My issue with Shaq

[INDI]

Shaq is often called the MDE ( most dominant ever) but when I look at his r

[Segatti]

Rings are a team effort.

[FreezingTsmoove]

How in the mother****ing hell was Shaq not a great ****ing rebounder. Does anyone of this board know what a rebound is? There was a heat fan on here that called Alonzo Mourning a bad rebounder but this just takes the cake.

Over 10 plus rebounding for 11 straight seasons but he's a BAD REBOUDNER.

DO YOU WANT HIM TO GRAB 34 REBOUNDS A FREAKING GAME?!

[AK47DR91]

How in the mother****ing hell was Shaq not a great ****ing rebounder. Does anyone of this board know what a rebound is? There was a heat fan on here that called Alonzo Mourning a bad rebounder but this just takes the cake.

Over 10 plus rebounding for 11 straight seasons but he's a BAD REBOUDNER.

DO YOU WANT HIM TO GRAB 34 REBOUNDS A FREAKING GAME?!
For his size he should have won a handful of rebounding titles. But never did.

[Poochymama]

Let's be real here. You're issue with Shaq is Kobe.

[INDI]

How in the mother****ing hell was Shaq not a great ****ing rebounder. Does anyone of this board know what a rebound is? There was a heat fan on here that called Alonzo Mourning a bad rebounder but this just takes the cake.

Over 10 plus rebounding for 11 straight seasons but he's a BAD REBOUDNER.

DO YOU WANT HIM TO GRAB 34 REBOUNDS A FREAKING GAME?!
Shaq was the largest man on the floor every single game, never left the low post and did not play with a dominating power forward in his career. That combination should have him with at least 6 rebounding titles...... HE HAS NONE!!!!!!

Add that to the fact that his best rebounding year was when he was a rookie. Shaq said himself on Nba tv that he wasn't a great rebounder.

How you gonna argue for a man that said it about his own self

[FreezingTsmoove]

Shaq was the largest man on the floor every single game, never left the low post and did not play with a dominating power forward in his career. That combination should have him with at least 6 rebounding titles...... HEHAS NONE!!!!!!

Add that to the fact that his best rebounding year was when he was a rookie. Shaq said himself on MBA tv that he wasn't a great rebounder.

Not only do you think Shaq isn't a great rebounder but you also take Shaq's quotes, sayings seriously.

I have no problem with Shaq isn't a DOMINANT rebounder but when you dont even consider him GREAT is the problem.

[INDI]

Let's be real here. You're issue with Shaq is Kobe.

You think Kobe held him back????

[Poochymama]

You think Kobe held him back????

Not at all. I think Kobe is the main reason(other than himself) that Shaq has 4 rings instead of 1.

All I'm saying is that given your post history, its obvious why you have a problem with Shaq. No need to pretend.

[TheBigVeto]

He is MDE = Most Dumbest Ever

[INDI]

Not only do you think Shaq isn't a great rebounder but you also take Shaq's quotes, sayings seriously.

I have no problem with Shaq isn't a DOMINANT rebounder but when you dont even consider him GREAT is the problem.

I don't know what to tell you, I think he was a good rebounder but not great and I do take his quote seriously because he was arguing with Reggie miller at the time on why he thinks Dwight isn't the best center in the league so he was being serious at the time

[Deuce Bigalow]

4 Championships
3 Finals MVPs
League MVP
2 Scoring Titles
Led the NBA in FG% an NBA record 10 times
Top 5 in MVP voting 9 times
MVP runner up twice
DPOY runner up in 1999-00
ROY
15 All-Star Teams
14 All-NBA Teams
3 All-Defensive Teams
31-15-3 average in 00 Playoffs
38-16-2 average in 00 Finals
30-15-3 average in 01 Playoffs
33-16-5 average in 01 Finals
29-13-3 average in 02 Playoffs
36-12-4 average in 02 Finals
6th on the all-time scoring list
4th on the all-time playoff scoring list

Please.

[rodman91]

4 rings.3 FMVP. Incredible finals stats. It's not even easy to get one ring.In his prime he won 4 championship between 00-06.

True centers usually don't score above 30 ppg in modern basketball.His FGA wasn't more than 20 per game and he had 60% FG. Without jump shots. His game plan was dominating painted area and he can't score he would made even scrubs look good because of open jumpers in perimeter. Still he had great stats but his impact on team was bigger.

I agree he wasn't so dedicated to basketball, he could be better defender (even though he was still a great defender in magic & lakers) he could get a little bit more rebounds. At least he could stay in shape.

