| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
BynumForThree
Star Player
Joined: 27 Feb 2016
Posts: 1254
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 11:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | BynumForThree wrote: | | And thus, his high USG%, coupled with his solid but unspectacular shooting efficiency, generally kept him from being in the LeBron/MJ/Shaq class of advanced numbers, particularly if you look at Win Shares. Now, it'd be unfair if I didn't mention that his defensive impact was immense, and that his range/athleticism/activity was ridiculous for his position. His defense is probably what separates him from Shaq but offensively? I can comfortably say Shaq has a significant edge. |
I think what keeps Hakeem from being at the top of the pantheon is more basic: He only won two rings, in years when Jordan was out; and his rep largely relies on defense, which a lot of fans don't care much about.
So it's more about having lousy teammates and fans being obsessed with offense rather than defense that hurts him.
Personally, I'd consider him and Shaq equivalent for their careers as a whole. Most people would say Shaq had a better peak, but I think that's only if you don't consider defense.
As far as advanced stats, I think very few people really care about them, and they have little impact on player's reputations. |
Rings is way too basic. Team accomplishments determining the better individual player is just lazy anlysis.
And who are these "fans" you talk about and why are you bringing them up? I don't care what BluntRoller69 on Xbox thinks. Im speaking about discussions with basketball fans who do understand advanced metrics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
22
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 Apr 2013
Posts: 17063
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:05 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BynumForThree wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | BynumForThree wrote: | | And thus, his high USG%, coupled with his solid but unspectacular shooting efficiency, generally kept him from being in the LeBron/MJ/Shaq class of advanced numbers, particularly if you look at Win Shares. Now, it'd be unfair if I didn't mention that his defensive impact was immense, and that his range/athleticism/activity was ridiculous for his position. His defense is probably what separates him from Shaq but offensively? I can comfortably say Shaq has a significant edge. |
I think what keeps Hakeem from being at the top of the pantheon is more basic: He only won two rings, in years when Jordan was out; and his rep largely relies on defense, which a lot of fans don't care much about.
So it's more about having lousy teammates and fans being obsessed with offense rather than defense that hurts him.
Personally, I'd consider him and Shaq equivalent for their careers as a whole. Most people would say Shaq had a better peak, but I think that's only if you don't consider defense.
As far as advanced stats, I think very few people really care about them, and they have little impact on player's reputations. |
Rings is way too basic. Team accomplishments determining the better individual player is just lazy anlysis.
And who are these "fans" you talk about and why are you bringing them up? I don't care what BluntRoller69 on Xbox thinks. Im speaking about discussions with basketball fans who do understand advanced metrics. |
Not jumping in this Shaq vs Hakeem argument, but I just want to touch on a larger point when it comes to these "who is better" debates.
The team influences the player, and the player influences the team. There is no way to fully separate the two. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FanOfFour
Star Player
Joined: 24 Jun 2005
Posts: 1761
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Old Kareem absolutely lit young (H)Akeem up in a few matchups. Which shows you just how good Kareem was. Imagine him in his prime. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Prime Kobe + Prime Shaq
or
Prime Kobe + Prime Hakeem.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saetarubia
Star Player
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 6208
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't think Dream-Kobe would lose any finals. They'd be such a versatile and unstoppable duo. Doubt Shaq can carry a franchise to a title without any superstar to support. Dream was a lot more stronger mentally imo. Shaq was more dominant in his prime.
_________________
Showtime 2.0 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Runway8
Franchise Player
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 22853
Location: La Jolla, San Diego
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Inspector Gadget wrote: | | What Hakeem did to David Robinson in the playoff series, was pure ownage. |
As well as what he did to Shaq. I think people in this forum are a bit bias. Shaq's dominance illusion is powerful dunks and high field goal percentage. That's not dominance. Was he ever a force in the middle defensively? Could he have rebounded more? Block more shots? Ask Shaq these questions and he'll even answer to you honestly.
Olajuwon in his prime was a one man wrecking crew on both sides of the court. When he focused a little more on offense in his back to back titles, his rebounds dipped, but it was still on par with Shaq. His blocks also dipped during his back to back years, but it was still higher than anything Shaq had ever done. One more difference is that Houston actually went to Hakeem in the crunch, where as the Lakers had to go to Kobe. And for those who followed those years, you knew dang well, you wanted the ball in Kobe's hands because Shaq's free throws and potential offensive fouls gave you guys white knuckles.
