not about peak MJ vs peak Shaq comparison , its about Kobe was huge force Bulls didnt have too. In other side how the typicall "build around center" team (Lakers 2001. Houston 1995 ect) would defend peak Jordan or Lebron? Its flip side...
Overall, every player peak had flaws: Lebrons mindset (2013 finals) and maybe lack of elite bigs in the league... Shaqs 2000 Portlamd series, FT (mentality maybe too) and lack of competition on center position and overall lack of superstars... MJ maybe faced not every center of the era (hakeem and Robinson), but his flaws seems smallest here...

[RayBan-Sematra]

I think you overrate the vulnerability of Heat (and Bulls) to teams with superstars bigs... Bulls played against Knicks (Ewing), Hornets, Heat (both - Mourning), Jazz (Malone), Hawks (Mutombo), Orlando with Shaq (and superstar wing) and beat all of them.

Ewing and Malone were great players but had offensive weaknesses which could be exploited in the playoffs.
Plus I know the Jazz took the Bulls to 6 or 7 games and I believe the Knicks also didn't let Chicago off easily.
Orlando & Shaq beat Jordan in 95.
In 96 the Bulls won because of their perimeter defense. Shaq still dominated but the Bulls nerfed Penny badly outside of G1 and completely took the Orlando perimeter roleplayers out of that series. Plus Orlando had injury issues with Grant who was arguably their 3rd best player.

2000s vs Bulls 90s its difficult to predict, but here its not about peak MJ vs peak Shaq comparison , its about Kobe was huge force Bulls didnt have too.

I don't see Kobe making a difference.
96 Penny was clearly better then 00 or 02 Kobe and judging him by his level of play before the playoffs it is hard to say if he was even "that much" worse then 01 Kobe.
Still Chicago did a great job shutting him down. Pippen outplayed him in that series.

Peak Shaq would definitely outplay 96 Jordan.
If you add 01 Kobe and he is able to dominate even against the Bulls perimeter defense then yeah I might side with the Lakers.

Shaqs 2000 Portlamd series

Shaq carried the Lakers to 3 wins in the first 4 games of that series and had a monster 5th game.
If not for Kobe and his roleplayers choking in G5 that series would have never gone to a 6th or 7th game.
Shaq also didn't have a terrible G7. He was highly efficient and led the Lakers in 4th Q scoring and made all his FT's down the stretch.

Shaq had a bad G6 and a disappointing but not horrible G7 but he still had an amazing overall series when you look at all 7 games. He was absolutely dominant in the first 5 games.

[Gregoire]

I think you overrate the vulnerability of Heat (and Bulls) to teams with superstars bigs... Bulls played against Knicks (Ewing), Hornets, Heat (both - Mourning), Jazz (Malone), Hawks (Mutombo), Orlando with Shaq (and superstar wing) and beat all of them.

Ewing and Malone were great players but had offensive weaknesses which could be exploited in the playoffs.
Plus I know the Jazz took the Bulls to 6 or 7 games and I believe the Knicks also didn't let Chicago off easily.
Orlando & Shaq beat Jordan in 95.
In 96 the Bulls won because of their perimeter defense. Shaq still dominated but the Bulls nerfed Penny badly outside of G1 and completely took the Orlando perimeter roleplayers out of that series. Plus Orlando had injury issues with Grant who was arguably their 3rd best player.

2000s vs Bulls 90s its difficult to predict, but here its not about peak MJ vs peak Shaq comparison , its about Kobe was huge force Bulls didnt have too.

I don't see Kobe making a difference.
96 Penny was clearly better then 00 or 02 Kobe and judging him by his level of play before the playoffs it is hard to say if he was even "that much" worse then 01 Kobe.
Still Chicago did a great job shutting him down. Pippen outplayed him in that series.

Peak Shaq would definitely outplay 96 Jordan.
If you add 01 Kobe and he is able to dominate even against the Bulls perimeter defense then yeah I might side with the Lakers.

