Who do you have higher all time - Shaq or Bird?

[theman93]

Their overall career statistics (not including assists)/accolades are fairly similar, yet most people have Bird over Shaq without blinking an eye. Who do you have higher and why?

[elementally morale]

Prime - probably Bird. Peak - probably Shaq. Career - I'm not sure. I think I'd side with Bird because he had a bigger impact on his team than Shaq did. Plus Bird's killer instinct was greater.

[FultzNationRISE]

Shaq.

[tpols]

Bird won with way less than Shaq.

[90sgoat]

Bird, but that's because I value peak basketball skill over anything else.

[Dbrog]

I could definitely make a case for either. Probably most days I pick Shaq due to peak dominance and overall accolades. Bird is easily the more complete player though and better leader IMO

[Manny98]

I have Bird 7th and Shaq 9th

[plowking]

Bird won with way less than Shaq.

I think this is a ridiculous take considering many people have Bird's Celtics in contention for best teams ever.

[FultzNationRISE]

I think this is a ridiculous take considering many people have Bird's Celtics in contention for best teams ever.

Agreed, not to mention Bird never had a teammate LITERALLY shoot Bird out of an additional ring/FMVP the way Bean did to Shaq in 04 against the Pistons.

Shaq dominated defensive legend Ben Wallace only for Kobe to brick away the title.

Thats why context matters in this shit, not just stacking two “resumés” next to each other and picking the best one like its a damn job interview

[Phoenix]

I think this is a ridiculous take considering many people have Bird's Celtics in contention for best teams ever.

That post was more about Kobe than anything. If you lined up the Celtics against either the early 2000's Lakers or 2006 Heat, Boston had 4 of the best 6 players ( Bird, Mchale, Parish, DJ). Shaq's title teams were extremely top-heavy and dropped off massively after you get past his running mates Kobe/Wade.

[1987_Lakers]

Bird won with way less than Shaq.

Lol. No

[Iverson3]

Bird won with way less than Shaq.

Are you an idiot??

[Iverson3]

Lol. No

He is a little man with a little brain. I doubt that guy has a job in his life. I won't even hire him at Burger King or 7/11

[theman93]

Bird, but that's because I value peak basketball skill over anything else.

What about pure dominance? Doesn't 3 titles+FMVP's in a row trump 3 MVP's in a row?

[90sgoat]

What about pure dominance? Doesn't 3 titles+FMVP's in a row trump 3 MVP's in a row?

Sure, if someone wants to put Shaq above Bird they can make that argument.

In my book, Shaq has a case in the Mount Rushmore, so you really can choose from a handful of players in that top 5 spot outside MJ. Shaq, Bird, Kareem, Magic, Russel etc.

[HoopsNY]

Shaq is one of the most overrated players, ever.

[RRR3]

Shaq is one of the most overrated players, ever.
Underrated if anything. People way too often leave him out of the top 10.

[tpols]

I think this is a ridiculous take considering many people have Bird's Celtics in contention for best teams ever.

That was only in 1986.

They won a title quite a few years before that where guys weren't as good as in that year. In particular McHale was a baby role player back then.

[Axe]

According to coach, the one who does ballhogging better is the better player here. Which probably shaq is.

[RRR3]

That was only in 1986.

They won a title quite a few years before that where guys weren't as good as in that year. In particular McHale was a baby role player back then.
Uh it was in 1984 too. McHale and Parish were already all-stars by then and he had Dennis Johnson as well. In 81 he wasn't even the best player in the finals. Shaq won a ring with a pre prime Kobe and role players in 2000 and he dominated the whole way, that's better than any of Bird's.

[tpols]

Uh it was in 1984 too. McHale and Parish were already all-stars by then and he had Dennis Johnson as well. In 81 he wasn't even the best player in the finals. Shaq won a ring with a pre prime Kobe and role players in 2000 and he dominated the whole way, that's better than any of Bird's.

Bird won in 1981 with McHale averaging 8/3 in the playoffs.

[ILLsmak]

If we did not know (and this is thread that made me log in, not the 'equal' thread,) Shaq was always my favorite player. I think his flaws are overstated. I think people are nuts when they say he couldn't play in today's NBA because he could have stayed skinny and he has enough handle/skill to catch it around ft line and go to work and pass out. NOBODY would stop him. It would be disgusting. A thin Shaq in a high scoring coast-to-coast era would probably have better durability and such, too, so he would show out more and his stats would be crazy. He might not jump out on a pick and roll perfectly every time, but if people are like yea Shaq comes into the nba atm and he's not the 1st overall most years... even over yaboy Wemby... **** off. Yall crazy. Shaq is a monster. To me, C and PG are most important positions, then there is 'wing' which in a case like Larry can be also a PF, if he can operate there. Basically primary perimeter scoring option.

I also think Shaq houses just about any one all time, in any era. He'd just need to adjust a little. SO, this is not a fair comparison. If we're comparing accolades, I think most people would put Bird over him. If we're comparing impact, I think it's close ( a testament to how good Bird was,) but Shaq still wins. Shaq got paired with Kobe and Wade, cool, but it wasn't like he needed someone on that level. I think he could have won in 95 if dudes made their shots. Ask Nick Anderson about that. Penny was no joke, either, obviously, but he's not (imo again) Wade or Kobe. But he's more of a primary ball handler, so in that way, I feel like the two important positions are taken and that team, all things being equal, could have been better than the later teams if they built around them a little more, but having Jordan come back was catastrophic for Shaq's legacy. I mean, he got rings, but if MJ didn't come back, I am pretty sure he'd wanna go to LA, anyway, but let's wildly assume he didn't, and that Penny didn't get injured. Shaq still gets a bunch of rings. Some teams might test them, but dude had a few years wasted on a meh LA team, and even if they did win, they would have prol lost to MJ in Finals. Not cuz of Shaq... but the team... just wasn't good enough yet.

On the other hand, you have to take into account Bird's injury and I'm not a Bird historian enough to say exactly when it became a huge problem, but I imagine it was way before he retired. I think if he could have played out a normal career, he, too, would have gotten more accolades to improve his already-better resume.

The thing is, again in my opinion, Shaq didn't get as many MVPs as he deserved. I guess cuz he skipped reg season games, but still. I mean, dude was so good he didn't even care. He actually skipped games, played himself into shape, then dominated in the playoffs. It was a joke. Imagine him in an era where he had to play 75+ games. He left a lot on the table, tho I disagree that he 'underachieved.' Another Shaq meme. I think he just got hated on. Dude was still body bags on the suns. If old 400 pound Shaq can run with the suns, imagine what early 20s Shaq would do. JUST IMAGINE.