That's his personality though. It's not easy be probably being most gifted player with a larger than life persona but still be a hard worker in gym. In early 00's, league was like Shaq and rest.

[INDI]

Not at all. I think Kobe is the main reason(other than himself) that Shaq has 4 rings instead of 1.

All I'm saying is that given your post history, its obvious why you have a problem with Shaq. No need to pretend.

Dude I have an issue with everybody that has an extremely unique talent but for one reason or another they fall short in there output. I got a issue with wade cause I think he has the tools to have been in the top ten convos, I had an issue with tmac. I love dudes that leave there heart on the line. So if you asking am I a Kobe fan I am., but he's not my favorite of alltime or anything. I love PGs so I got Kidd, Stockton, Tim n penny hardaway before Kobe.

And my favorite 2guard alltime is Reggie ( Kobe second)

[upside24]

Could have been more. That's all there is to say. Imagine Shaq with MJ
's determination and work ethic.:eek: :eek: :eek:

[Young X]

[QUOTE=INDI]Shaq is often called the MDE ( most dominant ever) but when I look at his r

[Heavincent]

Given his size, athleticism, and good health for most of his career, I thought he could have become the GOAT. I mean come on, the guy was a 300+ pound 7 foot monster who had ridiculous athleticism for his size. And it was a miracle he wasn't really brought down by injuries until later in his career when you consider how ****ing huge he was. But still, I wouldn't say he underachieved, because he's still a top 10 player of all time.

[pauk]

Ring = Team Accomplishment

When you value a player and his career based on Rings you have to look into the entire context... What did he do to get those rings? Was he the best player in the NBA / best player in those teams or was he a sidekick, 6th man, roleplayer, benchwarmer? What did he do based on what he had to work with? Did he win it with scrubs? Did he win it with a stacked team? And so on....

You can be great even without a ring:

Player A: Is the most talented/productive/impactful player in the NBA, takes a bunch of major scrubs to the Finals and loses....

Player B: Is not the most talented/productive/impactful player in the NBA, happens to win a championship as his team was the most stacked...

What do you think is a greater accomplishment here? Are you honestly gona sit there and lie to yourself that Player B was greater because he simply got a ring? Rings are overrated that way....

[AlonzoGOAT]

OP probably thinks Kobe won 5 rings by himself too

[KG215]

I guess we can add "If Shaq really was the most dominant ever, he should've won more rings" to the list of go-to stock responses/arguments Kobe stans will use to belittle Shaq.

[INDI]

OP probably thinks Kobe won 5 rings by himself too

Nah I don't believe players win rings by themselves but they do know how to turn the players around them into the players he needs them to be to win. No one can win alone

[INDI]

I guess we can add "If Shaq really was the most dominant ever, he should've won more rings" to the list of go-to stock responses/arguments Kobe stans will use to belittle Shaq.

It's a fact that if Jordan only had 1 ring that he would not be the undisputed GOAT. If Russell had 1 then most wouldn't even consider him a top ten alltime. Like it or not, rings matter.

[eliteballer]

In his prime Shaq was a great rebounder and anchored great defenses.........:wtf: He'd get you 30 and 20 on 58% shooting along wth 4-5 blocks and 4-5 assists in big playoff games.

[SHAQisGOAT]

4 rings.3 FMVP. Incredible finals stats. It's not even easy to get one ring.In his prime he won 4 championship between 00-06.

True centers usually don't score above 30 ppg in modern basketball.His FGA wasn't more than 20 per game and he had 60% FG. Without jump shots. His game plan was dominating painted area and he can't score he would made even scrubs look good because of open jumpers in perimeter. Still he had great stats but his impact on team was bigger.

I agree he wasn't so dedicated to basketball, he could be better defender (even though he was still a great defender in magic & lakers) he could get a little bit more rebounds. At least he could stay in shape.

That's his personality though. It's not easy be probably being most gifted player with a larger than life persona but still be a hard worker in gym. In early 00's, league was like Shaq and rest.


Totally agree with this.

Shaq's my favorite player, I admit he was kind of lazy but he still is top 3 as far as dominance and peak/prime.

[Kblaze8855]

Wilt thing. Nobody roots for Goliath. Cant reasonably expect anyone to do more than 4 rings with 3 finals MVPs doing the absurd numbers he did.

[InspiredLebowski]

Dale Davis would vehemently disagree. And also choke you to death.

[KG215]

It's a fact that if Jordan only had 1 ring that he would not be the undisputed GOAT. If Russell had 1 then most wouldn't even consider him a top ten alltime. Like it or not, rings matter.

