RealGM Top 100 List #4

[penbeast0]

Rules: Vote for 1 player. You may change your vote as consensus emerges but if so, go back and EDIT YOUR ORIGINAL POST. Votes without analysis will not be counted. If, after 2 days, there is not a majority consensus, the top; 2 nominees will have a 1 day runoff election to determine the spot on our list. NBA/ABA only, no college, international play, ABL, NBL, BAA or other pre-NBA play considered.

[90sAllDecade]

Reserving this spot, I vote Hakeem Olajuwon and will go in-depth why he's a better combined overall individual two way player than anyone else considering team support, competition and all context.

When you hold a microscope to these players, Hakeem is actually the true GOAT center and big man all time imo despite these long held media influenced beliefs.

Basketball has always been a center's game from 50's in Mikan, 60's Wilt, Russell, 70's-80's Kareem, Walton, 90s Hakeem & 00's Shaq. Dominant two way bigs have always been more impactful than wing players on the whole. They are extremely rare, can be offensive and defensive anchors and whenever a GM is given a choice of what to start a franchise with a dominant big is the #1 choice.

Hakeem Olajuwon is the consensus greatest two way big of all time and imo the GOAT center

No wing player in NBA history, Jordan, Magic included, has ever won a championship without an all star or HOF talent versus bigs. Hakeem is the only player in NBA history to win a championship without an all star, HOF talent or elite/GOAT level coach. Wings need more help, bigs can do more with less because they are historically more impactful overall. Dr. James Naismith made basketball's scoring mechanism ten feet off the ground; height, shooting, coordination and explosiveness are traditionally king in this game and likely always will be


If you were to create the closest perfect shooting guard by combining skills with no weaknesses to date, it would be Jordan. If you were to create the closest perfect center with skills and no weaknesses it's Hakeem Olajuwon.

He combines every quality all the greatest have and is the greatest playoff center of all time:

He has playoff offense that's comparable to KAJ and Shaq:

Career PO ppg avg (raw):

Hakeem: 25.9 pts .569 TS%
Shaq: 24.3 pts, .565 TS%
Duncan: 21.3 pts, .548 TS%
Wilt: 22.5 pts, .524 TS%
Kareem: 24.3, .571 TS%

2 year consecutive Playoff peaks per100 avg (adjusted for pace):

Hakeem: 38.2, .563% (94-95)
Shaq: 37.6, .559 TS% (00-01)
Duncan: 32.2, .569 TS% (02-03)
Kareem: 36.0, .621 TS% (77-78)

Playoff Passing Comparable to Wilt Chamberlain and Bill Walton:

Peak Single Year Playoff Ast%:

Hakeem: 22.6% (95)
Wilt: 23.2 (68)
Walton: 19.4% (77)

Career Playoff Ast%:

Hakeem: 15.6%
Shaq: 14.7%
Wilt: 12.9%
Duncan: 16.2%
Kareem: 14.6%
Walton: 17.0%

He has defense comparable to Bill Russell.

There is no big in history comparable to him in steals. So we'll use wing players:

Career Steal Percent RS:

Hakeem: 2.4%
LeBron: 2.3%
Bird: 2.2%
Magic: 2.5%

Career Total Steals:

Hakeem: 2,162 - 9th All Time
Scottie Pippen: 2,307 - 6th
Alvin Robertson: 2,112 - 10th
Kobe Bryant: 1,835 - 16th

Career Blocks per Game:

Hakeem: 3.09
Duncan: 2.23
Shaq: 2.26

Peak Blk% RS:

Hakeem: 7.0%, 6.8%, 6.5%
Shaq: 5.8%, 5.7%, 5.3%
Duncan: 6.4%. 5.7%, 5.3%
Kareem: 5.0%, 4.9%, 4.6% (Data available only from age 26+)

And Olajuwon has rebounding comparable to any modern center or Duncan.

Peak Reb% RS:

Hakeem: 19.9%, 19.8%, 19.5%
Shaq: 20.6%, 18.8%, 18.7%
Duncan: 19.6%, 19.4%, 19.1%

-This post will be updated and edited over time.

Edit: Wanted to add some game film to make this project more interesting.

Hakeem vs Shaq

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DfO2FfDWY0[/youtube]

Dream still in his prime, you can click the other parts in youtube for the full game.

Hakeem is the greatest player in NBA history with the lowest team support and highest competition. This shows just how good he had to be versus the others who had outstanding high team support and lower competition advantages.

Team Support Comparison

Jordan:
15 years
Years with 1 All Star Player: x5 ( x6, if you consider 91' Pippen, which I do personally)
Two All Star player: x0 (x2 depending how you view Rodman)
Two All Star player and HOF Coach: x2
HOF Coach x7

*if you count Tex Winter, architect of the Triangle Offense, Jordan had two HOF coaches at once

Kareem:
19 years
Years with 1 All Star Player: x15
Two All Star player: x7
Two All Star player and HOF Coach: x7
HOF Coach: x8


Larry Bird:
13 years
Years with 1 All Star Player: x13
Two All Star player: x10
Two All Star player and HOF Coach: x0
HOF Coach x0



LeBron:
10 years
Years with 1 All Star Player: x6
Two All Star player: x4 (so far)
Two All Star player and HOF Coach: x0
HOF Coach x0


Magic:
12 years
Years with 1 All Star Player: x11
Two All Star player: x7
Two All Star player and HOF Coach: x7
HOF Coach x9


Russell:
12 years
Years with 1 All Star Player: x12
Two All Star player: x11
Two All Star player and HOF Coach: x9
HOF Coach x9


Hakeem:
17 years
Years with 1 All Star Player: x7
Two All Star player: x1
Two All Star player and HOF Coach: x0
HOF Coach x0

[RayBan-Sematra]

My VOTE is once again for Shaq
Only the GOAT Jordan can come close to matching Shaq's combination of extreme production & consistency in the playoffs over an extended Prime.
Shaq was quite arguably the 2nd best playoff performer ever after Jordan.
_______________________

Playoff PER

-Jordan
Top 5 : 30
Top 7 : 29.8
Top 10 : 29

-Shaq
Top 5 years : 29.9
Top 7 years : 29.6
Top 10 years : 28.3

-Duncan
Top 5 years : 27.6
Top 7 years : 27.3
Top 10 years : 26.4

-Hakeem
Top 5 years : 26.9
Top 7 years : 27.4
Top 10 years : 26.7

Those numbers are quite compelling.
Year after year O'neal was a lock to dominate in the playoffs and rarely performed poorly even in defeat.
When Shaq did have a solid All-Star or greater player at his side he almost always contended.

95 - Finals
96 - CF (lost to a GOAT team)
00 - Finals
01 - Finals
02 - Finals
03 - Kobe & roleplayers injured (lost to title winning team)
04 - Finals
05 - CF (plays very well but Wade's injury prevents another Finals berth)
06 - Finals

CF = Conference Finals
Not gonna include later years where he was washed up and ring chasin.

______________________________________________________________


Shaq was also one of the GOAT Finals performers which is something that I think separates him to some degree from other candidates.

Shaq in the Finals :

1995 : 28 / 13 / 6apg / 3bpg on 61%TS
2000 : 38 / 18 / 2apg / 3bpg on 58%TS
2001 : 36 / 16 / 5apg / 3bpg on 58%TS
2002 : 36 / 12 / 4apg / 3bpg on 64%TS!
2004 : 27 / 11 / 2apg on 62%TS

Just amazing...

____________________


Shaq VS others

Wilt

Shaq was the better playoff and finals performer and he was better over his career when it came to consistently being able to translate his own individual impact into a team setting. He also had fewer bad showings in playoff elimination series.

I also think individually Shaq was a significantly better scorer and overall offensive anchor.

Playoffs
Wilt (P42) over scoring Prime (60-66) : 29ppg on 50%FG / 52%TS + 11.5 AST%
Wilt (P42) in non scoring Prime (67-73) : 15ppg on 54%FG / 53%TS + 13.6 AST%

Shaq (P41) over scoring Prime (97-03) : 29ppg on 55%FG / 56%TS + 15.8 AST%
Shaq (P39) over last 7 years (00-06) : 25ppg on 56%FG / 56%TS + 13.6 AST%

I know some will respond by saying the league was less efficient back then but that didn't prevent Oscar or West from maintaining elite efficiency in an All-Time sense.
Also the factors which caused the league to be less efficient did not necessarily have any effect on Wilt.
He was not some infantile guard chucking up terrible shots at the bidding of his coach. He was a star who usually had the ball run through him and he was given time to score or create.

Even in Wilt's older years where he clearly did not any problem dunking the ball (Wilt himself spoke about how he was dunking everything by then) or scoring using brute strength his efficiency was still on average poor.
Even his FG% was not very good considering the volume at which he was scoring (and more importantly considering how abysmal his FT shooting was by then).

I tend to think that Wilt was not quite on the Shaq or Kareem level as a halfcourt scorer.
I know it is hard to think that given how tremendous his numbers were in the regular-season but it may very well be true.

Look at a guy like David Robinson.
His Peak regular-season offensive stats stack up just fine with most of the other ATG offensive C's but in the playoffs his inferior halfcourt ability was exposed.
One could make a similar (but worse) comparison to Iverson. Dude could volume score with the best of them but his lack of consistency when it came to his efficiency made him worse then many other scorers.