Shaqs 2000 Portlamd series

Shaq carried the Lakers to 3 wins in the first 4 games of that series and had a monster 5th game.
If not for Kobe and his roleplayers choking in G5 that series would have never gone to a 6th or 7th game.
Shaq also didn't have a terrible G7. He was highly efficient and led the Lakers in 4th Q scoring and made all his FT's down the stretch.

Shaq had a bad G6 and a disappointing but not horrible G7 but he still had an amazing overall series when you look at all 7 games. He was absolutely dominant in the first 5 games.

Every players have weaknesses and Bulls just exploited them ( Malone, Shaq, Ewing, Kemp ect)
Bulls best Jazz in 6 games 2 times and swept Shaq in 96. In 95 Jordan was rusty and you know it.
In 96 Shaq didnt "dominate", Magic were more talented team, but Bulls swept them and Jordan was better and most dominant player in the series. Penny was huge superstar and 3rd best plauyer on the court, Bulls have some injuries and even in game 1 with Grant Magic were badly blowouted. I see Bulls beat 00s Lakers just in the similar way.
Penny 96 didnt better than 00 and 01 Kobe at all. Kobe early 00s was better player clearly. In 01 dont even close. But yes, Penny in 96 was better player than Pippen and give a lot of help to Shaq.
Yes, peak Shaq would outplay 96 Jordan, but peak Jordan would outplay peak Shaq, about Bulls vs Lakers I see Bulls win due to better chemistry and team play (but I agree Kobe would dominate, Bulls havent nearly good 1B option).
In Portland series Shaq was conteined and had supbar series, he had awlut games 6 and 7 (aside of 4 quarter in 7 game). Kobe carried the Lakers in 6 and 7 games, even in 4th quarter...

[Gregoire]

Very desirable posters here to post their top-5:
ElGee
JulesWinnfield
Reservoirdawgs
mopper8
tsherkin
Mutnt
jals
NugzHeat3
Durins Baynes
accrossthecourt
rravenred
PaulieWall
Gideon
Infamous1
Boarder Patrol
OnePostLegend
Notanoob
SummitAllstar
parapooper
Modulate
NH13
Rapcity_11
HeartBreakKid
Reservoirdawgs
An Unbiased Fan

[RayBan-Sematra]

Every players have weaknesses and Bulls just exploited them ( Malone, Shaq, Ewing, Kemp ect)

Agreed except for Shaq.
Shaq was always dominant against the Bulls. The Bulls beat the Magic in 96 by shutting down everyone but Shaq.

In 96 Shaq didnt "dominate"

Yes he did. He crapped all over the Bulls interior defense and had an amazing series.
Was a very close 2nd best to Jordan in that series and was almost the series MVP.

Magic were more talented team

Not sure if I would agree with that but either way I deem it irrelevant.
The Chicago supporting cast badly outplayed Orlando's so in factual terms MJ had the better supporting cast in that series.
You continually fail to understand that talent isn't worth anything unless it translates to superior play on the court just like how some very talented college players never played well in the NBA.
Sure they were talented but it doesn't mean anything since they couldn't harness that talent on the big stage for whatever reason.

Bulls swept them and Jordan was better and most dominant player in the series.

Agreed although Shaq was close to Jordan in dominance when looking at that series.
Jordan was only slightly better individually.

Penny was huge superstar and 3rd best plauyer on the court

Arguable but I think Pippen played better then Penny in that series especially once you factor in defense.
I'd say Penny was the 4th best player after Jordan, Shaq & Pip.

Penny 96 didnt better than 00 and 01 Kobe at all.

96 Penny was clearly better then 00 Kobe and 99% of people would agree. I'd say the same for 02 Kobe.
01 Kobe was different though and it is debatable there.

But yes, Penny in 96 was better player than Pippen and give a lot of help to Shaq.

Penny may have been the better individual player but Pippen outplayed him in their h2h playoff series.
So Penny being better in general doesn't mean much since Pippen was better when it counted the most.

