PDA

View Full Version : Does being the #8 Scorer, #2 rebounder, #2 Blocks and #7 in PER make u top 10 in NBA



IKnowHoops
08-12-2013, 11:50 AM
This question is based on the 92-93 version of Shaq. Bagwell says he was not a top 10 player in the league as a Rookie. I have no clue to how he figures this when he is top 10 in 3 statistical categories one being scoring.

#8 pts 23.4
#2 rebounds 13.9
#2 Blocks 3.5
#7 PER

Simple question, was shaq a top 10 player in the league this year, and will ranking this high in this many categories guarantee that you are a top ten player in the league? I say yes easily without question. Please let me know your thoughts?

I Rock Shaqs
08-12-2013, 12:03 PM
Stupid question. Obviously.

Pablonovi
08-12-2013, 12:04 PM
My first reaction would be an unequivocable YES, Shaq WAS a Top 10 Player (and anybody else who so dominated multiple basic-stats plus at least one advanced stat would be one as well). Particularly given his very high ranking in BOTH offensive (ppg & rebounds) and defensive (blocks & rebounds) aspects of the game.

On the other hand, I'd rather reserve my judgement and my vote in this case for the time being and, hopefully, get to see what bagwell has to say in response. Bagwell can you name 10 better players that (rookie season) year?

I don't always agree with bagwell; and sometimes his opinions and/or attitudes "piss me off". On the other hand, he does have a very solid historically high exposure level (as compared to the average PSDer); and often times his opinions impress me so much that I think he wrote them better than I could have.

b@llhog24
08-12-2013, 12:07 PM
He just missed the top 10 in win shares, but I honestly can't say that I've watched enough of that version of Shaq to make any comments on his defense. Probably was top 10, but it's not like it'd be a travesty or anything.

kdspurman
08-12-2013, 12:08 PM
Here's a look at the leaders of that season, All NBA teams & All star teams. (go to the bottom of the page)

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leagues/NBA_1993.html

ManRam
08-12-2013, 12:34 PM
I think he was. He wasn't named to any All-NBA team, but I don't care too much about that.

Was 8th in RAPM, mainly because of his defense.

Robinson, Olajuwon, Chuck, Jordan, Stockton, Malone were all clearly better. There are a ton of guys after that that could have a claim. It's not a slam dunk, but I think he was better than guys like Mark Price, Nique, Pippen, Ewing, Miller, Dumars etc. that season.

Chronz
08-12-2013, 12:44 PM
With lil research I have to say yes. This was around the time the league was really getting weaker, legends from the 80's were dying out and the league began rampant expansion. Its still close enough to the 80's where its prolly questionable but Im struggling to think of 10 better guys.

Lets get the for sures out of the way
Dream
MJ
Chuck
Mailman
D-Rob

The next tier that is likely to be better than Y1 Shaq:
Ewing (just barely in my book)
Stockton
Daugherty

The arguably better but by no means likely better
Dominique (fresh off his achilles injury)



People romanticize the 90's because talent seemed better at the top, but I dont believe it was better on average. Have no idea how to prove that tho.

Minimal
08-12-2013, 01:15 PM
With this stats I guess he definetely was.

ManRam
08-12-2013, 01:28 PM
1992-93 was easily Ewing's worst offensive season of his prime. I have no hesitations saying Shaq was better than Ewing that season. Perhaps defense does come into player here, however...I could be greatly overlooking that. But I can't speak with much/any authority on Shaq's defensive abilities as a rookie.

WoodsyRaps
08-12-2013, 01:48 PM
I went with yes. To be a top player in so many important categories like that certainly puts you in the top 10. He put up Kevin Love offense and rebounds (more efficiently) and played Elite Defence. Imagine that type of player in today's NBA? Godly lol

RLundi
08-12-2013, 01:49 PM
He absolutely was a top 10 player. Just because he wasn't in the top ten for win shares or WS48 doesn't mean he wasn't a top player in the league. If anyone is going to use stats, they have to use a broader scale, not just win shares or PER or RAPM or anything. There's no end-all, so to assert Shaq wasn't a top 10 player just because he wasn't top 10 in win shares in short-sighted IMO.

