The Shaq Era

It was striking to me that during the pregame coverage of the Pistons-Suns matchup yesterday none of the commentators seemed to be acknowledging the basic point that the Marion-Shaq deal was a risky and controversial move. Instead, it was being covered in a totally rah-rah as if it were a Gasol-style no-brainer. Obviously, many people do think it was a smart move for Phoenix to make, but surely the commentary ought to reflect the fact that a lot of people think it was a blunder.

The upshot, naturally enough, was that Phoenix got blown out. Sample size is obviously far too small to make big hay out of the team going 1-2 since the trade and those were all good teams, but still. It's certainly strange, though, that the Phoenix defense is so up and down bracketing that great performance against Boston by giving up 130 points to LA and 116 to Detroit.

Comments

none of the commentators seemed to be acknowledging the basic point that the Marion-Shaq deal was a risky and controversial move.

I think this is wrong. I didn't watch the whole game, but I heard VG and even Breen (?) each refer to the deal as risky. The issue wasn't much developed beyond that, and VG came down on the Suns' side, but still.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 25, 2008 9:32 AM

none of the commentators seemed to be acknowledging the basic point that the Marion-Shaq deal was a risky and controversial move.

I think this is wrong. I didn't watch the whole game, but I heard VG and even Breen (?) each refer to the deal as risky. The issue wasn't much developed beyond that, and VG came down on the Suns' side, but still.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 25, 2008 9:33 AM

Well, it might be worth remembering that sports is part of the entertainment industry, and the commentators are not so much neutral journalists as they are promoters. And, finally, the NBA still likes to market the heck out of its "stars".

Posted by DTM | February 25, 2008 9:33 AM

Matt,

Did you watch the national telecast Lakers game because the coverage was more hedged toward the risky nature of the trade. I think the Lakers/Celtics game changed the dynamic significantly in that the Suns nearly beat a super hot Lakers squad that has been blowing out everyone else. It also showed that with Shaq in the line up Suns could still score a ton. The Boston game showed we could play defense and win a boring, half court type game we will face in the playoffs.

So by the time the Pistons were on the floor the mood was essentially positive on the deal. Now with this blow out there will probably be a correction in the analysis. The sports world does not move at the speed of the Blogosphere but it isn't far behind with every data point being blown way out of proportion. Fact is no one will know the value of this deal until the playoffs start.

That is an objective test and the only measure that counts in the end.

Posted by UofAZGrad | February 25, 2008 9:38 AM

Disney's TV coverage of the NBA is pretty universally abysmal.

-----

"Sample size is obviously far too small to make big hay out of the team going 1-2 since the trade"

Phoenix is 4 - 4 since the trade. They're 1 - 2 since Shaq has been on the floor.

Posted by Petey | February 25, 2008 9:42 AM

I have hated Shaq his entire career from the time he was a junior in high school. He is easily my least favorite athlete of all time. But it isn't any fun to hate him anymore because he plain sucks. If Phoenix does anything this season, it will be because they removed a locker room tumor and not because of anything Shaq provides.

Posted by Curtis | February 25, 2008 9:51 AM

and 116 to Detroit

which really is the kind of score that makes you think. The assumption used to be that if the points total hits three figures, it looks better for Phoenix, but the victory over Boston was 85-77, and looked like a Pistons grind-out.

It'll take some time to see if there's a pattern, but the strangest outcome might be if Phoenix scrabbles to the Finals, at the cost of their running, high-scoring, shoot-the-3 game. I don't see that happening; they no longer look flaky on defense, and now look plain weak.

(Larry Brown to Phoenix for 2008-9?)

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 25, 2008 9:51 AM

When he calls himself the Big Aristotle, is it because Aristotle used to clog up the lane, miss more than half of his free throws, and flagrantly foul other people in the Greek League?

Posted by norbizness | February 25, 2008 9:55 AM

I think anyone who's really positive on the Shaq deal for Phoenix is just assuming that they'll be getting the Shaq of two years ago (Miami's title team): not the player he was when he dominated with the Lakers, but still capable of big game-changing performances a couple of times in a playoff series. For instance, he had 28 points and 16 boards in the Heat's conference-finals-clinching Game 6 win over the Pistons that year.

If the Suns were getting THAT Shaq, then the deal would probably be worth it for them. But that's based on the assumption that he's been sandbagging in Miami for the last season and a half, which I don't buy at all. He's just not capable of playing at that level anymore, certainly not against other elite teams.

