Undisputed? Not even close?? Man please.... MJ does not have the most titles. Russell won more and Kareem also has 6. He hasn't won more MVPs than Kareem. His best asset was scoring, but Kareem is still the all-time leader. Wilt has more records. Hell, when he retired his team still won 50+ games and they really didn't replace him with anyone, and I can't think of many other instances where a team lost a major player and stayed as competitive. MJ has a solid GOAT resume but it's no where near blowing away some other players.
In your opinion, why was the 97-03 Shaq superior to the 95 Shaq? The only difference I see is that the level of competition dropped in 97-03.
Yes it is actually. It pretty much puts everyone else's resume to shame. Russell played during an era where there were only 8 teams and Russell had hall of famers coming from the damn bench. Kareem has one more MVP while playing 5 more seasons than Jordan and not taking a 2 year break during the peak of his career. When Jordan took two years off, the Bulls went from the greatest nba team of all time, greatest dynasty ever to a consistent 50 win team that got booted from the second round of the playoffs twice. How is that not a big drop off? I bet you're assuming that I'm one of those people who think Jordan is the GOAT because of the hype and nike commercials. It's kind of ironic since you probably think that the only reason why so many people think Jordan is GOAT is because of the nike commercials and hype. If you have any other discrepancies I'd happily address them. It's impossible to be wrong when arguing for Jordan being GOAT. Better stats(even though he had to share the ball with Kobe and was coasting throughout the season), much better postseason stats(where it actually matters) and just flat out more dominant. Ben Wallace, Dikembe Mutombo, Alonzo Mourning, Tim Duncan is worse competition defensively than during the 90s? These 5 are better defensively than almost every center during the 90s.
Better stats? In 94-95, Shaq averaged 29.3 ppg. In the 7 year span between 97-03, he exceeded this only once in 99-00 when he averaged 29.7 ppg. FG% in 94-95 was 58.3%. In the later 7 year span, this was exceeded once in 97-98 when he shot 58.4%. In 94-95, he averaged 11.4 RPG. In the 7 year span, this was tied once and exceeded 3 times. However, you should note that in 94-95, Shaq played alongside Horace Grant who averaged almost 10 rpg and was an all-star the prior year. He averaged 2.4 blocks in 94-95; in your 7 year span, this was beaten 3 times and tied twice. Sorry to tell you this, but if you're trying to use stats to argue that Shaq wasn't in his prime in 94-95, then you've lost the argument. You do realize that Mutombo and Mourning played the bulk of the 90's, right? And also, you listed only four centers...not 5. If you're including Shaq, he also played his best years in the 90's. So are you really trying to say that Tim Duncan and Ben Wallace are better defensively than Olajuwon, Robinson, and Ewing? Also, Dennis Rodman was a better defender than Duncan or Wallace.
Along with Deckard, I got to see all of these guys play, not just on tv with Chris Schenkel and Jack Twyman (I'm not sure I spelled either of their names right) but I seen all of them live when I lived in NY State back then. Its part of the reason I don't enjoy seeing the games live anymore because I can't match the seats I used to have back then. After you've watched a bunch of NBA games from the first few rows, you just can't sit in the upper section and enjoy the games anymore. Its just as good to me on the flat screen at home. AND THE BEERS CHEAPER. My top 5, Wilt....Kareem.....Hakeem.....Shaq......Russell Wilt was the most complete center, scoring, rebounding, assists, blocked shots and assists that ever played the game. Somebody mentioned he choked in the playoffs, I don't have a clue what your talking about. He played the majority of his career against one of the greatest dynasties in sports history. If you give Hakeem a nod because of his teammates you can make the same case for Wilt in comparison to the Celtics of his day. Can you imagine what a player's rep today would be if he led the league in scoring, rebounding, most likely blocked shots although they didn't keep that stat back then and ASSISTS from the center spot. Michael WHO?? And whoever discounts the players he played against needs to check the top 50 list again and he'll see that he played against all of them except Shaq who probably didn't deserve to be on that team yet. Kareem is picked 2nd because he had the whole package coming out of college and continued to improve, he could literally do it all also and did it the longest. This guy started against Reed and Chamberlain and finished in his 40's playing in the Magic and Bird era and more than held his own against the likes of Olajuwon, Parish and McHale. Everyone on this board remembers what Olajuwon and Sampson did to the Lakers in the West Finals but look up the stats for the regular season and you'll see that Kareem ate both Sampson's and