Dwyer: 10 best NBA players of the decade

[CelticG1]

4. Shaq- not as good as first half of decade

He had two bad , injury years  where he wasn't at least a 17 and 7 player. This past year he was an 18 and 8 player. in 2006 he was still a 20 10 guy. Was he as dominant after 2006? No. But he is still exceptionally productive. I think its ludicrous that Shaq's biggest problem is that he set the bar too high for himself.

I think Kobe, KG, And Duncan were dominant close to the level Shaq was for all 10 years. I think that seperates them from Shaq because as you said Shaq had a few seasons where he was injured or just wasn't putting up great numbers (for a superstar standard). I'm nitpicking but you have to do that when deciding something like this. I think Shaq is probably better than all of those guys in his prime but these last few years Shaq just hasn't been an exceptionally productive player where the other guys IMO have been

You look at Shaqs numbers from the start of the Decade, they're significantly better than those 4, enough to buy him 2 bad years and still be in the top 2.

I'm trying to look right now and  I just don't see it as much as you. Shaq's first few years were very dominant but not as far off from KG's best years of the decade. If you take KG's 3 best years and match them with shaq's basically the numbers are pretty even. Shaq scored more and blocked more while Garnett rebounded more dished out more assists and got more steals

He also turned the ball  over less,commited less fouls, and played in 26 more games than shaq did. I'm looking at O'neals first three seasons of the decade and KG's from '02-'-03 through to '04-'05. Arguably both their best seasons of the decade

Also Zero rings and got all those numbers with an entire offense running through him. Shaq split offensive sets with Kobe.

Ok, so your argument is based on the rings that Shaq has? Didn't having Kobe around make Shaq's job a lot easier? Did Bryant play an important role in those championships? I think he did. Was Shaq going to win those championships without Bryant? Nope. If Shaq was on the T-wolves they were not going to win a championship with sprewell, wally, cassel etc just like KG didn't.

[KCattheStripe]

4. Shaq- not as good as first half of decade

He had two bad , injury years  where he wasn't at least a 17 and 7 player. This past year he was an 18 and 8 player. in 2006 he was still a 20 10 guy. Was he as dominant after 2006? No. But he is still exceptionally productive. I think its ludicrous that Shaq's biggest problem is that he set the bar too high for himself.

I think Kobe, KG, And Duncan were dominant close to the level Shaq was for all 10 years. I think that seperates them from Shaq because as you said Shaq had a few seasons where he was injured or just wasn't putting up great numbers (for a superstar standard). I'm nitpicking but you have to do that when deciding something like this. I think Shaq is probably better than all of those guys in his prime but these last few years Shaq just hasn't been an exceptionally productive player where the other guys IMO have been

You look at Shaqs numbers from the start of the Decade, they're significantly better than those 4, enough to buy him 2 bad years and still be in the top 2.

I'm trying to look right now and  I just don't see it as much as you. Shaq's first few years were very dominant but not as far off from KG's best years of the decade. If you take KG's 3 best years and match them with shaq's basically the numbers are pretty even. Shaq scored more and blocked more while Garnett rebounded more dished out more assists and got more steals

He also turned the ball  over less,commited less fouls, and played in 26 more games than shaq did. I'm looking at O'neals first three seasons of the decade and KG's from '02-'-03 through to '04-'05. Arguably both their best seasons of the decade

Also Zero rings and got all those numbers with an entire offense running through him. Shaq split offensive sets with Kobe.

Ok, so your argument is based on the rings that Shaq has? Didn't having Kobe around make Shaq's job a lot easier? Did Bryant play an important role in those championships? I think he did. Was Shaq going to win those championships without Bryant? Nope. If Shaq was on the T-wolves they were not going to win a championship with sprewell, wally, cassel etc just like KG didn't.

Well ,we can disagree about whether or not Shaq would have won with Spree And Cassell because Shaq in his fourth year in the league took a  team with Penny Hardaway and Horace Grant to the finals. Franly, Shaq is a better player than KG and has been far more dominant.

