The word underrated typically implies a fairly significant level of devaluation from actual performance. In the classic sense, it’s hard to say Shaquille O’Neal is underrated. He’s universally considered an all-time great. However, Shaq is definitely underrated when it comes to where he falls in the pecking order of the all-time greats. It’s common to see Shaq tossed in at the back of a top-ten list, or outside of it all together. This, of course, is bananas. There are only two basketball players in history who unquestionably have a better resume than Shaq: LeBron James and Michael Jordan. Even Kareem Abdul-Jabbar–whom I have rated one spot ahead–isn’t immune to a resume standoff with Shaq, given that Abdul-Jabbar played in a competitively compromised league with half of the pool of professional basketball players playing in the ABA. The case for Shaq in the top-5 is an easy one to make. The case for him outside of the top-5? Well, I don’t know what that looks like.
There’s no need to get complicated when it comes to making the case for Shaq in the top five. At 7’1, 370 pounds, he was the most physically dominating player the NBA has ever seen. There is a lot of hyperbole and lore surrounding Wilt Chamberlain that belies how watered down the NBA was in the 1960s. There is no hyperbole with Shaq. He was significantly more efficient than Chamberlain, and did it in a big boy league featuring Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, Dirk Nowitzki, Yao Ming, Dikembe Mutombo, Dwight Howard, Pao Gasol, Alonzo Mourning, Arvydas Sabonis, and Ben Wallace.
Shaq’s resume is chock full of statistics that quantify his dominance, starting with his work in the playoffs when it mattered most:
Shaq’s Dominance
1). One of only two players in NBA history to win three consecutive Finals MVPs. Michael Jordan is the other.
2). Averaged a cartoonish 35.9 points, 15.2 rebounds, 3.5 assists, and 2.9 blocks across three consecutive NBA Finals from 2000-2002.
3). Pulled down 866 offensive rebounds in the NBA Playoffs, which are, by far, the most all-time. Only Tim Duncan (778) is within 220 of Shaq, and Duncan played 35 more playoff games!
Editor’s note: This is my favorite Shaq stat.
4). Led the NBA in field goal percentage a record 10 times. Wilt Chamberlain (9) is the only other player to do it more than five times.
5). Only player since 1974 to lead the league in scoring and field goal percentage in the same season.
6). Only player since 1974 to lead the league in field goal percentage and finish in the top-3 in scoring in the same season, and he did it six times. Nobody else who has led the NBA in field goal percentage over that timeframe has even finished in the top 5 in scoring.
7). Only player in NBA history to average at least 23 points per game with a .560 shooting percentage, and he did it with a .582 shooting percentage!
8). Led the NBA in Player Efficiency Rating (PER) for five consecutive years. Only Michael Jordan, LeBron James, and Wilt Chamberlain have had longer streaks.
9). Led the NBA in Points per 36 minutes six times. Jordan is the only other player to do the same.
10). Led the NBA in Points per 100 possessions five times. Jordan is the only other player to do the same.
11). Finished in the top-2 in scoring six times. No center since 1975 has done it more than twice.
12). One of only two centers since 1976 to lead the NBA in scoring more than once. Joel Embiid is the other.
13). Holds the highest field goal percentage in NBA Finals history among players with at least 10 Finals games played.
14). Eight 1st Team All-NBA selections at center are the most by any player to debut since 1970.
15). Led the NBA in field goals per 100 possessions eight times. Michael Jordan (9) is the only other player in NBA history to do it more than four times.
16). 5th highest average in NBA Finals history (28.3).
17). 24 rebounds in Game 2 of the 2000 NBA Finals are the most since 1972.
18). 3rd most NBA MVP award shares since 1984.
19). 5th highest career Player Efficiency Rating (PER) in history.
The playing style in the NBA has evolved significantly since Shaq put on a jersey, which might obscure how difficult it was to survive in the paint in the 1990s and early 2000s when refs treated foul calls as optional. In a league full of bullies, Shaq was the biggest bully of them all. He scored more points, more efficiently than any player in league history. His three-year playoff run from 2000-2002 is arguably the greatest stretch any NBA player has had–regular season or playoffs-ever. If Shaq was even a 70% free throw shooter, he would have been the greatest player of all-time. Still, outside of LeBron James and Michael Jordan, Shaq bows to no one.
When it comes to Larry Nance Sr., younger generation basketball fans likely know him best as Pete and Larry Nance Jr’s dad, while the old heads are more likely to remember him as one of the greatest dunkers of all-time. In fact, Nance the elder was so revered for his dunking prowess that he carried nicknames like Mr. Slambassador, the High-Atollah of Slamola, and the Flying Sun. There are worse fates than being known as the father of two NBA players and a ferocious dunker, but Nance deserves to be remembered for having one of the most unique skill-sets the NBA has ever seen.
