Thabeet traded to Sixers than dumped

[CallMeBruce]

What evidence was there that Shaq didn't work hard?

Maybe it's all those MVP awards and championships. Lazy people win those, right?

As far as I'm concerned, Shaq already rivals Wilt and Kareem, in the sense that all three are top-5 centers, all-time. They might be 1, 2, and 3.

 

[Kitaman]

What evidence was there that Shaq didn't work hard?

I hear you. Shaq seemed to be always drenched in sweat even by halftime. Shaq knew what he was up against in competition and knew size and gift was not enough. He was committed to his craft and actually refined it to perfection. He's an all time great.

Surprised his name was mentioned with Thabeet when talking work improvement.

 

[Dogdeacon]

What evidence was there that Shaq didn't work hard?

Evidence: weight and rebounding stats. Biggest guy in league by a lot and never led NBA in rebounding.
Often played his way into shape and once waited until season to have surgery famously saying "I got hurt on company time, I'll rehab on company time."
Anecdotally lots of folks (most notably Phil Jackson in his book) have opined that if Shaq had the work ethic he could have dominated more.

I never said or implied Shaq was lazy or Thabeet for that matter, neither is/was - Shaq simply wasn't solely about bball and psychotically competitive ala Jordan. I agree though that Thabeet and Shaq have as much in common as Edsels and 65 Mustangs

 

[Robertelamin]

Evidence: weight and rebounding stats. Biggest guy in league by a lot and never led NBA in rebounding.
Often played his way into shape and once waited until season to have surgery famously saying "I got hurt on company time, I'll rehab on company time."
Anecdotally lots of folks (most notably Phil Jackson in his book) have opined that if Shaq had the work ethic he could have dominated more.

I never said or implied Shaq was lazy or Thabeet for that matter, neither is/was - Shaq simply wasn't solely about bball and psychotically competitive ala Jordan. I agree though that Thabeet and Shaq have as much in common as Edsels and 65 Mustangs

Dominated more??? He averaged 25 and 11 for his career and still put up 16 and 8.5 his final year with the Celtics.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

Dominated more??? He averaged 25 and 11 for his career and still put up 16 and 8.5 his final year with the Celtics.

No to mention that he could foul out the opposing team’s entire front court and reserves without collecting a foul himself by just smiling at David Stern who would then make the call, just ask the Kings.

 

[Strummer]

This is pure insanity. Stanley Robinson was a good athlete, but he wasn't the physical marvel that a lot of people here seem to think. He didn't have elite size (he was listed at 6-9, but no way he was more than 6-7.5). And he could jump high. That's it. He wasn't very quick and had average lateral movement. Didn't have an explosive first step, and from what I remember he wasn't a quick jumper. He could get up and had long arms, but didn't have that quick bounce that a guy like Derek Jones has where he just takes off from one foot and is at the rim. Sticks had to gather himself and took some time to get off.

Yeah man, no way. We wasn't a "good" athlete. He was an off the charts fantastic athlete. He's a better athlete than most of the guys in the NBA.

Bilas put it perfectly - "Stanley has another rung on his ladder that most people don't have."

He was explosive. He was an explosive leaper and an explosive 1st step guy. He was plenty tall to play at a very high level in the NBA, and he had a 7 foot wing span.

Dude averaged 10.4 and over 6 boards a game in 27 minutes a game as a sophomore, with 47% from the field and over 40 from 3.

Then, for reasons we will never know, he got in Calhoun's doghouse in a big way and played minutes until late in his junior year when Dyson went down. Then Calhoun's choices were to play Sticks or lose immediately.

The MSU game is a perfect example of how great this kid was - - - in 31 minutes, he went 5 of 6 from the field, 1 of 1 from 3, 3 O boards and 10 D boards for 13 boards, 2 block, and 4 of 4 from the line for 15 points. At that point I thought that something had clicked and Stan had figured out how phenomenal he was. Next year, Dyson comes back and Stan fades again, deals with JC in his grill all year and the general garbage ball the team played, and faded away.

