Shaquille O'Neal - The Greatest Player of All Time?

[Purple Reign]

I am a huge Shaquille O'Neal fan. He is by far my most favorite player in the league outside my Kings and Chris Webber. I like everything the guy stands for. And for him to promise the Miami community and NBA Championship and then deliver it on the back of "Flash" speaks volumes about him as the team player and a man.

With that said, where does this place Shaq on the pecking order of G.O.A.T. Here are the numbers and the accomplishments:

4 NBA Championships (00-02, 06)
3 NBA Finals MVPs (Averaging 25ppg, 12rpg in his career post season)
2000 NBA MVP
.580 FG% (3rd All Time)
11.78 RPG (20th All Time)
26.3 PPG (7th All Time)
24,764 Points (14th All Time)

Here is the scary part. If Shaq was a 75 percent FT shooter, instead of the 52.8 that he is, you would add 2,161 points to his total and his numbers would be this:

26,925 Total Points (8th All time)
28.61 PPG (3rd All Time)

Purple Reign's Top 10 players of all time
1. Michael Jordan
2. Bill Russell
3. Kareem Abdul Jabbar
4. Wilt Chamberlain
5. Magic Johnson
6. Shaquille O'Neal
7. Oscar Robertson
8. Larry Bird
9. Jerry West
10. Elgin Baylor

Next Ten in alpha order : Rick Barry, Bob Cousy, Julius Erving, George Gervin, Elvin Hayes, Karl Malone, Moses Malone, Hakeem Olajowon, Bob Pettit and John Stockton

 

[Viking]

I think this will be reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeal popular here.

Shaquille O' Neal was blessed by having a freakishly sized body and an entirely separate set of rules enacted for him.

Without that he'd be nothing.

He didn't get this championship on his own, and he only really "helped". This was Dwyane Wade's championship and one of the reasons Kobe doesn't care (and i don't understand why it matters, he's not the one that insulted Sacramento, the fans, or the team).

Plus on top of that, he's a total ****.

 

[Gargamel]

I am a huge Shaquille O'Neal fan.

Not even close to being GOAT. Jordan is that, at least in the modern era. I needn't remind you of the 1 MVP due to years of poor conditioning and all of his feigned injuries which helped him schlep thru the reg season.

If he had the drive of a guy like Zo even, he'd have been GOAT material, no doubt about it. Nonetheless, he's got 4 championships, which pretty much speaks for itself. But he's not GOAT. He's not even a greater center than Kareem.

 

[Purple Reign]

Not even close to being GOAT. Jordan is that, at least in the modern era. I needn't remind you of the 1 MVP due to years of poor conditioning and all of his feigned injuries which helped him schlep thru the reg season.

If he had the drive of a guy like Zo even, he'd have been GOAT material, no doubt about it. Nonetheless, he's got 4 championships, which pretty much speaks for itself. But he's not GOAT. He's not even a greater center than Kareem.

Look at my list!

 

[kupman]

Not even close to being GOAT. Jordan is that, at least in the modern era.

I always wonder....when did the "modern era" begin.

 

[reyes13]

People out here in LA loved him, now they hate him. I personally dislike him, Kobe, Phil, or anything to do with the Lakers. Go Clips(for LA of course).

 

[captain bill]

I always wonder....when did the "modern era" begin.

I like to think roughly around the 18th century, really blossoming in the 19th with the likes of Hegel, Marx, Mill, Nietzche, etc.


Shaq is an absolutely amazing player. He's gotten to the finals with 3 different teams, won 4 titles. You can't deny his talent or his heart.

Viking: yes, shaq was blessed with a freakishly large body. But so are lots of guys. Shaq also has athleticism that few guys in the league, of any body type, can match. As for the "seperate rules," yeah, he's had his share of calls going his way (which particularly stings against the Kings) but everyone in basketball has calls go their way and go against them. Shaq is just good enough that those calls occur on the biggest stage (ie during his 6 finals appearances) so it just seems magnified. Calls are part of the game. There is no conspiracy to make Shaq better. It's petty for you to suggest that.

As for Shaq only "helped", every player with a ring only "helped." Name me one great player who won a ring all by himself, without a talented supporting cast. It doesn't happen. Basketball is a team game. But Shaq has dominated like few others can.

