Hakeem played C his entire career, in one of the best C era's in league history. He won titles going head up against Ewing, Robinson and Shaq. Chill with the PF talk.
reading comprehension, my friend.
My reading comprehension is just fine (see the bolded from your post).
SuperboyReformed wrote:
if duncan is a pf, hakeem is a much better pf. and sampson was taller, so you can even say he actually played pf (unlike duncan's gerrymandering).
Hakeem played C his ENTIRE career.
ok im just going to say this real quick so i wont get banned. what i said was meant in the absolute highest regard for hakeem and you are going way out of your way to criticize something, which is this insult that hakeem was a pf. so you have a reading comprehension problem, and more importantly you are bitter or something and looking for a fight. AND you're not even a laker fan. so it's very annoying and in real life i would tell you f off.
and for that matter, shaq would destroy hakeem, regardless of teammates, if they met anytime between 99-03 shaq and i dont care what hakeem version you choose. why? he's bigger, stronger, and smarter the 2nd time. good luck with that.
Is offense the only thing that matters? No, but personally like I said if I had to choose one, between the two in their primes, I'd go with the physical anomaly that is shaq because it's a unique presence that gives me a unique advantage over any other team, that in his prime and even over a career long stretch was unstoppable (moreso than hakeem) on the offensive end.
So a C that is so good defensively (athletic and quick) that he retired as the only player ever in the top 10 in points, boards, blocks and steals isn't a unique presence?
Lakers_Jester wrote:
I'll take my chances with shaqs inferior defense because I think over the course of a game and most importantly series, shaqs dominance and far superior play on offense will prevail, as it often did with 4 championships to hakeems 2.
Teammates....
Did I say I'm choosing shaq because he's a unique presence? No. I said because he's a unique presence offensively that was (much) more unstoppable than hakeem was offensively, and I'd like to add also by a pretty huge margin due to greater fg% on top of much greater usage. Like I said previously, just because a player is very very good at a lot of things, doesn't make them better than a player who is extraordinarily good at one or two things. I'll take the uniqueness of shaq over the uniqueness of hakeem. I've said before which I'm sure was chopped up and omitted like just about everything quoted from me thus far, I think Shaq's offensive dominance more than compensates for hakeems superior defense.
I also think Shaq's lack of effective defense is largely exaggerated as if it was nonexistent and a non factor to teams. Pick n roll was not what it it is now. Post defense was more important then than now. Shaq was still very much a huge presence defensively as any nba player would tell you who ever dared drive in the lane or even tried posting him up. Even for the simple fact that the biggest man on the court is clogging up the lane, he was still a big factor defensively.
Like I said earlier, if we're using hakeem winning a chip in the finals vs Shaq in 95 as an argument without attributing the chip to the better team, then shaq has 4 over hakeems 2. My point is that shaqs inferior defense didn't really stop him from dominating and winning chips as much as is implied due to the fact that he's won 4 chips, while hakeems supposed superior overall skills only won him 2. You would think that a player with such awful defense as shaq supposedly, wouldnt be as successful as he was, both statistically and with championships as a primary option and team leader. And you would think hakeem, being supposedly better than shaq ( shaq who is arguably a top 5 center of all time), would be able to carry his teams to more than 2 championships. I mean if Hakeem is in fact better then the great shaquille oneal, surely hakeem would have been able to carry his teams to more than 2 championships. If shaq is out of this world dominant and hakeem is even better than shaq, then hakeem should have more than 2 chips even despite a less talented team right? Hes better than one of the greatest centers of all time, having a less talented team should be ok for you to handle no? Also given the fact that hakeem supposedly was surrounded by lesser talent than shaq was over his career then why aren't we discussing how being the number one option on a less talented team can inflate your stats if you're hakeem leading to those top 10 records he's ranked in due to stat inflation? Or that shaq despite being surrounded by supposedly better talent still had higher usage rate than hakeem over his career? If shaq had better talent wouldn't they be taking away from his shots? Yet shaq still dominated offensively and in scoring despite being surrounded by better players taking shots away from him, imagine if he was on hakeems teams? Shaq would have been dropping 60 on games where he dropped 40?
Anyway I've made my stance pretty clear over and over again with many points that just seem to be overlooked, usually ending up in repeating myself or correcting a point that was spun or entirely misread. There's really no way to prove who is better in a hypothetical argument especially when both centers were so good individually. I don't really see any eminent conclusion due to the fact that this argument ultimately comes down to the perspective and preference of most dominant vs most skilled. So I get it u choose prime hakeem, but I choose prime shaq. I'm pretty much done with this topic. Peace.
Is offense the only thing that matters? No, but personally like I said if I had to choose one, between the two in their primes, I'd go with the physical anomaly that is shaq because it's a unique presence that gives me a unique advantage over any other team, that in his prime and even over a career long stretch was unstoppable (moreso than hakeem) on the offensive end.
So a C that is so good defensively (athletic and quick) that he retired as the only player ever in the top 10 in points, boards, blocks and steals isn't a unique presence?
Lakers_Jester wrote:
I'll take my chances with shaqs inferior defense because I think over the course of a game and most importantly series, shaqs dominance and far superior play on offense will prevail, as it often did with 4 championships to hakeems 2.
Teammates....
Did I say I'm choosing shaq because he's a unique presence? No. I said because he's a unique presence offensively that was (much) more unstoppable than hakeem was offensively, and I'd like to add also by a pretty huge margin due to greater fg% on top of much greater usage. Like I said previously, just because a player is very very good at a lot of things, doesn't make them better than a player who is extraordinarily good at one or two things. I'll take the uniqueness of shaq over the uniqueness of hakeem. I've said before which I'm sure was chopped up and omitted like just about everything quoted from me thus far, I think Shaq's offensive dominance more than compensates for hakeems superior defense.
I also think Shaq's lack of effective defense is largely exaggerated as if it was nonexistent and a non factor to teams. Pick n roll was not what it it is now. Post defense was more important then than now. Shaq was still very much a huge presence defensively as any nba player would tell you who ever dared drive in the lane or even tried posting him up. Even for the simple fact that the biggest man on the court is clogging up the lane, he was still a big factor defensively.
