Dwyane Wade (left) and Damon Jones have listened -- and followed -- O'Neal's lead into the second round of the playoffs. Victor Baldizon/NBAE via Getty Images
	MAILBAG Have a question or opinion for Chris? He might answer or address it in his next blog. Your name: Your e-mail address: Your home town: Enter your question:

Last night, while watching the Suns running a layup drill versus the Mavericks, I heard it again: the MVP lament. "I love Nash," my friend Pat said in between making jokes about Jake Voskuhl, "but it's absurd that Shaq wasn't the MVP."

This is a common theme of late. We all love Stevie, but c'mon now ... Skip Bayless of ESPN wrote of the MVP vote, "That's more laughable than Shaquille O'Neal's many hilarious one-liners." Dick Vitale, noted NBA expert, weighs in with, "Shaq makes every player on his team better, and you don't usually see that from a big man," before adding, in case there was any doubt, "Yes, my ballot would have O'Neal's name on it, baby!"

There are plenty of other commentators, some of whom even talk at a normal decibel level, who agree with this thesis, and with good reason; it is hard to argue with O'Neal's impact on the Heat. He single-handedly changed the culture of the franchise, the team's style of play and, as Vitale points out, made his teammates better. So did Nash, of course, but O'Neal-ists point to the fact that Nash made already-good players better (Shawn Marion, Amare Stoudemire, Quentin Richardson and Joe Johnson), whereas Shaq has the power to transform role players into, well, much better role players.

Call it the Shaq Effect, or, in honor of author and New Yorker writer Malcolm Gladwell, the Shaq-ing Point -- that precise point in time at which a decent NBA player becomes a good one, perhaps identifiable as the first moment when O'Neal draws a double team that creates an eight-foot halo of wide open space for his teammates. It's accepted NBA logic: Shaq increases shooting percentages, boosts assist numbers and allows outside gunners to spot up unmolested for 3-pointers.

But do the stats back that up? I thought it might be worthwhile to see if one could quantify the Shaq Effect. So I did some digging to see what O'Neal's impact has been on key players when he arrives on a new team, focusing on four factors he purportedly improves: points, field-goal percentage, 3-point shooting and assists (for point guards).

The Shaq Effect: Orlando Player PPG FG% 3P% APG Anderson (pre-O'Neal) 19.9 .463 .353 2.7 Anderson (post-O'Neal) 19.9 .449 .353 3.6 Skiles (pre-O'Neal) 14.1 .414 .364 7.3 Skiles (post-O'Neal) 15.4 .467 .340 9.4 Scott (pre-O'Neal) 19.9 .463 .353 2.7 Scott (post-O'Neal) 15.9 .431 .403 2.5

Orlando Magic, 1992: Just looking over this roster makes one nostalgic: 3-D, before his Burger King look was in full effect, firing up long jumpers; gritty, gutsy Scott Skiles flying up and down the floor (as with Scotty Brooks, it is journalistic law that I precede Skiles' name with 'gritty' and 'gutsy'); and Nick Anderson, pre-free throw collapse. Of the three, Skiles improved the most; his scoring increased nearly a point and a half, his field-goal percentage from .414 to .467 and his assists from 7.3 to 9.4. Dennis Scott's scoring went down four points, but his field-goal percentage and 3-point percentage went up (dramatically in the latter case, from .326 to .403). As for Anderson, his scoring stayed the same, his field-goal percentage went down a bit and his 3-point mark was identical.

Overall Shaq Effect: Two players improved, one stayed the same.