RealGM 2017 Top 100 List: #5

[Gibson22]

#5: Wilt
#6: Shaq

For the record, I have Duncan at 7, Bird at 8, Magic at 9.

I feel like the first four guys and Wilt have a shot at being the GOAT.
The others don't have one.

About the fifth position, I think this is between Wilt, Tim, and Shaq.
Why I feel like Wilt deserve this position (actually, I have him 4th, but since Bill got that..):
I don't put much value in team success. Coaches, referees, 5 starters, 2/3 important rotation players, a single dude can't determine much of the outcome of a game, let alone a series or a championship.
Anyway, I know that statistical evidence suggests that Wilt's impact is surprisingly weak for a GOAT candidate.
But, those are the things that anybody takes in consideration when comparing two players: Offense, defense, peak, prime, leadership, longevity, team success, making a normal team better, making a good team great.

So, Wilt vs Tim: Wilt has the best prime ever for a bigman, with only Shaq comparable. Wilt 67 is better than 03 Tim Duncan, as I think thant only Shaq, MJ, Jabbar and Lebron have peaks comparable or better to his.
Wilt is a much better offensive player. I don't know if Duncan's edge on defense is as big as his disadvantage on offense. I don't think so. About Longevity: Tim has probably the edge but I think they are close.
I mean, I think that Duncan longevity was overrated. He was an MVP caliber player since his rookie season to his fourth ring season in 2006-07. Obviously he was great in 2012-13 and in the finals, he had a big big part in his
fifth ring, and he was pretty good even in 14-15, but after 2006-07 he was not like a 2016-17 Lebron or Kawhi or Kevin Durant. While Wilt was amazing from his rookie season in 59-60 to his last mvp in 67-68, and he could change
his type of impact to the game in the various phases of his career, being able to be great for his team with defense and rebounds even in the last years of his career.
I think that Wilt was better at making a normal team better, but a much worse leader, much worse in team success, as he should have won much more with the teammates he had throughout his career. But: do you think that the Spurs
with wilt wouldn't beat the 07 cavs, the nets, the knicks, the pistons or the 14 heat? I think that the only debatable one is the final against the pistons, but in my opinion it would have been even easier for the spurs to beat them.
And do you think that with wilt if would have been impossible to repeat? I don't know. Do you think that the sixers with Timmy beat Russells celtics? I really don't.
And anyway, Tim had the coach that I consider to be the GOAT coach for every year of his career. Wilt had not, and his main rival had the coach that many consider the GOAT.
In a vacuum: Wilt is a better offensiver player (scoring AND passing), better rebounder, better shot blocker. Duncan is a (much) better defensive player and teammate.
I will edit later with the comparison with Shaq

[trex_8063]

Spoiler:

We generally understand that we can't simply equate team success= better player because it'd be unfair, and therefore we don't punish TD in 06 because we all know he did all he could v the Mavericks, especially coming back from an injury riddled season. But by that same token... we shouldn't heap all praises on someone for his team successes or not provide other players with the same beneficial approach. TD seems to get special treatment in this respect... He gets it either directly (he is the reason why their D was so great, which is partially true, but of course we know the Spurs system and culture+ their excellent role players over the years enabled this) or indirectly (i.e. he fostered such a great culture that they keep on winning even though he is retired). If the same approach was applied to other ATGS then I'd like like fair enough... at least it is consistent. But it most certainly is not, as many resort back to "favorable circumstances" argument with other players. I doubt any other ATG would get the passes like TD (and in an earlier post I laid out some of his individual failures in the RS, which seemingly is ignored). Heck his 04 performance v the Lakers, after taking a 2-0 lead and getting back swept is ignored completely. Dude went 4/14 in game 3, 5/13 in game 4 and 7/18 in game 6, all losses, yet we hear/see no scrutiny.

TD more so than any other dude (other than perhaps Bill Russell- i wonder what they share in common?) seemingly gets the benefit of the doubt when things mess up on his end, and when it goes good, it is primarily because of his unselfishness and leadership. I just find this particular approach misplaced.

