# Shaq, the 6th best player of all time?



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

I think it's arguable. I would rank players like this (no order), in tiers:

1st tier: Wilt Chamberlain, Michael Jordan, Oscar Robertson
2nd tier: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Bill Russell
3rd tier: Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Shaquille O'Neal
4th tier: Tim Duncan, Kevin Garnett, Hakeem Olajuwon, Karl Malone


I don't see why it should be automatically assumed that Magic and Larry are both better than Shaq. Maybe, but I think we tend to hold old players up as being better than they really were. I think it's arguable that Shaq was/is better than those two, but not the 5 above him.

edit: forgot Hakeem.


----------



## farhan007 (Jun 6, 2003)

Pan Mengtu said:


> I think it's arguable. I would rank players like this (no order), in tiers:
> 
> 1st tier: Wilt Chamberlain, Michael Jordan, Oscar Robertson
> 2nd tier: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Bill Russell
> ...


did you forget hakeem the Dream?? You better, or you have no knowledge of basketball


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

Man please! 6th best player of all time, yeah right!


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

farhan007 said:


> did you forget hakeem the Dream?? You better, or you have no knowledge of basketball


Yeah, I did. I would put him in the 4th tier with Duncan, Malone, Garnett. But unless you think he belongs with Shaq, Magic, and Larry Bird, that's really not important.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

IV said:


> Man please! 6th best player of all time, yeah right!


So where would you rank him, with who?


----------



## farhan007 (Jun 6, 2003)

Pan Mengtu said:


> Yeah, I did. I would put him in the 4th tier with Duncan, Malone, Garnett. But unless you think he belongs with Shaq, Magic, and Larry Bird, that's really not important.


you would put dream with Duncan andGarnett... EVEN MOLONE!!!! DREAM WON RINGS!!!! He belongs in the first or second tier


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I agree that Bird and Magic tend to be held higher because of their magical rivalry in the 80's, which many consider to be a golden era. I think Shaq may have passed them. 

I agree with your tier's almost entirely, Oscar doesn't belong in the 1st tier in my opinion. Garnett doesn't belong in the 4th tier yet, though he'll probably end up there by the end of his career.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

farhan007 said:


> you would put dream with Duncan andGarnett... EVEN MOLONE!!!! DREAM WON RINGS!!!! He belongs in the first or second tier


I disagree, but this thread isn't about a list of the best players, or Hakeem, so it's not important. This is just about where Shaq belongs on the list.


----------



## LBJthefuturegoat (Nov 13, 2004)

IV said:


> Man please! 6th best player of all time, yeah right!


IV so much hate for Shaq I bet you used to love the guy.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Hakeem really should be right behind Shaq at this point and slightly ahead of Duncan.

He though should not be put on the same tier at Malone and KG. He was IMO a clearly better player then both


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Pioneer10 said:


> Hakeem really should be right behind Shaq at this point and slightly ahead of Duncan.


That's what I was thinking too, between 3rd and 4th, but either way.


----------



## HEATLUNATIC (May 27, 2002)

farhan007 said:


> you would put dream with Duncan andGarnett... EVEN MOLONE!!!! *DREAM WON RINGS!!!!* He belongs in the first or second tier


Only because Jordan retired...


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

Pioneer10 said:


> Hakeem really should be right behind Shaq at this point and slightly ahead of Duncan.
> 
> He though should not be put on the same tier at Malone and KG. He was IMO a clearly better player then both


I disagree, and think he's very overrated by many people. I think he was probably better than all three that I put in the same tier _during his prime_, but over the stretch of the entire career I definitely don't think so. His PER was never that great, worse than all three of the others. I think he's right on the level of the three I put him with, because he was better in his prime, but probably worse the other times.

But I don't see how you could say he was as good as Shaq, Magic, Larry. Hakeem fell apart around the time he hit the age Shaq is right now. And Shaq is a frontrunner MVP candidate. Shaq was always a better scorer.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

LBJthefuturegoat said:


> IV so much hate for Shaq I bet you used to love the guy.


I still love him, I don't think he's the 6th best player in NBA history. He's a far cry from it.


----------



## HallOfFamer (May 26, 2003)

Your tiers seem just about right, but you can even make a case for Shaq being in the second tier and moving Oscar down one tier. 

IMO, 1 and 2 is set in stone, MJ and Wilt.

3-8 can be argued for either of those players you listed, making Shaq a possible #3.:eek8:


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

Pan Mengtu said:


> So where would you rank him, with who?


If I ranked the top 10 centers of all time, Shaq is in the 5-7 range. :twocents: So I couldn't begin to think he's top 6 all time. 

I believe that Wilt, Bill Russell, Kareem, and Olajuwan were better cneters than Shaq. & arguably David Robinson(this may be a biased pick because he's one of my all time favs, but he was a better all around center). I think this mostly because Shaq never plays defense, so he'd have a terrible time having to match up against another great center. When there were other great centers in the league, Shaq was great but he wasn't any better than they were, only until now has he reached the status he has. It's all in the absence of other great big men, so I have a hard time ranking him as high as 6th all time.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

HallOfFamer said:


> Your tiers seem just about right, but you can even make a case for Shaq being in the second tier and moving Oscar down one tier.
> 
> IMO, 1 and 2 is set in stone, MJ and Wilt.
> 
> 3-8 can be argued for either of those players you listed, making Shaq a possible #3.:eek8:


To me, Oscar definitely belongs in with Wilt and Michael. The reason Wilt is regarded so highly is because of his gawdy numbers; but Oscar had gawdy numbers as well. I think Oscar belongs with them because I can think of a case for one being better than at least one other. You can make the case for Michael being better than both based on the eras argument. You can make the case for Wilt being better than the other two based on his stats. And I think you can make the case for Oscar being better than Michael based on his stats (though I don't think you can make the case for Oscar being better than Wilt, because they were in the same era and Wilt's stats were better).


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

I also have a hard time putting Shaq in with Russell and Kareem. Just because of how dominant of a defender Russell was, and how dominate of an all-around player Kareem was. I don't think Shaq's _that_ dominate, though he likes to say he is. He still has to work for his points, while it seems like Kareem didn't have to (in the 70s).


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

IV said:


> If I ranked the top 10 centers of all time, Shaq is in the 5-7 range. :twocents: So I couldn't begin to think he's top 6 all time.
> 
> I believe that Wilt, Bill Russell, Kareem, and Olajuwan were better cneters than Shaq. & arguably David Robinson(this may be a biased pick because he's one of my all time favs, but he was a better all around center). I think this mostly because Shaq never plays defense, so he'd have a terrible time having to match up against another great center. When there were other great centers in the league, Shaq was great but he wasn't any better than they were, only until now has he reached the status he has. It's all in the absence of other great big men, so I have a hard time ranking him as high as 6th all time.


Shaq played defense when he was younger very well, just not since he's been older. But the same is true for Kareem, he became a bad defender in his final days as well.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

Pan Mengtu said:


> I also have a hard time putting Shaq in with Russell and Kareem. Just because of how dominant of a defender Russell was, and how dominate of an all-around player Kareem was. I don't think Shaq's _that_ dominate, though he likes to say he is. He still has to work for his points, while it seems like Kareem didn't have to (in the 70s).


:yes: 

See most fans will think your just hatin on Shaq because you don't repeat what ever one else thinks, but this is true. There have been better all around centers, that could dominate more than just the paint on the court. Now, when it comes to dominating the paint, Shaq is the man, but outside of that area, there have been better players.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

Pan Mengtu said:


> Shaq played defense when he was younger very well, just not since he's been older. But the same is true for Kareem, he became a bad defender in his final days as well.


Kareem wasn't as good a defender because he was really really old. Shaq hasn't really played any defense over the past few years, and he's not that old, only like 33 or 34. He clogs the paint, and that is benefitial, but he could improve tremendously on pick and pop plays, that's always an open shot for the opposing center. If a team has a center that can shoot, you can bet the shot will be there cause Shaq rarely steps out.


----------



## Jester (Feb 7, 2005)

How are you defining the "best" players?

A small "best players" list would have big men, a few point guards, and MJ. Great big men and great point guards just naturally have more of an impact on the game than great shooting guards or great small forwards simply because of the way the game is played.

In a "greatest players" list (as in the players who have had the best combination of skill, success, etc.) the top tier is: Jordan, Magic, Kareem.

Oscar does not belong in the same tier as MJ in a "best" nor "greatest" list. His numbers are highly overrated today.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

my top 10 players are:
jordan
russell
wilt
kareem
bird / magic
magic / bird
oscar
shaq
hakeem
west

anyone 1 through 9 could be argued at any spot, imo, although it's tough to not have jordan or wilt in the top 4.


----------



## jibikao (Nov 14, 2004)

It's funny how many discussions result from talking about Shaq to talking about other players that the poster named. 

Well, I'll focus on Shaq. I think he deserves to be the top 3-4 Tier, depending on how you look at it. Shaq does admit Hakeem is better so I won't go into that. In terms of center, Shaq is definitely the Top 3 tier. 

Shaq is the most athletic guy for such a heavy man. Shaq knows how to pass the ball REALLY well. If anything, the downside of Shaq are his poor foul shots, inability to guard outside shootings and poor outside shootings. Hakeem can do all.  

I may be a fool but something tells me if Shaq plays in the 70's/80's era, he will just be AS dominant if not MORE dominant because modern players are much more stronger, athletic and taller. I wouldn't be surprised if Shaq injures other players all the time if he plays in the old days. 

And plus, Shaq has won RINGS.  That's a big plus.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Pan Mengtu said:


> But I don't see how you could say he was as good as Shaq, Magic, Larry. Hakeem fell apart around the time he hit the age Shaq is right now. And Shaq is a frontrunner MVP candidate. Shaq was always a better scorer.


Shaq just turned 33, Hakeem averaged 27, 11 and 3 blocks a game at 33. At age 35 is when Hakeem's game dropped down a bit. 


I like to break it down into two generations. 1st generation from 1946 to 1980 or so, 2nd generation 1980 to present. 

1st gen- 1. Russell. 2. Wilt 3. Kareem. (Each one has valid points to be #1)

2nd gen- 1. Hakeem. 2. Shaq. 3. Robinson

If Shaq wins a title with the Heat, that order could change.


----------



## RPGMan (Mar 31, 2005)

i'd put Shaq ahead of Hakeem because i do think he'll probably win 1 more title before he retires. On the other hand, i put both Magic and Bird above Shaq, as a basketball player Shaq just isn't on their level. Dominance on the other hand is another question because he is such a huge physical beast.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

bballlife said:


> Shaq just turned 33, Hakeem averaged 27, 11 and 3 blocks a game at 33. At age 35 is when Hakeem's game dropped down a bit.
> 
> 
> I like to break it down into two generations. 1st generation from 1946 to 1980 or so, 2nd generation 1980 to present.
> ...


hakeem peaked later than shaq also.


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

He's up there. I'd personally have him above Bird and Magic. He's just so damn dominant out there. His mere presense gives a team 20+ wins. He doesn't even have to do much to make everyone better because he commands so much attention just from standing there, and needing someone (or sometwo) to lean on him.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Pan Mengtu said:


> I think it's arguable. I would rank players like this (no order), in tiers:
> 
> 1st tier: Wilt Chamberlain, Michael Jordan, Oscar Robertson
> 2nd tier: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Bill Russell
> ...


Sorry, Pan.  
I've always thought you had a screw loose... but posts like this makes me think you need a freakin' mechanic! 

I know the first 7 players you posted are arguable in their respective positions, but considering guys like Duncan and KG in the All-Time top 10?

:krazy: 

Just 2 words: Jerry West!


----------



## Raxel (Nov 10, 2004)

KG is overrated in your list, Duncan has rings, but KG has none.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Around sixth is where I'd place O'Neal also, though my tiers are a bit different.

