1, 2, 3, 4, Shaq ain't in the NBA no more!

[throatybeard]

God, this makes me feel old:

http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nba/news/story?id=6615886

The career numbers are amazing.

Does this make Grant the oldest guy in the league, or is there one other? I remember seeing an article that said Grant was third this past year.

[stillcrazie]

I will miss Shaq and his sense of humor.

P.S. I met Grant Hill on campus today. He is as nice as everyone says he is. Got to shake his hand, pose for a quick photo. Very exciting for me.

[blazindw]

Does this make Grant the oldest guy in the league, or is there one other? I remember seeing an article that said Grant was third this past year.

I believe Juwan Howard is the oldest player followed by Jason Kidd. Not certain on Kidd, but I know he's up there.

[uh_no]

God, this makes me feel old:

http://sports.espn.go.com/boston/nba/news/story?id=6615886

The career numbers are amazing.

Does this make Grant the oldest guy in the league, or is there one other? I remember seeing an article that said Grant was third this past year.

Shaq's got a big ol' but oh yeah!

0-1 in cameron if I recall

[throatybeard]

I believe Juwan Howard is the oldest player followed by Jason Kidd. Not certain on Kidd, but I know he's up there.

Per wiki:

Hill 10/5/72
Howard 2/7/73
Kidd 3/23/73

Shaq 3/6/72

[tommy]

I was surprised and impressed that Shaq played as long as he did. He seemed to have a lot of other interests, his legacy was secure, and his ego didn't seem like it would be able to handle his decline in skills, productivity, and importance. But he did, to his credit.

While there's no denying Shaq's numbers, his impact on the game in the years he played, and his certain and obvious HOF-worthiness, something still bugs me about his game and makes me unable to put him at the same level as Russell, Wilt, and Kareem. As great as an athlete as Shaq was, with his quickness off his feet and his speed for a man his size, he never seemed to me to be a great offensive basketball player, if you know what I mean. He had no touch. No real feel for the ball. He was a good passer, but his shot was so ugly -- and I don't just mean his free throws but his regular shots too, other than dunks of course -- that it somehow colors my evaluation of him. All he did was essentially push or shot-put the ball and then pray.

Not all great players need to be great shooters. I get that. Just for example, neither Dr. J not Magic were great shooters. Nor were other great big men of the past or present, like Moses Malone, David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, or Dwight Howard for example. But they were nevertheless facile with the ball in a way that Shaq never was. Not saying those guys were better overall than Shaq, but his lack of feel for the ball, lack of touch, lack of shooting ability leaves him a notch below the big 3 in my mind.

What do y'all think?

[uh_no]

What do y'all think?

I think 4 rings speaks for itself....when you're athletic as he is, you don't worry about looking pretty or having 'touch'.....

half of basketball is skill and the other half is physical attributes....pau gasol is great and looks smooth around the rim....and he has to due to the fact that he's not a freak of nature like shaq is....players fit their games to their bodies....and shaq was pretty darn successful without...he was the 2x scoring champion for pete sakes! Perhaps you've forgotten that his best days were almost 10 years ago, but he averaged something like 28 points a game over the first 12 years of his career

now do I think he's in the upper echelon of NBA centers? probabably not....but its nearly impossible to compare different eras anyway, but I do think you're being a little overly critical of the best center in the NBA over the last 20 years.....

[tommy]

I think 4 rings speaks for itself....when you're athletic as he is, you don't worry about looking pretty or having 'touch'.....

half of basketball is skill and the other half is physical attributes....pau gasol is great and looks smooth around the rim....and he has to due to the fact that he's not a freak of nature like shaq is....players fit their games to their bodies....and shaq was pretty darn successful without...he was the 2x scoring champion for pete sakes! Perhaps you've forgotten that his best days were almost 10 years ago, but he averaged something like 28 points a game over the first 12 years of his career

now do I think he's in the upper echelon of NBA centers? probabably not....but its nearly impossible to compare different eras anyway, but I do think you're being a little overly critical of the best center in the NBA over the last 20 years.....

It doesn't appear that you read the first part of my post, or that you read the rest of it very closely either.