But yea, Larry is def higher all time because when you talk about all time you talk about historical relevance, accolades, legacy, and for whatever reason, I feel like Shaq got super hated on in that. Just like all defensive team. Dudes really gonna say Shaq is not an all defensive player? People didn't even approach the paint with him in the game haha. He only made 3 (3!!!!!!) defensive teams. That's w/ 3 spots. Un-****ing-believable, honestly. Also unbelievable that they would give Shaq an all-nba nod with missed games, but not look at him for MVP.

-Smak

[Carbine]

Shaq would put up better stats in a series but Birds team would win given equal help. Make sense?

Bird is a culture setter. Shaq is a culture destroyer with his attitude.

[1987_Lakers]

Bird won in 1981 with McHale averaging 8/3 in the playoffs.

'81 was their weakest championship team, but even then they had Parish, McHale, Archibald, & Maxwell. That is a great cast.

Can't think of any other team besides the KD/Steph Warriors that had more talent than the '86 Celtics, that team was stacked to the gills.

[Charlie Sheen]

Shaq.

One of the choices played for the Lakers and the other guy was their biggest rival. I cant be asked to be objective here :lol

[FultzNationRISE]

Shaq would put up better stats in a series but Birds team would win given equal help. Make sense?

Bird is a culture setter. Shaq is a culture destroyer with his attitude.


From my understanding of it - and Im no expert on the 80s or Bird’s career - this gets overstated. Seems some of Bird’s own teammates (McHale, Walton) thought he could get too focused on bravado and showboating.

Being a brilliant passer doesnt automatically mean youre unselfish. Certainly Bird’s hard nosed, competitive attitude is much better for a team’s culture than some loser like Harden for example. But I dont buy this idea that Bird was the ultimate team player or something. It seems like he was a pretty big egomaniac.

Shaq was too of course, so my point isnt to say it’s a bad thing. Just that I dont think it’s some separating feature between the two of them.

[tpols]

'81 was their weakest championship team, but even then they had Parish, McHale, Archibald, & Maxwell. That is a great cast.

Can't think of any other team besides the KD/Steph Warriors that had more talent than the '86 Celtics, that team was stacked to the gills.

'81 Bird had no star help. All those guys were teeny bop scorers, none of them produced like stars. They won through a team effort and Bird outplaying Dr. J in the ECFs and Moses in the Finals.

[1987_Lakers]

'81 Bird had no star help.

Parish & Archibald were literally All-stars in '81.

[kawhileonard2]

Bird won with way less than Shaq.

What you mean wayy less?

[RRR3]

Parish & Archibald were literally All-stars in '81.
I like how that idiot also ignores Bird put up like 15 PPG on bad efficiency in the finals and lost FMVP to Cedric Maxwell. He had back to back 8 point games. Yet he counts that as some great feat for Bird. Not saying it wasn’t a feather in Bird’s cap but we all know he’d make a huge deal of LeBron doing the exact same thing. Zero consistency.

[tpols]

I like how that idiot also ignores Bird put up like 15 PPG on bad efficiency in the finals and lost FMVP to Cedric Maxwell. He had back to back 8 point games. Yet he counts that as some great feat for Bird. Not saying it wasn’t a feather in Bird’s cap but we all know he’d make a huge deal of LeBron doing the exact same thing. Zero consistency.

Those games were blowouts in the Celtics favor where starters got benched. You literally have no idea why birds averages in the Finals were what they were. Lebron scored 8 in a close loss and then had a GOAT chokejob with prime Wade. Cedric Maxwell isn't a true star talent.

[Carbine]

From my understanding of it - and Im no expert on the 80s or Bird’s career - this gets overstated. Seems some of Bird’s own teammates (McHale, Walton) thought he could get too focused on bravado and showboating.

Being a brilliant passer doesnt automatically mean youre unselfish. Certainly Bird’s hard nosed, competitive attitude is much better for a team’s culture than some loser like Harden for example. But I dont buy this idea that Bird was the ultimate team player or something. It seems like he was a pretty big egomaniac.

Shaq was too of course, so my point isnt to say it’s a bad thing. Just that I dont think it’s some separating feature between the two of them.

Bill Walton loves Bird to the point it's kind of weird.

Bird was a culture setter because of his extreme work ethic and no BS leadership style. Follow his lead because he's going to put it all out there on the line.

Larry was the kind of player that would be running stairs at the Boston Garden in the dimmed light with nobody watching.

Shaq was the kind of player who said things like "if the big dog doesn't get fed, the house doesn't get protected"

It's not a coincidence that Shaq played for so many teams. His act wears thin.

[BigShotBob]

Bird. He's a top 5 player. Shaq is top 10 though

[John8204]

Bird is top five Shaq is a bigger celebrity but take away the shady officiated titles and he's got one ring that's playing with....all stars and legends

Dennis Rodman, Horace Grant, Penny Hardaway, Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, Rajan Rondo, Steve Nash, Amare Stoudemire, Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, Karl Malone, Gary Payton, Dwayne Wade, Alonzo Mourning, Jermaine Oneal, Antwain Jamiseon, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Mo Williams, Grant Hill, Eddie Jones, Nick Van Exel, Robert Horry, Glen Rice, AC Green, Ron Harper, and Antoine Walker.

Every year Larry played he made the playoffs save for his injury shortened season, he played against better teams had more success and is easily a top five player all time.

[HoopsNY]

Bird averaged 15 PPG in '81 but was only a second year player. Shaq was All-NBA 1st Team in 2006 and put up 14 PPG in the finals. If the retort is, "well he had great efficiency", then remember he shot a putrid 29% from the FTH line. He also averaged 10 Rebs to Bird's 15, granted Bird played more minutes, but I'm sure if you adjust by PER 36 then Bird still averaged more.

Bird scoring 8 points is one thing but interesting to see others ignore Shaq's 9 points, 5 fouls, on 4-11 (36%) where he was 1-4 with just 3 points in the second half of the deciding game 6. It was Wade carrying Shaq.

Bird could score 30 in a game like Shaq, rebound like Shaq if he wanted, while also impacting the game in many other ways. Shaq couldn't shoot like him, be a leader like him, playmake or pass like him, and he wasn't nearly the help defender that Bird was either.