The MSU game was a high point, but it was not an aberration. He had 28 points, 14 boards, 3 steals, and a block going 11 of 19 from the field in 47 minutes in the 6OT game.

This kid was awesome, physically. He did all of the above with what appeared to be a borderline depression.

I stand by what I said. If you put Adrien's level of determination, play-by-play dedication, and will to get better in Stan's body, the guy would have been completely unstoppable.

 

[Strummer]

Dominated more??? He averaged 25 and 11 for his career . . .

For a guy as big and athletic as Shaq, I don't think 25/11 supports the argument that he worked hard. I think it does the opposite. Eleven boards? Come on. You figure he could collect 10 just being near the rim the whole game, at his size and ability.

 

[Robertelamin]

True, he could have averaged 35 and 22. What a bum.

 

[intlzncster]

For a guy as big and athletic as Shaq, I don't think 25/11 supports the argument that he worked hard. I think it does the opposite. Eleven boards? Come on. You figure he could collect 10 just being near the rim the whole game, at his size and ability.

But if you are scoring 25+ a game, that's a lot less opportunities to get boards. Especially at the % Shaq shot at, given that he dunked everything in sight.

 

[Strummer]

True, he could have averaged 35 and 22. What a bum.

Your response is what I call the "bring it to the extreme to avoid the point" response.
You tell your wife, "you could stand to lose 10 pounds." She replies with, "so you're saying I'm a whale?"

Or you tell your kid, "you know, you really should put more time in on this project," and he responds with, "you know, according to you I can't ever do anything right."

Never said Shaq was a bum. Guy was great. One of the best ever.

The question is, how good was he compared to how good could he have been if he worked harder.

Buck Williams, at 6/8 215, averaged 10 boards a game over his career, including not averaging 6 a game in his last 3 years.
Barkley averaged almost 12 a game and he was 6/6 250.

Shaq averaging 11 a game suggests that he didn't work particularly hard at getting boards, given how much physical talent he had. I don't really see how that's even a point that most people would argue.

 

[Strummer]

But if you are scoring 25+ a game, that's a lot less opportunities to get boards. Especially at the % Shaq shot at . . .

It's a valid point on offense, but I think that only explains a small portion of it.

Shaq's ration of O board to D boards was about 1:2. Which means that he was getting about 3.5 O boards a game and 7.5 D boards.

Guy with his size and skill and jumping ability averaging only 7.4 D boards a game, I believe, indicates that he wasn't too keen on banging to get D boards.

 

[HuskiesAllDay]

Yeah man, no way. We wasn't a "good" athlete. He was an off the charts fantastic athlete. He's a better athlete than most of the guys in the NBA.

Bilas put it perfectly - "Stanley has another rung on his ladder that most people don't have."

He was explosive. He was an explosive leaper and an explosive 1st step guy. He was plenty tall to play at a very high level in the NBA, and he had a 7 foot wing span.

Dude averaged 10.4 and over 6 boards a game in 27 minutes a game as a sophomore, with 47% from the field and over 40 from 3.

Then, for reasons we will never know, he got in Calhoun's doghouse in a big way and played minutes until late in his junior year when Dyson went down. Then Calhoun's choices were to play Sticks or lose immediately.

The MSU game is a perfect example of how great this kid was - - - in 31 minutes, he went 5 of 6 from the field, 1 of 1 from 3, 3 O boards and 10 D boards for 13 boards, 2 block, and 4 of 4 from the line for 15 points. At that point I thought that something had clicked and Stan had figured out how phenomenal he was. Next year, Dyson comes back and Stan fades again, deals with JC in his grill all year and the general garbage ball the team played, and faded away.

The MSU game was a high point, but it was not an aberration. He had 28 points, 14 boards, 3 steals, and a block going 11 of 19 from the field in 47 minutes in the 6OT game.

This kid was awesome, physically. He did all of the above with what appeared to be a borderline depression.

I stand by what I said. If you put Adrien's level of determination, play-by-play dedication, and will to get better in Stan's body, the guy would have been completely unstoppable.

No he wasn't. Not even close. You're dead wrong on this. Those stats are nice but have absolutely nothing to do with athletic ability. Niels had some efficient games. Did it have anything to do with athleticism??

