I'm not sure where I'd put Karl Malone here. But to me, the fact that he didn't consistently have better teams than Robinson/Olajuwon despite having John F'n Stockton is enough to know I'd rank him below both of them.

The playoff results of the 90's Jazz vs 90's Spurs seems to contradict this statement. I don't know where I'd rank Malone compared to Robinson/Olajuwon either, but the Stockton/Malone Jazz reached the WCF 5 times in 7 years and twice made the Finals, whereas the Spurs with Robinson as their #1 only made one WCF and never reached the Finals. Plus the Jazz beat them all 3 times they met in the playoffs (94, 96, 98), twice without HC. So I'd say the 90's Jazz WERE consistently better than the 90's Spurs, despite similar regular season records (and if regular season records are all that should be considered, you'd also have to conclude that LeBron's teammates his last two seasons in Cleveland were better than Wade and Bosh, or that the 2000's Mavs were on par with the Lakers and Spurs). If you'd said that without Stockton than Malone's Jazz wouldn't have been any better, then yeah, I'd agree with that. But with him I think they pretty clearly were.

90's Jazz vs 90's Rockets is a little tougher, since they split 4 playoff series against each other. And Hakeem had Drexler for 3 of those series and Barkley for 2, so it's not entirely fair to say that he was doing it all by himself whereas Malone had Stock.

Not as good a fit as Robinson's success from his rookie year though I suppose.

The 1989 Spurs added Terry Cummings, Sean Elliot, and a full season of point guard play split between Maurice Cheeks and Rod Strickland. Those guys helped the Spurs improve as well.

I don't know if this has been discussed before, but what do people think about positional adjustments in ranking basketball players? Since even a great defensive guard or small forward can't anchor an entire teams defense like a center can, it seems that a disproportionate amount of the greatest players ever (say top 20) are centers or tall PF/C's - Robinson, Duncan, KG, Olajuwon, Wilt, Russell, Shaq, Kareem, Moses. Should this be adjusted for in the rankings, or is that just the way things are?

(semi-related, but from someone who doesn't follow football much, aren't a disproportionate amount of the best players/MVP's quarterbacks? Maybe I'm wrong)

The playoff results of the 90's Jazz vs 90's Spurs seems to contradict this statement. I don't know where I'd rank Malone compared to Robinson/Olajuwon either, but the Stockton/Malone Jazz reached the WCF 5 times in 7 years and twice made the Finals, whereas the Spurs with Robinson as their #1 only made one WCF and never reached the Finals. Plus the Jazz beat them all 3 times they met in the playoffs (94, 96, 98), twice without HC. So I'd say the 90's Jazz WERE consistently better than the 90's Spurs, despite similar regular season records (and if regular season records are all that should be considered, you'd also have to conclude that LeBron's teammates his last two seasons in Cleveland were better than Wade and Bosh, or that the 2000's Mavs were on par with the Lakers and Spurs). If you'd said that without Stockton than Malone's Jazz wouldn't have been any better, then yeah, I'd agree with that. But with him I think they pretty clearly were.


Houston, San Antonio, and the Jazz were all basically equal. The Spurs were on the short end of the stick in the playoffs a lot of that time, but I would generally argue that the regular season is a much better barometer of team talent than the playoffs. I think a lot more of the playoffs is randomness that is after-the-fact turned into narrative. I'm not saying the playoffs don't matter - but I think if Robinson had Stockton and Malone had Avery Johnson, whatever minimal gap that now exists would have been much wider.

Harvey, for sure. I think of LeBron how I think my parent's generation things about Magic Johnson. LeBron can do everything. I think that if you asked him to play SG, SF, or PF he'd be the best player at the position in the NBA. At PG, the only person in the discussion would be Chris Paul. At center, I think he'd be the best with Howard hurt. He's the most versatile player I've ever seen.

I think a lot more of the playoffs is randomness that is after-the-fact turned into narrative. I'm not saying the playoffs don't matter - but I think if Robinson had Stockton and Malone had Avery Johnson, whatever minimal gap that now exists would have been much wider.