But above all, Shaq is the only player who had the luxury of playing with stacked rosters his entire career, including playing with prime/peak Kobe, Penny, Wade, LeBron, Nash, A'mare, and the Celtics' 4 All-Stars, but never gets criticized. People talk so much crap about LeBron only winning 4 rings in 20 seasons and never look at Shaq's casts over the entirety of his career.

[HoopsNY]

Bird is top five Shaq is a bigger celebrity but take away the shady officiated titles and he's got one ring that's playing with....all stars and legends

Dennis Rodman, Horace Grant, Penny Hardaway, Paul Pierce, Kevin Garnett, Ray Allen, Rajan Rondo, Steve Nash, Amare Stoudemire, Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, Karl Malone, Gary Payton, Dwayne Wade, Alonzo Mourning, Jermaine Oneal, Antwain Jamiseon, Zydrunas Ilgauskas, Mo Williams, Grant Hill, Eddie Jones, Nick Van Exel, Robert Horry, Glen Rice, AC Green, Ron Harper, and Antoine Walker.

Every year Larry played he made the playoffs save for his injury shortened season, he played against better teams had more success and is easily a top five player all time.

Bird didn't need the refs to referee the game differently in order to dominate at unprecedented levels, nor did he need the greats at his position to retire to begin his stretch of sheer dominance. And for all the talk about expansion, it's kinda interesting how it's not mentioned in this discussion amongst the Shaq supporters, who conveniently use it against MJ.

Meanwhile, MJ played and dominated before expansion, while Shaq did all of it after. But yea, let's not talk about that. :lol

[Phoenix]

Bird didn't need the refs to referee the game differently in order to dominate at unprecedented levels, nor did he need the greats at his position to retire to begin his stretch of sheer dominance. And for all the talk about expansion, it's kinda interesting how it's not mentioned in this discussion amongst the Shaq supporters, who conveniently use it against MJ.

Meanwhile, MJ played and dominated before expansion, while Shaq did all of it after. But yea, let's not talk about that. :lol

I feel like you're generally too nuanced and balanced a poster( compared to the hot take grifter above you) to make some of those points without considering some very obvious counterpoints that someone else will likely bring up. I don't have the energy for much back and forth today though, but I'm already imagining where that conversation is headed.

[HoopsNY]

I feel like you're generally too nuanced and balanced a poster( compared to the hot take grifter above you) to make some of those points without considering some very obvious counterpoints that someone else will likely bring up. I don't have the energy for much back and forth today though, but I'm already imagining where that conversation is headed.

I don't believe the expansion argument stands. I mentioned that bit because those who are arguing for Shaq in this thread are being inconsistent. But otherwise, you're right.

[tpols]

I feel like you're generally too nuanced and balanced a poster( compared to the hot take grifter above you) to make some of those points without considering some very obvious counterpoints that someone else will likely bring up. I don't have the energy for much back and forth today though, but I'm already imagining where that conversation is headed.

Nah he's right... Shaq had way more superstar help throughout his career than Bird.

[Phoenix]

Nah he's right... Shaq had way more superstar help throughout his career than Bird.

That wasn't what I was referring to.

[Phoenix]

I don't believe the expansion argument stands. I mentioned that bit because those who are arguing for Shaq in this thread are being inconsistent. But otherwise, you're right.

Fair enough :cheers:

[StrongLurk]

Shaq is higher, too many Kobe stans trying to put Shaq fringe top 10 all time.

Bird is literally a Durant level player in the playoffs, but with better leadership.

I can't find the thread, but if you do a prime 10 year comparison of KD/Bird, they are almost exactly the same across most metrics.

Shaq is slightly higher due to a better playoff and finals peak. Shaq also has better longevity.

The only thing that holds Shaq back is the fact that he only won 1 mvp...but that's literally because he would miss too many games in the regular season at his peak.

[ILLsmak]

Bill Walton loves Bird to the point it's kind of weird.



All this time and you don't realize Bill Walton is like the world's greatest troll? He does that shit to piss off Larry. Haha. Larry is the straight man to Bill. I def think Larry was an amazing basketball player, and yeah, it's close, but it's always close when you talk about these type of guys. AND... as I said, unfair.

I ALSO (shit I dunno how I remember all these things) am pretty sure you are a Spurs guy and I remember you talking about how Duncan is better than Shaq in another thread. Seems like you really believe Shaq is a cancer, and that, to me, is surprising. The only thing 'cancerous' about Shaq's game is that he's a center without a jumper, which means the whole offense has to at least use him in some way each time, but even him coming across, or him starting at top (was just watching some gm1 1995 Finals) as a passer THEN he finds his way into the lane. The thing is, tho you don't have to guard Shaq for shots, per se, if you don't, he can worm his way into the lane if you come off him. All you are doing is giving him more space to push you under the basket.

The only type of player Shaq would really clash with is someone who gets the majority of their points at the rim. Like I dunno if Bron/Shaq would work, despite the high IQ of both. Shaq and yaboy TD tho... would work, I honestly believe. Prol better than Drob/TD. It would require a specific offense and role players, but it would be nasty.

-Smak

[John8204]

I feel like you're generally too nuanced and balanced a poster( compared to the hot take grifter above you) to make some of those points without considering some very obvious counterpoints that someone else will likely bring up. I don't have the energy for much back and forth today though, but I'm already imagining where that conversation is headed.

Have you considered switching your posting style to haiku

Here lies a Phoenix
As it speaks from it's rectum
It is left a foul

[HoopsNY]

Shaq is higher, too many Kobe stans trying to put Shaq fringe top 10 all time.

Bird is literally a Durant level player in the playoffs, but with better leadership.

I can't find the thread, but if you do a prime 10 year comparison of KD/Bird, they are almost exactly the same across most metrics.

Shaq is slightly higher due to a better playoff and finals peak. Shaq also has better longevity.

The only thing that holds Shaq back is the fact that he only won 1 mvp...but that's literally because he would miss too many games in the regular season at his peak.

Which years are you really focusing on here? Bird from '80-'90 are the years that matter since he became a shell of himself physically after.

PS Bird '80-'90: 25/11/7/2/1 on 56% TS%
PS Shaq '94-'07 26/12/3/1/2 on 57% TS%

Just like Bird, it would be unfair to use Shaq's final 3 seasons.