It is a valid concern, and something I'm going to try to be conscious of moving forward. I'm just not sure how much relevance it bears at this point (where we are in the project). I think if Duncan were to truly "get a pass" on all his failures, and completely having a blind eye turned on his "favorable circumstances", and be given extra credit for being the primary fostering factor of their winning culture.........he'd have a pretty solid case for #1 or #2.
But we're talking about #5 here (and I was never arguing for him in the top two spots).

And wrt some of the specific "failures" you mentioned.....
Speaking for myself, I don't tend to be so micro in ruling a player in or out of a position. I tend to use broad strokes (full seasons, full primes, full careers). For example, where Wilt is concerned I've stated some concerns along the lines of "here are entire seasons in which his impact appears pretty small". The counter of "Duncan had a bad series here and here" doesn't quite stack up to that. Duncan doesn't appear to have a season in which his on-court impact is small; not one in 19 seasons.


And wrt to my broad-strokes approach: I've tried to make some formulations to do some of the work to help me "ball-park" players before I review other details-----such as subjective assessment of defense (which is poorly captured by most metrics), intangibles, impact indicators (where available), scrutinizing context, considering legacy type "imprints" left on the game, etc----which I use to guide me to their ultimate ranks on my ATL.

One complex formulation includes everything from box numbers (with a heavy emphasis on points and ppg, because that's the head-space I was in at the time I originally started it), PER, WS, WS/48 (both rs and playoffs, and weighted against mpg, win% [though on a curve for this], length of career, and a strength of era rating---which I went year-by-year for), awards/honors, MVP award shares, titles and finals appearances, peak season metrics, peak ppg avg, small weight individual rDRTG (proxies used for older players).........and then I made two alternative versions of this, changing the weighting of various things (pretty substantially).

Now obviously these formulas cannot account for context (favorable circumstances); but otoh, it's not giving anyone "extra credit" for whatever role he may have played in nurturing a winning culture, either.

Duncan came in 5th all-time in two of the three versions (behind only Lebron, MJ, Kareem, and Wilt), and 4th in the other (behind only MJ, Lebron, and Kareem).


I've another collection of formulas which utilize only PER (which doesn't give a damn about wins or losses, and isn't overly friendly to Duncan, as he's not consistently been a big volume scorer), WS/48, and minutes played.
They attempt to assess total value over a replacement level player (as measured by PER and WS/48) provided over career wholes; the presumption being that when they're not on the court, it would be a replacement level player taking their place.
It's structured such that being "x" amount over replacement level PER for "y" number of minutes would be valued the same as being "x" amount over replacement level WS/48 for "y" number of minutes.**

**Used multiple historic samplings to determine roughly equivalent variations in WS/48 and PER. League avg PER is always 15, for WS/48 it's .100. However, a PER of 13.5 (seemingly a "10% drop") does not = .090 WS/48 (seemingly a 10% drop);
because they don't move along the same scale. Think about it: we fairly routinely have at least one or two players with NEGATIVE WS/48 over large minutes played samples; but we never have a negative PER over any relevant sample (lowest is usually around 4-5).
On the flip-side, we quite frequently have guys with WS/48 of .270 to .300 (or higher), but we never have PER's in the 40-45+
range).

Playoff "adjustment" of our replacement level player is applied (because most players fall off a little in the post-season), and each playoff minute played is valued 3.25x heavier than each rs minute.

Version 1 of this premise is their total value over replacement provided over their entire career based on raw PER and WS/48.
Version 2 utilizes the season-to-season standard deviations (from this study) for each metric and assesses based on how many standard deviations over replacement level they provided.
Version 3 is the same as version 1, except I applied a strength of era rating.
Version 4 is the same as version 2, except with strength of era rating.

By versions 1 and 2, Duncan is 5th all-time (behind Kareem, MJ, Lebron, and Wilt); by versions 3 and 4 he's 4th all-time (behind MJ, Lebron, and Kareem).