And Shaq has four rings, three of which he won as the best player and did so in very impressive fashion.

The hell kind of logic is "if he really was the MDE he should've or would've won more rings" when the guy won four?

[INDI]

In his prime Shaq was a great rebounder and anchored great defenses.........:wtf: He'd get you 30 and 20 on 58% shooting along wth 4-5 blocks and 4-5 assists in big playoff games.

Whether you know it or not you are helping me make my point. He had the potential of being greatest scorer/rebounder/shot blocker/ and player of alltime but he ended up with NONE of those accomplishments. He is not even top Five on anybody's list in those areas, but yet was clearly capable.

[Dasher]

It's a fact that if Jordan only had 1 ring that he would not be the undisputed GOAT. If Russell had 1 then most wouldn't even consider him a top ten alltime. Like it or not, rings matter.
Russell would still be in the top 10. He has 5 MVPs and 5 Rebounding Titles, 2 of which he had to edge Wilt out to win.

[swag2011]

I guess we can add "If Shaq really was the most dominant ever, he should've won more rings" to the list of go-to stock responses/arguments Kobe stans will use to belittle Shaq.

that's nothing compared to what the kobe haters (including yourself) use to belittle kobe.

[daily]

Could have been more. That's all there is to say. Imagine Shaq with MJ's determination and work ethic.:eek: :eek: :eek:
Shaq rode the genetic train as far as it would go, then spent a few years trying to catch a ride on other players coattails. If he'd given one ounce of effort to his conditioning over the years he'd had added at least 2 maybe even 3 high level seasons to his career and had less injuries during his prime. There would never had been a question to how great he was but intead his career will always have a big question mark attached to it

[INDI]

Shaq is clearly in my top ten but to me had the tools of being the GOAT. He is literally the ONLY player in the top ten alltime list that had a lazy work ethic And could have given more of himself to the game. Everyone else gave everything they had

[INDI]

that's nothing compared to what the kobe haters (including yourself) use to belittle kobe.
I thought kg215 was a Kobe fan????

[Metroid]

Did you watch Shaq play? If so you would understand. His size might be genetics, but it doesn't take away from the fact that he manhandled everyone. The fact he shot so poorly from the free throw line yet scored that many points at such high FG% shows you how difficult it was for other teams to stop him. Doubled, tippled.

[KG215]

that's nothing compared to what the kobe haters (including yourself) use to belittle kobe.

First off, it is "something" compared to what Kobe haters use to belittle him. It's just as stupid (logically speaking) as when people say "Shaq couldn't win without Kobe." It may not quite be on the same level of stupidity as when Kobe haters say "Shaq carried Kobe to three titles" but it's close.

And how do I belittle Kobe? I can't think of a time I've purposefully tried to downplay his role during the Lakers 3-peat. I've given him plenty of credit and admit how good he was in 2001 and 2002. You're confusing me trying to put some of the ridiculous things Kobe fanboys say about Shaq into perspective as Kobe hate. It's not the same thing. I like Kobe as a player.

[BlackVVaves]

Shaq's a Top 4 center of all time, you think someone "lazy" could achieve that?

Yes, he had various moments in his career where he simply did care to put forward effort, but your logic of "well he didn't average 30 points per game" to discredit his peak's dominance is astoundingly stupid. The only reason why he didn't average over 30 points per game during his prime is because he played along side another dominant scorer who was averaging near the same amount of points per game that Shaq was.

Put Shaq on the Raptors and he's averaging 40 a game. Guess what though - no championships. What makes Shaq's claim to "MDE" plausible is that his numbers were supplemented with multiple championships, FMVPs, and a MVP. There is a small fraternity of players in NBA history that can say that their peak performances corresponded with championship rings. Shaq is not only in that fraternity, but is at the very top of it (Top 10 All-Time).

So say the man wasn't dominant is "asinine, asi-ten, asi-eleven..!!!"

[upside24]

Shaq rode the genetic train as far as it would go, then spent a few years trying to catch a ride on other players coattails. If he'd given one ounce of effort to his conditioning over the years he'd had added at least 2 maybe even 3 high level seasons to his career and had less injuries during his prime. There would never had been a question to how great he was but intead his career will always have a big question mark attached to it
It makes you wonder how great he really could have been with dedication to developing his game (FREE THROWS) and maintain elite conditioning.