Pablonovi
08-12-2013, 01:55 PM
With lil research I have to say yes. This was around the time the league was really getting weaker, legends from the 80's were dying out and the league began rampant expansion. Its still close enough to the 80's where its prolly questionable but Im struggling to think of 10 better guys.

Lets get the for sures out of the way
Dream
MJ
Chuck
Mailman
D-Rob

The next tier that is likely to be better than Y1 Shaq:
Ewing (just barely in my book)
Stockton
Daugherty

The arguably better but by no means likely better
Dominique (fresh off his achilles injury)



People romanticize the 90's because talent seemed better at the top, but I dont believe it was better on average. Have no idea how to prove that tho.

So, according to your list here you have at, at least, 10th and possibly 8th (ahead of Nique and Ewing). I like your list and from memory I'd say he WAS better than those last two.

About the 90s: Most of the All-Time Greatest NBA Players Lists I've seen/studied have MORE players from the 70s and 90s than the 80s. I like to argue for general equality of all decades (except the pre-integration 50s); but I tend to think the 80s WAS weaker AT THE TOP; and that that is why Bird gets rated so high in the All-Time Lists.

Still, as you say, proving any of this would be a real challenge. I have never read a well-argued decade VS decade VS decade argument yet; would sure like to study one.

Myself, I am working on a NBA All-Time Goat / Greatest Players List. When I finish it, I'll post it to PSD and it will include my shot at analyzing that question of comparing decades. But, one major shortcoming (of perhaps several) will be that I'll only be comparing the top 10-20 from each decade and NOT the overall quality of entire League (or Leagues in the period of the ABA). How would one analyze that?

Tony_Starks
08-12-2013, 01:58 PM
This is a true stat vs intangible type question. Stat wise yes. Intangible "eye test" wise no. I remember those games quite fondly and there are 10 players that year I'd easily take over Shaq in the grand scheme of things....

Prime example Reggie Miller. I don't care what his stats were he was still a clutch cold blooded closer at that time.

Ebbs
08-12-2013, 02:42 PM
100% he was

Chronz
08-12-2013, 02:49 PM
1992-93 was easily Ewing's worst offensive season of his prime. I have no hesitations saying Shaq was better than Ewing that season. Perhaps defense does come into player here, however...I could be greatly overlooking that. But I can't speak with much/any authority on Shaq's defensive abilities as a rookie.
Perhaps? I think alot of credit should be given to Ewing for anchoring what is still likely one of the Top-3 defenses of All-Time. He had alot of support but he was still a legitimate DPOY candidate. I always felt Ewing's offense was overrated, feels more like people were surprised by how good he wound up becoming based on prior expectations rather than how he truly stacks up vs other greats.

All that said, I think we need to establish the difference between being a better player and having a more productive regular season. Its a subjective stance I know but context can be the deciding factor in close comparisons. And in Ewings case, for that specific year, I can forgive the blip in efficiency. He was adjusting to life without his long time set up man (Mark Jackson) and adapting to a more physical, defensive grind it out style. It may not have been as productive as fielding a 2-way team, but Riley felt this was his teams best advantage against the Bulls. Considering they were the only team to actually push the Bulls to 7 during their first reign of terror and subsequently make the Finals the year MJ retired, its fair to say it was in fact their teams best chance of winning it all. Ewing wasn't the star to make it happen but he was better than Y1 Shaq.

Ewings production in the playoffs that year was more indicative of his prime ability. The kind of production Shaq didn't touch until year 3 of his career. I like to think there are various stages players can fall into during their development. How it relates depends on their experience but to me there are clear points in a players career.

Shaq was a star from day 1 but he made huge strides in his game Y2 (particularly with handling double teams). Y2 is essentially when Shaq became a regular season superstar, it got him into the playoffs but at the tender age of 21, his superior team (based on Reg.Season success and not talent) was swept in R1 with Shaq being held down silly. His playoff skillset was still developing while Ewing was far more experienced. Ewings struggles at the same age as Shaq were far worse but thats another topic.

Chronz
08-12-2013, 02:57 PM
This is a true stat vs intangible type question. Stat wise yes. Intangible "eye test" wise no. I remember those games quite fondly and there are 10 players that year I'd easily take over Shaq in the grand scheme of things....

Prime example Reggie Miller. I don't care what his stats were he was still a clutch cold blooded closer at that time.

