RealGM Top 100 List #5

[Notanoob]

When Shaq went all out in the regular-season (00) he easily led the Lakers to the best defense in the league.

That's nice, but I think the point is that outside of 2000...Shaq never exerted much defensive impact. People rag on Magic/Bird/Barkley for defense, yet Shaq gets a pass because he decided to play one year. Go figure.

Karl Malone did a radio show out here in LA back during the 99 lockout, and said the Utah jazz would pick n roll LA to death in the playoffs because they knew Shaq wouldn't rotate. Anyone who saw those losses, know this to be true.

Well, if we're trying to figure out the better player, showing that you can play stellar defense for one year is good enough to prove that you are a better player. Magic, Bird and Chuck couldn't have done what Shaq did in 2000. They just couldn't have.

[Texas Chuck]

Question on Magic for some of you historians:

I notice in looking back at early Magic he had very high steal numbers for a couple years at the beginning of his career. This was true in both the RS and the PS. Would you guys say the decline was based on different defensive schemes Riley brought in or something about Magic himself, maybe the move to more full-time PG play perhaps.

Not really hugely important in the rankings, but I'd love to hear some thoughts on it because I never thought of Magic as a big steals guy and was surprised to see those big numbers.

Thanks

TC

[colts18]

Game 7 stats:

Shaq: 26-11-3, 59 FG%, 19 game score
Kobe: 22-8-5, 39 FG%, 16 game score
LeBron: 34-9-7, 47 FG%, 26 game score
Duncan: 24-12-3, 45 FG%, 19 game score

By this measure, Shaq and LeBron are the most clutch in game 7's while Kobe is the least clutch in game 7's.

[MisterWestside]

I don't know if KG is the most loyal star in history. Let's assume he is. How am I to judge if that is a positive or a negative? In a bad situation, that loyalty maybe isn't best because he doesn't put enough pressure on the FO. In a good situation where he trusts management, goes through 2 rebuilding years, and then after rebuilding they form a dynasty with a free agent signing, it's a great thing. He's a great teammate. He's loyal.

This can't be And1'd enough. I posted about this in the Chamberlain/O'Neal comparison, but it's always funny how the same player with the same personality can be categorized in different ways if the rest of the team performs or flops. Jordan was a selfish, mercurial, ruthless teammate and gunner in Chicago. He was loved for it. He had the same personality and tendencies in Washington. He was called out for it. Only difference was that the proper supporting cast and coaching system weren't in place to distract the people who are easily duped by the mystique of winning.

Call O'Neal what you want, but the people praising Garnett for his "superior leadership" in Minny should understand that he could just as easily be labeled as being too passive and money-hungry to get that roster into title contention. That's why I stay out of the psychoanalyzing and off-court stuff with players.

[RayBan-Sematra]

That's nice, but I think the point is that outside of 2000...Shaq never exerted much defensive impact.

That's also nice but it isn't true.

Shaq was an excellent defensive anchor throughout the majority of his Prime (93-06) and he consistently had a very sizable impact on that end of the court.
He may have peaked defensively in certain years but on average he was almost always an elite anchor on that end.

Pretty much every stat we have related to defense paints Shaq as a guy who was having a sizable positive impact on that end almost every year. None of them paint him as neutral or negative like you seem to suggest.

He was over his Prime a dominant rim protector and an excellent post defender/man defender.

People rag on Magic/Bird/Barkley for defense, yet Shaq gets a pass because he decided to play one year.

Shaq was a dominant two way player over most of his Prime not just "for one year" like you suggest.
Even Shaq in one of his worst defensive Prime years had way more impact then Magic, Bird or Barkley ever had on that end.

Karl Malone did a radio show out here in LA back during the 99 lockout, and said the Utah jazz would pick n roll LA to death in the playoffs because they knew Shaq wouldn't rotate. Anyone who saw those losses, know this to be true.

I watched the 98 LAL VS Jazz series not long ago and Shaq's PnR defense was fine and either way Utah usually ran their PnR with Malone which meant Shaq wasn't defending those plays.
The reason Utah beat LAL in that 98 series was because Van Exel, Jones and Kobe couldn't hit the side of a barn. Shaq's defense was fine.