Where exactly Wilt ranks on the ATG scorers list is a mystery.
I have yet to decide just how good he was or if he could potentially have been better growing up in this generation (though arguments based on the hypothetical are always unfortunately weaker then ones based on facts).

----------

Duncan
Shaq was more productive then Duncan (see above PER tables) and had a noticeably greater edge on offense then Duncan had on defense. They are similar in terms of consistency and longevity.

----------

Magic
Shaq Peaked higher then Magic and had greater longevity.
I also believe his average Prime level impact was greater due to him having a noticeably greater edge on defense then Magic has over him on offense (they are both GOAT level offensive players).

[Basketballefan]

My vote: Magic Johnson. Arguably the greatest offensive player of all time, great leader, great winner, made his teammates better than anyone ever imo.

5 time champion, 3 of which he was the undisputed best player, 3 time MVP, 12 time all star, 4 time assist leader, 9 All nba first team selection etc

Great playoff performer beat some all time great teams such as Bird's Celtics and the Bad boy pistons, Avged 20 8 12 over his 13 year playoff career. Wins his first championship and FMVP as a rookie putting up 18 11 9 in the playoffs, with an incredible 42 15 7 game 6 clinching performance as Kareem goes down with injury and he jumps center.

Had Magic not got HIV he would've had a longer career and could've been in discussion for top 2 or even GOAT.

Knocks on magic usually consist of his longevity and his defense. Magic wasn't a great defender but i don't think he was a negative on that end and for his longevity its not great but not horrible, 13 years and he accomplished so much in that span and changed the game.

[colts18]

Here are Shaq's first 20 NBA finals games:

26-16-9, 63 FG%
33-12-7. 55 FG%
28-10-6. 65 FG%
25-12, 59 FG% 4 blk
43-19-4, 68 FG%
40-24-4. 61 FG%
33-13. 63 FG%
36-21. 52 FG%
35-11, 63 FG%
41-12, 59 FG%, 4 blk
44-20-5, 61 FG%, 61 FG%
28-20-9, 63 FG%, 8 blk
30-12, 55 FG%, 4 blk
34-14-5, 52 FG%
29-13, 56 FG%, 5 blk
36-16, 55 FG%, 55 FG%, 4 blk
40-12-8, 61 FG%
35-11, 63 FG%, 4 blk
34-10-4, 60 FG%
34-11, 81 FG%

Average: 34.2 PPG, 60.3 FG%, .601 TS%, 14.5 Reb, 4.0 AST, 2.8 BLK

Absolutely no one ever had such a dominant finals run like that.


Vote: Shaq

[ThaRegul8r]

As I've said before, I have no GOAT list, so I go into this with an open mind, willing to consider various arguments, both the pros AND the cons. Since people are presenting their candidates, they must, of course, present them in the best possible light in order to garner votes.

My interest isn't in the list, but in this discussion, as it could help me come to a decision on a list on my own. In order to come to a decision, however, I need information. There isn't enough presented for me, as it's designed to sway voters rather than invite objective discussion. I need more information than is sufficient for most people.

Regarding Shaq, there are some things about him which I didn't like, but putting those aside for the moment, I have concerns about his peak, as its his peak which his primarily responsible for his high ranking. I will repeat them here, hoping that one of the Shaq supporters will address this, which will aid me in my decision:

I've been looking at the arguments, and I have a question that I suspect won't be answered, as people will naturally present their side as favorably as possible while going after the other side.

With selective talk of competition and era, it must be done across the board if it's going to be done and not just for the opposing candidate. I addressed this on my Wilt/Shaq post when I tried to lay out some pros and cons, but no one's touched it.

At the time the Lakers' season opened on November 2 for the 1999-2000 season, Shaq was was 27 years, 241 days old.

• Olajuwon was 36 years, 285 days old
• Robinson was 34 years, 88 days old
• Ewing was 37 years, 89 days old

• Mutombo was 33 years, 130 days
• Mourning was 29 years, 267 days old
• Wallace was 25 years, 53 days old

Now.

Top opponent Center FG% defense from 98-13:
00 Lakers: 40.7 FG% (Shaq)
99 Spurs: 41.1 FG% (Duncan/Robinson)
99 Hawks: 41.9 FG% (Mutombo)
Shaq’s teams finished #1 in 00 and 05, #2 in 01, 02 and #3 in 98 and 06.

Looking at the ages of the centers who were Shaq's competition for All-NBA teams before he reached his absolute peak in '00, what two-way center was there to contend with a 27-year-old 7-1, 330 lb Shaq at the height of his powers in order for the Lakers' opponent center field defense statistic to be meaningful? Help defense is fine, as disrupting the opposing team's offense will help your team win, but as the opposing centers (individual matchup) are specifically mentioned, that's something in my notes that will need answering in order to help me make up my mind on this. Especially since eras and competition, specifically, has been brought up as a point.

I've been reading some posters talk about two-way centers that will make x center work. So, with that, my question is, who, looking at the ages listed above, was going to make Peak Shaq—playing the best defense he ever would over the course of a full season—work on defense? Feel free to add any pertinent name I may have missed, along with their age as of the '99-00 season. Man defense is specifically a point brought up for Shaq, yet, at his zenith, all the great offensive centers as of '99-00 are on the wrong side of 30. Mourning and Wallace are defenders. Shaq's at his peak. This is a detail I find lacking in the case I'm reading in my notes.

I'll leave it at that right now to keep it simple.

I collect articles and contemporary opinions as events occur, because after the fact, details get forgotten, and players get romanticized and mythologized. These were concerns being voiced at the time:

Spoiler:

Missing From the N.B.A. Lineup: Peers for the One True Center

By CHRIS BROUSSARD
Published: February 10, 2002

Two years ago, Pete Newell, a longtime teacher of basketball and a specialist in tutoring big men, was addressing hundreds of college and high school coaches at a clinic in Palm Springs, Calif.

After stating that Kareem Abdul-Jabbar's sky hook was arguably the best, most proficient shot ever produced, Newell asked a question: ''How many of you could see the possibility of a player like Kareem executing his sky hook within the parameters of your offense?''

Not one coach raised his hand. So Newell repeated the question. The response was the same.

''I said, 'You know what you're telling me,' '' Newell said in a telephone interview last week. ''You're telling me that if Kareem went to your school and liked basketball, he would be the biggest darn manager in the history of the game.' ''

Imagine if professional basketball had never featured Abdul-Jabbar's graceful sky hook, or the legendary battles waged by Bill Russell and Wilt Chamberlain, or even the face-offs between Patrick Ewing and Hakeem Olajuwon. Sound farfetched?

Well, many respected people in basketball believe skilled post play is essentially a thing of the past and that the center position, once the most glamorous and dominating in the game, is now virtually bereft of first-rate players.

As evidence, they point to the National Basketball Association's 51st All-Star Game, which will be played Sunday at First Union Center in Philadelphia. Of the original 24 players selected to play, only 3 are bona fide centers. Shaquille O'Neal, the only offensively dominant center left in the league, will not play because of a toe injury.

Thus, the Western Conference team will feature five guards and seven forwards; the East will counter with seven guards, three forwards and two centers, neither of whom averages as many as 16 points a game.

As an aging generation of great centers -- Ewing, Olajuwon, David Robinson, Dikembe Mutumbo and Alonzo Mourning, who has been slowed by a kidney disease -- becomes less of a factor, a new wave of agile big men is redefining the role of frontcourt performers.

Players like Minnesota's Kevin Garnett, Sacramento's Chris Webber and Dallas's Dirk Nowitzki are changing the game by playing on the wing, facing the basket and showcasing the skills traditionally associated with small forwards or even guards.

Meanwhile, the center position is left to less talented, less athletic, often plodding players. So while six years ago there were five centers in the top 10 in scoring and rebounding, this season, O'Neal is the only center among the league's top 20 scorers. Among the top 20 in rebounding, only four play center exclusively.

''It's kind of a lost art,'' said Jerry West, the Hall of Fame player and former Laker general manager who constructed several championship teams, including the current one. ''If you look at all these young kids coming out who are 6-9 to 7 feet tall, they all want to play outside. They handle the ball extremely well, but the bottom line is that when somebody's that big, you certainly would prefer that they play closer to the basket, and more importantly, develop the kind of skills that back-to-the-basket centers have. I don't view this trend as a positive thing.''

Newell, who has run his highly regarded Big Man's Camp for the last 24 summers, said the nurturing of traditional post players began to fade when college and high school coaches began employing motion and flex offenses almost exclusively in the 1970's and 1980's.

In contrast to the post-oriented offenses that ran through the center and featured plenty of cutting and backdoor action, the motion and the flex rely on screening and creating shots for players coming away from the basket. They also congest the area near the basket, eliminating the space that is necessary for a post player to operate. That is why none of the coaches at Newell's clinic two years ago could imagine a player like Abdul-Jabbar having the room to utilize his sky hook in their offensive schemes.
''The adoption of those offenses meant the position of the post player was changed totally,'' said Newell, who has worked with Olajuwon, Abdul-Jabbar, O'Neal and Bill Walton, among hundreds of others.

''Motion and flex kind of took the center out in terms of being a skilled passer and shooter with various moves: hooks, reverses, spin moves, fake hooks.''

Several of today's more versatile big men point to another factor in their development: the effect of Magic Johnson and Larry Bird, two icons of the 1980's.