Yea I feel like I underrate Reggie alot sometimes. Its just hard to reconcile the fact that coaches around the league, the fans and the media members never found him to even be a consistent All-Star/All-NBA.

As for his stats, thats the crazy part, the statistical revolution thats been happening of late is direct result of people valuing efficiency far more than raw tallies, and yet Reggie was among the most efficient offensive players ever. He basically gave you Tyson Chandler levels of efficiency while actually being the go-to threat for his teams offense. Yet I didn't even include him in the list.

Again, its just hard to compare twig boy to a behemoth like Shaq

JasonJohnHorn
08-12-2013, 03:14 PM
Yes. I'd say he was a top ten player then. There would have to be exceptional circumstances for a guy who did all that to NOT be a top ten player.

Like, having great all-around players. You get Jordan, LBJ, Pippen, Bird, Magic Guys who, with the exception of Jordan, won't league the lead in scoring, or rebounding, or blocks, or steals or (with the exception of Magic), won't lead the league in assists; they could all conceivably rank higher than a guy who is 8th in scorign and 2nd in boards and blocks, but then the PER number would be higher. Then you'd have guys like Barkley, Malone, Hakeem and Robinson. But that would have to be a PRETTY EXCEPTIONAL collection of players.


Yeah... Shaq was top ten. He likey should have been on the All-NBA third team that season. I would have put Hakeem and D-Rob ahead of him, but not Ewing.

IKnowHoops
08-12-2013, 03:50 PM
Ok just making sure I wasn't going crazy. I have seen bagwell post, and Ive always thought he knew what he was talking about. I remember Shaq's rookie year very well. David Robinson is my favorite player. And He had more problems stopping Shaq as a RC than he had with anyone else in his career. (Accept for hakeem in that playoff series). Shaq was top ten the day he stepped on the court without a doubt in my mind. And his stats that year definitely back that up.

IKnowHoops
08-12-2013, 04:24 PM
With lil research I have to say yes. This was around the time the league was really getting weaker, legends from the 80's were dying out and the league began rampant expansion. Its still close enough to the 80's where its prolly questionable but Im struggling to think of 10 better guys.

Lets get the for sures out of the way
Dream
MJ
Chuck
Mailman
D-Rob

The next tier that is likely to be better than Y1 Shaq:
Ewing (just barely in my book)
Stockton
Daugherty

The arguably better but by no means likely better
Dominique (fresh off his achilles injury)



People romanticize the 90's because talent seemed better at the top, but I dont believe it was better on average. Have no idea how to prove that tho.

No way Brad Daugherty was better than year one Shaq. Not Stockton either. Daugherty was never better than Ewing. Daugherty was below both Shaq and Ewing in Points/reb/blocks. Above Ewing in PER but not Shaq.

Chronz
08-12-2013, 05:46 PM
No way Brad Daugherty was better than year one Shaq. Not Stockton either. Daugherty was never better than Ewing. Daugherty was below both Shaq and Ewing in Points/reb/blocks. Above Ewing in PER but not Shaq.
Ewing prolly belongs in the tier above then huh. This thread reminded me of Shaq's book his rookie year, the one where he basically kept a journal of his rookie season and talked about various matchups. He was confident going up against Ewing so I put them in the same tier but thats clearly a mistake the more I think about it.

As for Daugherty, it wasn't just his stats, I remember reading something from the journal (Ill see if I can find the quote and book title if you wish) where he just praises the guys skillset and admits his own inferiority. I might be remembering it wrong or I might be thinking of another bigman but I do like BD more than most.

IKnowHoops
08-12-2013, 06:05 PM
Ewing prolly belongs in the tier above then huh. This thread reminded me of Shaq's book his rookie year, the one where he basically kept a journal of his rookie season and talked about various matchups. He was confident going up against Ewing so I put them in the same tier but thats clearly a mistake the more I think about it.

As for Daugherty, it wasn't just his stats, I remember reading something from the journal (Ill see if I can find the quote and book title if you wish) where he just praises the guys skillset and admits his own inferiority. I might be remembering it wrong or I might be thinking of another bigman but I do like BD more than most.

Yeah, BD is very underrated. He's almost forgotten. He would probably be the best big in the game today. I'd love to read that journal to see what Shaq thought about the big men he faced.

tredigs
08-12-2013, 06:19 PM
No mention for Mark Price? He was definitely on the short list of top players that season. Beat out prime Stockton on the All NBA 1st team. Obviously no help on D, but far better than Shaq offensively.