[Mutnt]

What exactly did Pop show prior to working with Duncan? He had a miserable campaign in '97, and if you attribute that to intentionally tanking then how does that make the Spurs a model franchise? Before that, he was heading the Spurs FO for three years, and then before that he was an assistant coach in the NBA for four years. All of his head coaching experience before kicking out Bob Hill was from Division III basketball. Pop was someone who needed to mature as a NBA head coach over time, in the beginning of his coaching tenure he was hardly the polished HOF material that people made him out to be. Let's say we don't call the 97 campaign a failure for Pop, where is this good coaching when the Duncan-less Spurs lost to the Suns in 2000? What about getting swept by the 01 Lakers in a historic fashion? Nearly trading Parker on several occasions? The unwillingness to develop young talent and wasted the end of Duncan's prime from 2008-2010? Getting swept by the Suns? Losing to the 8th seed Grizzlies? Losing four straight to the Thunder after a 20 game winning streak? Yes, he did win a title recently, but it took him four years of doing a 180 on the offensive system and seventeen years to win a ring without Duncan playing at the MVP level. Can Pop last this long with your average volatile superstar? Doubtful.

Great analysis bro, yea, that Pop really did a horrible job in 97'. It's not like it was his first gig as a head coach, taking over a team that started the season 3-15. Let's also ignore that one of the best players ever in David Robinson was practically absent due to injury and he wasn't the only one crippled on that squad too (Elliot, Smith). Tanking? Why would the Spurs or Pop try to tank? If they'd wanted to do that they would have kept Bob Hill, it seemed like he was doing a pretty good job at it. Pop also played over 20 different lineups that season, that's a lot of adjusting for someone trying to tank, don't you think?

Anyway, I don't know what point are you trying to make here bro. I didn't say Pop is perfect, nor did I say he's doing stuff alone and that Duncan is insignificant, so why are you listing all the instances when the Spurs failed to advance in the playoffs? Also, winning rings isn't some measurement of greatness, it's a lot more circumstantial than you may like to believe. What is far less situational however, is the performance level and amount of wins the Spurs have been routinely exhibiting throughout Pop's tenure, despite numerous changes to the roster, the retooling of the team's playstyle and the undeniable fade of Duncan's impact.

[DQuinn1575]

Question on Magic for some of you historians:

I notice in looking back at early Magic he had very high steal numbers for a couple years at the beginning of his career. This was true in both the RS and the PS. Would you guys say the decline was based on different defensive schemes Riley brought in or something about Magic himself, maybe the move to more full-time PG play perhaps.

Not really hugely important in the rankings, but I'd love to hear some thoughts on it because I never thought of Magic as a big steals guy and was surprised to see those big numbers.

Thanks

TC

Couple of reasons -
change in Riley,
move to PG
less gambling on defense as Kareem became less of a shot blocker

[colts18]

I don't get into playing armchair pop psychologist. For those who play it: How many times have you been in an NBA locker room? How much of the time have you spent interacting with these players to come up with your conclusion?

[microfib4thewin]

What is far less situational however, is the performance level and amount of wins the Spurs have been routinely exhibiting throughout Pop's tenure, despite numerous changes to the roster, the retooling of the team's playstyle and the undeniable fade of Duncan's impact.

So you believe that the Spurs would still be successful if they didn't draft Duncan? We will just have to agree to disagree. But one thing, if Pop is really this great coach then he wouldn't have led a team to 20 wins no matter how horrible the situation was. Whether Pop would have turned out great in an alternate universe without Duncan is anyone's guess, but he definitely did not exhibit HOF coaching before Duncan came to the picture.

[An Unbiased Fan]

When Shaq went all out in the regular-season (00) he easily led the Lakers to the best defense in the league.

That's nice, but I think the point is that outside of 2000...Shaq never exerted much defensive impact. People rag on Magic/Bird/Barkley for defense, yet Shaq gets a pass because he decided to play one year. Go figure.

Karl Malone did a radio show out here in LA back during the 99 lockout, and said the Utah jazz would pick n roll LA to death in the playoffs because they knew Shaq wouldn't rotate. Anyone who saw those losses, know this to be true.

Well, if we're trying to figure out the better player, showing that you can play stellar defense for one year is good enough to prove that you are a better player. Magic, Bird and Chuck couldn't have done what Shaq did in 2000. They just couldn't have.

If this project were on the Top one year spans, then you would be right. But for a Top 100 list, you want to look at career impact. We already had a Peak Project.

The reality is that Shaq was a mediocre defender. His poor rotations consistently was a negative for the teams he was on. This is why I have him below Magic/Kobe/Duncan and on par with Bird. Magic is the GOAT offensive player, so i give him the edge. Kobe/TD were far better 2-way players than Shaq, and had better impact to success correlations than Shaq. LA lost in 98 because Utah dropped a 116.1 ORtg in that series. Shaq scored nicely on Ostertag.....but he gave up aa ton on the other end.