Bilas quote is true. He could get up and had long arms to boot. BUT that doesn't make him an "off the charts fantastic athlete". He wasn't. He had average quickness and slow lateral movement. And as I said before his hops are overrated. Yes he could get high. But it took him a while to gather himself and lacked that bouncey explosion that some guys have (Durant or Drummond for example). If I remember correctly, Stanley was more of a 2 foot jumper (could be wrong). His max vert at the combine was 37 inches (nothing special) and he measured 6'7.5'' in shoes (so I was right). And I can guarantee you that if they did various speed tests (shuttle, 40 etc) like they do at the NFL combine, Stanley would test very poorly in these.

I love Stanley, but you are vastly overrating his athleticism. Heck, you could even argue that he was the third best athlete Uconn signed in his class behind Dyson and Marcus Johnson.

You are confusing being able to get the ball above the rim with overall athleticism. If he was as athletic as you say, then surely an NBA team would've considered giving him a ten day contract, yet not a single team did.

 

[Robertelamin]

Your response is what I call the "bring it to the extreme to avoid the point" response.
You tell your wife, "you could stand to lose 10 pounds." She replies with, "so you're saying I'm a whale?"

Or you tell your kid, "you know, you really should put more time in on this project," and he responds with, "you know, according to you I can't ever do anything right."

Never said Shaq was a bum. Guy was great. One of the best ever.

The question is, how good was he compared to how good could he have been if he worked harder.

Buck Williams, at 6/8 215, averaged 10 boards a game over his career, including not averaging 6 a game in his last 3 years.
Barkley averaged almost 12 a game and he was 6/6 250.

Shaq averaging 11 a game suggests that he didn't work particularly hard at getting boards, given how much physical talent he had. I don't really see how that's even a point that most people would argue.

I guess only Shaq will ever know. Posting Buck Williams stats is cute by the way.

 

[CallMeBruce]

Your response is what I call the "bring it to the extreme to avoid the point" response.
You tell your wife, "you could stand to lose 10 pounds." She replies with, "so you're saying I'm a whale?"

Or you tell your kid, "you know, you really should put more time in on this project," and he responds with, "you know, according to you I can't ever do anything right."

Never said Shaq was a bum. Guy was great. One of the best ever.

The question is, how good was he compared to how good could he have been if he worked harder.

Buck Williams, at 6/8 215, averaged 10 boards a game over his career, including not averaging 6 a game in his last 3 years.
Barkley averaged almost 12 a game and he was 6/6 250.

Shaq averaging 11 a game suggests that he didn't work particularly hard at getting boards, given how much physical talent he had. I don't really see how that's even a point that most people would argue.

Because I'm a curious lad, I compared Shaq to all of the other HOF centers (whom I could think of) who played some part of their career during Shaq's career. So among Moses Malone, Olajuwon, Ewing, David Robinson, and Alonzo Mourning, Malone was the only one who rebounded at a higher rate than Shaq. So unless you're insinuating that Olajuwon, Robinson, Ewing, and Mourning were all lazy/lacked immense physical gifts, then I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

 

[Dogdeacon]

Your response is what I call the "bring it to the extreme to avoid the point" response.
You tell your wife, "you could stand to lose 10 pounds." She replies with, "so you're saying I'm a whale?"

Or you tell your kid, "you know, you really should put more time in on this project," and he responds with, "you know, according to you I can't ever do anything right."

Never said Shaq was a bum. Guy was great. One of the best ever.

The question is, how good was he compared to how good could he have been if he worked harder.

Buck Williams, at 6/8 215, averaged 10 boards a game over his career, including not averaging 6 a game in his last 3 years.
Barkley averaged almost 12 a game and he was 6/6 250.

Shaq averaging 11 a game suggests that he didn't work particularly hard at getting boards, given how much physical talent he had. I don't really see how that's even a point that most people would argue.

