|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SuperboyReformed
Star Player
Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Posts: 4083
|
 Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2016 5:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lakers 4 eva wrote: | | adkindo 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. |
Not sure where the "style points" are that you speak of....their pure career production was very similar...
Hakeem - 18 Years - 21.8 PPG - 11.1 PPG - 2.5 APG - 3.1 BPG
Shaq - 19 Years - 23.7 PPG - 10.9 PPG - 2.5 APG - 2.3 BPG
You may decide either one was better based on Finals, MVP's, etc., but it has nothing to do with "style points" within their production. Also, Hakeem played his entire career during a period of great centers in the NBA.
BTW, I would take Shaq all day, every day, but I just don't find it surprising that many others would prefer Hakeem. Watching Hakeem in the post and the "dreamshake" on the baseline, there is no doubt where the influence of Kobe's post game was derived from. |
That would be from Jordan |
kobe stole his moves from both and others as well...everyone really. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gomur
Starting Rotation
Joined: 03 Jul 2016
Posts: 165
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Megaton wrote: | | KindCrippler2000 wrote: | | From a skill set perspective? Probably. |
Probably? He most definitely IS.
As much as I loved watching prime Shaq, Hakeem was MUCH MORE skilled than Shaq and it's not even close.
I'm struggling to think of anything that Shaq was better than Hakeem at besides being stronger physically. Hakeem while being arguably the greatest post player of all time, is also the greatest defending big man of all time, whIle also being a more skilled passer, free throw shooter, etc.
As great as Shaq was, I appreciate Hakeem's game much more as well as his own work ethic. Something that we can't say the same for Shaq. Most of the time now that I think of Shaq despite him being so dominate in his prime, is "what could have been" if he didn't get lazy or content.
A prime Hakeem and Kobe would win at least 5 straight rings. |
Prime Kobe and Prime Hakeem would be mind-blowing. Shaq getting out of shape with each title until he finally left, and then recommitted to getting in shape with Miami was a slap in the face. I still love Shaq though, and he was incredible in his prime, but I have no problem with players or fans who would take Hakeem over him. It's definitely a good debate. Not an insult.
Loved watching Prime Hakeem in the Golden Age of NBA Centers. Hakeem, Shaq, Zo, Robinson, Ewing, Sabonis, Dikimbe, Smits, and a few more I'm missing for sure. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2016 8:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lakers_Jester wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | Lakers_Jester wrote: | | I imagine hakeem vs the best centers in nba history and I can see him having some trouble pulling off his fancy shots at a high %. |
Not sure why you think you have to "imagine" it. Hakeem actually did play against Kareem, Moses Malone, Shaq, David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, Robert Parish, Alonzo Mourning, Dikembe Mutumbo. He did fine against all these Hall of Famers.
The only guy who really gave him fits was Mark Eaton.
What other "best centers in nba history" do you think he'd have trouble against and why? |
I guess I should rephrase. I imagine prime hakeem vs other historic centers in their primes. Prime kareem, wilt, russell, or shaq, I'd take all 4 of those guys over hakeem. Not that hakeem isn't as skilled as those guys but those others guys dominate in a way I'd be more comfortable with at the center position. Hakeem as others have said was a bit undersized. Might be why he used quickness agility and smarts to beat his opponents. His versatility and skill is outstanding and maybe even unmatched by any center in history, but I'd roll with the sheer physical talent of the other bigs I mentioned in their primes. Russell I have reservations about, but his dominance on the defensive end is unparalleled and is also what gives him the edge over hakeem as well imo. They just give me a better chance to win imo because their shots are high % that don't rely on, at times, complex footwork, fakes, technique etc to pull off. Their bread and butter were simple, effective, and due to the level of physical dominance of the players, easy to pull off. Easier shots are typically higher % shots. In russells case, defense leading to offense. |
I'm not big on woulda-coulda-shouldas, and I'm not sold that Russell was a better defender than Hakeem. All that said, if Hakeem was my center in the time-machine game against all the other all-time centers in their prime, I'd be okay with that. I think he'd hold his own against Kareem, Wilt, and Russell. Kareem and Wilt may outplay him, but I don't think it would be a dramatic difference. I think Hakeem is on the same tier with Kareem, Russell, Wilt and Shaq. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lakers_Jester
Star Player
Joined: 17 Sep 2012
Posts: 5366
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2016 9:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| activeverb wrote: | | Lakers_Jester wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | Lakers_Jester wrote: | | I imagine hakeem vs the best centers in nba history and I can see him having some trouble pulling off his fancy shots at a high %. |
Not sure why you think you have to "imagine" it. Hakeem actually did play against Kareem, Moses Malone, Shaq, David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, Robert Parish, Alonzo Mourning, Dikembe Mutumbo. He did fine against all these Hall of Famers.