A big who doesn't play defense is like a small who doesn't do well on offense. it's very problematic, especially in the playoffs where good teams can exploit it. Shaq "could" have been higher on my list, but he chose to not play defense. Like is aid earlier in this thread, it's amazing that a guy who ran with Penny, Van Exel/Jones, Kobe, Wade, Nash, Lebron, lol even KG/Pierce in the ringchasing days....didn't surpass Magic/Kobe/Duncan in success. It's striking really.

[Texas Chuck]

I don't get into playing armchair pop psychologist. For those who play it: How many times have you been in an NBA locker room? How much of the time have you spent interacting with these players to come up with your conclusion?

I agree that gets vastly overblown.

Disagree with the notion that you have to specifically be in the locker room to have some reasonable idea of what kind of teammate a guy was.

[colts18]

If this project were on the Top one year spans, then you would be right. But for a Top 100 list, you want to look at career impact. We already had a Peak Project.

The reality is that Shaq was a mediocre defender. His poor rotations consistently was a negative for the teams he was on. This is why I have him below Magic/Kobe/Duncan and on par with Bird. Magic is the GOAT offensive player, so i give him the edge. Kobe/TD were far better 2-way players than Shaq, and had better impact to success correlations than Shaq. LA lost in 98 because Utah dropped a 116.1 ORtg in that series. Shaq scored nicely on Ostertag.....but he gave up aa ton on the other end.

A big who doesn't play defense is like a small who doesn't do well on offense. it's very problematic, especially in the playoffs where good teams can exploit it. Shaq "could" have been higher on my list, but he chose to not play defense. Like is aid earlier in this thread, it's amazing that a guy who ran with Penny, Van Exel/Jones, Kobe, Wade, Nash, Lebron, lol even KG/Pierce in the ringchasing days....didn't surpass Magic/Kobe/Duncan in success. It's striking really.

Do you think that Kobe was a better defender than Shaq?

What good offensive players was he slowing down in his prime. If he was so good why was he hidden on Rajon Rondo rather than Ray Allen or Paul Pierce. Its the equivalent of the Magic deciding to hide Shaq on Robert Horry instead of Hakeem.

[An Unbiased Fan]

That's nice, but I think the point is that outside of 2000...Shaq never exerted much defensive impact.

That's also nice but it isn't true.

Shaq was an excellent defensive anchor throughout the majority of his Prime (93-06) and he consistently had a very sizable impact on that end of the court.

I don't know anyone who would call Shaq "an excellent defensive anchor". Between being out of shape half his prime, and his lackluster effort, I don't see how Shaq was any more than a mediocre defensive anchor outside of 2000, and maybe when he first entered the league.

Pretty much every stat we have related to defense paints Shaq as a guy who was having a sizable positive impact on that end almost every year. None of them paint him as neutral or negative like you seem to suggest.

He was over his Prime a dominant rim protector and an excellent post defender/man defender.

Hmm, Shaq's team DRtgs sure don't reflect this impact, despite having casts with good defensive support. I''ll give you the rim protector/man defense for Shaq, but in other aspects of team defense he was a negative. he didn't get back on breaks, barely rotated, committed silly fouls, and didn't close on bigs shooting perimeter shots.

[microfib4thewin]

I don't get into playing armchair pop psychologist. For those who play it: How many times have you been in an NBA locker room? How much of the time have you spent interacting with these players to come up with your conclusion?

Not sure how any of what I wrote is psychoanalysis. Before Duncan Pop doesn't have a resume that remotely resembles a HOFer, and if Pop was already a great coach before Duncan came to the picture then why couldn't he make the '97 Spurs overachieve like Sloan and Thibs have done with crappy teams? Why didn't his good coaching translate to beating the 2000 Suns without Duncan or getting swept in an embarrassing fashion against the 01 Lakers who was the underdog going into the series? A good coach that is independent of his star player should be able to make the most out of a bad situation, or in the case of 2001, be able to adjust so his team doesn't get swept by a 20 point margin, right?

Duncan has had his failures, but I don't get why people who hold Pop to such high regards simply accept him as great instead of putting him through the acid test. Pop has compiled plenty of undesirable results that should make anyone question if he should be placed on the same pedestal as Phil, Red, and Riley.