[drza44]

Ok, so your argument is based on the rings that Shaq has? Didn't having Kobe around make Shaq's job a lot easier? Did Bryant play an important role in those championships? I think he did. Was Shaq going to win those championships without Bryant? Nope. If Shaq was on the T-wolves they were not going to win a championship with sprewell, wally, cassel etc just like KG didn't.

Well ,we can disagree about whether or not Shaq would have won with Spree And Cassell because Shaq in his fourth year in the league took a  team with Penny Hardaway and Horace Grant to the finals. Franly, Shaq is a better player than KG and has been far more dominant.

1) KG never had a chance to win a title with Sprewell, Wally and Cassell.  Cassell went down in the WCF and and the back-up PG was hurt as well, leaving KG to have to spend some time at PG.  Even Wally was playing with a fracture in his back, leaving him hobbled.  Hyperbole aside, Shaq isn't winning a title with a starting line-up of Darrick Martin, Trenton Hassell, Spree, and Ervin Johnson either.

2) Penny Hardaway and Horace Grant (and Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott etc) is a laughably, ridiculously better supporting cast than the 03-04 Wolves.  Really, that was an awful comp.

3) KG was #2 in the MVP vote (to Shaq) in 2000, and somewhere around 2003 he surpassed Shaq as a player.  He's been comfortably better Shaq for well over half of this decade.  If you think Shaq peaked higher than KG, I won't argue that with you here.  But since this thread is about the decade of the 2000s, I will absolutely argue that KG's peak was similar to early 2000s Shaq but the rest of KG's decade has been better than mid/late 2000s Shaq by a larger margin.

[KCattheStripe]

Ok, so your argument is based on the rings that Shaq has? Didn't having Kobe around make Shaq's job a lot easier? Did Bryant play an important role in those championships? I think he did. Was Shaq going to win those championships without Bryant? Nope. If Shaq was on the T-wolves they were not going to win a championship with sprewell, wally, cassel etc just like KG didn't.

Well ,we can disagree about whether or not Shaq would have won with Spree And Cassell because Shaq in his fourth year in the league took a  team with Penny Hardaway and Horace Grant to the finals. Franly, Shaq is a better player than KG and has been far more dominant.

1) KG never had a chance to win a title with Sprewell, Wally and Cassell.  Cassell went down in the WCF and and the back-up PG was hurt as well, leaving KG to have to spend some time at PG.  Even Wally was playing with a fracture in his back, leaving him hobbled.  Hyperbole aside, Shaq isn't winning a title with a starting line-up of Darrick Martin, Trenton Hassell, Spree, and Ervin Johnson either.

2) Penny Hardaway and Horace Grant (and Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott etc) is a laughably, ridiculously better supporting cast than the 03-04 Wolves.  Really, that was an awful comp.

3) KG was #2 in the MVP vote (to Shaq) in 2000, and somewhere around 2003 he surpassed Shaq as a player.  He's been comfortably better Shaq for well over half of this decade.  If you think Shaq peaked higher than KG, I won't argue that with you here.  But since this thread is about the decade of the 2000s, I will absolutely argue that KG's peak was similar to early 2000s Shaq but the rest of KG's decade has been better than mid/late 2000s Shaq by a larger margin.

1) You're right about the PG situation, I forgot about that.

2) Not particularly. Horace Grant was a 13 & 10 guy at that point while Sree was a 20 point a game scorer. Meanwhile both Cassell and Penny where 20 point 7 assts guys and the Wolves bench players were slightly better than you're giving them credit for.

3)Right and Shaq peaked in the 2000's while winning four championships. I can't find any demonstrable evidence (except for two years, and last year Shaq was clearly better than Garnett. They both get mulligans for injuries) that KG was ever dominant over Shaq.

