It's not just the leaving of the team, it's inevitable lack of effort & chemistry.
It seems like we base Shaq more on what we all believe to be his hidden potential or if he had moulded his game after past defensive bigs (already voted in). It's hard for me to pinpoint exactly where lack of effort is with him especially looking at his career/accomplishments and if this was all obtained with lack of effort & chemistry.
I can agree certainly it appeared there were times where in comparisions to prior Shaq he weighed more but again Shaq from the start was already much larger than Hakeem/Duncan so maybe that was genetically how his body was. Maybe it was indeed harder for him to keep himself more slender than the other two but he was certainly very athletic and agile for a man that size, where he wasn't at any real disadvantage up until say 04 but even after that it was said the era of center was so weak, so who are we criticizing him against other than what could have been. As for chemistry, he brought 3 different teams to the nba finals and won 4 titles overall. Again, it appears that we almost have had expected Shaq to win 11 rings like Russell, but Shaq was a different player. I don't think any other player takes as much grief, mostly being the main guy while winning 4 titles and 3 finals mvps.
Bottom line is, if I'm drafting Jordan, he's given me ZERO reason to think he'll eventually be a malcontent, whereas Shaq has proven to become lazy, unhappy and petty literally everywhere he went during his prime, and it's why he only has 1 MVP.
But Hakeem only won one MVP as well and bottom line is Shaq won more titles and final mvps than Hakeem. As lazy as we want to say he was, unhappy or petty, he still managed to win more than any other big not named Russell or KAJ in these conversations and by what people are posting in non-traditional center ways of not being as impactful defensively.
I do want to make clear: Shaq isn't much lower than Hakeem on my list. But literally, we're talking about guys with similar peaks, and similar athletic longevity. If you aren't considering the times in the midst of that where there were problems which reduced the benefit these players provided, I don't think you're going deep enough.
[/quote]
And when we talk about Shaq's injuries, again where I can see some slight for that, look at other past true 7+ footers who also fell into that category. Yao, Oden, Bynum are recent one's and all players who were heavier than Hakeem (who by the way I am a big fan of) and obviously there bodies failed them at some point. Let's face it, I myself have gained 25 pounds since my prime weight and my knees tell me that everyday
There are so many athletes in the world today who can get by on superior athleticism even against other top athletes. While Shaq has documented questionable actions around this, it's not like he ever lost his starting job or we seen such a dramatic decrease in his stats that is was inevitable this was the reason. Maybe he remains as committed as Jordan but it makes no real difference in his play. Maybe his peak was like Hakeem's, where one could say his 94-95 was Hakeem's two best years and while stat's could be reviled from previous seasons, that is the Hakeem most would want on their team, why didn't we have this play in other years like Shaq in 2000?
It's sad for me to see a guy like Wilt put over Shaq (on this board) when all Duncan/Shaq/Hakeem have great arguments only to hear now that the most dominant, best peak player, longevity, and great winner left is being downplayed because of ego, injuries and riff's with players when the other two players being compared to were not dealt the same hand as Shaq in pure size, superstar acquisistion throughout careers, or having other teams exploit your weakness game in and game out (hack-a-Shaq). Yet, with his bad free throw shooting, egotisical ways etc, he still had such a historical career.
So to everyone who excepted him to win 8 titles and make his relations last with Penny/Kobe or Wade and not to weigh 340+ pounds, and focus more on defence, than maybe he did underacheive. From all the information provided in these great threads, if all we have is 'eye test theory' (mainly) from a physical perspective on what we think he should have weighed, looked and made public riffs by another future top 10 superstar that should have went on to win more but didn't. Again maybe he underachieved. I choose to use look what he accompished given all that we've seen and know and that at his peak no one mentioned would have a consistent answer for him offensively or defensively.
