hahahaha . . . Wilt at number 4??!?!?!??? Rosen has lost all credibility right there . . . you can't tell me that Shaq was better than Wilt . . . the same Wilt who scored 100 points in a game . . . the same Wilt Chamberlain with career averages of 30 and 20 . . .the same Wilt Chamberlain who once led the league in assists!! I've always felt that the all-time great who is overrated is Bill Russell. He was a great defensive player (arguably the best ever), but he was never a great offensive player. 10 Rings or not, I still don't put him at number 1. Wilt Hakeem Kareem Russell Shaq But I could entertain Hakeem being lower and Shaq being higher on that list -- I am big on Dream because of his incredible offense, plus his game-changing defense. Sure he was a great shot-blocker, but the steals add a whole new dimension to his game that puts him ahead of the pack, IMO.
woops. man i keep thinking it was 84 and 86. *sigh* so embarrassing. but well that makes my point even STRONGER hehehe
I think Houston fans tend to overvalue Hakeem because of his greatness late in his career. But the problem is, his peak is actually quite short, mostly right around our 2 championship years. Hakeem had a lot of "nice" seasons where he put some good stats on mediocre teams. But not many seasons where he's one of the very best players in the game that year. As for devaluing Shaq because of competition, I think that's BS. Comparing players over generations is all about how much one dominates the competition. So what if Shaq had no competition at center? It doesn't matter. It's not his fault. Just like it wasn't Babe Ruth's fault he played in an era of baseball segregation. Personally, the rank I have the most problem with is Bill Russell. I just can't imagine someone ranking that high with his lack of scoring ability. I'd say the top 3 would be, in no particular order, Wilt, Kareem, and Shaq, based on their lasting dominance against their competition. Hakeem and Russell belongs in the next group.
yeah, shaq in 95 was the best he's EVER been. he was in shape, he was extremely active, and made a lot more havoc on the court that he does now. i really don't care too much about all the little numbers to prove when a player is at their best. shaq was at his best back then because he actually gave a damn, played hard, and stayed in shape. as far as i'm concerned his first 4-6 years in the league were his best and since then he's been considerably worse. and the fact that an older hakeem was still killin' shaq proves the point more that hakeem is a MUCH better center than shaq. period.
Hakeem's peak was about 3 yrs from 93-95. Shaq's peak was about the same length from 00-02. Also, what planet are you on if Hakeem didn't have many seasons where he was among the very best in the league? Year in and year out Hakeem was a top 5 player in the NBA. He was MVP in 94, should have been MVP in 95, runner up as MVP in 93, led the rockets past showtime lakers in 86, etc. From 93-96, Hakeem was an disputed top 1-3 player in the NBA. Every year in the league, he could easily have been argued as the league's best defensive player and certainly a top offensive one as well. Led the league in rebouding a couple times to boot. Did you even watch hakeem? His seasons were a little bit better than "nice". They were outstanding. You are talking about an a top 10 player in the HISTORY of the NBA. Additionally, very few players have elevated their games in the postseason to the degree Hakeem did. The guy was a monster. Lastly about O'Neal, it absolutely makes a difference as to who your competition is. If you put Kelvin Cato in the WNBA, he'd dominate. Playing against men, he doesn't dominate. O'Neal dominated in the worst era of Centers. No, it's not his fault but to not consider this when rating him is disingenuous, especially when you factor that the times he faced Hakeem or David Robinson in the postseason, he most certainly did not dominate anyone. In fact, he was outplayed by Hakeem when he faced him and an aging DRob didn't stop him, but did contain him to well below his season averages. Thankfully, Kobe torched SA and LA was able to get past them. Defensively, Shaq was not a strong player. He was slow footed, didn't contest mid range jumpers, and was subpar defending the pick and roll. We know he wasn't in excellent conditioning so obviously it helps his game immensely when he doesn't have to expend any energy guarding a real threat on offense. So having his peak in an era of scrub Centers as opposed to the 80's-90's where there were many great Centers without a doubt helped him achieve many of his accomplishments.
THe hypocrisy of the "no strong competition" argument is that it is frequently trotted out to use against Hakeem w/respect to the absence of Jordan. Therefore it's a little disingenuous and disconcerting to see Rockets fans sounding that bell to discredit another center. Oh, and by the way, considering that when it is all said and done, if not already, it's clear that Tim Duncan is one of the greatest players of all time, it's hard to make that argument. Shaq dominated the best basketball players in the world at the time, as Hakeem, Kareem, Chamberlain, and others did before him.
I mentioned PER because I didn't want to get into the reasons Shaq was twice the player he was 1995 during his MVP season. His ability to guard two positions, help on the perimeter, and find people in the triple post (not garnering assists, but making the pass that leads directly to the assist) was the reason the Lakers dominated that year. The only team that gave them any trouble, for two weeks, was a Trail Blazer team that was able to take advantage of relaxed strong side zone rules on the side of the court Shaq was working on. And as the series wore on, Shaq adapated, something he was incapable or unwilling to do when he was getting swept in the years before. And making a two-point jump from 14 to 16 and above average isn't much, but when you're operating at the MVP (30 point) level, it means a great deal. Also, there's a reason KG and Robinson had better marks than Duncan this year or Hakeem years ago: they, statistically, had superior years. I'm not saying it led directly to greater team success, or that they were better players, but PER is the best possible way to gauge players, statistically. Hollinger's rating is light years beyond TENDEX or anything else of its ilk (though I do think he overrates defensive rebounds, and still has some work to do on factoring in pace -- which is why the PER of players from the 70s and 60s are too low).
