Shaq "I'm still in the class of Hakeem and David Robinson"

Hakeem's cast from 93-95 is seriously being understimated, and Shaq's cast is overrated. Kobe is better than Max/Drexler, but that is about the only advantage Shaq had. Further, Max (the 1st or 2nd best defensive guard at his time and occasionally explosive scorer) and Drexler (very similar overall impact as Kobe) are very good players to have versus Kobe. Virtually all other positions and depth Hakeem had a major advantage. He had a younger, better Horry (a young Horry was better than an old broken Glen Rice as we found out too). Thorpe was better than any PF Shaq has won a ring with. Smith/Cassell is more formidable than the Laker's PGs.

And Hakeem got swept by Seattle while close to his prime (as much in his prime as Shaq was last year) and with most of the returnees from a championships team. Hakeem neither enforced his will offensively or defenively in that series, do you blame him for being SWEPT? (and don't blame illegal zone defenses, Shaq has to play with them also now only they are legal now)

I think you will find Shaq, Ewing and perhaps DR all managed over 20PPG in their careers versus Dream, playoffs and regular season. Hakeem beat them in his prime, sure, but let's not pretend the other guys were shut down. And Shaq has never been beaten down on any level and both ends of the court like Hakeem was beaten down in their last playoff meeting. If you want to cherry pick 95 when Shaq had no offensive game outside of 6 feet from the rim and was a shell of the offensive force he would become you have to include their last playoff meeting where Hakeem was dismantled.

If you don't think Shaq in his prime wasn't a defensive presence I don't think you have any semblence of objectivity. Yes Hakeem has been THE BEST defensive presence in the last 30 years, maybe ever in the NBA, but make no mistake Shaq was the anchor on some final LA defesive teams. Granted Shaq isn't defensively what he was 3 years ago, but Hakeem's defensive impact faded quickley starting like in 96 or 97.

I corrected my mistakes (forgetting one extra NBA finals visits by both players). You however still are in your Dreamland. But that is OK this is a Rocket board. Heck, I'd love to believe Drexler was better than Jordan too.

 

Not sure why that matters.

 

And for that reason alone he doesn't belong in the discussion, let alone ranked above Hakeem. It's not laughable to say he could have been among the greats, but it is laughable to rank him among the greats, esp since he didn't really do jack in the nba.

 

Neither the Rockets or the Lakers beat great teams to win a championship, and if you look at it really objectively, the Lakers at least beat a future champion in San Antonio.

 

First off, no. As I said, 'on teams led by superstars' which by your definition would exclude detroit. Besides Detroit was an abberation, which is why conventional wisdom says you need two stars to win a title. Aside from Detroit, what winning team didn't have two stars? That Detroit had NO stars shows what an abberation is was.

Injuries and the incompatibility of Dream and Barkley have a lot to do with that. And Hakeem's fall off the cliff as far as athleticism goes. He got old real quick. That's a difference you can attribute to Shaq being bigger than everyone else and to his supporting cast not being OLD HOF'ers as well, rather than approaching prime HoF like Kobe.

DR was still making double doubles with regularity. Kerr, Sean Elliot, Elie, Avery Johnson, Jerome Kersey, Malik Rose, and Will Perdue were fine role players. And in 93-94 Horry and Cassell were young and untested, Smith - Thorpe - Elie were all unsuccessful retreads made better by having Hakeem behind them.

Not really. To claim he is a defensive force (and defense is HALF the game) on par with Hakeem is absurd.

Its pretty simple.

 

I just never bought the it takes 2 superstars theory. That gives too much credit to guys like Pippen or Kobe, and unweighs the play of role players. It was very clear who the key guy on those teams were as noted by Shaq and Jordan winning the MVPs every time their teams won championships. The rest of the guys can be a bunch of good role players (Houston 94, Spurs 99), or 1 extra star and more role players (Lakers and Bulls teams), or two extra superstars (Lakers and Celts and 6ers winning teams of the 80s). Further Detriot has proven (3 times) you can win with no MVP/top 3 type player. I just don't think their is is a formula--many teams came very close to winning it all (Sacremento, Knicks, Blzaers), and we just needed the current Pistons team to remind us. I certainly take a MVP player with no star but 7-8 fine role players (Houston 94) over a team with an MVP, plus one more superstar, plus sucky role players (Lakers of last year).

True, but it is not a knock against Shaq that he is so big and strong and won't diminish as fast as Hakeem because of it. His size and strength are a key reason he has been so effective and dominant on the court.