[drza44]

Ok, so your argument is based on the rings that Shaq has? Didn't having Kobe around make Shaq's job a lot easier? Did Bryant play an important role in those championships? I think he did. Was Shaq going to win those championships without Bryant? Nope. If Shaq was on the T-wolves they were not going to win a championship with sprewell, wally, cassel etc just like KG didn't.

Well ,we can disagree about whether or not Shaq would have won with Spree And Cassell because Shaq in his fourth year in the league took a  team with Penny Hardaway and Horace Grant to the finals. Franly, Shaq is a better player than KG and has been far more dominant.

1) KG never had a chance to win a title with Sprewell, Wally and Cassell.  Cassell went down in the WCF and and the back-up PG was hurt as well, leaving KG to have to spend some time at PG.  Even Wally was playing with a fracture in his back, leaving him hobbled.  Hyperbole aside, Shaq isn't winning a title with a starting line-up of Darrick Martin, Trenton Hassell, Spree, and Ervin Johnson either.

2) Penny Hardaway and Horace Grant (and Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott etc) is a laughably, ridiculously better supporting cast than the 03-04 Wolves.  Really, that was an awful comp.

3) KG was #2 in the MVP vote (to Shaq) in 2000, and somewhere around 2003 he surpassed Shaq as a player.  He's been comfortably better Shaq for well over half of this decade.  If you think Shaq peaked higher than KG, I won't argue that with you here.  But since this thread is about the decade of the 2000s, I will absolutely argue that KG's peak was similar to early 2000s Shaq but the rest of KG's decade has been better than mid/late 2000s Shaq by a larger margin.

1) You're right about the PG situation, I forgot about that.

2) Not particularly. Horace Grant was a 13 & 10 guy at that point while Sree was a 20 point a game scorer. Meanwhile both Cassell and Penny where 20 point 7 assts guys and the Wolves bench players were slightly better than you're giving them credit for.

Cassell was great that season, but you are vastly overselling him if you see him as equal to prime Penny.  Cassell in '04 was an old player that had a career-season in terms of impact in part because his 2-man pick-and-roll/pop game with KG was just about unguardable.  But he was still a limited player, especially on defense, and his age showed up with his hip giving out in the playoffs.  Penny in '95 was 1st team All NBA and generating potential-best-player-in-the-league type buzz.  That's not the same.

Spree was not a 20 point a game scorer.  He was a 16.8 ppg scorer on less than 41% shooting from the field.  He was outplayed by the '95 version of Nick Anderson who essentially matched his scoring output but on much better 48% shooting.

Notice that I haven't even gotten to Horace Grant yet, who was a year removed from an All Star appearance and was an All Defensive team double-double big man (his counterpart on the 04 Wolves was either ancient Erv Johnson or Mike Olowokandi).  A ridiculous mismatch. 

Or Dennis Scott, who was one of the best 3-point shooters in the NBA in that period.  His '04 counterparts were Trenton Hassell (cut from the awful Bulls that year, hasn't been heard from since playing next to KG), Fred Hoiberg (cut from the awful Bulls that year, unfortunately had to retire), or Wally (missed 54 games due to injury in the regular season, then fractured his back in the postseason).  Yet another mismatch.

The '04 Wolves were actually a very, very weak team top-to-bottom.  The reason they're remembered so fondly in hindsight is because KG was absurd and Cassell was great, which hid a heck of a lot of warts. 

3)Right and Shaq peaked in the 2000's while winning four championships. I can't find any demonstrable evidence (except for two years, and last year Shaq was clearly better than Garnett. They both get mulligans for injuries) that KG was ever dominant over Shaq.

Again, we can go around and around with the titles vs teammates argument.  KG of this decade spending 5 years next to Kobe, 3.5 next to Wade, and another 1.5 seasons next to Nash and Amare also likely generates at least 4 titles.  KG's won one title in two seasons with these Celtics (arguably past his own prime), so you give him a decade of teams of this quality in his prime like Shaq had and the titles story is different.

I understand that's all hypothetical, which is the best argument in my opinion for leaving titles and teammates out of the discussion.  And on an individual production/doing-the-most-with-what-you've-got standpoint, KG stands toe-to-toe with absolutely everyone in this decade.  Shaq included.