Like I said earlier, if we're using hakeem winning a chip in the finals vs Shaq in 95 as an argument without attributing the chip to the better team, then shaq has 4 over hakeems 2. My point is that shaqs inferior defense didn't really stop him from dominating and winning chips as much as is implied due to the fact that he's won 4 chips, while hakeems supposed superior overall skills only won him 2. You would think that a player with such awful defense as shaq supposedly, wouldnt be as successful as he was, both statistically and with championships as a primary option and team leader. And you would think hakeem, being supposedly better than shaq ( shaq who is arguably a top 5 center of all time), would be able to carry his teams to more than 2 championships. I mean if Hakeem is in fact better then the great shaquille oneal, surely hakeem would have been able to carry his teams to more than 2 championships. If shaq is out of this world dominant and hakeem is even better than shaq, then hakeem should have more than 2 chips even despite a less talented team right? Hes better than one of the greatest centers of all time, having a less talented team should be ok for you to handle no? Also given the fact that hakeem supposedly was surrounded by lesser talent than shaq was over his career then why aren't we discussing how being the number one option on a less talented team can inflate your stats if you're hakeem leading to those top 10 records he's ranked in due to stat inflation? Or that shaq despite being surrounded by supposedly better talent still had higher usage rate than hakeem over his career? If shaq had better talent wouldn't they be taking away from his shots? Yet shaq still dominated offensively and in scoring despite being surrounded by better players taking shots away from him, imagine if he was on hakeems teams? Shaq would have been dropping 60 on games where he dropped 40?
Anyway I've made my stance pretty clear over and over again with many points that just seem to be overlooked, usually ending up in repeating myself or correcting a point that was spun or entirely misread. There's really no way to prove who is better in a hypothetical argument especially when both centers were so good individually. I don't really see any eminent conclusion due to the fact that this argument ultimately comes down to the perspective and preference of most dominant vs most skilled. So I get it u choose prime hakeem, but I choose prime shaq. I'm pretty much done with this topic. Peace.
Is offense the only thing that matters? No, but personally like I said if I had to choose one, between the two in their primes, I'd go with the physical anomaly that is shaq because it's a unique presence that gives me a unique advantage over any other team, that in his prime and even over a career long stretch was unstoppable (moreso than hakeem) on the offensive end.
So a C that is so good defensively (athletic and quick) that he retired as the only player ever in the top 10 in points, boards, blocks and steals isn't a unique presence?
Lakers_Jester wrote:
I'll take my chances with shaqs inferior defense because I think over the course of a game and most importantly series, shaqs dominance and far superior play on offense will prevail, as it often did with 4 championships to hakeems 2.
Teammates....
Did I say I'm choosing shaq because he's a unique presence? No. I said because he's a unique presence offensively that was (much) more unstoppable than hakeem was offensively, and I'd like to add also by a pretty huge margin due to greater fg% on top of much greater usage. Like I said previously, just because a player is very very good at a lot of things, doesn't make them better than a player who is extraordinarily good at one or two things. I'll take the uniqueness of shaq over the uniqueness of hakeem. I've said before which I'm sure was chopped up and omitted like just about everything quoted from me thus far, I think Shaq's offensive dominance more than compensates for hakeems superior defense.
I also think Shaq's lack of effective defense is largely exaggerated as if it was nonexistent and a non factor to teams. Pick n roll was not what it it is now. Post defense was more important then than now. Shaq was still very much a huge presence defensively as any nba player would tell you who ever dared drive in the lane or even tried posting him up. Even for the simple fact that the biggest man on the court is clogging up the lane, he was still a big factor defensively.
Like I said earlier, if we're using hakeem winning a chip in the finals vs Shaq in 95 as an argument without attributing the chip to the better team, then shaq has 4 over hakeems 2. My point is that shaqs inferior defense didn't really stop him from dominating and winning chips as much as is implied due to the fact that he's won 4 chips, while hakeems supposed superior overall skills only won him 2. You would think that a player with such awful defense as shaq supposedly, wouldnt be as successful as he was, both statistically and with championships as a primary option and team leader. And you would think hakeem, being supposedly better than shaq ( shaq who is arguably a top 5 center of all time), would be able to carry his teams to more than 2 championships. I mean if Hakeem is in fact better then the great shaquille oneal, surely hakeem would have been able to carry his teams to more than 2 championships. If shaq is out of this world dominant and hakeem is even better than shaq, then hakeem should have more than 2 chips even despite a less talented team right? Hes better than one of the greatest centers of all time, having a less talented team should be ok for you to handle no? Also given the fact that hakeem supposedly was surrounded by lesser talent than shaq was over his career then why aren't we discussing how being the number one option on a less talented team can inflate your stats if you're hakeem leading to those top 10 records he's ranked in due to stat inflation? Or that shaq despite being surrounded by supposedly better talent still had higher usage rate than hakeem over his career? If shaq had better talent wouldn't they be taking away from his shots? Yet shaq still dominated offensively and in scoring despite being surrounded by better players taking shots away from him, imagine if he was on hakeems teams? Shaq would have been dropping 60 on games where he dropped 40?
Anyway I've made my stance pretty clear over and over again with many points that just seem to be overlooked, usually ending up in repeating myself or correcting a point that was spun or entirely misread. There's really no way to prove who is better in a hypothetical argument especially when both centers were so good individually. I don't really see any eminent conclusion due to the fact that this argument ultimately comes down to the perspective and preference of most dominant vs most skilled. So I get it u choose prime hakeem, but I choose prime shaq. I'm pretty much done with this topic. Peace.
You flaw is "Shaqs dominance won him 4 while Hakeem's won him 2"
Shaq won his championships with Kobe Bryant and Dwyane Wade as the best players on the team that weren't him.
Hakeem did it with Otis Thorpe and Kenny Smith as the best player on the team that wasn't him.
