How far short of GOAT consideration is Shaq?

[west_tip]

What else would he need on his resume to have a legit GOAT case, ie. would 2 x more rings sufficed. Also, how high can Shaq be rated on a best case scenario type basis, giving him the benefit of all doubt?

Lastly, did Shaq overachieve, underachieve or did his career pan out more or less how it was supposed to?

[Richesly]

Who cares!? LOCKOUT IS OVER!!

[west_tip]

Who cares!? LOCKOUT IS OVER!!

[Shade8780]

[G.O.A.T]

Not far. His peak puts him in the conversation because at his best he is arguably as good as any player has ever been.

However he is not someone I consider for the top spot for the following reasons...

1) Wasted prime years. Being out of shape or not in harmony with his coaches/teammates cost him, that's not acceptable if a player of equal credentials/ability has set a higher standard as Jordan and Russell have for me. Both players took their teams as far as they could possibly go in every healthy full season they played.

2) Inconsistent dominance bourne out of worth ethic. Shaq could have had a five or so year run as the insanely dominant player he was for 2000 and most of 2001 but first immaturity and second lack of discipline squelched that chance. Again Russell and Jordan never let those flaws arise and deter them.

3) Hung on to long. This is a personal thing, but seeing 1989 Kareem or 1990whatever Moses or Toronto Raptor Hakeem is unsettling. Shaq post-Phoenix was a disaster. On occasion when a team dedicated their offense to his strengths he was efficient and effective, but otherwise he was a liability. That sucked. Russell and Jordan went out on top, even Wizard MJ was still a top 20-30 player in the league.

I love Shaq, I'll always take his side over Kobe and he may very well be the last GREAT center for a long, if not all-time. A player of his make-up would dominate in any era, physically he held a greater advantage over his peers than anyone in my opinion and only Wilt rivals him in that regard. I have often been tempted to rank him as high as fourth all-time, I struggle with him, Wilt and Kareem. He deserves to get the nod based on consistency during his peak, but those other guys were so much better for the rest of their primes and more importantly hold a defensive edge over Shaq that is more significant than any other distinction relevant to the conversation. At worst, Shaq is the ninth greatest player ever.

[iamgine]

In order to remove all doubt as GOAT, I think the following is what's missing in his career:

1. At least 2 rings against 90s competitions.
2. 65+ FT%.
3. Be a better leader and teammate.

[west_tip]

Thanks for that answer GOAT.

I see your point regarding Cavs/Celtics Shaq. In some regards it taints your memory of a player to see them as an old, washed up has been reduced to role player status.

[WillC]

I agree with GOAT.

However, I'm grateful that Shaq played a couple of extra years. It allowed me to see him play before he retired (I travelled to Boston from the UK to see Shaq's debut for the Celtics... which also happened to be LeBron's debut for the Heat, and I got to speak to the players in the locker room).

[Real Men Wear Green]

3 MVP awards. The way MJ, KAJ, Magic, Wilt, etc piled them up you have to win a lot of them to truly be in the discussion. Also, I'm not sure about this but I don't think he has any full-season or career major records, which isn't that important but it sounds impressive when we say that MJ had the highest career ppg, Jabbar was the top career scorer, Chamberlain once averaged 50, etc.

[PTB Fan]

A case can be made for Shaq, but his case is hurt by lack of work ethic, laziness and wasted some years of his prime. Additionally, his latter years weren't really needed because he should have retired earlier IMO.

[kurt_rambis]

agreed with G.O.A.T. that he hung on too long. shaq's last 6 seasons did way more to hurt his legacy than help it, while by comparison kareem's last 6-7 years (even in his diminished role) helped solidify him as a top 5 player of all time

also, out of the 20 seasons he played, only in 7 of them did he manage to play at least 70 games. whether that was do to laziness of legitimate injury, who knows. but it definitely hurts his legacy

[Carbine]

3 MVP awards. The way MJ, KAJ, Magic, Wilt, etc piled them up you have to win a lot of them to truly be in the discussion. Also, I'm not sure about this but I don't think he has any full-season or career major records, which isn't that important but it sounds impressive when we say that MJ had the highest career ppg, Jabbar was the top career scorer, Chamberlain once averaged 50, etc.

Terrible post. Don't listen to this nonsense.

[ILLsmak]

In order to remove all doubt as GOAT, I think the following is what's missing in his career:

1. At least 2 rings against 90s competitions.
2. 65+ FT%.
3. Be a better leader and teammate.

lol, I love these criteria; so random...

I don't think Shaq is the GOAT, but I think he's definitely a top player and I think that he could be considered for GOAT at the C position. Who is better than Shaq at the C? Maybe nobody. People were afraid to face Shaq, all of the contending teams picked up big bodies just to throw at Shaq.

People say Shaq needed a top tier SG to win, but he didn't. He only needed a team of role players that could consistently hit jumpers. If his team makes jumpers, he wins. That's why I hate when people compare players and say so and so won but so and so didn't. Well, the role players have to step up, too. Shaq got his team great shots it's just a lot of the time they didn't make them.

One more thing, everyone always talks about Shaq not being a good leader or teammate, but he's a 30 ppg big man in a low scoring era. All of the big men that he played with I'm sure thought he was a good teammate. It's just that there were all-star twos that didn't get along with him because they weren't used to being challenged by another player.