I clearly said that Shaq's numbers speak for themselves and he is an obvious Hall of Famer. I acknowledged all of that. Not that rings "speak for themselves" because they don't (how many do Will Perdue and Chuck Nevitt have?) but Shaq's teams won multiple championships and he was a very large part of all of them. Kudos to him for those as well.

What I'm saying is that Shaq's offensive game depended in large part on brute force rather than on what I consider to be real basketball skills, especially ball skills.

Strength and power are part of the game. I get that. But that was such a large part of what made him effective -- much larger than Russell and Kareem -- that to me it puts him a notch behind those guys, as well as behind Wilt. Shaq didn't have to develop touch, didn't have to learn how to actually shoot a basketball properly, didn't have to really even learn any reliable post moves because (being aided and abetted by the way the refs call games these days, especially for star players) he just overpowered guys and blew them out of his way, and dunked the ball as violently as possible. Sometimes it seemed that it was more like wrestling than basketball with Shaq.

While I'm not saying that a guy like Hakeem Olajuwon was a more effective or even a better overall player than Shaq, to me his real basketball skills -- footwork, moves, touch, etc. -- are at a whole different level than were Shaq's. I just can't put Shaq up there on the NBA's Mount Rushmore. Clear, obvious Hall of Famer, yes. Elite of the elite? No.

[darjum]

It doesn't appear that you read the first part of my post, or that you read the rest of it very closely either.

I clearly said that Shaq's numbers speak for themselves and he is an obvious Hall of Famer. I acknowledged all of that. Not that rings "speak for themselves" because they don't (how many do Will Perdue and Chuck Nevitt have?) but Shaq's teams won multiple championships and he was a very large part of all of them. Kudos to him for those as well.

What I'm saying is that Shaq's offensive game depended in large part on brute force rather than on what I consider to be real basketball skills, especially ball skills.

Strength and power are part of the game. I get that. But that was such a large part of what made him effective -- much larger than Russell and Kareem -- that to me it puts him a notch behind those guys, as well as behind Wilt. Shaq didn't have to develop touch, didn't have to learn how to actually shoot a basketball properly, didn't have to really even learn any reliable post moves because (being aided and abetted by the way the refs call games these days, especially for star players) he just overpowered guys and blew them out of his way, and dunked the ball as violently as possible. Sometimes it seemed that it was more like wrestling than basketball with Shaq.

While I'm not saying that a guy like Hakeem Olajuwon was a more effective or even a better overall player than Shaq, to me his real basketball skills -- footwork, moves, touch, etc. -- are at a whole different level than were Shaq's. I just can't put Shaq up there on the NBA's Mount Rushmore. Clear, obvious Hall of Famer, yes. Elite of the elite? No.

Common Tommy, Will Purdue & Luc Longley deserved all of their championship rings, they carried Jordan and Pippen in the 90's :rolleyes: Combined they have more than Shaq!

I actually agree with you on this one. My perspective on Shaq is that you can clearly identify his best seasons, 99-00 & second best 00-01. Every other season he either had serious gaps in his game (during the first few years) or he missed a ton of games. Which is not uncommon for a young player to have weaknesses or for a big man to miss games. But to be considered the best of the best he simply needed to have a more consistent career. He just missed too many games and especially early in his career had major skill flaws. It wasn't until mid way through his career that he become an effective passer. For someone of his physical stature he should have been far more dominate and if he'd had that ultimate competitive streak he may have been the GOAT, but he never reached it.

Having said all of that I loved having Shaq in the NBA. I have been watching pro hoops with an analytical eye since the late 80's and for my mind, Shaq's 99-00 season and Hakeem's 93-94 seasons rank right up there with the best seasons I've seen out of a true center. Maybe one of Duncan's MVP years ranks up there too, but he was a PF and he was never as physically dominate as Shaq.

Interestingly you bring up Hakeem, I do feel that Hakeem got the absolute most out of his physical gifts and I would say that he and Shaq are equals, albeit Shaq had the physical gifts to have been much better. Either way, both are significantly better than Robinson or Ewing.