As for him being an ***, that's a matter of opinion. I like the guy, and appreciate his humor. If he was drafted and played his entire career in Sac you might have a different take on his humor. Yeah, it sucks when it's directed our way while he beats us to win a ring, but get some perspective. The guy is just having fun. You can't hate him for that.

Also, no one is saying he's the greatest ever, just up there. Look at Purple's list, it seems alright to me. Saying he's not as good as Kareem, Jordan or Wilt isn't at issue, just that he deserves to be mentioned somewhere with (or slightly below) those guys.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I always wonder....when did the "modern era" begin.

When Magic retired. lol. I don't think the GOAT debate is anywhere near as hands down as its made out to be. Shaq is far down the list though.

In all actuality the "modern era" is probably a mix of the merger, Magic and Bird coming into the league, and Stern arriving. That changed the NBA from a fly by night league that's playoffs were aired late night on tape-delay to the can't miss spectacle of today.

 

[Folsom Al]

GOAT .... matter of opinion AND POSITION

Not a bad list ... mine would probably be pretty close

 

[DocHolliday]

How can you put Shaq on that list and not have Kobe on there somewhere? Kobe has 3 titles, and as far as talent is one of the top 3 players in the game. Wade, Lebron, Bryant in no particular order are the 3 most athletically gifted and talented all around players in the game today. Kobe has to be on that list.

 

[Geoff]

I think this will be reeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeal popular here.

Shaquille O' Neal was blessed by having a freakishly sized body and an entirely separate set of rules enacted for him.

Without that he'd be nothing.

He didn't get this championship on his own, and he only really "helped". This was Dwyane Wade's championship and one of the reasons Kobe doesn't care (and i don't understand why it matters, he's not the one that insulted Sacramento, the fans, or the team).

Plus on top of that, he's a total ****.

Not to totally stand up for Shaq, but doesn't that "blessing" apply to all NBA superstars? D-Wade is the deserved MVP, but everyone on that Heat team was instrumental in getting that championship. Give the man his props...

for my part, I don't know if I would call him #6, but he would be in the top 10.

 

[HndsmCelt]

Shaq certainly has dominated the post Jordan era IN THE PAINT but it's prety tough to catagorize where he fits in a greatest of all time list given his inablity to play away from the hoop and the fact that there really has been a derth of Centers in this eara as well. When we look at the top 3 or 5 centers curently playing the list is prety sad, but even going back the only really great center in the post Jordan era besides Shaq was David Robinson (Who I would take over Shaq). Zo might have been but illness makes it hard to rate him. So the sad truth is that in many ways Shaq is the Lary Holms of the post Jordan NBA. Won a lot, dominated his era but never really faced the challanges of other greats on the list.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

So the sad truth is that in many ways Shaq is the Lary Holms of the post Jordan NBA. Won a lot, dominated his era but never really faced the challanges of other greats on the list.

Interesting analogy, I'd liken him more to Mike Tyson though, since both had this bizarre sort of fan appeal based not on their true skill but on their domination of historically weak competition. Hasn't Shaq said he wanted to try boxing after he retired? Far more likely that he'd become a police officer, but I'd love it if some other giant heavyweight whooped his butt in a fight. Shaq vs. Valuev. I might pay to see that.

 

[Folsom Al]

Won a lot, dominated his era but never really faced the challanges of other greats on the list.

Only Hakeem - way back in Shaq's Orlando days .... I believe Olajuwon schooled him ... Shaq was alot younger and SLIMMER back then

 

[HndsmCelt]

Interesting analogy, I'd liken him more to Mike Tyson though, since both had this bizarre sort of fan appeal based not on their true skill but on their domination of historically weak competition. Hasn't Shaq said he wanted to try boxing after he retired? Far more likely that he'd become a police officer, but I'd love it if some other giant heavyweight whooped his butt in a fight. Shaq vs. Valuev. I might pay to see that.

