Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops

Message Board Basketball Forum - InsideHoops (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/index.php)
-   NBA Forum (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=2)
-   -   What's with this myth that Shaq didn't have a long period of time as a superstar? (http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=275330)

RRR3 08-22-2012 06:25 PM

What's with this myth that Shaq didn't have a long period of time as a superstar?
 
I keep hearing this on ISH, often by Kobe fans as a reason to rank Kobe over Shaq, but I've heard it from good, unbiased posters as well, so I'm not sure why people keep thinking this. Shaq was a great player for a very long time.

Note: Bolded numbers indicate led NBA.



1992-93: 23.4 PPG/13.9 RPG/1.9 APG/0.7 SPG/3.5 BPG on 56.2 FG%. All-star, Rookie of the year, 7th in MVP voting.

1993-94: 29.3/13.2/2.4/0.9/2.9 on 59.9%. All-star, All-NBA (3rd), 4th in MVP voting. Playoffs: 20.7/13.3/2.3/0.7/3.0 on 51.1%.

1994-95: 29.3/11.4/2.7/0.9/2.4 on 58.3%. All-star, All-NBA (2nd), 2nd in MVP voting. Playoffs: 25.7/11.9/3.3/0.9/1.9 on 57.7%.

1995-96: 26.6/11.0/2.9/0.6/2.1 on 57.3%. All-star, All-NBA (3rd), 9th in MVP voting.. Playoffs: 25.8/10.0/4.6/0.8/1.3 on 60.6%.

1996-97: 26.2/12.5/3.1/0.9/2.9 on 55.7%. All-star, All-NBA (3rd), 9th in MVP voting. Playoffs: 26.9/10.6/3.2/0.6/1.9 on 51.4%.

1997-98: 28.3/11.4/2.4/0.7/2.4 on 58.4%. All-star, All-NBA (1st), 4th in MVP voting. Playoffs: 30.5/10.2/2.9/0.5/2.6 on 61.2%.

1998-99: 26.3/10.7/2.3/0.7/1.7 on 57.6%. All-NBA (2nd), 6th in MVP voting. Playoffs: 26.6/11.6/2.3/0.9/2.9 on 51.0%.

1999-00: 29.7/13.6/3.8/0.5/3.0 on 57.4%. NBA MVP, Finals MVP, All-star Game MVP, All-Star, All-NBA (1st), All-Defensive (2nd). Playoffs: 30.7/15.4/3.1/0.6/2.4 on 56.6%.

2000-01: 28.7/12.7/3.7/0.6/2.8 on 57.2%. Finals MVP, All-star, All-NBA (1st), All-Defensive (2nd), 3rd in MVP voting. Playoffs: 30.4/15.4/3.2/0.4/2.4 on 55.5%.

2001-02: 27.2/10.7/3.0/0.6/2.0 on 57.9%. Finals MVP, All-star, All-NBA (1st), 3rd in MVP voting. Playoffs: 28.5/12.6/2.8/0.5/2.5 on 52.9%.

2002-03: 27.5/11.1/3.1/0.6/2.4 on 57.4%. All-star, All-NBA (1st), All-Defensive (2nd), 5th in MVP voting. Playoffs: 27.0/14.8/3.7/0.6/2.8 on 53.5%.

2003-04: 21.5/11.5/2.9/0.5/2.5 on 58.4%. All-star Game MVP, All-star, All-NBA (1st), 6th in MVP voting. Playoffs: 21.5/13.2/2.5/0.3/2.8 on 59.3%.

2004-05: 22.9/10.4/2.7/0.5/2.3 on 60.1%. All-star, All-NBA (1st), 2nd in MVP voting. Playoffs: 19.4/7.8/1.9/0.4/1.5 on 55.8%.

2005-06: 20.0/9.2/1.9/0.4/1.8 on 60.0%. All-star, All-NBA (1st). Playoffs: 18.4/9.8/1.7/0.5/1.5 on 61.2%.



Plus, even well past his prime in 2008-09, at age 36, he put up 17.8/8.4/1.7/0.7/1.4 on 60.9% in just 30 minutes, and made the All-Star game and the All-NBA erd team.

Dictator 08-22-2012 06:30 PM

Re: What's with this myth that Shaq didn't have a long period of time as a superstar?
 
Why mention 07-08 and not mention the one before or after it? :confusedshrug:

RRR3 08-22-2012 06:32 PM

Re: What's with this myth that Shaq didn't have a long period of time as a superstar?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Dictator
Why mention 07-08 and not mention the one before or after it? :confusedshrug:

I just mentioned 07-08 to show he was still a very good player even at an advanced age, obviously he was no longer close to dominant. He was hurt the previous year, and his minutes declined significantly his last few seasons.

Odinn 08-22-2012 06:32 PM

Re: What's with this myth that Shaq didn't have a long period of time as a superstar?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Odinn
Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackVVaves
I agree people need to stop downplaying Shaq's longevity, but to say his longevity is > Kobe's is an attempt to undermine Kobe's longevity as well.