Horry is on point. Those choosing Shaq point to a small window from 99-2002 to make your arguments. We can choose from a much larger window to argue for Hakeem. And like I said, not even Shaq from 99-2002 touched any of Hakeems numbers in boards and blocks.
Last edited by Runway8 on Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:44 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
999
Franchise Player
Joined: 19 Oct 2006
Posts: 20267
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| where is tim duncan in this? a PF or a center? I always called him the best power forward of all time but didnt he play center when the admiral retired |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I can't think of too many weaknesses that Hakeem had other than being a bit undersized for the then-traditional center position. He wasn't a big hefty center but he was so nimble and quick, with quick hands (high steal rate for a center). He could easily dominate in today's NBA too.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BynumForThree
Star Player
Joined: 27 Feb 2016
Posts: 1254
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yinoma2001 wrote: | | I can't think of too many weaknesses that Hakeem had other than being a bit undersized for the then-traditional center position. He wasn't a big hefty center but he was so nimble and quick, with quick hands (high steal rate for a center). He could easily dominate in today's NBA too. |
I don't think he'd dominate but he'd be a top 3 player. Probably only behind LeBron. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
yinoma2001
Retired Number
Joined: 19 Jun 2010
Posts: 119487
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BynumForThree wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | | I can't think of too many weaknesses that Hakeem had other than being a bit undersized for the then-traditional center position. He wasn't a big hefty center but he was so nimble and quick, with quick hands (high steal rate for a center). He could easily dominate in today's NBA too. |
I don't think he'd dominate but he'd be a top 3 player. Probably only behind LeBron. |
What? He'd easily dominate in this league today with his ability to switch, protect the rim, guard perimeter players, let alone his offensive repertoire.
_________________
From 2-10 to the Western Conference Finals |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Runway8
Franchise Player
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 22853
Location: La Jolla, San Diego
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BynumForThree wrote: | People get too caught up with "style points."
It doesn't really matter how you get your points if your opponent can't stop you. Prime Shaq was better than Hakeem even if he got his through sheer physical domination and not pretty footwork and fakes. |
This is comical. Really. So now skills are merely STYLE points? Too bad Shaq didn't have much style, otherwise, he would have gotten the ball in the crunch. We had another guy full of style, his name was Kobe and he took over in the crunch for the guy so dominant we were afraid of him having the ball in the crunch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Runway8
Franchise Player
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 22853
Location: La Jolla, San Diego
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 12:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lebron = dominant.
Kobe = style points.
MJ = style points.
BynumForThree.. right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Purp 32
Star Player
Joined: 12 Jul 2014
Posts: 2154
Location: Inglewood, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 1:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Prime Hakeem is a top 4 center ever. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Purp 32
Star Player
Joined: 12 Jul 2014
Posts: 2154
Location: Inglewood, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 1:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yinoma2001 wrote: | | I can't think of too many weaknesses that Hakeem had other than being a bit undersized for the then-traditional center position. He wasn't a big hefty center but he was so nimble and quick, with quick hands (high steal rate for a center). He could easily dominate in today's NBA too. |
No one would be able to guard Hakeem in today's NBA. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
adkindo
Retired Number
Joined: 16 Jun 2005
Posts: 40345
Location: Dirty South
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 1:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As far as Horry, he defined his opinion based on the small window of each players career that he saw up close. I am not sure how he defines "best", etc. I think the bigger point for those who viewed these players from the outside as fans, if you feel the answer is obvious, clear cut, and causes no internal conflict when considering the comparison, then it is obvious that you do not fully understand the greatness of both players. These two guys are the elite greats of the games, each had very unique abilities they used to dominate the game at the highest level.
There is no wrong answer. Magic or Bird....Jim Brown or Walter Payton...Willie Mays or Hank Aaron....we can have a favorite or value this stat or that stat more....but there is no definitive correct answer to these type questions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lakersboy
Star Player
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 8518
Location: Left coast
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| paolomagma wrote: | | adkindo wrote: | | paolomagma wrote: | The Dream is probably the most skilled bigman ever but that doesn't mean he's the best.
Prime Shaq would destroy him. |
just not true. Shaq averaged 29.3 PPG, 11.4 RPG and 2.4 blocks in 94-95.....we can debate if he had entered his prime, but it was one of his more dominant years of his career. In the 1995 Finals, Shaq played well, Hakeem played better.