Nance received sparing honors over the course of his career. He was selected to just three all-star teams, received a single MVP vote in 1989, and was named to an all-defensive team three times. Certainly, from his trophy case alone, Nance does not appear to have the resume of a top-100 player. However, in this instance, beauty is hiding in play sight. Nance was a 6 ’10, stat-sheet stuffing, athletic freak who, in a lot of ways, was the prototype for today’s NBA player. He is the only player in NBA history to have regular season averages of 17+ points, 8+ rebounds, 2.2+ blocks, a .546+ field goal %, and a .750+ free throw %. Although playoff success eluded him, he was equally unique in the postseason. He is the only player in NBA playoff history to average 15+ points, 7.5+ rebounds, 2+ blocks, a .540+ field goal %, and a .740+ free throw %. His career stat line also registers favorably with advanced statistics as he’s well within the top-100 all-time in Win Shares, Player Efficiency Rating (PER), Value Above Replacement Player (VORP), True Shooting Percentage, and Effective Field Goal Percentage.
Larry Nance is not in the NBA Hall of Fame, nor is it probable that he ever will be. His brilliance has gone unnoticed going on four decades, and that is unlikely to change. However, despite playing for middling Phoenix and Cleveland teams, it is clear that his unique career is one of distinction. Had he played for Los Angeles, Boston, Detroit, or Chicago, Nance would be a household name. Still, given that he carries the only career stat line of its kind in NBA history, Nance is an easy inclusion within the top-100 basketball players of all-time.
There’s little doubt based not only on accomplishments, but on the competition level that those accomplishments came against, that the Big Three of men’s tennis–Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer, and Rafael Nadal–are the three greatest men’s players of all-time. Their resumes border on the absurd. There is plenty of ammunition to name any one of the three the greatest player of all-time. However, which of the three has the best argument? Let’s do a deep-dive to find out…
Novak Djokovic
Djokovic is first in the most important categories. He has more majors, more major finals appearances, more year-end #1 rankings, more weeks at #1, and more Tier I titles. Heck, the 428 weeks at #1 alone are probably enough to give him the crown. However, there is more brilliance to Djokovic’s GOAT resume than what shows up in a table. For instance, he defeated Rafael Nadal nine times on clay. No other player defeated Nadal more than four times on clay. His winning % on clay vs. Nadal is 31%; everyone else’s winning % on clay vs. Nadal is a miniscule 8%. Djokovic reached a major final in 16 different years. That’s something that even Martina Navratilova, the model for longevity, didn’t do. In fact, Djokovic has been so good for so long that he found himself playing with (and beating) a whole new generation of players. With Federer and Nadal’s flames extinguished, Djokovic has defied the aging process. He has made 10 major finals appearances since he last faced Federer or Nadal in a final. Perhaps most remarkable is the fact that Djokovic has been on average 11 years older than his opponents in those 10 matchups, and he has still managed a 7-3 record.
In 2021, Djokovic made it to all four major finals at the age of 34, and then he did it again at the age of 36. Overall, he accomplished the feat three times in his career, which has only been matched by Steffi Graf and Roger Federer. In addition to Djokovic, there have only been 14 instances in the Open Era, man or woman, when a player made all four majors in the same season. That list includes Roger Federer (x3), Steffi Graf (x3), Martin Navratilova (x2), Rod Laver, Margaret Court, Chris Evert, Monic Seles, Martina Hingis*, and Justine Henin. Their average age in the year they reached all four major finals was just 25. Djokovic isn’t just accomplishing incredibly rare things in the most competitive era in history, he’s doing it while being 10+ years older than his competition.
Djokovic is also on the cusp of putting up a record that could rival the greatest records in sports. He is currently the only player in history with at least 80 wins at all four major tournaments. As if that’s not impressive enough, he’s on pace to eclipse 100 wins at all four majors. That’s liable to have the staying power of Wayne Gretzky’s career points record and Pete Rose’s career hits record. For perspective, Federer and Nadal are the only others with even 60 wins at three majors.
*Potentially the most astonishing statistic (of many) on this page: In 1997, Martina Hingis reached all four major finals in the same year at the age of 16.
RogerFederer
The argument for Federer as the men’s GOAT needs to revolve heavily around his peak dominance. He won five consecutive titles at both Wimbledon and the U.S. Open. Nobody else in the Open Era (since 1968) has won five consecutive U.S. Open titles, and only Bjorn Borg won five consecutive Wimbledon titles. Even Djokovic never won a major event more than three times in a row. There was a stretch from 2004-2010 when Federer made the final in 10 consecutive majors (14 if we include the ATP Finals), and the semifinal in 23 consecutive majors. Both are, by far, the most all-time. Federer even has the second longest streak (8) for consecutive major finals appearances, and his 36 consecutive major quarterfinals appearances are, far and away, the most all-time. This is a level of sustained dominance that even Djokovic never approached. Djokovic’s best stretch was six consecutive major finals and 14 consecutive semifinals appearances.