[colts18]

What good offensive players was he slowing down in his prime. .

I just checked and it looked like an Unbiased fan answered that question in the other thread.

Kidd/Rondo/Westbrook off the top of my head.

Kidd- Kidd actually had a better TS% and O rating against the Lakers compared to his regular season average.

Rondo- I'm not sure I would brag about that one. For one, Rondo is not a good offensive player. It also means that Kobe was hidden on Rondo while Allen and Pierce killed the Lakers.

Westbrook- Kobe guarded Westbrook for a total of 13 FGA in the 2010 series. Hardly something worthy of praise. Westbrook had 91 FGA in that series so Kobe was guarding him for 1/7th of his attempts.

[Mutnt]

What is far less situational however, is the performance level and amount of wins the Spurs have been routinely exhibiting throughout Pop's tenure, despite numerous changes to the roster, the retooling of the team's playstyle and the undeniable fade of Duncan's impact.

So you believe that the Spurs would still be successful if they didn't draft Duncan? We will just have to agree to disagree. But one thing, if Pop is really this great coach then he wouldn't have led a team to 20 wins no matter how horrible the situation was. Whether Pop would have turned out great in an alternate universe without Duncan is anyone's guess, but he definitely did not exhibit HOF coaching before Duncan came to the picture.

Define successful. And again, you are talking like you think I believe Duncan is/was irrelevant to the Spurs success. That's not even remotely true. I'm trying to emphasis what a great coach Pop is with everything he's done over his career and that Duncan didn't made him or the Spurs. Does that really look the same as saying Pop would be 'as successful' without Duncan? Obviously a lot depends on the team/players he would have.

This 'alternate universe' isn't as alternate anymore since Duncan isn't anywhere close to replicating his former impact yet the Spurs are playing the best basketball I've ever seen them play. What does that say? People are acting like if you removed Duncan from the Spurs they'd fall completely apart.

Oh, and stop with this 'exhibiting HOF coaching prior to Duncan'. Pop barely coached before Duncan came into the NBA. And yes, his coaching 15 years ago obviously wasn't as good as now (doesn't also mean he was trash). It's called experience.

[90sAllDecade]

Wait, you don't trust DRtg, but think that all-star selections are objective evidence of player quality?

I said all star selections can provide broad strokes of a player's play relative to competition in the league that season.

Why not just look at how a player plays? Like I added in my criteria:

There are only 12 spots available, so not everyone who plays All-Star caliber ball will make it onto the team. There are snubs and omissions every year. And the starting lineup is literally a popularity contest. Therefore, what is important as far as that goes is whether a player played at an All-Star level during a given season, not whether he was selected to a team with limited spots from which deserving players will always be excluded. An All-Star selection is not needed in order to determine if a player played at an All-Star level. The latter is more important than the former. In other words, performance > awards.

There are only a limited amount of spots on the All-Star team, and the idea that only 12 players in each conference is playing at an All-Star level is silly. There are always deserving players left off every year. Every season there are more players playing at an All-Star level than there are roster spots on the All-Star team to accommodate them. Surely it's possible to determine if a player is playing at an All-Star level without needing them to be selected to an All-Star team?

Not to mention the fact that All-Star selections are only for the first half of the season anyway. Presumably, since over half the season has been played at that point, that's enough of a sample size that one should be able to assume they'll maintain it, but it's also possible to play poorly the rest of the way while someone who was left off steps it up after the break. Which is why I believe whether or not a player is playing at an All-Star level is more important that they were selected to the team. And since the fans vote the starters, some players are guaranteed to get in every year on popularity alone whether they deserve it or not.

These are all valid points, I agree. But wouldn't that also be part of the confirmation those guys played at that level?

Also, I 'm a die hard basketball fan whose watched plenty of historical games and watched some just about every day of this project. I'm watching Rick Barry's 75 Finals as we speak, he has a nice pull up and his free throws crack me up.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlktiS0oUEE[/youtube]

I'll do a comparison of the one man bands later as I think that will be interesting.

Frankly I think if people watched the game I wouldn't have to bring as much evidence, because game film, especially if you watch defense and skill, helps Olajuwon over these players. Although Offense and championship bias is very real and affects viewers perception.

Here's the thing, a major point is that we're comparing players from the 50's,60's to present 2014. I'd like to say I've watched every borderline or all star player in that span, but that's not being honest. And I think with the exception of a person who only watches basketball their whole lives, that is likely not being honest either.