My list in order would be Kareem, Wilt, Hakeem, Shaq and Russell. I would put Hakeem as number 1 if he had John Stockton durability and accumulated greater career stats like Kareem.
Here's my devil's adovcate response: For a guy so dominant, why is it that Shaq has done relatively so little? One MVP Four 1st Team All-NBA No 1st Team Defensive (2 second teams) Two Scoring Titles No Rebounding Titles Has needed an All-NBA caliber sidekick in each of his stops. Shouldn't the most dominant force since Wilt be able to carry teams all alone? Shouldn't he be leading the league in scoring and rebounding? Shouldn't he be first-team center every single year? He has the tools, but Shaq has rarely put forth his full effort over the span of his career. Honestly, I would say he's underachieved. Imagine if he had kept himself in fair shape and played with determination every night. Evan
I do agree that most of Hakeem's seasons were outstanding by most measures. But not in this discussion. Here, we're comparing him to the likes of Wilt, Shaq, Kareem, etc. You agree with me that Hakeem's peak is about 4 years. But Shaq's peak was certainly longer than 00-02. If you give credit to Hakeem for that magical 86 playoff run, why not give the same credit to Shaq for the Magic's 95 run? In fact, that Magic team actually won 58(?) games. And really was the beginning of Shaq's dominance. His seasons with the Lakers before Phil got there were relatively better than Hakeem's late 80s early 90s years. Both in terms of team success and individual dominance.
hakeem is one of my favorite players of all time but i'm a very objective person and tell it how it is. shaq is a great player. but when comparing him to hakeem, all i can go by is what actually happened when those two squared up against each other. and when those two got together hakeem dominated. no if's and's or but's about it. i saw it with my own eyes. i'm not saying hakeem is better than wilt, russell or kareem. but i can say for a fact hakeem is better than shaq because you actually saw the two play against each other and hakeem was dominant. shaq simply put is overrated. great but severly overrated.
Good points, and this "homer" argument is getting old fast. One thing I'd like to point out, if it hasn't been already and I missed it, is that Dream didn't need to foul, and get away with it, time after time during a game on the offensive end to get his points. Far from it. Shaq did and still does. Also, the '86 Akeem, that "skinny kid" in his second year, was so damn good that he was the focus of the Showtime Lakers defense when the Rockets wiped their ass in the WC Finals that year. Pat Riley doesn't key his defense on a "skinny" second year man without damned good reason. That was the same Laker squad that won the Championship the year before. And I think they won the following year as well... I'd have to double check that. Some of you (cough, cough... Sam??) need to get a grip!
If you really want to talk about peak years, few centers of the last 30+ years have had a season as statistically dominant as Hakeem's 89-90 season. 24.3 ppg, 14.00 rpg (double digit defensive rebounding per game alone), 2.9 apg, 2.12 spg and freaking 4.59 bpg. Keep this in mind when comparing to Shaq. Shaq has NEVER averaged more than 1 steal per game. Shaq has only TWICE even averaged over 3 blocks per game. If you look at the stat leaders last year, only 6 players even averaged at least half as many blocks per game, with Shaq just barely making that list. Heck, Ben Wallace, defensive master that he is, has never averaged more than 3.5, and never more than 2 steals a game. Kirilenko, last year's leader had a career best at 3.32. Hakeem averaged over 4 blocks a game 3 times, over 3 blocks a game 9 times. Unfortunately, people are not nearly as impressed by dominant defensive as dominant offense, unless said players has no offensive skills to speak of (cough, Ben Wallace), then the fact that said player can play fantastic defense - though medicore relative to Hakeem's peak years - makes him a fantastic player. Ben Wallace couldn't hold Hakeem's jock from a defensive perspective, and he makes the All-Star game regularly because he is suppossedly a defensive nightmare. Not impressed by defense? Hakeem still averaged 14 boards a game. Shaq's high - 13.90. And as mentioned, Shaq never averaged double digits on the defensive side alone. Here, though, at least Ben Wallace has one comparable year. And 24.3 points a game, though not "dominant", I guess (well, it is a couple baskets less than Shaq for many years) is still a higher average than Mr. Fundamental, who is quickly becoming a top 3, if not top 1 PF of all time, has averaged in every year of his career except once. In many respects, Hakeem, too was a PF playing center. Which all leads me to my confusion with this PER metric. In that 89-90 season, Hakeem had a PER of 24.19, 8th best in the league and 3rd best among centers. Which means, even though Hakeem outrebounded, out-assisted and out-blocked Ewing and Robinson he had a lower PER. Hakeem scored as many PPG as Ewing that year, meaning the only thing he "statistically" did worse was shoot a full 3% lower. Makes no sense.