The only guy who really gave him fits was Mark Eaton.
What other "best centers in nba history" do you think he'd have trouble against and why? |
I guess I should rephrase. I imagine prime hakeem vs other historic centers in their primes. Prime kareem, wilt, russell, or shaq, I'd take all 4 of those guys over hakeem. Not that hakeem isn't as skilled as those guys but those others guys dominate in a way I'd be more comfortable with at the center position. Hakeem as others have said was a bit undersized. Might be why he used quickness agility and smarts to beat his opponents. His versatility and skill is outstanding and maybe even unmatched by any center in history, but I'd roll with the sheer physical talent of the other bigs I mentioned in their primes. Russell I have reservations about, but his dominance on the defensive end is unparalleled and is also what gives him the edge over hakeem as well imo. They just give me a better chance to win imo because their shots are high % that don't rely on, at times, complex footwork, fakes, technique etc to pull off. Their bread and butter were simple, effective, and due to the level of physical dominance of the players, easy to pull off. Easier shots are typically higher % shots. In russells case, defense leading to offense. |
I'm not big on woulda-coulda-shouldas, and I'm not sold that Russell was a better defender than Hakeem. All that said, if Hakeem was my center in the time-machine game against all the other all-time centers in their prime, I'd be okay with that. I think he'd hold his own against Kareem, Wilt, and Russell. Kareem and Wilt may outplay him, but I don't think it would be a dramatic difference. I think Hakeem is on the same tier with Kareem, Russell, Wilt and Shaq. |
I totally think hakeem is in the same conversation as those other bigs but if I had to choose between hakeem or wilt, shaq, kareem, russell, I'd go with any of the latter personally. but hakeem is excellent and wouldnt fault anyone for choosing hakeem. He's definitely the most skilled center. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lakers_Jester
Star Player
Joined: 17 Sep 2012
Posts: 5366
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2016 10:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChriSanity1246 wrote: | Does anyone here think that Hakeem and Kobe fail to win 3 championships together? Does anyone think they have any personality conflicts?
I think Hakeem and Kobe would win 4 or 5 together at least. |
It's hard to imagine. Because on one hand yeah they'd complement each other in theory especially in personality, but Shaq's challenging of kobe also brought the best out of him in some respects. Also some of those opposing teams the shaq kobe teams faced, the games would have been totally different without shaq putting them in foul trouble constantly. Shaq was a huuuuuge problem for every team facing the lakers. When shaq got into a rhythm, he was unstoppable. The sheer attention he demanded, it was like a gravitational pull, opening up the horry, fishers, kobe himself, shaw, rice, harpers, fox, Horace grants, etc. Most importantly some of those opposing teams were pretty damn good themselves. It's hard to imagine those other teams losing to anyone other than the beast that was shaq down low. Like seriously, some games it was not fair how one man could just wreck through 2 sometimes 3 defenders at once hanging all over him. In a lot of ways, shaq was the perfect complement to kobe in the fact that he brought an opposite element, a balancing one.
If we're comparing kobe hakeem finesse style as a super version of kobe pau, well the biggest knock on the kobe pau lakers were that they were soft. I don't know if the finesse of both kobe hakeem would be better than the balanced attack of kobe shaq. Could the kobe hakeem win more than kobe shaq? If not for the personlaity conflicts then yea, but so would a lot of players teamed up with kobe hypothetically because of the fact that we have the ability to say kobe shaq most definitely max out at 3 chips due to personality conflicts. Other players have the fact that they could stay together many more years to their advantage, but personalities aside, shaq kobe I think would beat hakeem kobe teams. Replace shaq with hakeem on those kobe shaq teams, I don't know if u could say they'd 3peat. I think sacramento might get the best of em. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2016 10:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lakers_Jester wrote: | | ChriSanity1246 wrote: | Does anyone here think that Hakeem and Kobe fail to win 3 championships together? Does anyone think they have any personality conflicts?
