RealGM Top 100 #4

[Fencer reregistered]

It doesn't surprise me that Wilt, for all his failures, was also the cornerstone of the two most successful teams in NBA history before Jordan's Bulls.

Well said.

I doubt right now it will elevate Wilt for me over Magic or Bird, who were also cornerstones of all-time great teams. Maybe not even Shaq (ditto). We'll see.

Well, definitely not Magic; I stand by my vote.

One thing -- that he did it on two different teams doesn't impress me much, especially since he wasn't the sole cornerstone of the second one. That you get traded a lot is hardly a big plus in your favor.

[ronnymac2]

Sedale, like I said, I buy that Wilt did it. I just have a problem with it being bandied around as a fact.

[ThaRegul8r]

I don't think anyone can say with a straight face that Shaq put as much consistent effort into rebounding and shot blocking/defense as he did other facets, namely scoring.

The 99/00 season is the smoking gun. He was never that good before or since that season, despite being only 28 at the time.

Exactly. As I said:

In the 1999-2000 season, Shaq grabbed 13.6 rebounds (2nd in the league [behind Dikembe Mutombo (14.1)], second-highest of his career), blocked 3.03 shots per game (3rd in league, second-highest of his career), led the league in defensive win shares (a career-best 7.0), and finished second in the Defensive Player of the Year voting to Alonzo Mourning, anchoring a Los Angeles Lakers defense that led the league in opponents’ field goal percentage (41.6%), defensive efficiency (95.6 points allowed per 100 possessions) and defensive rebounds (2,738), and ranked sixth in fewest points allowed (92.3 points per game).

This is not "would have, could have," this is going by what Shaq actually did on the court. He demonstrated in that one season that he was capable of playing better defense than he did for his career, yet he never did it aside from that one time. This is a big black mark to me, considering how I value defense from a big man, seeing how it's the one thing that cannot be replicated by anyone else on the court.

[ronnymac2]

[quote="Dr Mufasa]Ultimately, you look at the Magic failures and you have to think Duncan is a better fit because he could play d, do pnrs and be an overall intangibles guy while Penny went Lebron on the offense[/quote]

What Magic failures can be blamed on Shaq?

[fatal9]

Magic's game logs from that '86 series...

G1: 26/7/18/3 (8/16 FG, 8/13 FT)
G2: 24/19 (7/14 FG, 10/12 FT)
G3: 17/8/20 (6/11 FG, 5/6 FT)
G4: 20/12/11 (9/18 FG, 2/2 FT)
G5: 24/13 (9/17 FG, 6/6 FT)

I don't really like getting in a numbers game with Magic because I felt at times his assist totals weren't really reflective of how well he played. It was damn easy to pick up assists on those Laker teams (Cooper used to average like 10-11 apg when Magic was injured, he was a great passer but not 10-11 apg good). I've seen every game of the series, it's one of my favorite series ever and Magic wasn't as good as those numbers but he pulled his share, and it's not even close to a failure. The only thing that series makes me hold against Magic/Lakers is that if they encountered more tough teams in the West throughout the 80s (like the Celtics used to in the East), how many more upsets would we have seen? They had their fair share of trouble when good teams popped up. '86 they lost to the Rockets, '87 they saw no higher than a 42 win team because of the upsets in other brackets in the first round, '88 they were taken to 7 by both Jazz and Mavs, '89 they flat out killed everyone, '90 they lost to Suns. It would be like Duncan playing in the 00s East for the entire decade, he might make finals almost every year from '01-'07.

Anyways, there's a difference in being defeated and failing. Magic didn't fail, Rockets just played out of their minds, were extremely talented and had a big matchup advantage inside with twin towers going against old KAJ/Rambis. Hakeem was unstoppable averaged 31 ppg in the series, got everyone in foul trouble, maybe Magic failed in trying to stop him? Kind of like how Duncan failed in stopping Kobe from going off? Can't do much when someone from another position is killing your team. Rockets made every big shot (from run stopping bombs to Sampson's impossible game winner) and withstood everything the Lakers threw at them (it's unreal how mentally tough they were in that series for such an inexperienced team).