LOL my first impulse WAS to compare him to Tyson, but Tyson self destructed so quick and so young I thought better of it and in Tyson's case he did meet stiff competiton and lost. Holmes really earend his title from old men who should have retired and defended it against a string of second raters. By the time he got a chance to loose to legit contenders adn champions (Tyson, Hollyfield) Hew was already washed up.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Don't sell Larry short. I'd put the list of people he beat ahead of Tyson - Earnie Shavers, Ken Norton, Leon Spinks, Trevor Berbick, Gerry Cooney, Bonecrusher Smith and Tim Witherspoon among others. He was in his mid 30's and 48-0 before he lost to Michael Spinks after 22 title fights (21 straight defenses over 8 years). I think Larry loses a lot of points because most people remember him for what he did to Ali, but he actually is pretty distinguished even though he fought at the twilight of the great heavyweight era.

 

[Gargamel]

I always wonder....when did the "modern era" begin.

70s according to some. 80s to others.

 

[HndsmCelt]

Don't sell Larry short. I'd put the list of people he beat ahead of Tyson - Earnie Shavers, Ken Norton, Leon Spinks, Trevor Berbick, Gerry Cooney, Bonecrusher Smith and Tim Witherspoon among others. He was in his mid 30's and 48-0 before he lost to Michael Spinks after 22 title fights (21 straight defenses over 8 years). I think Larry loses a lot of points because most people remember him for what he did to Ali, but he actually is pretty distinguished even though he fought at the twilight of the great heavyweight era.

That was the point it's hard to judge how good Larry was much less sell him short. Norton was old, Berbick was on his down side and none of the Spinks ever really held on to anything, hard to consider them or Cooney tough bouts Witherspoon and Smith did ok but never really shwed they were much to talk aobut either givne their other fights. Lary MIGHT have been truely great, but unlike Ali, Forman, Frazier there was no test of his greatness. This is where the Shaq comparson plays out. Jordan palyed aginst some great players and noe could come close to him. Bird and Magic compeeted against eachoter testing and prooving them selves but honestly what center has ginven Shaq any real competiton since David Robinson?

 

[Gargamel]

Look at my list!

I looked at your thread title.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

but honestly what center has ginven Shaq any real competiton since David Robinson?

None. Perhaps Olajuwon but he came up on the wrong end of that one and Olajuwon was waning when Shaq was still coming into his own. Depending on your viewpoints both are completely valid comparisons, I just thought Tyson seemed more apt because both seem to completely overwhelm everyone else with sheer power and otherwise were perceived to lack true skills whereas Holmes was very well rounded and was able to sustain a longer career because of this - look at how quickly Shaq is falling off. I actually like comparing Holmes to Olajuwon now. The only other real center of consequence from the mid-80s on is Ewing who I never really cared for.

All time I've got to give the edge to Russell, Wilt and Kareem before Shaq.

 

[kingkung]

I hate Shaq.

 

[Viking]

Not to totally stand up for Shaq, but doesn't that "blessing" apply to all NBA superstars? D-Wade is the deserved MVP, but everyone on that Heat team was instrumental in getting that championship. Give the man his props...

for my part, I don't know if I would call him #6, but he would be in the top 10.

Of course he was a part of it, you have to have a sort of inside presence to allow your shooters to get open, but what I was saying is that Wade was a much larger part of it than Shaq. He carried the team, not Shaq, and it was sort of directed at the people that made it a "Shaq and not Kobe LOL Kobe gonna be so angry LMAO" thing.

I mean a 7'1 400 pound guy is always going to be a threat.

And yes, a lot of NBA superstars are big but Shaq is the only one out of the ones today that literally changed the game because of his size.

 

[Bricklayer]

Is this a joke?

Not even close.

Might be Top 10 though. Its unfortunate he never ahd the discipline to really chase the GOAT title, or he might have made it an argument. As it is, he's not even the greatest center, let alone the greatest player.

Let's say 4th greatest center after Wilt, Russel, Kareem -- I'll give him the edge over Hakeem for the moment -- and then also behind Michael, Magic, Oscar, Larry at least. So maybe 8th at best and bottom half of the Top 10, and that's with several other guys (West etc.) bucking for those 8th, 9th, 10th spots.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I like your list Brick. And you're right, if he wanted it and had the discipline to do it he probably could have made an argument out of it. If he would have developed a can't miss go-to shot like Kareem and shot 75% or above from the line for his career it would be hard not to put him at the top of the center list, but as it is you have to give it to the guys that took it beyond making the most of their genetics.