KD doesn't compare at all. He's a better scorer yea but what else, really? Defense? Rebounding? Playmaking? Passing? Leadership? There simply isn't any comparison.

[nineiron]

Bird didn't need the refs to referee the game differently in order to dominate at unprecedented levels, nor did he need the greats at his position to retire to begin his stretch of sheer dominance. And for all the talk about expansion, it's kinda interesting how it's not mentioned in this discussion amongst the Shaq supporters, who conveniently use it against MJ.

Meanwhile, MJ played and dominated before expansion, while Shaq did all of it after. But yea, let's not talk about that. :lol

you mean by allowing Shaq to commit offensive fouls? you mean the same thing they do with LeBum?

[Phoenix]

Have you considered switching your posting style to haiku

Here lies a Phoenix
As it speaks from it's rectum
It is left a foul

John, fakkit and bore
With garbage takes so shitty
And best to ignore

Shaq is a top ten
Fool has him behind Stockton
Take up a new sport

[hateraid]

I think this is a ridiculous take considering many people have Bird's Celtics in contention for best teams ever.

Agreed. Top to bottom the Celtics were better

[StrongLurk]

Which years are you really focusing on here? Bird from '80-'90 are the years that matter since he became a shell of himself physically after.

PS Bird '80-'90: 25/11/7/2/1 on 56% TS%
PS Shaq '94-'07 26/12/3/1/2 on 57% TS%

Just like Bird, it would be unfair to use Shaq's final 3 seasons.

KD doesn't compare at all. He's a better scorer yea but what else, really? Defense? Rebounding? Playmaking? Passing? Leadership? There simply isn't any comparison.

Best 10 year playoff prime for Shaq, Bird, KD.

Shaq (95-04, 155 games): 27/13/3 with 2.4 blocks
28.3 PER, 56.8 TS%, .212 WS/48, 6.9 BPM - 5 finals, 3 rings/3 FMVPs with insane peak finals play

Bird (80-90, 150 games): 25/10/6 with 1.8 steals
21.8 PER, 55.5 TS%, .181 WS/48, 7.3 BPM - 5 finals, 3 rings/2 FMVPS (81 ring is mid, 84/86 rings are elite)

KD (11-21, 145 games): 30/8/4 with 1 steal/1block
24.9 PER, 60.4 TS%, .205 WS/48, 7.4 BPM, 3 finals/2 FMVPs - was on most stacked team of all time for FMVPs but still won both FMVPs and went h2h with Lebron.

Bird based on production isn't a clear favorite compared to Shaq or KD. He actually has slightly worse advanced stats.

[mr4speed]

Bird averaged 15 PPG in '81 but was only a second year player. Shaq was All-NBA 1st Team in 2006 and put up 14 PPG in the finals. If the retort is, "well he had great efficiency", then remember he shot a putrid 29% from the FTH line. He also averaged 10 Rebs to Bird's 15, granted Bird played more minutes, but I'm sure if you adjust by PER 36 then Bird still averaged more.

Bird scoring 8 points is one thing but interesting to see others ignore Shaq's 9 points, 5 fouls, on 4-11 (36%) where he was 1-4 with just 3 points in the second half of the deciding game 6. It was Wade carrying Shaq.

Bird could score 30 in a game like Shaq, rebound like Shaq if he wanted, while also impacting the game in many other ways. Shaq couldn't shoot like him, be a leader like him, playmake or pass like him, and he wasn't nearly the help defender that Bird was either.

But above all, Shaq is the only player who had the luxury of playing with stacked rosters his entire career, including playing with prime/peak Kobe, Penny, Wade, LeBron, Nash, A'mare, and the Celtics' 4 All-Stars, but never gets criticized. People talk so much crap about LeBron only winning 4 rings in 20 seasons and never look at Shaq's casts over the entirety of his career.

I have to put Bird over Shaq. Bird had a much better work ethic and never showed up at camp overweight and out of shape. Also Bird would have never had a beef with a player as good as Kobe. Yes Bird had a huge ego but he wanted to win no matter how it happened, so I think he was just a better teammate. Also Bird's passing and playmaking are huge factors as well as his outside shooting to spread the floor. The opposing team at the end of close games tried to keep the ball out of Bird's hands. With Shaq they deliberately fouled Shaq because of his poor FT shooting. I think Bird led the NBA in FT% 4 different seasons. Bird is just more balanced and valuable IMO.

[HoopsNY]

Best 10 year playoff prime for Shaq, Bird, KD.

Shaq (95-04, 155 games): 27/13/3 with 2.4 blocks
28.3 PER, 56.8 TS%, .212 WS/48, 6.9 BPM - 5 finals, 3 rings/3 FMVPs with insane peak finals play

Bird (80-90, 150 games): 25/10/6 with 1.8 steals
21.8 PER, 55.5 TS%, .181 WS/48, 7.3 BPM - 5 finals, 3 rings/2 FMVPS (81 ring is mid, 84/86 rings are elite)

KD (11-21, 145 games): 30/8/4 with 1 steal/1block
24.9 PER, 60.4 TS%, .205 WS/48, 7.4 BPM, 3 finals/2 FMVPs - was on most stacked team of all time for FMVPs but still won both FMVPs and went h2h with Lebron.

Bird based on production isn't a clear favorite compared to Shaq or KD. He actually has slightly worse advanced stats.

How does that work? You include Bird's first two seasons but not Shaq's? And you included Shaq's numbers all the way up to 2004, but not 2006? Shaq was 2nd in MVP in 2005 voting and All-NBA 1st Team in 2006. The spread that I used is far more indicative of ability than what you're using.

[StrongLurk]

How does that work? You include Bird's first two seasons but not Shaq's? And you included Shaq's numbers all the way up to 2004, but not 2006? Shaq was 2nd in MVP in 2005 voting and All-NBA 1st Team in 2006. The spread that I used is far more indicative of ability than what you're using.

I used Bird's 10 best years, pretty obvious. Not my fault Bird didn't have good longevity due to injuries. I could've gone up to 14 years for Shaq.

I'm not trying to shit on Bird, he's top ten but for me he is like 9th all time. I'd rather have Shaq over Bird (slight edge of course).

Shaq's prime literally coincided with the slowest, most defensive era of all time, where as Bird played in the more uptempo, fast break 80's for his whole career.