In Portland series Shaq was conteined and had supbar series

Shaq was absolutely dominant in 5/7 games and was at the very worst "decent" in G7.
Not sure how he was contained. Having 5 dominant games, 1 good game and 1 bad game is not being contained.

he had awlut games 6 and 7 (aside of 4 quarter in 7 game).

He had an awful G6 but a decent G7 overall.

Kobe carried the Lakers in 6 and 7 games, even in 4th quarter...

Kobe put up the best box score stats in G7 but considering Shaq's non-statistical impact in that game it is arguable that Shaq was the MVP of that game.
Also I think Shaq was the MVP of "the 4th quarter" in G7 but I suppose that is debatable.

[Gregoire]

Every players have weaknesses and Bulls just exploited them ( Malone, Shaq, Ewing, Kemp ect)

Agreed except for Shaq.
Shaq was always dominant against the Bulls. The Bulls beat the Magic in 96 by shutting down everyone but Shaq.

In 96 Shaq didnt "dominate"

Yes he did. He crapped all over the Bulls interior defense and had an amazing series.
Was a very close 2nd best to Jordan in that series and was almost the series MVP.

Magic were more talented team

Not sure if I would agree with that but either way I deem it irrelevant.
The Chicago supporting cast badly outplayed Orlando's so in factual terms MJ had the better supporting cast in that series.
You continually fail to understand that talent isn't worth anything unless it translates to superior play on the court just like how some very talented college players never played well in the NBA.
Sure they were talented but it doesn't mean anything since they couldn't harness that talent on the big stage for whatever reason.

Bulls swept them and Jordan was better and most dominant player in the series.

Agreed although Shaq was close to Jordan in dominance when looking at that series.
Jordan was only slightly better individually.

Penny was huge superstar and 3rd best plauyer on the court

Arguable but I think Pippen played better then Penny in that series especially once you factor in defense.
I'd say Penny was the 4th best player after Jordan, Shaq & Pip.

Penny 96 didnt better than 00 and 01 Kobe at all.

96 Penny was clearly better then 00 Kobe and 99% of people would agree. I'd say the same for 02 Kobe.
01 Kobe was different though and it is debatable there.

But yes, Penny in 96 was better player than Pippen and give a lot of help to Shaq.

Penny may have been the better individual player but Pippen outplayed him in their h2h playoff series.
So Penny being better in general doesn't mean much since Pippen was better when it counted the most.

In Portland series Shaq was conteined and had supbar series

Shaq was absolutely dominant in 5/7 games and was at the very worst "decent" in G7.
Not sure how he was contained. Having 5 dominant games, 1 good game and 1 bad game is not being contained.

he had awlut games 6 and 7 (aside of 4 quarter in 7 game).

He had an awful G6 but a decent G7 overall.

Kobe carried the Lakers in 6 and 7 games, even in 4th quarter...

Kobe put up the best box score stats in G7 but considering Shaq's non-statistical impact in that game it is arguable that Shaq was the MVP of that game.
Also I think Shaq was the MVP of "the 4th quarter" in G7 but I suppose that is debatable.

Shaqs weaknesses were exploited like the others. He didnt near dominant and had weak series in 96. He wasnt dominant and Jordan was clearly better in these series, not close.
Orlando was more talented team and had better 2nd option, so if they lose, Jordan outplay Shaq and even if other Chicago players played better than Orlando its pertly because the shut down Shaq and their gameplan worked.
Jordan was clearly better player individually in 96 and in the series.And penny was better than Pippen slightly. In the series and in the season Penny do more than Pip and helped more the team.
100% would agree than 00 Kobe was better than 96 Penny, and 01 and 02 Kobe noty even close better player.
In Portland series Shaq wasnt near dominant, he had very bad games 6 and 7 and was average in 1-5 games by his stands.
Kobne was clearly MVP of the games 6 and 7 its not close and in 4th quarter he was better too.

[Gregoire]

ElGee's rankings from 2012 year.