[SpecialQue]

I'm going to assume, based on this thread and the previous "is Shaq higher than Kobe on the GOAT list?" thread, that ISH has reached a point where Shaq has joined Jordan as a player that you absolutely cannot criticize whatsoever. He has few shortcomings, and any failures he had in his career were due to inferior teammates and had nothing to do with him as a player.

Aside from Kobe stans, I think I've yet to see a single person take Shaq to task on anything. It's like him and Jordan are the only two untouchable NBA players here.

[INDI]

Shaq's a Top 4 center of all time, you think someone "lazy" could achieve that?

Yes, he had various moments in his career where he simply did care to put forward effort, but your logic of "well he didn't average 30 points per game" to discredit his peak's dominance is astoundingly stupid. The only reason why he didn't average over 30 points per game during his prime is because he played along side another dominant scorer who was averaging near the same amount of points per game that Shaq was.

Put Shaq on the Raptors and he's averaging 40 a game. Guess what though - no championships. What makes Shaq's claim to "MDE" plausible is that his numbers were supplemented with multiple championships, FMVPs, and a MVP. There is a small fraternity of players in NBA history that can say that their peak performances corresponded with championship rings. Shaq is not only in that fraternity, but is at the very top of it (Top 10 All-Time).

So say the man wasn't dominant is "asinine, asi-ten, asi-eleven..!!!"
Never said he wasn't dominant, said that he could've been better than what he was. I believe Jordan reached the pinnacle of his ability, so did Magic, so did Kareem, so did wilt, so did bird, so did Russell, so did Kobe, so did Hakeem, so did Duncan.

Shaq is the only top ten player that could've actually raised his ranking

[tmacattack33]

[QUOTE=INDI]Shaq is often called the MDE ( most dominant ever) but when I look at his r

[KG215]

As for the "he never averaged 30 PPG" comment, really? First off, he played with another phenomenal scorer in Kobe. Kobe, during the 3-peat, averaged 22.5 PPG on 17.9 FGA/G, 28.5 PPG on 22.2 FGA/G, 25.2 PPG on 20.0 FGA/G. Kobe actually took more shots per game than Shaq in 2001 and 2002.

On top of that he had seasons where he averaged 29.3, 29.3, 28.3, 29.7, and 28.7 PPG. So it's not like he was scoring in the low to mid-20s in his prime. In the 11 seasons from 1992-1993 (his rookie year) through 2002-2003 he averaged 27.6 PPG on .577 FG%. So, essentially, he was scoring 28 PPG on 58% shooting for 11 seasons. What a bum.

[KOBE143]

Almost swept 8 times in the playoffs.. Most dominant my ass.. :lol

[INDI]

Nobody is supposed to win 6 rings, no matter how good they are. You win as a team.

If you came at us with an argument about how Shaq's team was good enough in the year 200_ and would have won if Shaq played better, then that could be a legitimate thing to say.

But blankly stating that a player is not so amazing because he didn't get 6 rings is a ridiculous thing to say.
Nobody is SUPPOSED to win ANY amount of rings but we require the greats to do it nevertheless. Just off of the talent of LEbron we not only EXPECT him to win 1 but MULTIPLE championships.


You know like I know that if Lebron ends his career with 1 ring that he would be considered a failure.


Again your putting words in my mouth. I believe Shaq is amazing why the heck do you think I got an issue with him???? I think he dent leave it all on the line. If this was Samuel dalambert we would t be having this convo. My issue is @what could've been" the rings was just one thing, but he left rebounding titles, mvps, scoring titles, defensive nba teams all on the table that was his for the taking

[KG215]

I'm going to assume, based on this thread and the previous "is Shaq higher than Kobe on the GOAT list?" thread, that ISH has reached a point where Shaq has joined Jordan as a player that you absolutely cannot criticize whatsoever.
Shaq isn't immune to criticism in my eyes. It's when Kobe fans start saying thins like "he should've or could've won more titles if he really was the MDE" and "Shaq couldn't win without Kobe" is when I stupidly try to step in and defend him, and it usually ends with me arguing in circles with four or five Kobe fanboys.


He has few shortcomings, and any failures he had in his career were due to inferior teammates and had nothing to do with him as a player.

Aside from Kobe stans, I think I've yet to see a single person take Shaq to task on anything. It's like him and Jordan are the only two untouchable NBA players here.
Shaq was outplayed by Hakeem in the '95 Finals. I don't know how much of the blame for losing that series he should shoulder, but considering he was only 22, it's hard to get too upset at him for not winning that year. There were other years he came into the season out of shape and that hurt his team. Obviously his poor free throw shooting made him a liability in the fourth quarter of close games.

