this seems like an homer nod to dirk with a pseudo-scientific afterthought... just look at how dirks name is intersperced throughout while the other names just melt of the list despite relatively strong and sensible straw-man arguments in their favor.
he's a great shooter and a difficult matchup but.... he's been in the league for a while, had good players around him, never has come close to winning anything big, and can't play NBA-level defense. im partisan to shaq myself because i think his impact is obvious, his presense entirely changes the game, and he wins championships. he shoots around 60% and makes wade look like jordan. if not shaq, i'd say duncan who I dont like very much but he is probably the most complete front-court player in the league...his injuries probably take him off the list. kg has played well but his team's lack of success limits his candidacy. i think the same is true for dirk -- he is only on a fourth seeded team and wasn't like he was so superior to everyone that he gets the automatic nod. if not duncan, i think you have to look at the frontcourts, lebron, and maybe nash if we're going to be objective about how NBA basketball is played and won. but dude, the perfect argument for shaq is built into this piece: he leave the lakers, they get three good players, and don't make the playoffs. meanwhile, he and wade tore up the east this year on a team that starts no one else of note. his impact doesn't translate to stats always, but for him to improve a team that was gutted of that much talent says quite a lot. id have gone with duncan or kg just about any other year, but this year i dont think it's even close.