Johnson, the 6-foot-9 point guard with the dazzling floor play, and Bird, the 6-9 marksman, destroyed the notion that height relegated one to playing in the post. The allure of giving and taking bruises beneath the basket could not compare with the excitement that young players associated with Johnson leading the fastbreak and tossing no-look and behind-the-back passes.

''When I was younger and saw Magic, George Gervin and Larry Bird, who was 6-9 shooting 3's, I wanted to emulate them,'' said Webber, who is 6-10. ''I think it's just an evolution. It's more about being a basketball player now, and I think that's good. The misconception is gone that because you have a tall eighth grade son, he has to play center. Dirk Nowitzki's 7 feet shooting 3's. I think that's awesome for basketball.''

These days, it seems that only the less gifted youngsters aspire to play down low. The top two picks in last summer's N.B.A. draft, the 6-11 Kwame Brown of Washington and the 7-foot Tyson Chandler of Chicago, both want to be small forwards rather than centers. So the Wizards' future interior will be left to Brendan Haywood, a promising 7-foot rookie who admits to playing inside only because he lacks the skills to compete elsewhere.

''It's definitely more attractive to play outside,'' Haywood said. ''If you're a young player coming up, you're seeing guys crossing people up with the dribble, shooting deep 3's, doing fancy moves. A lot of kids want to go out there and be entertaining, so they learn to play different positions. I really didn't have that option. I wasn't talented enough to go out and play small forward. I've been a center all my life and I'm going to continue to be one.''

Wayne Embry, a five-time All-Star center in the 1960's and a Hall of Fame executive, believes this style-over-substance mentality has led potential centers to opt for a less taxing perimeter game.

''There's a great deal of insecurity in developing a back-to-the-basket game,'' Embry said. ''You have to work hard, practice right-and-left-handed hook shoots, counter moves. If you just play facing the basket, you just need to practice jump shooting and putting the ball on the floor and driving. Another reason is that you get punished down low. You've got to have some heart to play in the post.''

Mourning, who along with Mutombo will be the only true center in today's game, agreed that the physical pounding intrinsic to post play deters many players.

''Not too many guys want to take that beating down there that we take on a regular basis,'' Mourning said. ''That's why there aren't too many of us left.''

West contends that strong post play makes the game easier for everyone and is essential to winning titles. N.B.A. teams are indeed combing the globe for quality centers. The reason? While the new breed of big men may wow crowds with their versatility, the old throwback, O'Neal, has won the last two championships.

''It's fun to watch centers like Vlade Divac, who is an outside guy and moves the ball and doesn't just have one type of game,'' Dallas Coach Don Nelson said. ''But Shaq is probably the most important player in the game.

''He wins the titles. He's the guy that's unstoppable. If you can find another dominant guy, you're going to get him and let him do what Shaq does.''

But O'Neal had some bad news for the purists. ''I'm the last of the true centers,'' he said. ''After I leave, there won't be any more.''

Spoiler:

Shaq is great — but how great, we may never know
Published: Thursday, June 13, 2002 12:53 p.m. MDT

By Brad Rock
Deseret News sports columnist

He played with Kareem Abdul-Jabbar and Shaquille O'Neal, in different eras, which makes New Jersey Nets coach Byron Scott a good source on great centers. In addition, he played against some of the best ever — Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, Bill Walton, Robert Parish, Patrick Ewing.

But never in his long career did he meet anyone as overwhelming as O'Neal, the unstoppable force as well as the immovable object. Best plan of action if Shaq comes at you in the low post? Same as what you do in an earthquake — crouch and cover.

"Whatever you're going to do, change the rules, to stop him, it's not going to stop him," Scott was telling reporters at the NBA Finals the other day. "When he wants to take over a basketball game, there's nothing you can do. He has the strength and the size and the agility. So if Mrs. O'Neal and Mr. O'Neal are around, if they can make one more for me, I'd really appreciate it."

Sorry, it's a limited edition of one.

When it comes to dominating centers in today's NBA, O'Neal stands alone. With three straight championships now on his resume, it is time to consider whether he is the greatest center ever.

Except for one problem: How are we to know?

Certainly at 7-foot-1, 350 pounds, he is the most imposing of all the great centers. Unfortunately for him, he arrived just as dominating centers were going out of fashion. Now there is Marcus Camby, masquerading as a center, and even Todd MacCullough is considered above average. It is an era of Bryant Reeves, Greg Ostertags, Jim McIlvanes and Shawn Bradleys.

A period in which the big men really aren't the Big Men.

Where have all the centers gone, long time passing? Olajuwon, Ewing, Robinson, Alonzo Mourning and Dikembe Mutombo are on the downward slope of their careers. None is young enough or strong enough to do much damage to either O'Neal's game or his psyche.

A long time ago, the game was populated by great centers — Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Nate Thurmond, Willis Reed, Bob Lanier, Walt Bellamy, Walton, Abdul-Jabbar. But one at a time they grew old and left. That was followed by the aforementioned wave of centers, now in decline.

Eventually O'Neal arrived, as tall as the previous models and many pounds heavier. It became quickly apparent he was a cement truck in a Hyundai factory.

Even when he was young and inexperienced, it was never a matter of stopping Shaq, just whether he wanted to play that night. And so the games turned slightly silly as this year's NBA Finals progressed. That's because once the ball goes in to O'Neal, it's all over but the bruising. He either pounds his defender out of the way with his caboose or removes any obstacle by spinning his huge upper body.

When Shaq gets the ball, things always move.

In addition, he has extended his shooting range several feet in recent years — as though he needed another weapon.

O'Neal is a dramatic reminder of a lost era, when giants ruled the earth. Once upon a time fans could look forward to a Russell-Chamberlain matchup. There was anticipation, competition, suspense. Now the outcome is as certain as a death certificate. Viewers today don't have the pleasure of debating Russell versus Reid, Chamberlain versus Thurmond, Robinson versus Olajuwon.

Nowadays they get to watch Ostertag versus Reeves or, at best, Shaq versus Chump-of-the-Week.

Ultimately this dearth of top level centers could come back to haunt O'Neal. He's a certainty for the Hall of Fame, but he may eventually be shortchanged. Judging him against the current crop is like putting Bob Dylan in the midst of a group of boy bands — lightweights one and all.

He played against a few of the best centers but only when he was young and rising, not in his prime. No one coming up will develop in time to meet him at his best.

He will retire having never been seriously challenged.

The stark truth is that O'Neal will be winning rings until he gets bored. He will be listed among the greats. But whether he's the greatest may never be known. It's hard to judge how good the food is when you're the only restaurant in town.

Spoiler:

I take back what I said about Shaquille O’Neal
Shaq is the most dominant player in the 21st century game of basketball

From the Bench
By John J. Mesh

About 7-8 years ago, I wrote a column about then-Orlando Magic center Shaquille O’Neal.

In it, I blasted O’Neal for being a one-dimensional player. At that time, he had just one move—he could dunk.

His free throw-shooting was atrocious. He was shooting about 40 percent from the free throw line.

If it weren’t for journeyman center Chris Dudley (Doo-No-Right) and his sub-30 percent adventures at the charity stripe, Shaq would have been the worst foul shooter in the league.

Shaq and the Magic were swept in four games by the Hakeem Olajuwon-led Houston Rockets in the 1995 NBA Finals.

A couple years later, he signed a $20-million plus a year contract with the Los Angeles Lakers, who also traded a high school phenom named Kobe Bryant.

When he arrived in La-La-Land, it seemed that Shaq was more interested in making CDs and movies than playing basketball.

Shaq and Bryant — all of 23 — have won three straight NBA championships together. The Lakers swept the New Jersey Nets in four games, which included Wednesday night’s 113-107 win in Game 4.

They have been guided — in the basketball and spiritual sense — by coach Phil Jackson.

Jackson posited his third “three-peat” and tied the legendary Boston Celtics’ coach Red Auerbach for NBA titles with nine. Jackson posted two three-peats with some guy named Michael Jordan when Jackson was coach of the Chicago Bulls.

Jackson has also won a record 156 NBA playoff games.

The Lakers won their 14th NBA title, second only to the Boston Celtics with 16.

Shaq’s NBA Finals performance was impressive. He scored 36, 40, 35 and 34 points in the four games.

The 7-foot-1 Shaq has improved his overall game despite playing on an arthritic big toe which may or may not have contributed to his weight of 382 pounds.

He no longer is just a mere dunker. He has a wide array of shots around the basket and is quite athletic for his size.

He is virtually unstoppable five feet from the basket. This is amazing because the NBA now lets teams play some zone defense, and most zones are designed to defend against Shaq.

O’Neal destroyed the three stiffs New Jersey deployed at center to try to stop him.

And now Shaq is no longer embarrassing himself or his team at the free throw line. He was worked hard to improve his free throw shooting.

While his form isn’t anything to brag about, Shaq, who shot 52 percent from the line during the regular season, hit 45-of-68 attempts in the Finals (66 percent).

He also made 24-of-32 charities in the last two games of the Western Conference finals against Sacramento (the Lakers-Kings series would have made for a better Finals matchup).

Teams can no longer resort to the “Hack-A-Shaq” strategy of fouling him in crunch time.

Shaq is the key to the Lakers’ defense with his intimidation and shot blocking. He is also the focal point of the Tex Winter-designed triangle or triple-post offense with his ability to pass the ball. He is the best passing big man in basketball.