[KCattheStripe]

3)Right and Shaq peaked in the 2000's while winning four championships. I can't find any demonstrable evidence (except for two years, and last year Shaq was clearly better than Garnett. They both get mulligans for injuries) that KG was ever dominant over Shaq.

Again, we can go around and around with the titles vs teammates argument.  KG of this decade spending 5 years next to Kobe, 3.5 next to Wade, and another 1.5 seasons next to Nash and Amare also likely generates at least 4 titles.  KG's won one title in two seasons with these Celtics (arguably past his own prime), so you give him a decade of teams of this quality in his prime like Shaq had and the titles story is different.

I understand that's all hypothetical, which is the best argument in my opinion for leaving titles and teammates out of the discussion.  And on an individual production/doing-the-most-with-what-you've-got standpoint, KG stands toe-to-toe with absolutely everyone in this decade.  Shaq included.

But you can't leave titles out of the equation because they happened. They are absolutely a part of this equation. That's like the argument that Shaq wouldn't be as good a player if he wasn't as big as he is, that doesn't matter because he is.

[drza44]

3)Right and Shaq peaked in the 2000's while winning four championships. I can't find any demonstrable evidence (except for two years, and last year Shaq was clearly better than Garnett. They both get mulligans for injuries) that KG was ever dominant over Shaq.

Again, we can go around and around with the titles vs teammates argument.  KG of this decade spending 5 years next to Kobe, 3.5 next to Wade, and another 1.5 seasons next to Nash and Amare also likely generates at least 4 titles.  KG's won one title in two seasons with these Celtics (arguably past his own prime), so you give him a decade of teams of this quality in his prime like Shaq had and the titles story is different.

I understand that's all hypothetical, which is the best argument in my opinion for leaving titles and teammates out of the discussion.  And on an individual production/doing-the-most-with-what-you've-got standpoint, KG stands toe-to-toe with absolutely everyone in this decade.  Shaq included.

But you can't leave titles out of the equation because they happened. They are absolutely a part of this equation. That's like the argument that Shaq wouldn't be as good a player if he wasn't as big as he is, that doesn't matter because he is.

They did happen, but they're a team accomplishment.  To me, that just can't be the basis of an individual comparison.  There's really no way to separate the player from their teammates, especially if there is a gross inequality in teammate caliber as there's been between KG and Shaq (or any of the other superstars of this era).

I can understand using titles as a tie-breaker, as in KG and Duncan have been very similar players but Duncan has 4 titles to KG's 1 so Duncan ranks slightly ahead.  I don't entirely agree with that, but I accept that it is the majority view and I don't expect it to change. 

But to say that 'player X' has more titles than 'player Y' so he's just better, no matter the circumstances, that I just don't agree with and will continue to argue against.

[KCattheStripe]

3)Right and Shaq peaked in the 2000's while winning four championships. I can't find any demonstrable evidence (except for two years, and last year Shaq was clearly better than Garnett. They both get mulligans for injuries) that KG was ever dominant over Shaq.

Again, we can go around and around with the titles vs teammates argument.  KG of this decade spending 5 years next to Kobe, 3.5 next to Wade, and another 1.5 seasons next to Nash and Amare also likely generates at least 4 titles.  KG's won one title in two seasons with these Celtics (arguably past his own prime), so you give him a decade of teams of this quality in his prime like Shaq had and the titles story is different.

I understand that's all hypothetical, which is the best argument in my opinion for leaving titles and teammates out of the discussion.  And on an individual production/doing-the-most-with-what-you've-got standpoint, KG stands toe-to-toe with absolutely everyone in this decade.  Shaq included.

But you can't leave titles out of the equation because they happened. They are absolutely a part of this equation. That's like the argument that Shaq wouldn't be as good a player if he wasn't as big as he is, that doesn't matter because he is.