If I had a vote I'd go with Shaq. Huge impact from team to team, individually almost always played well in the playoffs, I value 3-5 year primes a lot (have Bird, Shaq, Hakeem higher than most as a result) and he had that a three year stretch that only Bird, MJ, Hakeem can match imo. Bird is my favorite player ever but I personally feel Shaq was better than him at his peak and had better longevity (Bird's biggest problem was his and his team's durability or he would have ended up top 3 consensus imo).

[Sedale Threatt]

I just wanted to put Shaq's name in there. It's absurd to not have his name up here at this point, especially since he probably has the best mix of accolades/titles and peak play here, and he's a dominant playoff performer.

I'm glad you did. At the top of his game he was about as good as it gets. (Magic remains my favorite player, but watching Shaq manhandle people is a close second.)

I was thinking hard about voting for him here, but ultimately, I couldn't come up with enough separation from his biggest peer, the great Tim Duncan, let alone all the other candidates, to feel confident about doing it.

Dream could be mentioned, too, but that's the thing. You can make a good case for all the top-tier guys. My thing with him, as beautiful as he was to watch, and for all the great results, he didn't seem to be at that destroy-everything-in-his-path level for nearly long enough.

[ThaRegul8r]

Can you absolutely prove he led the league in shot-blocking one year in his career? Can you seriously dig up the numbers of every player in the league- not just Wilt's. I'm talking about the stats- not some anecdotes.

Wilt played with Russell for ten years. After Russell retired, Nate Thurmond and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar played for the remainder of Wilt's career.

You can't just go around assuming Wilt led the league in blocked shots one year and champion it as an advantage over another player here, when the fact is he never actually led the league in blocks. He might have. He might not have. If I personally had to bet on it, I'd assume he did.

But I'm not going to assert it as a fact.

So what's next, you're going to say that we can't just assume Russell ever led the league in blocks either? We can't "prove" that either, right?



Shaq has some advantages over Wilt in certain areas (some of which I outlined), and vice versa. The debate should be about how their respective strengths make up for the specific weaknesses that each player also possesses, and who you would put ahead when you put it all together and look at the overall picture. But to use the claim that "we can't assume Wilt ever led the league in blocks either" as an argument for Shaq or to excuse why he never did it despite being the most physically imposing player in the history of the league, is absurd.

[pancakes3]

Vote: Wilt (ted williams 0 world series, hank aaron, 1 world series win in 25 all-star seasons.)

nominate: West

[Sedale Threatt]

In the 1999-2000 season, Shaq grabbed 13.6 rebounds (2nd in the league [behind Dikembe Mutombo (14.1)], second-highest of his career), blocked 3.03 shots per game (3rd in league, second-highest of his career), led the league in defensive win shares (a career-best 7.0), and finished second in the Defensive Player of the Year voting to Alonzo Mourning, anchoring a Los Angeles Lakers defense that led the league in opponents’ field goal percentage (41.6%), defensive efficiency (95.6 points allowed per 100 possessions) and defensive rebounds (2,738), and ranked sixth in fewest points allowed (92.3 points per game).

This is not "would have, could have," this is going by what Shaq actually did on the court. He demonstrated in that one season that he was capable of playing better defense than he did for his career, yet he never did it aside from that one time. This is a big black mark to me, considering how I value defense from a big man, seeing how it's the one thing that cannot be replicated by anyone else on the court.

Yeah, I was surprised to see on one of the b-r blog posts ElGee posted that this was one of the best defenses in league history. Granted, a lot of guys contributed to that -- Kobe, back when he was actually deserving of all-league defense, and solid, savvy vets like Fox, Horry and Harper. But the biggest key was Shaq. And the fact that he was only at that level for one season, out of nearly 20, isn't very flattering.