[elementally morale]

John, fakkit and bore
With garbage takes so shitty
And best to ignore

Shaq is a top ten
Fool has him behind Stockton
Take up a new sport

Wonderful. Ever tried poetry? :cheers:

[Phoenix]

Wonderful. Ever tried poetry? :cheers:

Lol thanks. Used to dabble in it like 25 years ago during my university days, but you know how it goes. Adulting kicked in and I fell off the bandwagon.

[StrongLurk]

Best 10 year playoff prime for Shaq, Bird, KD.

Shaq (95-04, 155 games): 27/13/3 with 2.4 blocks
28.3 PER, 56.8 TS%, .212 WS/48, 6.9 BPM - 5 finals, 3 rings/3 FMVPs with insane peak finals play

Bird (80-90, 150 games): 25/10/6 with 1.8 steals
21.8 PER, 55.5 TS%, .181 WS/48, 7.3 BPM - 5 finals, 3 rings/2 FMVPS (81 ring is mid, 84/86 rings are elite)

KD (11-21, 145 games): 30/8/4 with 1 steal/1block
24.9 PER, 60.4 TS%, .205 WS/48, 7.4 BPM, 3 finals/2 FMVPs - was on most stacked team of all time for FMVPs but still won both FMVPs and went h2h with Lebron.

Bird based on production isn't a clear favorite compared to Shaq or KD. He actually has slightly worse advanced stats.

Any takers here? I know context needs to be provided, but even so, Bird doesn't look so good across a 10 year prime compared to Shaq and even KD.

[paksat]

Which years are you really focusing on here? Bird from '80-'90 are the years that matter since he became a shell of himself physically after.

PS Bird '80-'90: 25/11/7/2/1 on 56% TS%
PS Shaq '94-'07 26/12/3/1/2 on 57% TS%

Just like Bird, it would be unfair to use Shaq's final 3 seasons.

KD doesn't compare at all. He's a better scorer yea but what else, really? Defense? Rebounding? Playmaking? Passing? Leadership? There simply isn't any comparison.

defense? Are we talking about larry bird?

that guy was a bad man to man defender

[HoopsNY]

I used Bird's 10 best years, pretty obvious. Not my fault Bird didn't have good longevity due to injuries. I could've gone up to 14 years for Shaq.

I'm not trying to shit on Bird, he's top ten but for me he is like 9th all time. I'd rather have Shaq over Bird (slight edge of course).

Shaq's prime literally coincided with the slowest, most defensive era of all time, where as Bird played in the more uptempo, fast break 80's for his whole career.

Why does it matter if you use his 10 vs 14 for Shaq? What matters is how they played relative to their ability. You can't use Bird's rookie season and simultaneously remove Shaq's 2005 and 2006, especially when rookie Bird wouldn't be considered "prime" relative to his other years anymore or less than Shaq from 2005-2006 and his peak/prime.

Good point with regards to tempo and pace. I didn't think about that when weighing between the two. Shaq played in the playoffs when the playoff pace was typically 87-91 whereas Bird played when it was typically 94-100. That might account for some of the data, but I'm not sure it accounts for all of it. Good catch.

[HoopsNY]

defense? Are we talking about larry bird?

that guy was a bad man to man defender

Bird won All-Defensive 2nd Team honors three of his first five seasons at PF. He gets a bad name because he lacked the lateral quickness to guard the perimeter when he transitioned to being a SF, but anyone who knows anything about Bird knew that he was an elite help defender in those years.

For much of Shaq's tenure, he wasn't seen as a great defensive player. Even during his prime years, his teams usually faired just as good or better without him defensively. Bird was the opposite though the sample size is much smaller. Shaq lives off of his 2000 and 2001 defensive years, which I agree were great.

[HoopsNY]

Any takers here? I know context needs to be provided, but even so, Bird doesn't look so good across a 10 year prime compared to Shaq and even KD.

Sure he does. You just chose to isolate the ten year span relative to an arbitrary set of years that excludes Shaq's prime but includes his peak/peak-prime years, then did the opposite with Bird.

For example, you excluded 1994. How did Shaq do in 1994?

RS '94 Shaq: 29/13/2/1/3 on 60%

Shaq led the league in points that year if not for David Robinson's pitiful stat padding. He also led the league in FG% and was 4th in MVP voting. He should have probably been 3rd but all good. How about advanced stats?

PER: 2nd
WS: 2nd
WS/48: 2nd
OBPM: 3rd

But during the series against Indiana, he underperformed. In 2005, Shaq was 2nd in MVP voting. Sure, he wasn't the same elite Shaq, but it's still very much a prime year if he's arguably the second most valuable player in the league.

[Bacchus]

I love my Larry Bird but I think prime Shaq might be the best player of all-time

[StrongLurk]

Sure he does. You just chose to isolate the ten year span relative to an arbitrary set of years that excludes Shaq's prime but includes his peak/peak-prime years, then did the opposite with Bird.

For example, you excluded 1994. How did Shaq do in 1994?

RS '94 Shaq: 29/13/2/1/3 on 60%

Shaq led the league in points that year if not for David Robinson's pitiful stat padding. He also led the league in FG% and was 4th in MVP voting. He should have probably been 3rd but all good. How about advanced stats?

PER: 2nd
WS: 2nd
WS/48: 2nd
OBPM: 3rd

But during the series against Indiana, he underperformed. In 2005, Shaq was 2nd in MVP voting. Sure, he wasn't the same elite Shaq, but it's still very much a prime year if he's arguably the second most valuable player in the league.

I don't even know what you are trying to do here...you have been saying Bird>Shaq, but this whole post is gassing up Shaq as better than Bird.

I chose a 10-year prime because Bird specifically lacks longevity, plus most all time greats have at least a 10-year prime. You are basically saying I should've only chosen Bird's best 8 years...and compared it to Shaq's 14 best years? If you want to go that way, then how can you say Bird>Shaq?

Seems pretty clear by that logic that Shaq was at a superstar level for a lot longer than Bird while ALSO having a better peak in the playoffs/finals.

[Axe]

defense? Are we talking about larry bird?

that guy was a bad man to man defender
I mean he could have been a real bird who can lay eggs also.

[HoopsNY]

I don't even know what you are trying to do here...you have been saying Bird>Shaq, but this whole post is gassing up Shaq as better than Bird.