It's hard to place him in history because we sometimes look at what Shaq could have been rather than what he was, which was the most dominate physical force in the game for almost a 10+ year period. If I were to create a list he would certainly be in the top 5 centers of all-time, but not in the top 3. Just my opinion.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/onealsh01.html

[sagegrouse]

Does this make Grant the oldest guy in the league, or is there one other? I remember seeing an article that said Grant was third this past year.

Kurt Thomas is now the oldest, if he returns to the league. He is one day older than Grant Hill. Here's the dope (http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2011/6/1/2201392/shaq-retirement-shaquille-oneal-oldest-nba-player-kurt-thomas).

sagegrouse

[NSDukeFan]

Kurt Thomas is now the oldest, if he returns to the league. He is one day older than Grant Hill. Here's the dope (http://www.sbnation.com/nba/2011/6/1/2201392/shaq-retirement-shaquille-oneal-oldest-nba-player-kurt-thomas).

sagegrouse

No reason he shouldn't. He seems to always be a solid contributor and effective big defender.

[superdave]

I was surprised and impressed that Shaq played as long as he did. He seemed to have a lot of other interests, his legacy was secure, and his ego didn't seem like it would be able to handle his decline in skills, productivity, and importance. But he did, to his credit.

While there's no denying Shaq's numbers, his impact on the game in the years he played, and his certain and obvious HOF-worthiness, something still bugs me about his game and makes me unable to put him at the same level as Russell, Wilt, and Kareem. As great as an athlete as Shaq was, with his quickness off his feet and his speed for a man his size, he never seemed to me to be a great offensive basketball player, if you know what I mean. He had no touch. No real feel for the ball. He was a good passer, but his shot was so ugly -- and I don't just mean his free throws but his regular shots too, other than dunks of course -- that it somehow colors my evaluation of him. All he did was essentially push or shot-put the ball and then pray.

Not all great players need to be great shooters. I get that. Just for example, neither Dr. J not Magic were great shooters. Nor were other great big men of the past or present, like Moses Malone, David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, or Dwight Howard for example. But they were nevertheless facile with the ball in a way that Shaq never was. Not saying those guys were better overall than Shaq, but his lack of feel for the ball, lack of touch, lack of shooting ability leaves him a notch below the big 3 in my mind.

What do y'all think?

I would agree that Shaq should be below Russell, Kareem and Wilt. Shaq could have been right there with them had he showed up in shape for training camp every summer. But he did not. He also could have been right there in the top 5 all time if he had touch - free throws and a go-to baby hook. But he did not.

So he will settle for 5th all time in scoring, 4 rings, 3 Finals mvps, 1 regular season mvp and the most dominant game in league history. When he wanted it, no one stopped him. He would have broken Wilt.

I love him for his larger than life personality and for having fun. I do wish he had a little more of the competitive juices though because watching Ewing, Robinson, Olajuwon and others get dunked on would have been cool.

[superdave]

We may need to do a poll:

Diesel
Superman
The Big Baryshnykov
The Big Cactus
Shaqtus
Shaq Fu
Wilt Chamberneezy
The Big Aristotle
The Black Tornado

Please add what I've missed!

Super "RIP all those rims Shaq destroyed" Dave

[DevilWearsPrada]

Hearing yesterday on Sports Radio, that Shaq tweeted "He Might Retire", made me a little sad. Where did that 19 years go? I remember when Shaq went to play for the DeVos family owned Orlando Magic. I still have a tee shirt with Shaq's handprint on it.

Where does someone like Shaq buy their clothes? Not Big and Tall, because he was Bigger and Taller!

I will miss his sense of humor, that he added to the NBA sport. But I know, he will see him again. Would love to see Shaq and Sir Charles commentating at the same time. Those two would be like Laurel and Hardy or Lucy and Ethyl.

Gonna miss that big guy. But a retirement from NBA, well deserved!

[uh_no]

It doesn't appear that you read the first part of my post, or that you read the rest of it very closely either.

I clearly said that Shaq's numbers speak for themselves and he is an obvious Hall of Famer. I acknowledged all of that. Not that rings "speak for themselves" because they don't (how many do Will Perdue and Chuck Nevitt have?) but Shaq's teams won multiple championships and he was a very large part of all of them. Kudos to him for those as well.