I agree to a point, but when one team consistently goes deeper in the playoffs than the other AND beats that team in head to head matchups, I don't think it can always just be a coincidence either. The Robinson with Stockton vs Malone with Avery Johnson point is probably true, but that's not what I was disputing; I was disagreeing with the assertion that even WITH Stockton Malone's Jazz weren't any better. I think that they were.

As far as regular season goes, the "If Robinson was already winning 55-60 games by himself, think of how many he'd have won WITH Stockton!" mindset makes sense on paper, but that's the same thought process that caused a lot of casual fans to predict the 2011 Heat and 2013 Lakers would win 70 games. But the truth is, it's REALLY hard to win more than 55-60 games consistently no matter who's on your team. The Duncan/Robinson Spurs didn't really win many more games than the Robinson only Spurs, but they had much better playoff success. LeBron+Wade+Bosh didn't win more regular season games than LeBron+crap did in Cleveland, but they had much better playoff success. Adding another star to a team that's already near the top of the standings seems to improve playoff performance without adding many more regular season wins. That's why I don't think regular season success is necessarily the most accurate thing to consider in these types of rankings.

Robinson > Olajuwon > Shaq > Duncan > Garnett

I think if I were playing the game that rr proposed, of which 20-year old you'd want to built a team around, knowing their career arc, I think Shaq takes a serious hit because he'll get fat and bored. I'd put below the other 4 listed, and maybe even a bit lower, despite his clear physical/skill superiority.

Edit: and I'd still probably take LeBron over all of them. Has anyone checked out his month of February?

I would generally argue that the regular season is a much better barometer of team talent than the playoffs. I think a lot more of the playoffs is randomness that is after-the-fact turned into narrative.

While granting that the after the fact narrative stuff does happen, I still totally disagree. Unlike baseball, the better team wins the overwhelming majority of playoff series and the best team wins the title most years (the best counters to that are the Mavs and most recent Pistons, but we've gone over both of those and there are legit arguments both were the best teams those seasons). Unless you're telling me the Bulls were better than the Heat the last 2 seasons...

---

I think if I were playing the game that rr proposed, of which 20-year old you'd want to built a team around, knowing their career arc, I think Shaq takes a serious hit because he'll get fat and bored. I'd put below the other 4 listed, and maybe even a bit lower, despite his clear physical/skill superiority.

I still take Shaq over KG, knowing all of that. But I guess I take Duncan, so I guess that means I'll take Duncan over KG.

---

DK and anyone else who'd put Dirk ahead of Kobe, what's the thought process there?

I grew up on Magic and Bird and Jordan, Shaq and Duncan and Hakeem, and I gotta think that right now Lebron James is playing the best basketball that's ever been played in the history of the NBA.

I've thought for some time now he could be GOAT, and this is still something I never thought I'd see.

Since even a great defensive guard or small forward can't anchor an entire teams defense like a center can

I'd say both Pippen and LeBron did just that from the SF spot (though LBJ does get plenty of minutes of PF these days).

I think if I were playing the game that rr proposed, of which 20-year old you'd want to built a team around, knowing their career arc, I think Shaq takes a serious hit because he'll get fat and bored. I'd put below the other 4 listed, and maybe even a bit lower, despite his clear physical/skill superiority.

We've talked a lot about how little talent surrounded KG, Duncan and Robinson, and Hakeem, but when you look at those Shaq-championship Laker teams, you get Shaq, Kobe, and then... what? One-dimensional Glen Rice, Ron Harper, AC Green, Robert Horry, Derek Fisher, Rick Fox, Brian Shaw... some useful guys, but not an overwhelming group. Shaq made that team. His career post Miami-'05 has left a bad taste in everyone's mouths, but from 1992 to 2003, Shaq was unquestionably the most valuable player in basketball above Hakeem, Robinson, KG, Kobe, or whomever, and his value is limited only by his inability to keep his fat arse healthy and on the floor. I take him for his peak, because his 10-year peak is monstrous.

Edit: and I'd still probably take LeBron over all of them. Has anyone checked out his month of February?

I'll say it again: Right now Lebron James is playing the best basketball that's ever been played in the history of the NBA.

Completely random question (and I better get some opinions!) but who do you think is better right now, Westbrook or Kobe? I can see the argument going either way, so someone convince me.