First Tier: Michael Jordan, Wilt Chamberlain, Oscar Robertson
Second Tier: Hakeem Olajuwon, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Shaquille O'Neal
Third Tier: Magic Johnson, Larry Bird
Fourth Tier: Bill Russell, Karl Malone, Jerry West

So, in my opinion, O'Neal could be argued in a range from fourth to sixth, fairly easily.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

1. Michael Jordan
2. Wilt Chamberlain
3. Kareem Abdul Jabaar
4. Oscar Robertson
5. Magic Johnson
6. Shaquille O'neal
7. Larry Bird
8. Bill Russell

I'll just stop there, it gets really jumbled because of guys like Moses Malone, Tim Duncan, Karl Malone, Akeem are all deserving of spots and its tough to rank them.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Sorry, but I don't understand how Kareem isn't #3 behind MJ and Wilt, the obvious top 2. Kareem was so great for so long.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Dream is at least as good as Shaq, arguably better. So I'd bring him up a tier. Otherwise a very good list. 



HEATLUNATIC said:


> Only because Jordan retired...


No, he still lost in 1995, when Dream won his 2nd ring.


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

Many of the posters here might be slaves to their own nostalgia. it's like how the old people never stop talking about the 'good ol' days' when things were better. Well, to put it bluntly, no they weren't better.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Because you say so?

And these top-10 lists are too difficult. No one here saw all of Wilt, Russel, Elgin Baylor, Bob Cousy, Bob Pettit, Jerry West, Moses Malone, Oscar Robertson, Kareem, etc play in their primes. If you're going to go by stats, most of them should be rated above both Hakeem and Shaq. But that doesn't feel right, does it?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

gian said:


> Many of the posters here might be slaves to their own nostalgia. it's like how the old people never stop talking about the 'good ol' days' when things were better. Well, to put it bluntly, no they weren't better.


What's your list then, young grasshopper?


----------



## Nique21 (Jan 12, 2005)

Pan Mengtu said:


> I think it's arguable. I would rank players like this (no order), in tiers:
> 
> 1st tier: Wilt Chamberlain, Michael Jordan, Oscar Robertson
> 2nd tier: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Bill Russell
> ...


 :laugh:


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

EHL said:


> Dream is at least as good as Shaq, arguably better. So I'd bring him up a tier. Otherwise a very good list.
> 
> 
> 
> No, he still lost in 1995, when Dream won his 2nd ring.


Good call. But you should mention the details. Michael hadnt played much basketball for the past year and half up to the end of that regular season. He was working himself in slowly at the end of the season by practicing with the Bulls. he only played a handful of regular season games before the playoffs started i believe it was 11 games. And the Bulls lost a hard fought series to the Magic. If you believe that was the Michael Jordan playing at his highest level like he was during the 3peat years before that and after. Than you don't give Micahel enough credit for the work he put in to his game. The following season the Bulls destroyed everyone in the regular season with an amazing regular season record of 72 wins. And as we all know went on to another 3 peat.

The truth is we as fans missed out. Would the rockets and the dream really of beat the Bulls those two seasons if Michael Jordan had never retired ? Who knows but what we do know is that in the finals Michael Jordan is 6 -0. So I wouldnt bet against him.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Pan Mengtu said:


> But I don't see how you could say he was as good as Shaq, Magic, Larry. Hakeem fell apart around the time he hit the age Shaq is right now. And Shaq is a frontrunner MVP candidate. Shaq was always a better scorer.


hakeem fell apart when he started having injury problems. hakeem in his prime was better than shaq has ever been. he at least deserves to be placed alongside shaq in any rankings.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Pan Mengtu said:


> But I don't see how you could say he was as good as Shaq, Magic, Larry. *Hakeem fell apart around the time he hit the age Shaq is right now*. And Shaq is a frontrunner MVP candidate. Shaq was always a better scorer.


He had knee surgery, his play was never the same after that.

Shaq always had Kobe to finish for him in the clutch. Hakeem was the only big man that could create his own shot with the clock running down even if he was out of position. Hakeem's defense is a level above Shaq's. Hakeem went up against stronger competition each night. Not trying to sound condescending but if you watched Duncan, Garnett, Shaq, Malone and Hakeem play through the prime of their careers there is no way you could put Hakeem with frickin Karl Malone, Kevin Garnett or Tim Duncan.


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> Hakeem was the only big man that could create his own shot with the clock running down even if he was out of position. Hakeem's defense is a level above Shaq's. Hakeem went up against stronger competition each night. Not trying to sound condescending but if you watched Duncan, Garnett, Shaq, Malone and Hakeem play through the prime of their careers there is no way you could put Hakeem with frickin Karl Malone, Kevin Garnett or Tim Duncan.


I used to watch Hakeem, and just look at his feet to try and figure out how the hell he did the things he did in the post. He was never my favorite player, but he was my favorite player to watch for a number of years.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

23AirJordan said:


> The truth is we as fans missed out. Would the rockets and the dream really of beat the Bulls those two seasons if Michael Jordan had never retired ?


Probably. The Rockets were the only team in the NBA to have a winning record against the Bulls in the 90's.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

SeaNet said:


> I used to watch Hakeem, and *just look at his feet to try and figure out how the hell he did the things he did in the post*. He was never my favorite player, but he was my favorite player to watch for a number of years.


Do you remember Kevin McHale, young grasshopper?


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

23AirJordan said:


> Good call. But you should mention the details. Michael hadnt played much basketball for the past year and half up to the end of that regular season. He was working himself in slowly at the end of the season by practicing with the Bulls. he only played a handful of regular season games before the playoffs started i believe it was 11 games.


He played 17 full regular season games, and was working out for months before his first game back. 



> And the Bulls lost a hard fought series to the Magic. If you believe that was the Michael Jordan playing at his highest level like he was during the 3peat years before that and after. Than you don't give Micahel enough credit for the work he put in to his game.


What? Jordan averaged 31.5/6.5/4.5 on 48.4% shooting from the floor during the 1995 postseason. His postseason stats were no better in 96, 97, or 98. The reason they lost in 95 was simple; they got outhustled on the boards and in the paint, because 1995 was the only year Jordan and Pippen didn't have Horace Grant or Dennis Rodman in the paint to play defense and rebound the ball. It's not surprising they lost. 



> The following season the Bulls destroyed everyone in the regular season with an amazing regular season record of 72 wins. And as we all know went on to another 3 peat.


The following season they traded for Dennis Rodman. Jordan didn't magically become a better player in 96, his team got better.


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

PauloCatarino said:


> Do you remember Kevin McHale, young grasshopper?


You know, I do remember him being a beast in the post, and I esp. remember those battles he used to have w/ Mahorn in the playoffs. But I was too young to really think about and watch and study what he was doing. Also, I was a bigtime Sixer fan as a kid, and I ****ing hated the Celtics and didn't give any of the Big Three the props they deserved.


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

EHL said:


> The following season they traded for Dennis Rodman. Jordan didn't magically become a better player in 96, his team got better.


I remember watching Jordan a bunch at the end of that season and in the playoffs, and despite what the numbers may or may not say, he just wasn't fully on top of his game. Nick Anderson said it best after he stole the ball from him for the winning bucket in the playoffs, "Number 45 just isn't the same as number 23."

They certainly missed Horace as well, but Jordan wasn't Jordan that year. He was more like Kobe, lol. (Sorry, couldn't resist :biggrin


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> Not trying to sound condescending but if you watched Duncan, Garnett, Shaq, Malone and Hakeem play through the prime of their careers there is no way you could put Hakeem with frickin Karl Malone, Kevin Garnett or Tim Duncan.


Well I _did_ "watch Duncan, Garnett, Shaq, Malone and Hakeem play through the prime of their careers" and I did "put Hakeem with frickin Karl Malone, Kevin Garnett or Tim Duncan", so not only is your statement irrelevant to the discussion, it's also verifiably false.


----------



## Debt Collector (Mar 13, 2003)

heres how i rank them...

1) Jordan
2) Wilt
3) Magic
4) Larry
5) Russell
6) Shaq
7) Hakeem


i believe, that if miami wins the title, you could make a strong case for shaq being better than wilt.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Pan Mengtu said:


> Well I _did_ "watch Duncan, Garnett, Shaq, Malone and Hakeem play through the prime of their careers" and I did "put Hakeem with frickin Karl Malone, Kevin Garnett or Tim Duncan", so not only is your statement irrelevant to the discussion, it's also verifiably false.


Alright, make a case for Malone or Garnett. Hakeem vs Duncan has already been discussed to death.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> Alright, make a case for Malone or Garnett. Hakeem vs Duncan has already been discussed to death.


I don't think either Malone or Garnett (or Duncan or Olajuwon) were as good as Shaq, so I have no case to make.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Pan Mengtu said:


> I don't think either Malone or Garnett (or Duncan or Olajuwon) were as good as Shaq, so I have no case to make.


I meant make a case for putting Malone or Garnett on the same tier as Olajuwon.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> I meant make a case for putting Malone or Garnett on the same tier as Olajuwon.


Doesn't effect Shaq, so I'll leave it to one sentence: Superior defenders, rebounders, and Olajuwon had mediocre PER stats. Won't respond further in this thread.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> Alright, make a case for Malone or Garnett. Hakeem vs Duncan has already been discussed to death.


Malone's clear advantage on offense can be argued to be equal to Olajuwon's clear advantage on defense. Garnett over the last three seasons has been very comparable to Olajuwon both in individual awards and stats. Of course, Garnett doesn't have the team accomplishments that Olajuwon has, so if that factors large in your opinion, then you could drop Garnett down one tier.


----------



## farhan007 (Jun 6, 2003)

Yyzlin said:


> Malone's clear advantage on offense can be argued to be equal to Olajuwon's clear advantage on defense. Garnett over the last three seasons has been very comparable to Olajuwon both in individual awards and stats. Of course, Garnett doesn't have the team accomplishments that Olajuwon has, so if that factors large in your opinion, then you could drop Garnett down one tier.


Molone doesnt have a clear advantage on offense... Plus look it this way...
Hakeem is the best defensive player ever
Malone is not the best offensive player
Dream's team killed malones' team in the playoffs
Dream had no other hofer in his first ring and in his second hand an aging Drexler
Malone had another HOF for 20 YEARS TOGETHER!!! and could not win a ring


----------



## farhan007 (Jun 6, 2003)

Yyzlin said:


> Malone's clear advantage on offense can be argued to be equal to Olajuwon's clear advantage on defense. Garnett over the last three seasons has been very comparable to Olajuwon both in individual awards and stats. Of course, Garnett doesn't have the team accomplishments that Olajuwon has, so if that factors large in your opinion, then you could drop Garnett down one tier.


Hakeem lead team with to a ring averaging 28ppg in the regular season... Garnett hasnt touched plus 25ppg yet.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Pan Mengtu said:


> Doesn't effect Shaq, so I'll leave it to one sentence: Superior defenders, rebounders, and Olajuwon had mediocre PER stats. Won't respond further in this thread.


Malone and Garnett were superior defenders and rebounders? Are you not going to respond further in this thread because you can't back that statement up?

And if you're going by PER to rank players, why don't you place David Robinson ahead of Shaq?


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Hakeem was better then offense then KG. More reliable scorer as he had more post moves


----------



## farhan007 (Jun 6, 2003)

Pan Mengtu said:


> Doesn't effect Shaq, so I'll leave it to one sentence: Superior defenders, rebounders, and Olajuwon had mediocre PER stats. Won't respond further in this thread.


WOW!!!SUPERIOR DEFENDERS??? You know your talking about the dude who is the all time blocks leader here... Also top 10 in all time steals and he is a center!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

farhan007 said:


> Molone doesnt have a clear advantage on offense


Malone once scored 31 PPG on a 1.25 PPFGA. If you really don't think Malone has a clear edge on offense, I'm sorry. I can't help you. 



> Plus look it this way...
> Hakeem is the best defensive player ever


Says who? You? What made him superior defensively to Kareem? Or D. Robinson? Mutombo? Hakeem certainly is one of the great defensive players of the game, but to say he's certainly the best is reaching.



> Malone is not the best offensive player


You're right. He's not. He's certainly one of the best ever though, no? 



> Dream's team killed malones' team in the playoffs


And Utah also beat Houston in the playoffs. Your point?