[Baller 24]

Shaq's defense sometimes gets understated. He wasn't necessarily bad, in '00 he probably put together a campaign where you can probably even consider him the best defensive player in the league, and in terms of FG% defense the Lakers were the following:

1st in '00
11th in '01 (better to look at the playoffs this season)
1st in '02

[Sedale Threatt]

Shaq's defense sometimes gets understated. He wasn't necessarily bad, in '00 he probably put together a campaign where you can probably even consider him the best defensive player in the league, and in terms of FG% defense the Lakers were the following:

1st in '00
12th in '01 (better to look at the playoffs this season)
1st in '02

No, it was far from bad, but that's because of how naturally gifted Shaq was. Him at a B or B-minus level is still head and shoulders above 95 percent of the rest of the league. It was just about maximum effort, the kind displayed by Jordan, Bird, Johnson, even his nemesis Bryant. As someone who watched him very regularly, I just thought he could have been better in that regard, especially as his stint in L.A. wore on.

[ronnymac2]

Can you absolutely prove he led the league in shot-blocking one year in his career? Can you seriously dig up the numbers of every player in the league- not just Wilt's. I'm talking about the stats- not some anecdotes.

Wilt played with Russell for ten years. After Russell retired, Nate Thurmond and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar played for the remainder of Wilt's career.

You can't just go around assuming Wilt led the league in blocked shots one year and champion it as an advantage over another player here, when the fact is he never actually led the league in blocks. He might have. He might not have. If I personally had to bet on it, I'd assume he did.

But I'm not going to assert it as a fact.

So what's next, you're going to say that we can't just assume Russell ever led the league in blocks either? We can't "prove" that either, right?



Shaq has some advantages over Wilt in certain areas (some of which I outlined), and vice versa. The debate should be about how their respective strengths make up for the specific weaknesses that each player also possesses, and who you would put ahead when you put it all together and look at the overall picture. But to use the claim that "we can't assume Wilt ever led the league in blocks either" as an argument for Shaq or to excuse why he never did it despite being the most physically imposing player in the history of the league, is absurd.

Ugghh...

I'm not using that argument and saying "horray for Shaq." I'm not arguing that we can't assume Wilt did it in the context of this argument. I'm saying that technically, we can't assume it no matter what the context.

By my observations (eye test, anecdotes, looking at the types of athletes they are, and the limited stats we have for Wilt), Wilt was a superior shot-blocker and defender to Shaq. I agree with you- that is the part of this exchange that is most meaningful.

Even if I were to randomly prove with numbers that Wilt never led the league in shot-blocking, it wouldn't matter relative to Shaq, because Shaq never did either, and Wilt was superior to Shaq as a shot-blocker in my own opinion to begin with. I'm not saying Wilt's blocks being unrecorded are a feather in Shaq's customized Lidz cap. I just don't think it's fair to proclaim that Wilt did do that as absolute fact.

[RoyceDa59]

Unbiased fan has the potential to be a really good poster, but it's become impossible to overlook his Kobe-boasting hidden agenda in EACH AND EVERY post he makes in any thread, ever. He's very good at masking it too, clearly a smart guy, but utterly annoying to the point where his posts have become unbearable. Maybe that's why I read all of them. Even when he makes a good point now, it must be taken with a grain of salt because he has lost the ability to convince anyone that he's able to view the game through anything but Kobe-tinted glasses. Maybe it's the fact that his user name couldn't be further from the truth that adds to the persona, but none the less, I must applaud his abilities as by and large the best troll on RealGM.

[Dr Positivity]

He couldn't take advantage of a guy who couldn't feel his own leg...

I remember watching that game. Willis Reed's on-court impact was more than just his two famous jumpers. He played about 20 minutes in that IIRC, and he played strong post defense on a Wilt who didn't look particularly aggressive when it came to establishing post position. He also did a decent job on the glass, boxing out, etc. And he kept Wilt away from the paint. I recorded 1 block in the game by Wilt.



After all this, I'm still probably voting for Chamberlain here (not official yet though). I just wanted to put Shaq's name in there. It's absurd to not have his name up here at this point, especially since he probably has the best mix of accolades/titles and peak play here, and he's a dominant playoff performer.

I also think Hakeem deserves more mention here. He also was one of the GOAT playoff performers, always delivering individually when it mattered the most.