They did happen, but they're a team accomplishment.  To me, that just can't be the basis of an individual comparison.  There's really no way to separate the player from their teammates, especially if there is a gross inequality in teammate caliber as there's been between KG and Shaq (or any of the other superstars of this era).

I can understand using titles as a tie-breaker, as in KG and Duncan have been very similar players but Duncan has 4 titles to KG's 1 so Duncan ranks slightly ahead.  I don't entirely agree with that, but I accept that it is the majority view and I don't expect it to change. 

But to say that 'player X' has more titles than 'player Y' so he's just better, no matter the circumstances, that I just don't agree with and will continue to argue against.

So Wilt is better than Russell?

[drza44]

3)Right and Shaq peaked in the 2000's while winning four championships. I can't find any demonstrable evidence (except for two years, and last year Shaq was clearly better than Garnett. They both get mulligans for injuries) that KG was ever dominant over Shaq.

Again, we can go around and around with the titles vs teammates argument.  KG of this decade spending 5 years next to Kobe, 3.5 next to Wade, and another 1.5 seasons next to Nash and Amare also likely generates at least 4 titles.  KG's won one title in two seasons with these Celtics (arguably past his own prime), so you give him a decade of teams of this quality in his prime like Shaq had and the titles story is different.

I understand that's all hypothetical, which is the best argument in my opinion for leaving titles and teammates out of the discussion.  And on an individual production/doing-the-most-with-what-you've-got standpoint, KG stands toe-to-toe with absolutely everyone in this decade.  Shaq included.

But you can't leave titles out of the equation because they happened. They are absolutely a part of this equation. That's like the argument that Shaq wouldn't be as good a player if he wasn't as big as he is, that doesn't matter because he is.

They did happen, but they're a team accomplishment.  To me, that just can't be the basis of an individual comparison.  There's really no way to separate the player from their teammates, especially if there is a gross inequality in teammate caliber as there's been between KG and Shaq (or any of the other superstars of this era).

I can understand using titles as a tie-breaker, as in KG and Duncan have been very similar players but Duncan has 4 titles to KG's 1 so Duncan ranks slightly ahead.  I don't entirely agree with that, but I accept that it is the majority view and I don't expect it to change. 

But to say that 'player X' has more titles than 'player Y' so he's just better, no matter the circumstances, that I just don't agree with and will continue to argue against.

So Wilt is better than Russell?

First, that's not what I said.  I said that titles alone can't be the whole of the argument, NOT that not winning titles makes you a better player.  And I wasn't alive to see Wilt and Russell play, so I'm not much of an authority on it.  I know the right answer on a Celtics board, obviously, but I also know that there are lots of people elsewhere that will argue both sides.  Either way, it's not germane to how KG compares with people in this generation.

I will say that I think Olajuwon is better than Pippen despite Pip having more titles.  I will say that I'm not always convinced that MJ was really better than Bird or Magic despite him having more titles.  I don't put Mchale above either Dr. J or Moses Malone, despite Mchale having more titles than both of the others put together.

The bottom line is that every comparison is different, and has lots of things that combine to make up the whole story.  Stopping the conversation after "player X has more titles" doesn't make for a very satisfying player ranking system to me.

[KCattheStripe]

First, that's not what I said.  I said that titles alone can't be the whole of the argument, NOT that not winning titles makes you a better player.  And I wasn't alive to see Wilt and Russell play, so I'm not much of an authority on it.  I know the right answer on a Celtics board, obviously, but I also know that there are lots of people elsewhere that will argue both sides.  Either way, it's not germane to how KG compares with people in this generation.

I think it's perfectly relevant, especially when comparing Two of the best big men of a generation.

I will say that I think Olajuwon is better than Pippen despite Pip having more titles.  I will say that I'm not always convinced that MJ was really better than Bird or Magic despite him having more titles.  I don't put Mchale above either Dr. J or Moses Malone, despite Mchale having more titles than both of the others put together.