Olajuwon's butts in the games they played against each other that year and he was already 40 then. Everyone remembers him playing with Oscar in the beginning and Magic in the end but everyone forgets the crap teams he played on also during the middle part of his career like Hakeem. Hakeem is 3rd because he took several years to become the complete player he became. Footwork is unmatched and as incredible as he was during the season what made him amazing and even put him on this list was he picked his game up a notch in the playoffs. Even when they lost. I don't put him first on the list because he didn't learn to play a team game until later on in his career unlike the first 2 on the list that seemed to be born with the gift. You can make an excuse because of his lateness entering the game but for me that keeps him from being #1. Shaq is next. What keeps him from being higher on this list is he probably more than anyone played against the most inferior centers for a majority of his career than anyone else. After the first few years of the Hakeem, Ewing and Robinson era he basically played against no-one for the remainder of his career until Yao's game improved. He along with Wilt were the most physically imposing centers in NBA history but his game is much more than that, he has been the #1 and #2 option of taking 3 different teams to the NBA finals. Next is Russell. What drops him down to #5 for me is he had probably the weakest offensive game of these 5 and no-one ever speaks of the talent he played with and the way ahead of his time coach he played for. As an example during his playing career with Russell, John Havlicek another hall of famer that started his career in that era was the 6th man on that team. That team more than Russell alone is what kept Wilt from winning more than he did and why I wonder what in the heck are you talking about when you say Wilt choked?? I distinctly remember a couple of years where Wilts teammates choked big time but never him. Russell was the unquestioned leader of those teams so you can't completely dismiss all those titles they won but him not having to carry the offensive load of any of his teams drops him down to 5.
Back in the 60s there was a constant heated Russell/Chamberlain debate. Everyone were understandably hypnotized by the big guy's other worldly stats. But Wilt never beat Russell. The Wilt people always claimed it was because Russell had better teammates. Many years that was true. But the Wilters also claimed Baylor and West were far better than whoever the Celtics had, so there was some inconsistency of logic. However you rank them, Russell and Wilt were the top two ever. Kareem was as good as anyone during his Milwaukee years. Hakeem and Shaq are clearly below all of them. If you take peak periods alone two other centers that were just wonderful were Walton and Cowens. Both had their careers cut short, especially Walton, but he had that one magnificent healthy season in Portland. Cowens was ferocious. No one played the game as fiercely. He was the second best fast break center of all time after Russell. Even though he gave up like 7 or 8 inches to the fantastic Milwaukee Kareem, he gave the big fella everything he could handle. Cowens had two titles (should have been 3 if not for a Havlicek shoulder injury the year they went 68-14), rookie of the year, an MVP, and gaudy stats to boot. Back to Russell. Not only did he win 11 titles in 13 years, he won two NCAA's (easily), plus he was injured against the Hawks in the late 50's. The only team ever to beat him when he was healthy was Wilt's late 60's 76er's, one of the all time great teams. The final total then on Russell is: in his last two years in college plus his pro career he won 13 titles in 14 years when he wasn't injured. He was SOOOOOooo great. SOOO smart. He had enormous hands, was very long, an incredible athlete, played mind games with his opponents, and used pace as a weapon like no one ever had.
You do realize that you said the competition has gotten worse during 97-03 right? And you do realize Mutombo and Mourning were still in their primes during Shaq's prime right? TD and Ben are about equal if not better than Olajuwon, Robinosn, DRod and Ewing. I don't even know why you're bringing up Ewing since he was never a great defender.
So what you're doing is finding things where Shaq in 94-95 bested Shaq during that 7 year span? You're not even comparing it season by season. How about you compare 94-95 Shaq to 99-00 Shaq and tell me who's better statistically. To be honest I think playing alongside Kobe Bryant is going to hurt you more statistically than Horace Grant. You know the guy that takes about 20 shots a game and has a USG% of 30. And did you like completely disregard postseason stats? accidentally quoted this
Shaq's PER from 96/97 through the 02/03 season (first 7 seasons as a Laker) was an astonishing 29.6. In 94/95, it was 28.8. He exceeded that PER for 6 straight seasons. And he was just a much more well-rounded offensive player in his prime as a Laker than in the 1995 season.