Give Hakeem Kobe and give Shaq Kenny Smith and Otis Thorpe and his 14ppg as a 2nd option and do you think Shaq still wins 4 and Hakeem only wins 2?
And I value Hakeem two way presence in addition to his unstoppable offensive game. I swear people use Shaq having 6% higher field goal percentage than Hakeem. Do you know what that is? That's about an extra shot made than missed a game. To try to act like that takes a supreme and extreme precedence over Hakeem who was blocking 4+ shots a game and act like there's some great distance between it is overrating it.
Remember how everyone was on about Jordan shot 50% and Kobe shot 45%? The distance between those is less than one shot per game of difference.
So Shaqs one extra shot per game over miss to me doesn't out due Hakeem 4+ blocks, ability to stretch the floor and DPOY skillset along with his unstoppable post game.
And the Shaq won 4 with his dominance but Hakeem won 2 with his. As a knock on Hakeem has no merit
Hakeem carried a team of Kenny Smith and Otis Thorpe(who was the 2nd leading scorer on their championship roster with 14 ppg) to a championship. In no world do I see Shaq doing that. Shaq didn't even do it till Kobe came into his own, nor when he first went to Miami till Wade came into his own.
So I say again. Give Shaq Kenny Smith and Otis Thorpe and give Hakeem Penny Hardaway, Kobe Bryant and Dwyane Wade and do you think Shaq and all that dominance still wins 4 and that Hakeem only takes 2? I don't think so.
Like I said, teammates (in regards to winning titles). I think I mentioned it earlier but there isn't one team that Shaq or Duncan won titles with that Hakeem would have lose with. Not a one.
Is offense the only thing that matters? No, but personally like I said if I had to choose one, between the two in their primes, I'd go with the physical anomaly that is shaq because it's a unique presence that gives me a unique advantage over any other team, that in his prime and even over a career long stretch was unstoppable (moreso than hakeem) on the offensive end.
So a C that is so good defensively (athletic and quick) that he retired as the only player ever in the top 10 in points, boards, blocks and steals isn't a unique presence?
Lakers_Jester wrote:
I'll take my chances with shaqs inferior defense because I think over the course of a game and most importantly series, shaqs dominance and far superior play on offense will prevail, as it often did with 4 championships to hakeems 2.
Teammates....
Did I say I'm choosing shaq because he's a unique presence? No. I said because he's a unique presence offensively that was (much) more unstoppable than hakeem was offensively, and I'd like to add also by a pretty huge margin due to greater fg% on top of much greater usage. Like I said previously, just because a player is very very good at a lot of things, doesn't make them better than a player who is extraordinarily good at one or two things. I'll take the uniqueness of shaq over the uniqueness of hakeem. I've said before which I'm sure was chopped up and omitted like just about everything quoted from me thus far, I think Shaq's offensive dominance more than compensates for hakeems superior defense.
I also think Shaq's lack of effective defense is largely exaggerated as if it was nonexistent and a non factor to teams. Pick n roll was not what it it is now. Post defense was more important then than now. Shaq was still very much a huge presence defensively as any nba player would tell you who ever dared drive in the lane or even tried posting him up. Even for the simple fact that the biggest man on the court is clogging up the lane, he was still a big factor defensively.
Like I said earlier, if we're using hakeem winning a chip in the finals vs Shaq in 95 as an argument without attributing the chip to the better team, then shaq has 4 over hakeems 2. My point is that shaqs inferior defense didn't really stop him from dominating and winning chips as much as is implied due to the fact that he's won 4 chips, while hakeems supposed superior overall skills only won him 2. You would think that a player with such awful defense as shaq supposedly, wouldnt be as successful as he was, both statistically and with championships as a primary option and team leader. And you would think hakeem, being supposedly better than shaq ( shaq who is arguably a top 5 center of all time), would be able to carry his teams to more than 2 championships. I mean if Hakeem is in fact better then the great shaquille oneal, surely hakeem would have been able to carry his teams to more than 2 championships. If shaq is out of this world dominant and hakeem is even better than shaq, then hakeem should have more than 2 chips even despite a less talented team right? Hes better than one of the greatest centers of all time, having a less talented team should be ok for you to handle no? Also given the fact that hakeem supposedly was surrounded by lesser talent than shaq was over his career then why aren't we discussing how being the number one option on a less talented team can inflate your stats if you're hakeem leading to those top 10 records he's ranked in due to stat inflation? Or that shaq despite being surrounded by supposedly better talent still had higher usage rate than hakeem over his career? If shaq had better talent wouldn't they be taking away from his shots? Yet shaq still dominated offensively and in scoring despite being surrounded by better players taking shots away from him, imagine if he was on hakeems teams? Shaq would have been dropping 60 on games where he dropped 40?
Anyway I've made my stance pretty clear over and over again with many points that just seem to be overlooked, usually ending up in repeating myself or correcting a point that was spun or entirely misread. There's really no way to prove who is better in a hypothetical argument especially when both centers were so good individually. I don't really see any eminent conclusion due to the fact that this argument ultimately comes down to the perspective and preference of most dominant vs most skilled. So I get it u choose prime hakeem, but I choose prime shaq. I'm pretty much done with this topic. Peace.
I agree, I reemember Hakeem struggling to post up Shaq. He didn't have too much trouble scoring on him, but posting him up wasn't very effective.
To say for the 50th time, Shaq wasn't bad at defense. He actually was pretty good in a classical center sort of way of blocking shots and intimidating people who came into the basket.
What he was bad at is the pick and roll defense, as evidenced by his losses to the Utah Jazz. Which is also evidenced by quotes by Karl Malone calling out Shaq's pick and roll defense as being the worst, along with Barkleys.
Which isn't the worst thing ever, but is a glaring hole defensively. Especially when you consider his difficulties with switching or guarding shooting big men (one thing Olajuwon didn't like to do either, but he did do it against the Sam Perkins' of the world)
Its easy to say something doesn't matter when you're looking at a box score or something, but when you're watching it get taken advantage of time and time again it starts to come to the forefront of your mind.