I can still buy the argument that the Suns thought it was in their best interest to deal Marion, but I just can't see any case for the Shaq trade being the best way to do it.

Posted by Haggai | February 25, 2008 9:57 AM

"I have hated Shaq his entire career"

Well, now I understand why you're a Spurs fan, Curtis. You hate fun and charismatic hoops players.

Anyone who hates Shaquille hates life.

Posted by Petey | February 25, 2008 9:59 AM

Didn't turn on the game until the second half (and promptly turned it off after watching 5 minutes). But it doesn't surprise me that the defense in inconsistent. I would think it would take a while to figure out how they are going to play defense now that they have a lane-clogger and that they don't have a good perimeter stopper outside (the overrated) Raja Bell. I'm more surprised at the Boston game than the Lakers and Pistons games.

Posted by Al | February 25, 2008 10:03 AM

Phoenix' alleged fine defensive performance against Boston had a lot more to do with the Celtics than anything the Suns did.

Boston came into Phoenix having given up 124 and 119 points in their prior two games (both losses) and focused their energy in the Suns' game on their own defensive end. Somewhere along the way, they forgot how to shoot for a night.

Jesus and Pierce combined to score 19 points on 5-25 shooting from the floor, both missing an assortment of wide open shots. Allen was 1-7 on 3's, Pierce hit a couple of 3's, but was 0-10 inside the stripe.

For the sake of argument, Phoenix probably deserves SOME credit for that 5-25 line, but common sense will tell you that when both of those guys are that far off on the same night, it probably has a lot more to do with factors outside of Phoenix' control.

Posted by not so fast | February 25, 2008 10:07 AM

Petey puts it a bit too starkly, but I overcame my knee-jerk hatred for Shaq (I thought he was overmarketed, and I hate that I am a better pure shooter than one of the most dominant players in the NBA in the past decade).

Shaq plays his game darn well, and is a pretty bright and funny guy in interviews. I don't get hating the guy.

And yeah, Boston played a lousy game against Phoenix.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | February 25, 2008 10:14 AM

I would think it would take a while to figure out how they are going to play defense now that they have a lane-clogger and that they don't have a good perimeter stopper outside (the overrated) Raja Bell.

I think you have to include the word "immobile" somewhere in there. They need to play some form of zone.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 25, 2008 10:24 AM

Shaq (the person) was always interesting. But for a while, Shaq (the player) committed an offensive foul - that, needless to say, was never called - on every other possession. And that pissed me off.

Posted by Al | February 25, 2008 10:25 AM

I don't hate Shaq, but I do find him kinda tiresome. He's immature and petty, yet the sports media never calls him on it.

Posted by David | February 25, 2008 10:26 AM

You hate fun and charismatic hoops players.

Anyone who hates Shaquille hates life.

As a Laker fan, who defended Shaq over Kobe when they fought each other on the team, I now hate Shaq. I agree he's a fun and charismatic player, but he's also extraordinarily moody and prone to bouts of laziness. He was very out of shape when he got traded to the Heat, but because of the perceived slight, he worked his ass off (for the first time in year) back in shape. There was such a difference that Buss said if he had that Shaq he'd have never traded him.

He says he'd be unhappy if he retired with fewer than 5 rings. He could have had that as a Laker, had he stayed in shape. However, because of his ego and bad work ethic (which annoyed the fiercely competitive Kobe), he got fat until he gets dissed.

Don't get me wrong he's very entertaining and I'm grateful for the 3 championships he brought to LA. But, for the supposed MDE he's got a huge, unwarranted chip on his shoulder (it reminds me of the annual "no one respects us" bitchfest from the Patriots and their fans and is just as annoying).

Posted by Mo | February 25, 2008 10:33 AM

let's get back to the point Al was getting at in his 10:03; yes, the pistons picked up rasheed prior to the deadline and won the title, but by and large, it's tough to integrate someone into your starting lineup 2/3 of the way into the season and still win a title. it's early in the day, so i'm probably blanking on a couple of others, but beyond the pistons and rasheed, none are springing to mind....

Posted by howard | February 25, 2008 10:44 AM

What's "fun" about Shaq? I mean the bounce-bounce-massive-shoulder-to-the-defender's-chest Shaq, not the media personality. Some may find him charismatic off the court (I'll take Barkley any day), but on the court his style of play has never been aesthetically appealing.