What I'm saying is that Shaq's offensive game depended in large part on brute force rather than on what I consider to be real basketball skills, especially ball skills.

Strength and power are part of the game. I get that. But that was such a large part of what made him effective -- much larger than Russell and Kareem -- that to me it puts him a notch behind those guys, as well as behind Wilt. Shaq didn't have to develop touch, didn't have to learn how to actually shoot a basketball properly, didn't have to really even learn any reliable post moves because (being aided and abetted by the way the refs call games these days, especially for star players) he just overpowered guys and blew them out of his way, and dunked the ball as violently as possible. Sometimes it seemed that it was more like wrestling than basketball with Shaq.

While I'm not saying that a guy like Hakeem Olajuwon was a more effective or even a better overall player than Shaq, to me his real basketball skills -- footwork, moves, touch, etc. -- are at a whole different level than were Shaq's. I just can't put Shaq up there on the NBA's Mount Rushmore. Clear, obvious Hall of Famer, yes. Elite of the elite? No.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/commentary/news/story?page=wilbon/110601

Wilbon makes my points better than I could. If "gaps in his offensive game" gives him as many points as he scored from 92 to 03.....I'll take gaps from any player on any team.

[Neals384]

"With his basketball career behind him, O'Neal said he has a lot of things to fall back on, including pursuing his doctorate in human resource development at Barry University in Miami."

"If all goes well, I will be Dr. Shaquille O'Neal in December or January."

Now that's impressive!

[UrinalCake]

I agree with Tommy on this one. We all know what it's like to play against someone who's just bigger and stronger than you and there's nothing you can do about it. I imagine that's where some of the dislike that some people have for Shaq comes from. I do think that if he had committed himself to basketball more fully - stayed in shape, refined his skills, and worked on his free throws - that he could have been the best center of all time. But as it is he's still in the top five and he seems content with that.

[snowdenscold]

So he will settle for 5th all time in scoring, 4 rings, 3 Finals mvps, 1 regular season mvp and the most dominant game in league history. When he wanted it, no one stopped him. He would have broken Wilt.


Though he'll be bumped to 6th all-time scoring by the end of next season, most likely, right?

[Starter]

Im going to warn you guys off the bat that I'm a nostalgic Shaq apologist, so I'm bound to come off as argumentative here. But I mean no disrespect to anyone and just like talking hoops. :D

Shaq made 58% of his shots. In his career. That's second all-time. If you're going to tell me he needed a midrange game or a jump hook or something to reach the next level in terms of an all-timer, I'm going to tell you he got along just fine with what he was doing. Why dilute the best pure power game in the history of basketball? A jump hook worked just fine for Kareem, at 7-2, 220. But Shaq is 7-1, 330 -- I'm not going to dock him on the all-time list for not shooting a hook. I realize it was frustrating at times to watch guys bounce off Shaq, unable to stop him in any way, but how is that Shaq's fault any more than a guy blessed with a rocket right arm who can blow a fastball by someone? And don't forget, when Shaq came in the league and was immediately holding his own against Ewing, Olajuwon and David Robinson, he was built kind of like Chris Webber in terms of body type -- lean, mean and powerful. It was only later that he added a ton of mass, by design (and also by buffet, but still).

Note also that Shaq shot a higher free-throw percentage than Wilt, though that was kind of by default. Wilt was a much better passer. Wilt also averaged 50 points a game one season, though I would contend he was leveraging his natural athletic gifts in much the same way Shaquille did, and in an era that contained less physicality.

Kareem's a tough call. They're close, both are phenomenal scorers with longevity. Kareem was a more decorated defender. If you want to definitively put Russell over Shaq, I can dig it. It really depends on your preference. Russell was arguably the greatest defensive player in the history of the game and no slouch offensively. He never scored 20 ppg in a season, though he was on those loaded teams, so it's not like he had to carry the mail. Shaquille, on the other hand, was just a ridiculously focused and powerful offensive player, one of the best we've seen, and not bereft on defense either. (Three times 2nd-team all defense)

You can put those other guys over Shaq if you'd like, but I don't think you can say he's not in the running. He dominated his era in certain ways just as much as any of those golden-era centers. At least to me.