I chose a 10-year prime because Bird specifically lacks longevity, plus most all time greats have at least a 10-year prime. You are basically saying I should've only chosen Bird's best 8 years...and compared it to Shaq's 14 best years? If you want to go that way, then how can you say Bird>Shaq?

Seems pretty clear by that logic that Shaq was at a superstar level for a lot longer than Bird while ALSO having a better peak in the playoffs/finals.

My point about the post is that you excluded 1994 as if it wasn't part of Shaq's prime. I'm not saying choose only Bird's best 8. I'm saying using his data is fine, but using Shaq's prime, which is longer, is fine too. Why do we have to match it as 10 and 10? Who made that rule up?

I think another problem is you weigh longevity whereas I don't when it comes to these discussions. If you want to talk about accomplishments based on careers, then yea, you might have an argument. But I'm focusing on who the best player is irrespective of longevity.

Longevity is a new age buzzword that was absent in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s. It only became part of the revisionist history narrative with LeBron. It's why when I was a kid, the big 4 didn't include Kareem. Now all of a sudden it does.

[StrongLurk]

My point about the post is that you excluded 1994 as if it wasn't part of Shaq's prime. I'm not saying choose only Bird's best 8. I'm saying using his data is fine, but using Shaq's prime, which is longer, is fine too. Why do we have to match it as 10 and 10? Who made that rule up?

I think another problem is you weigh longevity whereas I don't when it comes to these discussions. If you want to talk about accomplishments based on careers, then yea, you might have an argument. But I'm focusing on who the best player is irrespective of longevity.

Longevity is a new age buzzword that was absent in the 80s, 90s, and 2000s. It only became part of the revisionist history narrative with LeBron. It's why when I was a kid, the big 4 didn't include Kareem. Now all of a sudden it does.

So what is your argument that Bird is better than Shaq? Shaq's peak/prime-peak in the playoffs to me is also better than Birds if you don't want to look at ANY longevity.

I'm just not seeing where you are making points that Bird is better than Shaq. I will admit of course, they are obviously extremely close and GOATs.

[Jasper]

If we did not know (and this is thread that made me log in, not the 'equal' thread,) Shaq was always my favorite player. I think his flaws are overstated. I think people are nuts when they say he couldn't play in today's NBA because he could have stayed skinny and he has enough handle/skill to catch it around ft line and go to work and pass out. NOBODY would stop him. It would be disgusting. A thin Shaq in a high scoring coast-to-coast era would probably have better durability and such, too, so he would show out more and his stats would be crazy. He might not jump out on a pick and roll perfectly every time, but if people are like yea Shaq comes into the nba atm and he's not the 1st overall most years... even over yaboy Wemby... **** off. Yall crazy. Shaq is a monster. To me, C and PG are most important positions, then there is 'wing' which in a case like Larry can be also a PF, if he can operate there. Basically primary perimeter scoring option.

I also think Shaq houses just about any one all time, in any era. He'd just need to adjust a little. SO, this is not a fair comparison. If we're comparing accolades, I think most people would put Bird over him. If we're comparing impact, I think it's close ( a testament to how good Bird was,) but Shaq still wins. Shaq got paired with Kobe and Wade, cool, but it wasn't like he needed someone on that level. I think he could have won in 95 if dudes made their shots. Ask Nick Anderson about that. Penny was no joke, either, obviously, but he's not (imo again) Wade or Kobe. But he's more of a primary ball handler, so in that way, I feel like the two important positions are taken and that team, all things being equal, could have been better than the later teams if they built around them a little more, but having Jordan come back was catastrophic for Shaq's legacy. I mean, he got rings, but if MJ didn't come back, I am pretty sure he'd wanna go to LA, anyway, but let's wildly assume he didn't, and that Penny didn't get injured. Shaq still gets a bunch of rings. Some teams might test them, but dude had a few years wasted on a meh LA team, and even if they did win, they would have prol lost to MJ in Finals. Not cuz of Shaq... but the team... just wasn't good enough yet.

On the other hand, you have to take into account Bird's injury and I'm not a Bird historian enough to say exactly when it became a huge problem, but I imagine it was way before he retired. I think if he could have played out a normal career, he, too, would have gotten more accolades to improve his already-better resume.

The thing is, again in my opinion, Shaq didn't get as many MVPs as he deserved. I guess cuz he skipped reg season games, but still. I mean, dude was so good he didn't even care. He actually skipped games, played himself into shape, then dominated in the playoffs. It was a joke. Imagine him in an era where he had to play 75+ games. He left a lot on the table, tho I disagree that he 'underachieved.' Another Shaq meme. I think he just got hated on. Dude was still body bags on the suns. If old 400 pound Shaq can run with the suns, imagine what early 20s Shaq would do. JUST IMAGINE.

But yea, Larry is def higher all time because when you talk about all time you talk about historical relevance, accolades, legacy, and for whatever reason, I feel like Shaq got super hated on in that. Just like all defensive team. Dudes really gonna say Shaq is not an all defensive player? People didn't even approach the paint with him in the game haha. He only made 3 (3!!!!!!) defensive teams. That's w/ 3 spots. Un-****ing-believable, honestly. Also unbelievable that they would give Shaq an all-nba nod with missed games, but not look at him for MVP.

-Smak

Smak knows his shit !!!!!:rockon::rockon:

Shaq is a top 5 center of all time without batting an eye.
But it is what bird did historically , partially because he is white , but for decades will be talking about Bird stomping on peoples throats ... ' I am going to shot it in the left corner , goes their and with the best defenses in the NBA , he knocks it down.'

[8Ball]

I have to go with Larry Bird because he cared about regular season a hell of a lot more.

3 MVPs in a row is one of the most amazing modern day achievements.

[AussieSteve]

What about pure dominance? Doesn't 3 titles+FMVP's in a row trump 3 MVP's in a row?

Over three seasons, Bird got 198 of a possible 232 1st place MVP votes. Thats more than 85%.

He got 94% of possible 1st place votes in both 85 and 86.

He also won 2 championships and 2 FMVPs in that 3-year stretch.

Has there ever been a player closer to the unanimous best player in the world?

[SlimReaper]

Bird

[HoopsNY]

So what is your argument that Bird is better than Shaq? Shaq's peak/prime-peak in the playoffs to me is also better than Birds if you don't want to look at ANY longevity.

I'm just not seeing where you are making points that Bird is better than Shaq. I will admit of course, they are obviously extremely close and GOATs.