I think right now, as in today, their longevity is equal. But, if at 34 and 35, Kobe still performs at a level that warrants a spot on those years' Top 10 of the year list (which I think he will, probably 6-7 this year, and 8-10 in 2014), then Kobe's longevity will trump Shaq's, and it wouldn't be very comparable when considering he'd almost be 20 years deep in the NBA at that point. 19 years to be exact. That means, for 16-17 years straight, Kobe would have been a Top 10 player in the NBA.

16 - 17 years.

From his rookie season to 2005-06 season, Shaq gave 14 high quailty seasons to his teams.

2011-12 season Kobe's 14th season as a starter and his first 2 seasons as a starter weren't on his standards.

:sleeping :sleeping

keepinitreal 08-22-2012 06:35 PM

Re: What's with this myth that Shaq didn't have a long period of time as a superstar?
 


:bowdown: :bowdown:

Round Mound 08-22-2012 06:35 PM

Re: What's with this myth that Shaq didn't have a long period of time as a superstar?
 
SHAQ is the GOAT Mid 90s and Mid 00s

bizil 08-22-2012 06:42 PM

Re: What's with this myth that Shaq didn't have a long period of time as a superstar?
 
I think people think that because of guys like Kareem and Wilt who were dominant players longer. That's the standard Shaq was held to. As great as Hakeem, Russell, Ewing, Robinson, and Moses were, Shaq from day one was expected to be on the individual brilliance and dominance of Kareem and Wilt. At his best, he clearly was. Hell peak value wise, Shaq is very the GOAT center. But he didn't accumulate as many rings, MVPs, or points as Kareem. And he didn't get as many points or have as many gaudy numbers as Wilt. I do think it's bullshit that people say Shaq wasn't dominant for a long period of time though. Just look at Shaq's career and you can tell he was great for a long time. But Shaq actually had the goods to be the GOAT center flat out. And maybe even GOAT ever!

kennethgriffin 08-22-2012 06:45 PM

Re: What's with this myth that Shaq didn't have a long period of time as a superstar?
 
shaq was dumb and got abused in the 90's by the rockets, jazz and spurs... rodman made him his b*tch too

he didnt figure it out until 2000... then by 2004 it was over

numbers lie. they dont show how flawed shaq was

before 2000 the guy had no foot work and 1 go to move

kuniva_dAMiGhTy 08-22-2012 06:47 PM

Re: What's with this myth that Shaq didn't have a long period of time as a superstar?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by kennethgriffin
shaq was dumb and got abused in the 90's by the rockets, jazz and spurs... rodman made him his b*tch too

he didnt figure it out until 2000... then by 2004 it was over

numbers lie. they dont show how flawed shaq was

before 2000 the guy had no foot work and 1 go to move


Revisionist history from a Bryant stan. Cute.

millwad 08-22-2012 06:47 PM

Re: What's with this myth that Shaq didn't have a long period of time as a superstar?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Round Mound
SHAQ is the GOAT Mid 90s and Mid 00s


Jordan was the Goat early 90's and mid 90's was all Hakeem.

jlip 08-22-2012 06:51 PM

Re: What's with this myth that Shaq didn't have a long period of time as a superstar?
 
He was obviously a superstar by '96 considering that he voted top 50 all time after just three full seasons in the NBA at the time. He was 2nd in MVP voting in '05. That alone gives him a decade of superstardom.

RRR3 08-22-2012 06:58 PM

Re: What's with this myth that Shaq didn't have a long period of time as a superstar?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jlip
He was obviously a superstar by '96 considering that he voted top 50 all time after just three full seasons in the NBA at the time. He was 2nd in MVP voting in '05. That alone gives him a decade of superstardom.

Griff has no reply to this. bet he ignores it lmao

ThaRegul8r 08-22-2012 06:59 PM

Re: What's with this myth that Shaq didn't have a long period of time as a superstar?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by jlip
He was obviously a superstar by '96 considering that he voted top 50 all time after just three full seasons in the NBA at the time.


Which was complete nonsense. He shouldn't have been voted a Top 50 player in his third season in the league. Obviously he would become one, but the voting was for that particular point in time in 1996. What happened after that is irrelevant. You conduct another vote at a later date if you wish, at which point Shaq would be wholly deserving.

Round Mound 08-22-2012 07:08 PM

Re: What's with this myth that Shaq didn't have a long period of time as a superstar?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by millwad
Jordan was the Goat early 90's and mid 90's was all Hakeem.


Jordan was the GOAT Late 80s and All 90s. Then It Was Hakeem for the Late 80s and Early 90s as the 2nd Best Player and Charles Barkley the 3rd Best Player.

jlip 08-22-2012 07:09 PM

Re: What's with this myth that Shaq didn't have a long period of time as a superstar?
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ThaRegul8r
Which was complete nonsense. He shouldn't have been voted a Top 50 player in his third season in the league. Obviously he would become one, but the voting was for that particular point in time in 1996. What happened after that is irrelevant. You conduct another vote at a later date if you wish, at which point Shaq would be wholly deserving.


I definitely agree with you in terms of the premature proclamation of Shaq's all time status. I was simply pointing out that receiving that adulation (irrespective of how unwarranted it was at the time) strengthens the premise that he was recognized as a superstar by then.


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:55 AM.

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. Terms of Use/Service | Privacy Policy