shaq dominance is not in question,
but you have a shot to make, and everyone knows the balls is coming to you, then at that point being shaq is not a great thing
do you even know why a defensive play called "hack-a-shaq" exists??
I know you know, that's the most annoying part of your case. you just want to make an argument out of thin air. annoying mofo
I wonder what a team constructed purely with go to guys Avengers style would look like?
Why no Ray Allen??
Shaq was pretty dominant, even in 4th quarters. I never liked the hack a shaq. Did that ever work? I hope they change the rules to get rid of that.... makes the game look so ugly.
Speaking of go to centers, which of the greats would be the most dominant 1 on 1... Can Kareem stop Shaq? Can Shaq stop Kareem? How does Hakeem fare against either of them?
Your complaint of guarantees is nonsensical because there is never a guarantee of success in anything. Consider Kobe Bryants fg% in final FG/A situations, Im sure you've seen it, its not pretty. The fact that Kobe can get shots off against quality defenses keyed on stopping him can be both an advantage and detriment to the teams offense.
And take note that the OP only asks us who we would have take the shot if we needed a shot made against stifling defense. I took that to mean during any crucial/critical moment in the game, not just the moments you describe. That said, I generally agree with your decision but if my team was only down 1, tied, up 1 or more in a final shot situation. I would have no problem going to Shaq and enjoying a rate of efficiency well above league average for those situations. Particularly if Shaq is right about his FT shooting in the clutch.