The numbers are very similar, including advanced stats. Shaq's PER is higher but Bird's BPM is higher. Bird's VORP is 14.9 while Shaq's is 15.1, but VORP is a longevity stat anyhow. Shaq's WS/48 is .189 to Bird's .181. Shaq has the higher TS% but that's a given for someone who takes 99% of his baskets from 0-3 ft.

My reason for Bird is while Shaq had the edge on scoring, Bird makes up for it with his shooting, playmaking, help defense, and leadership. He went into dogfights into almost every finals against elite competition and didn't need a league to influence the outcome like 2002 or refs to give an advantage given how many offensive fouls were never called for Shaq.

In addition, I think Shaq underachieved given the elite players he played with. He wins the scoring title in '94 (I know Robinson won it but for me Shaq won it) and then puts up 20 PPG against Indiana who weren't an elite defensive team. Shaq had a super-team in Orlando and people forget that both Anderson and Scott were near 20 PPG scorers before Shaq and Penny arrived, and then they added an All-Star who was also All-Defensive 2nd Team in Horace Grant. The result? A sweep against the GOAT Hakeem and then swept by MJ and co in '96.

Then Shaq is 1 of 4 All-Stars in 1997 and 1998 and gets beaten like a rag doll against Utah. Then in 1999 they add Glen Rice, who people forget was a 26 PPG scorer before with Charlotte and they got swept by SAS.

2002 was an obviously rigged series against the Kings, otherwise the Lakers dont 3-peat, and then Shaq plays on another super-team with GP and Malone in 2004 to get manhandled by Detroit.

For all of the "longevity" talk. Do people forget that Shaq's poor work ethic is what actually killed the weight of his longevity? His weight problems were a significant issue during the latter stages being with LA and it carried over into his tenure with Miami. Yea he played long, but it greatly affected his impact on the court.

What did he do alongside Wade after winning a chip? 1st round sweep? What happened with A'mare and Nash? Shaq was an All-Star in 2009 and couldn't help his team to the playoffs? Broken back Bird led his team to 56 wins in 1991 and 51 wins in 1992, despite playing with 1/4 of a body.

How many guys have had the luxury of playing with peak Penny, Kobe, Wade, Nash, and LeBron, and have played on as many super-teams as Shaq?

And yet somehow, Shaq managed to miss the playoffs 2x, get gentleman swept 4x, and be swept 6x in his career. In Bird's entire career, he had just 1 sweep and 1 gentleman sweep.

Was Shaq really better and more impactful than Bird?

[RRR3]

Did Hoops seriously just call Hakeem the GOAT? :wtf:

[AussieSteve]

I think that if you replaced Shaq with Barkley in all of Shaq's teams, he wins the same number of rings.

Late 80s Barkley with Penny and those Magic! Dominant.

Early 90s Barkley with Kobe and Phil Jackson!

Late 90s Barkley with Wade.

[HoopsNY]

Did Hoops seriously just call Hakeem the GOAT? :wtf:

lol yea; I'm biased. You'll have to excuse me on that one.

[StrongLurk]

The numbers are very similar, including advanced stats. Shaq's PER is higher but Bird's BPM is higher. Bird's VORP is 14.9 while Shaq's is 15.1, but VORP is a longevity stat anyhow. Shaq's WS/48 is .189 to Bird's .181. Shaq has the higher TS% but that's a given for someone who takes 99% of his baskets from 0-3 ft.

My reason for Bird is while Shaq had the edge on scoring, Bird makes up for it with his shooting, playmaking, help defense, and leadership. He went into dogfights into almost every finals against elite competition and didn't need a league to influence the outcome like 2002 or refs to give an advantage given how many offensive fouls were never called for Shaq.

In addition, I think Shaq underachieved given the elite players he played with. He wins the scoring title in '94 (I know Robinson won it but for me Shaq won it) and then puts up 20 PPG against Indiana who weren't an elite defensive team. Shaq had a super-team in Orlando and people forget that both Anderson and Scott were near 20 PPG scorers before Shaq and Penny arrived, and then they added an All-Star who was also All-Defensive 2nd Team in Horace Grant. The result? A sweep against the GOAT Hakeem and then swept by MJ and co in '96.

Then Shaq is 1 of 4 All-Stars in 1997 and 1998 and gets beaten like a rag doll against Utah. Then in 1999 they add Glen Rice, who people forget was a 26 PPG scorer before with Charlotte and they got swept by SAS.

2002 was an obviously rigged series against the Kings, otherwise the Lakers dont 3-peat, and then Shaq plays on another super-team with GP and Malone in 2004 to get manhandled by Detroit.

For all of the "longevity" talk. Do people forget that Shaq's poor work ethic is what actually killed the weight of his longevity? His weight problems were a significant issue during the latter stages being with LA and it carried over into his tenure with Miami. Yea he played long, but it greatly affected his impact on the court.

What did he do alongside Wade after winning a chip? 1st round sweep? What happened with A'mare and Nash? Shaq was an All-Star in 2009 and couldn't help his team to the playoffs? Broken back Bird led his team to 56 wins in 1991 and 51 wins in 1992, despite playing with 1/4 of a body.

How many guys have had the luxury of playing with peak Penny, Kobe, Wade, Nash, and LeBron, and have played on as many super-teams as Shaq?

And yet somehow, Shaq managed to miss the playoffs 2x, get gentleman swept 4x, and be swept 6x in his career. In Bird's entire career, he had just 1 sweep and 1 gentleman sweep.

Was Shaq really better and more impactful than Bird?

Sorry bro, after reading this post I just can't take anything you say on this topic objectively. You are either a huge Bird fan or Shaq hater.

Shaq has a better playoff peak/prime than Bird, and more dominant finals appearances. Longevity as a legit superstar for 13-14 years is just icing on the cake.

Wish we could discuss further, but oh well.

[Micku]

The numbers are very similar, including advanced stats. Shaq's PER is higher but Bird's BPM is higher. Bird's VORP is 14.9 while Shaq's is 15.1, but VORP is a longevity stat anyhow. Shaq's WS/48 is .189 to Bird's .181. Shaq has the higher TS% but that's a given for someone who takes 99% of his baskets from 0-3 ft.

My reason for Bird is while Shaq had the edge on scoring, Bird makes up for it with his shooting, playmaking, help defense, and leadership. He went into dogfights into almost every finals against elite competition and didn't need a league to influence the outcome like 2002 or refs to give an advantage given how many offensive fouls were never called for Shaq.

