(ESPN) Vote: Hakeem = greatest center in NBA history!

I'm not so pissed or annoyed by people putting Shaq ahead because Shaq is the here and now. He's much more fresh in people's minds. He also has had less competition at center during his prime. What really annoys me is how people put David Robinson ahead of Hakeem in scoring, rebounding, and who they'd build their team around.

 

David robinson shouldn't be getting any votes in this thing. I can't believe how many Spurs fans voted him as a better defender than Hakeem.

 

Does anyone have an ESPN Insider account? There's a current top 10 centers list... want to see what is said about Yao.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nba/insi...r_john&id=2791621&lpos=spotlight&lid=tab2pos1

 

Because they control the ball more than any other player. Saying Shaq is less turnover prone is silly.

We both know Hakeem puts the ball on the floor ALOT more than Shaq and often starts alot of his moves from just inside the 3pt line, which leaves him more prone to little people swiping away at his wrists.

It's an argument that is unfair since the style of game he plays pretty much means more ball handling.

My rings argument is simple, you need 4 other guys around you who know what they hell they are doing if you are going to win a championship, and having an elite SG certainly helps. Why don't you ask Yao how tough it is to play without a playmaker on the perimeter?

And yes, I would say Horry's opinion trumps alot of peoples opinion because he was there, at practice, on the flights, in the games, in the playoffs. He saw all of them, everything that made them what they are, you can't be so ignorant as to disregard his opinion like that.

 

Even if you include college days how many Final Four did Shaq take LSU to?

Dream hads down is the best all time. He gets it done on both ends of the floor. And leads all centers in steals.

 

Thank you for admitting Hakeems style of play was a detriment when compared to Shaq. He was more turnover prone because he made bad decisions. You mentioned AI, Wade, Nash as examples but heres the catch. You can offset turnovers with high % shooting or high assist totals. Hakeem did neither at the level Shaq did so his turnovers were essentially lost possession (turnovers are worse than a missed shot)

Your ring argument is flawed, this isnt the NFL. This is a sport where 1 bigman can greatly determine the outcome of the game. Its why Bigmen are judged more harshly than perimiter players.

Yao has a terrific playmaker on the perimeter so thats another flawed argument. Tmac now is better than Kobe at 21

I never dismissed what Horry said, its just not going to change anyones oppinion.

 

I've got alot of respect for Robinson's game and i think he is a top ten all time center, but he's a regular season center, just couldn't get it done in the playoffs.

 

Can we post insider? If I get the OK Ill post it

 

2 Interesting Articles by Insider

Earlier this week, the gang here at ESPN.com took a poll on the greatest centers of all time. That look back in history was an interesting exercise, and one that I've received a ton of e-mails about. (If you're wondering about my rankings, I've tackled that under separate cover today in my blog.)

But perhaps an even more interesting discussion is to look ahead and see how our top 10 list in 2007 might appear entirely different 20 years from now, depending on the fate of several young big men currently working their way up the NBA food chain.

This is especially true since the back end of the list gets a bit soft. While the top six or seven spots are manned by all-time greats, our vote splintered greatly once we got down to the bottom three or four names. In fact, a whopping 21 different players received votes -- and of those, 12 had their votes come entirely as sixth place or lower.

That suggests there's an opening for some of today's big men to claim a spot at the back end of the top 10. I should point out that it's not particularly likely that any of them will break through into such an esteemed club; all of the players I mention below will have to show significant development and sustain it for several years to earn a mention.

However, since we've spent a lot of time over the past few years bemoaning the decline of the center, I thought it might be useful to point out just how many talented young big men we have in the game right now, and how there's at least a sliver of a chance that a couple of them could go down in history.

So without further ado, here's my list of the 10 active big men with the best chance to break into the all-time top 10 centers club if we revisited the subject two decades from now:

 

No, Shaq's inability to hit his free throws was a detriment, his unwillingness to give 100% on the defensive end was a detriment, his refusal to stay in shape was a detriment, his refusal to work on his game was a detriment.

Hakeem might turn the ball over, but he'll make up for that on the defensive end.

Did you even read what i said about Yao? Having McGrady on the floor is making it EASIER for Yao, the way having Penny, Kobe and Wade made it easier for Shaq, because he could coast on the last play, knowing that his coaches and teammates couldn't trust him in the clutch.

 

OK take a second or two and let the hate release from your brain. Both had detriments to their games but which were the greater detriments? If Shaq shot 4/8 from the free throw line thats essentiall going 2/4 from the field. Despite his shooting woes from the charity stripe he was STILL A MORE EFFECTIVE SCORER. The rest of your post is pure garbage with no proof just a sad teenaged boy with a grudge against a guy who many see as the better player. Learn to live with it without spewing lies, Shaq worked on his game, Shaq also played defense, and hes definately in that Kareem,Wilt,Hakeem level.