Exactly, thanks for pounding the glass for me. Jordan is almost too cliche of an example, so put Ray Allen's preparation/mentality on Shaq and instead of saying he's a top 3 centers and top-10 ish all time we are debating if he was the best ever. No slouch, one of greatest ever, legendary career, etc..

Totally subjective % of basketball potential reached:
MJ 100%
Ray Allen 99%
Shaq 93%
Thabeet 75% (I could see anything from 50 to 80 though)

 

[Robertelamin]

Shaq has 4 rings, twice as many as Ray does. I'm not some Shaq fan boy but give credit where credit is due.

 

[johnhuskies95]

No he wasn't. Not even close. You're dead wrong on this. Those stats are nice but have absolutely nothing to do with athletic ability. Niels had some efficient games. Did it have anything to do with athleticism??

Bilas quote is true. He could get up and had long arms to boot. BUT that doesn't make him an "off the charts fantastic athlete". He wasn't. He had average quickness and slow lateral movement. And as I said before his hops are overrated. Yes he could get high. But it took him a while to gather himself and lacked that bouncey explosion that some guys have (Durant or Drummond for example). If I remember correctly, Stanley was more of a 2 foot jumper (could be wrong). His max vert at the combine was 37 inches (nothing special) and he measured 6'7.5'' in shoes (so I was right). And I can guarantee you that if they did various speed tests (shuttle, 40 etc) like they do at the NFL combine, Stanley would test very poorly in these.

I love Stanley, but you are vastly overrating his athleticism. Heck, you could even argue that he was the third best athlete Uconn signed in his class behind Dyson and Marcus Johnson.

You are confusing being able to get the ball above the rim with overall athleticism. If he was as athletic as you say, then surely an NBA team would've considered giving him a ten day contract, yet not a single team did.

"Very poorly"? The hyperbole on this board is ridiculous. He was 15th in his draft class in the sprint and 28th in agility. Nothing earth shattering, but not "very poor".

And that max vert that you write off as pedestrian was 5th in his class.

 

[Dogdeacon]

Because I'm a curious lad, I compared Shaq to all of the other HOF centers (whom I could think of) who played some part of their career during Shaq's career. So among Moses Malone, Olajuwon, Ewing, David Robinson, and Alonzo Mourning, Malone was the only one who rebounded at a higher rate than Shaq. So unless you're insinuating that Olajuwon, Robinson, Ewing, and Mourning were all lazy/lacked immense physical gifts, then I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Was Shaq better than those guys?
Shaq won one MVP, one.

Look at how Kareem's stats look slightly better in regular season, but then in postseason Shaq draws even. I'd theorize his numbers improved vs better competition b/c he tried a bit more.
http://www.landofbasketball.com/player_comparison/a/kareem_abdul_jabbar_vs_shaquille_oneal.htm

REA - Steve Kerr has lots of rings too. I say Ray Allen hit all of his potential, that has nothing to do with Shaq who again I think is a top-10 all time player (Ray is not close)!

 

[Strummer]

So unless you're insinuating that Olajuwon, Robinson, Ewing, and Mourning were all lazy/lacked immense physical gifts, then I don't know what the hell you're talking about.

Shaq was once in a hundred years type specimen.
If you think that a proper comparison to Shaq is David Robinson or Alonzo Mouring, then what the hell are we talking about?

 

[champs99and04]

Stanley's actual talent as a basketball player has been wildly overstated more times than one on this board, but this thread has taken the myth of Sticks to a whole other level. He was a great, great athlete. It takes a lot more than that to play in the NBA, much less become an all-time great.

 

[CallMeBruce]

Shaq was once in a hundred years type specimen.
If you think that a proper comparison to Shaq is David Robinson or Alonzo Mouring, then what the hell are we talking about?

There is no proper comparison, but the guy was still one of the very best players of all-time (ranks third in PER behind Jordan and LeBron), and was the NBA's dominant player for a five-year stretch. Literally he was the best player in the league every season for five years. If that's a player who didn't apply himself, then what do you think he should have been able to do? Win 10 championships? 10 MVPs?

Was Shaq better than those guys?
Shaq won one MVP, one.