I only bring this stuff up to [hopefully] illustrate one doesn't need to be giving him a pass for all failures (because those failures are included in career metrics and totals), nor be giving him extra credit for fostering culture. His career merits (at face-value, or "by the numbers", if you will) alone warrant consideration at this stage of the project.

[trex_8063]

Thru post #142 I count 28 votes, so a player requires 15 to have a majority:

Tim Duncan - 11 (2klegend, Arman_Tanzarian, Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, Dr Positivity, eminence, LABird, micahclay,
scabbarista, Tesla, trex_8063)
Wilt Chamberlain - 9 (wojoaderge, Winsome Gerbil, penbeast0, Outside, oldschooled, Narigo, lebron3-14-3, Joao Saraiva, ardee)
Hakeem Olajuwon - 3 (andrewww, BasketballFan7, janmagn)
Magic Johnson - 2 (JordansBulls, RCM88x)
Kevin Garnett - 2 (drza, Jaivl)
Shaquille O'Neal - 1 (MisterHibachi)


No majority, so Shaquille O'Neal (with the least number of 1st place votes) is eliminated; MisterHibachi's 2ndary vote (for Wilt) is transferred; new totals:

Duncan - 11
Wilt - 10
Hakeem - 3
Magic and KG - 2 each

Still no majority, so BOTH Magic and KG are eliminated from contention, and those 2ndary votes (three to Duncan, one to Wilt) are transferred, making the new total:

Duncan - 14
Wilt - 11
Hakeem - 3

Still no majority, so Hakeem is eliminated; those secondary votes had one for Magic (now a "ghost vote") and two for Duncan, making the total:

Duncan - 16
Wilt - 11

So I'm calling this one for Duncan. Will have the #6 thread up shortly.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

[THKNKG]

Now that I have some freedom from work stuff, I get to try to make my case for KG. Ooh boy


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Gibson22]

Thru post #142 I count 28 votes, so a player requires 15 to have a majority:

Tim Duncan - 11 (2klegend, Arman_Tanzarian, Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ, Dr Positivity, eminence, LABird, micahclay,
scabbarista, Tesla, trex_8063)
Wilt Chamberlain - 9 (wojoaderge, Winsome Gerbil, penbeast0, Outside, oldschooled, Narigo, lebron3-14-3, Joao Saraiva, ardee)
Hakeem Olajuwon - 3 (andrewww, BasketballFan7, janmagn)
Magic Johnson - 2 (JordansBulls, RCM88x)
Kevin Garnett - 2 (drza, Jaivl)
Shaquille O'Neal - 1 (MisterHibachi)


No majority, so Shaquille O'Neal (with the least number of 1st place votes) is eliminated; MisterHibachi's 2ndary vote (for Wilt) is transferred; new totals:

Duncan - 11
Wilt - 10
Hakeem - 3
Magic and KG - 2 each

Still no majority, so BOTH Magic and KG are eliminated from contention, and those 2ndary votes (three to Duncan, one to Wilt) are transferred, making the new total:

Duncan - 14
Wilt - 11
Hakeem - 3

Still no majority, so Hakeem is eliminated; those secondary votes had one for Magic (now a "ghost vote") and two for Duncan, making the total:

Duncan - 16
Wilt - 11

So I'm calling this one for Duncan. Will have the #6 thread up shortly.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

Are you sure about your counts?

[trex_8063]

Are you sure about your counts?

I have a spreadsheet where votes are tallied by poster name; and I listed everyone's name next to player they voted for (and notified everyone via quotes), so they can speak up if I tabulated their vote for the wrong player.

Also, try to avoid quoting an entire gigantic length of text just to provide a one-line response (edit out the bulk of it). It just clutters the page.

[ardee]

Well this is a major bummer.

Sent from my SM-J700F using RealGM mobile app

[THKNKG]

Well this is a major bummer.

Sent from my SM-J700F using RealGM mobile app

Uh, why?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[ardee]

Well this is a major bummer.

Sent from my SM-J700F using RealGM mobile app

Uh, why?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

Because Wilt outside the top 5 is a travesty.