While granting that the after the fact narrative stuff does happen, I still totally disagree. Unlike baseball, the better team wins the overwhelming majority of playoff series and the best team wins the title most years (the best counters to that are the Mavs and most recent Pistons, but we've gone over both of those and there are legit arguments both were the best teams those seasons). Unless you're telling me the Bulls were better than the Heat the last 2 seasons...


Well last year doesn't count because Rose got hurt in the playoffs. And that's the main reason the 2 teams didn't play an epic ECF. But, I do generally think that the Bulls and Miami are basically at a similar level when Rose is 100% healthy. LeBron is much better than 100% Rose, but I think Deng/Noah is similar to Wade/Bosh (a little worse) and then I'll take the rest of the Bulls every day by a big margin. 2 years ago, Miami won in 5 games but it was a very hard fought series.

The Mavs that won the title were actually one of the weaker Mavs models IMO, they just happened to make 50% of their 3's in the playoffs. Good for Nowitzki that he got his ring though.

I don't know I'd say the best team wins the title most years. However, what the NBA does have is one of the best 2 or 3 teams wins the title almost every year. I think people just say after the fact, oh, Miami was the best team last year. But really, people were saying 3 weeks before they won it all in this thread that they weren't balanced enough to beat the Pacers. It took LeBron playing at a level that was unsustainable, even for him, for them to win it all. And it's not like there weren't close series along the way.

Then again, I look at Boston as a better example of "playoffs randomness" than "regular season doesn't show the best teams", though in their unique case there's some of both.

I think it's a toss up for who I'd rather have the rest of this year, but I think Kobe's been clearly better so far this year.

I think it's a toss up for who I'd rather have the rest of this year, but I think Kobe's been clearly better so far this year.

Agree with this.

Right now Lebron James is playing the best basketball that's ever been played in the history of the NBA.

The way LeBron is getting to the rim right now is absolutely amazing. There were three or four times today when I thought there was no way he's getting there and then suddenly he's dunking or shooting a 2-foot layup. He's been a little sloppy in some of his entry passes lately but I agree this is the best basketball we've ever seen.

His career post Miami-'05 has left a bad taste in everyone's mouths, but from 1992 to 2003, Shaq was unquestionably the most valuable player in basketball above Hakeem, Robinson, KG, Kobe, or whomever, and his value is limited only by his inability to keep his fat arse healthy and on the floor. I take him for his peak, because his 10-year peak is monstrous.

I'll take prime Shaq over Robinson or Hakeem as well, simply because he was completely impossible to defend other than to Hack A Shaq him (which wasn't that effective anyway), which you couldn't do with a Hakeem or Robinson on the floor. He used to destroy other good centers because they couldn't just rack up fouls on him and put him on the line. He used to dunk all over Robinson in particular. He was probably the worst basketball player of the three in a fundamentals sense in that he depended on his physical gifts (tremendous size and insane quickness for that size) more than they did to be effective, but nonetheless he did have that size and quickness.

Did I put dirk over Kobe? I put Duncan and kg over him but - without checking the #s - I'd probably pick kobe over nowitski

[310] The minute distribution issue between regular and postseason makes me wary of saying regular season is a better example of the "best" team. It really depends on how you want to frame "best."

Shaq was a very annoying player as a basketball fan in that he lived in the gray area of what's a charge, what should be allowed in backing down a huge defender (like Robinson), etc. I'm obviously ultra biased, but as a Spurs fan back then I thought he was allowed way more leeway in backing down a 275 pound defender with good position than he should have been.

I'll take prime Shaq over Robinson or Hakeem as well, simply because he was completely impossible to defend other than to Hack A Shaq him (which wasn't that effective anyway), which you couldn't do with a Hakeem or Robinson on the floor. He used to destroy other good centers because they couldn't just rack up fouls on him and put him on the line. He used to dunk all over Robinson in particular. He was probably the worst basketball player of the three in a fundamentals sense in that he depended on his physical gifts (tremendous size and insane quickness for that size) more than they did to be effective, but nonetheless he did have that size and quickness.