He has shortcomings, and I'm willing to admit that and talk about them. But when the Kobe fans continually degrade without any context and very little logic, it can start wearing on your nerves. Of course that's partially my fault, since I can and should just ignore them.

[KG215]

Nobody is SUPPOSED to win ANY amount of rings but we require the greats to do it nevertheless. Just off of the talent of LEbron we not only EXPECT him to win 1 but MULTIPLE championships.


You know like I know that if Lebron ends his career with 1 ring that he would be considered a failure.

Yes, but Shaq didn't end his career with one ring. He ended it with FOUR. If LeBron gets to 3 or 4, then I don't think many people will be saying "well, he should've won more." It's incredibly hard to win just one, but to win 3, 4, 5, etc.? But knocking a player for not winning more rings when he won as many as four is really nit-picky.

[SpecialQue]

Shaq isn't immune to criticism in my eyes. It's when Kobe fans start saying thins like "he should've or could've won more titles if he really was the MDE" and "Shaq couldn't win without Kobe" is when I stupidly try to step in and defend him, and it usually ends with me arguing in circles with four or five Kobe fanboys.

Shaq was outplayed by Hakeem in the '95 Finals. I don't know how much of the blame for losing that series he should shoulder, but considering he was only 22, it's hard to get too upset at him for not winning that year. There were other years he came into the season out of shape and that hurt his team. Obviously his poor free throw shooting made him a liability in the fourth quarter of close games.

He has shortcomings, and I'm willing to admit that and talk about them. But when the Kobe fans continually degrade without any context and very little logic, it can start wearing on your nerves. Of course that's partially my fault, since I can and should just ignore them.

Good points. I think my personal dislike for Shaq has colored my own judgement on him to an extent, but I'm being dead serious when I say I rarely see anyone say a negative thing about him as a player, and I can't help but think that this is more of a reaction against Kobe stans than a realistic view of him. He was undeniably one of the greatest to play the game, but the man is certainly not without his faults.

[ILLsmak]

I think Shaq was a beast rebounding. People count defensive rebounds too much.

Having Shaq made rebounding so much easier cuz people also threw help at him leaving a side open.

I wish everyone wouldn't be so shallow and only think about what statistical output a player had opposed to their actual effect on the court.

Edit: Que, people talk mad shit about Shaq haha. They say he is fat and can't play D and can't shoot. They have been talking shit since he was a rookie.

-Smak

[Rubio2Gasol]

Shaq isn't immune to criticism in my eyes. It's when Kobe fans start saying thins like "he should've or could've won more titles if he really was the MDE" and "Shaq couldn't win without Kobe" is when I stupidly try to step in and defend him, and it usually ends with me arguing in circles with four or five Kobe fanboys.


Shaq was outplayed by Hakeem in the '95 Finals. I don't know how much of the blame for losing that series he should shoulder, but considering he was only 22, it's hard to get too upset at him for not winning that year. There were other years he came into the season out of shape and that hurt his team. Obviously his poor free throw shooting made him a liability in the fourth quarter of close games.

He has shortcomings, and I'm willing to admit that and talk about them. But when the Kobe fans continually degrade without any context and very little logic, it can start wearing on your nerves. Of course that's partially my fault, since I can and should just ignore them.


I think it's a dual edged sword.

Instead of acting rationally and acknowledging the accomplishments of both players in the Lakers' early decade success there's this tendency to say Shaq carried Kobe. That could not be more false.

Then that leads to the Kobe fans attempting to degrade Shaq's accomplishments and there's a cycle.

Rinse and Repeat.

And I really don't understand it. To win those three rings against the teams they played and with the complimentary players they had...was an amazing accomplishment.

There's a legacy for both of them there.

I feel sorry for both of them really. When I see people counting Kobe's rings from those years as 1/2 a ring or some other bullshit like that when he was raping ALL- NBA team defenders series after series (as a Sacramento fan I think he almost single handedly erased Christie from living memory) and great defenses such as the Spurs and being just clutch and to an extent even selfless for those 3 years , I feel sad.

Because to me those were the years he was most fun to watch.

The battering Shaq takes as a result of this is perhaps even more painful. I mean within itself...how stupid do you have to be to attempt to discredit him.

I see their contributions as more even than most because of the increasing affinity towards statistical interpretation. To me Kobe came through (regardless of Shaq's fourth quarter scoring ) at times when you really needed someone to take over....that's probably why.

Along with a playmaking point I was making in another thread whereby the triangle ultimately is based on quick reads so even without the high assist numbers I considered him a ridiculously potent playmaker.