I think Hakeem and Kobe would win 4 or 5 together at least. |
It's hard to imagine. Because on one hand yeah they'd complement each other in theory especially in personality, but Shaq's challenging of kobe also brought the best out of him in some respects. Also some of those opposing teams the shaq kobe teams faced, the games would have been totally different without shaq putting them in foul trouble constantly. Shaq was a huuuuuge problem for every team facing the lakers. When shaq got into a rhythm, he was unstoppable. The sheer attention he demanded, it was like a gravitational pull, opening up the horry, fishers, kobe himself, shaw, rice, harpers, fox, Horace grants, etc. Most importantly some of those opposing teams were pretty damn good themselves. It's hard to imagine those other teams losing to anyone other than the beast that was shaq down low. Like seriously, some games it was not fair how one man could just wreck through 2 sometimes 3 defenders at once hanging all over him. In a lot of ways, shaq was the perfect complement to kobe in the fact that he brought an opposite element, a balancing one.
If we're comparing kobe hakeem finesse style as a super version of kobe pau, well the biggest knock on the kobe pau lakers were that they were soft. I don't know if the finesse of both kobe hakeem would be better than the balanced attack of kobe shaq. Could the kobe hakeem win more than kobe shaq? If not for the personlaity conflicts then yea, but so would a lot of players teamed up with kobe hypothetically because of the fact that we have the ability to say kobe shaq most definitely max out at 3 chips due to personality conflicts. Other players have the fact that they could stay together many more years to their advantage, but personalities aside, shaq kobe I think would beat hakeem kobe teams. Replace shaq with hakeem on those kobe shaq teams, I don't know if u could say they'd 3peat. I think sacramento might get the best of em. |
I'd say you are mischaracterizing Hakeem as a "finesse player." Sure, he was skilled, but he was also strong and he didn't back down from contact or physical play. Kareem, for example, hated playing against physical guys and they got in his head. That was never an issue for Hakeem. He was by no means a "soft" player.
You're talking about a guy who could lead the league in rebounding and block shots while being the backbone of the league's toughest defense. Makes me wonder if you even know what his game was like. Shaq said Hakeem was the only player he was ever unable to physically intimidate, |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SuperboyReformed
Star Player
Joined: 07 Oct 2012
Posts: 4083
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2016 10:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kobe was not soft. kobe is one of the most bada$$ players ever. curry and lebron are tissue compared.
only pau was soft
the rest of the soft stuff was just hype because we were playing the nasty celtics.
hakeem played square in the middle of the 80s before the hakeem everyone talks about. he was also very good then and not soft or anything like that. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lakers_Jester
Star Player
Joined: 17 Sep 2012
Posts: 5366
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 23, 2016 11:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Hakeem nor kobe were soft, but on offense I wouldnt call their games physically imposing. I was just using the kobe pau comparison that was made earlier in the thread. Their styles were technique based though, not power based. However, Shaq would literally drop step dunk on your head to death or get to the free throw line. Just different styles. I think Shaq's style was the perfect yin to kobes yang.
Let's put it this way, I'll take the kareem sky hook, or the shaq drop step, or even the shaq baby hook over the hakeem dream shake. I'd love to see a stat with the fg% of the dreamshake vs the shaq drop step or baby hook vs kareem sky hook actually. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Druggas
Starting Rotation
Joined: 19 Sep 2004
Posts: 560
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 11:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="activeverb"] | Lakers_Jester wrote: | | activeverb wrote: | | Lakers_Jester wrote: | | I imagine hakeem vs the best centers in nba history and I can see him having some trouble pulling off his fancy shots at a high %. |
Not sure why you think you have to "imagine" it. Hakeem actually did play against Kareem, Moses Malone, Shaq, David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, Robert Parish, Alonzo Mourning, Dikembe Mutumbo. He did fine against all these Hall of Famers.
The only guy who really gave him fits was Mark Eaton.