Shaq's offensive moves are underrated. This dunk on Robinson--not the All-Star game one--is a fairly complex set of moves. If it finished with a fallaway bank shot, it'd be remembered for the footwork. He starts facing, puts his back to the basket, fakes to the middle, steps through. Since he ends with a dunk that makes Robinson look irrelevant, the whole move looks easy but it isn't. dunk

Even the famous brute-strength dunk over Mutombo in the Finals comes from a terrific drop step.

But really, people were saying 3 weeks before they won it all in this thread that they weren't balanced enough to beat the Pacers.

Only because Bosh was hurt. Before that, nobody was saying Indy was going to beat the Heat.

RE Nuggets at Boston: How can a bunch of guys stare at the monitor at an obvious out-of-bounds call and still make the wrong call? Even the Boston announcers were calling it against their own team. I'm just saying.

Shaq's offensive moves are underrated. This dunk on Robinson--not the All-Star game one--is a fairly complex set of moves. If it finished with a fallaway bank shot, it'd be remembered for the footwork.

This. There've been plenty of big strong guys in the NBA who couldn't find their way around other big strong defenders. Shaq did it with regularity, and he did it with ease.

This. There've been plenty of big strong guys in the NBA who couldn't find their way around other big strong defenders. Shaq did it with regularity, and he did it with ease.


I don't know that they're underrated. At least not on this thread. But I'm not going to just hand wave away all the crap he got away with because he happened to also have good footwork.

I don't know that they're underrated. At least not on this thread. But I'm not going to just hand wave away all the crap he got away with because he happened to also have good footwork.

This goes both ways. You could have whistled Shaq to the free throw line literally every time he got the ball in the post, but we certainly handwave away the pounding he took simply because he was big and strong. Shaq detractors spend a lot of time gnashing their teeth over how Shaq bowled over guys, but they never talk about how much abuse their own team rained down on O'Neal that they never got whistled for.

del harris, coach of the bucks for a while and long-time assistant, joked several times if the officials called all the fouls committed by milwaukee against shaq when the two teams played del would have to suit up 3 people from the stands to get 5 guys on the floor

edit

i have my wording messed up in that the quote came after he left milwaukee and he was interviewed about defending shaq by the journal-sentinel. sorry about that. i remember him saying that but got the timeline confused.

This goes both ways. You could have whistled Shaq to the free throw line literally every time he got the ball in the post, but we certainly handwave away the pounding he took simply because he was big and strong. Shaq detractors spend a lot of time gnashing their teeth over how Shaq bowled over guys, but they never talk about how much abuse their own team rained down on O'Neal that they never got whistled for.


Sure. The reason why I hated him was how well a team was going to do in the playoffs against the Lakers mattered more on how refs were going to call the Shaq postups than on anything about how well people were playing.

322: Others made that joke too - and for good reason.
Shaq's -skills- were underrated most, if not all, of his career.

Harris was also the Lakers' coach when Shaq got here back in the 90s.

And yes, I have never seen anybody, even Jordan, play quite like James is playing right now, although Jordan's best seasons stack up very well with James' best. People will be arguing about it 20 years from now.

This guy is perhaps the next big thing:

His genetic credentials are impeccable. Mitchell Wiggins played in the NBA for six seasons and played professionally for nearly 15. Marita Payne-Wiggins won two silver medals for Canada in the 1984 Olympics. Andrew Wiggins flashes sprinter speed in the open floor, boasts a 44-inch vertical and his dunking ability has made him a YouTube sensation. His Go-Go Gadget arms and quick feet give him the tools to become an elite-level NBA defender.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/college-basketball/news/20130207/andrew-wiggins/#ixzz2KYW2ctt5



Andrew Wiggins

Shaq's -skills-

He was extremely well-coordinated, which combined with his size and unusual body shape, made him, like James, a physical anomaly even by NBA standards, and more or less unguardable at his peak.

Sure. The reason why I hated him was how well a team was going to do in the playoffs against the Lakers mattered more on how refs were going to call the Shaq postups than on anything about how well people were playing.

