Was Shaq the omly most dominant player in league history?

This thread got me thinking about how the guys on tnt the other night were tripping over themselves to take Yao down a peg or two, and their main complaint was that he's not dominant. Who is, then? Their criteria consisted of:

a) strike fear into opposition
b) always doubled
c) teammates must have career years playing with him.

Shaq: used to fit all 3 criteria. Now, he's not as scary because he lost a lot of lift and quickness. Still scares onlookers with his freethrow stroke. Still regularly doubled. Haslem, and Damon Jones have recently had their best seasons playing with him. Wade has benefitted from his presence, though not as much as everyone makes it out to be. (See Shaq on the bench in the crucial minutes of the finals.)

Dirk: His shooting ability can strike fear into teams, but it's not exactly the same fear they are referring to. Hard to double him because of where he plays, and usually is not. I thought he might satisfy c), but guys like Terry and Stackhouse have had their own teams and put up bigger numbers in the past. Dampier is worse. Van Horn was much worse. Howard and Harris have steadily improved, though I'm not sure how much Dirk had to do with it. Nash was better after he left.

Duncan: Not too physically imposing, and I wouldn't describe him as scary, but his overall game definately affects the game plan of the opposition. He is consistently doubled as much as anyone in the league. Parker and Manu have benefitted greatly from his presence, and Bowen as well. I'd say he fits the 3 criteria well enough.

KG: Not scary because he relies too much on the perimeter game, and maybe too unselfish. Doubled pretty regularly, though not as much as Duncan, Shaq or Yao (though the TNT guys would claim that Yao has never seen a double in his life). Cassell and Hudson had their best years with him, but he has not had a chance to play with another great player. Mike James is not benefitting much so far.

Brand: Not too scary offensively. He beats you with face up jumpers , and does not use traditional post moves for the most part. Can't think of any teammates that had career best years with him. Not consistently doubled.

Amare (considering his best year): Scary offensive game. Not doubled often because of spacing and shooters. in an offensive system where everyone has their best years.

Howard: at this point, he's a rebounder with a unpolished post game. has the potential to be dominant because of his physical attributes.

Yao: may not strike fear into opponents, but strikes fear in their coaches, who revolve their defensive gameplans around him. Doubled as much as anyone in the league. Teammates haven't had their best years with him on paper, but they sure as hell can't win without him. Did help Stevie make the playoffs that one time.

So based on their 3 major criteria, I'd say Duncan, Yao, and Dirk are the closest big men to being 'dominant', with Howard getting an incomplete because he's so young. Not bad company. The funny thing is that their criteria is so detailed and specific that not one big man in the game today satisfies all three points. How can you knock Yao for not meeting all the requirements, when no one else does either?

Guards obviously are a whole different story, with the rules and freethrows. It kind of makes you wonder if it's even worth debating about the perceived dominance of big men when the league is so obviously becoming more guard-oriented.

Another thing that was annoying:Reggie Miller made sure to point out that Yao is not better than Shaq because he doesn't have the career accomplishments of Shaq, but then he later pumps up Howard, who has done even less. Hey Reggie don't forget to give props to Greg Oden! How bout Andrew Bynum? forget the tall guy scoring 26 ppg.

 

i think shaq is the most dominant ever, in the sense that he can forced his will on opponents when close to the basket.

there is no player that you can name that can (with someone on his back) attack the rim with such power and aggression.

there's no leaper, no PF/C, no perimeter player, nobody... that could ever attack the rim the way shaquille oneal could. hack-a-shaq didn't just "happen." teams had to foul him so he would not score.

in that sense shaq's dominance is unparalleled.

 

In my opinion, it shows how unstoppable a player he was; there was ultimately no legal way to stop him on the court if he got position besides fouling - and even that didn't always work as he raised his FT% in the 4th period enough to win a whole lot of games and several titles. Only Wilt was on that same level inside.

 

I disagree completely. The weakness has always been masked because he has always had a stud guard on his team that you could give the ball to in the closing minutes. Sucking at freethrows doesn't show how unstoppable you are. It's a major weakness.

 

michael jordan was far more dominant than shaq.

 

Jordan was the most impossible guy to stop from scoring (Shaq or Hakeem you had to get them the ball in position and in Shaq's case you could foul him deliberately). Like Magic but a better scorer than Magic, Jordan would be about impossible to deny him the ball or keep him from a comfortable spot on the floor. So I would say Jordan is the most dominant of the modern era.

Hakeem however was the most disruptive defensive presence of the modern era, in addition to being a great offensive player, so that counts for something and is another element of dominance.

I think Shaq is a bit in between. A little more unstoppable offensively than Hakeem because he had an easier time getting position than Hakeem even versus an illegal double (e.g., Seattle defense) because of Shaqs sheer mass and strength. But Shaq did not disrupt an opponents offense to the degree of Hakeem, though Shaq's presence in the middle in his heyday is underestimated by many.

 

Teams fouled him because without doing so, within the run of play, he was simply able to impose his will on the court like almost nobody before or since. Sure, Jordan took over games like few ever have, but there were nights when his jumper wasn't falling and he had to work harder, or at least change things up to keep teams guessing by passing more, or wahtever. With Shaq in his prime, all he had to do was get position. You knew exactly what he was going to do, and the only way to stop it was to foul him.

To me that's a testament to dominance. Yes, you can shoot holes in his FT%, but ultimately it didn't hurt him - the guy posted 3 straight seasons of a 30+ PER. That's not just because "well he had a great perimeter player to help him out" - please. Every other great player also played with HOF's so that isn't a disqualifier.

Among big men, only Chamberlain has done that as far as PER....playing in a much less difficult era. To think that Shaq was posting the same efficiency level from 99-01 that Wilt did from 62-64 is pretty incredible.

 

Dominance should refer to being unstoppable. If a person draws or demands a double team to slow down and still scores, like Shaq, Yao, MJ, Tmac, these people are considered dominant. And still big numbers, >=20.