What other "best centers in nba history" do you think he'd have trouble against and why? |
I guess I should rephrase. I imagine prime hakeem vs other historic centers in their primes. Prime kareem, wilt, russell, or shaq, I'd take all 4 of those guys over hakeem. Not that hakeem isn't as skilled as those guys but those others guys dominate in a way I'd be more comfortable with at the center position. Hakeem as others have said was a bit undersized. Might be why he used quickness agility and smarts to beat his opponents. His versatility and skill is outstanding and maybe even unmatched by any center in history, but I'd roll with the sheer physical talent of the other bigs I mentioned in their primes. Russell I have reservations about, but his dominance on the defensive end is unparalleled and is also what gives him the edge over hakeem as well imo. They just give me a better chance to win imo because their shots are high % that don't rely on, at times, complex footwork, fakes, technique etc to pull off. Their bread and butter were simple, effective, and due to the level of physical dominance of the players, easy to pull off. Easier shots are typically higher % shots. In russells case, defense leading to offense. |
I'm not big on woulda-coulda-shouldas, and I'm not sold that Russell was a better defender than Hakeem. All that said, if Hakeem was my center in the time-machine game against all the other all-time centers in their prime, I'd be okay with that. I think he'd hold his own against Kareem, Wilt, and Russell. Kareem and Wilt may outplay him, but I don't think it would be a dramatic difference. I think Hakeem is on the same tier with Kareem, Russell, Wilt and Shaq.[/quote]
He's not.
_________________
Laker historian. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Theseus
Franchise Player
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 14166
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lakers_Jester wrote: | Hakeem nor kobe were soft, but on offense I wouldnt call their games physically imposing. I was just using the kobe pau comparison that was made earlier in the thread. Their styles were technique based though, not power based. However, Shaq would literally drop step dunk on your head to death or get to the free throw line. Just different styles. I think Shaq's style was the perfect yin to kobes yang.
Let's put it this way, I'll take the kareem sky hook, or the shaq drop step, or even the shaq baby hook over the hakeem dream shake. I'd love to see a stat with the fg% of the dreamshake vs the shaq drop step or baby hook vs kareem sky hook actually. |
Dreamshake was great, but it wasn't his only move. He was just as likely to catch and nail a 15 footer. That meant you had to guard him at 15 feet out. Plus, in houston he was doubled and triple teamed a lot, so he was really adept at working out of those and his passing was very good.
Shaq had a good drop step but it needed him to have the right positioning. Hakeem was effective all over the court, and fouling him wasn't an advantage to combat his good positioning. His game complements Kobe's so well that I can't think of a better center to pair him up with. Right down toward the dedication and respect they had for the game. Those two are fiery competitors with a desire to get better at all aspects of their game, I can't imagine them do anything but bring the best out of each other.
Lets also not forget how bad Shaq was against pick and roll, and how Hakeem could switch well. He had phenomenal hands and instincts defensively. Getting 4 blocks and 2 steals a game is legendary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Theseus
Franchise Player
Joined: 15 Dec 2007
Posts: 14166
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 3:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MIMLaker wrote: | | YSong wrote: | | yinoma2001 wrote: | Prime Kobe + Prime Shaq
or
Prime Kobe + Prime Hakeem. |
I pick Kobe + Hakeem. Both would get along because both work hard. Hakeem would never get traded. I think those 2 guys can win like 6-7 championships. |
Wow... mind-boggling if you got Prime Kobe + Prime Hakeem together.
I mean, Prime Kobe + Prime Pau was a thing of beauty, just because of all the variations on pick and roll, all the passing, crazy court sense, just devastating combo there.
But PH and PK?? Yikes. Shut-down defensive versatility that would be off-the-charts incredible, the edge would have to go to Hakeem on defense. No way PH would get burned on pick and roll as much as Prime Shaq was, and Hakeem was a seriously better all-around defender and shotblocker than pau.
If it was PH + PK vs. PS + PK alone, just two-on-two, it'd be close... |
I agree, teams ran pick and roll to death against the Lakers. Having Hakeem instead of either one of those centers means the pick and roll game gets shut down. Especially since Hakeem could hedge out and switch off on the pick and roll. He was quick enough on his feet to stay with guards and quick enough off his feet to block shots. That guy was such a quick leaper, and his instincts were the key to his GOAT shot blocking ability. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hammett
Star Player
Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Posts: 9380
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 4:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lakersboy wrote: | Now lets compare defense.
Shaq's not even in the discussion.
End of conversation. |
God, it used to be such torture watching teams kill early 2000s Lakers with pick and rolls.
_________________
Lakers. Built different. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nash
Star Player
Joined: 23 Oct 2001
Posts: 8194
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 5:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Shaq = MDE
Hakeem = MSE
No one could stop a prime Shaq physical brutality and no one could stop a prime Hakeem skill set.