----------



## farhan007 (Jun 6, 2003)

Yyzlin said:


> Malone once scored 31 PPG on a 1.25 PPFGA. If you really don't think Malone has a clear edge on offense, I'm sorry. I can't help you.
> 
> 
> Says who? You? What made him superior defensively to Kareem? Or D. Robinson? Mutombo? Hakeem certainly is one of the great defensive players of the game, but to say he's certainly the best is reaching.
> ...


he can show it by being the all time blocks leader and a center who is top ten in all time steals... Dude got 2+ steals a game... HE is the best. Not clearly the best, but the best defensive player....


----------



## farhan007 (Jun 6, 2003)

Yyzlin said:


> Malone once scored 31 PPG on a 1.25 PPFGA. If you really don't think Malone has a clear edge on offense, I'm sorry. I can't help you.
> 
> 
> Says who? You? What made him superior defensively to Kareem? Or D. Robinson? Mutombo? Hakeem certainly is one of the great defensive players of the game, but to say he's certainly the best is reaching.
> ...


Hakeem once scored 28ppg a season... HE got a ring to show it also


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

farhan007 said:


> Hakeem lead team with to a ring averaging 28ppg in the regular season... Garnett hasnt touched plus 25ppg yet.


I said they had very comparable stats, which is true. I never made any claims about Garnett being a better scorer than Olajuwon.


----------



## farhan007 (Jun 6, 2003)

Yyzlin said:


> I said they had very comparable stats, which is true. I never made any claims about Garnett being a better scorer than Olajuwon.


btw you said malone is clearly the better offensive player....

Hakeem in the playoffs...25.9ppg
Malone 24.5ppg


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

farhan007 said:


> he can show it by being the all time blocks leader and a center who is top ten in all time steals... Dude got 2+ steals a game... HE is the best. Not clearly the best, but the best defensive player....


Ben Wallace is doing the same thing now that Olajuwon was doing then, with pace adjustment. Does that make Ben Wallace the best defensive player of all time? I'll go ahead and answer that for you. No.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

farhan007 said:


> Hakeem once scored 28ppg a season... HE got a ring to show it also


And Malone scored 31 PPG in a season. What's your point? Would Hakeem's Rockets have beaten the Bulls?


----------



## MarioChalmers (Mar 26, 2004)

PauloCatarino said:


> What's your list then, young grasshopper?


I see someone's defensive. It was a general statement, don't worry.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

farhan007 said:


> btw you said malone is clearly the better offensive player....
> 
> Hakeem in the playoffs...25.9ppg
> Malone 24.5ppg


Malone in the regular season...25.0 PPG.
Olajuwon in the regular season... 21.8 PPg.


----------



## farhan007 (Jun 6, 2003)

Yyzlin said:


> And Malone scored 31 PPG in a season. What's your point? Would Hakeem's Rockets have beaten the Bulls?


then why didnt malone's team take advantage when jordan was in... Maybe because hakeem was better??

btw.. you missed my post.. or ignoring it since you hae no comeback... but please explain this

playoff ppg
hakeem 25.9
Malone 24


----------



## farhan007 (Jun 6, 2003)

Yyzlin said:


> Malone in the regular season...25.0 PPG.
> Olajuwon in the regular season... 21.8 PPg.


i know those stats.... but since Malone is clearly a better offensive player explain why Hakeem averages more points per game in the playoffs...
btw in the playoffs you usually play against better teams....


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

farhan007 said:


> then why didnt malone's team take advantage when jordan was in... Maybe because hakeem was better??


Because Jordan's Bulls were a better team? I'm not sure that had to do with Hakeem. 



> btw.. you missed my post.. or ignoring it since you hae no comeback... but please explain this
> 
> playoff ppg
> hakeem 25.9
> Malone 24


Look above, bud.


----------



## farhan007 (Jun 6, 2003)

farhan007 said:


> i know those stats.... but since Malone is clearly a better offensive player explain why Hakeem averages more points per game in the playoffs...
> btw in the playoffs you usually play against better teams....


still waiting your explaination on why Dream averages more points when it really matters???

I mean Malone " is clearly better offensivly" 
so how does a clearly worse offensive palyer average more points in the post season against stiffer competition?


----------



## farhan007 (Jun 6, 2003)

Yyzlin said:


> Because Jordan's Bulls were a better team? I'm not sure that had to do with Hakeem.
> 
> 
> Look above, bud.


you restated stats... I dont want that. I want know how Malone is clearly better offensivly if he averaged less points in the playoffs...
Are you saying it doesnt have much to do with Hakeem when he is the one who won the RING?


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

farhan007 said:


> i know those stats.... but since Malone is clearly a better offensive player explain why Hakeem averages more points per game in the playoffs...
> btw in the playoffs you usually play against better teams....


If you know those stats, can you explain them? Why does Malone score more than Olajuwon in the regular season? 

And to explain the point you made, Olajuwon picked up his game in the playoffs. No denying that. Olajuwon was a better offensive player than Malone in the postseason.


----------



## farhan007 (Jun 6, 2003)

Yyzlin said:


> If you know those stats, can you explain them? Why does Malone score more than Olajuwon in the regular season?
> 
> And to explain the point you made, Olajuwon picked up his game in the playoffs. No denying that. Olajuwon was a better offensive player than Malone in the postseason.


thank you.. all i wanted you to do was take out that word "clearly"


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

farhan007 said:


> you restated stats... I dont want that. I want know how Malone is clearly better offensivly if he averaged less points in the playoffs...
> Are you saying it doesnt have much to do with Hakeem when he is the one who won the RING?


I know Hakeem won a "RING". You don't have to restate it 30 times. You asked why Malone couldn't win a ring. I explained it. Utah had their best teams during Jordan's reign, and his teams simply weren't as good as Jordan's Bulls. Hakeem never enters the picture.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Yyzlin said:


> Malone once scored 31 PPG on a 1.25 PPFGA. If you really don't think Malone has a clear edge on offense, I'm sorry. I can't help you.


I'm not saying Olajuwon was superior on offense, but I have to point out that Malone had a brilliant point guard in Stockton to feed him the ball and perhaps inflate his stats. You can't just go by ppg and ppfga to decide on a "clear" winner. How good a player's teammates are, and the team's style of play significantly influence those stats.



Yyzlin said:


> Says who? You? What made him superior defensively to Kareem? Or D. Robinson? Mutombo? Hakeem certainly is one of the great defensive players of the game, but to say he's certainly the best is reaching.


Can't say for sure about Kareem; however, Hakeem had as many All-Defense 1st Team selections despite Kareem's longevity and despite the fact that Hakeem's places were more hotly contested. Olajuwon also had more bpg and significantly more spg.
David Robinson was consistently beaten in his matchups with Hakeem. Also, Hakeem won DPoY twice when Robinson was in his prime. He also had more blocks and steals per game.
Mutombo was a superb shot-blocker, but he kept swatting it into the stands, which isn't particularly useful. Had some difficulty guarding quicker players. Also, Shaq destroyed him in the Finals when Deke won DPoY. Kind of a one-dimensional defender, but an awesome one in that respect.


PS There's no point in comparing career player scoring averages because players continue to play well after they've peaked for different lengths of time.

PPS I always feel awkward arguing for Olajuwon because my username makes me seem biased.


----------



## farhan007 (Jun 6, 2003)

Yyzlin said:


> I know Hakeem won a "RING". You don't have to restate it 30 times. You asked why Malone couldn't win a ring. I explained it. Utah had their best teams during Jordan's reign, and his teams simply weren't as good as Jordan's Bulls. Hakeem never enters the picture.


did malone take a vacation also when jordan had that 1.5 year vaction? Why didnt Malone overtake Hakeem's team if his team was better?


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> I'm not saying Olajuwon was superior on offense, but I have to point out that Malone had a brilliant point guard in Stockton to feed him the ball and perhaps inflate his stats. You can't just go by ppg and ppfga to decide on a "clear" winner. How good a player's teammates are, and the team's style of play significantly influence those stats.


You are certainly correct. Stats can't tell the picture. But just from observation, Malone was an unstoppable monster on offense. Imagine if Amare Stoudemire had great passing skills or prime Chris Webber who could get to the line at will and wasn't soft and that was Karl Malone. 



> Can't say for sure about Kareem; however, Hakeem had as many All-Defense 1st Team selections despite Kareem's longevity and despite the fact that Hakeem's places were more hotly contested. Olajuwon also had more bpg and significantly more spg.


Kareem never won any 1st team All-Defense awards past 1981, so I don't really think all those extra years really did any award padding for Kareem. Olajuwon does have better statistics, mainly in SPG, than Abdul Jabbar, but I'm an advocate that they don't they tell nearly the whole story on the defensive end. 



> David Robinson was consistently beaten in his matchups with Hakeem. Also, Hakeem won DPoY twice when Robinson was in his prime. He also had more blocks and steals per game.


Yet, Robinson has 5 1st team All-Defense to Hakeem's 3 1st All-Defense awards from the years 1990-1996. 



> Mutombo was a superb shot-blocker, but he kept swatting it into the stands, which isn't particularly useful. Had some difficulty guarding quicker players. Also, Shaq destroyed him in the Finals when Deke won DPoY. Kind of a one-dimensional defender, but an awesome one in that respect.


Shaq destroyed everyone, including Hakeem. Shaq scored 28 PPG on a .595 FG% in the 1995 Finals. Shaq's problem was, he couldn't stop Hakeem either as Hakeem went for 33 PPG on a .483 FG%.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

farhan007 said:


> did malone take a vacation also when jordan had that 1.5 year vaction? Why didnt Malone overtake Hakeem's team if his team was better?


Because Malone's team wasn't better than Olajuwon's team during those years? Malone's two best seasons PER wise are 1997 and 1998. It's not much of a coincidence that those were also the two years Utah made the NBA Finals.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Yyzlin said:


> Malone's clear advantage on offense can be argued to be equal to Olajuwon's clear advantage on defense. Garnett over the last three seasons has been very comparable to Olajuwon both in individual awards and stats. Of course, Garnett doesn't have the team accomplishments that Olajuwon has, so if that factors large in your opinion, then you could drop Garnett down one tier.


Are you suggesting Malone's stats aren't inflated by John Stockton? The whole system in Utah was built on that pick and roll and setting up Malone for wide open jumpers. The Houston offense was more about dumping the ball into Hakeem, asking him to create, but relied heavily on his ability to involve his teammates by swinging the ball or passing to the perimeter. Although Malone's assists numbers are superior to Hakeem's he really didn't have to worry about creating for others as much as Hakeem did. Stockton took a huge burden off of Malone's shoulders in that aspect, a luxury Hakeem never had. Hakeem was better at creating his own shot as well and didn't have the luxury of being Stockton's dropoff man. Malone's big edge offensively was his ability to get to the FT line. Other than that, I wouldn't say he has a "clear" offensive advantage.


----------



## farhan007 (Jun 6, 2003)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> Are you suggesting Malone's stats aren't inflated by John Stockton? The whole system in Utah was built on that pick and roll and setting up Malone for wide open jumpers. The Houston offense was more about dumping the ball into Hakeem, asking him to create, but relied heavily on his ability to involve his teammates by swinging the ball or passing to the perimeter. Although Malone's assists numbers are superior to Hakeem's he really didn't have to worry about creating for others as much as Hakeem did. Stockton took a huge burden off of Malone's shoulders in that aspect, a luxury Hakeem never had. Hakeem was better at creating his own shot as well and didn't have the luxury of being Stockton's dropoff man. Malone's big edge offensively was his ability to get to the FT line. Other than that, I wouldn't say he has a "clear" offensive advantage.


lets just get down to it... Hakeem scored more when he neededd too... thats why he averages more ppg in the playoffs than Malone does


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

EHL said:


> He played 17 full regular season games, and was working out for months before his first game back. *Well six more games than what I said in my post of 11 isnt a huge difference. And I'm sure no one would argue that a player only having a 17 full regular season games to perform at their best for the playoffs is quite the challenge.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well I guess than you believe that Rodman was more of a factor than Jordan. Thats intersting considering Rodman considers Jordan to be the greatest ever. I would say that adding Dennis Rodman a hustle tough player filled the need that the Bulls needed. *But remember the Bulls won championships before Rodman arrived.*


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

23AirJordan said:


> Well I guess than you believe that Rodman was more of a factor than Jordan. Thats intersting considering Rodman considers Jordan to be the greatest ever.