But praise of one is not an inditement of the other and criticism of one should not be meant to prop up the other.

Which is a disease this forum suffers across the board.

[tmacattack33]

Nobody is SUPPOSED to win ANY amount of rings but we require the greats to do it nevertheless. Just off of the talent of LEbron we not only EXPECT him to win 1 but MULTIPLE championships.


You know like I know that if Lebron ends his career with 1 ring that he would be considered a failure.


Again your putting words in my mouth. I believe Shaq is amazing why the heck do you think I got an issue with him???? I think he dent leave it all on the line. If this was Samuel dalambert we would t be having this convo. My issue is @what could've been" the rings was just one thing, but he left rebounding titles, mvps, scoring titles, defensive nba teams all on the table that was his for the taking

Oh okay cool, if you think Shaq is indeed amazing and his peak is one of the best 3 ever, then I am fine with what you are saying.

And i'd agree...a better conditioned, more mature, and more determined shaq coulda had 2-3 more dominant years in him, allowing him to get maybe another ring and a couple more scoring titles and stuff.

[KG215]

I think it's a dual edged sword.

Instead of acting rationally and acknowledging the accomplishments of both players in the Lakers' early decade success there's this tendency to say Shaq carried Kobe. That could not be more false.

Then that leads to the Kobe fans attempting to degrade Shaq's accomplishments and there's a cycle.

Rinse and Repeat.

And I really don't understand it. To win those three rings against the teams they played and with the complimentary players they had...was an amazing accomplishment.

There's a legacy for both of them there.

I feel sorry for both of them really. When I see people counting Kobe's rings from those years as 1/2 a ring or some other bullshit like that when he was raping ALL- NBA team defenders series after series (as a Sacramento fan I think he almost single handedly erased Christie from living memory) and great defenses such as the Spurs and being just clutch and to an extent even selfless for those 3 years , I feel sad.

Because to me those were the years he was most fun to watch.

The battering Shaq takes as a result of this is perhaps even more painful. I mean within itself...how stupid do you have to be to attempt to discredit him.

I see their contributions as more even than most because of the increasing affinity towards statistical interpretation. To me Kobe came through (regardless of Shaq's fourth quarter scoring ) at times when you really needed someone to take over....that's probably why.

Along with a playmaking point I was making in another thread whereby the triangle ultimately is based on quick reads so even without the high assist numbers I considered him a ridiculously potent playmaker.

But praise of one is not an inditement of the other and criticism of one should not be meant to prop up the other.

Which is a disease this forum suffers across the board.

I agree with this. Other posters like Kblaze and ShaqAttack (two posters who know those 3-peat teams very well) have pointed out how the supporting cast after Shaq and Kobe during the 3-peat wasn't all that strong. It wasn't bad, mind you, but it also wasn't as strong 3-8 or 3-9 as some of the other main contenders in the West. That speaks in favor of how good Shaq AND Kobe both were during that time. To act like Kobe was anything less than a superstar playing phenomenal ball, who just so happened to be teammates with the best player in the NBA at the time, and say things like "Shaq carried him to three rings" or "those rings really only count as a .5 ring or partial ring" is very stupid.

I do my best not to belittle Kobe when talking about and sticking up for Shaq, because I remember and have no problem acknowledging how good Kobe was during the 3-peat.

[longtime lurker]

[QUOTE=INDI]Shaq is often called the MDE ( most dominant ever) but when I look at his r

[secund2nun]

Shaq is far superior to Kobe. Shaq is one of the GOAT top 5 all time. Shaq singe handedly won the 1999 NBA title. Prime Kobe could not even lead his team past the first round (The 3 season period after Shaq left and before Gasol)

[DatAsh]

Shaq singe handedly won the 1999 NBA title.

Interesting

[longtime lurker]

Shaq is far superior to Kobe. Shaq is one of the GOAT top 5 all time. Shaq singe handedly won the 1999 NBA title. Prime Kobe could not even lead his team past the first round (The 3 season period after Shaq left and before Gasol)

See it's post like these that make people start to be overly critical of Shaq

[KOBE143]

Shaq is far superior to Kobe. Shaq is one of the GOAT top 5 all time. Shaq singe handedly won the 1999 NBA title. Prime Kobe could not even lead his team past the first round (The 3 season period after Shaq left and before Gasol)
Didnt know, he played for the spurs that year.. :lol

[KG215]

Shaq is far superior to Kobe. Shaq is one of the GOAT top 5 all time. Shaq singe handedly won the 1999 NBA title. Prime Kobe could not even lead his team past the first round (The 3 season period after Shaq left and before Gasol)

Yeah, 11 posts in two years. This seems legit.