It doesn't make sense to compare it season by season. I'm trying to prove that 94-95 Shaq was in his prime. Therefore, if I can show that the numbers Shaq put up in 94-95 are comparable to those he put up in 97-03, I can make the argument that 94-95 Shaq was in his prime. That would be the logical thing to do if you said his prime was 99-00 only. Ever hear of a guy named Anfernee Hardaway? Yes. Obviously Shaq raised his game in the playoffs, but whats more telling, an 82 game regular season against a variety of opponents or a 23 game playoffs against a few opponents?
In 94-95, Shaq's PER was 28.6. In 97-98, it was 28.8. Is a .2 difference really enough to say that 94-95 Shaq wasn't in his prime? As far as I recall, Shaq's game consisted of lowering his shoulder into the defense. IMO, the main reason he was better offensively as a Laker was b/c the league's interior defense was weaker than it was in the mid-early 90's.
1 season of .2 difference is nothing. Correct. But I did not compare Shaq's 94-95 PER to 97-98. I compared it to 97-03 (29.6 PER). We could narrow it down further to a 5 year stretch (99-03) in which his combined PER was 30.1 -- 30.5, 30.6, 30.2, 29.7, 29.5. I think he became more skilled. His post game was more varied, his foot work became much more polished, and his passing improved as well. Orlando Shaq was very good, but he became a smarter, more savvy, and in my view more effective player during his championship years.
You can't just say "oh 94-95 shaq put up more points than shaq in 97-98 and he put up more rebounds than shaq in 99-00, and blah blah therefore Shaq is comparable to 97-03 Shaq." Compare it season by season otherwise I can say that 08-09 T-mac is comparable to 04-07 t-mac. 97-98, 99-00, 00-01, 02-03 Shaq are better than 94-95 Shaq. It's kind of funny that you can only compare Orlando Shaq to Shaq's worst season during his prime. 99-00 is obviously when he was at his best. Anfernee Hardaway? The guy who took 6 less shots than Kobe and was nowhere near as ball dominant? Let's see. Playing 23 games against the best teams at their best and where everyone is playing their hardest including Shaq or 82 games where you can pad your stats against weak teams and teams not trying as hard. It's the playoffs where great players truly shine. LeBron played very well against the Spurs during the regular season, but was contained by the Spurs during the finals.
I'm sorry you fail to see the logic. My point is that if he's putting up numbers in 94-95 that are comparable to his "prime" seasons of 97-03, then an argument can be made that he was in his prime in 94-95. Go ahead and try. In any case, McGrady's prime ended in 04. Why is it funny? It's one of his "prime" seasons, isn't it? I was just pointing out your error when you were comparing Horace Grant to Kobe Bryant in terms of sidekicks. And also, during the first two years of Shaq's "prime", Kobe took a comparable number of shots as Hardaway. In regards to a player's "prime", how can you possibly think that 23 games against 4 opponents is more telling than 82 games against 29 opponents? Basketball is a game of matchups, and a larger sample size will give more accurate results. I have never heard of a player whose "prime years" were determined by his playoff performances instead of his regular season performances. Have you?
Just a great post, jsb. I envy you being able to go to the games and see them in person. Just too freakin' awesome!
It's not comparable. According to your faulty logic, 05-06 and 06-07 Mcgrady were still in his prime since his numebrs are comparable to "prime" mcgradys numbers. Cause it's his worst prime season? Why not compare it to 99-00 Shaq's numbers? Oh yeah you can't since it's not comparable. 00 Shaq is just so much better so you compare it to his worst prime season. Kobe wasn't Kobe until 99. 23 games against the best 4 teams is more telling than 82 games against crappy teams and some good teams. Shaq dominated Mutombo, a better or equal defender than Hakeem. If Mr. DPOTY can't stop Shaq then who can? Larger sample size means more weak teams. I say 97-03 Shaq was his prime since that's around the time when he started winning chips, awards, mvps. If you want to talk about when Shaq was at his absolute best it was 99-00. Even you can't argue that Olajuwon is better than Shaq during 99-00. In a head to head game anytime during 97-03 especially 99-00 would eat Olajuwon alive.