Was Shaq really better and more impactful than Bird?


I don't know about that. Shaq and Mutombo motivated to the league to change the rules with the implication of 3 defensive sec. Shaq would camp in the paint and it would decrease the drives that perimeter players would make. It was noted that Shaq would intimidate them. I don't know if Bird's help defense would be more effective than Shaq making the league change the rules to make it easier for teams to score.

You could argue he contributed more defensively overall to his team. But I don't think it's true. And they play different positions, so how they defend is different. The other stuff when it comes to shooting, playmaking and leadership may be arguments I can see. But I don't think defense is one of them.

[HoopsNY]

Sorry bro, after reading this post I just can't take anything you say on this topic objectively. You are either a huge Bird fan or Shaq hater.

Shaq has a better playoff peak/prime than Bird, and more dominant finals appearances. Longevity as a legit superstar for 13-14 years is just icing on the cake.

Wish we could discuss further, but oh well.

Unreal. Guys like LeBron get slaughtered for manufacturing super-teams and underachieving. LeBron got criticized for his first 7 seasons in the league, but Shaq playing with unreal talent his entire career and getting consistently gentleman swept or swept in the playoffs his first 7 seasons is just par for the course.

It really does amaze me how Shaq gets excused for literally everything in his career. It was always someone else's fault, the league did no fixing or trying to influence the outcome of games, no matter how many controversies, refs exposing it, or players complaining about it. Shaq can play with the most elite talent - at their very peaks - and yet somehow he is the ultimate most absolute dominant force.

Combine these factors and you have Thor, Iron Man, and Captain America all in one. Every year should have been a flawless victory for Shaq but it just wasn't. I mean, compare the talent LeBron had his first 7 seasons in the league and the outcomes he had vs that of Shaq.

1993 ORL: Missed playoffs
1994 ORL: 1st round sweep
1995 ORL: Finals sweep
1996 ORL: ECF sweep
1997 LAL: WCSF Gentleman swept
1998 LAL: WCF sweep
1999 LAL: WCSF sweep

Any other top 10 player would be crucified for these results. I'd also add that even after the 3-peat, Shaq wasn't considered being better than Bird. So I'm not sure where this narrative even came into play.

MJ, LeBron, Wilt, etc all get criticized, why doesn't Shaq?

[1987_Lakers]

1993 ORL: Missed playoffs
1994 ORL: 1st round sweep
1995 ORL: Finals sweep
1996 ORL: ECF sweep
1997 LAL: WCSF Gentleman swept
1998 LAL: WCF sweep
1999 LAL: WCSF sweep

Any other top 10 player would be crucified for these results.

To be fair, prime Hakeem was getting bounced in the first round 4 years in a row from '88-'91 and failed to make the playoffs in '92. But we never hear people bring that up.

[theman93]

Over three seasons, Bird got 198 of a possible 232 1st place MVP votes. Thats more than 85%.

He got 94% of possible 1st place votes in both 85 and 86.

He also won 2 championships and 2 FMVPs in that 3-year stretch.

Has there ever been a player closer to the unanimous best player in the world?

Well yeah MJ from 96-98 garnered 253/344 possible first place votes (more than 73% which isn't far off from 85%) while winning MVP twice. And he of course 3 peated and won all 3 FMVP's which should hold vastly more weight than another MVP. But I don't want to derail the thread lol


I'll say this, Bird didn't force other teams to have to shape their rosters to deal with him specifically like they had to with Shaq:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9WDO9Mh9BY&t=399s&ab_channel=JJRedick

[HoopsNY]

To be fair, prime Hakeem was getting bounced in the first round 4 years in a row from '88-'91 and failed to make the playoffs in '92. But we never hear people bring that up.

That's not really true. I hear it all the time, including on this forum. But while you're at it, go ahead and compare Shaq's casts from '93-'99 and compare them to Hakeem's from '88-'92. The point is you will never hear Shaq underachieving, ever. Can you really think of a time you did or with some kind of regularity, other than from me on this forum?

Apparently he's the GOAT peak, the most dominant specimen since Paul Bunyan, Superman, Thor, and Hulk all put together, but somehow found ways to consistently get swept or gentleman swept? Surely being such a dominant figure together with the most elite talent ever would yield better results?

When MJ was retiring, he was asked who would be the next MJ. His response was "Penny or Kobe"...and Shaq played with both of them :lol

[Micku]

That's not really true. I hear it all the time, including on this forum. But while you're at it, go ahead and compare Shaq's casts from '93-'99 and compare them to Hakeem's from '88-'92. The point is you will never hear Shaq underachieving, ever. Can you really think of a time you did or with some kind of regularity, other than from me on this forum?

Apparently he's the GOAT peak, the most dominant specimen since Paul Bunyan, Superman, Thor, and Hulk all put together, but somehow found ways to consistently get swept or gentleman swept? Surely being such a dominant figure together with the most elite talent ever would yield better results?

When MJ was retiring, he was asked who would be the next MJ. His response was "Penny or Kobe"...and Shaq played with both of them :lol

I think the reason why you never hear about Shaq team underperforming is because they eventually won and 3peated.

But in 99, there were talks. It was crazy to see the Lakers getting swept by the Spurs in 99. And the Jazz sweeping the Lakers in 98, even though the Lakers were more talented than both of them. I think those late 90s Lakers team was proof that talent doesn't mean a better team. You see that with the Heat beating the Bucks, Knicks and the Celtics this year. The Jazz and the Spurs were the better team. Shaq was the best player in both of those series, he and the team just couldn't get done. I know Shaq believes coaching doesn't matter, but there are reports and a documentary about the 2000 Lakers that Phil encourage Shaq to try harder on defense and rebounding. Great coaching and a great fit will maximize the team's talent.

[John8204]

To be fair, prime Hakeem was getting bounced in the first round 4 years in a row from '88-'91 and failed to make the playoffs in '92. But we never hear people bring that up.

The difference between Hakeem and Shaq is for Hakeem it was the Barry-Carrol/Sampson trade that sunk the Rockets while Shaq left a competitive Magic team to rebuild with the Lakers. I would argue the Lakers and the Magic were better teams than the Rockets during that period of time.

Bird didn't have a run as bad as Shaq's...mostly because Shaq quit and they had to carry Larry off the court.

But for me as everyone knows it's Larry > Hakeem > Shaq