Agreed, the gap between Duncan and Hakeem if there is one, is at best, really freaking small - similar to Magic/Bird, and my preference for Duncan may be tainted by the Ws difference, which may not be Hakeem's fault. I do feel like if Duncan was on the late 80s Rockets he would've gotten them playing better fundamental ball, though

I'm going to address Duncan vs Wilt for a second, since I didn't in my post after concluding I can't put Wilt over Shaq. I can't put Wilt over Duncan either. Strike 1: Compare Duncan's 00-02 to Wilt's 63, 65. Duncan carried his team in its worst situations wayyyyy farther than Wilt. Strike 2: Duncan hardly ever letdown in the playoffs. Wilt is notorious for this. Strike 3: Does anyone think Duncan wouldn't have have been more succesful in the 65-73 stretch than Wilt? Duncan playing with Greer/Walker/Cunningham/Jackson/Wali/etc. would've anchored the defense, set picks, made the right passes, and got everyone on the same page. Likewise, absolutely perfect compliment for West and Baylor compared to Wilt. Duncan is a better fit with offensive stars beside him. And Strike 1 shows Duncan did better with less talent too. The biggest thing you can say in Wilt's favor is that he had to face harder competition than Duncan. No question. But in my opinion, those Sixers and Lakers teams were more jacked than Duncan's have ever been. In a concentrated league you face more talent and you have more talent. The second biggest thing you can say for Wilt is that arguably, the 67 and 72 Lakers had a greater ceiling than anything Duncan could've produced with those teams. Sure I guess. Does that make up for the rest of their careers? Not for me. I prefer Duncan for leadership/intangibles, playoff record, and for in my opinion, maximizing his wins compared to talent level virtually every season, while Wilt's teams arguably performed as well as they should have or worse all but 2 years in his career

[Doctor MJ]

My #4 is Magic, and it's pretty easy.

First, everyone who doesn't understand Magic over Bird should review the RPOY project. I know it came as a shock to a lot of the participants that Magic did so much better than Bird in their own votes.

It's important to understand the Celtics' history of underachieving in the playoffs. The Celtics had the best record in the league 6 out of Bird & Magic's first 7 years in the league (the lone exception was the '82-83 76ers - so the Lakers never had the best record). Yet the Lakers won just as many titles (3), and had more Finals appearances. Now, the East was stronger back then, and you should factor that in. However, there simply isn't any team in history that got upset with the regularity that Bird's teams did.

This is not to say that Bird was a secret choker. Far from it. Choking is a vastly overrated concept in basketball. However, the ability to thrive through the increased defensive attention of the playoffs is something that varies from player to player, and Bird did have a tendency to see his numbers fall in the playoffs, along with some times of really weak shooting efficiency.

People will point to some injuries he had, and maybe that was the issue, but that doesn't really change anything for me. Injuries are part of what makes a player what he is, and Bird was frankly far more injury prone than Magic.

Last, I'll second ElGee's notion that both Magic & Bird were among the great offensive minds in history. I have a ton of respect for Bird here, and he'll probably be my choice at #5. However, Magic's above everyone else in this respect. Go look at Magic's shooting efficiency. In every year but one, it was sky high in the playoffs. Well north of an efficiency hound like Stockton - but never with the same hesitation to transition into volume scoring as needed. We saw it in the legendary game from his rookie season, and we saw a more gradual transition in this way as his career progressed and the other scoring talent on the Lakers diminished.

Truly, Magic was a guy who saw himself accurately as one of 5 teammates on the floor, with more scoring talent than most, but not so much more that he should call his own number in ridiculous quantities if it could be helped.

I feel like Bird maybe could have been the same way if he had not started known for his scoring ability. While he never shot at the ultra-volume levels of a Jordan or a Kobe, he absolutely played a role where he continued shooting even when he wasn't having great success at it, and his teammates were. Perhaps this is what he was told to do, but either way, in terms of maximizing the robustness of the offense, I'll take what Magic gave over what Bird gave.