That doesn't follow logically, at all. It means EHL believes Rodman was more of a factor than _the difference between_ 1994-95 Jordan and 1995-96 Jordan.

Which is undeniable. Rodman's impact over the Bulls' power forward in 1994-95 was enormous. The difference between the Jordan of 1994-95 and 1995-96, if any, was trivial in comparison.


----------



## shobe42 (Jun 21, 2002)

LBJthefuturegoat said:


> IV so much hate for Shaq I bet you used to love the guy.



"those who talk don't know a thing"

IV cheered for Shaq as a Laker but had a lot of criticism of him thru the last few years... as many of us Laker fans did...


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Yyzlin said:


> Yet, Robinson has 5 1st team All-Defense to Hakeem's 3 1st All-Defense awards from the years 1990-1996.


No, Robinson had 4 to Hakeem's 3. However, it's not a good period to look at if you want to compare the players' defense. Hakeem's defensive peak (plateau?) (IMO from 1989 to 1994) did not fully coincide with his offensive peak (1993 to 1996). By 1995 (i.e. the '94-95 season), his age had started to catch up to him, and by '96 his D had clearly deteriorated. More than offence, great defense requires supreme physical fitness. The fact is that Hakeem simply wasn't strong enough, couldn't jump as high or move as fast in '95 and beyond for him to be the defender he was earlier (his footwork and shooting are a different matter, probably because he started playing basketball relatively late). The only period in which both Olajuwon and Robinson were playing their best D is from 1990 to 1994. In that span, Hakeem was in the All-Defense 3 times to the Admiral's 2. However, that period includes the 1990-91 season, in which Robinson made the 1st Team, but in which Hakeem missed 26 games and had problems off-court.
You've also got to take into account their individual matchups, most of which were won by Hakeem.



Yyzlin said:


> Shaq destroyed everyone, including Hakeem. Shaq scored 28 PPG on a .595 FG% in the 1995 Finals. Shaq's problem was, he couldn't stop Hakeem either as Hakeem went for 33 PPG on a .483 FG%.


What you forget is that Hakeem was doubled more than Shaq was in that series. And again, Hakeem's D had deteriorated a bit by then. When Mutombo was destroyed by Shaq in the Finals, it was one of the years in which he won DPoY, and that somewhat diminishes the impressiveness of his defensive ability in my eyes.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

23AirJordan said:


> But remember the Bulls won championships before Rodman arrived.


Yeah, with Horace Grant.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> Are you suggesting Malone's stats aren't inflated by John Stockton? The whole system in Utah was built on that pick and roll and setting up Malone for wide open jumpers. The Houston offense was more about dumping the ball into Hakeem, asking him to create, but relied heavily on his ability to involve his teammates by swinging the ball or passing to the perimeter. Although Malone's assists numbers are superior to Hakeem's he really didn't have to worry about creating for others as much as Hakeem did. Stockton took a huge burden off of Malone's shoulders in that aspect, a luxury Hakeem never had. Hakeem was better at creating his own shot as well and didn't have the luxury of being Stockton's dropoff man. Malone's big edge offensively was his ability to get to the FT line. Other than that, I wouldn't say he has a "clear" offensive advantage.


This is the difficulty when talking about the achievements of either Malone or Stockton. It seems their career long pairing has been both a blessing and a curse. When Malone's individual achievements are brought up, there's always the caveat "Well, he played with Stockton". When Stockton's individual achievements are brought up, it's the same. "Well, he had Malone". The fact is, no one knows how either would have fared without the other, and such is the fact that who knows which player benefited more from the other. How much of the vaunted pick and roll was Malone? How much of it was Stockton? Was it an even split? You don't know. I don't know. No one knows.

What I do know is that Malone was an unstoppable offensive force. The pick and roll wouldn't have worked if Malone wasn't simply money knocking down those open jumpers. He was a beast inside and knew how to get points at will. I mean really, all you could do WAS foul him. Malone is among the extremely elite company in getting to the line, and unlike the two other main notables in that group (*cough* Shaq *cough* Wilt *cough*), he actually converted at a respectable rate. Malone was never fouled because the other team actually wanted to foul him. He was fouled because they couldn't do anything else. And I'm just going to have to disagree with your assertion that Hakeem could create better, because I didn't see it. Malone could run the floor like a guard. He was a passing force at the top of the key, assuming a role that that Sacramento forwards/centers would later make a living off of. Not too mention his off the charts longevity. I don't what was in the water in Salt Lake but it worked wonders on both Malone and Stockton. 

Accolades wise, there isn't anything to seperate Hakeem from Malone either. Malone has 2 MVP's to Hakeem's 1. 11 1st team All-NBA to Hakeem's 6 (granted, that it was easier for forwards in the 90's than centers). 

So, maybe I'm tripping here, but I think it's clear as day that Malone belongs in the same tier as Olajuwon. We are talking about the best player to ever play his position here.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> No, Robinson had 4 to Hakeem's 3. However, it's not a good period to look at if you want to compare the players' defense. Hakeem's defensive peak (plateau?) (IMO from 1989 to 1994) did not fully coincide with his offensive peak (1993 to 1996). By 1995 (i.e. the '94-95 season), his age had started to catch up to him, and by '96 his D had clearly deteriorated. More than offence, great defense requires supreme physical fitness. The fact is that Hakeem simply wasn't strong enough, couldn't jump as high or move as fast in '95 and beyond for him to be the defender he was earlier (his footwork and shooting are a different matter, probably because he started playing basketball relatively late). The only period in which both Olajuwon and Robinson were playing their best D is from 1990 to 1994. In that span, Hakeem was in the All-Defense 3 times to the Admiral's 2. However, that period includes the 1990-91 season, in which Robinson made the 1st Team, but in which Hakeem missed 26 games and had problems off-court.
> You've also got to take into account their individual matchups, most of which were won by Hakeem.


My bad. Someone I counted 5, but you are correct. 

One of things that Olajuwon fans love to do is combine Olajuwon's defensive peak and offensive peak as one and argue for this combined player as a sort of superplayer. And if this actually happened, he would certainly be jumping up on all-time lists. The fact is, it never happened. When Olajuwon became more offensively skilled, his defensive skills declined. So, please pick one period of Olajuwon to argue for, because you can't argue for a favorable mixture of both. 

PS: Outside of their famed playoff meeting, their regular season matchups have always been fairly even, if I remember correctly. I did go through all the boxscores from those years, but it was about a year ago. I'll check again when I have more time and post some statistics. 



> What you forget is that Hakeem was doubled more than Shaq was in that series. And again, Hakeem's D had deteriorated a bit by then. When Mutombo was destroyed by Shaq in the Finals, it was one of the years in which he won DPoY, and that somewhat diminishes the impressiveness of his defensive ability in my eyes.


But Mutombo was also 34. If you really believe that was Mutombo's defensive prime, you're fooling yourself. Also, Shaq had his fair share of success against Hakeem in regular season matchups prior to that Finals, so to pinpoint Hakeem's decline in D as the reason why Shaq had a great series is a bit of a copout.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Lot of bs flying around in here.

I will say this, Malone scored probably close to 60% of his buckets off the pick & roll or pick & pop. Karl's strength and quickness made him a train to the basket, but Hakeem had a much wider variety of offensive attacks? I am not sure Hakeem was a better scorer but he had the complete package in the post, could step out and shoot it, and his turnaround baseline jumper was money.


As for MJ, there was definitely a big difference between the 94/95 Jordan and the 95/96 Jordan. Maybe not stat wise but he just wasn’t the same. It's hard to pinpoint but I don't think Jordan was as sharp mentally. He made mistakes he would never had made before, and he looked slow on defense at times. 

He started practicing with the Bulls one week, the media went nuts, the next thing you hear is the announcement that shocks the world and he is the lineup against the Pacers.

Bulls improved from 47 wins to 72. Jordan became Jordan again and the addition of Rodman is what turned them into title contenders.


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> That doesn't follow logically, at all. It means EHL believes Rodman was more of a factor than _the difference between_ 1994-95 Jordan and 1995-96 Jordan.
> 
> Which is undeniable. Rodman's impact over the Bulls' power forward in 1994-95 was enormous. The difference between the Jordan of 1994-95 and 1995-96, if any, was trivial in comparison.


Ya Rodman took over for Corie Blount and Dickey Simpkins. Two super backups. Its not hard to believe that if Jordan had a legit starting PF and a little more time to get himself in gear, that the Bulls could have beaten the Magic in the 1995 playoffs.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> That doesn't follow logically, at all. It means EHL believes Rodman was more of a factor than _the difference between_ 1994-95 Jordan and 1995-96 Jordan.
> 
> *Maybe you don't follow-
> 
> ...


Well as I mentioned in the previous post. You should buy the Jordan Special Edition box set. Jordan himself talks about the differences in his game on the mental level and physical level. So I guess you are suggesting what Michael Jordan says is trivial. Because I got all this information straight from Jordan himself addressing that season and the next season when the Bulls won 72 games on his dvd box set. Not to mention Jordan has been quoted as saying every one in the NBA has a lot of talent and some more than others naturally. But what sets the great ones apart is the mental part of the game. Which I keep trying to explain to you wasnt fine tuned yet during the 17 games in the regular season and playoffs. Also he didnt play the entire season before. Also could you please quote me in context as well next time. Instead of picking out certin aspects you feel are flawed.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Yyzlin said:


> One of things that Olajuwon fans love to do is combine Olajuwon's defensive peak and offensive peak as one and argue for this combined player as a sort of superplayer. And if this actually happened, he would certainly be jumping up on all-time lists. The fact is, it never happened. When Olajuwon became more offensively skilled, his defensive skills declined. So, please pick one period of Olajuwon to argue for, because you can't argue for a favorable mixture of both.


Didn't you read my post? I said: "Hakeem's defensive peak did not fully coincide with his offensive peak". However, there were two seasons in which his best defense and offense came together -- '92-93 and '93-94, which were his best two seasons.



Yyzlin said:


> PS: Outside of their famed playoff meeting, their regular season matchups have always been fairly even, if I remember correctly. I did go through all the boxscores from those years, but it was about a year ago. I'll check again when I have more time and post some statistics.


Perhaps, but Hakeem was generally surrounded by worse teammates, which made things difficult for him. Like Mr. Roger's Cardigan said, the Rockets' tactic was pretty much to dump the ball to Hakeem and wait around for him to score or dish it back out to the perimeter. He had very little help. Also, when it came down to it in a high-stakes, best-of-7 series, Hakeem came out on top despite being heavily doubled.



Yyzlin said:


> But Mutombo was also 34. If you really believe that was Mutombo's defensive prime, you're fooling yourself. Also, Shaq had his fair share of success against Hakeem in regular season matchups prior to that Finals, so to pinpoint Hakeem's decline in D as the reason why Shaq had a great series is a bit of a copout.


Fair enough about Mutombo. I didn't realize that he was so old when he entered the league. However, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about Shaq having his fair share of success against Hakeem in regular season matchups when the latter was at his defensive best. I don't have any box scores, but from what I remember, Hakeem won every one of their matchups in 1992-93 and 1993-94. In fact, I don't remember Shaq even reaching 20 points in any of the four games in which they played in that span.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> Didn't you read my post? I said: "Hakeem's defensive peak did not fully coincide with his offensive peak". However, there were two seasons in which his best defense and offense came together -- '92-93 and '93-94, which were his best two seasons.


Fair enough. But I think that the Defensive Teams that Robinson did make over the prime of Hakeem suggests that he was atleast an close equal of Hakeem's defensively. 




> Perhaps, but Hakeem was generally surrounded by worse teammates, which made things difficult for him. Like Mr. Roger's Cardigan said, the Rockets' tactic was pretty much to dump the ball to Hakeem and wait around for him to score or dish it back out to the perimeter. He had very little help. Also, when it came down to it in a high-stakes, best-of-7 series, Hakeem came out on top despite being heavily doubled.