Hopefully people take this post as seriously as they take a KOBE143 or 9erempire post.

[daily]

Didnt know, he played for the spurs that year.. :lol :lol

He has 11 posts and two green bars already. Obviously somebodies second account for saying things they don't want to say on their regular account.

[secund2nun]

The 1999-2000 season NBA title. You know what I meant.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

It's true that Shaq could have been even better if he worked a little harder. What would his scoring average have been if he could have made 70% or 75% of his freethrows? Winning rings is a team accomplishment and even if you have the best team it involves a little luck. I was frustrated with Shaq at times but overall I just try to appreciate him for what he was and not dwell on what wasn't.

[INDI]

So you're saying that he didn't live up to his potential despite easily having a top 10 all time resume? So you're mad that Shaq wasn't the Greatest ever?!! :roll: :roll:
I think he had the tools to be the best and at worst second best. I'm not mad that he didn't pass Jordan but keep in mind that 99 out of 100 people consider Larry bird to be closer to being GOAT then they do Shaq. He consistently ranks higher than Shaq even though he's won less championships. My thing is cats put Shaq in their lower half top ten with guys like Larry bird above him when he really had the tools to be in the conversation for GOAT

[The Iron Fist]

I'm going to assume, based on this thread and the previous "is Shaq higher than Kobe on the GOAT list?" thread, that ISH has reached a point where Shaq has joined Jordan as a player that you absolutely cannot criticize whatsoever. He has few shortcomings, and any failures he had in his career were due to inferior teammates and had nothing to do with him as a player.

Aside from Kobe stans, I think I've yet to see a single person take Shaq to task on anything. It's like him and Jordan are the only two untouchable NBA players here.
Shawn and Jordan won their titles. Everyone else won as a team. Or so they want you believe.

[bigt]

I think people are jumping on the OP (INDI) a bit too much here, and missing the point of what he is saying. He's not saying that Shaq sucked, it's just that given his natural ability and physique, he really should have been even more dominant.

I don't agree with the idea that he should have been averaging more than 30 to be classified as MDE, part of what made Shaq so dangerous was his passing ability. He could have tried to score every time he got the ball, and he would have probably averaged 35/36, but that wouldn't have been what was best for the team. When (not if, which is important when considering him MDE) they doubled and tripled him, Shaq was able to find the open man and give them an easy look. If they disrespected him and guarded him one on one, he'd hammer them until they relented and ganged up on him.

Even with his great FG%, it was better for the team as a whole if he played offensively the way he did. As for rebounding, I honestly think 10-11 is great regardless of size. We're talking NBA calibre competition, where size is important to rebounding, but less so than lower levels.

Was he lazy at times, yes. And I do believe if he had a Jordan like work ethic he would have been top 1/2 all time (barring injuries from just pushing himself too damn hard, he's a big boy, and considering that he was surprisingly healthy for a long time till the end. Look at guys like Yao for comparison). But part of what makes Shaq the Shaq we know is who he is. He's not the most hardcore dedicated guy, but if he was he probably wouldn't have been the entertainer he was/is, or as fun. He also probably wouldn't have enjoyed life as much as he has. The guy has released movies, records, video games, and obviously had a ball doing it. In my eyes, that's true success, and the guy is loved because of it.

Note: I am biased, Shaq's my all time favourite, but I've tried to be unbiased.

[LA Lakers]

Nah, I see what the OP is saying. Shaq just checked out of games for stretches during that last season. Didnt stay in shape and spent half his time trashing teammates in the LA Times. Throw in The Mailman injury and Payton not playing up to expectations and Kobe with the Colorado situation... It was a rough year for us. Yall remember. I think the OP is saying he had the potential to be put in that discussion with guys like MJ and Kareem etc and just never got there cuz of his own stubborn I dont know what you wanna call it but something. Ive got Wilt, Kareem, Bill Russell, Hakeem and prob Duncan all ahead of him in the best big man discussion. Shame. But still brought lots of pride to our city. And titles. Something to be proud of. Shaq Attack. Thanks for the glory.

[Force]

Shaq was the MVP for about 8 years in this league. At his peak, he can legitimately be called the best player of all time. People have such short memories. Although Shaq's numbers are fantastic, they don't show what he really did on the court. Before the rules were changed, it was totally unfair to have Shaq on your team. He wore down entire defenses, he beat on teams, demoralized them, he put fouls on everybody, put starters on the bench, put teams in the penalty, he made every single teammates better. It's actually silly to have to explain this, if you were around to watch Shaq you already know.