Even if someone said that, we're still missing footage from many player in older decades how could they claim to be to have watched them all? No one can really rank Mikan or 50's players because there is very little footage, the same for 60's players. How can we fully watch those players? Do we have access to all the RS games of players through the decades?

Likely people still have to use the value of things things like all star selections, HOF inductees and confirm that with stats and game film. I agree with what you said, more data helps. We just shouldn't take advanced stats or other things as gospel imo and understand their context and flaws (all star games too).

But I agree you make good points.

[Purch]

I think it's unfair to critized Pop for his first season..

Coaches like players develop overtime. Its just that most teams fire them to quickly to let them develop

[RayBan-Sematra]

I don't know anyone who would call Shaq "an excellent defensive anchor".

I know plenty of people who would.
You are blindly discounting the enormous defensive impact Shaq had through his post defense, rim protection and man defense. You act as if those aspects of defense are almost irrelevant.

Between being out of shape half his prime

Hyperbole.
Shaq was generally in good shape throughout the 90's with multiple years where he was shredded.
Even in the last 2-3 years of his Peak years where he was coming into camp overweight he wasn't hampered that much since he still had his freakish youthful athletic ability to carry him physically and mask the extra weight he was carrying.

and his lackluster effort

Shaq's effort may not have been 100% in certain regular-seasons but it wasn't "lackluster" and in the playoffs his effort was almost always very good.

Hmm, Shaq's team DRtgs sure don't reflect this impact, despite having casts with good defensive support.

Shaq missed many games and he didn't go 100% on that end in the regular-season.
Despite that most of his teams were above average defensively.

I''ll give you the rim protector/man defense for Shaq, but in other aspects of team defense he was a negative.

You make it sound like rim defense/post defense isn't the most valuable part of defense.
Shaq was a dominant post defender, rim protector and as even you admit a good man defender.

he didn't get back on breaks, barely rotated and didn't close on bigs shooting perimeter shots.

He generally did fine getting back on breaks and he was great on rotations (high BBIQ).
The only thing you are right about is that he generally did not do a great job when it came to closing out on deep perimeter screens or coming out to guard shooting bigs with real range.
On the other hand many of his coaches didn't want Shaq out on the perimeter because of how valuable his rim protection was so he isn't completely at fault.

[An Unbiased Fan]

If this project were on the Top one year spans, then you would be right. But for a Top 100 list, you want to look at career impact. We already had a Peak Project.

The reality is that Shaq was a mediocre defender. His poor rotations consistently was a negative for the teams he was on. This is why I have him below Magic/Kobe/Duncan and on par with Bird. Magic is the GOAT offensive player, so i give him the edge. Kobe/TD were far better 2-way players than Shaq, and had better impact to success correlations than Shaq. LA lost in 98 because Utah dropped a 116.1 ORtg in that series. Shaq scored nicely on Ostertag.....but he gave up aa ton on the other end.

A big who doesn't play defense is like a small who doesn't do well on offense. it's very problematic, especially in the playoffs where good teams can exploit it. Shaq "could" have been higher on my list, but he chose to not play defense. Like is aid earlier in this thread, it's amazing that a guy who ran with Penny, Van Exel/Jones, Kobe, Wade, Nash, Lebron, lol even KG/Pierce in the ringchasing days....didn't surpass Magic/Kobe/Duncan in success. It's striking really.

Do you think that Kobe was a better defender than Shaq?

What good offensive players was he slowing down in his prime. If he was so good why was he hidden on Rajon Rondo rather than Ray Allen or Paul Pierce. Its the equivalent of the Magic deciding to hide Shaq on Robert Horry instead of Hakeem.

Absolutely, Kobe was a better defender than Shaq, and that's the opinion not just of me, but coaches & his peers.. And why would you say Kobe was "hidden" on Rondo? Rondo was the engine to that Celtic offense, which is why Kobe was on him. This is what Doc Rivers had to say about Kobe guarding Rondo on game.

"But allow Celtics coach Doc Rivers to explain how Bryant did more than score to get the Lakers the victory:

"He also knew that we had foul problems on the floor, and he was aggressive," Rivers said. "Listen, Kobe didn't win the game with his offense. Kobe won the game today with his defense. I thought defensively, he was absolutely phenomenal. He was everywhere.
"He was trapping; he was helping off (Rajon) Rondo all night. Trapped the post, blocked shots. I mean, he just had a great floor game to me -- more than just scoring."
http://www.ocregister.com/lakers/kobe-4 ... akers.html