There's definitely truth to this. One way of thinking of it emphasizes the stuff Shaq got away with. The other is that it proves that a team simply could not beat him by playing basketball. They needed to not only do stuff--like Mutombo's ridiculous efforts to basically hog tie him--and to get away with it in order to have a chance. Which is another way of saying you couldn't beat Shaq at basketball; you could only beat him--in those good 10 years--by trying to play something else entirely. I'm not sure how many guys that has been true of. Wilt, from what people say. Mikan, I suppose, way back. The early K A-J?

On footwork, watching Shaq take his man to the middle, then snake his trailing foot around the defender's back foot, then suddenly spin to put the man on his ass, that's a move coaches have been teaching big men since the 1920s, and there aren't 15 people who could do it well in the NBA in the years I've been watching.

Shaq also became a much better passer over time.

I would totally pick Duncan over Shaq as a virtual GM for all the reasons people say--defense, maturity, team play, conditioning. But if you had a 7-game series to win starting next week? I would take Shaq.

Edited to add--obviously I don't literally mean next week, as Shaq's fat ass would get schooled Feb 17.

Speaking of Kidd, ABC just pointed out that 1994-95 co-ROYs Kidd and Hill are going head to head on the court in 2013.

Given that Glenn Robinson was the #1 pick that year, it'll be funny if next season, Glenn Robinson III, Kidd and Hill are all in the league but the Big Dog has been retired for nine years.

what do people think about positional adjustments in ranking basketball players? Since even a great defensive guard or small forward can't anchor an entire teams defense like a center can, it seems that a disproportionate amount of the greatest players ever (say top 20) are centers or tall PF/C's - Robinson, Duncan, KG, Olajuwon, Wilt, Russell, Shaq, Kareem, Moses. Should this be adjusted for in the rankings, or is that just the way things are?

(semi-related, but from someone who doesn't follow football much, aren't a disproportionate amount of the best players/MVP's quarterbacks? Maybe I'm wrong)

I think your analogy basically answers your question. I doubt anyone in history has ever made a football all-time greats list that had as many offensive linemen and kickers as quarterbacks and running backs. So...

Another intangible that could help explain why Olajuwon is generally viewed as being better than Robinson is personality. Olajuwon was viewed as regal and poised, a silent killer; Robinson was viewed as polite to a fault, dorky, and honestly a big pu$$y. Of course, it's very possible that if Robinson had won a ring without Duncan, his super-niceness would be celebrated (Stan Musial?), and if Olajuwon had never gotten a ring, people would find a personality flaw in him to explain why that happened. Not sure how to separate chicken and egg there.

As for LeBron, let's just say that he's in his 10th year and we still can't rule out the possibility that he'll be the best ever, and leave it at that.

This guy is perhaps the next big thing:

Wiggins, a senior at Huntington (W.Va.) Prep, is choosing between Florida State, Kentucky, UNC and Kansas and is said to be leaning toward Florida State.

i'm gonna go out on a limb and say that he's probably not going to florida state.

This goes both ways. You could have whistled Shaq to the free throw line literally every time he got the ball in the post, but we certainly handwave away the pounding he took simply because he was big and strong. Shaq detractors spend a lot of time gnashing their teeth over how Shaq bowled over guys, but they never talk about how much abuse their own team rained down on O'Neal that they never got whistled for.

Related, LeBron's FT rate this year is surprisingly/suspiciously low for someone who lives in the paint as much as he does.

Has anyone ever shot 55% overall and 40% from three? I tried to search BB-Ref and came up empty-handed, though I'm not great with their search tools. In any case, that's well within reach for LeBron this year (he's at 56% and 42% so far).

[331] I think Mullin did it but not on this kind of usage.

I'm going to see Wiggins play at Barclays at the Jordan Classic in April.

i'm gonna go out on a limb and say that he's probably not going to florida state.

It is interesting. On the one hand, the logic of your position is self-evident. Calipari misses about one recruit every two years and if he's going to miss it is surely going to be to UNC or Kansas, right? But both Wiggins' parents went to Florida State, and there seem to be other ties too. And he may be concerned about being just one of the guys--UK's next class is already loaded. Everyone around UK thought he was heading there until this winter, but the last month the talk has all been Florida State.