[Texas Chuck]

,if someone wants to make a case for Kobe then just make it but save us the passive aggressive posts 're Timmy already . Please.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120AZ using RealGM mobile app

[ardee]

,if someone wants to make a case for Kobe then just make it but save us the passive aggressive posts 're Timmy already . Please.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120AZ using RealGM mobile app

You're the passive aggressive one. I didn't even mention Kobe. This is about Wilt being outside the top 5, which is a disaster, especially with a player like Duncan over him.

[THKNKG]

,if someone wants to make a case for Kobe then just make it but save us the passive aggressive posts 're Timmy already . Please.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120AZ using RealGM mobile app

You're the passive aggressive one. I didn't even mention Kobe. This is about Wilt being outside the top 5, which is a disaster, especially with a player like Duncan over him.

A disaster? That's an overstatement for a project that's supposed to be about discussion and dialogue. You also say that as if Duncan isn't worthy of the spot, but he's one of the best players ever, and one of the most winningest, so I'm not sure what the issue is.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM mobile app

[Texas Chuck]

,if someone wants to make a case for Kobe then just make it but save us the passive aggressive posts 're Timmy already . Please.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120AZ using RealGM mobile app

You're the passive aggressive one. I didn't even mention Kobe. This is about Wilt being outside the top 5, which is a disaster, especially with a player like Duncan over him.

Why defensive? I don't recall mentioning you but those posts are all over this thread by others.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120AZ using RealGM mobile app

[urnoggin]

,if someone wants to make a case for Kobe then just make it but save us the passive aggressive posts 're Timmy already . Please.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120AZ using RealGM mobile app

You're the passive aggressive one. I didn't even mention Kobe. This is about Wilt being outside the top 5, which is a disaster, especially with a player like Duncan over him.

With so many reputable posters having Duncan over Wilt and even some with Wilt outside the top 10, do you really believe that they didn't come to their conclusions through logical and thorough analysis and thinking? Or do you simply believe that your opinion is fact? Either way, this list is voted for by the members of realGM, it isn't your personal list. Unless you think these posters lack knowledge or objectivity, then why complain.

[rebirthoftheM]

,if someone wants to make a case for Kobe then just make it but save us the passive aggressive posts 're Timmy already . Please.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120AZ using RealGM mobile app

This is highly disappointing. It seems that the Kobe boogeyman looms large.

Part of the value of these threads, is that many outsiders/non-voters such as myself (as well as voters) can go back and learn new things about the ATGs. They can read in-depth arguments and counters on a particular player. So far, the Wilt discussion has been excellent, as was the Kareem convo and Russell convos. Hell the LBJ 'does he compromise his teams' discussion was fascinating. I learned a lot on this front. And I expect to learn a lot about Dirk/KG/Hakeem etc.

But Duncan? Frankly I didn't learn anything new about him. There was little critical analysis over his career. And to me this was disappointing, because he just swept Shaq, and beat out Wilt, without going through a rigorous process that we've seen from other players. Hell, the only reason why I know about Timmy's 'skeletons' is because I grew up watching him (and yes admiring him) and used to frequent spurstalk back in the day for admittedly trolling purposes. I opened up a thread recently about TD, and I learned far more about TD than I did here. I've theorized why I believe TD is treated with such kiddy gloves, and why that should not be so. I've been very transparent on my position.

This has very little to do with Kobe, in that I believe Shaq, despite all of his personality issues, was clearly (though the gap isn't too large) better than Hakeem/Duncan/Kobe/KG/Dirk etc. And I go back and forth about Wilt, But I do think he is better than TD. Duncan is the first dude amongst the lot who was selected over Shaq, so I was trying to raise some issues which IMO favor lend weight to Shaq over TD (such as Shaq leading far more dominant teams than prime TD for example, even accounting for talent).

To go down the Kobe boogeyman route is again disappointing, and I do hope you retract it. No player should go through this process unscrutinized.