Just to be clear, Shaq was also a skilled big and Hakeem was a very good athlete himself.
My favorite player/center ever is Kareem, he had it all and produced at a top level longer than any other center in history. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 6:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Shlumpledink wrote: | | Lakers_Jester wrote: | Hakeem nor kobe were soft, but on offense I wouldnt call their games physically imposing. I was just using the kobe pau comparison that was made earlier in the thread. Their styles were technique based though, not power based. However, Shaq would literally drop step dunk on your head to death or get to the free throw line. Just different styles. I think Shaq's style was the perfect yin to kobes yang.
Let's put it this way, I'll take the kareem sky hook, or the shaq drop step, or even the shaq baby hook over the hakeem dream shake. I'd love to see a stat with the fg% of the dreamshake vs the shaq drop step or baby hook vs kareem sky hook actually. |
Dreamshake was great, but it wasn't his only move. He was just as likely to catch and nail a 15 footer. That meant you had to guard him at 15 feet out. Plus, in houston he was doubled and triple teamed a lot, so he was really adept at working out of those and his passing was very good. |
I get the sense the people talking about Hakeem's offensive game don't really know much about. The notion that he only had one move is as silly as thinking Kareem could do nothing but hook skyhooks.
Hakeem had a lot of post moves, and a strong jumpshot and in this era he'd have a 3 point shot |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MJST
Retired Number
Joined: 06 Jul 2014
Posts: 26309
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 7:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
For a 3 year span, no center could mess with Shaq, the problem was it was just that... a 3 year span.
Had Shaq even had half the work ethic of Kobe he'd have gone down as the greatest player of all time.
Shaq has Hakeem beat in Strength.
Hakeem has Shaq beat in Defense, Post Moves, Range and Free Throws.
Does anyone see the Lakers NOT three-peating if we replaced Shaq with 92-96 Hakeem? or heck even 89-90 Hakeem...
Granted I'd still take Shaq during that three year span, but I could have Hakeem for a 12 year span.
I'd stress to say the Lakers COULD have 4-peated due to the longevity of Hakeem's dominance.
Shaq would have had that longevity had he had the work ethic, but he didn't.
Last edited by MJST on Sat Sep 24, 2016 8:10 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
activeverb
Retired Number
Joined: 17 Jun 2006
Posts: 37470
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 7:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MJST wrote: | | For a 3 year span, no center could mess with Shaq, the problem was it was just that... a 3 year span. . |
Shaq was amazing in those three years, but he was spectacular in a lot of other seasons too. He came close to winning an MVP award in Orlando and missed winning one in Miami by a sliver. He really had a great 12-13 year run. I don't think Hakeem trumps him in terms of longevity by any stretch. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 9:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
29.3 points (on .599 shooting), 13.2 boards, 2.4 assists and 2.9 blocks as a 21-year old
29.3 points (on .583 shooting), 11.4 boards, 2.7 assists and 2.4 blocks as a 22-year old
26.6 points (on .573 shooting), 11.0 boards, 2.9 assists and 2.1 blocks as a 23-year old
26.2 points (on .557 shooting), 12.5 boards, 3.1 assists and 2.9 blocks as a 24-year old
28.3 points (on .584 shooting), 11.4 boards, 2.4 assists and 2.4 blocks as a 25-year old
26.3 points (on .576 shooting), 10.7 boards, 2.3 assists and 1.7 blocks as a 26-year old
29.7 points (on .574 shooting), 13.6 boards, 3.8 assists and 3.0 blocks as a 27-year old
28.7 points (on .572 shooting), 12.7 boards, 3.7 assists and 2.8 blocks as a 28-year old
27.2 points (on .579 shooting), 10.7 boards, 3.0 assists and 2.0 blocks as a 29-year old
27.5 points (on .574 shooting), 11.1 boards, 3.1 assists and 2.4 blocks as a 30-year old
21.5 points (on .584 shooting), 11.5 boards, 2.9 assists and 2.5 blocks as a 31-year old
22.9 points (on .601 shooting), 10.4 boards, 2.7 assists and 2.3 blocks as a 32-year old
That's 12 years of performance as the best big man in basketball. Imagine what he might have done if he wasn't forced to rely on others to see the ball. Sit the (bleep) down already, Shaq haters ... the truth is that Olajuwon wasn't on Shaq's level as a scorer, he couldn't come (bleep) anywhere close to Shaq's efficiency in putting the ball in the basket, their rebound and assist numbers were basically a wash, and Hakeem was better racking up blocks and steals (which contributed to his reputation as a better overall defender, but not by the margin expressed by many here).