 

[captain bill]

Shaq certainly has dominated the post Jordan era IN THE PAINT but it's prety tough to catagorize where he fits in a greatest of all time list given his inablity to play away from the hoop and the fact that there really has been a derth of Centers in this eara as well. When we look at the top 3 or 5 centers curently playing the list is prety sad, but even going back the only really great center in the post Jordan era besides Shaq was David Robinson (Who I would take over Shaq). Zo might have been but illness makes it hard to rate him. So the sad truth is that in many ways Shaq is the Lary Holms of the post Jordan NBA. Won a lot, dominated his era but never really faced the challanges of other greats on the list.

Have you considered that maybe the fact that over 14 years only one player- an all-time great, at that- has been able to really challenge him maybe adds to his resume rather than take from it? Besides, as has been pointed out, there are very few great centers at all to begin with. So here's a better idea: rate him as one of the top 5 centers ever, let them duke it out. Comparing him to other position players is kinda illogical. They have different duties, different skill sets, etc. It's like Shaq vs Kobe: both great players, both critical to the team, and probably neither would have won a ring in LA without the other (given the same supporting cast minus the counterpart). You can't ever successfully argue one over the other, since it's a team game and each guy performed their role within the team greatly.

As for not so great as a center, didn't play vs the greats, etc, consider who the greats are:
Wilt: 1960-1974, Russell: 56-69, Kareem: 69-89, Hakeem: 84-02, Shaq: 92-present
How can you say Kareem is great without a lot of competition? How is Wilt great? At that time, no one could do anything to stop him because he was a freak of nature, allowing him to score 100 points because really, what could be done? Russell equally had little or no competition, allowing him to win championship after championship. At a time when the league did not attract talent from all over the world (or even, maybe, all over the US), there would be no one to stop him. Getting, for example, 50 rebounds should be as much a testament to his skill as it is to the lack of a really developed league with lots a good players who could at least slow down the great ones.
This shouldn't, however, take away from their greatness, but underscore what an anomaly the center position is: most guys are content to sit around, block some shots, and score on occassion. Guys that hit outside shots, like Brad, are anomolies. Most of the ones with more complete games (not just hovering near the basket) become PFs (7 footers like Dirk, Garnett, and Duncan)

pdxKingsFan: discounting him for relying on "genetics" has got be one of the worst arguments you could possibly make. First, you can't attribute his skill to genetics and his shortcomings to poor attitude. What, being a dominant force for over a decade is genetic, but gaining wait and missing free throws is him being lazy? Maybe his dedication made him great, and his genetics (poor hand-eye coordination, etc) make him bad at free throws despite the hours he spends practicing every day. Not that that is necessarily true, but come on. You can't make a logical argument one way or another based on genetics. No player, no person, would be the same if you magically "swapped their genes" or something. Hell, "guys that took it beyond making the most of their genetics" may just be relying on a genetic imperative to work harder. Please. Evaluate this based on what happens on the court. It's not like he's juiced or anything. Not developing a great outside game can't be all his fault. 1-he doesn't need to. We still have this discussion anyways. 2-he's tried, unless you think all his teammates and coaches and the millions he spends on therapists, specialists, etc to help his game is just made up. 3-he has other parts of his game that aren't dependent on just rebounding and lay-ups. He is, for example, a great passer (altho underrated) with good court vision and a high basketball IQ. He's a great leader (last years in LA notwithstanding) and makes his teams better.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

pdxKingsFan: discounting him for relying on "genetics" has got be one of the worst arguments you could possibly make.

I'm ranking him as the 4th best center of all time and somewhere in the bottom 3rd of an all time top 10 list. How is that discounting him? I think that Russel, Wilt and Kareem are better centers that did more, were equally dominate, played against better competition and in my assessment had a better mental game than Shaq to go along with their physical gifts. There have literally been thousands of players to come through the NBA, to rank him as highly as I do is not a slight in the least.

eta:

How is Wilt great? At that time, no one could do anything to stop him because he was a freak of nature, allowing him to score 100 points because really, what could be done? Russell equally had little or no competition, allowing him to win championship after championship. At a time when the league did not attract talent from all over the world (or even, maybe, all over the US), there would be no one to stop him.