Shaq said he’ll decided [sic] on when and if he’ll have surgery on his toe. It would be amazing to see what a healthy Shaq would do.

When the NBA put Shaq on its 50 Greatest Players list a few years ago, I scoffed. At that time, he had yet to win a championship.

Does Shaq rank up there with the likes of George Mikan, Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, a healthy Bill Walton and Hakeem Olajuwon as one of the greatest centers to play the game?

He’s close.

Give him a few more years and a few more championships and he should be on the list. Shaq also benefits from lack of competition.

Wilt Chamberlain had Bill Russell — their matchups were the stuff of legends.

Shaq has the likes of Sacramento’s Vlade Divac and Scot Pollard and New Jersey’s Todd McCullough — hardly worthy adversaries.

But you don’t have to tell me that Shaq is a great player.

You’re preaching to the converted.

The last article, the author takes back what he said about Shaq being a one-dimensional player, notes his improvement in his game, yet also has to note the lack of competition at his position. This is one reason I save discussion at the time, so it doesn't get lost in time. And this is why quantitative analysis on its own is insufficient, and must be accompanied with qualitative analysis as well.

How do you reconcile this when talking about Shaq's peak, which is the #1 driving point for many?

For those who talk about opposing players who can make a player work on defense, which subsequently takes energy away from them for offense, how do you reconcile that with the ages of the following centers as of opening day 1999:

• Olajuwon was 36 years, 285 days old
• Robinson was 34 years, 88 days old
• Ewing was 37 years, 89 days old

I hope these concerns will be addressed rather than ignored, as it will help me come to a decision as to the range within which I should place Shaq on my personal list.

[colts18]

More on Shaq. This time on what he did vs Elite Centers of his era

Here are Shaq's numbers head to head vs. some of the top centers of his era:
Mourning:
Shaq: 30-12-3 57 FG% (13-3 W-L)
Mourning: 21-9-1 44 FG%

Mutombo:
Shaq: 22-12-2, 52 FG% (17-7)
Mutombo: 8-9-0, 50 FG%
playoffs:
Shaq: 33-16-5, 57 FG% (4-1)
Mutombo: 17-12-0, 60 FG%

Robinson:
Shaq: 26-12-2, 54 FG% (11-12)
Robinson: 19-10-3, 47 FG%
Playoffs:
Shaq: 25-13-3, 52 FG% (9-8)
Robinson: 10-7-1, 45 FG% (all past Robinson's prime, but he had Duncan for help)

Ewing:
Shaq: 29-12-3, 54 FG% (15-11)
Ewing: 21-11-2, 44 FG%

Olajuwon:
Shaq: 22-12-4, 54 FG% (14-6)
Olajuwon: 18-9-3, 45 FG%
playoffs:
Shaq: 29-11-5, 56 FG% (3-5)
Olajuwon: 23-9-3, 47 FG%

Ben Wallace:
Shaq: 25-10-3, 59 FG% (13-10)
Wallace: 6-9-1 51 FG% (his offensive numbers are irrelevant)
playoffs:
Shaq: 22-9-1, 61 FG% (8-14)
Wallace: 8-11-2, 47 FG%

So Shaq was over 50 FG% against every single one of these guys and had a better FG% than these guys in the regular season and postseason with the exception of Mutombo's 2001 playoff which Shaq makes up with his dominating performance. He had a 63% regular season win% against these guys. He held all the guys who were good offensively (Robinson, Ewing, Olajuwon, and Mourning) to under 50 FG% in both the playoffs and regular season.

[ThaRegul8r]

When you hold a microscope to these players, Hakeem is actually the true GOAT center and big man all time imo despite these long held media influenced beliefs.

My question now is Shaq, since his name was mentioned first, but I will most assuredly be holding a microscope to Hakeem, and I will be looking more deeply than most in order to get past the hyperbole. The question is whether it can withstand the scrutiny.

[trex_8063]

Congrats to the great William Russell for taking #3.

For #4 I will be repeating my #3 vote for Wilton Norman Chamberlain, largely for reasons out-lined in prior post:

Spoiler:

OK, this might be a touch of a dark horse pick, but for #3, My Vote: Wilt Chamberlain.

I'll allow that his motivations weren't always where we would all say they should be and that that resulted in some occasionally under-whelming team outcomes. He nonetheless DID have a considerable degree of team success:

*His teams collectively went 716-413 (.634) in the rs (fyi, that's better than the cumulative records of Hakeem, Barkley, Robertson, KG, West......approximately equal to those of Kobe Bryant or Dirk Nowitzki).

**Faults withstanding, I think he deserves a lot of credit for that team success: I think there can be little question he was a dominant player, for one. And from 1960-61 season thru the end of his career Chamberlain's teams were 625-348 (.642) when Chamberlain played, 42-39 (.519) when he was out (+12.3%).
The Warriors were 32-40 (.444) the year before he arrived.....improved to 49-26 (.653) his rookie season. The final half-season a slumping and poorly motivated Wilt played with them they were a dismal 10-28 (.263) when he played, but an even worse 7-35 (.167) without him.
He anchored a team which needs to be mentioned among the greatest ever assembled in '67.
***Career team playoff record of 88-72 (.550); that's a better playoff win% and more total playoff wins than Hakeem, KG, Barkley, Dirk, or Moses Malone (despite the shorter playoffs in Wilt's day), as well as more than Robertson.
****Did win two rings and had 6 finals appearances.

I rate his peak very high, pretty much neck and neck with Shaq (very comparable players, imo). And I think his dominance is fairly portable across eras. Actually discussed this to some degree in recent thread: viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1328035&start=80 (my post is #86). Russell's got the ringz, but I tend to think of Wilt as the best center (best player) of the 1960's.

And as far as "statistical footprint" is concerned......he is almost without peer. Kareem, and maybe MJ are about the only two he can realistically be compared with in this regard.

EDIT: Also---->From RPoY Project........4x #1, 3x at #2, 3x at #3, twice at #4, once at #6. Top 3 in 10 of 14 seasons, top 4 in 12 of 14; only season he wasn't in the top 6 was the year he was injured.

Anyway, that's it in a nut-shell.

Am also impressed by the fact that he---as even some of his critics have acknowledged---was the most dominant scorer in the league, the most dominant defender in the league, the best rebounder in the league, and the best passing big-man in league.....just never all four at the same time (or even three at the same time, though he was likely TWO of those things at the same time during at least 1 or 2 seasons).

[ceiling raiser]

I'm likely going with Wilt here. I'm looking to learn a few things about him in this thread:

1) How big a deal was the poor spacing when he played? In particular, prior to the trade to the Sixers, which of his Warriors teammates were good enough shooters to draw defenders away from the paint?

2) How do we feel about Wilt's longevity? How many more seasons on the level of 72 and 73 could Wilt have produced if he'd stayed in the league longer? Were there any signs of slowing down, or could he have maintained his level/style of play?

3) What about Wilt's horizontal game defensively? How did it change over the years? How does Wilt (all three versions physically: young Wilt, the bigger/stronger Wilt from 63-64 until the injury in 69-70, and old Wilt after the injury) rate in terms of mobility/defensive range compared to other all-time great defensive big men?

[90sAllDecade]

When you hold a microscope to these players, Hakeem is actually the true GOAT center and big man all time imo despite these long held media influenced beliefs.

My question now is Shaq, since his name was mentioned first, but I will most assuredly be holding a microscope to Hakeem, and I will be looking more deeply than most in order to get past the hyperbole. The question is whether it can withstand the scrutiny.

I had you in mind actually. I'll be working with my notes for a post for you specifically hopefully within the next two days.

[Owly]

Unless someone is quite persuasive my vote goes to: Wilt Chamberlain.

I've already addressed somewhat the concerns about whether his efficiency translated to team level efficiency.

My reasoning for voting for him, as before:
- remarkable boxscore production on the Warriors with the top 2 PER seasons (obviously incomplete boxscores, make pre-turnover, block and steal numbers problematic, as based on partial information, nonetheless they are indicative of Chamberlain's dominance) cf: http://www.basketball-reference.com/about/per.html
- possibly the greatest rebounder ever (perhaps second to Rodman, though he had less other responsibilities)
- part of two all-time great team seasons
- displayed a capacity to fulfill multiple roles (and team's to succeed with each)
- Obvious impact on team performance upon arrival in the NBA (with no other major simulataneous arrivals) and upon his departure (West missing much of the campaign injured, McMillian dealt for Elmore Smith in attempt to replace Wilt).
- A lead in accolades over our #3 choice Russell (7-2 All-NBA first teams whilst both were active; near equal in MVP shares over the same span despite some dubious voting, which saw him below Johnny Kerr in '63; won media MVPs in other years, most notably the Sam Davis Metropolitan Sportswriters MVP)

I can see quibbles with his playoffs (though I think they have sometimes been overstated, after factoring in competition); with contributions towards a lack of locker-room cohesion and with his free-throw shooting (though his frame may offer somewhat of a mitigation, or at least explanation here). His longevity is fine, though perhaps not what it could have been (he sounded like retiring in his '73 autobiography, but was set to play in the '74 ABA season but for the reserve clause and through the summer of '74 it sounded like he was planning to play in the ABA

Says he won't do the ironman act of his NBA days, plans to play only 20 or 30 minutes a game

.

