""Shaquille O'Neal is the best of the almost four thousand NBA players who have ever suited up ..." So sayeth statistician supreme Elliott Kalb in Who's Better, Who's Best? in Basketball, a book guaranteed to generate beaucoup disagreement, as the author no doubt realized as he was writing it." Full Story: http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news?slug=bask...cnnsi&type=lgns
I dont agree with this guy in any way however at least he is man enough to stand up and speak his opinion. Ranking Jordan behind Wilt is debatable. Both were great players and it can be argued either way. I personally think Jordan was the best to ever play and Shaq isnt even in my top 8. I really can not see his logic in ranking John Stockton at 27. Stockton is the best "pure" PG to ever play the game(Note: I am not counting Magic as a "pure" point guard). I also fail to see how he has Bob Cousy(10) ranked over both Jerry West(12) and Elgin Baylor(13). I will give Cousy credit, he was a good player however he wasn't that good.
Shaq is not the greatest, no way. I like him and all, but, MJ is the best the game has ever seen. For one, look at what he did for Chicago. Led em to 6 titles. He also had like, something around 7 or 8ish scoring titles. He's the only player to ever average 30 ppg over a career. People can't do that in a season very often, MJ did it in his career. Hard to argue against him I think. Plus, to top it all of, MVPs, he had a few.
Do not get me wrong shaq has been the most dominate player since really 2000(yes only since 2000 if you not winning championships your not the most dominate) but shaq dominate play has come in an era where they were no big men to speak for what so ever. By the time shaq really develope into a force that he is today all the best big men of this era where on there way to retirement. Patrick Ewing, David Robinson,Hakeem,where all past there prime by the time shaq took over the league. The only real battle shaq had with any of them was when Orlando played Houston in the 95' Finals and shaq got killed by the Dream. I know shaq fans are gonna say it was his first time to the finals which is true. But what is also true is that it was his only test of his era. His playoff battles with David robinson(99-2003)were not even matches Robinson went thru so many injuries during that time that he could not possibly be able psyhisically match shaq for 48 minutes on both ends of the court. Robinson had by this time become mostly a defensive center. Shaq never really had to work on defense against robinson. And the true test of a great player is how you play on both ends of the court. Shaq might be remembered as the most dominate player ever which I can live with. But in no way can he be rembered as the greatest player.Because your only as great as your greatest competion. And shaq competion during his championship run has not been great at all. his has played against guys like Greg Ostertag & Vlade Diviac& a washed up robinson & Sobonis in the Western Conference playoffs. And in the finals he has went up against Rik smits (2ooo finals-pacers)who also was a the end of his career(retire right after that) Dikembe Mutombo(2001 finals-76ers)who was an excellent defensive but shaq didnt have to work on the defensive end. Shaq was fresh on offense all finals long. And his last victim Jason Collins(2002 finals-Nets). Thats just not good competion. So for that reason amongest alot more in no way is shaq the best player ever.
I hate threads like this. Henacy, what are yoy talking about? Yes Shaq did not win a title till the other centers were past their prime, but a guy names Michael Jordan had a lot to do with that as well. Are you awar that Shaq came into the league in 1992-1993? He did not just hit his prime in the 2000's. In fact, Shaq has never averaged fewer than 23.4 ppg in any season, and that was his rookie season. Shaq has had many battles with these centers, and has more than won his share of games. I still remember those Magic/Knicks battles, they were amazing seeing Shaq and Pat going at it. Shaq is an all time great and there was not doubt that he was going to have his time, and that he has. Yes, I too criticize him for his lack of defense, because I feel he should be the NBA's leading rebounder every season, he should be blocking 3-4 shots a game, but he does not have the effort. But you know what excuses that? 20,631 career points (27.5 avg. off of .577 FG%) 9,099 career rebounds (12.10 avg) 2,132 career assists (2.8 avg) 1,954 career blocks (2.61 avg) 92-92 Rookie Of The Year, 3 rings, all star MVP's, regular season MVP's, Finals MVP's, All-NBA selections, 2 gold-medal's..when does it end? I will always defend ya Big Fella, just keepin' it real.