This talk of Shaq being dominant for only three years is the handiwork of those lacking the intellectual curiosity to do much more than convert oxygen to CO2 ... the same people that drool over high-degree-of-difficulty shots (apparently showing little concern for whether the attempts are actually converted into points), footwork (again, showing little concern for whether it leads to points), and other superficial (bleep) that has no direct positive correlation to WINNING (and in the case of the former, there's actually a (bleep) negative correlation that seems to be overlooked by many) are the same ones riding this "Shaq wasn't so great" narrative like a drugstore pony.
The guy revolutionized the game. And without him, forget about the threepeat ... as a matter of fact, without him and his impact on this franchise (including the assets he later yielded via trade following the 2004 debacle), none of the last five Lakers championships would have come to fruition here in LA. And truth be told, we MIGHT have seen the WCSF as a high water mark over the past twenty seasons. Forget about any Western Conference Finals. Forget about any NBA Finals. And forget about any rings.
We all saw the movie. It's called "2005 - 2007". Take that to the bank (except you, AV ... your bank doesn't take woulda-coulda-shoulda deposits) ... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dreamshake
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 May 2006
Posts: 13711
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 9:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Horry is right. This part of his post sums it up perfectly:
"He had everything they had the other two, but more."
Shaq can't defend like Dream. Duncan can't score like him. It really is that basic. I couldn't imagine Hakeem playing with the talent Shaq and Duncan had for the majority of their careers.
Also, everyone talking about how Dream never dominated like Shaq should also focus on the defensive side of the court. Shaq doesn't come close to his impact there. Kareem and Wilt are really the only centers that were as good as Dream on both sides of the court (both were better IMO). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 9:39 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dreamshake wrote: | Horry is right. This part of his post sums it up perfectly:
"He had everything they had the other two, but more."
Shaq can't defend like Dream. Duncan can't score like him. It really is that basic. I couldn't imagine Hakeem playing with the talent Shaq and Duncan had for the majority of their careers.
Also, everyone talking about how Dream never dominated like Shaq should also focus on the defensive side of the court. Shaq doesn't come close to his impact there. |
Dream was a better defender to be sure, but I'm not convinced the difference between (H)Akeem and Shaq changes the discussion as much as you appear to be suggesting here. Ewing and David Robinson had comparable defensive impact (less than Olajuwon's, but not greatly so). Across both careers, two rings. For my $$$, that level of defensive performance didn't always impact games in the 1980s and 1990s the way that Shaq's presence impacted games in the 1990s and 2000s.
Career DRtg of 98 for (H)Akeem (postseason 101). And 101 for Shaq (postseason 103). I don't think the difference is as vast as you suggest, DS.
Last edited by the association on Sat Sep 24, 2016 9:40 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dreamshake
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 May 2006
Posts: 13711
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 9:40 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. |
And 1995 Hakeem wasn't prime Hakeem either. There is a common misconception that Hakeem was at his best then because he was scoring more and his team was winning (so he got more attention). First, there is more to basketball than scoring. Second, you need talent to win and for the majority of his early career he didn't have any. When he did have talent early on, he got to the Finals in year 2.
Dream's rebounding, steals and blocks numbers were down when we won titles. He was older (not old yet) and not the athletic freak that he was earlier. Look at 89/90 for example. Dream avg 24, 14 (led league), 3, 2.1 steals and 4.1 blocks (led league). When folks mention him at his best they focus on scoring and playoff moments but ignore everything else he used to be capable of. Put that Dream on any team Shaq or Duncan won titles on. Give him a teammate like Kobe, Wade, Robinson, Parker/Manu instead of Otis Thorpe and Sleepy Floyd. Again, it's not as if he hadn't already proven he could lead a team to success when he had talent in his second season (27/12/2/2/3.5 in the 86 playoffs...Finals berth). He just didn't have talent for most of his best years. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dreamshake
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 May 2006
Posts: 13711
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 9:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: | | Dreamshake wrote: | Horry is right. This part of his post sums it up perfectly:
"He had everything they had the other two, but more."
Shaq can't defend like Dream. Duncan can't score like him. It really is that basic. I couldn't imagine Hakeem playing with the talent Shaq and Duncan had for the majority of their careers.