For now, unless persuaded otherwise, I'm voting Wilt.

[ThaRegul8r]

When you hold a microscope to these players, Hakeem is actually the true GOAT center and big man all time imo despite these long held media influenced beliefs.

My question now is Shaq, since his name was mentioned first, but I will most assuredly be holding a microscope to Hakeem, and I will be looking more deeply than most in order to get past the hyperbole. The question is whether it can withstand the scrutiny.

I had you in mind actually. I'll be working with my notes for a post for you specifically hopefully within the next two days.

Really?

Then perhaps that will aid me in coming to a decision about Hakeem.

I confess that Hakeem was my favorite of those crop of centers in the '90s, but, nevertheless, when it comes to rankings, personal feelings and emotions have no place, therefore I'll be looking as closely at him as I would anyone else when I construct my entry for him in my GOAT list notes.

[RayBan-Sematra]

@ThaRegular :

Shaq did not just have an insanely good Peak and alone it should not garner him such a high ranking.
His extended Prime was GOAT level and up here with the very best of them.
He was 2nd in MVP voting in 95 & 05 and I have already shown some statistics showing how uniquely great & consistent his production was compared to others over an extended number of years.

In regards to his competition.
Shaq from 93-96 faced Peak Hakeem in the regular-season 6 times.
He won 4 of 6 games and overall had better statistical averages.
Then in the Finals he played onpar with Hakeem though Hakeem got much better support from his cast and won the series.
Then from 96 onwards Shaq outplayed Hakeem in almost all of their h2h's.

He also quickly got the better of Ewing once he entered the league and he got the better of Mourning also.

During his Peak (01) he demolished a near Peak Tim Duncan (check the last 2 games of that series) who had a still very potent Robinson at his side and he destroyed the DPOY Mutombo.
He also outplayed Duncan again in 04 and arguably outplayed or at worst held his own against a Peaking KG.
He also demolished the Wallace twins on numerous occasions.
Maybe the Wallace twins aren't Bill Russell but they are sure a fearsome defensive frontcourt to go up against.

Plus even when he wasn't facing a notable defensive or overall C/PF he was still facing swarming triple teams so... it still wasn't exactly a cake walk.

I tend to think that if Shaq in his first 3 years could at the very least play onpar with a Peak Hakeem then he could handle any type of h2h competition in his Prime.
I would have loved to see a Prime Shaq go up against a Prime Kareem or Wilt.

[Texas Chuck]

I have Duncan, Shaq, and Magic on a tier below the 3 guys already voted in. I tend to take the 2 bigs ahead of Magic and when I put together my pre-list before starting this project I had Duncan at 4.

But Im really interested in reading more thoughts on those guys (and Wilt and Dream since they are already building momentum). Not at all sure on my vote. Will add discussion on several guys later tonight or tomorrow as I try and determine which guy to vote for.

[Texas Chuck]

. Hakeem is the only player in NBA history to win a championship without an all star, HOF talent or elite/GOAT level coach. Wings need more help, bigs can do more with less because they are historically more impactful overall.

small sidetrack because I wanted to get your opinion on who prevents Dirk from the same accomplishment in 2011? The only thing I can consider is that you believe Rick Carlisle to be a GOAT-level coach because he clearly had no all-star and while Kidd is a HOF'r, you certainly can't describe his play that year as anywhere near that level.

[RayBan-Sematra]

A quote I saved. Not sure if I wrote it or someone else did. Pretty sure I wrote it.
Post is focused on the playoffs.

Wilt spent his early years volume scoring on mediocre efficiency while not winning anything but coming close at times.
Shaq spent his early years volume scoring on great efficiency while not winning anything but coming close at times.

Later on Wilt gets put on a very powerful Sixers team and leads them to a title.
The following 2 years he again plays on very good teams but loses while playing poorly in elimination.
Later on Shaq gets Kobe and leads his team to a title.
The following 2 years he again wins the title while playing amazingly well in elimination.

At the end Wilt once again wins a title this time in a smaller role where he focuses mainly on defense and rebounding.
At the end Shaq once again wins a title this time in a smaller role where he focuses mainly on offense and rebounding.

Overall Shaq was the better playoff performer.
Statistically he was superior in the playoffs (outside of rebounding) in his high scoring, non-winning years and at his Peak when he actually had good teams around him he performed better then Wilt and as a result won more Championships.

[Baller2014]

Once again, I vote Duncan for the reasons given below. As to the Shaq and Wilt voters, what sort of penalty are you giving them for their continuous antics which hurt on court play?

Vote: Tim Duncan

I have Jordan and Kareem as my two clear best players. After them though I think Duncan, Shaq and (to a lesser extent) Magic are the players in the next tier (Bird doesn’t have enough longevity). A lot of people have been voting for Bill Russell as the GOAT. Tim Duncan is not the same type of player as Russell, he’s less athletic for one thing, but his career arc is similarly good to Russell and Jordan, where you look at it and think “yep, every year of this guy’s prime he either met or wildly exceeded expectations”. He’s also just a better player period. Russell has 11 rings and Duncan has 5, but that’s because of context; Russell played on stacked teams in a weak sauce league that pales to the modern NBA (something myself and others elaborated on in detail in the #1 and #2 vote thread), while Duncan played in a very tough NBA, with often less than ideal support casts. I could write a lot more on this, and I’m sure I will in response posts, but for my opening post I will explain why I think Duncan is the clear choice at #3, with particular reference to the guys he is competing with.

To summarise though: Duncan’s peak is better than Magic and comparable to Hakeem, his prime is longer than Bird’s and more consistent than Shaq or Hakeem, and his crazy longevity pushes him past them all. I have all those guys ahead of Russell, given the reservations I expressed about him in thread 1 + 2.

Year by year analysis of team outcomes
Duncan’s prime goes for 10 years, from 98-07. Over those 10 years his team meets or exceeds expectations every year.
1998- The Spurs win 56 games and lose in the 2nd round. Exceeded expectations.
1999- Spurs have the best record and win the title. Duncan is basically the MVP this year, and the RPOY project agrees with me. Massively overachieved.
2000- Spurs awesome again, but Duncan gets hurt a few games before the playoffs begins. The injury would only have kept Duncan out for a few weeks, and they debated playing him, but decided to play it safe. Clearly Duncan can’t be blamed for losing a series he couldn’t play in because of a fluke injury. Met expectations.
2001- Spurs make it to the WCFs despite Duncan’s weak support cast, then lose to the Lakers. Overachieved.
2002- Spurs win 58 games despite the worst support cast Duncan had ever had. Lose in 5 close games to the Lakers, but that’s not Duncan’s fault. He was the best player that series (see more below). Overachieved by far.
2003- Spurs win 60 games and the title with a poor support cast. Massive overachievement.
2004- Spurs win 57 games (60+ win pace in games Duncan played), lose in the playoffs to the stacked Lakers in a close series, despite Duncan’s support cast abandoning him (see below)
2005- Spurs win the title.
2006- Spurs win 63 games. Lose to the Mavs in 7 games in the playoffs due to a boneheaded Manu foul. Duncan put up berserk numbers and almost carried an overmatched team over the line (he had literally no big men to help him this series, he started with 3 wings and Tony Parker).
2007- Spurs win the title.

Sidenote: I elaborate on 01-03 a little later, but just to focus on 04 for a second. The Lakers had Karl Malone and Shaq, both of whom were constantly doubling Duncan. It was easy to do this because Rasho was useless on O, and the Spurs shooters couldn’t hit the side of a barn this series. They were embarrassingly bad (taking a ridiculous 124 threes in 6 games, and making only 38 of them. They were even worse in the close out games). In 06 Duncan put up 32-12-4 on 615TS%; hard to blame him for the 7 game series loss (with two OT defeats). Manu made a bad foul that cost them the series. It happens.

Peak impact- Duncan carrying garbage teams 01-03

The purest measure of your impact is how much better you singlehandedly can make a team. I’m not a fan of various APMs and the like, as I feel there are problems with them. Something I think is often a lot more accurate is how well a great player does with a bad support cast. When I want to find out who is a better weight lifter, I look to see how much they can lift consistently. Duncan lifted 1000 pounds 3/3 times, with no spotter. I don't know definitively if he could have lifted it more than 3 times, because he was only given 3 chances to do it over his 10 year prime. But when the chances came, he did it. To contrast this with someone like Hakeem; Hakeem had over half a dozen chances to do it prior to 93, and he basically lifted between 600 and 800 pounds each time, even though he had 2 spotters. He couldn't lift that much basically. Nobody is denying Duncan generally had better team mates than Hakeem, I agree that he did, and I don't blame Hakeem for not winning a title prior to 94. I blame him for leading his team to repeatedly crappy results multiple years, often with better help than Duncan had, and for being a locker room cancer while he was doing it.

2001- Worst backcourt on a contending ever?