[Overdrive]

I won't make a case for Shaq in the GOATrankingsthread, because it's silly to argue, because the criteria is different for anybody, but to say Shaq didn't accomplish enough is crazy.

It's hard to get one ring, let alone a few of them. The team has to click. Everyone on the team from the star(s) to the 12th guy on the bench has to give his best effort(I know playoff rotation isn't to the 12th man..). If Shaq didn't give his best effort he probably wins none. Kobe (maybe) gets his 2 finals MVPs, but there surely is no Lakers "dynasty".
Just check out Lebron, he was praised as the NBA's golden child and saviour. A once in a lifetime talent. Raw, but possibly superior to even Jordan, yet he failed to win a ring for nearly a decade and now, only winning once, everyone except for a few bitter Kobe nut huggers give him credit.

You can't blame Shaq for not winning in Orlando. He was young, his 2nd man was basically T-Mac before T-Mac. Penny produced well, but he couldn't put the team on his back. I still remember the years after Shaq. He put up insane numbers in the playoffs, but didn't go anywhere.

The cast in Orlando was far superior to the Lakers' after the Eddie Jones trade/Van Exel release, but the leaders of the team were young players. With nearly no experience and they ran into 2 championship proven teams in '95 and '96.

So basically I think he did fine getting four rings. Maybe if the injury bug wouldn't have hit the Heat in '05 he would've won another one. That's the only time I'd say it was his "fault" that his team didn't win.

I still believe the Lakers would've beat the Bulls in '98, but I wouldn't put the blame for not getting past the Jazz on him, atleast not exlusively.

His teams had no business winning anything in '93, '94, '96, '97, '07, '08 and '09.
In '95 the Magic had a tiny chance to overcome the Rockets, but they were inexperienced. '98 was lack of experience and I think Del Harris was the wrong coach. '99 see '98, except trade Jones inexperience for Rice being over the hill and Harris for Rambis.
From '07 to '11 they weren't his teams anymore, but still putting up numbers that gets centers into the ASG these days. I remember the first game in Cleveland when they played against ORL. Howard had to sit due to foul trouble after a few minutes. If it wasn't for James epic meltdown we might've seen Kobe vs Shaq & Lebron in the finals.

edit: I won't put the blame of the '04 finals loss completely on Kobe as some Shaq and especially Lebron fans do. The Lakers were the superior team going into the finals. Malone's injury mattered, but the Pistons still weren't the better ballclub.
The Pistons just made Kobe a "nonfactor". I don't think he wanted to take over, but he wanted to reproduce the formular that worked for the threepeat. Shaq producing in the paint, being doubled and hence giving his teammates easy buckets. The difference was that except for maybe AC Green(and even he to an extent) everyone on those threepeat teams could atleast hit open midrange jumpers. On the '04 team they tried to guard Shaq 1v1 and when the doubled to could just rotate off a nonfactor player and Kobe was still defended tightly.
So when it didn't work out he went stubborn.

For the individual accolades department:

I think he was robbed of two MVPs atleast. The '05 and '01 belonged to him, imo.
The DPOY is one of the hardest to get for well rounded two way players. Shaq never was in the same league of specialists like Mutombo or Ben Wallace, but it wasn't really that much easier to score on him than on a few of the DPOY winning centers. Some players' defenses stand out, because the don't do much else. I won't argue Shaq ever deserved a DPOY, but he was no defensive slouch either, but some people make it seem like he was.

[bigt]

Shaq was the MVP for about 8 years in this league. At his peak, he can legitimately be called the best player of all time. People have such short memories. Although Shaq's numbers are fantastic, they don't show what he really did on the court. Before the rules were changed, it was totally unfair to have Shaq on your team. He wore down entire defenses, he beat on teams, demoralized them, he put fouls on everybody, put starters on the bench, put teams in the penalty, he made every single teammates better. It's actually silly to have to explain this, if you were around to watch Shaq you already know.

That's the thing about the true greats of any sport. It's not the numbers they put up, but the way the game will revolve around them and what they do. Jordan put up incredible numbers, but unless you actually watch him play, and the way he impacted the game. Shaq was the same. You can look at the numbers, or you can watch the way opposition teams would have their entire game plan practically revolve around 'what do we do to slow him down', not stop him, but just slow him down. That above poster described Shaq's effect perfectly :applause: