Shaq: Pre 2000 vs. post 2000

I always wonder what people really think about Shaq. I group him into two categories, pre and post 2000. That is kind of deceptive to a degree because post 2000 to me consists of 1999-2001 season. (just two seasons)
Before 2000 Shaq had no low post game outside of backing down for the dunk, he had no consistant jump hook or anything else for that matter. After allowing Duncan to destroy him in the 1999 playoffs, Game 4 when he said he was going to guard Duncan, he really became the player he should have been for years. He was consistant and played practically every game. Pre 2000 Shaq was missing so many games due to abdominal injuries, etc. He still required a double team but he wasn't close to the 2000 Shaq. I has always been lazy on the defensive end, except the 2000 season. I think that Duncan motivated Shaq more than any player simply because they are both big men and Duncah hadn't been in the NBA as long as him and for Duncan to win a championship so soon, I think Shaq dedicated himself more and was more focused. I don't think he wasn't applying himself the years before but something changed during that off season other than Phil Jackson coming to LA because clearly Shaq was dominant throughout that season. I also think Shaq stating that he defeated all the best centers before him is laughable. He must have forgotten that Hakeem swept his team in 1995, David dethroned him in 2003 and walked away a champion. Who did he beat out? A broke down Rik Smits? Mutumbo? I disagree with Shaq on that point and I think he took Dominique's spot on the 50 greatest. I say Shaq had two great seasons and the rest were under what he should have done, though still superstar and franchise level, but not close to the two great seasons he played, with the 2001 being the playoffs and not the regular season. What do you think?

I'm in no mood to discuss Shaq's greatness, I've done it a countless times before.

No matter what you say, Shaq is one of the best players the league has had. He had the size, the strenght & even though some may doubt, the skill. Shaq's my hero & that's all I've got to say.

The point is that in hindsight, he IS on eof the top 50 off all time, if not one of the Top 15... who cares if he was worthy then, all that matters is that he's worthy now... and he rated far higher than Dominique in the 'Best of all time' list...

One of the most dominant players ever due to his natural body and agility gifts. Not particularly skilled, not a particularly high basketball IQ. Good intensity, nothing close to Jordan.

Shaq's greatness may be supreme, but it's all physical.

I'll put it this way, i don't think if Jordan or Bird had a lingering thigh bruise from 2 months ago that would have caused such a meltdown in performance. And i won't mention a certain other 7 footer in the League who had a worse injury at the end of the regular season but has been rock solid in the playoffs, leading his team to cruise to the Western Conf Finals.

He's certainly a specimen, but he doesn't have to total package of physical and mental toughness like Jordan or Bird. But still, even if he's not on that level, he can still be one of the best to have ever played the game.

Meltdown? How so? Did you bother taking in to account that the other 7 footer doesn't get near as much physical play as Shaq does? No where near as much. Duncan isn't doubled night in & night out.

Meltdown my ass.

At the time, it was a bit premature and the fact there were a couple of high-profile snubs made the selection look a bit worse. I don't think there's any question he's a top 50 player having established himself as not only a dominant force but also a winner upon entering this decade.

i think i like the 90's shaq...he really stands out back then, the way he broke rims and backboards..not that he doesn't stand out now, but somehow injuries and jumping around with 400 lbs or less has taken it's toll

