Hakeem isn't in a class with David Robinson either. IMO, Dream is up there with those other three greats (Wilt, Kareem, Russell). Shaq may be there as well, but what I think Shaq lacks compared to Dream is defense. Shaq is tremendously talented, but he's not the defensive player that those guys were. Certainly, Shaq's a good shot-blocker and a good man-defender. But he's not really in Dream's class there. Shaq is #10 on the all-time blocked shots list with 2.5 a game average. Hakeem averaged one more block per game in his career. He is also number seven all-time in steals. I think Shaq deserves to be mentioned at the very top, but if he is there, Dream should be too, and perhaps a spot ahead of him purely because of defense.
IMHO, Hakeem is better than Shaq. Shaq's game is always ugly to watch, Dream was so graceful. Shaq saying right now I'm same class with guys like Hakeem & David Robinson. That really offend me. Sounds like Shaq ashamed to be in same class as dream and robinson.
Shaq doesn't have half the game Dream did. Miss 13 free throws? Shaq's probably done worse than that.
I love how Shaq haters can only point to FT shooting. Olajuwon over his career wasn't the best FT shooter either. Shaq also has more rings than Olajuwon, which is really the bottom line.
He's got one more and he had Kobe Bryant for all three years he won championships. Had he had someone like that for as many years, even Drexler, I think it's safe to say he'd have more. Further, O'Neal might have four rings were it not for Hakeem. O'Neal is 0-4 in Finals appearances against the Dream.
Saying that Hakeem would have more rings if he just had "so-and-so" is not the same as actually doing it. So, if Shaq can win a title with Wade. So be it. He did it. Akeem had a problem with sharing the ball early in his career. It was his decision. He could have welcomed more talent early, but had that stigma of selfishness (after Sampson left). Shaq has always realized that he couldn't do it alone. Almost won a ring with Penny. Got 3 with Kobe. And maybe 1 with Wade. The fact is. He knows the best way to win a title is to have another star helping him out. As far as individual talent. Well, Hakeem was a better outside shooter and had more post moves. He was also excellent defender and good FT shooter. These are key skills that are better than Shaq. Shaq on the other hand was soooooo powerful in the post. He was unstoppable in the true sense of the word (Wilt-like). Shaq's average is 26ppg to Hakeem's 21.8ppg. We'll see how that levels out. And we'll also see how many rings are won by Shaq once it's all said and done. But I don't think it's fair to say, "Yeah, sure. Shaq won 3 rings. But so could Hakeem if he only had more talent." Doing it and saying it are two different things. Especially if you are saying it to lower Shaq's accomplishments in order to elevate Hakeem's. You get credit for what you have done, not what you could've done.
All points well made, but the point wasn't to lower Shaq's accomplishments. He's great. There isn't any denying that. The point was simply that an extra ring doesn't make him better than Hakeem. If rings were all that counts in greatness then Bill Russell is the greatest center of all time. Further, I'm sure there is some guy who had an extended stay on those Celtics teams I've never heard of that would then be greater than Wilt, Shaq, Hakeem, Kareem, and even MJ. The goal is to win rings, sure -but I think it's folly to use the amount of rings as the definitive factor in saying who is greater. It just isn't that simple. My point is simply to defend Hakeem. Also, Hakeem may have been more selfish in his younger days, but you seem to place the lack of talent around him SOLELY on his shoulders. I'd think it had a lot more to do with the organization's decisions than the fact Hakeem "had a problem with sharing the ball".
True. Just using *one* factor is not fair. It just depends on how you (or others) are defining "greatness." Rings, and/or individual talent/stats. Some people/media do just look at one factor. I was not. But, regardless of "what could have been." The rings usually ends up defining the player to the layperson. Not the fact that someone "could have." That's just the way it is. Yes, the media is not always fair. But there's plenty of debate on this issue too. They don't just say it, and it's done with. Another thing you should look at is that getting the rings, regardless of how one did it (mental + the athletic skill) should be worth something. A lot of people *just* look at the physical ability of the player, but not their mind. They undervalue the mental aspect and leadership. I think they do this because it's hard to make a STAT out of heart, intelligence and hustle. That's why I think Russell doesn't get enough credit; or rather he gets credit, but for the wrong reasons (judging from your comment about Russell only getting the title of "greatest center (from others)" only because of his rings). Just looking at his rings is the simple answer; which I think you are doing, but just don't know it. But the deeper quantifier is how much he made a difference; mental leadership. Not just blocking, rebounds, and defense. Russell gets over-looked because people overrate his rings, but underrate his leadership; which got him the rings in the first place. But his mental aspect made up a lot of those points because he got other involved. Not just a little. A LOT! The fans/media also overrate his sounding talent, *based* on those 11 rings. But fail to mention that one of the reasons his srounding talent was soooo good (or made bigger than reality) was directly related to Russell himself. It shouldn't be the 11 rings that makes his role players better but rather it was Russell himself that made *them* better. This is direct response to those that say, "Well, the only reason that Russell won all those rings was because of the *great* talent that was around him." I think they are backwards. It should be the other way around. Yes, he had talent around him. But it was Russell that made those guys better and it all work together which in turn got them the 11 rings. Jordan seem to excel in both; mental and physical + the 6 rings! By the way, it was not I that was defining greatness by just *one* factor. It usually the media (or some fans) that just skims over the details. I was just pointing that out. That's true. But what I was saying is that Shaq's power and dominance, plus his willingness to share the ball early on, plus his EXTRA ring, does make him better than Hakeem in totality. If you want to compare "what could have been." Well, that's another issue. If you want to compare individually skills isolated from every other factor. That too is another issue.
Shaq really does move quickly for a big man. He is so big and quick. I do not think there will be another like him. I really think the Lakers could have and should have won the last 2 titles. They probably had 3 more in them if they had kept that team and Jackson together. I am not a Laker fan at all, just pointing out that I am surprised Shaq does not have 2 more rings than he has. Way to go Kobe for breaking up a team that probably had 2 or 3 titles left in them! I think Hakeem was a more complete player playing somewhat out of position. -could have been a power forward also. he did not have teams built around him from 1987 to 1991. This was a decision by Steve Patterson at the time-out of Hakeem's control. Patterson also managed to alienate his franchise player.... Really stupid. The two championships the Rockets won were with one all star. Never forget that!
does shaq's inferior defense make dream the better player in totality? i don't think one ring makes the better player BUT if he gets another one i'll give it to him, cause even in his decline it'd shows he's still a champion. shaq is a more physical force then dream but offensively hakeem was an absolutely dominant player just in a different way. it's close. however dream is on another level from shaq on the defensive side.
As centers go, Shaq and Dream are very different. But they share one trait...they are both one of a kind players. Dream was a complete skill player both on offense and defense and relied on his quick lateral movement which allowed him to overcome his relative small size. Shaq's size and quick feet allow him to get superior court position that becomes virtually unstopable once coupled with his power game. This allows Shaq to hide his relative lack of skill. Which one is better? You only head-to-head matchups to compare. After that, it is only conjecture. Its even debatable with head-to-head depending on the other factors like team, injuries, age of each player, etc.