[dairedevil]

Shows how much I follow (care about) the NBA, cuz when I saw the headlines in this morning's paper about Shaq's retirement, my first thought was, "he's still playing? I didn't know that"

[sagegrouse]

Shows how much I follow (care about) the NBA, cuz when I saw the headlines in this morning's paper about Shaq's retirement, my first thought was, "he's still playing? I didn't know that"

The answer is, "not much." Shaq went from Feb 1 to May 7 without playing except for a couple of minutes against DET in April. He played 12 mins. over two games against the Heat in the playoffs.

He did start 36 games this year, but almost all in Nov, Dec and Jan.

sagegrouse

[roywhite]

Wonder if the Worldwide Leader will try to sign Shaq to a broadcasting gig?

He's got plenty of personality and wit; maybe an ESPN counter to Chuck Barkley on TNT? Just speculating....maybe Jon Barry should be checking his options?

[ncexnyc]

I always get a laugh out of threads like this, when someone states so and so player is better than so and so player. It's as if these players existed in a vacuum and the supporting cast that surrounded them is never taken into consideration.

I also find it amusing that Shaq is being criticized for not having basketball skills. I don't know exactly what Shaq's work ethic was, but as I've often heard elsewhere, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Shaq was power personified and that was his game plain and simple.

I'd hate to see how some of you would go about discussing boxers. From what I'm seeing on this thread, there would probably be a number of you who would adore a guy who couldn't punch his way out of a paper bag, because he's got boxing skills.

[cato]

You can put those other guys over Shaq if you'd like, but I don't think you can say he's not in the running. He dominated his era in certain ways just as much as any of those golden-era centers. At least to me.

See, that's the thing. People look at Shaq, and think, "If he'd worked harder to fill some of the gaps, he could have been the best basketball player ever." Instead, even to an unapologetic Shaq supporter, he's at best "in the running".

Put another way, imagine his career numbers if he'd developed skills to help fill in the gaps when his physical dominance subsided.

Anyway, I'm not exactly taking a side. I'm just saying I understand where some people come from. No one can deny that Shaq was a dominant force in his era.

[hurleyfor3]

I've been in a nostalgic mood recently, primarily because I'm in Las Vegas, posting this about a mile away from the Unlv campus, which is one of the first things you see when leaving the LAS airport. I always like being reminded of early 90s college basketball. Anyway, Shaq's retirement has the same effect.

When I heard the news, the basis for the thread title came to mind here as well. The 1991 Lsu game in Cameron was one of the more fun ones I experienced as a Duke undergrad -- and considering I'm '93, that's a pretty strong statement. I remember the score, Duke 88, Lsu 70.

Most of the country didn't get to see the game, because it overlapped the Unlv/Arkansas game, and both games were covered by CBS. Conversely, those of us attending the game in Cameron couldn't watch that game, which would have been of obvious interest to us.

The actual cheer was, "1, 2, 3, 4, Shaq can't play this game no more," after he picked up his fourth foul. I think at least two of those fouls were ticky-tack. But four fouls is four fouls, and that pretty much decided the game, which had already been in Duke's favor.

There was another cheer we made early in the game after he missed a dunk: "Shaq can't jam, Shaq can't jam." He proved us wrong a couple of possessions later. He looked around at us (we were silent) and smiled, obviously aware of our cheering.

A few weeks before that game was the campout for the unc game. At the annual meeting with the Crazies in the leadup to the unc game, someone asked Coach about Shaq's visit and whether he might be able to break the backboards. Coach said that Cameron's rims were twice as strong as regulation rims were, able to withstand 1,000 pounds of force, whereas Shaq weighed only 300, so he wasn't worried about it. Not sure whether to believe it (in the first place, he was mixing units), but it was a funny response.

Good times. Not my favorite player, but never boring.

[ChillinDuke]

We may need to do a poll:

Diesel
Superman
The Big Baryshnykov
The Big Cactus
Shaqtus
Shaq Fu
Wilt Chamberneezy
The Big Aristotle
The Black Tornado

Please add what I've missed!

Super "RIP all those rims Shaq destroyed" Dave


I have been told by a few friends of mine, that Shaq once posed in Cambridge, MA for a whole day. People could take pictures with him to their heart's content. How, you may ask? Because he never moved.