His 01 team was the strongest of the 3 I named (probably), in the regular season anyway, but it was definitely bad. Firstly, Derek Anderson was hurt in the playoffs, so you can scrub him from being considered as a factor. The few games he tried to force himself to play a few minutes in the Laker series he looked so hobbled it was clear it'd been a mistake to even let him play (he averaged 2ppg, 2rpg on 0FG% when he played for 20mpg in 2 games). As a Spurs fan, I understand the myth fans built up of "oh, if we'd just had Derek Anderson, it would have gone differently!" Nothing would have gone differently, not least of all because Derek Anderson is not even a particularly good player. The Spurs made 100% the right decision to let him leave in free agency, where he quickly faded into obscurity. Derek Anderson was a middle of the pack shooting guard who shot poor percentages and wasn't good on D. He was no loss. His FG% that year was 416. and his career % was 402. The guy was a gunner who took many ill-advised shots, and was worse in the playoffs than the regular season. He could hit the open 3’s Duncan gave him mostly, but wasn’t a good offensive player overall. Derek Anderson padded numbers for good or desperate teams. His three highest seasons he averaged 16.9 padding for a Clippers, 15.5 gunning for the talent deficient Spurs backcourt, and 13.9 for the Blazers. His career average was 12ppg. If it wasn't for his 1 year on the Spurs nobody would even remember who Derek Anderson was. He just seemed good because of how bad the rest of the Spurs wings were. Let's go over that now.

Why was Anderson able to shine in the Spurs backcourt? Here's why. It consisted of:
- Antonio Daniels, a career back-up on a good team who was forced into a starting role
- 36 year old Avery Johnson, who was so washed up he basically became a player coach after this year (where he'd play stints of the season for various teams on the understanding he was trying to become a coach there after)
- 38 year old Terry Porter, so old he squeaked when he moved. All he could still do was shoot and throw an entry pass.
- 35 year old Dan Ferry's corpse. All he could do was shoot at this point.
- 33 year Sean Elliot, now crippled by kidney disease, who was so bad this year he promptly retired after it was over. How bad was Elliot? Here are his #’s in the WCFs; 19mpg, 1.3ppg, 1.7rpg, 111. FG%. Yikes.
-35 year old Steve Kerr, who couldn't do anything except shoot
That's maybe the worst backcourt I've ever seen on a contender. They couldn't defend anything, and there is not one guy who is a real starter there (maybe not even Anderson, who was hurt). Worse, they didn't even shoot well in the playoffs (the only thing they were meant to be good at). Terry Porter was 3-18 at the 3 in the Lakers series. Antonio Daniels, who the Spurs were forced to play an unbelievable 42mpg, was 3-17 that series. DA was 0-4, Elliot was 0-3, and while Ferry hit 4-9 threes, that hardly tipped the scale back (plus, Ferry sucked overall).

Malik Rose was a fan favourite, but he was a bench scrub who had no business getting serious minutes on a contender. He was a 6-6, overweight power forward with negligible skill who couldn't shoot. I liked the guy, a lot of Spurs fans did, he had a good attitude (mostly), but he was not a guy I wanted to see on the court more than 10mpg, and certainly not to guard the 7-1 Shaq (low centre of gravity or not).

In fairness, D.Rob sharply declined in 02, not so much in 01, where D.Rob was still a very serviceable, above average big man (though stamina was a big issue still, limiting him to 29mpg). I'll stop short of saying he was an all-star (he might have been in 01), but he was still good (unlike in 02 and especially in 03). But that's literally all they had. The rest of the squad was hot garbage, which is why I referred to the wings and backcourt as being the problem.

2002- Worst support cast for a contender ever?

2002 was also a bad support cast by any definition. Robinson was a well below average player in 02. He couldn't play for long stretches because of stamina issues, he ran stiffly and he had sharply declined. In the playoffs he basically didn't play, and was banged up when he did. The next year of course D.Rob was notably worse (while he played in the 03 Lakers series, he was such a non-factor outside of the first game, you could be forgiven for not noticing the impersonation of a ghost he performed over 20mpg).

Malik Rose, like I said, was still not good. He was being forced into a starter type role by the total lack of support on the team. Anyone can fill a stat sheet (to the extent Malik's stats "improved"), but whether that player is someone who should see the court in the first place is another matter. There are plenty of scrubs who get great per 36 minute stats, but there's a reason they're not getting 36 minutes. Check out Baynes per 36 stats this year.

As for Bruce Bowen, he shot worse than usual in 02 (389 FG%), played only 59 regular season games that year, and was a guy who most teams wouldn't have been able to start. That he could start for the Spurs was wholly due to Duncan being able to draw constant double teams, which in turn allowed Bowen to get his one shot (the wide open corner 3). While in recent years the Spurs have had a tonne of ball movement, back in 02 (and 03) the Spurs mostly just threw the ball into Duncan and expected him to make something happen, either by drawing a double and kicking it out, or just scoring. It was actually pretty painful to watch at times. Without a Duncan/Shaq like player who can constantly command a double team Bowen would have been unusable. He was not a holistically good player, no team was out there trying to offer good money to Bowen, because they knew this. He was a great wing defender though, it's just Duncan who made him usable. Steve Smith shot the best he had ever (thanks to Duncan getting him so many open looks), but much like Ferry he was at the point in his career where all he could do was shoot. He pretty much ceased to be an NBA player after this year (assuming he was one this year). Charles Smith was obviously a scrub, Daniels a frustrating bench player getting way too many minutes, and Tony Parker a raw rookie getting 9ppg. He wasn't Tony Parker as we know him until 04 at the earliest (when he started to become the Parker we know today)

2003- Weakest support cast on a title team in the modern era?

As for 03, I see a lot of weird arguments like “oh, but the Spurs were good on D” or “the Spurs were good, just inconsistent”. Whether you're consistent is a big part of whether you're good in the NBA. Parker was still very raw, he was losing minutes to Speedy Claxton in the finals, and Manu was a 20mpg player who caused the coach a lot of headaches with his wild play. S.Jax was not a good player at this point. He showed a few signs, but he was not S.Jax as we came to know him. Other teams didn't think he was either. In the offseason after turning down a modest offer from the Spurs for 2-3 mill a year, he discovered nobody was interested in signing him. He ended up settled for a 1 year, $1 million contract from the Hawks. Sometimes he hit shots, but not usually when it mattered, and certainly not consistently. In the Lakers series he shot 0/10 from the 3pt line in games the Spurs won.

Malik Rose was still a scrub. D.Rob was worse than he'd ever been, hurt in the regular season, mostly MIA in the playoffs. Bowen still had all the problems I alluded to earlier. Duncan made Bowen. Without him he wouldn't have been able to get on the court. Duncan got guys open shots, and sometimes they had "on" nights where they'd score, but that'll happen. From a holistic point of view the team was just not good though. The NBA is a star league, and the mere presence of Kobe and Shaq on the same team should have made all these meh players irrelevant. It certainly had the previous 3 years. That they won is a testament to Duncan's awesomeness, no more no less.

I see a lot of Laker fans blame it on Horry’s shooting. Horry's shooting is no excuse because Duncan was defending him mostly in 03. Saying "Duncan's man shot like crap" is a terrible excuse, because the chances are Duncan had a lot to do with that (just like KG did in the previous round when he guarded Horry). I've also broken up the Horry 3 pt misses, and they mostly don't matter when we look at the games the Spurs won; 0-3 in game 1 (Spurs won by 5, since Horry isn't a 66% 3 pt shooter I'm going to go ahead and say that wouldn't have changed the outcome), 0-2 in a 19 point loss in game 2 is clearly not a factor either, nor was his 0-3 three point shooting the deciding factor in game 6 when the Lakers lost by 28. It probably had an effect in game 5 when he was 0-6 in a close game, but then the Spurs won these 4 games with Stephen Jackson shooting 0-10 from the three point line, so it seems silly to whine about it. It's especially silly to use it as an excuse because Tim Duncan was his primary defender in 03, and we should be crediting Duncan with shutting him down, not using it against him!

If you want to talk about bad shooting costing a team, Duncan's been a far bigger victim in that regard. I already pointed out some of the horrendous shooting outings his "shooters" had in Laker series like 01. 02 was little different; in 02 S.Smith was 5-17 from the 3, Parker was 2-12, Ferry was 2-11, A.Daniels 2-8, Ferry 0-7. Bowen shot a good 50%, but that was it for the Spurs. And these were guys who, aside from Parker, were still on an NBA roster primarily for their shooting (except Daniels, who was a career back-up promoted due to desperation). It gets worse in 04. The Spurs took an absurd 124 threes in the 6 game series against the Lakers... and made only 38 of them. Their 3pt % was well under the Lakers (306 v 342), and doubly hurtful because they were relying on this shot so much more (the Lakers took 48 less 3's). That's why Duncan was able to get doubled so much by Shaq and Malone, because Rasho sucked and because his shooters couldn't hit the side of a barn. In the close out game the Spurs shooters were 3-24 from outside. Yikes. They were little better in game 5 at 6-23 from outside. It was Duncan's 21-21 games (plus an absurd, should have been game winning shot) that made that a 1 point game.

As for the “defensive all-star” nonsense that gets thrown about, that’s both untrue and a false dichotomy. Firstly, nobody on the Spurs support cast was a defensive all-star in 03 (or 02). A defensive all-star is someone who makes the all-star team on the back of their D (despite having no offensive game), like Mutumbo, Ben Wallace or Rodman. Secondly, it misunderstands player value. This isn’t about getting a scale and trying to balance D and O as 50% components of a player’s impact. Whether a player is good on D may have little bearing on their overall impact. All that matters is overall impact, not "balance" or "skill". Plenty of guys who specialise in just one area can be more impactful than a guy who is an all-arounder. Similarly, a guy with poor D, especially at point guard, can still be way more valuable than a guy who is good at both O and D. Michael Curry is a good defensive player, but a bad player overall.