I know he has the four rings from two clubs, but in Kobe and DWade he was playing with arguably the two best swing guards of those championship years.

Yeah, yeah, Shaq was very good at what he did, but I don't consider him in the same echelon of elite centers as Kareem, Hakeem, Wilt, and Russell. That said, I would have enjoyed seeing an at-his-prime Moses Malone battle Shaq.

I thought D'Antoni and the Phoenix management were supposed to be among the brightest of basketball folks. I realize they must have gotten tired of Marion's griping, but if not for that bogus suspension of Amare they probably would have reached the promised land last year.

Posted by Bragan | February 25, 2008 10:45 AM

The real story on that game is that the Pistons should be considered an early favorite for the NBA title. They are deep, experienced and battle tested, having made the Conference finals five years in a row. Their only significant opposition in the East are the Celtics, who might boast the league's best threesom but are severely deficient at the game's two most important positions, point guard and center. And does anyone really think that KG, Paul Pierce and Ray Allen alone are enough to contend with Sheed, Chauncey, Rip, Tayshaun and the Pistons fearsome bench?

Detroit over LA in 5, a repeat of 2004. You heard it here first.

Posted by Gautham | February 25, 2008 10:51 AM

Game commentators are wimps. They don't want to make some bold declaration that could then look dumb in the course of the game. They also have a little bit of the Bill Walton-esque tendency to worship big name stars and praise them with nauseating hyperbole. Maybe it's because Shaq is sitting right there 15 feet away from them.

Posted by Colatina | February 25, 2008 10:55 AM

"What's "fun" about Shaq? I mean the bounce-bounce-massive-shoulder-to-the-defender's-chest Shaq, not the media personality. Some may find him charismatic off the court ... but on the court his style of play has never been aesthetically appealing."

I've always found Shaquille immensely enjoyable to watch on the court. Prior to his body breaking down, he always had a surreal and idiosyncratic physical grace.

My analogy has always been that watching Shaq is like watching the hippos in tutus dancing ballet in Fantasia.

Posted by Petey | February 25, 2008 10:58 AM

Gautham,

The Pistons will lose to the Cavs. The Pistons will lead in the first game by 10 and Lebron will score the next 350 points for Cleveland as the Cavs sweep. The Pistons will make sure Delonte West and Wally Szceirbiak don't get good looks when Lebron drives.

Posted by crack | February 25, 2008 11:01 AM

Fun? You need proof of fun? KA-ZAAM!

Posted by norbizness | February 25, 2008 11:04 AM

by and large, it's tough to integrate someone into your starting lineup 2/3 of the way into the season and still win a title. it's early in the day, so i'm probably blanking on a couple of others, but beyond the pistons and rasheed, none are springing to mind....

The Rockets did it with Drexler in '95, as did the Pistons in '89 with the Aguirre-Dantley swap. But these are exceptional cases, as you say. Obviously, a team that's in serious contention for the title isn't usually looking to shake up its starting lineup. These few instances have been when they thought it was going to improve their chemistry (Dantley for Aguirre, Maxwell for Drexler), or they could get something for pretty much nothing (Rasheed in '04).

The Lakers hope that Gasol in the "something for nothing" category will get them there now, and the Marion-Shaq deal falls more into the "change the chemistry" category.

Posted by Haggai | February 25, 2008 11:06 AM

You have to remember that Shaq has a McCain-like hold over the national sports media and the league. No matter how much he's been sandbagging during the regular season, whining at the team owner to overpay him, not playing defense because he's not getting enough touches, and letting his lack of motivation ruin yet another championship caliber team, he will ALWAYS be written up as the good guy.

This is a man who, after his teammate mentioned that he had covered up his extra-marital affairs, got the media to destroy said teammate for "snitching", without a single word about the infidelities.

Giving reporters access, and plenty of larger- than- life stories sure goes a long ways these days.

And one more thing: Could you imagine the league ordering a do-over of an overtime game for ANY other player other than Shaq, for accidentally fouling him out? (The irony is, now that he's been traded, they can't decide who gets to play in that).

Posted by Charles | February 25, 2008 11:11 AM

I think who comes out of the East depends on who the Cavs play first. I think it's going to be Cavs or Detroit in the finals vs the Lakers or Spurs. What's been amazing is how quickly Pau has integrated into the offense. It looks like he's been a Laker the whole season. The concern is how the team will mesh running the big triangle with Bynum in. However, the current success of the team shows they'll do well even if Bynum isn't 100% and is only in for 25 minutes or so.