Statistically best isn't always the greatest indicator of the best. Henacy, I can see where you're coming from but that's a bit unfair on Shaq. You can't compare players from different positions and you can't compare players from different eras - it does however make for good debate.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting King James:</div><div class="quote_post">I hate threads like this. Henacy, what are yoy talking about? Yes Shaq did not win a title till the other centers were past their prime, but a guy names Michael Jordan had a lot to do with that as well. Are you awar that Shaq came into the league in 1992-1993? He did not just hit his prime in the 2000's. In fact, Shaq has never averaged fewer than 23.4 ppg in any season, and that was his rookie season. Shaq has had many battles with these centers, and has more than won his share of games. I still remember those Magic/Knicks battles, they were amazing seeing Shaq and Pat going at it. Shaq is an all time great and there was not doubt that he was going to have his time, and that he has. Yes, I too criticize him for his lack of defense, because I feel he shopuld be the NBA's leading rebounder every season, he should be blocking 3-4 shots a game, but he does not have the effort. But you know what excuses that? 20,631 career points (27.5 avg. off of .577 FG%) 9,099 career rebounds (12.10 avg) 2,132 career assists (2.8 avg) 1,954 career blocks (2.61 avg) 92-92 Rookie Of The Year, 3 rings, all star MVP's, regular season MVP's, Finals MVP's, All-NBA selections, 2 gold-medal's..when does it end? I will always defend ya Big Fella, just keepin' it real.</div> First off you need to read and understand what iam trying to say I said he wasnt dominate because he was not winning championship. In the 90's was he winning MVP's, No. In the 90's shaq was containable,now he not. And Jordan didnt prevent Shaq from making the finals in 97 and 98. because shaq was in the west. Him and the lakers werent good enuf to get past utah. Who was the dominate team and Karl Malone was the dominate player in those series thats my point. Shaq has allways been an excellent big man but he took it to a whole different level in the 2000 playoffs against the Blazers. Thats when he became truly dominate.and your throwing up career stats please post his stats before & after 2000 and you will see the difference.
I have a statement for you right here... You could never contain Shaq, no matter what player, team, or era. Shaq has been consistent throughout his career, that is why he has those career numbers. Shaq was tired of losing in Orlando, the Bulls sweeping them in the eastern finals in 95-96 was just the capper. He felt that LA could put more talent around him. Bulls went on to beat Seattle 4-2 by the way. Sticking to the thread, Shaq is still not the best ever. "Air"
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Henacy:</div><div class="quote_post">First off you need to read and understand what iam trying to say I said he wasnt dominate because he was not winning championship. In the 90's was he winning MVP's, No. In the 90's shaq was containable,now he not. And Jordan didnt prevent Shaq from making the finals in 97 and 98. because shaq was in the west. Him and the lakers werent good enuf to get past utah. Who was the dominate team and Karl Malone was the dominate player in those series thats my point. Shaq has allways been an excellent big man but he took it to a whole different level in the 2000 playoffs against the Blazers. Thats when he became truly dominate.and your throwing up career stats please post his stats before & after 2000 and you will see the difference.</div> Dude, you got some serious problems. You think that just think that because he couldn't win it all or get MVP that he wasn't dominant. Well, I got news for ya, that means nothing. Being dominant is different than winning MVPs and titles. Look at the game now. If you say that the only way to become "dominant" is to win titles, than there are truly only a few "dominant" players in the game today. So, I'm thinkin you got mad problems because of that. Lemme tell you something, to be dominant is to be able to single handedly take over a game. Dominance means that when your prescence is on the court, you intimidate the opponent. There is a difference between dominance and whatever your talking about. So, just a quick though, I'm just gonna throw out some dominant players in the game today who HAVEN'T won the title. Iverson, Kidd, McGrady, J. O'Neal. Yea, I could go on. But, since you think in order to be dominant, you have to win the title, you're basically saying that Shaq, Kobe, and Duncan are the only truly dominant players in the league. And that makes you a jackass.
Shaq had no help before Kobe matured in 2000. In Orlando, Penny wasn't experienced and Dennis Scott and Nick Anderson were chokers in big games, whilst he had talent in LA with Van Exel, Campbell, Ceballos and Jones, but none of them stepped up around him in the big games. Easy to dismiss Shaq cos he didn't win titles before 2000, but name me a player who's singlehandedly done it on his own. Even MJ could rely on Steve Kerr, John Paxson etc stepping up when needed, Shaq couldn't.