-Smak

[ThaRegul8r]

His peak puts him in the conversation because at his best he is arguably as good as any player has ever been.

If one creates two lists, one for peak and one for career as Bill James did for baseball, then Shaq would rank high on the former, but I'm still wrestling with where I would ultimately rank him career-wise.

However he is not someone I consider for the top spot for the following reasons...

1) Wasted prime years. Being out of shape or not in harmony with his coaches/teammates cost him, that's not acceptable if a player of equal credentials/ability has set a higher standard as Jordan and Russell have for me. Both players took their teams as far as they could possibly go in every healthy full season they played.

This is a big point for me. Just restricting talk to the center position, never in his life would Russell do anything which would result in the premature breakup of a dynasty. This is inexcusable to me. I penalize both him AND Kobe for this, and they both get docked in my all-time rankings because of it.

[QUOTE]Shaquille O'Neal and Lakers could have done so much more

Yes, O'Neal and Kobe Bryant teamed for three championships, but their differences, and Shaq's issues with owner Jerry Buss, cost them the ultimate glory.

The retirement announcement was made on a grainy video shot in his Orlando home and sent to the world through a social media service.

So typical of Shaquille O'Neal, it was cute, cutting edge

[ThaRegul8r]

2) Inconsistent dominance bourne out of worth ethic. Shaq could have had a five or so year run as the insanely dominant player he was for 2000 and most of 2001 but first immaturity and second lack of discipline squelched that chance. Again Russell and Jordan never let those flaws arise and deter them.

Off the Glass
Why isn't Shaq the most dominant O'Neal in the league?
Posted: Thursday March 11, 2004 8:19PM; Updated: Thursday March 11, 2004 8:19PM

A few years back, OTG engaged in a vigorous debate with SI.com's own Jennifer Cooper about the talent of a certain NBA giant named Shaquille O'Neal. Having watched the Daddy plow over helplessly outsized opponents in her SEC stomping grounds, Jennifer was of the opinion that O'Neal was little more than a bully, using his tremendous size advantage to seemingly score at will and control the paint.

Hogwash, said a young(er) OTG; no matter the size, a person must have some level of talent to understand how to use his bulk effectively. The league is littered with the memories of Mark Eaton or Gheorge Muresan, giants who played nice complementary roles but never displayed the game-changing ability of Shaq.

On the debate raged, over the course of days, weeks, months, years, neither one of us giving into the other's argument.

Ms. Cooper, can I change my answer?

Maybe change is too strong a word. Amend might be more appropriate. As dominant as everyone tells us Shaq is, there is something missing, that sense of wow. I'm not looking for a skywalking dunk or a behind-the-back pass. I'm talking about putting up the kind of statistics that create headlines: 40 points for five games in a row or 23-rebound nights, triple doubles in points, rebounds and blocks, things that Shaq just doesn't do.

True, Shaq did do those sorts of things when he came into the league, but OTG has always had the sense that the Daddy didn't have the drive to excel in hoops to his full, monstrous potential.

As the years have added up, Shaq has increasingly picked his spots as to when he wants to dominate. Recall last year when Shaq didn't opt for toe surgery until late in the offseason, guaranteeing him a late start to the regular season.

Or look at his numbers this year: 22 ppg (a career low) and 10.8 rpg. Heck, this season, on a pound-for-pound basis, Shaq isn't even the best O'Neal in the NBA.

Indiana's Jermaine has averaged 20.6 ppg, 10.3 rpg and 2.6 bpg carrying 98 fewer pounds and measuring three inches shorter. Sure, Shaq is hitting nearly 60 percent of his shots, compared to Jermaine's 43 percent, but shouldn't the league's most dominant player, a two-time Finals MVP, own more than one statistical category?

Heck, yes, he should, especially in a season in which injuries to Karl Malone and Kobe Bryant have left the Daddy with no more offensive options than he has had in the past. I understand Shaq tries to preserve himself for the postseason, but he plays on cruise control far too often, a habit that will leave the Lakers without home court in the playoffs' later rounds.

While O'Neal has always been a sometimes indifferent defender, his lack of focus has drifted toward his offensive game lately. How does someone of Shaq's size fail to score 20 points or pull down more than five boards against Jahidi White of the Suns? Samuel Dalembert may show signs of being a solid center for Philly but should a rookie be able to restrain Shaq to 17 points, eight rebounds and a single block? Do you catch my drift? Seventeen, eight and one are fine numbers but the Daddy is capable of so much more, it's a pity he doesn't do more.

By all accounts he cannot be guarded when he wants to get to the hoop. Far too many times, though, he is, and guarded out of relevance for long stretches of games. That's the reason I can write a column like this and be reasonably certain that children will not throw eggs at stately OTG Manor. That's the reason the Lakers need a one-shouldered Kobe Bryant to bail them out in the fourth quarter. And, finally, it's the reason I suspect I may finally have lost that old debate.

Stuff like this (among others) is why I have problems ranking him outside of his peak. It's why I'm ambivalent when it comes to Shaq, and why I haven't decided yet where he should rank on my list. I've been considering points various Shaq supporters have said and mulling it over, but I still haven't made up my mind.

At worst, Shaq is the ninth greatest player ever.

Agreed.