Worse teammates than David Robinson? I don't know if that would be a very accurate claim to make. 




> Fair enough about Mutombo. I didn't realize that he was so old when he entered the league. However, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about Shaq having his fair share of success against Hakeem in regular season matchups when the latter was at his defensive best. I don't have any box scores, but from what I remember, Hakeem won every one of their matchups in 1992-93 and 1993-94. In fact, I don't remember Shaq even reaching 20 points in any of the four games in which they played in that span.


Here are the 6 games they played each other leading up to the Finals where they met. 

http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=1992&b=19921125&tm=ORL
http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=1992&b=19930316&tm=HOU
http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=1993&b=19940110&tm=ORL
http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=1993&b=19940301&tm=HOU
http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=1994&b=19941123&tm=ORL
http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=1994&b=19950302&tm=HOU


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

Anyone have any opinions on Shaquille O'Neal, apparently the topic of this thread, and where he belongs in the all-time list?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

23AirJordan said:


> Maybe you don't follow-
> 
> The debate isnt about Rodman. It's about Jordan and his playing ability and physical playing condition between those two seasons. Jordan himself even said that it was a huge mental challenge coming back the way he did. It was uncomfortable and a struggle for him. Regardless of stats.
> 
> What I'm saying is that Dennis Rodman agreed that Jordan is the greatest player in the NBA. Meaning that Jordan is the most important aspect of the Bulls team. Not Rodman.


I think you're the one having trouble following. In comparing the late-season/post-season 1994-95 Bulls and the 1995-96 Bulls, Jordan wasn't _added_ to the 1995-96 team...he was on both teams. So, he wasn't the difference. Rodman was not on one team, but he was on the second. The full value of Rodman was far more important than any small differences between 1995 Jordan and 1995-96 Jordan.

Nobody was arguing Rodman, as a player, was more valuable than Jordan, as a player, as you try to suggest. What EHL said, and I agree with, is that Rodman, as a player, is worth more than the _difference_ between Jordan in one season and Jordan in the next.

To make it clearer:

Difference between Rodman and Simpkins >>>> Difference between 1995 Jordan and 1995-96 Jordan



> Also could you please quote me in context as well next time. Instead of picking out certin aspects you feel are flawed.


I _do_ quote you in context. For the sake of space, I'm not bothering to quote things you say that I don't plan to comment on.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Yyzlin said:


> Here are the 6 games they played each other leading up to the Finals where they met.
> http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=1992&b=19921125&tm=ORL
> http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=1992&b=19930316&tm=HOU
> http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=1993&b=19940110&tm=ORL
> ...


Guess I was wrong. Hakeem only restricted Shaq to below 20 points in three of their four meetings from '92 to '94. It became closer in the '95 season, as he became a better player and Hakeem's defense worsened.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

his defense was particularly good on shaq at the line, where he was 3-12 in the one game where shaq had 19 pts. they were fairly evenly matched by shaq's 2nd season in the league, when hakeem was at his peak.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Shaq is to me clearly the best center since I've started watching basketball from the early 80's. A prime Shaq was the most dominant post presence I've seen and I don't think any center could guard a prime Shaq one on one. On top of that while Shaq is poor defender on the pick and roll, but his man to man defense against other centers has always been good. I also think it's a poor comparison to say he didn't play against great competition. Everyone agrees Hakeem was a great "center" and Tim Duncan is bigger then him. Also Amare is the same size. 

So this pushes Shaq to minimum 4th best center for me. I just can't compare him to guys like Kareem, Russell, and Wilt as I didn't see these guys play. Physically Shaq would likely dominate both Kareem and Russell. But at least kareem had the skills over Shaq

My list:
Jordan
Wilt
Russell/Kareem
Kareem/Russell
Oscar
Bird/Magic
Magic/Bird
Shaq

So I have Shaq at 8. But he could be considered superior to guys like Russell (offensively O'neal just puts way bigger the russell) and Kareem. A prime Shaq's number are comparable to a prime Kareem's


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Pan Mengtu said:


> Shaq played defense when he was younger very well, just not since he's been older. But the same is true for Kareem, he became a bad defender in his final days as well.


In his younger days, Hakeem and David Robinson, and Even Alonzo mourning abused him regularly.


----------



## Idunkonyou (Feb 23, 2003)

Shaq is the Jordan of this generation. Where ever he goes, his team is pretty much guaranteed 50+ wins and to be a title contender. Hell I think Shaq has only been on one team in which they didn't win 50 games and that was his rookie year. He is the only player in the modern era, besides Jordan of course, who lead his team to a 3 peat, while also winning 3 finals MVPs. 

Is he the 6th greatest of all time? Its debatable. He is no doubt top 10 and if he wins another championship or two, he will no doubt be top 5.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

farhan007 said:


> Molone doesnt have a clear advantage on offense... Plus look it this way...
> *Hakeem is the best defensive player ever*
> Malone is not the best offensive player
> Dream's team killed malones' team in the playoffs
> ...


 :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :krazy: 

That might be the funniest post I've ever read....


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

kflo said:


> his defense was particularly good on shaq at the line, where he was 3-12 in the one game where shaq had 19 pts. they were fairly evenly matched by shaq's 2nd season in the league, when hakeem was at his peak.


Sinking free throws is part of the game. You can't use that as an excuse. Anyway, in their three other matchups over those two years, Shaq was 8-14 from the line, which is a higher percentage than he normally shoots. They played twice in Shaq's 2nd season. First matchup was even. Hakeem won the second.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

The Krakken said:


> :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :krazy:
> 
> That might be the funniest post I've ever read....


Why?


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> I think you're the one having trouble following. In comparing the late-season/post-season 1994-95 Bulls and the 1995-96 Bulls, Jordan wasn't _added_ to the 1995-96 team...he was on both teams. So, he wasn't the difference. Rodman was not on one team, but he was on the second. The full value of Rodman was far more important than any small differences between 1995 Jordan and 1995-96 Jordan.
> 
> Nobody was arguing Rodman, as a player, was more valuable than Jordan, as a player, as you try to suggest. What EHL said, and I agree with, is that Rodman, as a player, is worth more than the _difference_ between Jordan in one season and Jordan in the next.
> 
> ...



Your point is still irrelavent though since we don't know whether or not the DIFFERENCE between 95 jordan, and 96 jordan would have made a difference in 1995. With or without rodman, it might have made ALL THE DIFFERENCE. You just don't know.....


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Hakeem said:


> Why?



Because Hakeem Olajuwon was not the best defensive player of all time, silly.

He just.....wasn't. In fact, I'm not conviced he was top 3.......or even top 5....


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Just out of curiosity, who are your top 5?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> Your point is still irrelavent though since we don't know whether or not the DIFFERENCE between 95 jordan, and 96 jordan would have made a difference in 1995. With or without rodman, it might have made ALL THE DIFFERENCE. You just don't know.....


What are you talking about? All I said was that EHL's point was that Rodman was the biggest reason for the Bulls _improvement_ in 1995-96. Which is absolutely true.

Who cares what would have made "the difference" in 1995? A lot of things could have made "the difference" in 1995, since they were closely-matched with the Magic. Even then, a great rebounder and defender at the power forward spot in the 1995 postseason would surely have made much more difference than a slightly better Jordan.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Hakeem said:


> Just out of curiosity, who are your top 5?


Rating strictly on Defense? 

Russell is ahead of him no matter what.

In his own era, I rank the following players ahead of him:
Pippen
Rodman
Jordan


I don't know where to put robinson or Hakeem here.

Before you laugh, consider that Hakeem had a much MUCH tougher time, taking the best players at his position out of the game defensively. Getting big numbers in blocks and steals, while impressive is not NEARLY as impressive to me as shutteing down the best players who played the same position that you do. 

Robinson, Ewing, Shaq, and Even Mourning all got theirs against olajuwon routinely, despite his gawdy numbers.

The above 4 players could shut down whoever they faced, on any given night, seemingly at any given time.

Consider that Scottie pippen made Magic Johnson MUCH MUCH less effective in the finals of 1991. He was routinely asked to guard the other teams best perimeter offensive option, INCLUDING PG's, and it wasn't because Jordan (who won defensive player of the year at least once), was a shoddy defender.

So disruptive was Pippen, that I'm stunned to this very day that he never won Deensive player of the year (to my knowledge)......


In fact, Jordan routinely took the best SG's of the league out of what they wanted to do as well. He got torched a few times to be sure.....but those times were rare indeed. 

And speaking of Rodman, he completely disrupted Karl Malone in the NBA finals. He was asked to guard people like shaq. He was the "scottie pippen" of the PF position on defense....routinely asked to guard, and SHUT DOWN, the opposing teams best front court offensive option (with he succeeded at doing with a tremendous amount of proficiency)

Come to think of it, if we are talking strictly about a players ability to completely disrupt what the opposing team wants to do at a particular spot, I could make the argument that Gary payton, was a better defender at the 1, than Olajuwon was at the 5.......

But I won't get crazy. :biggrin: :cheers:


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> What are you talking about? All I said was that EHL's point was that Rodman was the biggest reason for the Bulls _improvement_ in 1995-96. Which is absolutely true.
> 
> Who cares what would have made "the difference" in 1995? A lot of things could have made "the difference" in 1995, since they were closely-matched with the Magic. Even then, a great rebounder and defender at the power forward spot in the 1995 postseason would surely have made much more difference than a slightly better Jordan.


I had hoped that I wouldn't have to spell it out. Firstly, this subdiscussion of the overall argument began with WHY THE BULLS DIDN'T WIN IN 1995....not Jordans improvement from 1995 to 1996, so comparing the two years directly is irrelavent. They won in 1996. I would agree that Rodman's impact was more substantial than Jordan's improvement. But that wasn't even the discussion. 


I repeat. THE DISCUSSION ABOUT JORDAN IN 1995-1996 BEGAN with the question or statement rather) of whether or not THE 1996 jordan would have been enough to help the 1995 bulls WIN THE TITLE. Thanks for agreeing with me that it is irrelavent. And so is whether or not Rodman would have been enough. In short, every argument for or against in this discussion amounts to nothing more than conjecture and extrapolation, and anyone trying to pass their strong opinions off as gospel truths is ridiculous....and that INCLUDES the discussion about what impact Rodman would have had on the 1995 bulls.....


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

*Apparantly, quite a few people CARE.....*



Minstrel said:


> Who cares what would have made "the difference" in 1995?





Heatlunatic said:


> Only because Jordan Retired.....





EHL said:


> No, he still lost in 1995, when Dream won his 2nd ring.





23AirJordan said:


> Good call. But you should mention the details. Michael hadnt played much basketball for the past year and half up to the end of that regular season. He was working himself in slowly at the end of the season by practicing with the Bulls. he only played a handful of regular season games before the playoffs started i believe it was 11 games. And the Bulls lost a hard fought series to the Magic. If you believe that was the Michael Jordan playing at his highest level like he was during the 3peat years before that and after. Than you don't give Micahel enough credit for the work he put in to his game. The following season the Bulls destroyed everyone in the regular season with an amazing regular season record of 72 wins. And as we all know went on to another 3 peat.
> 
> The truth is we as fans missed out. Would the rockets and the dream really of beat the Bulls those two seasons if Michael Jordan had never retired ? Who knows but what we do know is that in the finals Michael Jordan is 6 -0. So I wouldnt bet against him.


Instead of arrogantly attacking posters, try following the complete discussion next time.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> I had hoped that I wouldn't have to spell it out. Firstly, this subdiscussion of the overall argument began with WHY THE BULLS DIDN'T WIN IN 1995....not Jordans improvement from 1995 to 1996, so comparing the two years directly is irrelavent. They won in 1996. I would agree that Rodman's impact was more substantial than Jordan's improvement. But that wasn't even the discussion.


The discussion I was having, where a poster blatently mischaracterized another poster's point, _was_ about Rodman being a bigger factor in the Bulls improvement in 1995-96 than Jordan.

Just because you've chosen your own subdiscussion to call "the discussion," doesn't mean it has anything to do with the point I was arguing.