Again, TD has been voted in. But this is not good, also because I'm concerned that when Kobe does come up, the playing field will be toxic from the onset.

I see that all the time now "During their primes nobody thought Duncan was on Shaq's level". And I don't know who y'all were hanging out with, but outside of LA that certainly wasn't the case. MVP finishes from '98 to '05.

If that isn't two players with similarly perceived primes I don't know who is.

I'm not sure about the relevance of RPOY in making a distinction between how Shaq and TD were perceived at the time.

But going back to the MVP... I'm not sure if you were seriously following the NBA at the time (and I don't mean this condescendingly- I know many weren't at the time) but post 00, both Shaq and Kobe's MVP ratings suffered from playing next to each-other. The two of them were often cited as 2 of the 3 best players in the NBA, and they were on the same damn team. Meanwhile TD, although he had excellent teams, did not have a recognizable superstar with him (D-rob was no longer that dude). This is why their MVP finishes varied, and why someone like AI was able to win the MVP, despite not even being in the same stratosphere as Shaq.

So quoting MVP finishes post 00 to suggest that folks viewed them as being on the same level is misleading. It would be akin to suggest that Nash was seen on the same level as a player as Kobe/Wade/LBJ etc in the mid 00s, despite this being categorically false (many at the time made the distinction that MVP=/= best player to justify Nash's selection).

I could go hunting for a dozen news clippings from the time. But I do not feel need to do. Anyone with a genuine recollection of the early 00s will know that Shaq was seen as the superior player than TD, and in general was rightfully considered the best player in the NBA in the early 00s. TD's rise came over the time, but Shaq was just considered more dominant, and in the early 00s, dominance was highly highly valued. Shaq was also very much liked/popular at the time, while TD was a recluse who played what many considered boring basketball (this is also a partial reason why, despite the claims on this thread, most folks in the public domain, including pundits, coaches and media people) believed Kobe was better than Duncan 06 onwards). This added to Shaq's case, who was seen as the most unstoppable force in the modern era.

The closest Shaq's status was being challenged was in 01 via Kobe (hence the rift- a lot of people were saying Kobe was supplanting Shaq) and after TD defeated the Shaq/Lakers in 03. KG got some traction, and indeed in 04, Shaq looked to be slowing down. But at TD and Shaq's best, Shaq was seen as that dude, particular as his teams thrashed TD's teams in 01 (probably TD's lowest point) and in 02. Again, I find this to be the very basic recollection of history, and I do hope some other posters who followed the NBA can corroborate this, because I feel like we lived in different worlds... and no I was not in LA at the time.

[rebirthoftheM]

I only bring this stuff up to [hopefully] illustrate one doesn't need to be giving him a pass for all failures (because those failures are included in career metrics and totals), nor be giving him extra credit for fostering culture. His career merits (at face-value, or "by the numbers", if you will) alone warrant consideration at this stage of the project.

Oh trex, I fully recognize that TD's argument doesn't necessarily have to be based on narrative, and strong arguments (and counters of course) can be made about his on-court play.

But I was responding to a dominant trend here, which gives Duncan +++ for what in effect is narrative points (his unique role in building the most successful dynasty in the NBA/grooming of young talent/major emphasis on his defense over any player in history sans Russell/left a legacy that facilitated the Spurs to continue to win when he retired). To put it more simply, these points are why many consider Duncan>KG for example. They are all heavily intertwined with the success of TD's spurs teams.

As a counter balance, I tried to present some counter-balance narratives about TD's failures also. His skeletons. Wilt here was punished/critiqued was for his skeletons (I mean the criticisms of his style of play v the approval of his play are all narrative based, and people using stats to their advantage) and so I only thought it was fair that TD be put under the same lens. Unfortunately, this has led to accusations that I'm trying to low-key make an argument for Kobe over TD (which is astonishing, as I excluded myself from this voting process because I felt I'd do an injustice to pre-modern players, knowing full well that my vote would not count when it came ot Kobe), where I think both Shaq and Hakeem, who are still left on the board, were both better than Kobe.