So, I choose the bigman with no weaknesses to exploit, who is still probably the best offensive bigman on the court unless Kareem or Shaq were there.
Is offense the only thing that matters? No, but personally like I said if I had to choose one, between the two in their primes, I'd go with the physical anomaly that is shaq because it's a unique presence that gives me a unique advantage over any other team, that in his prime and even over a career long stretch was unstoppable (moreso than hakeem) on the offensive end.
So a C that is so good defensively (athletic and quick) that he retired as the only player ever in the top 10 in points, boards, blocks and steals isn't a unique presence?
Lakers_Jester wrote:
I'll take my chances with shaqs inferior defense because I think over the course of a game and most importantly series, shaqs dominance and far superior play on offense will prevail, as it often did with 4 championships to hakeems 2.
Teammates....
Did I say I'm choosing shaq because he's a unique presence? No. I said because he's a unique presence offensively that was (much) more unstoppable than hakeem was offensively, and I'd like to add also by a pretty huge margin due to greater fg% on top of much greater usage. Like I said previously, just because a player is very very good at a lot of things, doesn't make them better than a player who is extraordinarily good at one or two things. I'll take the uniqueness of shaq over the uniqueness of hakeem. I've said before which I'm sure was chopped up and omitted like just about everything quoted from me thus far, I think Shaq's offensive dominance more than compensates for hakeems superior defense.
I also think Shaq's lack of effective defense is largely exaggerated as if it was nonexistent and a non factor to teams. Pick n roll was not what it it is now. Post defense was more important then than now. Shaq was still very much a huge presence defensively as any nba player would tell you who ever dared drive in the lane or even tried posting him up. Even for the simple fact that the biggest man on the court is clogging up the lane, he was still a big factor defensively.
Like I said earlier, if we're using hakeem winning a chip in the finals vs Shaq in 95 as an argument without attributing the chip to the better team, then shaq has 4 over hakeems 2. My point is that shaqs inferior defense didn't really stop him from dominating and winning chips as much as is implied due to the fact that he's won 4 chips, while hakeems supposed superior overall skills only won him 2. You would think that a player with such awful defense as shaq supposedly, wouldnt be as successful as he was, both statistically and with championships as a primary option and team leader. And you would think hakeem, being supposedly better than shaq ( shaq who is arguably a top 5 center of all time), would be able to carry his teams to more than 2 championships. I mean if Hakeem is in fact better then the great shaquille oneal, surely hakeem would have been able to carry his teams to more than 2 championships. If shaq is out of this world dominant and hakeem is even better than shaq, then hakeem should have more than 2 chips even despite a less talented team right? Hes better than one of the greatest centers of all time, having a less talented team should be ok for you to handle no? Also given the fact that hakeem supposedly was surrounded by lesser talent than shaq was over his career then why aren't we discussing how being the number one option on a less talented team can inflate your stats if you're hakeem leading to those top 10 records he's ranked in due to stat inflation? Or that shaq despite being surrounded by supposedly better talent still had higher usage rate than hakeem over his career? If shaq had better talent wouldn't they be taking away from his shots? Yet shaq still dominated offensively and in scoring despite being surrounded by better players taking shots away from him, imagine if he was on hakeems teams? Shaq would have been dropping 60 on games where he dropped 40?
Anyway I've made my stance pretty clear over and over again with many points that just seem to be overlooked, usually ending up in repeating myself or correcting a point that was spun or entirely misread. There's really no way to prove who is better in a hypothetical argument especially when both centers were so good individually. I don't really see any eminent conclusion due to the fact that this argument ultimately comes down to the perspective and preference of most dominant vs most skilled. So I get it u choose prime hakeem, but I choose prime shaq. I'm pretty much done with this topic. Peace.
You flaw is "Shaqs dominance won him 4 while Hakeem's won him 2"
Shaq won his championships with Kobe Bryant and Dwyane Wade as the best players on the team that weren't him.
Hakeem did it with Otis Thorpe and Kenny Smith as the best player on the team that wasn't him.
Give Hakeem Kobe and give Shaq Kenny Smith and Otis Thorpe and his 14ppg as a 2nd option and do you think Shaq still wins 4 and Hakeem only wins 2?
And I value Hakeem two way presence in addition to his unstoppable offensive game. I swear people use Shaq having 6% higher field goal percentage than Hakeem. Do you know what that is? That's about an extra shot made than missed a game. To try to act like that takes a supreme and extreme precedence over Hakeem who was blocking 4+ shots a game and act like there's some great distance between it is overrating it.
Remember how everyone was on about Jordan shot 50% and Kobe shot 45%? The distance between those is less than one shot per game of difference.
So Shaqs one extra shot per game over miss to me doesn't out due Hakeem 4+ blocks, ability to stretch the floor and DPOY skillset along with his unstoppable post game.
And the Shaq won 4 with his dominance but Hakeem won 2 with his. As a knock on Hakeem has no merit
Hakeem carried a team of Kenny Smith and Otis Thorpe(who was the 2nd leading scorer on their championship roster with 14 ppg) to a championship. In no world do I see Shaq doing that. Shaq didn't even do it till Kobe came into his own, nor when he first went to Miami till Wade came into his own.
So I say again. Give Shaq Kenny Smith and Otis Thorpe and give Hakeem Penny Hardaway, Kobe Bryant and Dwyane Wade and do you think Shaq and all that dominance still wins 4 and that Hakeem only takes 2? I don't think so.
Wait, what did you do with Clyde, Vernon and Big Shot 'Bob'? Way to cherry pick!
Not to mention Sam Cassell, that team had alot of talent. You take away Shaq and Hakeem from their respective teams and that rockets team beats the Lakers with not yet in his prime Kobe.
^^^^^ He's referring to the 94 Rockets, and no, they wouldn't.