IKnowHoops
08-12-2013, 06:40 PM
No mention for Mark Price? He was definitely on the short list of top players that season. Beat out prime Stockton on the All NBA 1st team. Obviously no help on D, but far better than Shaq offensively.


What makes you believe this?

IKnowHoops
08-12-2013, 06:42 PM
Shaq was just barely behind Hakeem and David as a RC. Just barely. By his second year on any given day the three of them would outplay the other. By that time Shaq was the most difficult cover in the league. I cant say Mark Price was ever even close to what Shaq was.

abe_froman
08-12-2013, 06:54 PM
maybe,i'll say barely,but he was about equal to a bunch of guys that he could easily be on the outside looking in at top 10

Chronz
08-12-2013, 07:01 PM
[/B]

What makes you believe this?

Shaq was really turnover prone his first year and his very first playoff performance vs the Pacers was nothing to be proud of. There are some reasons.

tredigs
08-12-2013, 07:26 PM
Shaq was just barely behind Hakeem and David as a RC. Just barely. By his second year on any given day the three of them would outplay the other. By that time Shaq was the most difficult cover in the league. I cant say Mark Price was ever even close to what Shaq was.

Legend-level shooting season (48/42/95) while being an elite playmaker. Via RAPM he was easily the highest ranked player offensively (over Jordan and everyone else). And considered the NBA's best point during the year.

Shaq was a force, but nearly the all around player he would later become. He had about a 1:2 turnover ratio (wasn't a good playmaker yet, and led the league in turnovers) while being his usual terrible self from the line. His impact was still large, but Price was as dialed in a machine on that end as you will find.

IKnowHoops
08-12-2013, 09:49 PM
Legend-level shooting season (48/42/95) while being an elite playmaker. Via RAPM he was easily the highest ranked player offensively (over Jordan and everyone else). And considered the NBA's best point during the year.

Shaq was a force, but nearly the all around player he would later become. He had about a 1:2 turnover ratio (wasn't a good playmaker yet, and led the league in turnovers) while being his usual terrible self from the line. His impact was still large, but Price was as dialed in a machine on that end as you will find.

OK, I will give it to you from an advanced stat perspective. But from sheer output Shaq was equally as far ahead of price. I remember Price well. I remember at one time he was the best 3pt shooter in the game. I went back and looked at his advanced stats and he was more efficient than I remember. And yes Shaq was a turnover machine. And I agree with you on just how great Price was. I like tim Hardaway that year, but I won't argue with the opinion Price was the best point guard that season.

As much as some of the advanced stats agree with you, I still can't agree that Price was superior offensively to Shaq. The attention that was on him to hold him to 23.4 pts a game is close to triple the attention mark price got from the opposing team to get his super efficient 18.1. For that reason, I cannot give the offensive edge to Price. But I have no problem with your stance from an offensive perspective.

IKnowHoops
08-12-2013, 09:50 PM
Shaq was really turnover prone his first year and his very first playoff performance vs the Pacers was nothing to be proud of. There are some reasons.

True True True. I think the double and triple teams had a lot to do with it but still true.

IKnowHoops
08-12-2013, 09:51 PM
Shaq was really turnover prone his first year and his very first playoff performance vs the Pacers was nothing to be proud of. There are some reasons.

True True True. I think the double and triple teams had a lot to do with it but still true.

nastynice
08-12-2013, 09:56 PM
I remember dude was straight up dominant since day one. He was very unrefined, far from a complete player, and made a lot of mistakes, but he was just so dominant near the hoop. I can def see him being considered a top 10. He used to steady break the rim, lol, like every week. Didn't they change it cuz of him?

Bruno
08-12-2013, 10:20 PM
shaqs rookie season was before my time but it looks like he cracks the top ten based off advanced line.

IKnowHoops
08-13-2013, 12:54 AM
Somehow through all this I feel bagwell can't be the age he says he is. Or watched b-ball for as long as he says he has.

tredigs
08-13-2013, 02:37 AM
Somehow through all this I feel bagwell can't be the age he says he is. Or watched b-ball for as long as he says he has.
I grew up watching Shaq from the beginning when I was already playing as a youngster and for what it's worth I did always feel he was a top 10 player from the moment he touched the court. He was a specimen right from the get go. His line does help showcase that.