 

I'm a teenager, nice assumption and here i was asking myself why i was talking b-ball with a 12 year old. What were Hakeems Detriment again? He was prone to people trying to steal the ball from him! Say it ain't so!

a) Shaq didn't work on his game. He improved because, like i said before, he was a smart player, his improvement was evolution, not hard work.

b) Shaq played defense, just nowhere near the level of Hakeem-that's my point.

c) I never said Shaq was not a top 5 center, i just said there is no way he is a better all-around player than Hakeem. Personally, i don't think any center was, Shaq is just the easiest to argue against.

What's happened to Shaq is what we are seeing with LeBron, people are telling him how great he is and therefore he thinks he is the perfect player--and it will keep him from being the greatest.

 

Now that's stupid.

 

Thats your oppinion, I dont care anymore this has been dragged on long enough. But one more question, since when does being an all around player make you a better player?

KG is a much more all around player than Shaq, yet has nowhere near the impact

 

Actually i'm over it too.

KG is a great all around player, but his flaw is an obvious one...he doesn't want to be there in the clutch, Shaq couldn't be trusted because of his free throws, but at least he wanted the ball.

 

Dude, I agree with you that it's debatable (Shaq > Dream). However, I rarely see any rational reasons that give Shaq the advantage...not when you compare everything that both players brought to the table.

YOUR ring argument is flawed. While I admit that basketball is the sport where 1 player can have the most impact on wins and losses, everyone needs some help to win. You can't stick the greatest player on earth on a team with 4 scrubs (at the NBA level at least) and expect to win it all. And assume that your ring argument had any merit, your argument only shows how much better Hakeem was, because he was the player to win a title with the least amount of help. Going by their careers, he showed in one season that he could have a huge impact and win without a second star, by being the best player on the court on BOTH SIDES OF THE BALL. Shaq has never shown that. Most importantly, if you are going to give Shaq all the credit for his presence in the championship seasons then you also have to give him the majority of the blame when he was getting swept out of the playoffs every year....SWEPT. If you don't believe that Dream would have won a title on any of those championship teams Shaq played on then I will give your rings argument more merit. I know that Shaq would not have won a title here in 94 (no closer).

When you look at the numbers for both players at the same stage of their career, Shaq is ahead on points and turnovers (barely..not enough of a lead to make a real difference). Even though Shaq scored at a better clip, if I needed a bucket I would still pick Dream because his game was more versatile and at his best he also showed he could put up close to 30 a game. He also can close games (Shaq can't) and isn't a late game liability. So I would still rather have Dream on offense.

I can't believe you said Shaq was better defensively at anything than Dream, even if it was at fouling people on the defensive end. That comment is really too silly to argue with.

If you want the player that can dominate on one end that's fine and I understand...but I would rather have the guy that can dominate on both ends....and the guy that I could give the ball to at the end. Maybe I'm just silly........

 

hakeem was a great player,one of the greatest center to play the game.i am a big fan but shaq is a great center also.i disagree with people saying that shaq was not a great defender.sure the stats never backed him up in that he never lead the league in block shots etc.but while hakeem may have better timing at blocking shots hence the great numbers,shaq was the most respected presence in the post.when people saw shaq,they thought twice before trying to dunk the ball and that is why you have not seen many players dunk on him.as far as offence dream was not as powerful but he had the moves he had the jumpshot and he could handle some,but shaq has the strength,he had the hops,he had the touch near the basket.nobody could stop him not even double team or triple team.shaq was also very agile and very quick for his size and weight.what i wanted to say is that both players are great and in my opinion they are just different so that's why personally i think that SHAQ=THE DREAM

 

Icehouse before I respond let it be known that, this is why these debates are so enjoyable to me. You wont be able to answer these questions because there are alot of variables to consider.

I did compare everything and I find Shaq as the better player

Who ever said I was assuming that? But with admitting that you understand that a single player can have the BIGGEST outcome of a game, you understand why people can also make a case for ANY player because of the impact he had in his teams success.

Very unlikely

Exactly what I meant when I said you can make a case for either side. Your also making it seem like Hakeem didnt have help, when the truth is, all Hakeems titles prove is that he was a step ABOVE EVERYONE in the league at that moment. Shaq was barely coming into his own so you can hardly argue that Hakeems titles overshadows Shaq.

Oh definately agree with that, but by that logic Artest is a better 2 way player than T-Mac is but would that make him the better player. Facts are on Offense Shaq>Hakeem, on defense Hakeem > Shaq.