Rank Year SRS Impact Portability Health Player

SACRED PEAKS
1 1990 9.0 AVG 100% Jordan
2 2000 9.0 AVG 100% Shaq
3 1986 8.0 HIGH 100% Bird
4 1967 8.0 AVG 100% Chamberlain
5 2012 8.0 AVG 90% LBJ

[Gregoire]

Right now after counting the votes in these thread the picture is:

MJ - 16 votes number 1
Shaq - 7 votes
Wilt - 2 votes (if we count fpliii vote)
Lebron - 1 vote
Hakeem - 1 vote

These are basically posters top-5 peaks I think... Not bad list, only Bird and Russell have the case to be in top-5 other than these guys.

Still waiting some of these guys to give the food for thinking...

ElGee
JulesWinnfield
Reservoirdawgs
mopper8
tsherkin
Mutnt
jals
NugzHeat3
Durins Baynes
accrossthecourt
rravenred
PaulieWall
Gideon
Infamous1
Boarder Patrol
OnePostLegend
Notanoob
SummitAllstar
parapooper
Modulate
NH13
Rapcity_11
HeartBreakKid
An Unbiased Fan

[MisterWestside]

So, what are your top-5 peaks?

Apologies for not getting back to you here.

Still have to figure out the rankings. I'd say that MJ, Wilt, James, and KAJ are on it for sure.

[Gregoire]

So, what are your top-5 peaks?

Apologies for not getting back to you here.

Still have to figure out the rankings. I'd say that MJ, Wilt, James, and KAJ are on it for sure.

Good list, what version of Kareem you assume?

[Gregoire]

So I redid all of my survey projects for the 10 players, and completed one for Hakeem. Here are the top offensive/defensive peaks:

Code: Select all

Offense

Value   Season
+6.0   85 Bird
+6.0   86 Bird
+6.0   87 Bird
+6.0   88 Bird
+6.0   89 Jordan
+6.0   90 Jordan
+6.0   91 Jordan
+6.0   92 Jordan
+6.0   00 O’Neal
+6.0   01 O’Neal

Defense

Value   Season
+9.5   64 Russell
+8.0   62 Russell
+8.0   63 Russell
+8.0   65 Russell
+7.5   61 Russell
+7.5   66 Russell
+6.5   69 Russell
+6.5   93 Olajuwon
+6.0   94 Olajuwon
+5.5   64 Chamberlain

I have a total of 7 10.0 SRS seasons (Chamberlain 64,67; Russell 64; O'Neal 00,01; Olajuwon 93,94) at the moment, with Kareem in at +9.0 (LeBron at +8.5, Duncan at +8.0). I feel like there will be other players checking in at +8.0 or greater (Garnett, Walton, Robinson being the most likely candidates) so for now my top 4 are Wilt-Russell-Shaq-Hakeem. No order presently, since nothing separates them aside from stylistic preference.

Have you now the order for your top-4 10,0 SRS peaks?

[ceiling raiser]

So I redid all of my survey projects for the 10 players, and completed one for Hakeem. Here are the top offensive/defensive peaks:

Code: Select all

Offense

Value   Season
+6.0   85 Bird
+6.0   86 Bird
+6.0   87 Bird
+6.0   88 Bird
+6.0   89 Jordan
+6.0   90 Jordan
+6.0   91 Jordan
+6.0   92 Jordan
+6.0   00 O’Neal
+6.0   01 O’Neal

Defense

Value   Season
+9.5   64 Russell
+8.0   62 Russell
+8.0   63 Russell
+8.0   65 Russell
+7.5   61 Russell
+7.5   66 Russell
+6.5   69 Russell
+6.5   93 Olajuwon
+6.0   94 Olajuwon
+5.5   64 Chamberlain

I have a total of 7 10.0 SRS seasons (Chamberlain 64,67; Russell 64; O'Neal 00,01; Olajuwon 93,94) at the moment, with Kareem in at +9.0 (LeBron at +8.5, Duncan at +8.0). I feel like there will be other players checking in at +8.0 or greater (Garnett, Walton, Robinson being the most likely candidates) so for now my top 4 are Wilt-Russell-Shaq-Hakeem. No order presently, since nothing separates them aside from stylistic preference.