Mr. Boring, or "Tim Duncan" doesn't receive anything near the abuse Shaq gets. Every single time, there are 2 or 3 guys just hitting Shaq in a desperate attempt to do SOMETHING to guard him. Duncan never won any championships in a row neither. And the times he faced Shaq, Shaq has won most of the times, at least when it counts. Only 2 great seasons? Come on, you're talking about a guy who averages 20 10 consistently, not to mention was the runner up for MVP, or the real MVP. 20 10 for his entire career is a pretty big achievement, don't you think? Or is it that 99% of the other nba players never really had a "good season"? Defeated all the centers? Of course he did. Just look at all the centers today...where are they? There are no centers except Shaq. What the hell happened to Ewing, Mourning, Hakeem, David Robinson during that time? They were too old? Wait, how come Shaq at that age is doing MUCH better than them in that age? Maybe it's cuz Ewing, Mourning, Hakeem and David Robinson only had 2 great seasons. Hakeem ONLY won 2 championships anyhow and he only averaged 20 10 for ONLY 10+ seasons. Same thing with Wilt Chamberlain. He must have had only 2 great seasons too because averaging 30 20 is nothing really. Yao Ming is a joke compared to Shaq. Dampier, is well, I don't really have to say it, since his own teammates don't even like him. Zydrunas? Funny. Shaq has a 3-peat, not that many players can say that. In fact, VERY FEW can say that nowadays. What, do you expect him to average 30 20 like Wilt for him to be considered a great player? People keep on saying it's his size and strength blah blah blah, but that is part of the game, it makes him no less of a player. Meltdown? Meltdown is what happened to Hakeem, Ewing, David Robinson and others. SHAQ STILL AVERAGES 20 10. Meltdown is NOT what is happening to Shaq who almost won/should've won an MVP this year.

Shaq said he destroyed the great centers before him. Get real Hakeem and Robinson being the best two defeated him. Shaq bested Duncan in 2001, 2002 and 2004(with all star help) but Duncan bested him in 1999 & 2003 so it's not that loopsided at all and Miami would stand no real chance against the Spurs this year so it would be even if he made it to the Finals this year.

Shaq became a much better all star/franchise player after losing to Duncan in 1999, he did put up nice numbers before but compare his overall perfomance pre 2000 to after 2000 and he was overwhelmingly much better. He actually developed a hook in the post that consistently went in and that made him understoppable for sure. He can thank Duncan for that, he added something to his Dunk game, which was exposed by the BUlls wehn he allowed Rodman to guard him quite well because Rodman wouldn't allow him to dunk. Simple really and it speaks for itselfs. He is definitely a 50 greatest now but during the time he was voted in, no he wasn't.

In the play offs though when it mattered the most, Shaq didn't really show up... I mean in years gone past if the 2nd best player on the team went down Shaq would wake up, grumble something and go out and get 50/15 against whoever he was playing. I don't know the exact cause of it though, whether it's age/injuries taking its toll or just too much defense for him to handle.

True, I expected Shaq to have his Shaq like performances when Wade went down. Although I don't think we can expect those kind of games from him anymore, not only do I think the injury kept him from being his dominating self, I think he's on the decline of his career.

God, I hope I'm wrong.

You can't use the argument that 3 consecutive championships makes Shaq better than Duncan. Shaq had Kobe all those years, helping out tremendously.

Besides, I bet by the time Duncan's career is over he'll have more rings than Shaq.

Rings shouldn't be used to see who's the better player, in this case Darko > Malone.

You can't use the argument that 3 consecutive championships makes Shaq better than Duncan. Shaq had Kobe all those years, helping out tremendously.

Besides, I bet by the time Duncan's career is over he'll have more rings than Shaq.

he only need one more to tie with shaq..

Shaq's the best

Duncan is Duncan

Shaq is Shaq

i have nothing else to say

Celtics, Bulls and Lakers are the only teams to EVER have done 3-peats. That makes Shaq a part of history. You need consistency to do that. It's MUCH harder to win 3 in a row than 3 separately. And if Shaq had Kobe, Duncan had Robinson, and supposedly according to you people Robinson was better than Shaq (ur...whatever I'll just play along) ergo Duncan + Robinson >>> Shaq + Kobe, so Duncan did nothing in the 1999 championship I guess. Yea, he sure did nothing. Oh wait, the other championship ALSO had Robinson. And since Robinson is better than Shaq, Duncan did shit without Robinson either. I'm pretty sure Duncan lost way more series to Shaq than Duncan won.

And about rings being used to describe a better player. Then why is it that Jordan is considered better than Chamberlain? Could it be 6 rings versus only a lame 2?!! I mean, Chamberlain averaged 30 20, CLEARLY statistically superior to Jordan. What about Oscar Robertson? It's a team sport, so the rings SHOULD determine who's better, especially when the debate is close.

yeh i agree that shaq shouldn't have been named as one of the game's top 50 players at the time as andrew said

i agree that the ring argument is valid, as bangyounh is saying