Who Has a Better History of Big Men? LA Lakers or Houston Rockets

I hate each and every one of you that let this lie fly. Shaq, first off, led the league in scoring that year. Please check here to verify: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_NBA_Finals

Hakeem was the only All-Star that year on the winning side. AND he was THIRD team all nba behind Shaq and Robinson. Hardaway was 1st team All-NBA and Horace Grant was 2nd team All-Defense.

Hakeem OUTSCORED Shaq 32.8 to 28.0 and outscored Shaq in EVERY GAME OF THE 4 GAME series. Shaq did lead in rebounding by 1.5 per game. Shaq did lead in blocks by 0.5 and assists by 0.8, but lost in steals by 1.7.

Shaq was in his prime. I'm not sure how you argue that he wasn't when he led his team to the finals and led the league in scoring. They beat Michael Jordan's Bulls that year. You know, the 6 time world champs?

Shaq was an absolutely fantastic center that year. If you watch the highlights, Shaq looks unstoppable. But it wasn't enough because he was playing against the best performing center in the History of Basketball. No player has ever beat the best like Hakeem did. Wilt's numbers dwindled when he played the best, Shaq never had to play the best after Hakeem retired, Kareem looked bad against good competition in the playoffs, but Hakeem dominated a league MVP center in Robinson, made Patrick Ewing look like a terrible player (which he is not at all), Shaq outweighed Hakeem, had better power moves, had a great supporting cast, was taller than Hakeem, could jump higher... but it just wasn't enough.

I'll listen to any argument about who is better than who because it's fun and most of these guys didn't face each other in their primes, but Shaq and Hakeem did and Hakeem won. Hakeem beat "The Most Dominating Center to Ever Play the Game". Talk is cheap and Shaq is paid to talk. So he does it, but you don't have to believe his hype. Hakeem didn't.

 

Oh yeah, back on topic.



I'll give the nod slightly to Hakeem just because of overall game. I have no problem saying Shaq was more dominating though.


Shaq had a higher ceiling to be better. I think Hakeem maxed out his.

If Shaq only shot free throws better.

 

Who took tinman's blow up doll?


what chump hosted that picture. what were they thinking?

 

crash5179,

I love Yao like all Rockets fans, but fans who don't witness Ralph Sampson shouldn't be some adamantly dismissing what long time fans like you or Deckard are saying.

You are telling them what you saw and they still don't believe you.

I think that's disrespect.

 

LOL,
I got you looking up these old ass pics and articles.

 

ugh no.

it was a google search.

 

but it was back to a clutchfans article.

i know you really don't have anything against ralph sampson, but why does your boy kevc?

 

The Rockets drafted all but Thorpe , Barkley and Malone .... the Lakers drafted ...Baylor who was really more of SF than a PF/C & Bynum.

LA bought their players , the Rockets cultivated them ....

 

Just a guess:


<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/yXOts9kaiLQ?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

But we have no problem buying one at the moment, right?

The whole point of this thread is to discuss why Dwight might choose Houston over the Lakers when talking about great centers in history.

If you're reading, Dwight, Shaq will never accept you as a Laker great. He has no clue how good you are.

 

Lakers have a better history because of Kareem, Wilt, and Shaq. These three are in the top tier of best centers to ever play the game while Houston only has had one (Hakeem). Moses is right below this tier.

So if you give 5 points to lets say top tier, 3 points to next tier and so on, Lakers come out ahead.

Still laughing at Andrew Bynum and Pau Gasol on this list. Thanks for the good times.

Also, shaking my head at all these newly registered young kids on this board now, who have never even watched the game from even the 90s, yet are making bold and ludicrous claims. Go watch the game, trolls. Otherwise, be prepared to be edumicated.

 

Yao was great, but I don't think he would have played as long as he did if he played im the same era as Sampson.

 

He should probably man up and pay child support.


I give the nod to Yao.



You're basing it off emotion from a time and an era that is beloved to you. You can't see it no other way because you're forever stuck in that moment that you wish would last forever.

And if someone differs from that opinion, it does not make them less of a fan or you more of a fan.

It does not make them less of a fan or you more of a fan if they came from a different era.

 

Forget the Kam vs Tinman stuff for a second,

look at this response from another reputable user about this:

 

If you look at Yao's first 7 years (fairly healthy) vs Ralph's first 6 (he was healthy-ish for most of those), it's almost a wash. 19.0 and 9.2 to 18.8 and 10.3. Not a big difference if you ask me.

The argument for Ralph would be that he played out of position with Hakeem coming in year 2. Think about it, the dude is 7'4" and trying to play PF.

The argument for Yao and why you would rather build around him is the same argument you give for James Harden. Amazing efficiency. He was almost lights out from the free throw line and his FG% is way WAY better than Ralph. Yao was money when he got the ball and wasn't being b-raped. The refs seemed to call nothing for the guy and hence (IMHO) his short career.

Tinman, I see you and crash5179's points, but I also see the other side. I give the edge to Ralph because he was second fiddle and out of position in his prime whereas Yao was the postmaster in his day. The edge I give is so small and only given because of the what might have been argument.

 

We had great centers, they had great centers...but when it comes down to it..they have a lot more championships by those centers.