To use a hypothetical, imagine a guy who can reliably hit 3's from anywhere on the court. He might be below average in every other facet of the game, but that one skill makes him the most valuable player in the NBA. These sorts of "but how did he play on D/O" arguments always seem to go hand in hand with arguments about "balance" and "skill", which are reluctant to address why a guys team underachieved with him. Bob Sura and Brent Barry were both way more "skilled" and "balanced" than Shaq, but that's meaningless... Shaq was the better basketball player. It's like Pokémon Generation 1. Gyarados, Flareon and Dragonite all look awesome with those huge base stats, but they're distributed badly. Dragonite is a jack of all trades, master of none. Meanwhile a pokemon with far lower base stats, Chansey, is about ten times more usable (and annoying to play against). It has pitiful defense and attack stats, but its huge stats in more useful areas, and unique abilities, make it more playable.

Duncan’s longevity- The Second Coming

Duncan slowly declined from 08-11 as his quickness and athleticism tapered off, and his body struggled to carry his 260 pound frame as easily. Duncan made the decision to slim down, trading off some of his weight for greater speed and stamina (less weight to carry). He also continued to improve his shooting range. This began in 2012, but it was in 2013 we really began to see the results. Duncan had a revival year, the best he’d played since 2007, made the all-nba first team, and almost led the Spurs to a historic title. Then next season Duncan was basically as good, and they won the title pretty decisively. It’s almost unheard of for a guy his age to be contributing this much, certainly among the guys Duncan is in competition with. This is the amazing thing, Duncan was voted a top 5 player in his rookie year in 98, and in 2013 he’s voted in the all-nba 1st team again, and has barely lost a step from 2013 to 2014 (he’s mostly just being played a few less minutes to rest him).

On that note, the “Duncan could not have held up playing more minutes” argument doesn’t really work against anyone not named Kareem or Karl Malone, because when you add up his playoff minutes as well you see he was playing more minutes than the Hakeem’s and KG’s of the NBA. I also think it’s silly to penalise Duncan for his coach choosing to rest him, especially when one of the reasons he can do that is Duncan is helping the Spurs blow their opponents out. Over Duncan’s 17 year career the Spurs win % gives them an average win season of 58 wins. That’s unrivalled, and Duncan’s obviously the #1 reason for that astonishing run. His longevity is a huge addition to his already magnificent 10 year prime.

Duncan v.s Hakeem
Hakeem only had 3 years that really compare favourably to Duncan's prime, the rest doesn't. Even then, advanced per 40 pace adjusted stats show that Hakeem doesn't even really have an advantage over Duncan on stats. I was actually doing some reading on this the other day. Check out this table, which shows the negligible stat difference when you adjust for pace and make it per 40 minutes:

Code: Select all

olajuwon,  PTS  REB  AST  STL  BLK   TO  TS%  dTS%  PER
1995-96   27.4 11.1  3.6  1.6  2.9  3.5 .558 +.003 25.5
1994-95   27.4 10.6  3.5  1.8  3.3  3.2 .563 -.007 26.1
1993-94   25.7 11.2  3.4  1.5  3.5  3.2 .565 +.027 25.1
1992-93   25.3 12.8  3.5  1.8  4.1  3.1 .573 +.022 27.0
1991-92   22.2 12.4  2.3  1.9  4.5  2.7 .553 +.019 23.4
1990-91   21.1 13.7  2.3  2.2  3.9  3.1 .549 +.022 24.1
1989-90   23.0 13.3  2.7  2.0  4.3  3.6 .541 +.013 24.0
1988-89   24.1 13.1  1.8  2.5  3.3  3.3 .552 +.021 25.1
1987-88   23.0 12.2  2.1  2.1  2.7  3.1 .555 +.032 23.5
1986-87   23.3 11.4  2.9  1.9  3.4  3.0 .554 +.032 23.9
1985-86   22.9 11.2  2.0  1.9  3.3  2.8 .560 +.029 24.2
Total     24.2 12.1  2.7  1.9  3.6  3.2 .557 +.021 24.7

duncan,ti  PTS  REB  AST  STL  BLK   TO  TS%  dTS%  PER
2007-08   23.6 13.8  3.4  0.9  2.4  2.8 .546 +.004 24.2
2006-07   24.0 12.7  4.1  1.0  2.9  3.3 .579 +.022 25.9
2005-06   22.1 13.1  3.8  1.0  2.4  3.0 .523 -.029 22.9
2004-05   25.3 13.8  3.4  0.8  3.3  2.4 .540 +.007 27.0
2003-04   25.0 14.0  3.5  1.0  3.0  3.0 .534 +.029 26.8
2002-03   24.1 13.3  4.0  0.7  3.0  3.2 .564 +.030 26.6
2001-02   25.6 12.8  3.8  0.7  2.5  3.2 .576 +.049 26.9
2000-01   23.5 12.9  3.2  0.9  2.5  3.1 .536 -.006 23.6
1999-00   24.1 12.9  3.3  0.9  2.3  3.4 .555 +.025 24.6
1998-99   22.8 12.0  2.5  0.9  2.6  3.1 .541 +.023 22.9
1997-98   22.3 12.6  2.9  0.7  2.6  3.6 .577 +.058 22.3
Total     23.9 13.1  3.5  0.9  2.7  3.1 .553 +.020 24.9

So there goes Hakeem's big advantage (raw stats). Then look at how Duncan was better at carrying teams overall (some of the teams knocking out Hakeem before his late peak were mediocre in the extreme, he didn't even make the playoffs in 1992 despite having an all-star big man next to him). Duncan’s support casts in 01-03 were grossly inferior to the late 80’s, early 90’s Hakeem support casts, yet Duncan led them to far superior results. Duncan has much more longevity too of course, and he's a better man defender for mine. It seems like a straight forward choice. It would be tough to say if Hakeem had played throughout his career like he did in 93-95, but he didn't, and I rate guys off the careers they actually had, not a bunch of hypotheticals.

This is discussed in great depth on this thread:
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1328701

Duncan v.s Shaq
Shaq obviously peaked higher, for the 1-2 years it lasted anyway. Overall though I prefer Duncan. For one thing, Duncan’s D and effort is consistent, while Shaq started to take plays on D off a lot more as his career went on (and as his niggling injuries mounted), constantly failing to box out, jogging up the court, getting lazy on switches and such. I also think Duncan’s prime is probably better than Shaq’s, and his longevity significantly better, with no external negatives like Shaq. Shaq had years where he legitimately underachieved, and a lot of his career falls under the “what if” category. I can only imagine how good he could have been if he’d always been as focused and determined (and healthy) as he was in 00, but he wasn’t, and it goes a long way to explaining the Lakers constantly coming up short from 97-99, and Shaq’s teams sometimes underachieving.

Duncan and Shaq played each other in 5 playoff series, and surprisingly enough Duncan mostly was the better player. In 01 Shaq was obviously the best player on the court. In 02, 03 and 99 it was Duncan (and Duncan actually matched up with Shaq most of the time in 02, since D.Rob was hurt, the video is on youtube). In 04 it’s arguable either way. Shaq’s raw numbers are a little better, but his D wasn’t as consistent or impactful that series, and there are other factors I alluded to already (Malone and Shaq doubling him, no help inside, shooters couldn’t hit anything). Here are the 3 other series:

1999:
Duncan put up 29ppg, 10.8rpg, 3.3apg on 600TS%
Shaq put up 23.8ppg, 13rpg, 0.5apg on 506TS%
And this was a series where Shaq had all-NBA Kobe putting up 21-6.5-3.5 and Glen Rice averaging 18ppg. Sure, Glen Rice didn't score efficiently, but look at Duncan's 2nd best player this series. D.Rob was putting up 13ppg and 6.5rpg and playing only 28mpg.

2002:
Duncan put up 29ppg, 17.2rpg, 4.6apg on 517TS%
Shaq put up 21.4ppg, 12.2rpg, 3.2apg on 487TS%
Like I said, they were mostly matching up with each other, as seen here:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEThyAvSi3k[/youtube]

2003:
Duncan put up 28ppg, 11.8rpg, 4.8apg on 575TS%
Shaq put up 25.3ppg, 14.3rpg, 3.7apg on 592TS%
Closer stats, but Duncan was clearly outplaying Shaq overall, on D especially, and was just flat out abusing Shaq when he was sent to guard him. Here's a video of him dominating the close out game:
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_iN6qwvoS8[/youtube]

There are a lot of injury excuses by Shaq fans about these series, but that’s a bit silly because a) you judge guys on the careers they had, not “the ones they might have had if they’d been healthier”, and b) Shaq always had some niggling injuries in his later career, it was a product of his adding weight in order to become more dominant, but to argue it should be used as an excuse in these series is silly. Shaq had no problem dominating the 1st round in 02 as usual, and the very next round he put up 30-14 on the Kings on dominant efficiency. In the 02 finals he was even more dominant, putting up 36-12 on amazing efficiency. In 99 he put up 29-10-4-4 on great efficiency in the 1st round. So again, it's a case of injuries that are only ever invoked as having affected him in the Spurs series, and when it comes to all-time rankings I never hear Shaq fans say "well, we better take some points off Shaq for always being injured in the playoffs". Quite the opposite in fact. It's just a tired excuse to my mind. Shaq wasn't at his peak in 02, but he was still prime Shaq, and he still had no trouble destroying the non-Duncan opponents in his wake. There is no evidence whatever Shaq’s injuries unduly affected him in the Spurs series those years v.s the other series, indeed the commentary at the time indicates the opposite.