Have you now the order for your top-4 10,0 SRS peaks?

Not quite, but I'm doing another revision.

I've been watching a lot of Jordan 86-87 through 92-93 tape, so I'm going to work on finalizing his first.

[Gregoire]

Well in 2000, Shaq's Lakers were incredibly lucky to get past the Blazers. It took 7 games, and in Game 7 it took a miracle comeback to win. It's difficult to imagine a Game 7 scenario where Jordan would ever be as erratic as Shaq was in that game.

Yes, you are right and thats why I have Jordan at my 1 peak and Shaq below, but I think its not about Shaqs mentality, but just about Jordans and Shaqs level of play and impact. Jordan was little more impactful and had the advantages: offense impact, clutch, FT ect, but why you argue the mentality here? Shaq did all he could I think...

In that game Kobe had more points, rebounds, assists, and blocks with less turnovers than Shaq, and this was pre-prime Kobe. I have a hard time chalking that up simply to Portland having a good game plan.

I'll also add that whenever I see a big man brick free throws regularly, I lose respect for their brain. Any of these guys could be making more free throws by shooting granny style. They don't because they put their own pride ahead of the team.

So that all adds into to the moment in question in addition to all the issues that existed clearly in other moments.

I think its very debatable statement and in reality Shaq had good coach (I dont remember his name, but his results really became slightly better, but not for long period) in 2001 or 2002 and he trained FTs a lot ( I think a lot more, than Wilt, Howard ect) and if to take this style maked sense, I think the coach said it to him.
Also Wilt try to use this style and the result is? Why Shaq would be different? I think he done all that he could, but this was his objective weakness like with other giants. But people often compared his work ethic to Kobes, who himself was one of billion workoholic.

[Doctor MJ]

I think its very debatable statement and in reality Shaq had good coach (I dont remember his name, but his results really became slightly better, but not for long period) in 2001 or 2002 and he trained FTs a lot ( I think a lot more, than Wilt, Howard ect) and if to take this style maked sense, I think the coach said it to him.
Also Wilt try to use this style and the result is? Why Shaq would be different? I think he done all that he could, but this was his objective weakness like with other giants. But people often compared his work ethic to Kobes, who himself was one of billion workoholic.

It's not like people didn't say it to Shaq. Rick Barry said it all the damn time. Pretty sure there's also a quote lying around of Shaq saying he would never throw granny style no matter what people said.

It's simple physics: Bad free throw shooters shoot without arc. That makes the margin of error really small. Watch Shaq or Wilt shoot free throws, and it's a bunch of line drives. If they shot underhand, there would be no possibility of this happening.

Re: "did all he could". A professional athlete who does all he could doesn't get obese while he plays, and he most definitely doesn't wait to get surgery until the summer is over because he values his personal time above "company time". Nah, Shaq is lazy, petulant, and easily offended. That's why he's no the GOAT.

[Dipper 13]

It's not like people didn't say it to Shaq. Rick Barry said it all the damn time. Pretty sure there's also a quote lying around of Shaq saying he would never throw granny style no matter what people said.

It's simple physics: Bad free throw shooters shoot without arc. That makes the margin of error really small. Watch Shaq or Wilt shoot free throws, and it's a bunch of line drives. If they shot underhand, there would be no possibility of this happening.

Re: "did all he could". A professional athlete who does all he could doesn't get obese while he plays, and he most definitely doesn't wait to get surgery until the summer is over because he values his personal time above "company time". Nah, Shaq is lazy, petulant, and easily offended. That's why he's no the GOAT.