Shaq is not even the best player on the court today, let alone all time. If you play the game by the rules, the way the game was designed, he would foul out before 1st Q ended, he would get called for traveling more frequently, and lets not forget his pathetic FT % which does become a factor in the 4th. I have to agree w/ Henacy - the only time we saw Shaq matched up against another true C was the Dream and Shaq got School'd! If you want to call Shaq a "dominating force", with his size that statement is true. But that don't make him great. That only makes him big and hard to deal with. What did all the "dominating force" get him last year but an early fishing trip? He is not even a top 10 consideration for all time. After you get past the likes of Wilt, Air, Bird, Johnson, Oscar, Kareem, Malone (both of em), West, Dream, and Baylor, then you can start talking about Shaq and Kidd and where they fall. Until then - Fhugedaboudit!
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Moo2K4:</div><div class="quote_post">Dude, you got some serious problems. You think that just think that because he couldn't win it all or get MVP that he wasn't dominant. Well, I got news for ya, that means nothing. Being dominant is different than winning MVPs and titles. Look at the game now. If you say that the only way to become "dominant" is to win titles, than there are truly only a few "dominant" players in the game today. So, I'm thinkin you got mad problems because of that. Lemme tell you something, to be dominant is to be able to single handedly take over a game. Dominance means that when your prescence is on the court, you intimidate the opponent. There is a difference between dominance and whatever your talking about. So, just a quick though, I'm just gonna throw out some dominant players in the game today who HAVEN'T won the title. Iverson, Kidd, McGrady, J. O'Neal. Yea, I could go on. But, since you think in order to be dominant, you have to win the title, you're basically saying that Shaq, Kobe, and Duncan are the only truly dominant players in the league. And that makes you a jackass.</div> First off watch your mouth this is computer chating were not face to face so dont say thing you know you wouldnt say face to face. secondly please dont jump into conversation without reading all post. Jermaine Oneal is not dominate so right there show you started watching basketball yesterday. Mcgrady is great but I dont classify him as dominate. He doent have a decide edge over his opponent ever time he steps out on the court. And yes championships do define if your a dominate player. Because if your beatable than how can you be dominate. Thats why Duncan Kobe & shaq are the only dominate players that you have listed. Nobody ever said Kidd, Mcgrady,an Ai werent hall a famers. But them and there teams can be out played at any time. Shaq during his champion ship run you new he wasnt losing to anyone, same thing with Jordan, same thing with Duncan during the finals last year. Avg alot of points during the regular season like AI, &MCgrady do doesnt make you dominate. If it did than player like dominque Wilkens(who was one of the best scorers for era of the 80's) would be consider dominate but he is not he isnt even on the top 50 list. Why because he has no championships, no MVP's. Those are the things that seperate the dominate greatest from regular hall a famers.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting VinnyMack:</div><div class="quote_post">I have to agree w/ Henacy - the only time we saw Shaq matched up against another true C was the Dream and Shaq got School'd! </div> I'm assuming you're talking about the Rockets/Magic finals series, when Shaq was a 3rd year player and Dream was at the peak of his powers? Not exactly a fair comparison. I Love Dream, but Shaq would hold his own against him in his prime.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Henacy:</div><div class="quote_post">Do not get me wrong shaq has been the most dominate player since really 2000(yes only since 2000 if you not winning championships your not the most dominate) but shaq dominate play has come in an era where they were no big men to speak for what so ever. By the time shaq really develope into a force that he is today all the best big men of this era where on there way to retirement. Patrick Ewing, David Robinson,Hakeem,where all past there prime by the time shaq took over the league. The only real battle shaq had with any of them was when Orlando played Houston in the 95' Finals and shaq got killed by the Dream. I know shaq fans are gonna say it was his first time to the finals which is true. But what is also true is that it was his only test of his era. His playoff battles with David robinson(99-2003)were not even matches Robinson went thru so many injuries during that time that he could not possibly be able psyhisically match shaq for 48 minutes on both ends of the court. Robinson had by this time become mostly a defensive center. Shaq never really had to work on defense against robinson. And the true test of a great player is how you play on both ends of the