> I repeat. THE DISCUSSION ABOUT JORDAN IN 1995-1996 BEGAN with the question or statement rather) of whether or not THE 1996 jordan would have been enough to help the 1995 bulls WIN THE TITLE.


It may have begun with that, but it was not limited to that.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> The discussion I was having, where a poster blatently mischaracterized another poster's point, _was_ about Rodman being a bigger factor in the Bulls improvement in 1995-96 than Jordan.
> 
> Just because you've chosen your own subdiscussion to call "the discussion," doesn't mean it has anything to do with the point I was arguing.
> 
> ...


Fair enough. But I was responding to that.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Apparantly, quite a few people CARE.....*



The Krakken said:


> Instead of arrogantly attacking posters, try following the complete discussion next time.


I didn't attack anyone, arrogantly or otherwise. All the misplaced arrogance has been on your side, picking what you've decided is THE discussion (laughable, considering the topic of the thread is about *Shaquille O'Neal*) and claiming everything else is off-point.

Here, I'll give you the discussion path for THE discussion I was commenting on:



EHL said:


> The following season they traded for Dennis Rodman. Jordan didn't magically become a better player in 96, his team got better.





23AirJordan said:


> Well I guess than you believe that Rodman was more of a factor than Jordan. Thats intersting considering Rodman considers Jordan to be the greatest ever. I would say that adding Dennis Rodman a hustle tough player filled the need that the Bulls needed. But remember the Bulls won championships before Rodman arrived.





Minstrel said:


> That doesn't follow logically, at all. It means EHL believes Rodman was more of a factor than the difference between 1994-95 Jordan and 1995-96 Jordan.
> 
> Which is undeniable. Rodman's impact over the Bulls' power forward in 1994-95 was enormous. The difference between the Jordan of 1994-95 and 1995-96, if any, was trivial in comparison.





bballlife said:


> Ya Rodman took over for Corie Blount and Dickey Simpkins. Two super backups. Its not hard to believe that if Jordan had a legit starting PF and a little more time to get himself in gear, that the Bulls could have beaten the Magic in the 1995 playoffs.


Then followed posts by 23AirJordan and you, claiming I wasn't "following" the discussion, when my original point was clearly pointing out the poor logic / blatent mischaracterization by 23AirJordan.

Again, when conversation splinters into a number of subthreads, it's absurd for you to claim *one* of them is THE discussion and everything else is "not following."


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

The Krakken said:


> Before you laugh, consider that Hakeem had a much MUCH tougher time, taking the best players at his position out of the game defensively. Getting big numbers in blocks and steals, while impressive is not NEARLY as impressive to me as shutteing down the best players who played the same position that you do.
> 
> Robinson, Ewing, Shaq, and Even Mourning all got theirs against olajuwon routinely, despite his gawdy numbers.


Just to check that Hakeem being an awesome defender wasn't just a trick my imagination played on me at the time or me looking back on those years with rose tinted glasses, I had a look at some individual matchup stats from '92-93 and '93-94, which were Hakeem's best years.
Ewing averaged 17 to Hakeem's 32
Shaq averaged 18.8 to Hakeem's 23.5
Admiral averaged 23.7 to Hakeem's 26.5
Zo averaged 16.7 to Hakeem's 19.3

Now all those numbers for Olajuwon's opponents -- who, mind you, were all excellent offensive players -- are significantly lower than their averages for that period. And that's excluding the postseason, where, as we all know, Hakeem beat all of them.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Apparantly, quite a few people CARE.....*

Jeez louise. :curse: I don't even know wheree to begin. THere are three possibilities...

1) You didn't read a word I said.

2) You read it, understood it and are blatently choosing to ignore it

3) You have some reason comprehension issues. 

I'm beginning to lean towards number 2.



Minstrel said:


> I didn't attack anyone, arrogantly or otherwise. All the misplaced arrogance has been on your side, *picking what you've decided is THE discussion* (laughable, considering the topic of the thread is about Shaquille O'Neal[) *and claiming everything else is off-point.*


Show me one post or even once sentence where I said ANYTHING that you claim I did.



That's what I thought. Here's what I did SAY...



> Your point is still irrelavent though since we don't know whether or not the DIFFERENCE between 95 jordan, and 96 jordan would have made a difference in 1995. With or without rodman, it might have made ALL THE DIFFERENCE. You just don't know.....


I said your OPINION was not fact and you didn't know for sure. Obviously, you didn't like that. I guess that makes me arrogant.

Later on, I said...




> I had hoped that I wouldn't have to spell it out. Firstly, *this subdiscussion of the overall argument began with WHY THE BULLS DIDN'T WIN IN 1995....not Jordans improvement from 1995 to 1996, so comparing the two years directly is irrelavent.* They won in 1996. I would agree that Rodman's impact was more substantial than Jordan's improvement. But that wasn't even the discussion.
> 
> 
> I repeat. *THE DISCUSSION ABOUT JORDAN IN 1995-1996 BEGAN with the question or statement rather) of whether or not THE 1996 jordan would have been enough to help the 1995 bulls WIN THE TITLE.* Thanks for agreeing with me that it is irrelavent. And so is whether or not Rodman would have been enough. *In short, every argument for or against in this discussion amounts to nothing more than conjecture and extrapolation, and anyone trying to pass their strong opinions off as gospel truths is ridiculous....and that INCLUDES the discussion about what impact Rodman would have had on the 1995 bulls.....*


Not once did I try to actually discredit your argument...nor did I assert that your opinion was invalid. Rather, that valid or not, its irrelavent. And not only that...I even acknowledged that *There were multiple subdiscussions of a bigger and broader argument, implying that each of them had their own merit as separate arguments and discussions* ANd most importantly, not once did I arrogantly put words in your mouth and extrapolate your discussion to make it mean something you didn't say...as you did to me here:



> picking what you've decided is THE discussion (laughable, considering the topic of the thread is about Shaquille O'Neal) and claiming everything else is off-point.


Which is equally laughable, since I never once did that (pick what THE discussion was about). In fact, if you read a little more carefully you'd see I'm involved in several DIFFERENT discussions on this very page.

You did it again here.....



> Again, when conversation splinters into a number of subthreads, it's absurd for you to claim *one* of them is THE discussion and everything else is "not following."


And again, it was equally as absurd as the first time. Since, again, I necer "claimed" anything of the sort. Geez.......

Finally....



> Then followed posts by 23AirJordan and you, claiming I wasn't "following" the discussion, when my original point was clearly pointing out the poor logic / blatent mischaracterization by 23AirJordan


1) We said so for different reasons.......I stated as such because you obviously had no clue as to the context to which I was responding to your post.....and my assertion that both sides of both arguments were meaningless (NOTHING MORE OR LESS).......

I DID NOT STATE OR IMPLY THAT IT WAS BECAUSE YOUR ARGUMENT was not a part of a Valid discussion/argument in this thread. Because I don't belive that it wasn't. I never tried to discredit the merit of the discussion itself. Only the merit of the conclusions being drawn. Know the difference.

2) We were both apparantly right.



> Here, I'll give you the discussion path for THE discussion I was commenting on:


I don't need it. I actually followed the discussion(s)....ALL OF THEM.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> Before you laugh, consider that Hakeem had a much MUCH tougher time, taking the best players at his position out of the game defensively. Getting big numbers in blocks and steals, while impressive is not NEARLY as impressive to me as shutteing down the best players who played the same position that you do.


Why, because he didn't earn his numbers in a Bulls uniform? Hakeem had plenty of games where he shut down the premier centers in the league. I found the first matchup I could between Robinson and Hakeem in the 94 season, 12/21/1993 

Robinson had 20 points, but on 5-20 shooting. 

Or this game from 1992 when Robinson had 17 points despite taking 15 FG's. Hakeem had 5 blocks in that game. I'm just plucking out random Houston vs SA games here.

Hakeem probably wasn't a better man on man defender than Bill Russell. But he was the best team defender to play the game. His size combined with his lightning quick hands, anticipation and overall agility makes it hard to argue against it.



> Robinson, Ewing, Shaq, and Even Mourning all got theirs against olajuwon routinely, despite his gawdy numbers.
> 
> *The above 4 players could shut down whoever they faced, on any given night, seemingly at any given time.*


Well then why couldn't they stop Hakeem? One of the main reasons people struggle to compare Robinson to Olajuwon is because of how Olajuwon demolished Robinson in the '95 playoffs, when Robinson was right in the middle of his peak. 



> In fact, Jordan routinely took the best SG's of the league out of what they wanted to do as well. He got torched a few times to be sure.....but those times were rare indeed.


The Bulls were one of the best defensive teams throughout the 90's. They had superb individual defenders, in fact you named three of them. Houston on the other hand was a poor defensive team outside of Olajuwon. Vernon Maxwell was their only good defensive guard, and Otis Thorpe (traded after the 1st championship) was their only post presence outside of Hakeem. Sure Horry had occassional moments of brilliance but there was no way they would have even been a mediocre defensive team without Hakeem.

Smith, Cassell and Elie were weak defensive guards. They had the luxury of overplaying their man because they knew he would have to meet Olajuwon in the paint if he got by them. Olajuwon was the defensive identity of the Rockets. 



> Come to think of it, if we are talking satrictly about a players ability to completely disrupt what the opposing team wants to do at a particular spot, I could make the argument that Gary payton, was a better defender at the 1, than Olajuwon was at the 5.......


By all means go ahead and do that. I'll be anxiously waiting for your response...


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Hakeem said:


> Just to check that Hakeem being an awesome defender wasn't just a trick my imagination played on me at the time or me looking back on those years with rose tinted glasses, I had a look at some individual matchup stats from '92-93 and '93-94, which were Hakeem's best years.
> Ewing averaged 17 to Hakeem's 32
> Shaq averaged 18.8 to Hakeem's 23.5
> Admiral averaged 23.7 to Hakeem's 26.5
> ...


2 Years is a small sample...but I'll bite. HAkeem was never given the task of defending said players all by himself. Those players were routinely double teamed, with the excption of Pat Ewing.

The bulls (and in rodman's case, pistons and spurs) didn't do a lot of doubling and triple teaming.....and as a result, the defenders were routinley left on an island...they did their disrupting from an island by themselves.

OLajuwon was a GREAT GREAT DEFENDER, but based on what I saqw with my own eyes, I can make a case for 3 players in his own era having a bigger impact (certainly pip and rodman), or as big an impact (jordan) defensively as far as completely disrupting the opposing teams offensive flow and sets. This is again, something that is overlooked while we are tallying rebounds steals, and blocks.....


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Apparantly, quite a few people CARE.....*

This discussion is becoming utterly pointless. Either all your previous posts to me prior to this were extremely confused and poorly-expressed or you are continually twisting what you said and what I said.

You keep repeating this point:


The Krakken said:


> Your point is still irrelavent though since we don't know whether or not the DIFFERENCE between 95 jordan, and 96 jordan would have made a difference in 1995. With or without rodman, it might have made ALL THE DIFFERENCE. You just don't know.....


But my point was never about what difference Rodman would have made in the 1995 postseason until you got involved (_after_ my posts to 23AirJordan)...at that point, I told you my original point had nothing to do with the 1995 postseason but that it probably also applied to that postseason since you insisted on talking about it.

Let me re-spell my original point out to you: 23AirJordan's suggestion that EHL was saying that Rodman was more important than Jordan *in 1995-1996* did not logically follow from what EHL said.

Do you understand that this point has nothing at all to do with what effect Rodman would have had on the 1995 postseason? I wasn't commenting on the 1995 postseason at all. Only on the following season.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> OLajuwon was a GREAT GREAT DEFENDER, but based on what I saqw with my own eyes, I can make a case for 3 players in his own era having a bigger impact (certainly pip and rodman), or as big an impact (jordan) defensively as far as completely disrupting the opposing teams offensive flow and sets. This is again, something that is overlooked while we are tallying rebounds steals, and blocks.....