He was being a "Shaqtue".

HA. The man is legendary, on and off the court. Fantastic career.

Here's to hoping he has a long career as an NBA analyst. (He and Barkley would make for a hysterical 1-2 punch on TNT.)

[darjum]

Well deserved:

http://basketball.realgm.com/wiretap/213955/Lakers_Will_Retire_Shaqs_Number

I wonder of the Heat will do the same. He brought them a title and lets face it, they retired Jordan's and he didn't even play for them. However I doubt he will get a jersey hanging from the rafters in Orlando!

[hq2]

I would agree that Shaq should be below Russell, Kareem and Wilt. Shaq could have been right there with them had he showed up in shape for training camp every summer. But he did not. He also could have been right there in the top 5 all time if he had touch - free throws and a go-to baby hook. But he did not.

I think that gets it right. He's on my all time second team. He never developed enough real basketball skills to go along with his overwhelming physical strength. Given that he played in an era with few other opposing quality 7 footers (only the (earlier) Patrick Ewing could guard him one on one, and even he couldn't stop him), he actually could have dominated even more than he did if he had worked at it. Still, he put up some very good numbers.

[UrinalCake]

There was another cheer we made early in the game after he missed a dunk: "Shaq can't jam, Shaq can't jam."

Yeah, I don't know that making fun of Shaq's dunking ability is such a good idea. That ranks right up there with greeting Tim Duncan with "Hi Tim, you suck!" which we did for all opposing players at the time. He then proceeded to tear us a new one.

[jipops]

Wonder if the Worldwide Leader will try to sign Shaq to a broadcasting gig?

He's got plenty of personality and wit; maybe an ESPN counter to Chuck Barkley on TNT? Just speculating....maybe Jon Barry should be checking his options?

I would love it if he replaced Mark Jackson as a game commentator. Shaq would be less likely to say the same things, over and over and over and over... in the 2nd person.

[Starter]

See, that's the thing. People look at Shaq, and think, "If he'd worked harder to fill some of the gaps, he could have been the best basketball player ever." Instead, even to an unapologetic Shaq supporter, he's at best "in the running".

Put another way, imagine his career numbers if he'd developed skills to help fill in the gaps when his physical dominance subsided.

Anyway, I'm not exactly taking a side. I'm just saying I understand where some people come from. No one can deny that Shaq was a dominant force in his era.

Yeah, I get your point here. That said, being merely in the running with Stilt, Kareem and Walton isn't exactly shameful. Then you get into comparing across eras, which isn't easy. (And I would suggest that Shaq was probably working a bit harder than I'm hearing people saying just to be mentioned in the same breath as those guys. He could have definitely kept himself in better shape in the offseason, but it's not like this guy never saw a gym or anything.)

By the way... not for nothing, Shaq did have a hook. It just wasn't a sky hook. Check this one (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Kms6z3p9rI) out -- he scored every which way. Baby hooks, turnaround jumpers, of course lots of dunks, and even the occasional free throw. And it was his second year.

[NSDukeFan]

I agree Shaq is one of the best players of all time and I would expect he would be ranked behind Russell, Kareem and Wilt among centers. He was an absolutely incredible athlete, his quickness and jumping ability were unreal for a guy his size. His footwork was also very good for a man of his size and strength. It was almost unfair for everyone else. It was mentioned earlier in this thread how Shaq had an advantage because he was allowed to just back into others, but the flip side is, because he was so strong, his opponents were allowed much more leeway in terms of how much they could do to him without being called for a foul. The one major criticism I would direct towards Shaq (he also probably could have been in better shape, but how many others his size have been able to stay in the league long enough to be a 15 time all-star?) would be his foul shooting. Maybe we would be considering him the greatest ever had he been able to be a 70% foul shooter? To have been able to stay in the league as long as he did and to have been as effective as long as he was just shows the kind of physical freak he is.

I just wonder how good he could have been if he had had a better big man coach, but unfortunately, Ewing was still playing, as were Danny Manning and Hakeem Olajuwon. :p

[Des Esseintes]

See, that's the thing. People look at Shaq, and think, "If he'd worked harder to fill some of the gaps, he could have been the best basketball player ever." Instead, even to an unapologetic Shaq supporter, he's at best "in the running".