The years Horry played with Hakeem was when Hakeem was considered by many as the best or 2nd best player in the league.....so its not shocking for him to form that opinion. |
1995 Shaq isn't Prime Shaq though.
I'm talking about the "Big Diesel" from 1999-2001. The unstoppable 300lbs monster that destroyed everyone in the playoffs.
Not taking away anything from Hakeem. He's one of the greats. Just not greater than Shaq. |
'95 Hakeem had been in the league since '84, and played 3 years of college before that. In his younger days he was elevating to the stratospher to erase shots from the sky. Shaq NEVER did that any any age. Shaq's monster dunks were based on his weight and pulling the rim down. Young Hakeem used his explosiveness and long arms to humiliate people with monster dunks. But he learned to score away from the rim, shake you out of your shoes and make the best defenders (D.Robinson) look foolish.
Hakeem deveoped a great touch 18-20 ft out, had a great touch on a right handed jump hook shot, and had a sweet turn around shot the opposite direction when he turned to his right shoulder. Then, when he took guys off the dribble to his left they spent all their energy and speed trying to stop him from blowing by them under the rim for a reverse, he stopped on a dime under the basket as they flew by, and he swung back to the other shoulder for an easy layin.
Considering that centers hit their prime in their upper 20's, it's ridiculous that people compare anything Olajuwon did in the mid 90's and use that as ammo to say Shaq was the better athlete. Hakeem had a window where he was the O.J., Earl Campbell, Barry Sanders of the NBA (Mike had a longer period). You didn't necessarily root for his team, but you watched to see what he was going to do. His career avg is diminished because of his longevity, but at his peak against Parish, Kareem, Ewing, Moses Malone, Laimbeer, Brad Daugherty, Robinson, and others, Hakeem was the man.
For those who say Shaq was more athletic than Hakeem, it's because you didn't see. Shaq wasn't faster, and he didn't jump higher. They were both quick, but Hakeem was cat quick. Shaq's career was actually similar to D. Howard, because offensively, he didn't develop new moves. He just played at a time where the refs began to let other players bull through defenders. We remember that during the 3 peat. He was really good. But not enough to make him a better player than Hakeem.
Last edited by lakersboy on Thu Sep 22, 2016 3:01 pm; edited 5 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BynumForThree
Star Player
Joined: 27 Feb 2016
Posts: 1254
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Runway8 wrote: | | BynumForThree wrote: | People get too caught up with "style points."
It doesn't really matter how you get your points if your opponent can't stop you. Prime Shaq was better than Hakeem even if he got his through sheer physical domination and not pretty footwork and fakes. |
This is comical. Really. So now skills are merely STYLE points? Too bad Shaq didn't have much style, otherwise, he would have gotten the ball in the crunch. We had another guy full of style, his name was Kobe and he took over in the crunch for the guy so dominant we were afraid of him having the ball in the crunch. |
Too bad Shaq carried Mr. Style to three titles. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AllorNothing
Franchise Player
Joined: 08 Oct 2001
Posts: 18448
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:24 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Purp 32 wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | | I can't think of too many weaknesses that Hakeem had other than being a bit undersized for the then-traditional center position. He wasn't a big hefty center but he was so nimble and quick, with quick hands (high steal rate for a center). He could easily dominate in today's NBA too. |
No one would be able to guard Hakeem in today's NBA. |
In today's NBA, nobody can guard Vlade Divac. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dr. Funkbot
Star Player
Joined: 24 Sep 2001
Posts: 8188
Location: Eagle Rock
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Cool discussion.
Both were great centers but it does come down to the fact that Shaq only realized his full potential in the 1999 to 2000 season when he finally won is only MVP award. He came into camp that fall in shape and he actually tried as hard on D as he did on O that one season.
Considering his physical gifts Shaq could have been the greatest center of all time hands down if he had the work ethic of someone like Hakeem or Kobe.
From not working out during the summer and coming repeatedly to camp out of shape, to openly scoffing at the idea of altering his diet to reign in his weight gain: "I ain't going to eat no rabbit food", he just did not put in the extra effort that it would take to maximize his talent.
BTW- I love to armchair quarterback! Shaq was a beast and I know he got beat up a bunch in the post. Any player who has worked hard enough and had the skills to even make it to the NBA deserves mad respect.