I can't help but think your speaking with a bias here, having seen more Bulls games than Rocket games. Rodman was more of a specialist. He never had to contest shots in the paints or guard the entire paint like Hakeem had to. He was a good defender but more concerned with boxing out and grabbing the rebound than contesting shots. Pippen was the greatest defender at his position, but you can only have so much of an impact defending on the perimeter compared to a defensive presence in the paint who can really anchor a team.

IMO the only better defender than Hakeem is Bill Russell.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> Why, because he didn't earn his numbers in a Bulls uniform?



Rodman's best years were as a Piston and a Spur. Its where he earned his reputation. I'm no dummy, so don't typecast me as one. As I've already told one poster in this thread...don't put words in my mouth.



> Hakeem had plenty of games where he shut down the premier centers in the league. I found the first matchup I could between Robinson and Hakeem in the 94 season, 12/21/1993
> 
> Robinson had 20 points, but on 5-20 shooting.


As I've alluded to....Hakeem didn't accomplish that all by himself. But even so, He didn't dominate those guys defensively for his entire career. Not even close. 



> Or this game from 1992 when Robinson had 17 points despite taking 15 FG's. Hakeem had 5 blocks in that game. I'm just plucking out random Houston vs SA games here.


So?



> (Hakeem) probably wasn't a better man on man defender than Bill Russell. But he was the best team defender to play the game.


That is deatable, which is what we are doing. I disagree. My opinion is equally valid as yours.



> His size combined with his lightning quick hands, anticipation and overall agility makes it hard to argue against it.


I've already done so to my own satisfaction.



> Well then why couldn't they stop Hakeem? One of the main reasons people struggle to compare Robinson to Olajuwon is because of how Olajuwon demolished Robinson in the '95 playoffs, when Robinson was right in the middle of his peak.


Which is why I didn't compare them. I simply don't know who was better defensively and I acknowledge that.

As for why Jordan and Pippen couldn't stop Hakeem.....you already know the answer to that. And it has positively NOTHING to do with their defensive abilities. As I've already stated, they guarded their respective players on an island. And they never guarded him (nor should a smart coach have asked them to)....

As for Rodman I don't recall Him guarding olajuwon either. I recall that assignment falling to David Robinson during those years. 



> The Bulls were one of the best defensive teams throughout the 90's. They had superb individual defenders, in fact you named three of them.


Yup. I framed my argument on their individual expertise. And its disruptive effects on other teams OFFENSIVE abilities as a whole.



> Houston on the other hand was a poor defensive team outside of Olajuwon. Vernon Maxwell was their only good defensive guard, and Otis Thorpe (traded after the 1st championship) was their only post presence outside of Hakeem. Sure Horry had occassional moments of brilliance but there was no way they would have even been a mediocre defensive team without Hakeem.
> 
> 
> > I agree. Though I fail to see what this has to do with my opinion on why I think Pip, Jordan and Rodman (EVEN BEFORE 1996) were all better defenders.
> ...


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Apparantly, quite a few people CARE.....*



Minstrel said:


> This discussion is becoming utterly pointless. Either all your previous posts to me prior to this were extremely confused and poorly-expressed or you are continually twisting what you said and what I said.
> 
> You keep repeating this point:
> 
> ...


Yes I do understand that. And I wasn't disagreeing. *In fact, I AGREE WITH YOU.* I was just stating that EVERY opinion expressed was irrelavent with reference to reality, since none of them could be proven, as fact. As such there was no logical conclusion to draw from ANYTHING expressed, except the realities that actually occured. I now see that my own was irrelavent as well. I should not have taken the long way around in stating the what is obvious to me. 

It was in fact, poorly expresssed, and directed at the discussion itself and every point therein...not you or your point specifically. For that, I apologize.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

The Krakken said:


> The same could be said about Mourning, Ewing and Robinson.


Ewing and Robinson had teammates who were mostly poor defenders?


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> I can't help but think your speaking with a bias here, having seen more Bulls games than Rocket games.


What would cause you to draw that conclusion (having seen more bulls than rockets games??) I've never indicated that??



> Rodman was more of a specialist. He never had to contest shots in the paints or guard the entire paint like Hakeem had to. He was a good defender but more concerned with boxing out and grabbing the rebound than contesting shots.


This is misleading, and again, overemphasizes shot-blocking ability IMHO. Rodman was what one would call a "positional defender". He defended his man by putting him in positions that made him uncomfortable, and forcing him into taking shots that he was not accustomed to taking. He was very adept at moving his man away from the basket and getting a body on him BEFORE THE SHOT went up (of course making it much easier to box him out for rebounds). This is evidenced by his uncanny ability to draw a large number of charges. These were skills he honed and mastered in San Antonio and Detroit....NOT chicago. Both types of defense are equally valid and can be equally disruptive to what an opposing team would like to do.....



> Pippen was the greatest defender at his position, but you can only have so much of an impact defending on the perimeter compared to a defensive presence in the paint who can really anchor a team.


Pippen was asked to guard PG's in the playoffs ALL THE TIME. If there is one position that MUST be stopped to be a good defensive team, its the primary ballhandler on the other team. He did it to Kevin Johnson in the finals. He did it to Mark Jackson in the Conference Finals. He did it to John Stockton in the NBA FINALS....twice. He did it to Magic Johnson in the finals. HE collaborated with MJ (depending on which game in the finals you are talking about), to make Gary payton nearly completely ineffective in the finals. Blocking shots and challenging shots at the rim is great. But disrupting a players ability to get the ball where he wants it, making him uncomfortable, and in the process draining the shot clock so that he's forced to take a very difficult shot is just as valid. I haven't even talked about his steals and blocks.



> IMO the only better defender than Hakeem is Bill Russell.


Fair enough. Its a valid opinion. I just happen to disagree.....


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> As I've alluded to....Hakeem didn't accomplish that all by himself. But even so, He didn't dominate those guys defensively for his entire career. Not even close.


Who did Pippen dominate for his entire career defensively? Or Rodman, for that matter?



> Yup. I framed my argument on their individual expertise. And its disruptive effects on other teams OFFENSIVE abilities as a whole.


Yes, having 3 good defenders can do that for you.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Hakeem said:


> Ewing and Robinson had teammates who were mostly poor defenders?


Some of them....yes. Rodman was good. Oakley was good as well, but ask yourself how many Dominant PF's there were in the league at that time. And what conference did they play in? THe rest of the defenders were average. And if you include Mario elie in SA, you have to include him in Houston. Sean Elliot was average. My god, I don't even remember who the spurs PG was back then.....what does THAT tell you?

As for NY, they were physical and as a unit, a great defensive TEAM. But outside of ewing and maybe oak, not one of thier backcourt players was an all nba defender. Derek Harper was very slow, and allowed to HOLD and Push and SHOVE ALOT. So was Starks.


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> I think you're the one having trouble following. In comparing the late-season/post-season 1994-95 Bulls and the 1995-96 Bulls, Jordan wasn't _added_ to the 1995-96 team...he was on both teams. So, he wasn't the difference. Rodman was not on one team, but he was on the second. The full value of Rodman was far more important than any small differences between 1995 Jordan and 1995-96 Jordan.
> 
> *Again I beg to disagree with your assertion that Rodman was a bigger value between those two teams because the Bulls had very average inside presence at the PF position.*
> 
> ...


For what bandwidth ?

You quote parts of my statements yes. although the fact is they are tied in to other points that I use for this over all debate.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> Who did Pippen dominate for his entire career defensively? Or Rodman, for that matter?


Name a single player that flat out did what he wanted to do any time he played against Scottie Pippen. I should have stated earlier, that my statements are not absolutes and should not be taken as such, since they are not being stated as such. Some times the sun shines on a dogs ***, and players get hot and won' be stopped no matter what you do. Glen rice did it to the bulls once or twice, and so did domnique. Hell even Penny Hardaway torched the bulls in 1995 in the playoffs. But those instances are VERY MUCH the exception, and not the rule.





> Yes, having 3 good defenders can do that for you.


It is a laughable assertion that Jordan/Pippen/Rodman were only great defenders when they played with one another. I didn't make that assertion, and neither should you.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> This is misleading, and again, overemphasizes shot-blocking ability IMHO. Rodman was what one would call a "positional defender". He defended his man by putting him in positions that made him uncomfortable, and forcing him into taking shots that he was not accustomed to taking. He was very adept at moving his man away from the basket and getting a body on him BEFORE THE SHOT went up (of course making it much easier to box him out for rebounds). This is evidenced by his uncanny ability to draw a large number of charges. These were skills he honed and mastered in San Antonio and Detroit....NOT chicago. Both types of defense are equally valid and can be equally disruptive to what an opposing team would like to do.....


Except bodying up your man only affects 1 player whereas contesting shots and disrupting anything that goes into the post (don't forget Hakeem is the all-time leader in steals for the Rockets) affects 5.



> Pippen was asked to guard PG's in the playoffs ALL THE TIME. If there is one position that MUST be stopped to be a good defensive team, its the primary ballhandler on the other team. He did it to Kevin Johnson in the finals. He did it to Mark Jackson in the Conference Finals. He did it to John Stockton in the NBA FINALS....twice. He did it to Magic Johnson in the finals. HE collaborated with MJ (depending on which game in the finals you are talking about), to make Gary payton nearly completely ineffective in the finals. Blocking shots and challenging shots at the rim is great. But disrupting a players ability to get the ball where he wants it, making him uncomfortable, and in the process draining the shot clock so that he's forced to take a very difficult shot is just as valid. I haven't even talked about his steals and blocks.


Pippen was a versatile defender, as you have repeatedly stated, but this doesn't increase his value as a team defender. You mention how he shut down John Stockton but in game 6 (1998 Finals) didn't Stockton have 7 or 9 points in overtime? That's just off the top of my head, I doubt he shut down all these players (Magic Johnson, Stockton, Johnson, Jackson) to the extent you make it out to be. 

For example, Johnson's stats in the 91 finals did not change when he was guarded by Pippen. He had a trible double in the first game (19 pts, 10 reb, 11 ast), which resulted in Jackson putting Pippen on Johnson. In the following 4 games, Johnson averaged 18.5 ppg and 12.75 apg. So no, Pippen did not dramatically impact Magic's ability to distribute the ball or score. 

If you want to talk about steals and blocks, Hakeem averaged more than 3 bpg for his career (82 game season high of 4.6 bpg!) and only averaged .2 spg less than Pippen during his career.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> Name a single player that flat out did what he wanted to do any time he played against Scottie Pippen.


Name a single SF that had the scoring ability of a David Robinson or Shaquille O'Neal.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> Except bodying up your man only affects 1 player whereas contesting shots and disrupting anything that goes into the post (don't forget Hakeem is the all-time leader in steals for the Rockets) affects 5.


This logic is faulty and assumes that such a defender would never be drawn away from the basket, pulled into pick and rolls, and forced to defend players in positions where he couldn't help what was happening on the other side of the court. Hakeem didn't affect EVERY position on the court, nor did he affect EVERY play of each game.



> Pippen was a versatile defender, as you have repeatedly stated, but this doesn't increase his value as a team defender.p.quote]
> 
> Why doesn't it? Because you say so? :laugh:
> 
> ...


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> Name a single SF that had the scoring ability of a David Robinson or Shaquille O'Neal.


I've already alluded to the fact that this is largely irrelavent, since he was ROUTINELY PUT ON the opposing teams BEST PERIMETER OFFENSIVE OPTION. You want me to name EVERY perimeter offensive option who played during that era and were proficient as scoring??? Hell, he even had to guard charles barkely on occasion.....


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

*Re: Apparantly, quite a few people CARE.....*



The Krakken said:


> Yes I do understand that. And I wasn't disagreeing. *In fact, I AGREE WITH YOU.* I was just stating that EVERY opinion expressed was irrelavent with reference to reality, since none of them could be proven, as fact.


Yes, I agree with you. They are just opinions; there's no way to measure these things precisely.



> It was in fact, poorly expresssed, and directed at the discussion itself and every point therein...not you or your point specifically. For that, I apologize.


