That was a pretty cool ending. Difficult guarded shot in an unguarded game.
[Reply]

This guy is my age and still a top 3 player in the league. Meanwhile I can no longer get rim and I make groaning noises when I go to stand up. Lmfao
[Reply]

And he’s been at that level since his 2nd year in the league in 2004. The most ridiculous run in NBA history.
[Reply]

Magic ahead of Wilt?

https://www.espn.com/nba/story/_/id/...check-our-list
[Reply]

They ranked them 4 and 5. Not a big deal, IMO. I'd rank Wilt higher but I can see the argument. I had the same top 10 as the ESPN list, though I'd use a different order.

Placing every PF ahead of Karl Malone is where I take issue. ESPN couldn't resist their political correctness when viewing Malone from an objective lens.

Also, there's little argument for Shaq over Hakeem. I never understood putting Shaq higher.
[Reply]

Wilt's a hard guy to grade because the era he played in just didn't have anyone like him. He's kinda like Babe Ruth in that regard - he was just the only guy doing what he did. Relative to his peers, Wilt should be #1 with nobody particularly close, IMO.

But the question his how much you have to adjust for era. I really can't find fault with how anyone answers that.

Regarding Shaq v. Olajuwon - I don't think there's any question that Olajuwon was more 'skilled'. But it's just impossible to overstate how physically dominant Shaq was, especially at his peak. His combination of size and athleticism made him simply an impossible question to deal with.

Olajuwon was unquestionably a more aesthetically pleasing player to watch. And if you'd have taken his skills and put them in Shaqs body you'd have essentially broken the sport. But Shaq HAD that body. And he used it damn well. Moreover, he was a gifted passer and had amazing feet in the post. Shaq was very skilled in his own right, he was just able to manifest that skill in a more physically imposing way.

I don't mind Shaq being ahead of Olajuwon.
[Reply]

Hakeem carried two teams to championships. Shaq had Kobe and Wade, who were both elite players. Before that, he had Penny. Shaq never carried a team by himself.

Hakeem was miles better defensively. Look at his all-NBA defensive team accolades, plus defensive player of the year. Shaq didn't have the same effect on the defensive end. Not saying he was bad defensively, but he wasn't on Hakeem's level.

Also, despite Shaq's dominance, it's not like he won scoring titles every year. He scored 29 per game three times in his career. Won two scoring titles. Yes, his free throw shooting cost him more scoring titles. Point is, his physical dominance didn't result in otherworldly numbers.
[Reply]

KCC is somewhere punching the air.
[Reply]

There's a strong argument to be made for Hakeem over Shaq but this is kind of a silly point.

Since you brought up Penny Hardaway, Akeem had Ralph Sampson during the Rockets' 1985-86 run to the Finals. The Twin Towers. Sampson averaged a double-double that year.

What about Clyde Drexler in 1994-95? Drexler took a team to the Finals in Portland.
[Reply]

Yet his numbers were better than Hakeems...

I don't disagree that Olajuwon was a better defender. He was - but as you said, Shaq was a very good defensive player in his own right. It wasn't merely with blocks, but simply having his presence in the paint could neutralize guys, especially in the big man era he played in where they were still looking to try to bang guys in down low.

Olajuwon was undeniably a craftier, more skilled defender, especially as a help defender given his reach and mobility. But strictly as a man defender, I think Shaq was Hakeem's equal. And his impact on the defense was significant, if not as obvious as Hakeems.

Offensively Shaq was simply a more efficient player. He scored more PPG on fewer shot attempts. He was Olajuwon's equal as a passer and was slightly more effective as a defensive rebounder given his tendency to be posted up nearer the basket than Hakeem would've been on shot attempts.

Now Hakeem was at/near his peak for longer than Shaq was because Shaq simply didn't take care of his body as well as he should've. But the Orlando/LA version of Shaq was a step beyond anything Olajuwon did. And to say "well he wasn't THAT much better than Olajuwon offensively -- he only scored 29/gm 3 times..." is a tad disingenuous when making direct comparisons.

Let's put it on more apples to apples terms. The best scoring season of Olajuwon's career would've been the 6th best of Shaqs career. His 2nd best would've been the 8th best of Shaq's career. And it just kind continues down the list.

Literally every single rank-order of their career (best vs. best, 2nd vs. 2nd, etc...) give a decided advantage to Shaq. All by more than a opint, most by more than two and many by 3-4.

And again, all of this was done on fewer shots per game. Shaq was definitely a better offensive player than Olajuwon and likely by enough to make up for Hakeem's edge on defense, IMO.
[Reply]

Somewhere Luca Doncic is crying to a referee for being left off the list.
[Reply]

Kobe, Wilt, Curry too low. Oscar Robertson too high by Russell Westbrooking. Giannis too high - he's just too young to put that high yet. Kevin Garnett way too high.
[Reply]

And the 93-94 team was essentially the same squad that lost the the Sonic the previous year and then won a Jordanless season in one of the more underwhelming years in league history. No 60 game winners and a real lack of punch throughout the league.

I won't asterisk it or anything, but I think it's hard to give any extra credit for it either.
[Reply]

Perhaps if Kobe were this low in real life, the helicopter crash wouldn't have killed him.
[Reply]

NBA leader in turnovers over the last few years. A tad overrated, not alot, but a tad. Needs to shoot better.
[Reply]