I wouldn't discount bagwell though. His stance is not a ridiculous one by any stretch, and from my vantage point his knowledge of the game as a whole rings true.

IndyRealist
08-13-2013, 09:10 AM
He was being force fed on a bad team. Much like Tyreke is rookie year.

IndyRealist
08-13-2013, 09:19 AM
This is a true stat vs intangible type question. Stat wise yes. Intangible "eye test" wise no. I remember those games quite fondly and there are 10 players that year I'd easily take over Shaq in the grand scheme of things....

Prime example Reggie Miller. I don't care what his stats were he was still a clutch cold blooded closer at that time.

Not really, because th OP cherrypicked which stats to show. When you figure in turnovers, fouls, and a shot chart Shaq was far from dominate because he was inexperienced. His raw numbers were misleading because he was force fed as the anointed franchise player.

And stats generally say Reggie was a stone cold killer.

IKnowHoops
08-13-2013, 04:12 PM
Not really, because th OP cherrypicked which stats to show. When you figure in turnovers, fouls, and a shot chart Shaq was far from dominate because he was inexperienced. His raw numbers were misleading because he was force fed as the anointed franchise player.

And stats generally say Reggie was a stone cold killer.

Oh yeah I cherry picked points/rebounds/blocks. Yeah your right, those don't matter. Just 3 of the 4 most important and popular stats there are. Sorry I didn't go right to +/-, fouls, or traveling violations. Find me someone with Shaqs production that isn't top ten in that season, then talk.

Chronz
08-13-2013, 06:30 PM
Oh yeah I cherry picked points/rebounds/blocks. Yeah your right, those don't matter. Just 3 of the 4 most important and popular stats there are. Sorry I didn't go right to +/-, fouls, or traveling violations. Find me someone with Shaqs production that isn't top ten in that season, then talk.
What hes trying to say is that its fairly arbitrary. You're focusing on the stats that favor bigmen and dont really tell you much of a players overall statistical profile. Say what you will about the linear metrics, they at least give you a starting point.

IndyRealist
08-13-2013, 07:19 PM
Oh yeah I cherry picked points/rebounds/blocks. Yeah your right, those don't matter. Just 3 of the 4 most important and popular stats there are. Sorry I didn't go right to +/-, fouls, or traveling violations. Find me someone with Shaqs production that isn't top ten in that season, then talk.

Weren't you a proponent of advanced metrics in another thread? Why would you use points, rebounds, blocks, and PER except because they back your point? That's the definition of cherry picking. Every single one of those stats is extremely flawed in player evaluation, despite their popularity. Just because it's popular does not make it correct. That's a suspect argument.

IndyRealist
08-13-2013, 07:29 PM
If I had to pick only 4 stats to evaluate a player, it would probably be usage, ts%, defensive rating, and net possessions. If 3 of your 4 are out of your list, I suspect we'd come to very different conclusions.

IKnowHoops
08-13-2013, 08:31 PM
What hes trying to say is that its fairly arbitrary. You're focusing on the stats that favor bigmen and dont really tell you much of a players overall statistical profile. Say what you will about the linear metrics, they at least give you a starting point.

I know what your saying, but as ive stated before, of the major regularly tabulated stats. Points/rbs/assts/steals. If a player is top ten in scoring and top 10 in two more of these stats, then he is automatically a top 10 player. So if a guard was top 10 in scoring, and too ten in steals and asst, hed also be a top 10 player. Only the best of the best can be top 10 in 3 of the 4 categories. And thats in my thread title specificallly. I like advanced stats, but when a player can produce to the extent of top 10 in 3/4 of the triple double categories, hes a beast and will always be top 10. This thread is as much about shaq as it is about being top 10 in these particular stats and what it means to do that. Advanced stats have nothin to with this thread.

Chronz
08-13-2013, 09:27 PM
If I had to pick only 4 stats to evaluate a player, it would probably be usage, ts%, defensive rating, and net possessions. If 3 of your 4 are out of your list, I suspect we'd come to very different conclusions.
Why not plain ol usage%, ORTG, DRTG and Minutes played. Thats basically what the all inclusive stats focus on anyways.