So? Clyde was part of the championship squad in 95. Ok, Even if you just zero in on the 94 team to try to emphasize your point you still have in addition to Otis and Kenny Smith. Vernon Maxwell, Horry, Cassell, and Mario Elie (who averaged over 9 points a game: more than Rick fox). That team was talented. We had with a young Kobe, fisher, fox, Horry, and fading vets like Harper, Horace grant, and Shaw. Prime Shaq gets more rings with that rockets squad than Hakeem gets with the lakers. Hakeem couldn't do what Shaq did in 2000-2002, no center could except maybe Wilt.
Like I said, teammates (in regards to winning titles). I think I mentioned it earlier but there isn't one team that Shaq or Duncan won titles with that Hakeem would have lose with. Not a one.
BS. The 2000 and 2002 titles were so close that any little change might've made a huge difference. Maybe with Hakeem the Lakers would've had an easier time, or maybe they would've lost. Either way your statement is pure bunk. No way to know that for sure.
And I think in 2000 Shaq was a better player than Hakeem ever was, so swapping them out would be a downgrade, IMO.
Like I said, teammates (in regards to winning titles). I think I mentioned it earlier but there isn't one team that Shaq or Duncan won titles with that Hakeem would have lose with. Not a one.
BS. The 2000 and 2002 titles were so close that any little change might've made a huge difference. Maybe with Hakeem the Lakers would've had an easier time, or maybe they would've lost. Either way your statement is pure bunk. No way to know that for sure.
And I think in 2000 Shaq was a better player than Hakeem ever was, so swapping them out would be a downgrade, IMO.
i know seriously. if we're going to go with 2000 shaq hakeem doesn't stand a chance.
and i'd like to see hakeem make it through that run...it will never be proven, but those kings and blazers teams might have beaten several of the recent championship squads.
^^^^^ He's referring to the 94 Rockets, and no, they wouldn't.
So? Clyde was part of the championship squad in 95. Ok, Even if you just zero in on the 94 team to try to emphasize your point you still have in addition to Otis and Kenny Smith. Vernon Maxwell, Horry, Cassell, and Mario Elie (who averaged over 9 points a game: more than Rick fox). That team was talented. We had with a young Kobe, fisher, fox, Horry, and fading vets like Harper, Horace grant, and Shaw. Prime Shaq gets more rings with that rockets squad than Hakeem gets with the lakers. Hakeem couldn't do what Shaq did in 2000-2002, no center could except maybe Wilt.
Hakeem since Ralph Sampson's injury never had a player capable of putting up 20 ppg as a 2nd option till he got a 32 year old Clyde Drexler, and the year prior he lead a Rockets team whose 2nd best player was Otis Thorpe to a Championship.
That's not cherry picking, that's fact.
VegasLakerFan wrote:
Dreamshake wrote:
^^^^^
Like I said, teammates (in regards to winning titles). I think I mentioned it earlier but there isn't one team that Shaq or Duncan won titles with that Hakeem would have lose with. Not a one.
BS. The 2000 and 2002 titles were so close that any little change might've made a huge difference. Maybe with Hakeem the Lakers would've had an easier time, or maybe they would've lost. Either way your statement is pure bunk. No way to know that for sure.
And I think in 2000 Shaq was a better player than Hakeem ever was, so swapping them out would be a downgrade, IMO.
Hakeem lead a Rockets team of Otis Thorpe and Kenny Smith to an NBA Championship.
Outside of injury Hakeem with a come into his own Kobe Bryant would have been a dynasty.
I even said above, I would stick with Shaq for that 99-01 span because I think for those 2 years there was no center aside from Kareem or Wilt that could have hung with Shaq.
However, I also acknowledge that if we gave that Lakers team to a prime Hakeem that they still are likely a dynasty and they probably win more than 3 championships.
Considering Hakeem's talent and two-way dominance, that's hard to debate against.
The fact the Lakers would have been an even better defensive team from 99-05 is a scary thought.
People forget that in 2001 the year they ran through the playoffs their defense was ranked 21st in the league that year. I can only imagine how dominant they would have been if their defense was top 10.
The third year their defense went up to 7th again and they three-peated.
The next season it dropped back down to 19th and thats when the Spurs beat us, fatigue and lack of defense got us in the end there, and inability to defend the pick and roll.
Anyway when it comes to 'dominance' there was a article or something a few years ago that shot charted Hakeem through a few games from 93-97 while it would be a LOT better if we had full shot charts, the dominance Hakeem showed in the paint was staggering through those games they tracked.
I didn't bring it up earlier cause we didn't have full seasons, but it's something of interest nonetheless. Take it for what it's worth.
Again, take these numbers for what you will, I just wish we had the full charts to go with, however what we do have is staggering to say the least. The kind of thing that makes you wonder what his FG% would be if he pounded away in the paint 24/7. Fortunately he could stretch away from the basket.
Like I said, teammates (in regards to winning titles). I think I mentioned it earlier but there isn't one team that Shaq or Duncan won titles with that Hakeem would have lose with. Not a one.
BS. The 2000 and 2002 titles were so close that any little change might've made a huge difference. Maybe with Hakeem the Lakers would've had an easier time, or maybe they would've lost. Either way your statement is pure bunk. No way to know that for sure.
And I think in 2000 Shaq was a better player than Hakeem ever was, so swapping them out would be a downgrade, IMO.
Hakeem lead a Rockets team of Otis Thorpe and Kenny Smith to an NBA Championship.
That sounds super awesome and special if you take it out of context. I don't think there was another team out there as good as the 2000 Blazers or the 2002 Kings when the Rockets won in '94. I think if you transplanted the 1994 Rockets into 2000 or 2002 they lose in the WCF.
Quote:
Outside of injury Hakeem with a come into his own Kobe Bryant would have been a dynasty.
I even said above, I would stick with Shaq for that 99-01 span because I think for those 2 years there was no center aside from Kareem or Wilt that could have hung with Shaq.
Then we're basically agreeing. The Lakers needed everything 2000 Shaq could provide to get past the Blazers. I don't think Hakeem would've been an adequate replacement.
