The 75 Warriors with Rick Barry, the 77 Blazers with Bill Walton, the 03 Spurs with Tim Duncan. But agree with the general frame of thinking, it's very rare there isn't a legitimate second star. I do think however you underrate Shaq defensively, but concede that Hakeem is more well rounded, as he is the better defender, and not a liability on the line. I think Shaq's had the better career, but in terms of absolute peak ability, Hakeem/Shaq are very similar that it almost comes down to preference. Anyway, it'll be awesome if Shaq joined TNT, the halftime, and post game show would be even more entertaining.
in his 3 finals appearances with the lakers, he put up 36 points, 15 boards, and 3 blocks a game. a top 3-4 most dominant player of all time.
For being as good and dominant as he was the thing that stands out most to me is that he only has FOUR rings. Don't get me wrong... most guys would kill for just 1 but I think he could easily have a couple more to his impressive resume.
When Shaq was in him prime, the league had to change the rules because of him, twice. That tells you all you need to know about how good Shaq was. It's been a heck of a career. So long, big fella.
I love Shaq but this is a common misconception. The league never changed any rules because of Shaq. Steve Francis and Barkley dribbling the ball into oblivion had more to do with getting the rules changed than Oneal.
I thought the league added the zone to counter Shaq's dominance in the paint. I know they didn't say as much, but it was kind of implied considering it went live right during his prime when he brushed off the DPOY like he wasn't there.
he would have had one more if him and kobe didn't beef in 03-04. kobe took it personal and lost the finals for them.
The zone was implemented to speed the game up and cut down on iso ball (see Francis and Barkley). It had nothing to do with trying to counter Shaq's dominance. The league didn't make moves to neutralize Kareem (scoring leader), Moses, Hakeem, Robinson or Jordan. So why would they want to neutralize Shaq? He wasn't the most dominant force the league had ever seen.
During his prime I'd consider Shaq to be the most dominant force the league had seen since Wilt, who they also changed the rules for. Shaq had to be doubled (at minimum) anytime he touched the ball. Those other guys faced plenty of single coverage.
I disagree 100%, and feel very safe in saying that Shaq was not more of a dominant force than Jordan, who they did not change the rules for. Shaq has never scored more than 30 ppg in a season (high of 29.7) and his playoff high is 30.7. Jordan's career average, including his Wizard years, is 30.1 and he topped 30 ppg 8 times. His playoff career average is 33.4 and during his title runs he dropped 34.5, 35.1, 31.5, 30.7, 31.1 and 32.4 ppg (in the playoffs). That includes a 72-10 season (NBA record). How was Shaq more dominant than him? Why would they change the rules to try to stop Shaq from scoring less than Jordan and leading his team to less titles than Jordan? In the 95 playoffs Hakeem dropped 33 a night on 53% from the field, against Robinson and Oneal. How is Shaq dropping 31 a night on the centers he faced more impressive than that? There was no reason to change the rules for Oneal. The rules were changed for Wilt because he was doing things no one had seen before (50 ppg, 20+ boards, leading the league in assists, etc). Shaq wasn't doing anything that Jordan or Hakeem hadn't done just a few seasons before his best years. He scored a lot and had to constantly be doubled because the centers sucked, and he led his team to 3 titles while doing this. Well 6 years earlier Hakeem led his team to 2 by scoring a lot and constantly being doubled even though he was going against great centers. Not trying to make it a Hakeem comparison but just showing how what Shaq did in the early 2000's wasn't some level of dominance that we hadn't seen. Any Rocket fan should know that.
Shaq was dominant because if you didn't double (and often triple) him, he would score every time. Teams knew this coming in, and their entire defense was geared around stopping Shaq. If he was single covered he would have averaged 50. He routinely destroyed the "best" defenders of his era like Mutombo and Wallace simply because he was so much bigger than them (and just as quick). Jordan obviously was dominant in his own way, but it's just a truth of basketball that a perimeter player is easier to cover than a post player. Jordan could be single-covered (and was for much of his career) and it didn't mean an automatic two points because he would still settle for jumpers and difficult drives. Kareem and Hakeem, too, weren't the force Shaq was because they weren't as big as him. They relied on skill to get easy buckets but since they took shots further from the basket they were easier to cover (by no means am I insinuating that they were easy covers-- we're talking two all-time greats here).
What makes those guys difficult to cover is that they were able to do it in so many ways. Their footwork, their ability to shoot, their post moves. The wide offensive arsenal were difficult to prepare for (you can't seriously believe that Shaq was more difficult to prepare for than Kareem/Hakeem, they are probably around equal) and they too were dominating the other bigs of their respected eras (which were far superior bigs such as Mutombo/Wallace). I think Shaq was the most physically imposing threat of the three but I do not think that he was the most dominant.
<object width="425" height="349"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/3h4CzVAQo8I?version=3&hl=en_US&start=74"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/3h4CzVAQo8I?version=3&hl=en_US&start=74" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="349" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true"></embed></object> End of discussion.