While nobody has ever had a run like Federer’s six-year stretch, there are two factors that hurt his claim as the GOAT. First is the “elephant in the room” whenever Federer’s legacy is discussed, and that’s his success, or lack thereof, at the French Open. While he won at least five titles each at the U.S. Open, Australian Open, and Wimbledon, he only managed one French Open title. It’s worth highlighting, however, that he made five appearances in the French Open final, which trails only Nadal, Djokovic, and Borg for most all-time. He also made it to four consecutive French Open finals; only Nadal has a longer streak in history. Federer’s winning percentage at the French Open is 81.1% which puts him at roughly the same percentage as all-time great clay court players like Rod Laver, Ivan Lendl, Gustavo Kuerten, Jim Courier, and Sergi Bruguera, and ahead of clay greats like Guillermo Vilas, Andre Agassi, Jimmy Connors, Ilie Nastase, Jan Kodes, and Thomas Muster. The only players in history with a higher winning % than 82% at the French Open are Nadal, Borg, Djokovic, and Mats Wilander, and that doesn’t factor in the fact that Federer had to compete against Nadal–the greatest clay court player who ever lived. Nobody, from any era, would have had a chance of maintaining their French Open winning percentage while playing in the same era as Nadal. Federer’s record at the French Open against everyone else is 73-11 (87%). Only Nadal, Borg, and Djokovic (if only counting his non-Nadal matches, too) exceed that winning %.
Despite the shade that Federer often receives for his underwhelming success at the French Open, he is likely the 4th greatest clay court player of all-time behind Nadal, Borg, and Djokovic. This is an important distinction to make because Federer’s perceived weakness actually turns out to be a strength. His success on clay makes him arguably the most versatile player of all-time. He’s the only player in history with 10 titles on hard court, grass, and clay.
The other factor that might hurt Federer’s claim as the GOAT is timing. While his six-year run is the most dominant stretch in tennis history, it started before Djokovic and Nadal entered their primes. In fact, Federer won 11 majors before having to face Djokovic in a major final, and seven majors before having to face Nadal. While Djokovic and Nadal had to contend with each other and Federer during their primes, Federer did not have to contend with peak Djokovic or Nadal for most of his dominant run. That gives Federer a slightly lower degree-of-difficulty. However, this may be a case of “beauty is in the eye of the beholder.” Djokovic didn’t start winning major titles in earnest until Federer hit 30, and Nadal didn’t start winning non-French Open titles in earnest until Federer hit 29. It would seem awfully coincidental that both started to see their major title tallies skyrocket during their respective age-24 seasons as Federer reached his 30s. Did Federer’s dominant run end because Djokovic and Nadal reached their peak, or did Djokovic and Nadal start piling up majors because Federer’s skills and athleticism began to wane ever so slightly? The answer could hold the key to the GOAT argument. Unfortunately, it’s likely somewhere in the Lost City of Atlantis, scrolled on a piece of paper inside the Holy Grail at the foot of the Fountain of Youth.
Rafael Nadal
The argument for Nadal is similar to Federer’s, but in a different way. While Fed’s unique peak dominance was across several different events and surfaces, Nadal’s was on a single surface. Nadal is, of course, the King of Clay, and it’s hard to imagine that he’ll ever be dethroned. No player in tennis history has won a major more times than Nadal’s 14 at the French Open. His career record at Roland Garros is an absurd 112 – 4, which amounts to an inhuman 97% winning percentage. Nadal was so dominant that he won the French Open without losing a set on four different occasions. Borg (3) and Federer (2) are the only other players since 1955 to win multiple majors without losing a set. Nadal’s career record on clay is 484-51 (90%), which is the highest winning percentage any men’s player has on any surface in the Open Era. Federer’s the best on grass at 87%, and Djokovic’s the best on hard court at 85%.
In light of Nadal’s clay court mastery, it would be easy to ignore his grass and hard court success. Nadal won Wimbledon (x2), the U.S. Open (x4), and the Australian Open (x2) multiple times, which puts him with Djokovic as the only men’s players in the Open Era to win each of the four majors multiple times. He also finished in the top-2 of the year-end rankings 13 times, which is the most in men’s history (Djokovic and Federer did it 11 times each). Nadal had the misfortune of facing Djokovic and Federer 46 times in the finals of major championships, ATP 1000 events, and the ATP Finals, which does support the notion that he may have had a more difficult road than his counterparts. Djokovic faced Federer and Nadal 40 times in those finals, while Federer faced Djokovic and Nadal 38 times.
Despite Nadal’s clay-court dominance, overall versatility, and longevity, Djokovic and Federer won more than twice as many titles at the other three major events. Given the fact that only ¼ of the major tournaments and ⅓ of the ATP 1000 tournaments are played on clay, it would seem that Nadal could’ve bolstered his GOAT claim by having slightly more success on other surfaces.
The Verdict
Djokovic has unmatched raw totals and longevity, while playing in the most competitive era in history. He is the GOAT. Federer gets the slight nod over Nadal at the second spot based on peak dominance and surface versatility. However, I’d have no problem being assigned to argue Nadal’s side in a debate.