The bottom line is that every comparison is different, and has lots of things that combine to make up the whole story.  Stopping the conversation after "player X has more titles" doesn't make for a very satisfying player ranking system to me.

Its a perfectly fine conversation ender when the rest of the conversation is about how evenly matched the two players are. At the end of the day if two players are similar in stature, titles should absolutely be the tie breaker.

[drza44]

First, that's not what I said.  I said that titles alone can't be the whole of the argument, NOT that not winning titles makes you a better player.  And I wasn't alive to see Wilt and Russell play, so I'm not much of an authority on it.  I know the right answer on a Celtics board, obviously, but I also know that there are lots of people elsewhere that will argue both sides.  Either way, it's not germane to how KG compares with people in this generation.

I think it's perfectly relevant, especially when comparing Two of the best big men of a generation.

I will say that I think Olajuwon is better than Pippen despite Pip having more titles.  I will say that I'm not always convinced that MJ was really better than Bird or Magic despite him having more titles.  I don't put Mchale above either Dr. J or Moses Malone, despite Mchale having more titles than both of the others put together.

The bottom line is that every comparison is different, and has lots of things that combine to make up the whole story.  Stopping the conversation after "player X has more titles" doesn't make for a very satisfying player ranking system to me.

Its a perfectly fine conversation ender when the rest of the conversation is about how evenly matched the two players are. At the end of the day if two players are similar in stature, titles should absolutely be the tie breaker.

Right, but this debate wasn't going career-to-career.  Over their careers, Shaq and KG produced similarly but Shaq has 4 rings to 1 so ok, just like I said with Duncan, I accept what the majority opinion will be.  Shaq gets the nod.

But we're speaking specifically about this decade, and in this decade Shaq was better early but KG has been pretty clearly the better player over the majority of the decade.  And even when Shaq was peaking those first 3 years KG was still a top-5 player in the NBA, whereas over the last several years Shaq hasn't approached that level while KG has remained constant.  So that's not 2 evenly matched players THIS decade (not career), which is to me a different debate.

[KCattheStripe]

First, that's not what I said.  I said that titles alone can't be the whole of the argument, NOT that not winning titles makes you a better player.  And I wasn't alive to see Wilt and Russell play, so I'm not much of an authority on it.  I know the right answer on a Celtics board, obviously, but I also know that there are lots of people elsewhere that will argue both sides.  Either way, it's not germane to how KG compares with people in this generation.

I think it's perfectly relevant, especially when comparing Two of the best big men of a generation.

I will say that I think Olajuwon is better than Pippen despite Pip having more titles.  I will say that I'm not always convinced that MJ was really better than Bird or Magic despite him having more titles.  I don't put Mchale above either Dr. J or Moses Malone, despite Mchale having more titles than both of the others put together.

The bottom line is that every comparison is different, and has lots of things that combine to make up the whole story.  Stopping the conversation after "player X has more titles" doesn't make for a very satisfying player ranking system to me.

Its a perfectly fine conversation ender when the rest of the conversation is about how evenly matched the two players are. At the end of the day if two players are similar in stature, titles should absolutely be the tie breaker.

Right, but this debate wasn't going career-to-career.  Over their careers, Shaq and KG produced similarly but Shaq has 4 rings to 1 so ok, just like I said with Duncan, I accept what the majority opinion will be.  Shaq gets the nod.

But we're speaking specifically about this decade, and in this decade Shaq was better early but KG has been pretty clearly the better player over the majority of the decade.  And even when Shaq was peaking those first 3 years KG was still a top-5 player in the NBA, whereas over the last several years Shaq hasn't approached that level while KG has remained constant.  So that's not 2 evenly matched players THIS decade (not career), which is to me a different debate.

I think you need to go back and look at Shaqs numbers from 2004 to 2006 and then again in 2008-2009. KG wasn't "Clearly" better than him at all.

[slamtheking]

I must be the only one that considers Shaq incredibly overrated.