How can you possibly call the Rockets group retreads and the other players "fine role players". Thorpe was just off like a 20-10 year before he came to the Rockets. He was the best player on his team. He went from the best player on a bad NBA team to be an oustanding role player on a great team. Smith was known as one of the best shooters in the game, and certainly more dimensional than a Steve Kerr, he just couldn't excell as a lead creator in the one spot. Elie was also well known in the league as a hard nosed and athletic player. He was just coming into his prime, and did excellent when he started at GS or Portland to sub for injued guys like Drexler and Mullin if I remember. Elie was one of CD's prize FA acquisitions (I think it was CD, I know our GM at the time thought Elie was a great addition for an offseason).

Also, by 99 Elliott was a shell. An older less athletic Elie became an invaluable starter on the Spurs team where he had been the 7th or 8th man on the 94 Rockets. And aged Kersey, Kerr, Perdue and AJ fit the definition of retread to a "T". None of those guys would have cracked the top 8 positions on the Rockets of 94.

Oh Hayes, you know I would not insiuate Shaq was on par with Hakeem defensively, you know I am not that stupid.

I have said over again Hakeem is certainly the best defesive player since Russell, and probably the best ever to play basketball. But that doesn't mean Shaq wasn't a defensive presence as some were implying. Shaq, DR, TD, Ewing, Mutumbo, Ben Wallace--all terrific defensive presences in their prime and among the top 20 or so defensive presences since the 90s, but Hakeem was out of this world.

Team defense is half the game. But despite Hakeem coming the closets to a one man defense, an individual cannot impact a team defense the way an individual can impact a team offense. No matter how great a guy is defensively you can avoid the guy, where as if you have that offensive player you can make sure the ball is in his hands. If individual defense was equal to individual offense in being a dominant player, Larry Bird and Barkley would be no where near the top 200 greatest players in the NBA when in fact they are top 20.

Using your principle Hakeem is better than Michael Jordan too, he certainly had much a great of a defensive impact, but sorry, that difference does not compensate for the degree where Hakeem's impact could be limited offensively (e.g., Sonics) where Jordan in his prime was never limited by any team defense in a comparable way. Shaq kinda falls between these two in terms of offensive dominance.

 

Oh, I agree with the guys it is ludicres to compare Sabonis or DR with Hakeem. Hakeem is a top 5 center of all time, those other guys do not deserve mention in the same breath.

 

No one is talking about during the championship seasons. We admit Dream had help in 94 and 95 (even though he didn't have a 2nd star in 94). Dream had NO HELP from what, his 3rd year until 93? He played with scrubs for the majority of his career. Shaq did not. He played 1 season with no help (first yr in Orlando). After that each team he has been on has been stacked with talent.

Are you referring to the year that Drexler and Cassell went out with injuries (96 playoffs I believe)? Yes, Dream getting swept without his two best guards is really comparable to Shaq getting Swept with Penny, Grant and Anderson (Orlando) and Kobe, Van Exel, Campbell, E.Jones, etc (LA).

LOL, so Shaq's offensive game has grown that much since 1995? What improvements has he made as to where he would be able to slow down Dream? Once again, it's quite silly of you to compare a matchup of a young buck and an in-prime center to one with an in-prime center killing an over the hill one. Once again, Kobe is better than MJ because he dominated him at 40.

The funny thing is his defensive numbers dropped, but they were still better than Shaq's. Shaq's defensive numbers did not surpass Dreams until Dream hit 37. To compare the defense of Shaq and Dream is silly....

So the two superstar theory has worked in 22 of the last 25 seasons, yet you don't believe in it?

Dude, Shaq HAS NEVER been a teriffic defensive presence. You lose all credibility with that comment....

Jordan supporters can argue for Jordan's defense based on his defensive stats (like top 5 in steals) and awards. Can you do that for Shaq? He has never led the league in blocks or boards....

 

I disagree.

 

I don't think Hakeem will ever be outplayed by Yao again and again

 

If I recall Drexler (close to 100%, he averaged 17-8-5 in 8 playoff games that season) and Cassell (not close to 100% but still played if I recall) both returned for the playoffs. The Rockets were not going to win that series with 100% Cassell and Drexler. If someone can find Hakeem’s stats that series (points, rbs, assists, TOs, Blocks, steals) I would like to see it, my hunch is they were below his averages.