So again to stress. Defs not saying that one can only rank TD that high if they ignored his failures. But I hoped his failures would have been addressed, and they weren't. As a result, I didn't learn anything new about TD tbh.

[eminence]

Spoiler:

,if someone wants to make a case for Kobe then just make it but save us the passive aggressive posts 're Timmy already . Please.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-J120AZ using RealGM mobile app

This is highly disappointing. It seems that the Kobe boogeyman looms large.

Part of the value of these threads, is that many outsiders/non-voters such as myself (as well as voters) can go back and learn new things about the ATGs. They can read in-depth arguments and counters on a particular player. So far, the Wilt discussion has been excellent, as was the Kareem convo and Russell convos. Hell the LBJ 'does he compromise his teams' discussion was fascinating. I learned a lot on this front. And I expect to learn a lot about Dirk/KG/Hakeem etc.

But Duncan? Frankly I didn't learn anything new about him. There was little critical analysis over his career. And to me this was disappointing, because he just swept Shaq, and beat out Wilt, without going through a rigorous process that we've seen from other players. Hell, the only reason why I know about Timmy's 'skeletons' is because I grew up watching him (and yes admiring him) and used to frequent spurstalk back in the day for admittedly trolling purposes. I opened up a thread recently about TD, and I learned far more about TD than I did here. I've theorized why I believe TD is treated with such kiddy gloves, and why that should not be so. I've been very transparent on my position.

This has very little to do with Kobe, in that I believe Shaq, despite all of his personality issues, was clearly (though the gap isn't too large) better than Hakeem/Duncan/Kobe/KG/Dirk etc. And I go back and forth about Wilt, But I do think he is better than TD. Duncan is the first dude amongst the lot who was selected over Shaq, so I was trying to raise some issues which IMO favor lend weight to Shaq over TD (such as Shaq leading far more dominant teams than prime TD for example, even accounting for talent).

To go down the Kobe boogeyman route is again disappointing, and I do hope you retract it. No player should go through this process unscrutinized.

Again, TD has been voted in. But this is not good, also because I'm concerned that when Kobe does come up, the playing field will be toxic from the onset.

I see that all the time now "During their primes nobody thought Duncan was on Shaq's level". And I don't know who y'all were hanging out with, but outside of LA that certainly wasn't the case. MVP finishes from '98 to '05.

If that isn't two players with similarly perceived primes I don't know who is.

I'm not sure about the relevance of RPOY in making a distinction between how Shaq and TD were perceived at the time.

But going back to the MVP... I'm not sure if you were seriously following the NBA at the time (and I don't mean this condescendingly- I know many weren't at the time) but post 00, both Shaq and Kobe's MVP ratings suffered from playing next to each-other. The two of them were often cited as 2 of the 3 best players in the NBA, and they were on the same damn team. Meanwhile TD, although he had excellent teams, did not have a recognizable superstar with him (D-rob was no longer that dude). This is why their MVP finishes varied, and why someone like AI was able to win the MVP, despite not even being in the same stratosphere as Shaq.

So quoting MVP finishes post 00 to suggest that folks viewed them as being on the same level is misleading. It would be akin to suggest that Nash was seen on the same level as a player as Kobe/Wade/LBJ etc in the mid 00s, despite this being categorically false (many at the time made the distinction that MVP=/= best player to justify Nash's selection).

I could go hunting for a dozen news clippings from the time. But I do not feel need to do. Anyone with a genuine recollection of the early 00s will know that Shaq was seen as the superior player than TD, and in general was rightfully considered the best player in the NBA in the early 00s. TD's rise came over the time, but Shaq was just considered more dominant, and in the early 00s, dominance was highly highly valued. Shaq was also very much liked/popular at the time, while TD was a recluse who played what many considered boring basketball (this is also a partial reason why, despite the claims on this thread, most folks in the public domain, including pundits, coaches and media people) believed Kobe was better than Duncan 06 onwards). This added to Shaq's case, who was seen as the most unstoppable force in the modern era.