Has anyone ever shot 55% overall and 40% from three?

Minimum 100 3PA

Chris Mullin, 1996-97, 55.3% / 41.1% (202 3PA)
Detlef Schrempf, 1994-95, 52.3% / 51.4 (181 3PA)
Steve Nash, 2005-06, 51.2% / 43.9% (342 3PA)
Steve Nash, 2006-07, 53.2% / 45.5% (343 3PA)
John Stockton, 1994-95, 54.2% / 44.9% (227 3PA)
John Stockton, 1995-96, 53.8% / 42.2% (225 3PA)
John Stockton, 1996-97, 54.8% / 42.2% (180 3PA)
Larry Bird, 1984-85, 52.2% / 42.7% (131 3PA)

So, just Mullin then? Plus Stockton if we're rounding up?

That I've found, yep. Hard to know for sure, since Mullin didn't show up in my Index search and I had to hunt him down separately.

I see the Bobcats have been going with a super-inexperienced starting lineup of Biyombo (1yr veteran), Kidd-Gilchrist (rookie), Kemba Walker (1yr veteran), Hakim Warrick (veteran) or Jeff Adrien (2yr veteran), and Gerald Henderson Jr. (3yr veteran).

I also see that apparently both Gerald Henderson and Gerald Henderson Jr. are really named "Jerome". Who ends up with "Gerald" as a nickname?

People named Jerome?

Since even a great defensive guard or small forward can't anchor an entire teams defense like a center can

I'd say both Pippen and LeBron did just that from the SF spot (though LBJ does get plenty of minutes of PF these days).

Close, but I don't think it's quite the same. A great defensive wing can shut down his man, but he can't shut down a teams entire inside game the way a center can. The Defensive Player of the Year award is given to a center almost every year.

from 1992 to 2003, Shaq was unquestionably the most valuable player in basketball above Hakeem, Robinson, KG, Kobe, or whomever,

Uh, the early part of that timeframe does overlap with someone quite notable you're overlooking... (but I get what you're saying)

I don't know I'd say the best team wins the title most years. However, what the NBA does have is one of the best 2 or 3 teams wins the title almost every year. I think people just say after the fact, oh, Miami was the best team last year. But really, people were saying 3 weeks before they won it all in this thread that they weren't balanced enough to beat the Pacers. It took LeBron playing at a level that was unsustainable, even for him, for them to win it all. And it's not like there weren't close series along the way.

I think people thought they were vulnerable to Indy once Bosh went down, and I don't remember anyone saying that the Pacers were going to beat them (and definitely not going into the series). But go back through the thread before the season, and see most people thought Miami was the best team before the season and go to the start of the playoffs, and it's the same thing. But I think that's distracting from the main point. If you have 2 teams that are pretty close, and one beats the other in the playoffs, I have no qualm saying the winning team was the better team.

Did I put dirk over Kobe? I put Duncan and kg over him but - without checking the #s - I'd probably pick kobe over nowitski

Fair enough. Someone else did, and I thought you agreed with them.

Related, LeBron's FT rate this year is surprisingly/suspiciously low for someone who lives in the paint as much as he does.

Since he's not getting called for any fouls, it just evens out, right? It was amusing to see him in "foul trouble" yesterday.

Close, but I don't think it's quite the same. A great defensive wing can shut down his man, but he can't shut down a teams entire inside game the way a center can. The Defensive Player of the Year award is given to a center almost every year.

I just meant that they were the defensive anchors of great defensive teams that won titles.

A great defensive wing can shut down his man, but he can't shut down a teams entire inside game the way a center can.

I think you gave the best explanation to the earlier question about the predominance of Centers on lists of all-time greats. It's not that the Centers have more natural basketball skill, it's just that the geometry of the court dictates that the team who owns the area around the rim will have a tremendous advantage. Centers are permanently the highest leverage players and basketball strategy has been built outward from that assumption. Jordan and Lebron are two unique guys who have forced their coaches and opposing teams to reevaluate that principle while they are on the court, but I don't think the presumption will ever shift altogether.

I still take Shaq over KG, knowing all of that.