court. Shaq might be remembered as the most dominate player ever which I can live with. But in no way can he be rembered as the greatest player.Because your only as great as your greatest competion. And shaq competion during his championship run has not been great at all. his has played against guys like Greg Ostertag & Vlade Diviac& a washed up robinson & Sobonis in the Western Conference playoffs. And in the finals he has went up against Rik smits (2ooo finals-pacers)who also was a the end of his career(retire right after that) Dikembe Mutombo(2001 finals-76ers)who was an excellent defensive but shaq didnt have to work on the defensive end. Shaq was fresh on offense all finals long. And his last victim Jason Collins(2002 finals-Nets). Thats just not good competion. So for that reason amongest alot more in no way is shaq the best player ever.</div> Its not shaq's fault that he has no competition, just like Wilt had no competition when he was the dominant player he was. If you had had Chamberlain in the league now and in his prime, he wouldnt be able to stop shaq. Shaq has to be at least top 2 centers EVER. That's why the in the NBA draft, teams take chances on Big Men, because of the lack of quality big men, let alone dominant one. You see SF, SG with more talent, and who can contribute right away stock drop becuase they are an easier spot to fill.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting G-UNIT:</div><div class="quote_post">Its not shaq's fault that he has no competition, just like Wilt had no competition when he was the dominant player he was. If you had had Chamberlain in the league now and in his prime, he wouldnt be able to stop shaq. Shaq has to be at least top 2 centers EVER. That's why the in the NBA draft, teams take chances on Big Men, because of the lack of quality big men, let alone dominant one. You see SF, SG with more talent, and who can contribute right away stock drop becuase they are an easier spot to fill.</div> Why dont you people ever read where did I say it was his fault that the competion at the center spot is weak. I just said that because his competion is so weak it should knock him down a few spots on the greatest of all time list. I said shaq is the most dominate player of this era and possibly ever. I just said he isnt the greatest player ever.
Im not saying that shaq is the best ever either, but i understand where the guy who wrote the book, saying shaq is the best ever, is coming from. The Center position IS the most valuable position, and arguably the best center of all time, could be considered the best ever. I would have to rank my top 5 players of all time as: 1. Jordan 2. Shaq 3. Magic 4. Chamberlain 5. Bird I have not seen NBA games prior to say, early to mid 80's so im biased with my players.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting Sir Desmond:</div><div class="quote_post">I'm assuming you're talking about the Rockets/Magic finals series, when Shaq was a 3rd year player and Dream was at the peak of his powers? Not exactly a fair comparison. I Love Dream, but Shaq would hold his own against him in his prime.</div> That's what I'm guessing he's assuming too. Thing is, how did Shaq get schooled with Hakeem couldn't stop Shaq either? Both of them got theirs, the Rockets just happened to sweep the Magic which makes Hakeem look better.
<div class="quote_poster">Quoting sunsfan1357:</div><div class="quote_post">That's what I'm guessing he's assuming too. Thing is, how did Shaq get schooled with Hakeem couldn't stop Shaq either? Both of them got theirs, the Rockets just happened to sweep the Magic which makes Hakeem look better.</div> Shaq even admitted that in big spots of the Finals. He couldnt stop Dream. Thier point totals may have been close at the end of the game but it matters more of when your score your points like a close game in the 4th quarter. shaq couldnt hang with dream in big moments of the finals. Thats what I mean by killed. I dont mean Hakeem scored 30pts while shaq scored like 10pts or something Iam talking about at big spots of the finals in 95.
Well, aint this a big circle we are running in? How do you determine a true "greatest ever"? Maybe you can catagorize each position and then guestimate a top 5. Until each player of all time plays against each player of all time, we are just guessing with predjudice. The predjudice I speak of is position predjudice. Some people are under the impression that the C position is the moist important or "dominant". But tell that to the Bulls. Some say having a Jordan is most important. Tell the Spurs that. The true leaders on most championship teams have been guards. But, who can discount the value of Wilt, Kareem, Dream and Shaq? So, until one of yous guys can have Wilt play against Shaq or have AI go up against Oscar or pit Karl Malone or Duncan against Moses, YALL ARE GUESSIN!!! Besides, with the advancement of sports science, the evolution of the game (each generation learning from the last) and the economics (free agency, endorsements), you have no idea how good someone like Wilt would be growing up in the game today.