Also, everyone talking about how Dream never dominated like Shaq should also focus on the defensive side of the court. Shaq doesn't come close to his impact there. |
Dream was a better defender to be sure, but I'm not convinced the difference between (H)Akeem and Shaq changes the discussion as much as you appear to be suggesting here. Ewing and David Robinson had comparable defensive impact (less than Olajuwon's, but not greatly so). Across both careers, two rings. For my $$$, that level of defensive performance didn't always impact games in the 1980s and 1990s the way that Shaq's presence impacted games in the 1990s and 2000s.
Career DRtg of 98 for (H)Akeem (postseason 101). And 101 for Shaq (postseason 103). I don't think the difference is as vast as you suggest, DS. |
The irony of you saying that level of defensive performance by Dream, Robinson and Ewing didn't impact games like Shaq did. Do you realize Dream, Robinson and Ewing played with considerably less talent than Shaq did? Robinson's best teammate pre Duncan was who? Same question for Ewing and Hakeem.
Across both careers, two rings. Hmm, well all of their careers started in the 80's, where every champion had a superteam. Then Jordan in the 90's and he has a top 50 player ever alongside him and the GOAT coach, while their best dudes are guys like Sean Elliott, John Starks, Otis Thorpe, etc. Shaq get's guys like Penny and Kobe and "shockingly" has more team success. 
Do you not think Ewing, Robinson and Dream would have had more team success alongside a guard like Penny, Kobe and Wade? Do you think Shaq would have had the same success with their teammates?
Last edited by Dreamshake on Sat Sep 24, 2016 9:58 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 9:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Sean Elliott, Rod Strickland, Dennis Rodman, Dale Ellis, Chuck Person, Avery Johnson ... let me know when you want me to stop.
Bernard King, Gerald Wilkins, Bill Cartwright, Mark Jackson, Charles Oakley, Johnny Newman ... let me know when you want me to stop.
Sampson, Drexler, Barkley, McCray, Lloyd, Lucas, Floyd, Thorpe, Mad Max, Jet, Horry, Elie, Cassell ... let me know when you want me to stop.
That's straight garbage ... Shaq didn't rely as much on surrounding talent as those three above needed to when he changed the game. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
the association
Star Player
Joined: 03 Feb 2015
Posts: 1982
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dreamshake wrote: | | the association wrote: | | Dreamshake wrote: | Horry is right. This part of his post sums it up perfectly:
"He had everything they had the other two, but more."
Shaq can't defend like Dream. Duncan can't score like him. It really is that basic. I couldn't imagine Hakeem playing with the talent Shaq and Duncan had for the majority of their careers.
Also, everyone talking about how Dream never dominated like Shaq should also focus on the defensive side of the court. Shaq doesn't come close to his impact there. |
Dream was a better defender to be sure, but I'm not convinced the difference between (H)Akeem and Shaq changes the discussion as much as you appear to be suggesting here. Ewing and David Robinson had comparable defensive impact (less than Olajuwon's, but not greatly so). Across both careers, two rings. For my $$$, that level of defensive performance didn't always impact games in the 1980s and 1990s the way that Shaq's presence impacted games in the 1990s and 2000s.
Career DRtg of 98 for (H)Akeem (postseason 101). And 101 for Shaq (postseason 103). I don't think the difference is as vast as you suggest, DS. |
The irony of you saying that level of defensive performance by Dream, Robinson and Ewing didn't impact games like Shaq did. Do you realize Dream, Robinson and Ewing played with considerably less talent than Shaq did? Robinson's best teammate pre Duncan was who? Same question for Ewing and Hakeem.
Across both careers, two rings. Hmm, well all of their careers started in the 80's, where every champion had a superteam. Then Jordan in the 90's and he has a top 50 player ever alongside him and the GOAT coach, while their best dudes are guys like Sean Elliott, John Starks, Otis Thorpe, etc. Shaq get's guys like Penny and Kobe and "shockingly" has more team success.
