ElGee wrote: It's not a lot though. You're talking about the difference between the top blue line and the red line underneath it. Any separation of quality -- even half a point, is more relevant than a mere 10 games. The evidence says 10 games is essentially nothing.
I respectfully disagree. The evidence says the opposite, IMO. In several seasons during Shaq’s peak, his team would have moved up a spot (or more) in conference ranking had Shaq played more or been less disruptive. That can directly affect how a team performs in the playoffs. The 1996 Lakers were a fourth seed—but were two wins from being a second seed. The 1997 Lakers were a third seed , but they were two wins from being the first seed. The 2003 Lakers were one win from moving up to a fourth seed and having HCA in the first round. The 2004 Lakers were a third seed , but they were two wins from being the first seed. In those four years, Shaq missed 83 games—and the Lakers were .727 with him and .542 without. Even if he had missed only 43 games in those four seasons—in other words, played 10 extra games per year—that’s a difference of two wins. That would have radically affected the conference seedings. Enough for the Lakers to win a title on those four years? I don’t know. Certainly you can make an argument that matchups can greatly affect who advances and who doesn’t, and that teams can go on a roll. I’m not going to go *that* far. But my response, respectfully, is this. I think the evidence shows that the missed games
were important to the team playoff seedings, and that affects playoff outcomes in ways we can never know. Since the Lakers didn’t win a title in any of those years, *most* changes would be seen as positive, IMO. So I can't say that 10 games is--or was--nothing. And this leaving out the psychological/disruptive issues on those teams--which I think is a separate issue, though you don't.
ElGee wrote: I don't think I qualify as a Shaq supporter, but your post does sound unfair to me. Very heavy-handed criticism. I agree (and hope we all do) that yelling "pay me" or "company time" is not conducive to a great atmosphere. That said, with regards to the missed time/conditioning I think you're doing something that is very common for the brain when it balances lots of information -- you are penalizing Shaq twice for the same thing. Unless you count his 98-04 seasons as all of roughly equal value, you're saying that 98 or 03 Shaq isn't as good as 2000 Shaq because he wasn't in shape. That's already part of your perception of him as I player I'm assuming (only you know). Then, on top of that evaluation, you are penalizing him for being out shape. But the out of shape-ness is already the reason he wasn't quite as good, is it not?
Again, with respect, I disagree with your premise. Missing games and poor conditioning are obviously related in a literal sense—one is often causal to the other. But a player who regularly is out of shape (or clearly distracted or lacking focus on basketball) presents issues that go beyond numbers achieved or unrealized. Some players are more trouble than they are worth because of things that have nothing to do with on-court play/missed games. That is (obviously) not the case with Shaq—but I don’t think those problems can be dismissed or denied here.
The more I read about the massive dysfunction on the Lakers from 1997-2004, the more surprised I am that they won anything at all. Roland Lazenby is far more “heavy handed” than I am in criticism of Shaq—but that’s largely because he’s a huge fan (and supporter) of Tex Winter. (Disclaimer: I have met Roland Lazenby and like him.) Lazenby is a
very thorough researcher and his book
The Show is, IMO outstanding. And Lazenby himself is very cordial about Shaq. But the book—which is a collection of direct quotes from people involved with the team at the time—is not as cordial.
I’m not saying the book is 100% right—research sources are like statistical metrics. Some are good and reliable and trustworthy; others, not so much. But
The Show, for example, is a compilation of sources. So although I can’t say it’s correct in every particular, it’s a very solid compilation. I encourage people to read it. (It’s a bit like the two Tom Shales books on ESPN and Saturday Night Live). And the book provides a litany of often neutral and critical commentary from players, reporters, coaches—pretty much everyone.
I keep returning to two points. One is that other players we are considering here do not have these long-term, chronic issues. Magic didn’t. LeBron didn’t. Duncan definitely doesn’t. Hakeem didn’t. Several of those players had times where on and off-court issues became distractions and problems—but they were largely one time things. Shaq’s problems with Penny Hardaway were well documented, and personality clashes and other issues were constant in his Laker years.
The other point is simpler. Despite this, Shaq is a truly amazing and dominant player. For God’s sake, the man has four titles. In 99% of discussions, that ends things, and I think there’s a tendency for it to end things here. But when you’re also discussing Hakeem (2 rings), LeBron (2 rings and counting) Bird (3 rings), Magic (5 rings) and Duncan (5 rings), that gambit doesn’t have the same juice. All of those players are winners. And, again, none of them have or had some of the negative issues that Shaq has. I understand that others don’t think that’s enough of a reason to drop Shaq down—but in player company such as this, I think it is.
is there really any debate?