Quote:
However, I also acknowledge that if we gave that Lakers team to a prime Hakeem that they still are likely a dynasty and they probably win more than 3 championships.
Sure, maybe if Hakeem and Kobe get along better than Shaq and Kobe (which is likely). But I think they lose in 2000, and maybe even in 2002. After that it's all wide open.
^^^^^ He's referring to the 94 Rockets, and no, they wouldn't.
So? Clyde was part of the championship squad in 95. Ok, Even if you just zero in on the 94 team to try to emphasize your point you still have in addition to Otis and Kenny Smith. Vernon Maxwell, Horry, Cassell, and Mario Elie (who averaged over 9 points a game: more than Rick fox). That team was talented. We had with a young Kobe, fisher, fox, Horry, and fading vets like Harper, Horace grant, and Shaw. Prime Shaq gets more rings with that rockets squad than Hakeem gets with the lakers. Hakeem couldn't do what Shaq did in 2000-2002, no center could except maybe Wilt.
Kobe was an all-NBA and all-defensive team player every year of the threepeat. By the second ring, he was a 29-6-5 guy. By the third ring, he was 5th in the league in MVP voting. He was so superior to everyone else you're mentioning, I take the Lakers without Shaq easily over the Rockets without Hakeem.
^^^^^ He's referring to the 94 Rockets, and no, they wouldn't.
So? Clyde was part of the championship squad in 95. Ok, Even if you just zero in on the 94 team to try to emphasize your point you still have in addition to Otis and Kenny Smith. Vernon Maxwell, Horry, Cassell, and Mario Elie (who averaged over 9 points a game: more than Rick fox). That team was talented. We had with a young Kobe, fisher, fox, Horry, and fading vets like Harper, Horace grant, and Shaw. Prime Shaq gets more rings with that rockets squad than Hakeem gets with the lakers. Hakeem couldn't do what Shaq did in 2000-2002, no center could except maybe Wilt.
Hakeem since Ralph Sampson's injury never had a player capable of putting up 20 ppg as a 2nd option till he got a 32 year old Clyde Drexler, and the year prior he lead a Rockets team whose 2nd best player was Otis Thorpe to a Championship.
That's not cherry picking, that's fact.
that's not a fact, that's cherry picking by you again. Otis Thorpe was not the best player on that team. If you remember or watched, his play and output decreased in the playoffs. Vernon Maxwell was better and was going of with a higher ppg in the playoffs. Kenny Smith and Sam Cassell also each averaged the same as thorpe in the playoffs. They were the two headed monster at PG. Also, Cassell and Mario Elie were a serious scoring punch off the bench, averaging over 21 ppg. . And Robert Horry was going off as well. All these guys were in double digit scoring, except Elie and he was 9.3. On top of that, the Rockets that year were a defensive juggernaut.
The Lakers? Outside of Kobe and Shaq, the only ones in double digits in the playoffs were Fox and Fisher (about 10 ppg) each. without Shaq, I doubt that team makes the playoffs.
Hakeem was awesome but don't try to elevate him over Shaq's 2000-2002 era by trying to say Hakeem had nothing to work with in 93-94. He had a talented very solid team around him with multiple double digit scorers, very good bench, and great defenders. Given that, let's also remember Hakeem was lucky that MJ was playing baseball that year.
^^^^^ He's referring to the 94 Rockets, and no, they wouldn't.
So? Clyde was part of the championship squad in 95. Ok, Even if you just zero in on the 94 team to try to emphasize your point you still have in addition to Otis and Kenny Smith. Vernon Maxwell, Horry, Cassell, and Mario Elie (who averaged over 9 points a game: more than Rick fox). That team was talented. We had with a young Kobe, fisher, fox, Horry, and fading vets like Harper, Horace grant, and Shaw. Prime Shaq gets more rings with that rockets squad than Hakeem gets with the lakers. Hakeem couldn't do what Shaq did in 2000-2002, no center could except maybe Wilt.
Kobe was an all-NBA and all-defensive team player every year of the threepeat. By the second ring, he was a 29-6-5 guy. By the third ring, he was 5th in the league in MVP voting. He was so superior to everyone else you're mentioning, I take the Lakers without Shaq easily over the Rockets without Hakeem.
I disagree on that one; Kobe of course is on a whole different level than anyone on that 93-94 Rockets team but as a whole, that rockets team minus Hakeem is more complete than the Shaq-less Lakers. Cassell and Smith were killers at PG, Maxwell was a star and Thorpe was better than anyone we had on our frontline minus Shaq. Just hypothetically, give Kobe Lamar also, and we have a good shot but as is without Shaq, its a toss up at best.
^^^^^ He's referring to the 94 Rockets, and no, they wouldn't.
So? Clyde was part of the championship squad in 95. Ok, Even if you just zero in on the 94 team to try to emphasize your point you still have in addition to Otis and Kenny Smith. Vernon Maxwell, Horry, Cassell, and Mario Elie (who averaged over 9 points a game: more than Rick fox). That team was talented. We had with a young Kobe, fisher, fox, Horry, and fading vets like Harper, Horace grant, and Shaw. Prime Shaq gets more rings with that rockets squad than Hakeem gets with the lakers. Hakeem couldn't do what Shaq did in 2000-2002, no center could except maybe Wilt.
Hakeem since Ralph Sampson's injury never had a player capable of putting up 20 ppg as a 2nd option till he got a 32 year old Clyde Drexler, and the year prior he lead a Rockets team whose 2nd best player was Otis Thorpe to a Championship.
That's not cherry picking, that's fact.
that's not a fact, that's cherry picking by you again. Otis Thorpe was not the best player on that team. If you remember or watched, his play and output decreased in the playoffs. Vernon Maxwell was better and was going of with a higher ppg in the playoffs. Kenny Smith and Sam Cassell also each averaged the same as thorpe in the playoffs. They were the two headed monster at PG. Also, Cassell and Mario Elie were a serious scoring punch off the bench, averaging over 21 ppg. . And Robert Horry was going off as well. All these guys were in double digit scoring, except Elie and he was 9.3. On top of that, the Rockets that year were a defensive juggernaut.