I still say Spurs are the team to beat, until proven otherwise. If there's a team that has the horses to do it, it's LA.

Posted by Mo | February 25, 2008 11:26 AM

Could you imagine the league ordering a do-over of an overtime game for ANY other player other than Shaq, for accidentally fouling him out?

Yes. I think the league would do this for any team who lost a key player like that.

Posted by right | February 25, 2008 11:27 AM

Detroit over LA in 5, a repeat of 2004. You heard it here first.

Doubt it. The Pistons go as Rasheed goes, and he can't or won't produce consistently over a series. The Pistons won't make it out of the East.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 25, 2008 11:28 AM

I don't think the Hawks-Heat replay situation is the result of any pro-Shaq bias. Official scorers very rarely screw up so badly as to foul someone who's only got 5 fouls, so a proven mistake which is that clear cut will probably result in a replay no matter who it happened to.

But I do agree about the McCain-Shaq comparison. He really can do no wrong with almost everyone in the media. Sure he comes across as being very likable, and he is pretty entertaining with all those weird quotes, but the fact that he was massively overweight at the end in L.A. got lost in the shuffle (as Mo said upthread) in the midst of all the congratulations to Shaq for losing the weight once he got to Miami. Also lost in the shuffle of the rush to pat him on the back was the fact that he accepted WAY less money from Miami than he was demanding in L.A. (20 mil per year in Miami, while he wouldn't settle for less than almost 30 mil from the Lakers).

Posted by Haggai | February 25, 2008 11:30 AM

Anyone who hates Shaquille hates life.

Nope. Anyone who hates Bootsy Collins hates life.

But hating the young O'Neal is a bit extreme, I'll give you that. He didn't graduate to "biggest load on legs" until relatively late in his career.

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | February 25, 2008 11:30 AM

Whether you like Shaq's play or not is a matter of personal preference. Saying he committed an offensive foul on ever possession is utter crap, though. There are certain forms of contact that are legal in basketball. If you are ridiculously strong, as Shaq was, and that contact moves your defender out of the way, then it is not a foul. If anything, I think Shaq suffered from a lot of non-calls. I'm not sure it matters much, though, b/c he was such a poor free throw shooter.

I'm also a big football fan, so the Shaq style of play in basketball doesn't matter much to me. He was powerful, but also graceful. One of his coolest moves was to spin baseline around his defender and dunk. He could get away with that move b/c his defender had to focus so much on not getting backed down that he was really vulnerable to that quick spin move.

Posted by mpowell | February 25, 2008 11:38 AM

haggai, yes, drexler hit me after i posted, but i forgot about dantley-aguirre (i guess because essentially they were interchangeable pieces). a quick look down the championship team list didn't bring any others to mind, but again, i just may be blanking.

the trade i like is the spurs picking up kurt thomas: a defense-and-rebounding-oriented (although the defense has been a little shaky this year) picks up a defense-and-rebound-oriented role player. now that's an easy adjustment!

PS. haggai, if you haven't yet discovered footytube, get on it: at long last, highlights from every major soccer match in england, italy, and spain (and be sure to check out wayne rooney's second goal on saturday against newcastle).

Posted by howard | February 25, 2008 11:38 AM

mpowell, if i'm a defender and my feet are set, and shaq lowers his shoulder into me and that moves me out of the way, that's an offensive foul, and while he didn't do that on every play (he was quite graceful for his size), he did it far more than he was called for it.

but my real critique of shaq, insofar as we're talking about shaq the player, is that for a man of his size and quickness and ball-handling skills, he was never really the rebounder he could have been.

Posted by howard | February 25, 2008 11:42 AM

Petey, Shaq is the opposite of a fun basketball player. He may be a nice guy, but he's murder to watch on the court. Watching him miss free throws is bad enough, although sickly fasctinating in a way. But any game he's in will have an inordinate number of free throws on both sides, since Shaq is prone to fouling and getting fouled. Every shot he takes other than a dunk or a short jump hook is ugly. In his first few years he was very athletic and it was fun to watch him run the floor and block shots 2 feet above the rim, but that was mostly gone by the Laker years.

Also, it's natural to hate a guy who gets by on size athletecism without appearing to try very hard. I never thought that described Shaq, but seeing how bad he is now that he's lost a step, I figure it must be true.