MVP award voting is often wrong. The numbers show that Shaq was better than all of those guys, and the numbers are a factual representation of the events. Shaq was the best big man of his generation, and following Jordan's retirement, he was the league's best player for several years.

 

[Dogdeacon]

There is no proper comparison, but the guy was still one of the very best players of all-time (ranks third in PER behind Jordan and LeBron), and was the NBA's dominant player for a five-year stretch. Literally he was the best player in the league every season for five years. If that's a player who didn't apply himself, then what do you think he should have been able to do? Win 10 championships? 10 MVPs?



MVP award voting is often wrong. The numbers show that Shaq was better than all of those guys, and the numbers are a factual representation of the events. Shaq was the best big man of his generation, and following Jordan's retirement, he was the league's best player for several years.

Agree with almost every point but one. Although 10 is obviously purposely absurd on your part Shaq could have easily won 6-ish championships, 5ish MVPs. I simply think he could have been in argument with Jordan, Wilt, Russell, Kareem and now LeBron. Instead he sits right outside this with Bird, Magic etc..

 

[jibsey]

Donyell Marshall reminds me of that a bit. Lots of natural talent and a hell of a UConn baller; but, did not seem too interested in the hard work it takes to make a career in the NBA and was a goof ball around campus. That said, he finally got it in is head and turned it around. Maybe Thabeet will be able to do the same?

Donyell had serious shooting skills.

 

[CallMeBruce]

Agree with almost every point but one. Although 10 is obviously purposely absurd on your part Shaq could have easily won 6-ish championships, 5ish MVPs. I simply think he could have been in argument with Jordan, Wilt, Russell, Kareem and now LeBron. Instead he sits right outside this with Bird, Magic etc..

Shaq was a better player than Russell.

 

[Dogdeacon]

Shaq was a better player than Russell.

It is hard to visualize Shaq not absolutely physically overpowering Russell. Yet Wilt was legendarily strong and Russell owned him. And Dennis Rodman used to give Shaq fits. Russell's championships Trump.

 

[intlzncster]

Exactly, thanks for pounding the glass for me. Jordan is almost too cliche of an example, so put Ray Allen's preparation/mentality on Shaq and instead of saying he's a top 3 centers and top-10 ish all time we are debating if he was the best ever. No slouch, one of greatest ever, legendary career, etc..

That's worse than Jordan. MJ may have been the most competitive motherf_cker ever, but Ray is damn near psychotic in his preparation. I'd put Ray up against anyone in history in that category. There may be someone worse, but I sure as hell never heard about it. Jesus is straight up nuts.

 

[intlzncster]

"Very poorly"? The hyperbole on this board is ridiculous. He was 15th in his draft class in the sprint and 28th in agility. Nothing earth shattering, but not "very poor".

And that max vert that you write off as pedestrian was 5th in his class.

To put it in perspective. Shabazz Napier (who supposedly lacks athleticism at the guard position) has a 37.5 combine vert, .5 inches higher than Stanley's.

 

[intlzncster]

Agree with almost every point but one. Although 10 is obviously purposely absurd on your part Shaq could have easily won 6-ish championships, 5ish MVPs. I simply think he could have been in argument with Jordan, Wilt, Russell, Kareem and now LeBron. Instead he sits right outside this with Bird, Magic etc..

It's harder to say that as a center though. He has less control of the game, than say a guard like Jordan.

 

[intlzncster]

It is hard to visualize Shaq not absolutely physically overpowering Russell. Yet Wilt was legendarily strong and Russell owned him. And Dennis Rodman used to give Shaq fits. Russell's championships Trump.

Rodman was a frickin' anomaly though. That guy's quick hops and strength per pound had to be top 5 in history. Guy could jump 3 times before anyone else got off one. Somehow, he had the strength to body up the Diesel one on one.

 

[DarthGrumpy]

That's worse than Jordan. MJ may have been the most competitive motherf_cker ever, but Ray is damn near psychotic in his preparation. I'd put Ray up against anyone in history in that category. There may be someone worse, but I sure as hell never heard about it. Jesus is straight up nuts.

In the prep category, who would win between Ray and Jerry Rice?