The closest Shaq's status was being challenged was in 01 via Kobe (hence the rift- a lot of people were saying Kobe was supplanting Shaq) and after TD defeated the Shaq/Lakers in 03. KG got some traction, and indeed in 04, Shaq looked to be slowing down. But at TD and Shaq's best, Shaq was seen as that dude, particular as his teams thrashed TD's teams in 01 (probably TD's lowest point) and in 02. Again, I find this to be the very basic recollection of history, and I do hope some other posters who followed the NBA can corroborate this, because I feel like we lived in different worlds... and no I was not in LA at the time.

Nobody considered them on the same level? I remember this lovely article from SI in '99.



https://www.si.com/vault/1999/05/31/261431/easy-does-it-tim-duncans-seemingly-effortless-dismantling-of-the-lakers-shows-that-hes-now-the-leagues-dominant-big-man

I remembered hating that cover as a kid, I was a pretty big Kobe fan, Lakers games were the only ones I'd ever been to. Didn't like it at all, they were **** on my guy, calling him nothing but flash

[rebirthoftheM]

^Who said nobody considered them on the same level? By that same token.. I could say folks believed Kobe>MJ because Pippen and Mark Jackson said so in 2006. I was of course speaking about majority and dominant opinions... and why should this be surprising? TD's style of play was not attracting people. He was criminally underrated during those days. When Shaq won... he was the front and centre. He was Hollywood. When TD beat the Nets? Nobody gave a damn like they did with Shaq. And whether you like it or not... someones popularity does impact their ATG rating in the public domain because folks are looking for overt dominance.

I was taking a general sentiment during the era as a guide. You will notice that the clipping was from 1999... I don't have the motivation go looking (but of course if you insist, it can be done), but what do you think the news clipping were saying when Shaq's Lakers dominated 00-02, including dismantling TD's teams in the most embarrassing of ways in 01, and then beating them in 5 in 02? What about 00 when Shaq put up a display that nobody had seen this Wilt?

Again, I'm not making this up man. Shaq was that dude. He was Shaq diesel... the MDE, the big Aristotle, the large than life figure who used to show-boat and dunk on people and then mock them. He was that dude who was dropping 40-20 games in the PS and at will drawing doubles and triples, to the point they invented a whole strategy to deal with his dominance. You might think he was getting overrated, but he was well recognized as the best player in the NBA, and some of it indeed had to do with the flare he used to play, but also because of his sheer overt dominance. His closest challenger in the public eye was ironically his teammate, another dude who had flare and was a dominant scorer.

When I get the chance, I will go looking for the clipping actually. But for the moment, I'm stunned anybody would suggest that except for momentary bandwagon moments, it was a majority opinion that TD and Shaq were seen on the same level.

[rebirthoftheM]

Rod Thorn, president of the Nets in 02 talking about the MVP (obviously championing J Kidd over Duncan)"

'Different people have different interpretations of the M.V.P.,'' Thorn said. ''If you talk about most outstanding individual year, with Tim Duncan, I would have no problem with that at all. If you said Shaquille O'Neal should win the M.V.P. every year because he is the best player in the league, then that's fair, since it's more to do with winning the championship. In my mind there was no player who did more for his team than Jason.''

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/07/sports/pro-basketball-kidd-loses-mvp-to-duncan-officials-say.html

Look at how casually he accepts the premise that Shaq is the best player like it is well known opinion. Sounds exactly like LBJ today.

Again, this is not made up. Shaq was considered the very best. Revisionist history will not change this.

http://nypost.com/2002/06/10/shaquilles-the-real-mvp/ More when Shaq was pummelling the NBA.

[eminence]

My bad, you said: "barely anybody thought they were on the same level"

A cover article in SI proclaiming his dominance over Shaq is not a "barely anybody thought they were on the same level" situation. Not even close. Better MVP placements over even Shaq's most dominant period ('00-'02) is not a not the same level situation. Hell, Duncan outplayed Shaq in '02, but keep bringing up that one as a sign of Shaq's dominance.