The Lakers? Outside of Kobe and Shaq, the only ones in double digits in the playoffs were Fox and Fisher (about 10 ppg) each. without Shaq, I doubt that team makes the playoffs.
Hakeem was awesome but don't try to elevate him over Shaq's 2000-2002 era by trying to say Hakeem had nothing to work with in 93-94. He had a talented very solid team around him with multiple double digit scorers, very good bench, and great defenders. Given that, let's also remember Hakeem was lucky that MJ was playing baseball that year.
You can't just go "aside from Kobe, Shaq had" and then try to act like Hakeem had anything near applicable in 93-94. His 2nd leading scorer was dripping 14 ppg.
He didn't have anot her 20 point scorer on his team after Sampson got hurt till he got a 32 year old Drexler in 95. So don't play that. Shaq had a 20 ppg scorer his rookie season and then had another in Penny's 2nd year and then when Kobe came into his own had that when the Lakers made their run.
If the 2nd leading scorer on the Lakers was scoring 14 ppg how far is Shaq taking that team?
Precisely.
Give prime Hakeem the 99-00 Lakers and give Shaq the 93-94 Rockets, which one wins a championship first?
And just as easily as you say "we'll hakeem was lucky Jordan was gone" you could say that the Lakers were lucky the Spurs were out of commission. So let's not play that game if we're talking 99-00 considering the heck Portland gave us.
Last edited by MJST on Thu Sep 29, 2016 7:59 am; edited 1 time in total
^^^^^ He's referring to the 94 Rockets, and no, they wouldn't.
So? Clyde was part of the championship squad in 95. Ok, Even if you just zero in on the 94 team to try to emphasize your point you still have in addition to Otis and Kenny Smith. Vernon Maxwell, Horry, Cassell, and Mario Elie (who averaged over 9 points a game: more than Rick fox). That team was talented. We had with a young Kobe, fisher, fox, Horry, and fading vets like Harper, Horace grant, and Shaw. Prime Shaq gets more rings with that rockets squad than Hakeem gets with the lakers. Hakeem couldn't do what Shaq did in 2000-2002, no center could except maybe Wilt.
Kobe was an all-NBA and all-defensive team player every year of the threepeat. By the second ring, he was a 29-6-5 guy. By the third ring, he was 5th in the league in MVP voting. He was so superior to everyone else you're mentioning, I take the Lakers without Shaq easily over the Rockets without Hakeem.
I disagree on that one; Kobe of course is on a whole different level than anyone on that 93-94 Rockets team but as a whole, that rockets team minus Hakeem is more complete than the Shaq-less Lakers. Cassell and Smith were killers at PG, Maxwell was a star and Thorpe was better than anyone we had on our frontline minus Shaq. Just hypothetically, give Kobe Lamar also, and we have a good shot but as is without Shaq, its a toss up at best.
if you actually think Vernon Maxwell was a star, I consider it a waste of time to talk with you.
^^^^^ He's referring to the 94 Rockets, and no, they wouldn't.
So? Clyde was part of the championship squad in 95. Ok, Even if you just zero in on the 94 team to try to emphasize your point you still have in addition to Otis and Kenny Smith. Vernon Maxwell, Horry, Cassell, and Mario Elie (who averaged over 9 points a game: more than Rick fox). That team was talented. We had with a young Kobe, fisher, fox, Horry, and fading vets like Harper, Horace grant, and Shaw. Prime Shaq gets more rings with that rockets squad than Hakeem gets with the lakers. Hakeem couldn't do what Shaq did in 2000-2002, no center could except maybe Wilt.
Kobe was an all-NBA and all-defensive team player every year of the threepeat. By the second ring, he was a 29-6-5 guy. By the third ring, he was 5th in the league in MVP voting. He was so superior to everyone else you're mentioning, I take the Lakers without Shaq easily over the Rockets without Hakeem.
I disagree on that one; Kobe of course is on a whole different level than anyone on that 93-94 Rockets team but as a whole, that rockets team minus Hakeem is more complete than the Shaq-less Lakers. Cassell and Smith were killers at PG, Maxwell was a star and Thorpe was better than anyone we had on our frontline minus Shaq. Just hypothetically, give Kobe Lamar also, and we have a good shot but as is without Shaq, its a toss up at best.
if you actually think Vernon Maxwell was a star, I consider it a waste of time to talk with you.
I love how he also omit's Kobe and says the supporting cast was better...
He may as well say "we'll aside from Pippen and Rodman a Jordan had worse role plyers than Hakeem"
I wonder how many championships Shaq or Jordan wins with the 2nd option putting up 14 ppg.
^^^^^ He's referring to the 94 Rockets, and no, they wouldn't.
So? Clyde was part of the championship squad in 95. Ok, Even if you just zero in on the 94 team to try to emphasize your point you still have in addition to Otis and Kenny Smith. Vernon Maxwell, Horry, Cassell, and Mario Elie (who averaged over 9 points a game: more than Rick fox). That team was talented. We had with a young Kobe, fisher, fox, Horry, and fading vets like Harper, Horace grant, and Shaw. Prime Shaq gets more rings with that rockets squad than Hakeem gets with the lakers. Hakeem couldn't do what Shaq did in 2000-2002, no center could except maybe Wilt.
Kobe was an all-NBA and all-defensive team player every year of the threepeat. By the second ring, he was a 29-6-5 guy. By the third ring, he was 5th in the league in MVP voting. He was so superior to everyone else you're mentioning, I take the Lakers without Shaq easily over the Rockets without Hakeem.