Put another way, imagine his career numbers if he'd developed skills to help fill in the gaps when his physical dominance subsided.

Anyway, I'm not exactly taking a side. I'm just saying I understand where some people come from. No one can deny that Shaq was a dominant force in his era.

Not to pick on you especially, because many people are saying the exact same thing, but I don't get the insistence on wasted potential with Shaq. How can we just blindly assert he had the physical gifts to be the greatest player of all time with harder work? How can we eyeball something like that? Perhaps he had that potential; I can't say that he didn't, because I know I don't know. But the NBA has not lacked for fantastic bodies with seemingly unlimited ceilings. Only one of them gets to be the best, and it seems churlish to dock a player with so many individual and team accomplishments for not doing more. (You can dock him somewhat for his own occasional churlish behavior, but let's not forget Michael Jordan and Kareem, among others, are and were arguably far bigger jerks.) His resume compares favorably with anyone's. What his resume might have been in an alternate universe is perhaps interesting, but it shouldn't be at the center of the debate.

Moreover, I'm with Starter in remembering a player with an incredibly lithe and sophisticated power game. He wasn't a bigger Brendan Haywood, and it's silly to characterize him as such. You don't score like he scored, with that efficiency and that volume, on force alone.

[Acymetric]

I'll bring up an interesting point. With a body his size (both weight and height), could more conditioning and weight lifting have worn down his body even sooner? Perhaps his ability to be a great player without living in the gym actually extended his career by a couple years.

[sagegrouse]

If I may offer an opinion, the discussion of Shaq today is dominated by a memory of the last few years, when infirmities and age began to overcome his talent. This was also the case with Wilt, who received tons of criticism his last years in the league.

In 5-10 years we will remember primarily Shaq's 10-12 best years. It has been true of Wilt.

The criticism didn't seem to happen for Kareem, probably because he was a productive player until nearly 40. And it didn't happen to Russell because -- truthfully -- he retired too soon.

sagegrouse

[Indoor66]

...Russell because -- truthfully -- he retired too soon.

sagegrouse

I agree with most of your post but I am not sure I agree with you on this one. Russell graduated from U of San Francisco in 1956 at age 22. He retired from the NBA (as a player) in 1969. That means he played in the league for seventeen years. I seriously doubt he retired too soon. That is a long career in the NBA - especially for a big man.

[pfrduke]

I agree with most of your post but I am not sure I agree with you on this one. Russell graduated from U of San Francisco in 1956 at age 22. He retired from the NBA (as a player) in 1969. That means he played in the league for seventeen years. I seriously doubt he retired too soon. That is a long career in the NBA - especially for a big man.

Unless I'm missing something, 1956-1969 is 13 seasons. Still long, but probably on the short end as far as the better players in league history are concerned.

[hq2]

Yes, but why should he have stayed longer? His team was getting old, and they were on their last gasp, championship wise, in '69. Russell wanted to go out a winner, and he did; his last game was winning the NBA championship in L.A. ("Those f*&^&** balloons are staying up!"). How can you top that for an ending?

And, I think that was another reason Shaq didn't come back. He knew the Celtics championship window had closed, so why bother?

[Indoor66]

Unless I'm missing something, 1956-1969 is 13 seasons. Still long, but probably on the short end as far as the better players in league history are concerned.

You're correct. I never was worth a ____ at math! LOL

[sagegrouse]

I agree with most of your post but I am not sure I agree with you on this one. Russell graduated from U of San Francisco in 1956 at age 22. He retired from the NBA (as a player) in 1969. That means he played in the league for seventeen years. I seriously doubt he retired too soon. That is a long career in the NBA - especially for a big man.

What I remember most about Russell's retirement is that he did not discuss it with Red Auerbach ahead of time. Russell was the Celtic's coach, and Red, I guess, was the team president. Red's response to the rumor was, "Russell retire? I don't think so. We wouldn't have a center."

As to whether it was too early: he played only 13 years, was 34 in his last season, and averaged 19.3 rebounds and 4.9 assists (9.9 ppg) his last season.

