Most underrated player on ISH is none other than ------------------------------------

[Mamba]

Kobe's sidekick Pau Gasol isn't better than 2000 Kobe or 2001 Kobe or 2002 Kobe .... So Mamba basically won back to back rings with less star talent than Shaq needed to win.

we're just going to go ahead and pretend ron artest, lamar odom, and andrew bynum didn't exist right now?

I'm just making sure we're doing this, because that is one of the strongest supporting casts in the history of the league.

[SilkkTheShocker]

Shaq was sidekick for one ring ... Same way you tell us Kobe was sidekick all the time.

Kobe's sidekick Pau Gasol isn't better than 2000 Kobe or 2001 Kobe or 2002 Kobe .... So Mamba basically won back to back rings with less star talent than Shaq needed to win.

You could argue Kobe's teams were more well stacked and they might be but its fun using your own ridiculous arguments against you

The 08-10 Laker teams had more depth than the 99-02 teams. Shaq's Lakers lost talent just about every season until the 03-04 season. It was made up for by Kobe becoming a top 3 player and Phil Jackson coming aboard. I mean the 01 Lakers were the most dominant playoff team of all time and after Shaq/Kobe, that roster was nothing special. Pretty sure Fisher was there #3 scorer for the postseason. I mean guys like Fox, Horry, etc were nice role players. Kobe's Laker teams had Odom off the bench and overall better depth.

[Dro]

The 08-10 Laker teams had more depth than the 99-02 teams. Shaq's Lakers lost talent just about every season until the 03-04 season. It was made up for by Kobe becoming a top 3 player and Phil Jackson coming aboard. I mean the 01 Lakers were the most dominant playoff team of all time and after Shaq/Kobe, that roster was nothing special. Pretty sure Fisher was there #3 scorer for the postseason. I mean guys like Fox, Horry, etc were nice role players. Kobe's Laker teams had Odom off the bench and overall better depth.

I agree with this....

[Mr. Jabbar]

Shaq and Kobe 1x MVP each, Nash 2x MVP. That award = joke.

[Budadiiii]

Shaq and Kobe 1x MVP each, Nash 2x MVP. That award = joke.

Steve Nash in his prime shits on both of those guys. Nash deserved four MVP's. He's easily a top 10 all time player.

[Dro]

Steve Nash in his prime shits on both of those guys. Nash deserved four MVP's. He's easily a top 10 all time player.

I assume this is sarcasm....

[Budadiiii]

I assume this is sarcasm....

lol what the ****, my bad. I accidentally put top ten instead of top five.

I hate coming off as an idiot on the net.

[MisterAmazing]

All hail The Big Aristotle

Repped

[Bandito]

we're just going to go ahead and pretend ron artest, lamar odom, and andrew bynum didn't exist right now?

I'm just making sure we're doing this, because that is one of the strongest supporting casts in the history of the league.

why do people keep mention Bynum when he was injured for those rings and when he played he did for like 10 mins a game. He was not a factor for those games. Heck even fisher did way more than him and he was barely a factor on defense.

[Coolaak]

He always needed top shooting guard besides him to win.Like Kobe, and Wade.
He can never win like Kobe won his last 2 rings.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Shaquille O'Neal could have been a 4x NBA MVP. (1995, 2001, and 2005). 4x NBA MVP, and 3x Finals MVP = top 5 player of all time.

What difference does it make that he didn't get the award from the media? It still doesn't change the fact he had great seasons in 95, 01, and 05.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Shaq was sidekick for one ring ... Same way you tell us Kobe was sidekick all the time.

Kobe's sidekick Pau Gasol isn't better than 2000 Kobe or 2001 Kobe or 2002 Kobe .... So Mamba basically won back to back rings with less star talent than Shaq needed to win.

You could argue Kobe's teams were more well stacked and they might be but its fun using your own ridiculous arguments against you

I'd lean towards '09 and '10 Gasol over 2000 Kobe personally, though definitely not '01 and '02 Kobe who was on another level than any version of Pau. But Gasol was a more mature and consistent player when he won the back to back titles than 2000 Kobe, imo.

The problem with Shaq is he did it at a time where there were no great centers. He didn't win it in Orlando with a very good supporting cast. Plus his team was swept so many times before the threepeat.

He was 24 when he left Orlando. How exactly does that diminish what he accomplished in LA? He got to the finals and ECF his last 2 years there losing to a Rocket team that had beaten teams that had won 60, 59 and 62 games to get to the finals and losing to a 72 win Bulls team the next year.

we're just going to go ahead and pretend ron artest, lamar odom, and andrew bynum didn't exist right now?

He acknowledged that at the end of his post. He wasn't trying to discredit Shaq, he was making a point about the logic, or lack thereof used when it comes to evaluating rings.

I'm just making sure we're doing this, because that is one of the strongest supporting casts in the history of the league.

This simply isn't true.

[Ne 1]

He is underrated. There isn't any consistent criteria that doesn't place Shaq at least top 6 and really, factoring in the main cafeteria's used for ranking players (championships, peak/prime play and longevity) he comes out at best top 3 and at worst 6. Clearly below Kareem and Jordan, and by peak play and longevity he's clearly top 3. As far as winning? He'd still be tied for 6th with Duncan if you use total championships as the criteria as far as the guys in the consensus top 10. Shaq is 6th in All-Time scoring, 7th in blocks and 13th Rebounding.

I'm shocked that some people have him as low as 10 on their all-time lists.

[iamgine]

He was 24 when he left Orlando. How exactly does that diminish what he accomplished in LA? He got to the finals and ECF his last 2 years there losing to a Rocket team that had beaten teams that had won 60, 59 and 62 games to get to the finals and losing to a 72 win Bulls team the next year.

It didn't. What diminish it was the fact that there was no great center by then.

His team did get swept plenty of times.

[ShaqAttack3234]

It didn't. What diminish it was the fact that there was no great center by then.

His team did get swept plenty of times.

Better than losing in the 1st round, and the sweeps themselves aren't what I look at. I look at his performance. I'm critical of his '99 series vs the Spurs, not necessarily because of the sweep, but because he played well below his standards. For that reason, I criticize him far more for his '97 loss to Utah which wasn't a sweep than his '98 loss when he was swept. That's because he was dominant outside of game 1 vs Utah, and I was impressed by how hard he played until the end of the series even when it was hopeless and his teammates had embarrassed themselves. Meanwhile, Shaq's '97 series vs Utah was well below his standards. That's a loss I'm more critical of than his '95 and '96 sweeps, which aren't negatives to me.