Shaq improved from 23.4 PPG and 1.9 APG his rookie season (92-93) to 29.7 & 3.8 at his peak (99-00). Something sure improved. I’ll give you a hint, it had something to do with understanding the game, understanding how to set up others, and getting some effective moves at about the 10 foot range. His assists steadily improved to that 3.8 level, which yes, is higher than Hakeem ever got. By the way Hakeem, wasn’t the same offensive player he because until like six years or so into the league either, like Shaq he was effective his 1st couple years by being bigger, quicker or stronger than anyone else he would play against, but no one would confuse the offensive game of Hakeem his first few years to the Hakeem in his prime with his polished Dream Shake and his refined jump hook. Of course given Shaq’s power advantage over Hakeem and everyone else, he never needed Hakeem like polish in his moves, but make no mistake Shaq’s offensive game got much more complete five years after their 1st showdown.

OF COURSE it is unfair to base Hakeem versus Shaq on their last meeting. But it is also cherry picking to base their comparisons from Shaq in his 3rd year to Hakeem in his prime, fully refined, self. Still, even in his 3rd year and not knowing much about the game, Shaq played Hakeem individually tougher than DR (in his prime) or Ewing (in his prime). If I recall Shaq still scored in the high 20s with well over 10 RPG. Shaq was also man enough to admit Hakeem was the better player then, where as I think DR tried to blame on the role players. We will never know how Shaq in 99-00 would have played Dream in 95-96, but we do know Shaq at less than 25 years of age played him darn tough and Shaq had not peaked.

Hum, lets see, in 92-93 Shaq got 13.8 RPG and 3.5BPG. In 99-00 (his peak) he got 13.7 and 3.0. While no that is not in Hakeem’s class, you would be hard pressured to find more than six or seven guys over the last 20 years to do that. Sure Shaq was a chump on defense because he wasn’t on Hakeem’s level. Why don’t you say the same thing to DR, Mutumbo, Ewing, Duncan, Ben Wallace, etc., those guys must be defensive chumps too.

[Check that, I looked it up and ONLY Hakeem—NOT Robinson, NOT Mutumbo, NOT Wallace, NOT (even close) Duncan-- had a season with more than 13.8RPB and 3.5BPG—that was Hakeem’s in 89-90. (He also had 13.8RPB and over 4BPG the following year). Boy that Shaq, he sure was overrated by the Desert Scar fellow wasn’t he. How dare that guy call Shaq a “defensive presence" WITH ONLY PUTTING UP 3+ BLOCKS AND 13+ REBOUNDS even if he did admit he was not at Hakeem’s level and from the start claimed Hakeem was most probably the best defensive player to ever play basketball.]

Go count the number of titles with 0 superstars (3 Detriot teams with very nearly a Knicks team, Pacers team, Balzers team and Kings team further mudding the waters), 1 superstar, 2 superstars and more than 2 superstars (Lakers/Celts/6ers teams) since the Bird/Magic era. You will find they are somewhat distributed. Sure most of them had “two superstars”, but most of those like I said there really was 1 MVP superstar that was the difference major (e.g., Shaq, MJ, Hakeem, Duncan). In truth both Spurs titles, all 3 Detriot titles, 1 Houston title and 1 Bulls title (one of the last rings Pippen was really broken down by the finals) there really was no more than 1 superstar, with everyone else playing roles. Heck even Pippen was really more a role player extrodinare than an MVP type superstar.

The it takes two superstars theory, any less is not enough talent, any more creates problems sharing the ball, is statistically descriptive but is not very meaningful. Surely this theory should be put to rest with a no MVP/superstar team handily beating a two MVP/superstar team last year. There are many ways to build an NBA champion. Detriot proved it to the thick headed, but a more careful observer would have noted it could happen with all those other very close calls I mentioned (Knicks, Pacers, Sac, Blazers, all could have won titles with just a different bounce of the ball here or there).

 

Drexler was not close to 100% in that playoff series. Sam was hurt, should have been on the DL by all rights, but you couldn't keep him off the floor. Kenny Smith aged overnight and had lost his job to journeyman Eldridge Recasner. Mario Elie had a broken wrist that year courtesy of Jalen Rose. The entire guard rotation on the Rockets had fallen apart by the 96 playoffs. To say the Rockets were the same team as in the 95 run is ridiculous.

 

i don't think it's a coincidence that those really good teams without the superstar always seem to get the wrong bounce of the ball. that's why all the maxwell's and horry's and elie's of the world aren't worth a kobe bryant type player.

 

Look at his stats for the next two years(Year 3 is the year the Rockets demolished the Magic), arguably his two best years in the league, stat-wise.

I think Shaq's a disrespectful punk for the statement, intentional slight towards Hakeem or not. I do agree that Shaq is in the class of the top 5 or 6 centers ever, but so is Hakeem.