Bill Russell was his own man.

sagegrouse

[rsvman]

Bill Russell was arguably the best center ever. You could even make the argument that he was the best basketball player ever on planet earth, if you really wanted to. He was certainly a winner.

I'm not much of a historian (maybe somebody could look this up) but if I recall correctly, he led his San Francisco college team to an undefeated season and the NCAA championship, then didn't go straight to the NBA because he went to the Olympics instead, where he led his team to the championship. After that he joined the Celtics mid-season and (perhaps) they won the NBA championship? Not sure if they won in his first year or not.

In any case, Russell's teams won basketball games and they won championships. Everywhere he went.

I like Shaq, and he was certainly an awesome player in his own right, but he's no Bill Russell. Anybody who says Shaq was better than Bill Russell is either too young to know any better or on some kind of illegal substance.

[BobbyFan]

The biggest fault you can have Shaq's career is that he didn't maintain his peak level of play over a longer stretch. But the four years or so when he was at his best in LA, Shaq very well may have been as good as anyone. He was one of the league's best defenders, to go along with being the greatest offensive player of all time (including Jordan). Unfortunately, the defensive intensity Phil Jackson got out of him could not be maintained in his other years.

[uh_no]

The biggest fault you can have Shaq's career is that he didn't maintain his peak level of play over a longer stretch. But the four years or so when he was at his best in LA, Shaq very well may have been as good as anyone. He was one of the league's best defenders, to go along with being the greatest offensive player of all time (including Jordan). Unfortunately, the defensive intensity Phil Jackson got out of him could not be maintained in his other years.

4 years? try 10 years

from 1993 to 2003 he averaged something like 28 points and 11 boards a game

[BobbyFan]

4 years? try 10 years

from 1993 to 2003 he averaged something like 28 points and 11 boards a game

As I already mentioned, his defense was not the same during that 10 year timespan.

[darjum]

I was thinking about all of the primary ball handlers and lead guards Shaq has played with during his career:

Scott Skiles, Penny Hardaway, Nick Van Exel, Kobe Bryant, Dwyane Wade, Steve Nash, LeBron James and Rajon Rondo.

Not a bad list. One of Shaq's credits is he made the game easier for all of them to have the space to move on the perimeter, due to all the attention on him, and a target to pass to on the inside to wrack up assists.

I heard someone, maybe Simmons, use Penny Hardaway and Brandon Roy in the same sentence regarding injury, so sad. Penny was so dominate in the early to mid 90's, at the time he was Grant Hill's equal. Now Grant is still playing in the NBA and Penny plays in rec leagues.

[DevilWearsPrada]

Now that Shaq is retired; I hope he doesn't consider doing Dancing with The Stars. He is too tall and too big. Rick Fox was actually very good in DWTS. (and handsome). And athletes actually do very well on Dancing with the Stars. Hines Ward just won!

I found my SHAQ shirt. His hand is 2.5 times than mine. The caption says beside his hand: "Shaq's hand (Actual size with the picture). Aren't you glad he's on your side." circa Orlando Magic days.

Should I EBAY the Shirt?

[Rudy]

Now that Shaq is retired; I hope he doesn't consider doing Dancing with The Stars. He is too tall and too big. Rick Fox was actually very good in DWTS. (and handsome). And athletes actually do very well on Dancing with the Stars. Hines Ward just won!

I found my SHAQ shirt. His hand is 2.5 times than mine. The caption says beside his hand: "Shaq's hand (Actual size with the picture). Aren't you glad he's on your side." circa Orlando Magic days.

Should I EBAY the Shirt?

No. You should give it to the hottest girl you know.

[brevity]

I came late to the Shaq Appreciation Party -- how can I root for a guy who as a collegian was so clearly dominated by Marty Clark? -- and even then I favored his personality over his game.

Maybe the reason people feel a little let down by Shaq relates to mathematical probability. The chances that a person gifted with that size and skill set are so rare that, when one comes along, he has a realistic opportunity to become the Greatest Center Ever. That he had as long a career as he did and can't top the historical list by any commonly used metric is, well, a bit disappointing. Because who knows how long we'll have to wait until the next opportunity emerges.

Is his rookie card worth more now?