Every game I've seen him play he dominates the opposing team because the refs let him break rules left and right-->traveling, pushing, charges, over-the-back, etc...
He can't hit a shot outside 8 feet

I'm not saying I wouldn't have gladly taken him on the team had the opportunity presented itself but Shaq's dominance was due in large part to being allowed to play outside the rules that applied to most of his opponents.  He's not completely unskilled near the basket or as a passer and was pretty solid defensively but if the league hadn't annointed him as the savior after Jordan's 1st retirement, Shaq's first few years in the league would not have gone as well.

You've got to be kidding me?

Shaq might be the most fouled played where the fouls aren't called in the league. He is constantly getting hacked all over the place and the calls don't come because he is so big and strong that the fouls don't have any effect on him. That doesn't make them any less a foul.

Nope not kidding.  The guy has always been allowed to plow through or over everyone else on the court with no foul calls.   
the fact his size allows him to do so, even if being grabbed or hacked, is irrelevant to my point.  I don't question he gets fouled, just that those same rules have not been applied to him and as a result, his stats and "skills" are overrated IMO.  Let's not even get into the feet shuffling while trying to make post move.  he can't hit anything outside 8 feet so that doesn't play in his favor either.
You don't have to agree, most people don't.

[slamtheking]

I must be the only one that considers Shaq incredibly overrated.

Every game I've seen him play he dominates the opposing team because the refs let him break rules left and right-->traveling, pushing, charges, over-the-back, etc...
He can't hit a shot outside 8 feet

I'm not saying I wouldn't have gladly taken him on the team had the opportunity presented itself but Shaq's dominance was due in large part to being allowed to play outside the rules that applied to most of his opponents.  He's not completely unskilled near the basket or as a passer and was pretty solid defensively but if the league hadn't annointed him as the savior after Jordan's 1st retirement, Shaq's first few years in the league would not have gone as well.

You've got to be kidding me?

Shaq might be the most fouled played where the fouls aren't called in the league. He is constantly getting hacked all over the place and the calls don't come because he is so big and strong that the fouls don't have any effect on him. That doesn't make them any less a foul.

  Not that I'm agreeing with him, but look at it from the other side. He made a career out of bumping defenders off their spot when they were set and in position. He'd back into them and literally lift them off their feet to get close enough to dunk.

exactly---one of the many unfair advantages he was allowed to have courtesy of Stern's "we need a superstar replacement for Jordan" campaign.

[fairweatherfan]

I must be the only one that considers Shaq incredibly overrated.

Every game I've seen him play he dominates the opposing team because the refs let him break rules left and right-->traveling, pushing, charges, over-the-back, etc...
He can't hit a shot outside 8 feet

I'm not saying I wouldn't have gladly taken him on the team had the opportunity presented itself but Shaq's dominance was due in large part to being allowed to play outside the rules that applied to most of his opponents.  He's not completely unskilled near the basket or as a passer and was pretty solid defensively but if the league hadn't annointed him as the savior after Jordan's 1st retirement, Shaq's first few years in the league would not have gone as well.

You've got to be kidding me?

Shaq might be the most fouled played where the fouls aren't called in the league. He is constantly getting hacked all over the place and the calls don't come because he is so big and strong that the fouls don't have any effect on him. That doesn't make them any less a foul.

Nope not kidding.  The guy has always been allowed to plow through or over everyone else on the court with no foul calls.   
the fact his size allows him to do so, even if being grabbed or hacked, is irrelevant to my point.  I don't question he gets fouled, just that those same rules have not been applied to him and as a result, his stats and "skills" are overrated IMO.  Let's not even get into the feet shuffling while trying to make post move.  he can't hit anything outside 8 feet so that doesn't play in his favor either.
You don't have to agree, most people don't.

I agree, that's why I used to hate Shaq.  He's clearly got the modern record, maybe the alltime, for most uncalled fouls both for and against.  But I think it's a slippery slope to start judging players on how you think should've been officiated.  You've gotta go on the games as they actually happened, not on a hypothetical career that's subject to your own biases and blindspots.