Wilt did shoot underhand for a bit, though he still was bad. He used to change his FT shooting form every few games


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kdd2biHVlyA&t=2m58s



Wilt: Just Like Any Other 7-Foot Black Millionaire who Lives Next Door - Wilt Chamberlain (1973)

In high school, I'd been an 85 percent foul shooter. In college, with the opposition preventing us from playing the run-and-gun basketball I was accustomed to, I didn't have the same opportunities to shoot from the outside that I had had at Overbrook, and my outside shooting proficiency suffered; so did my free-throw shooting. I shot my free throws with one hand back then, taking a deep-knee bend kind of motion, and it was something of a strain on my knees; like many men who grow too quickly in their youth, I had arthritic knees from childhood on, and at Kansas, that problem was exacerbated by an exercise Coach Harp had us do — duck-waddling around the court for ten minutes every day. Then, during track after my sophomore season, I injured my knee. That did it. By the time my junior year rolled around, I had to change my free-throw style; it was just too awkward and painful for me to use my natural style. My free-throw percentage dropped to 60.8 percent — still not disgraceful, but well on its way there.

My first year with the Warriors, it got even closer — 58.2 percent. My second year, it was down to 50.4 percent. From that time on, the problem became almost completely psychological. I'd try a new stance and a new grip and a new style every few games, and I never again felt comfortable at the free-throw line. I shouldn't have let it bother me so much, but I wanted to excel at everything, and the harder I tried— the more different ways I tried to shoot — the worse I got. By my ninth year I was down to 38 percent, and I've only been over 50 percent in four of the last ten years. My lifetime NBA percentage is now 51.1 percent — lower than my field goal percentage, for Christ sake!

[Gregoire]

It's not like people didn't say it to Shaq. Rick Barry said it all the damn time. Pretty sure there's also a quote lying around of Shaq saying he would never throw granny style no matter what people said.

It's simple physics: Bad free throw shooters shoot without arc. That makes the margin of error really small. Watch Shaq or Wilt shoot free throws, and it's a bunch of line drives. If they shot underhand, there would be no possibility of this happening.

Re: "did all he could". A professional athlete who does all he could doesn't get obese while he plays, and he most definitely doesn't wait to get surgery until the summer is over because he values his personal time above "company time". Nah, Shaq is lazy, petulant, and easily offended. That's why he's no the GOAT.

We have the evidence of Wilt trying granny style without succes, why you could argue Shaq would be different? Granny style IMO is very personal thing, not every players could learn it to hit with decent percentage, not to mention giatn with awful shooting in general.
Yes, I agree that throughout his career Shaq was lazy at times and coast so much, but I talk about 2000, when he went full throttle I think. And in every playoff from 00 to 04 at least (and early years too) he was 100% motivated and not lazy. So, If he was at his best in 2000 and for me he is on 2-3 spot of best peaks ever, why he should be the GOAT if he just least coast in RS in other seasons? Playoffs matter and Shaq was second-third best playoffs 1year, 2,3,4 year peak ever. Its his place overall I think and its legitimate, because in the playoffs he was "full" Shaq in his prime.
If we talk about "GOAT potential" IMO Wilt had better case for " if not mentality he would be GOAT", Wilt really had a lot of bad mentality ect even at peak years.
Barkley had the case too. But overall it "shoulda woulda coulda" didnt ake sense for me because players talent include all things and ability to play basketball include brain too (bbal IQ, mentality ect).
I just think Shaq and Wilt often get excuses for "GOAT potential", but they didnt deserved it: they hadnt GOAT peaks, why they "should have" GOAT careers (maintain the level of play is even more difficult that to shine it one season)?

[Gregoire]

Still waiting some of these guys to give the food for thinking...

ElGee
JulesWinnfield
Reservoirdawgs
mopper8
tsherkin
Mutnt
jals
NugzHeat3
Durins Baynes
accrossthecourt
rravenred
PaulieWall
Gideon
Infamous1
Boarder Patrol
OnePostLegend
Notanoob
SummitAllstar
parapooper
Modulate
NH13
Rapcity_11
HeartBreakKid
An Unbiased Fan

[SuperJobs]

1. Jordan
2. Hakeem
3. Shaq
4. Wilt
5. Lebron