No offense but get your history right. These guys battled head to head for a decade. If you hadn't addressed something specifically to me I'd probably have stopped reading right there.

 

[quick dog]

I really like the Holmes analogy.

Mike Tyson is a very odd case. In his prime, which was relatively brief, I think he might have beaten anyone. He had an overwhelmingly powerful punch. I really think that he was too dumb to be a successful world-class boxer.

 

[kupman]

Let me save all of you some time and effort...GOAT discussions are pointless....move on.

 

[Freakout]

Have you considered that maybe the fact that over 14 years only one player- an all-time great, at that- has been able to really challenge him maybe adds to his resume rather than take from it? Besides, as has been pointed out, there are very few great centers at all to begin with. So here's a better idea: rate him as one of the top 5 centers ever, let them duke it out. Comparing him to other position players is kinda illogical. They have different duties, different skill sets, etc. It's like Shaq vs Kobe: both great players, both critical to the team, and probably neither would have won a ring in LA without the other (given the same supporting cast minus the counterpart). You can't ever successfully argue one over the other, since it's a team game and each guy performed their role within the team greatly.

As for not so great as a center, didn't play vs the greats, etc, consider who the greats are:
Wilt: 1960-1974, Russell: 56-69, Kareem: 69-89, Hakeem: 84-02, Shaq: 92-present
How can you say Kareem is great without a lot of competition? How is Wilt great? At that time, no one could do anything to stop him because he was a freak of nature, allowing him to score 100 points because really, what could be done? Russell equally had little or no competition, allowing him to win championship after championship. At a time when the league did not attract talent from all over the world (or even, maybe, all over the US), there would be no one to stop him. Getting, for example, 50 rebounds should be as much a testament to his skill as it is to the lack of a really developed league with lots a good players who could at least slow down the great ones.
This shouldn't, however, take away from their greatness, but underscore what an anomaly the center position is: most guys are content to sit around, block some shots, and score on occassion. Guys that hit outside shots, like Brad, are anomolies. Most of the ones with more complete games (not just hovering near the basket) become PFs (7 footers like Dirk, Garnett, and Duncan)

pdxKingsFan: discounting him for relying on "genetics" has got be one of the worst arguments you could possibly make. First, you can't attribute his skill to genetics and his shortcomings to poor attitude. What, being a dominant force for over a decade is genetic, but gaining wait and missing free throws is him being lazy? Maybe his dedication made him great, and his genetics (poor hand-eye coordination, etc) make him bad at free throws despite the hours he spends practicing every day. Not that that is necessarily true, but come on. You can't make a logical argument one way or another based on genetics. No player, no person, would be the same if you magically "swapped their genes" or something. Hell, "guys that took it beyond making the most of their genetics" may just be relying on a genetic imperative to work harder. Please. Evaluate this based on what happens on the court. It's not like he's juiced or anything. Not developing a great outside game can't be all his fault. 1-he doesn't need to. We still have this discussion anyways. 2-he's tried, unless you think all his teammates and coaches and the millions he spends on therapists, specialists, etc to help his game is just made up. 3-he has other parts of his game that aren't dependent on just rebounding and lay-ups. He is, for example, a great passer (altho underrated) with good court vision and a high basketball IQ. He's a great leader (last years in LA notwithstanding) and makes his teams better.

You can't ignore all the great centers from the 70 - 80's that aren't considered All Time Greats. Your Walton and Parish's of the league. The talent back then at the center position went much deeper.

 

[Sac.Kings]

Shaq is(was?) a great center, but calling him the greatest player is not even close and downright stupid in my opinion. He is 34 and was almost invisible in the Finals in terms of stats, Kareem was able to play way longer than age 34 and was always a threat. There are more than a couple of people ahead of Shaq on the All time best list. I think Brick said it best -- Wilt, Russel, and Kareem were better than Shaq and Shaq never really had anyone dominant to square off (that played the C position) against, unlike the other players mentioned above, so its hard to judge him.