_________________
R.I.P. Doc Buss |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
panamaniac
Franchise Player
Joined: 28 May 2011
Posts: 11239
Location: PTY
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Big Bob is entitled to his opinion. But I'll take prime Shaq any day. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lakersboy
Star Player
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 8518
Location: Left coast
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| yinoma2001 wrote: | | BynumForThree wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | | I can't think of too many weaknesses that Hakeem had other than being a bit undersized for the then-traditional center position. He wasn't a big hefty center but he was so nimble and quick, with quick hands (high steal rate for a center). He could easily dominate in today's NBA too. |
I don't think he'd dominate but he'd be a top 3 player. Probably only behind LeBron. |
What? He'd easily dominate in this league today with his ability to switch, protect the rim, guard perimeter players, let alone his offensive repertoire. |
People use stats and end of career videos and #'s to make determinations. Hakeem made the best defenders of his time, including 7'2" long and athletic David Robinson, look silly.
Young Hakeem (and Drexler) led his college team to the finals. 2 years later, he, along with Ralph Sampson led an untalented Rockets squad to upset the world champion Lakers on the way to the '86 finals. By comparison, young Shaq had Penny, Horace Grant, and Dennis Scott, but couldn't compete with Michael's teams. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lakersboy
Star Player
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 8518
Location: Left coast
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Now lets compare defense.
Shaq's not even in the discussion.
End of conversation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 2:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BynumForThree wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | BynumForThree wrote: | | And thus, his high USG%, coupled with his solid but unspectacular shooting efficiency, generally kept him from being in the LeBron/MJ/Shaq class of advanced numbers, particularly if you look at Win Shares. Now, it'd be unfair if I didn't mention that his defensive impact was immense, and that his range/athleticism/activity was ridiculous for his position. His defense is probably what separates him from Shaq but offensively? I can comfortably say Shaq has a significant edge. |
I think what keeps Hakeem from being at the top of the pantheon is more basic: He only won two rings, in years when Jordan was out; and his rep largely relies on defense, which a lot of fans don't care much about.
So it's more about having lousy teammates and fans being obsessed with offense rather than defense that hurts him.
Personally, I'd consider him and Shaq equivalent for their careers as a whole. Most people would say Shaq had a better peak, but I think that's only if you don't consider defense.
As far as advanced stats, I think very few people really care about them, and they have little impact on player's reputations. |
Rings is way too basic. Team accomplishments determining the better individual player is just lazy anlysis.
And who are these "fans" you talk about and why are you bringing them up? I don't care what BluntRoller69 on Xbox thinks. Im speaking about discussions with basketball fans who do understand advanced metrics. |
By and large, when fans talk about advanced metrics they seem to concentrate on PER (which favors offense over defense) and win shares (which favors players on good teams).
People who understand PER and win share know that Shaq has an advantage over Hakeem with those stats that may not reflect what they did on the court.So I don't know that people who understand those stats, and know the flaw of those stats, consider Shaq better than Hakeem because of them.
What's more, people who understand advanced metrics don't necessarily consider win share, PER and the other stuff that are routinely thought of as an "advanced metrics" all that advanced, but that's another topic.
For what it's worth, I do understand those stats, and I can't say I have a firm winner in the Shaq vs, Hakeem debate -- when I look at everything, they seem more or less equal, and I could put either ahead of the other on any given day depending on my mood |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lakersboy
Star Player
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
Posts: 8518
Location: Left coast
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BynumForThree wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | | I can't think of too many weaknesses that Hakeem had other than being a bit undersized for the then-traditional center position. He wasn't a big hefty center but he was so nimble and quick, with quick hands (high steal rate for a center). He could easily dominate in today's NBA too. |
I don't think he'd dominate but he'd be a top 3 player. Probably only behind LeBron. |
Hakeem played defense. He rebounded. He made great defenders like David Robinson look silly. He would school Townes and expose Cousins's laziness. He outplayed all the top centers of his day. Nobody today would be dominant in the 80's.
Young Lebron couldn't get his teams to the finals. He'd be a free agent begging to play with Hakeem.
In his 2nd season, Hakeem next to Ralph Sampson, carried a team of Rockets with virtually no talent and beat the world champ Lakers on the way to the finals. THAT'S how dominant he was. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
focus
Star Player
Joined: 23 May 2012
Posts: 2526
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 22, 2016 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The steals thing is pretty insane for a center in a center era. Hakeem barely given Shaqs 3-4 dominant years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
