Yes, she should have retired in 2013 or 2014. She probably expected Hillary to win and underestimated partisan obstruction from Republicans for any Obama and later Clinton appointees. Imagine if things worked out the way they should have, we would be talking about 6-3 liberal court now (her successor, Merrick Garland and one more Clinton appointee for Kennedy).
Let's remember the reason for Obama picking Garland was that his age and moderate-ish credentials would make him easier to get confirmed by a GOP-controlled Senate. Of course we know how it turned out, but if he got confirmed, he'd be more likely end up with the swing bloc, rather than firm liberal bloc, at least on some issues. Also, we can't be certain on Kennedy retiring as he did, under a Democratic president.
In this case, we'd be talking about four solid liberal votes as before (Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan and RBG's successor), but of course Garland, for all his moderate heroism, would still represent a swing to the left, replacing Scalia. But there wouldn't be a dramatic shift by RBG retiring.