 

It's hard to compare players that werent in their prime at the same time.... However, since these players did play at the same time, and even played against each other for a championship, you can compare that. Olajuwon whoopes Shaq's ass.

Also, how many times did Shaq lose to Robinson and the Spurs in the playoffs? Did Olajuwon ever lose to them?

Oh, what's that ? The Spurs had Duncan? Well, Shaq had Kobe, and has only managed to win one more title than Olajuwon. Had olajuwon had a player of Kobe's caliber for that many years, he wouldve had more than three rings.

When Shaq wins MVP and Defensive Player of the Year in the same season, come back and explain to me how much better he is than Olajuwon.

Olajuwon and Shaq are probably on the same level. But Shaq is going to have to do a hell of a lot more that make free throw to surpass or really even tie Olajuwon.

David Robinson could never win anything, and had to become a role player riding Duncan's coattails, so he isnt even in the argument.

 

Shaq's career aren't over yet. Such comparison is too early.

 

That is the same thing that Shaq said. He said that Wilt, Kareem, and Russel were the top 3, and that he, Hakeem, and Robinson were on the next level. That would put Shaq and Hakeem (and Robinson) in the 4-6 range. How can you call Shaq a disrespectful punk when he agrees with your ranking?

 

I never said they were the same team. I am of the opinion the Rockets would have beaten Seattle in 94 or 95. But in 96 I don't think a healthy Cassell makes the difference. We had some games against Seattle we shot great from the outside and still lost. We couldn't stop them, and Hakeem had trouble getting into his offensive game against them, that is why we lost.

I think Detriot proved a team of excellent but not superstar players are better than 2 superstar and piles of garbage.

Same thing happened to us in 97. We had the best trio of superstars in the league. But our glaring weaknesses (especially PG) killed us.

If you have 1 MVP type (Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan) I think yes you are better off with 5-6-7 excellent role players than 1 superstar wingman (Kobe/Barkley) with the rest of the roster filled with scrubs.

1) yes, someone called be a fool or something similar for labeling Shaq "defensive presence". He never responded about how 14rbs and 3.5 blocks mean nothing, I guess he thinks the Shaq sat around doing nothing while opponents padded some remarkable stats. Glad to hear there is some sense here though.

2) what is so hard to understand about what I am saying here. Actually I think we are in agreement. Hakeem is most probably the best defensive player ever. I never said Shaq was in his league defensively. No one, save perhap Bill Russell, can make any kind of case for having the defensive impact of Hakeem.

Shaq (two seasons over 13 RPG and over 3BPG) was in the class of the next most impactful group of big men in the 90s however. This includes guys like DR, Ben Wallace, Mutumbo, Ewing and Duncan. So if someone was Shaq wasn't a defensive presence, I guess all these other guys considered great defensive players are not either. And sure, I took Shaq's two best years, but I also took Hakeem's two best years, the ONLY other player to better Shaq's 13.8 & 3.5 per game in one season. That gets back to point

"clearly, he was a presence, i doubt anyone has argued differently. but a presence is different from being a big time difference maker and that's another huge level from possibly best of all time." Assuming you put Shaq in the big time difference maker category defensively (in the ball park with guys like Wallace, DR, Mutumbo, Ewing, TD), which is not close to being the best of all time (Hakeem, possibly Russell), yes we agree.

 

If you bring up the match up when Hakeem was in his prime and Shaq was a 24 year old kid with no developed offensive game then you have to include their last playoff match-up when Shaq was in his prime and Hakeem was an older fella with all his wile and skill but not his athleticsm. This comparison gets ugly, quickly, for those who have repressed what Shaq did to Hakeem.

I do agree we won't know how the 95 Hakeem would play the 00 Shaq, that is hard to compare.

It was "Duncan and the Spurs" as you later admit so the comparison doesn't make sense. Might as well credit Ervin Johnson or Michael Cage for beating Hakeem as crediting DR with the victories over Shaq.

I could be wrong but I don't think Jordan won both awards. So that makes Dream a greater player than Jordan?

I COMPLETELY AGREE. I don't think Robinson should be mentioned with Moses Malone, let alone, Hakeem, who was better than Moses. Hakeem is definetly top 5--he is #5 (Wilt, Karen and Russel are solidly top 3, Shaq is #4). DR is at best top 7.

The only problem I have with Shaq statement is that he OVERRATED Robinson, not that he underrated Hakeem.

 

Shaq and Hakeem are about even IMHO.

However, I think a slight edge goes to Dream because of his FT shooting and his defense.

DD