Do you not think Ewing, Robinson and Dream would have had more team success alongside a guard like Penny, Kobe and Wade? Do you think Shaq would have had the same success with their teammates? |
"More" team success doesn't automatically equate to rings. So the answer to the question that you didn't ask is "no". I don't think any of those three would have won as many as four rings with the collection of wings surrounding Shaq in his career. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dreamshake
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 May 2006
Posts: 13711
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 10:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: | | Sean Elliott, Rod Strickland, Dennis Rodman, Dale Ellis, Chuck Person, Avery Johnson ... let me know when you want me to stop. |
Dennis Rodman is the best you named. Robinson got to the WCF's with him, where he lost to Dream. No other player is going to the HOF. You would take Rodman over either Penny, Kobe or Wade?
| the association wrote: | | Bernard King, Gerald Wilkins, Bill Cartwright, Mark Jackson, Charles Oakley, Johnny Newman ... let me know when you want me to stop. |
You can stop when you list one great player like Penny, Kobe or Wade.
| the association wrote: | | Sampson, Drexler, Barkley, McCray, Lloyd, Lucas, Floyd, Thorpe, Mad Max, Jet, Horry, Elie, Cassell ... let me know when you want me to stop. |
He got to the Finals with Sampson and won a ring with Drexler. He got to the WCF's with Barkley, even though both were old. You are kinda proving my point. When Dream had star talent he "shockingly" had great team success. Would you take anyone on this list over Penny, Kobe or Wade? Drexler would be the only one (not over Kobe but maybe the other two), BUT HE WON WITH HIM. Kinda proving my point.
You said you didn't see team success in the 80's...when none of the centers you mentioned had great talent around them. Throwing out guys like Charles Oakley or Sean Elliott when Shaq had guys like Penny, Kobe and Wade is quite laughable. I said those 3 centers played with considerably less talent than Shaq, especially in their prime years. Is your response that they didn't, with the players you mentioned above? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dreamshake
Franchise Player
Joined: 05 May 2006
Posts: 13711
|
| Posted: Sat Sep 24, 2016 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| the association wrote: | | Dreamshake wrote: | | the association wrote: | | Dreamshake wrote: | Horry is right. This part of his post sums it up perfectly:
"He had everything they had the other two, but more."
Shaq can't defend like Dream. Duncan can't score like him. It really is that basic. I couldn't imagine Hakeem playing with the talent Shaq and Duncan had for the majority of their careers.
Also, everyone talking about how Dream never dominated like Shaq should also focus on the defensive side of the court. Shaq doesn't come close to his impact there. |
Dream was a better defender to be sure, but I'm not convinced the difference between (H)Akeem and Shaq changes the discussion as much as you appear to be suggesting here. Ewing and David Robinson had comparable defensive impact (less than Olajuwon's, but not greatly so). Across both careers, two rings. For my $$$, that level of defensive performance didn't always impact games in the 1980s and 1990s the way that Shaq's presence impacted games in the 1990s and 2000s.
Career DRtg of 98 for (H)Akeem (postseason 101). And 101 for Shaq (postseason 103). I don't think the difference is as vast as you suggest, DS. |
The irony of you saying that level of defensive performance by Dream, Robinson and Ewing didn't impact games like Shaq did. Do you realize Dream, Robinson and Ewing played with considerably less talent than Shaq did? Robinson's best teammate pre Duncan was who? Same question for Ewing and Hakeem.
Across both careers, two rings. Hmm, well all of their careers started in the 80's, where every champion had a superteam. Then Jordan in the 90's and he has a top 50 player ever alongside him and the GOAT coach, while their best dudes are guys like Sean Elliott, John Starks, Otis Thorpe, etc. Shaq get's guys like Penny and Kobe and "shockingly" has more team success.
Do you not think Ewing, Robinson and Dream would have had more team success alongside a guard like Penny, Kobe and Wade? Do you think Shaq would have had the same success with their teammates? |
"More" team success doesn't automatically equate to rings. So the answer to the question that you didn't ask is "no". I don't think any of those three would have won as many as four rings with the collection of wings surrounding Shaq in his career. |
But they would clearly have had more team success with arguable top 10-20 players alongside them instead the teammates they had, right? That's my point. You said their defensive performance didn't impact games by looking at their team success, while completely ignoring the teammates that help with team success. No, I don't expect Robinson, Dream or Ewing to have great team success in the 80's and early 90's when they are playing with borderline all-stars, against teams that have multiple HOF, top 50 players ever on their squads.
I have no doubt that Dream could have won titles on any team Shaq or Duncan won on. I don't think Ewing or Robinson could have as they are not arguably as good as Shaq or Duncan, but I didn't bring them into this discussion. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