A lot of people say Duncan was blessed with a good organisation and team, and to some extent that’s very true (not always though). However, Duncan hasn’t played with support casts close to as good as what Duncan was blessed with over his career. He had legit superstars like Penny, Kobe and Wade on his team, big men to take the load off like Ho Grant or K.Malone, multiple all-stars in his early Laker years, good role players, top notch coaches mostly, and then got to spent his later years ring chasing on stacked teams (if it had been Duncan playing for those Celtics/Cavs/Suns teams, at Shaq’s age, those 3 teams would all have won titles).

Duncan v.s Magic

Magic was the offensive GOAT, but I feel like Duncan’s two way impact was better at his peak, and his longevity makes it a clear choice for Duncan. Then there’s the longevity. I see Lakers fans claim Magic’s prime started in 84. A big problem given he retired after 91. He has 12 years in the NBA in total, even if they were all prime years it’s pretty hard to see how it compares to Duncan’s 17 years of impact. Magic had a tonne more help than Duncan, and while other greats of that period like Bird did too, Magic’s teams underachieved some years in ways Duncan’s teams didn’t. Losses to the Rockets in 81 and 86 and a 4-1 a$$ kicking by the KJ Suns in 1990 all stand out as pretty hugely disappointing outcomes. I don’t think prime Duncan had any comparable fails like this.

[penbeast0]

I went with Wilt the last time and am leaning to him again.

Why?

He was the most individually dominant player of all time; sometimes to his detriment. Like MJ was always looking for perceived insults to challenge himself, Wilt also was virtually unchallengable except for his inability to overcome my GOAT level player, Bill Russell. So, like MJ, he invented challenges for himself to overcome -- in his case they tended to be statistical ones but I don't really have a problem with that.

He was an ironman the likes of which we have never seen. One season he averaged OVER 48 mpg (played every minute pretty much plus overtimes). One problem with his stats is that they are so ridiculous, people can't get their minds around the sheer immensity sometimes so they try to find ways to bring them down to the level of players they are familiar with. But Wilt was a step beyond anyone we have ever seen except an in-shape and healthy Shaq.

He was a greater scorer than Michael Jordan when he was a scorer. Greater volume even adjusted for peak, greater efficiency relative to the league, most unstoppable by anyone he faced -- even Russell and the Celtics could only slow him a little and make sure his teammates didn't help him.

He was a greater rebounder than anyone ever except possibly Dennis Rodman and Bill Russell.

He was an intimidating defender. I think his defense early in his career when he gets less credit for it was pretty impressive from everything I have seen and heard. I think his defense in his last couple of years with the Lakers is overrated; he was a great athlete but wasn't as mobile or active anymore. Still, his defense, while not on the Russell level, or to my mind on the Hakeem/DRobinson level, seems to me to be equal or greater than that of Kareem or Shaq -- with many of the same limitations (disliked chasing smaller jump shooting centers out on the floor; tended to block shots 10 feet into the stands instead of soft blocks like Russell).

He was a good (though again overrated due to the season he won the assist title) passer out of the post.

He rarely fouled despite his shotblocking and never fouled out of a game. Never.

However, I have some issues with him. He tended to walk up the court rather than hustling both ways. It's one of the main explanations I have for some of the team inefficiency issues around him -- lesser players but also less time on the shot clock so they rushed their halfcourt offense or made it too predictable (throw the ball in to Wilt then stand around in case he kicks it back out).

He didn't seem to have an instinctual understanding of team basketball the way most other greats did. No one ever denied that he was an highly intelligent man, but he had to think about or have explained stuff that guys like Jordan and Russell instinctively saw and adapted too. That's why I had him 3rd on my list last time.

His playoff numbers were way down; although if you look at game tape or the numbers of some of his teammates you can see evidence of gimmick defenses; for example, Tom Meschery (a journeyman best known as a pot advocate) had a year where he suddenly became a 20+ppg scorer in the playoffs. His man was setting up in the halfcourt to front Wilt leaving Meschery wide open every time downcourt until he got the ball. One more key playoff number that might be interesting if you think Russell was a deserving top 3 GOAT player . . . Wilt's record in playoff series against everyone else other than the Russell led Celtics was over 80%, actually higher than Michael Jordan's win % in playoff series.

I also disliked his attitude during his final year when the courts wouldn't let him play for the ABA and he was made a coach. He didn't take his job seriously or put in the effort. But, like Jordan's time in Washington, it's a minor blemish at most.

Still, I have to be convinced to vote for someone over Wilt. The other bigs (Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan) just didn't dominate the way Wilt did except for limited periods. Duncan might have some serious extra synergy value as a great teammate, but Shaq and Hakeem both had periods where their attitudes were strongly negative about their own teams and that stuff carries over to your teammates -- particularly when it's your star.

Again, Magic has terrific synergistic value; I give him a lot of credit for finally getting Kareem to integrate himself into the Lakers team system rather than playing his individual game. But the tremendous mismatch he created at the offensive end where he was able to bring PG skills with a PF body, was lessened by the mismatches at the other end where he was unable to handle most guards defensively putting an extra burden on his teammates to cover for him. Offenses that play guys out of their defensive position like the Showtime Lakers, D'Antoni Suns etc. tend to have an extra offensive bonus from the mismatch but there is a cost at the defensive end. Guys like Magic are worth it because their offensive value is appreciably higher than almost anyone they face but it's a factor.

Bird, LeBron, and Kobe should get a mention too. If Bird had played his entire career as a stretch 4, his defensive value might have been higher . . . but he didn't (see the mismatch issue above) forcing the Celtics to cover for him with McHale and Maxwell covering 3's which wasn't their best matchup either. Kobe has a lot of negative team issues (Paul Shirley's book is hilarious on the subject) though I include him because I think his results are better than you would expect during the second set of titles and that upgrades him into top 10 consideration for me. LeBron is the top player today and individually can challenge Jordan for the title of best individual two way wing. I am interested in arguments for him here too.

So, MY VOTE IS WILT here . . . . but I'm open to persuasion.

[Baller2014]

Shaq's just as bad. Here's a guy who came into every new situation with all the goodwill in the World. The Magic were thrilled to have him, the Lakers loved him, the Heat gave him the key to the city before he played a game with them, etc, etc. Yet in every case Shaq burnt all his bridges and left the teams on bad terms, usually after falling out with the team. A lot of this spilled out into on the court stuff too, and while he didn't cause half as many problems as Kobe, it's hard to understate how many he caused. Like Kobe, Shaq tried to force his way to the Lakers before he played a single game in the NBA. I won't hold that against him, but his constant talk of going to LA after he was on the Magic? I'll hold that against him for sure. Heck, it was only after 1 year on the Magic that his first book came out (Shaq Attack), in which he basically threw Orlando under a bus and said he yearned to play for the Lakers. It was pretty incredible stuff. He demanded trades multiple times, took games off, missed time, lazed about on D and stopped boxing out or running up and down the court as much, chewed out team mates, cheated his physicals, etc, etc. There was a lot of underachievement with Shaq.

Shaq leaving Orlando was on them, not on him. They were low-balling him, initially offering him less money than they paid Penny Hardaway. If they really thought Penny was more valuable than Shaq, well they got to keep him and lose Shaq. Then, when Shaq's grandmother passed away, the Orlando organization said something in the line of "We don't know where Shaq is" even though he had contacted them about it. This alone is reason enough to leave such a s****y organization.

Leaving LA was very complex but eventually it boiled down to them wanting to keep Kobe because he was much younger and promised to be the star of the future (even though I've always been on Shaq's side, the Lakers were probably right in that evaluation). But there was no way Shaq was staying in LA.

It just always bugs me when people call him out on those two when he basically couldn't do anything else in either situation.

I'm sorry, but this post is factually wrong. Orlando was willing to offer as much, they never got a chance to counter bid because Shaq's agent was using them as leverage, because he always intended to go to LA. Sure, the Magic were annoyed they had to pay so much, and there was a poll in the Orlando sentinel, but the claim the Magic were lowballing isn't true at all. Here's what Orlando's GM had to say on the subject:
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Ulo ... ic&f=false

We were stunned... Shaq's agent, Leonard Armato, never even gave us the opportunity to make a final offer... he didn't leave for more money- we offered more money than the Lakers...so why did he go? In hindsight, it was probably in the cards all along. In chapter 3 of Shaq's 1993 autobiography, Shaq Attack, he talks about his own long-standing desire to play for the Lakers and agent Armato's dislike of Orlando and Armato's attempts to orchestrate a deal

While Kobe was more to blame than Shaq for the problems on the Lakers, Shaq was not exactly a boy scout. Phil Jackson and others outline the many ways in which Shaq screwed the team; not coming into camp on shape, continually digging at Kobe, starting to take lots of plays off, yelling "pay me" to Buss during a game, and even demanding a trade because he didn't want to play with Kobe anymore (way before 2004). Every place Shaq has been, he's burnt his bridges and annoyed the team and front office who had started out 100% on his side, and went out of their way to support him.