But hes shown the ability to have to carry the BIGGEST load for his championship team on offense. This isnt Bill Russel winning 11 titles with a HOF supporting cast and only 8 teams in the league.

Yea he wasnt the great player he was then, but he ALWAYS played great. The MYTH that Hakeem crushed Shaq is false, Shaq played great, he just wasnt as great as Hakeem. What makes it hard to compare era's is that you rarely get suitable matchups of both players at their peak. Like Robinson, Ewing were all at their peak at the same time Hakeem was, and what happened against them? Thus you recognize Hakeem was most definately a step above his contemporaries, but Shaq came into the league when Hakeem and MJ were at theirs. Your basically punishing Shaq for never getting the chance Ewing and Robinson did.

The classic sign of a homer, the innate ability to predict ANY outcome of ANY situation. I was having respect for this debate but now youve resorted to classic tactics

Says who the knower of all things related to basketball. Seriously your speaking as if Shaq didnt thrive in those situations.

I find it even more ridiculous that people here would argue Shaq played NO defense. Its my little way of spitting in your face the same way you guys said that about Shaq.

It is silly to think in such singular terms. I would take the player who gave my team the best chance to win it all. I chose Shaq and people here are dumbfounded as to why.

 

Had to call you out on that one, being a two way player does not make one better. Now i realise you are not saying Artest is better than T-Mac, you are just using him as an example, but here is why that doesnt work:

Artest can score, yes and he can defend exceptionally well. But defense is just about the only thing he is better than T-Mac at, and T-Mac is no slouch defensively at all. Every other area T-Mac has him beat eg. ball handling, shooting, court vision etc. There's simply no comparison between the two.

Now, With Shaq and Dream you have to think of it that way as well, i think Shaq has Dream beat when it comes to their handle in the open court (shaq loved to run a fast break every now and then) every other area belongs to Dream.

Hakeem is a better defender: Never mind being the obvious edge he has in shot blocking, he is a better team defender and a better post defender, and if switched out on a pick and roll, he could easily handle a guard on the perimeter too, he had defensive versatility.

Hakeem is a better offensive player: Just because Michael Redd averages more points than T-Mac it doesn't make him a better offensive player, not when he is only averaging 4-5 more points at best. Hakeem had an entire arsenal of moves, that have been explained to you over, and over, and over.

Shaq did play defense, i've agreed to that. But he never put in 100% and i think we can both agree to that, and he was a great scorer, but he scored with power and more power and little variety. Hakeem was also a great scorer, and he scored with smarts, quickness and whole lot more variety than Shaq.

 

Hakeem had help but he is one of the few individuals to win a title without a second star player. He is one of the few individuals to carry a team by being the best player in the league on both sides of the court. If you want to argue about one players presence making a huge impact then that argument favors Hakeem, not Shaq.

It would if Artest was unstoppable on offense as well. Shaq was better on offense but both he and Dream were unguardable. You are comparing apples to oranges.

I'm not being a homer. I am using logic. The main reason the Lakers won their last 3 titles was because no one in the league could prevent Oneal from scoring in his prime. I don't recall anyone being able to stop Dream from scoring in his prime either. If you replace Dream with Shaq do you lose anything? I argue that you don't. Shaq's main benefit is his offense, and again....Dream was unstoppable on offense as well and had more variety in his game. If he could befuddle a prime David Robinson and Ewing (another great defensive center) then I don't see how the scrub centers that Shaq was going through around that time could have contained him. Please use your reasoning and explain to me how centers like Todd Macculloch and Vlade Divac could slow Dream when great defensive centers like Kareem, Ewing and Robinson couldn't? This should be interesting.............

If I put Shaq on that 94 team I know that I am replacing one center who can close the game for me with another center who can't. Again, there was no stud guard on the 94 Rockets to give the ball to at the end of games (you know, when Shaq becomes a offensive liability due to his FT shooting). Maybe you missed that part of the 3-peat.

He didn't. Why do you think Kobe was so important on the title teams? Again, Shaq doesn't close games. It's ok...MOST CENTERS DON'T. That's what made Dream and Kareem so special. Yao will be special because of this as well.

I never said Shaq didn't play any defense. But to say he was betterat anything defensively than Dream is one of the silliest comments that I have ever read. Dream is the all-time leader in blocks and the only center in the top 10 in steals. Shaq has never even made the first all-defensive team or led the league in rebounds. That's like me saying Ewing was just as good on offense as Shaq even though there is NOTHING to support that statement.

And again, if you think a player that you can't stop on offense and that you can't give the ball to at the end of a game is better than a player that you can't stop on offense who also is the best defender on the planet...and you can give him the ball at the end of the game...then enjoy your opinion. I will stick with mine.