I disagree on that one; Kobe of course is on a whole different level than anyone on that 93-94 Rockets team but as a whole, that rockets team minus Hakeem is more complete than the Shaq-less Lakers. Cassell and Smith were killers at PG, Maxwell was a star and Thorpe was better than anyone we had on our frontline minus Shaq. Just hypothetically, give Kobe Lamar also, and we have a good shot but as is without Shaq, its a toss up at best.
if you actually think Vernon Maxwell was a star, I consider it a waste of time to talk with you.
uh...maxwell was a star. he's a klay thompson level star...may not get the accolades, but that's the level he was.
^^^^^ He's referring to the 94 Rockets, and no, they wouldn't.
So? Clyde was part of the championship squad in 95. Ok, Even if you just zero in on the 94 team to try to emphasize your point you still have in addition to Otis and Kenny Smith. Vernon Maxwell, Horry, Cassell, and Mario Elie (who averaged over 9 points a game: more than Rick fox). That team was talented. We had with a young Kobe, fisher, fox, Horry, and fading vets like Harper, Horace grant, and Shaw. Prime Shaq gets more rings with that rockets squad than Hakeem gets with the lakers. Hakeem couldn't do what Shaq did in 2000-2002, no center could except maybe Wilt.
Kobe was an all-NBA and all-defensive team player every year of the threepeat. By the second ring, he was a 29-6-5 guy. By the third ring, he was 5th in the league in MVP voting. He was so superior to everyone else you're mentioning, I take the Lakers without Shaq easily over the Rockets without Hakeem.
I disagree on that one; Kobe of course is on a whole different level than anyone on that 93-94 Rockets team but as a whole, that rockets team minus Hakeem is more complete than the Shaq-less Lakers. Cassell and Smith were killers at PG, Maxwell was a star and Thorpe was better than anyone we had on our frontline minus Shaq. Just hypothetically, give Kobe Lamar also, and we have a good shot but as is without Shaq, its a toss up at best.
if you actually think Vernon Maxwell was a star, I consider it a waste of time to talk with you.
uh...maxwell was a star. he's a klay thompson level star...may not get the accolades, but that's the level he was.
^^^^^ He's referring to the 94 Rockets, and no, they wouldn't.
So? Clyde was part of the championship squad in 95. Ok, Even if you just zero in on the 94 team to try to emphasize your point you still have in addition to Otis and Kenny Smith. Vernon Maxwell, Horry, Cassell, and Mario Elie (who averaged over 9 points a game: more than Rick fox). That team was talented. We had with a young Kobe, fisher, fox, Horry, and fading vets like Harper, Horace grant, and Shaw. Prime Shaq gets more rings with that rockets squad than Hakeem gets with the lakers. Hakeem couldn't do what Shaq did in 2000-2002, no center could except maybe Wilt.
Kobe was an all-NBA and all-defensive team player every year of the threepeat. By the second ring, he was a 29-6-5 guy. By the third ring, he was 5th in the league in MVP voting. He was so superior to everyone else you're mentioning, I take the Lakers without Shaq easily over the Rockets without Hakeem.
I disagree on that one; Kobe of course is on a whole different level than anyone on that 93-94 Rockets team but as a whole, that rockets team minus Hakeem is more complete than the Shaq-less Lakers. Cassell and Smith were killers at PG, Maxwell was a star and Thorpe was better than anyone we had on our frontline minus Shaq. Just hypothetically, give Kobe Lamar also, and we have a good shot but as is without Shaq, its a toss up at best.
if you actually think Vernon Maxwell was a star, I consider it a waste of time to talk with you.
uh...maxwell was a star. he's a klay thompson level star...may not get the accolades, but that's the level he was.
enjoy
Dude, he averaged 12-13 point a game.
Klay Thompson level star?
I don't think I need to say anything else to that
he was a crazy guy that's why. i'm talking about ability. also, the numbers are meaningless. kobe averaged like 8 pts his first season, so what. try watching video a little so that number has context.
We're not talking about quote-unquote potential ability. What talking about what he actually was, what he actually accomplished, what he actually averaged, not his potential. We could be here all day On that.
By that logic Michael Beasley was a Chris Bosh level Star.
^^^^^ He's referring to the 94 Rockets, and no, they wouldn't.
So? Clyde was part of the championship squad in 95. Ok, Even if you just zero in on the 94 team to try to emphasize your point you still have in addition to Otis and Kenny Smith. Vernon Maxwell, Horry, Cassell, and
Quote:
Mario Elie (who averaged over 9 points a game: more than Rick fox)
. That team was talented. We had with a young Kobe, fisher, fox, Horry, and fading vets like Harper, Horace grant, and Shaw. Prime Shaq gets more rings with that rockets squad than Hakeem gets with the lakers. Hakeem couldn't do what Shaq did in 2000-2002, no center could except maybe Wilt.
Don't diss Fox. Fox scored 15 the year before coming to LA, and 14 the year before. More than Elie ever averaged in his career. His career averages are higher than Elie. Fox was also a better defender. Why do you guys like to discount defense so much? Fox was instrumental getting to the finals during our 3peat.
Is Glen Rice not worth bringing up? He scored more points as 3rd option than Otis Thorpe as 2nd option.
Then you had BOTH Horry and Horace Grant as bigmen for Shaq. Grant got to the finals with Shaq in Orlando fresh off of his time winning championships as the 3rd option for the Bulls for 3 championships, and another good defender. Then he came here to be our 5th option offensively, with big shot Bob coming off the bench and proved to be invaluable many times.
Vernon Maxwell didn't play for Houston after Drexler got traded, he had 16 minutes for the entire playoffs. Thorpe was traded FOR oldman Drexler so they never played together. Young Horry was okay, I liked him a lot but he was playing out of position until Thorpe got traded.
Kenny Smith played well but if you want to talk aging/decline then there you go. He retired 2 seasons later.
Sam Cassell was good, but he was a rookie for the 1st championship, 2nd year for the next year, traded in the third for Barkley with Horry. Houston management was pretty stupid.
You can argue the stats of the aging vets, I get that. Their experience in the triangle was very valuable to the team. Especially when you consider the best Coach ever (not Popovich) was implementing it. You can't dismiss systems and coaching when comparing players based on stats.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Way to cherry pick!