Anyway, I heard Van Gundy being very critical of the trade. He thinks it fucked up the Suns half-court offense, and I agree. As I said when the trade was made: how are the Suns going to run the Amare-Nash pick and roll with Shaq in the way?

What Van Gundy didn't mention was how bad the trade makes the Suns on D. Yeah, Shaq will block some shots, but there are very few players in the league that Shaq guards better than Marion did? Not Duncan; not Garnett; not 'Sheed. Shaq can't guard any of those guys. Maybe Yao, big Z and a few other pure centers. But the Suns gave up their best defensive player and got a below-average defender in return.

Posted by too many steves | February 25, 2008 11:45 AM

The Dantley-Aguirre deal was actually a pretty controversial one at the time. Dantley was a fan favorite in Detroit, and Aguirre had done some pretty petulant team-disrupting things in Dallas, so the initial reaction among Pistons fans was very negative. But the Pistons management was counting on the Aguirre-Isiah friendship to spark Aguirre's integration into the lineup, and the chemistry with Dantley had apparently been more troublesome than a lot of fans could notice. It paid off with two titles, so of course it worked out ideally for Detroit, but it was a very tough sell for them at first.

Posted by Haggai | February 25, 2008 11:46 AM

haggai, i do remember the concerns at the time, but on the court, you had two very similarly-styled players (and, as you note, the thomas-aguirre friendship), which made the adjustment fairly easy in terms of team adjustment.

Posted by howard | February 25, 2008 11:51 AM

Interesting that very few teams have made big in-season trades and then gone on to win championships lately. Of course, I suppose it also speaks to the fact that many of the teams that have won over the past few decades have been dynasty-type teams with the big pieces already in place.

Also, one additional point about the Suns. I had pointed out when we were first discussing the Shaq trade that, to me, the most important point of the trade was to improve the Suns' rebounding, which was worst in the league prior to the trade, rather than defense per se. I hardly saw any of the Detroit game, but looking at the box score, I see the Suns got killed off the glass. Shaq did his part (with 11), but the rest of the team was horrible - the next highest rebounder was Barbosa with 4. The prior two games, the Suns rebounding was much improved - they killed LA and Boston off the glass.

Posted by Al | February 25, 2008 12:12 PM

mpowell, if i'm a defender and my feet are set, and shaq lowers his shoulder into me and that moves me out of the way, that's an offensive foul, and while he didn't do that on every play (he was quite graceful for his size), he did it far more than he was called for it.

That's not normally what happened. If there is seperation between the two players and the offensive guy lowers his shoulder and rams the other guy, then its a foul. Shaq did get called for this at the time. But the classic Shaq bump comes when the defender has his chest thrust out and is trying to track Shaq as Shaq turns in and moves toward the paint. Shaq's shoulder is down during the turn and he doesn't ram towards the basket but he pulls up as he completes the turn. His absurd strength means that the impact during this movement is enough to push the defender off his position and clear the space necessary for the shot. The defenders feet are rarely set here, b/c he is tracking Shaq's movement in towards the paint, and there is a very low threshold for when a defender is not longer set - a shift in your hips and shoulders are sufficient. Furthermore, when Shaq's motion is primarily upwards, that doesn't count as a charge b/c you can always move upwards legally.

I've seen this complaint many times - you can debate on the margin whether he got more calls or not and that's a different discussion - but his game was fundamentally legal. People say otherwise b/c they don't understand the rules or are just biased. The difference between Shaq and another player is that during that upward movement post-turn between two players of similar stature, there will be an equal and opposite movement on each player from the impact that results in a more difficult shot for the offensive player. Just because the result is different with Shaq doesn't change whether the motion was legal.

Posted by mpowell | February 25, 2008 12:34 PM

Like Al said, the suns needed defensie rebounding and someone to post up occasionally so they could rest a bit. And apparently they got real tired of Marion. Plus, the lakers are going to go into the playoffs with a huge, agile front line. Marion wasn't going to be much help there. So--in my opinion--the suns aare thinking, we need to get rid of Marion, we need to get bigger down low and get more rebounds, we need to roll the dice and shake things up. Viola! the Shaq trade.