This is a good point. I want to knock Shaq, but he's like Robinson, LeBron, and others who can carry you well into the playoffs mostly by himself. You'll just have a shorter window to do it in.

A great defensive wing can shut down his man, but he can't shut down a teams entire inside game the way a center can.

I'm not going to argue this point, but I feel like there's a lot of value in a guy like Pippen or LeBron who can be a shutdown defender at any of 4 positions. That gives you a lot of match up flexibility. IIRC, both Pippen and LeBron are pretty fearsome help-side defenders too.

It is incredibly hard to compare Shaq to these other guys. Viscerally, I feel like I should prefer him over anyone I have seen play basketball, including Jordan. When he was at his very best, there was nobody who dictated play like him. Then again, he got to that level so infrequently that it would be impossible to rationally take him over guys like Duncan or Olajuwon for a career. It was almost like he was guaranteed to win 3 or 4 titles with his physical skills and got EXACTLY that many.

I'm not going to argue this point, but I feel like there's a lot of value in a guy like Pippen or LeBron who can be a shutdown defender at any of 4 positions. That gives you a lot of match up flexibility. IIRC, both Pippen and LeBron are pretty fearsome help-side defenders too.

There's tremendous value in that, especially now that the NBA is more guard-oriented than it's been since the mid-80s. A guy who can swing around to defend people on the wing, who can switch up, who can stretch to help everyone on the court? That guy's got value all over the place. Pippen and James are the obvious examples, but guys like Kirilenko or Iguodala or Tony Allen are tremendously valuable even if they're not scoring in bunches.

Then again, he got to that level so infrequently that it would be impossible to rationally take him over guys like Duncan or Olajuwon for a career. It was almost like he was guaranteed to win 3 or 4 titles with his physical skills and got EXACTLY that many.

I wouldn't go that far. Stockton and Malone, Barkely, and Ewing combine for zero rings, so getting a pair like Hakeem did is outstanding. Shaq's got four. Can't knock four... but the fact that it's even a question tells you just how dominant Shaq was in his day.

Really good discussion here. It made me go back and revisit a bunch of what I've written on similar topics, and I'll throw out the links in case anyone's interested. I picked Duncan barely over Garnett, and went Robinson/O'Neal/Olajuwon in 2008. I'm not sure if O'Neal's 2008-09 made up the tiny gap between him and Robinson at that point.

Best of the '90s
The Decade's Best ('00s)
Center of Discussion

I really need to get playoff numbers for these years. I'm still not sure exactly how I would incorporate them.

----

Women's basketball and fundamentals:
This is a tricky conversation because, as has been noted, what do people mean by fundamentals? Obviously also ties into NCAA/NBA comparisons. Besides dunks, another factor that correlates well with "fundamentals" tends to be assist rate and how much shots are set up by the offense rather than individual talent. Women's basketball was probably at least a decade behind the men's game in terms of letting point guards score in addition to distribute. I wrote about this in the WNBA in 2004.

In 2006, the WNBA cut the shot clock from 30 to 24, just as better athletes with the ability to create one-on-one (Diana Taurasi, Cappie Pondexter, etc.) were coming into the league. Nowadays the offenses in the WNBA have a lot more in common with the NBA than the college game -- although, oddly, I've heard few people decry the lack of fundamentals.

Besides the fact that the talent pool drops off a lot more quickly in the college game, I don't entirely have an explanation for why women tend to turn the ball over more frequently. One theory is that more girls learn the game at camps as opposed to on the playground, so they tend not to react as well to situations that aren't patterned and deal poorly with pressure. It's a case where unstructured experience, so often decried in the development of male players, may actually be a positive.

kpelton, et.al. - I don't watch Women's basketball at all. Are turnover-forcing styles of play (pressing) more common?

They are, although there's a bit of a feedback loop there. If they weren't as successful as they are, they would be less common, naturally.

One random contradictory note: When Paul Westhead coached the Phoenix Mercury to a championship, his offense looked pretty much exactly like what you remember from Loyola Marymount/the Nuggets. But he had to throw out his pressure defense pretty much entirely. They ended up mostly playing a "rover" zone defense that was basically a box with the extra player (Taurasi) freelancing all over the court Kobe-style.