How is Shaq not at least top 5 all-time?

[Roundball_Rock]

Under what criteria is Shaq not top 5 all-time at minimum? On most people's lists here he is usually 5-7. Why?

Here is how he has fared in other lists:

Elliot Kalb: #1
Bill Simmons: #12
Slam Magazine: #4
ISH: #7

Why so much variance? No top-tier great sees his ranking vary that much. Shaq's peak is comparable to anyone's. He has had longevity, as ShaqAttack has explained so well numerous times here. He won.

In his book Elliot Kalb points out Shaq's teams won an average of 56 games from 1993-2003 (the number would be higher when you adjust for games Shaq missed. He compares that to Russell's average of 58 wins (Kareem's average is 57). Here are his team's performance with him (with the 82 game pace in parentheses):

41-40 (42)
49-32 (50)
55-24 (57)
40-14 (61)
38-13 (61)
46-14 (63)
31-18 (52, lockout season)
66-13 (69)
51-23 (57)
51-16 (63)
45-22 (55)
49-18 (60)
53-20 (60)
42-17 (58)
25-15 (51)
25-36 (34)
44-31 (48)
10-5 (55)

His career winning percentage translates to approximately 55 wins per year. If you look at his record from 1993-2006 his teams were on pace for 59 wins over 82 games. That is a remarkable record of such a long period of time. His teams were 50 win caliber teams with him on the floor every year during that period; they were 55+ caliber 11 times; 60+ win caliber 7 times. These are amazing numbers.

Did he do this with great teams?

Shaq turning franchises around

Orlando before Shaq: 18, 31, 21 wins
Orlando with Shaq: 41, 50, 57 (NBA finals, #1 seed), 60 (ECF, #2 seed behind 72 win Bulls)
Orlando after Shaq: 45, 41, 54** (0 trips out the first round)

Los Angeles before Shaq: 33, 48 (WCSF), 53 (first round)
Los Angeles with Shaq: 56, 61 (WCF), 51**, 67, 56, 58 (champions) , 50, 56 (NBA finals)
Los Angeles post-Shaq: 34, 45, 42 (0 trips out the first round)

Miami before Shaq: 36, 25, 52
Miami with Shaq: 59 (ECF), 52 (champions), 44
Miami post-Shaq: 15, 43, 45 (projected)

Shaq in the playoffs

What did Shaq do when it counted?

Missed playoffs
First round
NBA finals
Conference finals

WCSF
Conference finals
WCSF
Champion
Champion
Champion
WCSF
NBA finals

Conference finals
Champion
First round

First round
Missed playoffs

When he was in or near his prime he had an extremely good playoff record: 4 championships, 6 NBA finals, and 9 conference finals appearances. This record is comparable to that of anyone not named Russell.

The only area where Shaq is not strong vis-a-vis top-tier greats is MVP's. He won "only" 1. Of course, as seen earlier he was often hurt and this damaged his MVP chances in several seasons. His quality of player was sufficient to win multiple MVP's so I don't see the logic of using MVP awards against him.

So why do so many people have Shaq outside their top 5? It is hard for me to see any consistently applied criteria that keeps Kareem, Shaq, or Jordan out of a top 5 list. I consider Shaq top 3 all-time.

My theory is Shaq, like Duncan, is underrated because he is still playing. Once they retire people will appreciate them more and be able to assess their records more objectively with the passage of time and the cooling of whatever passions against Shaq some may have had.

[joe]

People also place Shaq lower on their list because he had so much more potential.. that sounds crazy to say about someone with Shaq's resume but it's true.. If he would have stayed in shape, if he would have been more of a team guy, he might be clearly the best player of all time right now. But because he didn't, people feel he should suffer for that.

Obviously like you said, time will erase many of those stains and his ranking should stop being so erratic from person to person..

I'm not saying I agree with that but that's just how it is

[Batman]

People also place Shaq lower on their list because he had so much more potential.. that sounds crazy to say about someone with Shaq's resume but it's true.. If he would have stayed in shape, if he would have been more of a team guy, he might be clearly the best player of all time right now. But because he didn't, people feel he should suffer for that.

Obviously like you said, time will erase many of those stains and his ranking should stop being so erratic from person to person..

I'm not saying I agree with that but that's just how it is

this

[OldSchoolBBall]

There's no criteria to rank Shaq ahead of Wilt at the very least dude. Wilt had better numbers, at least an equal peak (which lasted longer, too), more winning, and more accolades across the board. He was also a superior defender. So the highest I could see Shaq is 4th, ahead of Magic/Bird/Russell (depending where you rank Russell).