The trade that really really pisses me off was the gasol trade. I would love to get Mr. Hemsly (what ever his stupid name is) in my power and waterboard him for a week. No. 1, they got nothing for a top 5-7 big guy. No.2, they put the Lakers over the top for the next 4 years. If you are the owner of a basketball team wanting to win, do you give another team the piece that most guarentees them a small dynasty? Hell no! You trade him to another loser, and get more for him too. That was one of the worst trades ever, so bad that the possibility of foul play would not surprise me in the least. I'm calling for a congressional investigation.

Now I have to get back to work. Good day.

Posted by cw | February 25, 2008 12:49 PM

Shaq has his charms, as a player and a person, but as Phil Jackson said about him the last time the Lakers played Phoenix, it's an "ordeal" when he goes to the line. This is the weakest aspect of basketball as a game, probably, and Shaq magnifies it to horrible effect. He's a bad shooter and a slow one too, and players have little choice but to jump in the lane to rebound. He slows the game to a painful crawl, and totally disrupts whatever rhythm a team may have -- even his own team.

Phoenix won't go far with him shooting his usual 2-for-7. I might miss seeing Steve Nash and Amare Stoudemire, but I won't miss Shaq.

Posted by Kit Stolz | February 25, 2008 1:02 PM

Granted, most the reason I hate Shaq is personal. When he was in high school, his team played my best friend's team. Shaq went to this little school on a military base and so he was playing guys from all these little tiny schools. And my friend went to a little private school of nerds, and their biggest player was probably something like 5-6 and 110 pounds, and Shaq dunked and shoved and taunted them, and it was frankly sickening to watch. (Granted, he was 16 or so at the time, and I hate to think what anyone's thoughts of me would be if they were formed when I was 16.)

Then he comes back to town as a rookie and immediately trashed David Robinson in the media. San Antonio is not a big city - even though it is the tenth largest in the country. We don't trash people around here. And even if we did, David Robinson is more off-limits than the Alamo. He saved the Spurs, who would have moved out of town if not for that fortuitous envelope. He gave college scholarships to an entire graduating class of a school in one of the most desperate parts of town, and he built and funded an academy, and the NBA renamed the citizenship award in his name. Nobody trashes Robinson around here without earning disdain forever.

Then his dad makes a big parade about what a big shot he is because he has brought something like 40 kids from an at-risk program to see the game, and halfway through the third quarter, Shaq gets tossed after completely being outplayed, and his dad makes all of those kids get up and leave the game. It was disgusting.

So I hate the guy.

The one thing I will say that I have always been impressed with is that for years, he was fouled harder than anyone in the league, pounded on in a way that no other player was, and never reacted in anger to that. If he had ever lost his cool, the injuries could have been catastrophic. And he never did. I respect that.

But I still hate the guy.

Posted by Curtis | February 25, 2008 1:31 PM

(20 mil per year in Miami, while he wouldn't settle for less than almost 30 mil from the Lakers)

I think, but am not sure, that it was the same amount of money over a longer period of time.

Posted by SomeCallMeTim | February 25, 2008 1:41 PM

I think, but am not sure, that it was the same amount of money over a longer period of time.

In LA, Shaq was asking for an extension at the max the Lakers could offer, which was something like an extra 90mil over 3 years. Obviously ludicrous, especially given the last couple of years (could you imagine if Shaq was owed 60mil instead of 40 over these two years!). LA traded him while he was still on his old contract and when he got to Miami they restructed the deal to extend it, but at 20mil per. So, yes, his demands took a huge step downwards when he moved to Miami. Shaq was basically making contract demands that forced the Lakers to trade him while they could get anything for him. He may have done that b/c he hated Kobe, but it was a big part of why he was traded, irrespective of Kobe's influence on management.

But I still hate the guy.

Shaq is a drama queen and did a lot of stupid shit over the years. But his interaction with the community got a lot more respectful as he got older and more mature.

Posted by mpowell | February 25, 2008 2:15 PM

The "ching chong ah soh" stuff in relation to Yao Ming in 2002 was not cool, either.

Posted by nbt | February 25, 2008 2:16 PM

"Then he comes back to town as a rookie and immediately trashed David Robinson in the media."

Good for Shaquille.

I'm not a fan of the Spurs. I'm generally happy when they lose. But I still respect and admire Timmy. I still respect and admire Ginobili. I even respect and admire Bowen, (even while appreciating the Vince/Zeke line of complaint). I even, even respect and admire Pop, which isn't easy for me.

But Robinson? Straight up, a Republican pansy punk.

Cutting the 'admiral' down to size is proper behavior.

Posted by Petey | February 25, 2008 5:54 PM