Best Center of the 90's.

[Andrew]

It's not so much about ranking him down, just taking into consideration the level of those other big men during the 90s. In that context, I'd place Ewing ahead of him but if we're talking about their whole career I'd have to put Shaq over Ewing.

[Matthew]

But taking the 90's only into consideration, why would you take ewing over shaq? Or is it just down to personal prefrence?

[Andrew]

9 straight seasons of 20 and 10 during that decade (whereas Shaq's extends into the 21st century) and the success of the Knicks during that time.

[putodelagoa]

It's not so much about ranking him down, just taking into consideration the level of those other big men during the 90s. In that context, I'd place Ewing ahead of him

We can not overlook the imediate impact Shaq had over his team, in particular, and over the league , in general. Ewing never had such an impact. Shaq, as green as he was, took the magic to the Finals in his 3rd year. he was downright dominant over those years too. Of course, he was schooled by Hakeem in those Finals, ( but then again -who wasn't?) but he still got his numbers, and if it wasn't for Nick Anderson's 4 missed clutch free throws, who knows would have happened. Of course, as Shaq developed his game awareness, he became more precise player than he was before.

92-93 ORL 81 81 37.9 .562 .000 .592 4.2 9.6 13.9 1.9 .74 3.53 3.79 4.00 23.4
93-94 ORL 81 81 39.8 .599 .000 .554 4.7 8.5 13.2 2.4 .94 2.85 2.74 3.50 29.3
94-95 ORL 79 79 37.0 .583 .000 .533 4.2 7.3 11.4 2.7 .92 2.43 2.58 3.30 29.3
95-96 ORL 54 52 36.0 .573 .500 .487 3.4 7.7 11.0 2.9 .63 2.13 2.87 3.60 26.6
96-97 LAL 51 51 38.1 .557 .000 .484 3.8 8.7 12.5 3.1 .90 2.88 2.86 3.50 26.2
97-98 LAL 60 57 36.3 .584 .000 .527 3.5 7.9 11.4 2.4 .65 2.40 2.92 3.20 28.3
98-99 LAL 49 49 34.8 .576 .000 .540 3.8 6.9 10.7 2.3 .73 1.67 2.49 3.20 26.3
99-00 LAL 79 79 40.0 .574 .000 .524 4.3 9.4 13.6 3.8 .46 3.03 2.82 3.20 29.7

He went to the Finals in 94-95, lost in the semi -Finals against the Bulls the next year, and lost again in 1998 agaist the eventual finalists, the Jazz, in the Semi-Finals, after posting a 61-21 record with the Lakers.

One may argue that the Knicks made it twice to the Finals, but beyond the Asterisk factor, I don't think Ewing was even the 2nd best player on that NYK team that played the Spurs.

All in all, there isn't a great diference in team success between the Knicks and the Magic/Lakers during the 90's (although it's fair to say that at least the Knicks would put up a fight whenever they had to play through a series, rather than being swept).

[Andrew]

That's true, but the Magic were also back in the lottery after Shaq's first season. It was also a while before Shaq could shake the stigma of being a huge centre with an effective offensive weapon (the dunk) but a fairly limited arsenal. His best years - all things considered - are this side of 2000.

[putodelagoa]

Yeah, he was pretty raw, offense wise. But no one could stop him, anyway.

While it's true they were again in the lottery in Shaq's 1st year, they did have a 20 game improvement, finishing at 50% win-loss, and lost the playoff spot by a game.

The Knicks in Pat's 1st year actually got worse ( I know he was injured, and all, but the in his 3rd year they stood under the 30 victory mark again...)