[STATmanLAKERFAN]

There's no criteria to rank Shaq ahead of Wilt at the very least dude. Wilt had better numbers, more winning, and more accolades across the board. He was also a superior defender. So the highest I could see Shaq is 4th, ahead of Magic/Bird/Russell (depending where you rank Russell).

I personally rank Wilt over Shaq, but how has Wilt won more than Shaq?

[Roundball_Rock]

People also place Shaq lower on their list because he had so much more potential.. that sounds crazy to say about someone with Shaq's resume but it's true.. If he would have stayed in shape, if he would have been more of a team guy, he might be clearly the best player of all time right now. But because he didn't, people feel he should suffer for that.

Obviously like you said, time will erase many of those stains and his ranking should stop being so erratic from person to person..

I'm not saying I agree with that but that's just how it is

I agree. In Simmons' case that is very clear. I think it is a ridiculous thing to do, though. So what if he did not fulfill his potential? You have to assess what he actually did and his record is great.

There's no criteria to rank Shaq ahead of Wilt at the very least dude. Wilt had better numbers, more winning, and more accolades across the board. He was also a superior defender. So the highest I could see Shaq is 4th, ahead of Magic/Bird/Russell (depending where you rank Russell).

Well that is a bit off track. The OP was about him being top 5. I can see him not being top 3 but I can't think of any consistently applied criteria that has him outside the top 5. Maybe someone has one and can share it in this thread.

The top 3 thing was my opinion. I have him ahead of Wilt because I consider him a greater winner (not just 4 rings over 2. Look at Shaq's yearly record in the OP). Who would you rather build a team around? Who would you want in your foxhole going into the playoffs? Shaq, who consistently raised his game in the playoffs or someone his scoring average declined every year in the playoffs--sometimes by significant amounts (i.e. the famous 50 ppg year. In the playoffs his product slipped by a third to 35 ppg.).

Regarding numbers, Wilt's numbers are inflated due to pace. Adjusted for pace Shaq is comparable, although concededly does not equal Wilt. Still, we need to remember that Wilt produced many of his stats at the expense of his team whereas Shaq's numbers were in the team's interest.

Wilt has more accolades but Shaq's were reduced due to numerous minor injuries. He had had good health his accolades would have been up there with the rest of the top-tier greats.

[Bodhi]

It's hard to put someone top 5 all time when you can't say that they did everything they could over their career to maximize their talent and win championships.

[Scribbles]

Because 4 franchises, soon to be 5th, doesn't like Shaq

[MMKM]

Top 5 in no p[articular order

Wilt
Kareem
Russell
Hakeem
Shaq

He has to be there. Simply because, head to head, in his prime, he takes ANY center who ever played on the low block and dunks it down their throat, at will, over and over again. No center has ever been strong enough to keep prime Shaq away from the rim, Wilt included. For that reason he makes top 5.

[Abraham Lincoln]

He should be. At peak form he was as good a player as anyone in league history.

[joe]

It's hard to put someone top 5 all time when you can't say that they did everything they could over their career to maximize their talent and win championships.

why not? if what they produced is equal to top 5 status, he should be up there regardless of what he could have done

[Roundball_Rock]

It's hard to put someone top 5 all time when you can't say that they did everything they could over their career to maximize their talent and win championships.

You could say the same thing about Wilt or even Jordan (two premature retirements). Why is Shaq singled out?

Because 4 franchises, soon to be 5th, doesn't like Shaq

Shaq made Orlando and Miami relevant and he resurrected the Lakers. He had little impact either way in Phoenix. As to Cleveland, it remains to be seen how that ends. If Shaq is key in them getting past Orlando and has a decent playoff run overall does that move him up?

Top 5 in no p[articular order

Wilt
Kareem
Russell
Hakeem
Shaq

I presume that is for centers only?

[MMKM]

You could say the same thing about Wilt or even Jordan (two premature retirements). Why is Shaq singled out?



Shaq made Orlando and Miami relevant and he resurrected the Lakers. He had little impact either way in Phoenix. As to Cleveland, it remains to be seen how that ends. If Shaq is key in them getting past Orlando and has a decent playoff run overall does that move him up?



Jordan???

Uh, I was just talking centers, I didnt know this was all positions...

[OldSchoolBBall]

I personally rank Wilt over Shaq, but how has Wilt won more than Shaq?

Yeah, I misspoke there. I was thinking MVPs in my head, not titles.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Great thread and OP RR. Shaq should be in most top 5 lists. His peak numbers (adjusted for pace) are as great as anyone in league history.