Vote: Magic Johnson
Nomination: Kevin Garnett

[Dr Positivity]

[quote="Dr Mufasa]Ultimately, you look at the Magic failures and you have to think Duncan is a better fit because he could play d, do pnrs and be an overall intangibles guy while Penny went Lebron on the offense[/quote]

What Magic failures can be blamed on Shaq?[/quote][/quote][/quote]

None, just think if you had Duncan and Penny you'd have a dominant defense AND offense, while Penny/Shaq had a ridiculous offense but not enough d to win a title. Duncan's d makes him a better fit for Penny, Kobe and Wade in my opinion, not that Shaq wasn't still a huge impact player with those guys.

(Naturally the opposite is true that on a team without star offensive talent but great defensive help, Shaq probably fits better. Duncan won titles that way too, though.)

[ronnymac2]

[quote="Dr Mufasa]Ultimately, you look at the Magic failures and you have to think Duncan is a better fit because he could play d, do pnrs and be an overall intangibles guy while Penny went Lebron on the offense[/quote]

What Magic failures can be blamed on Shaq?[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]

None, just think if you had Duncan and Penny you'd have a dominant defense AND offense, while Penny/Shaq had a ridiculous offense but not enough d to win a title. Duncan's d makes him a better fit for Penny, Kobe and Wade in my opinion, not that Shaq wasn't still a huge impact player with those guys.

(Naturally the opposite is true that on a team without star offensive talent but great defensive help, Shaq probably fits better. Duncan won titles that way too, though.)[/quote]

Fair point.

I always did wonder what the results would be if Shaq had been on more teams with inferior talent, like the 1994 Orlando Magic. That was Shaq's Most Valuable Year imo, as he dragged crap to 50 wins in just his second year.

He always had loads of offensive talent on his teams, and he had his greatest successes with defensive-minded role players...

[Doctor MJ]

Vote: Wilt (ted williams 0 world series, hank aaron, 1 world series win in 25 all-star seasons.)

It's critical that people understand that baseball and basketball are two very different sports, and that baseball players don't have anywhere near the same impact as basketball players.

For perspective:

In baseball we can accurately gauge a player's value over replacement, basically says how many wins a guy is adding to his team. What those numbers say is that if you're adding 12 wins over a season, you're playing at an all-time great level.

There are 162 games in the modern season. If we normalize that win production over 82 games (basketball season), this means that if basketball players had baseball impact, the very best players would help a team win about 6 games per year.

Obviously, that's not the case. It's quite reasonable to say a top basketball player has an impact north of 30 games in a year, and I can't imagine anyone saying the impact would be less than 18, which would mean 3 times the impact of a baseball player.

None of this means that you should judge GOAT basketball players simply based on the number of titles won of course, but if you aren't changing how you use team success to judge players from sport to sport, you need to start.

[ThaRegul8r]

Vote: Wilt (ted williams 0 world series, hank aaron, 1 world series win in 25 all-star seasons.)

It's critical that people understand that baseball and basketball are two very different sports, and that baseball players don't have anywhere near the same impact as basketball players.

It irks me when people try to make a comparison to baseball, obviously not understanding the different natures of the sport and the degree to which a single baseball player can impact his team's result as far as the bottom line as opposed to a single basketball player.

[Gongxi]

30 games is very dependent on many factors. I'm sure you'd agree that there are diminishing returns when adding top basketball players- even more so when you consider redundant or competing roles.

We're starting to talk about Shaq now- talking about him in a conversation about the fourth best basketball player of all-time, and he didn't add 18 wins to the 1996-1997 Lakers. Now, he only played 51 games (62%), but he didn't even add 11 wins (62% of 18). The Shaq-less 95-96 Lakers won 53 games, the Shaq-led 96-97 Lakers won 56 games.

LeBron and Wade are probably the two best wing players in the game, but replace one of them with a center that is not one of the two best, but still above average, and the Heat would certainly win more than 40 games (18 fewer than last season's 58). I would consider both to be top players.*

So, consider this me saying that the impact of a top basketball player can easily be less than 18 games, depending on the scenario. And these scenarios are not particularly rare.

EDIT- Hell, replace LeBron with no one, that 09-10 Heat still won 47 games. Great teams have great players, sure. Great players, though, might not necessarily have great teams, so it's best to ignore team success as much as possible for the purposes of this project.