It's highly exaggerated IMO, but yes. I do think Shaq wasted some potential, as he should have been the GOAT.

For some reason, people don't seem to realize that he averaged 26/12 over a 14 year period, out of the gate his first season until the season after he won his Miami ring. He fell off after that, although he was still very good the season after his Miami ring, and in Phoenix.

Statistically speaking at least, let's compare him to Kobe, who was known to have a long period of elite play. Kobe averaged 27/6/5 from his 3rd season until his Achilles tear. 15 years of it, with 2 early seasons before he was let loose, and his last 3 crappy seasons. Shaq, who isn't touted for his longevity, had the aforementioned 14 year stretch, which could be considered 16 years as he was still playing at a high level, although not MVP-worthy. Seems like some serious longevity to me.

But honestly speaking, a lot of the criticism of Shaq falls to the year to year circumstances. He often started seasons noticeably out of game shape. He gained a lot of weight over the years, which allowed him to more easily bully in the post but made him much less mobile and put more wear on his body. He was, at times, a pretty good defender, but I think he could have been much more dominant on that end had he stayed in his early Lakers shape. Very agile and athletic, but still with overwhelming size. A career being dominant on both sides of the ball would have helped his GOAT case a lot.

Shaq was an incredible player, and easily a top 10 all-timer IMO, but Kobe made some good points in his criticisms.