Fair enough. I also apologize if you felt I lashed out at you. It wasn't my intent.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

*Re: Apparantly, quite a few people CARE.....*



Minstrel said:


> Yes, I agree with you. They are just opinions; there's no way to measure these things precisely.
> 
> 
> 
> Fair enough. I also apologize if you felt I lashed out at you. It wasn't my intent.



Accepted. :clap:


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

> Johnson didn't play by himself. Not surprisingly, the lakers won that first game. What happened after that? They didn't win another game and in several cases were blown out. This is a testament to the intagible effect that the defensive switch had on the OVERALL OFFENSIVE SCHEME of the lakers.
> 
> This is one of the reasons that I don't look at stats to determine the whole picture of whether or not a player excells at certain facets of the game. They often lie.


But you said earlier Pippen shut down Johnson. Yet after we look at the stats you say that it was the OVERALL OFFENSIVE SCHEME of the Lakers he disrupted. Even after Johnson racked up 20 assists in game 5 of the series... the Lakers were an aging team and couldn't keep up with the Bulls. Scottie Pippen didn't stop Johnson from distributing the ball, and if he can't stop the primary ball handler how can you argue he's more effective defensively than an intimidating post presence like Hakeem? Is it because he did all the intangibles, which you assume Hakeem didn't do?

The 76ers won the first game against the Lakers in the 01 finals, then lost the next four. Is it because Jackson put Tyronn Lue on Allen Iverson for huge minutes which disrupted the OVERALL OFFENSIVE SCHEME of the 76ers? Like you said, stats don't always tell the story, but the 1991 Bulls and the 2001 Lakers would have won championships regardless of the defensive switches made.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> But you said earlier Pippen shut down Johnson. Yet after we look at the stats you say that it was the OVERALL OFFENSIVE SCHEME of the Lakers he disrupted. Even after Johnson racked up 20 assists in game 5 of the series... the Lakers were an aging team and couldn't keep up with the Bulls. Scottie Pippen didn't stop Johnson from distributing the ball, and if he can't stop the primary ball handler how can you argue he's more effective defensively than an intimidating post presence like Hakeem? Is it because he did all the intangibles, which you assume Hakeem didn't do?
> 
> The 76ers won the first game against the Lakers in the 01 finals, then lost the next four. Is it because Jackson put Tyronn Lue on Allen Iverson for huge minutes which disrupted the OVERALL OFFENSIVE SCHEME of the 76ers? Like you said, stats don't always tell the story, but the 1991 Bulls and the 2001 Lakers would have won championships regardless of the defensive switches made.


Bookmarked. I'll refute this in the morning...... :cheers:


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

23AirJordan said:


> Again I beg to disagree with your assertion that Rodman was a bigger value between those two teams because the Bulls had very average inside presence at the PF position.
> 
> My point is that with or with out the acquisition of Rodman that year the Bulls would of been title condtenders. If you took Jordan off that team their title chances are not nearly as good.


You don't seem to be understanding. Rodman was more important than the _difference_ between 1995 Jordan and 1995-96 Jordan. So why are you talking about "taking Jordan off the team"? 1995 Jordan was still a tremendous player.

The point is this. This team:

PG: Ron Harper
SG: 1995 Postseason Michael Jordan
SF: Scottie Pippen
PF: Dennis Rodman
C: Luc Longley

would have been considerably better than this team:

PG: Ron Harper
SG: 1995-96 Michael Jordan
SF: Scottie Pippen
PF: Dickie Simpkins
C: Luc Longley

Now do you see? Jordan is on both teams...the point is, going from Rodman to Simpkins is a greater loss than going from 1995-96 Jordan to 1995 postseason Jordan.

Therefore, the Bulls huge improvement in 1995-96 was more due to Rodman _joining the team_ than Jordan _improving_.



> Also my biggest point which you have seem blind to in my previous posts. Is that the Bulls could have acquired other PF's and won a title. And for the last time the Bulls won championships with Jordan and with out Rodman. But have never won a championship with out Jordan.


This is irrelevant, as I explained above. Neither situation involves not having Jordan. It's simply one year's Jordan versus another year's Jordan *compared to* Dennis Rodman versus Dickie Simpkins.



> For what bandwidth ?
> 
> You quote parts of my statements yes. although the fact is they are tied in to other points that I use for this over all debate.


No, for clarity. I quote the issues I disagree with as concisely as I can, without changing the meaning, and respond as concisely as I can. I let go issues that I don't disagree with or that I don't consider relevant to what I'm arguing.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

The Krakken said:


> This logic is faulty and assumes that such a defender would never be drawn away from the basket, pulled into pick and rolls, and forced to defend players in positions where he couldn't help what was happening on the other side of the court. Hakeem didn't affect EVERY position on the court, nor did he affect EVERY play of each game.


Oh, come on, he didn't say that. He said that a center can contest shots taken by all five players on the court, which is true. Of course Hakeem didn't contest EVERY shot or affect EVERY play of EVERY game, but no one suggested that he did. You just said that to make MRC's argument sound unreasonable. The point is that Hakeem, as a superb interior defender, had a bigger influence on the defensive end than Pippen. However, it's not as if he simply stood around in the paint while his less talented teammates did all the hard work on their "islands" on the perimeter, and then, when their men eventually got by them, contest the shots and get his five blocks a game. He very effectively guarded the best big men in the league (and back then, the center position had most of the best players). His combination of strength, agility, speed, and super-quick reflexes made him a very versatile defender. He could stop Robinson from hitting all those 15-footers (something that Shaq had difficulty doing), while also being able to stop Shaq in the low post. When he found himself stuck defending a guard on the perimeter, he had the speed and quick hands to still be highly effective.


----------



## bullsville is broke (Apr 2, 2005)

Pan Mengtu said:


> I think it's arguable. I would rank players like this (no order), in tiers:
> 
> 1st tier: Wilt Chamberlain, Michael Jordan, Oscar Robertson
> 2nd tier: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Bill Russell
> ...


You should put Jordan, Kareem, Bird and Magic all on the top tier. All player got big time stats and they won.

Russell won but didn't have the stats. 
Chamberlain had the stats but when you consider the talent around him should have won way more than 2 championships. 

Jordan, Kareem, Bird and Magic all led their teams to 3 or more championships and are all also statistical monsters.

If Wilt won 2 rings while playing with Jerry West, Elgin Baylor, Gail Goodrich, George McInnis, Hal Greer, Chet Walker and Billy Cunningham....even choking away two potential rings in game 7s where his Lakers were heavily favored in 1969, and 1970.....how is he the first player that comes to mind? He can hold every record in the book but the object of the game is to win!! His team in 1967 seemed to beat Russell just fine. So how come he couldn't do it in 1966? Why couldn't he beat Russell when he had West and Baylor in 1970? 

He lost to Russell in Russell's last game when Russell was 38 and the Celtics weren't even favored to make it out of the first ROUND!

In 1970 he loses game 7 to the Knicks in the game where Willis Reed hobbled onto the court and left after only a few possessions. Wilt spent the overwhelming majority of his time on the court being guarded by 6'6" Dave Debusschere.

Now I can promise you this. If Shaq had Jerry West and Elgin Baylor on his team....and was being guarded by any 6'6" human being on earth....I don't care if West and Baylor were 45 years old. He'd destroy the 6'6' defender until the double team came and then he'd be finding West and Baylor open all day long. 

One thing people forget is that until about the middle of Wilt's career, and coincidentally AFTER he put up most of his greatest statistical achievements Wilt had Russell and a bunch of nobodies to contend with at the center position. I think Bellomy and Thurmond came into the league around 63, so those two weren't even in their prime probably till about 66 or 67. That means the only center who was in his prime of any value for the first 8 years of Wilt's career was Russell. I shudder to think of what Shaq, who already has one more ring than Wilt, would have done against that kind of competition. Put Shaq and Wilt in the same era and Shaq is the better player. Put Shaq up against the team of nobodies that Wilt scored 100 on and tell Shaq to shoot it every time and he'd get 125.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> In his younger days, Hakeem and David Robinson, and Even Alonzo mourning abused him regularly.


this is just false.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

The Krakken said:


> Some of them....yes. Rodman was good. Oakley was good as well, but ask yourself how many Dominant PF's there were in the league at that time. And what conference did they play in? THe rest of the defenders were average. And if you include Mario elie in SA, you have to include him in Houston. Sean Elliot was average. My god, I don't even remember who the spurs PG was back then.....what does THAT tell you?
> 
> As for NY, they were physical and as a unit, a great defensive TEAM. But outside of ewing and maybe oak, not one of thier backcourt players was an all nba defender. Derek Harper was very slow, and allowed to HOLD and Push and SHOVE ALOT. So was Starks.


Spurs doubled Hakeem a lot. Very often it was Robinson and Rodman on Hakeem. Rockets didn't double Robinson as much. When they did, it was usually Hakeem and a crap defender on Robinson. But I agree that most of the rest of the Spurs weren't very good defensively.

Knicks, however, were a different story. Best team defense at the time; partly because they played so rough, but that was a part of the game. They forced opposing guards way out on the pick and roll making it difficult for them to get it to the big men. They doubled great centers like Olajuwon and Shaq and Robinson very frequently. They had Charles Oakley, Charles Smith, Anthony Mason and Doc Rivers.


----------



## Pan Mengtu (Jun 18, 2004)

Anyone have any opinions on Shaquille O'Neal, apparently the topic of this thread, and where he belongs in an all-time list?


----------



## 77AJ (Feb 16, 2005)

Minstrel said:


> You don't seem to be understanding. Rodman was more important than the _difference_ between 1995 Jordan and 1995-96 Jordan. So why are you talking about "taking Jordan off the team"? 1995 Jordan was still a tremendous player.
> 
> The point is this. This team:
> 
> ...


Fair enough.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

I'm beginning to think that the Hakeem lovers in this thread don't respect my right to disagree with them. As such I will refute a few points and then I am done. No sense arguing with a bunch of brick walls.



> But you said earlier Pippen shut down Johnson. Yet after we look at the stats you say that it was the OVERALL OFFENSIVE SCHEME of the Lakers he disrupted.


The first statement was hyperbole on my part. The very best players in the world cannot be completely shut down...but looking at the stats, rather than going back and actually watching the games paints an ambiguous and misleading picture of what really happend.



> Even after Johnson racked up 20 assists in game 5 of the series... the Lakers were an aging team and couldn't keep up with the Bulls. Scottie Pippen didn't stop Johnson from distributing the ball, and if he can't stop the primary ball handler how can you argue he's more effective defensively than an intimidating post presence like Hakeem?


Because Hakeem wasn't always effective at stopping the opposing players C either. Further, just LOOK AT WHO PIP was guarding. Arguably the best PG to ever play the game. He did an admirable job. I notice that you take NOT ONE SINGLE ISSUE with any of the other names I throw out there. I'll draw my own conclusions about your cherry picking.....



> Is it because he did all the intangibles, which you assume Hakeem didn't do?


And there you go again, thinking for me.......



> The 76ers won the first game against the Lakers in the 01 finals, then lost the next four. Is it because Jackson put Tyronn Lue on Allen Iverson for huge minutes which disrupted the OVERALL OFFENSIVE SCHEME of the 76ers?


Nope, but putting a better defender on him DID help. Look, arguing that changing pippen onto Magic had Zero effect defensively is absolutley laughable. You are in effect suggesting that Phil Jackson, who has now won 9 titles had no idea what he was doing, when he did it. Against the best players (especially a tier 1 or 2 player) the effect is limited....but there is an effect, nonetheless..



> Like you said, stats don't always tell the story, but the 1991 Bulls and the 2001 Lakers would have won championships regardless of the defensive switches made.


Show me the proof.........


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Hakeem said:


> Oh, come on, he didn't say that. He said that a center can contest shots taken by all five players on the court, which is true. Of course Hakeem didn't contest EVERY shot or affect EVERY play of EVERY game, but no one suggested that he did. You just said that to make MRC's argument sound unreasonable.


And there you go again...thinking for me. I must say its difficult to take discussions like this seriously with people constantly telling me what "I'm thinking" or "what I meant".....



> The point is that Hakeem, as a superb interior defender, had a bigger influence on the defensive end than Pippen.


And its a point I disagree with.



> However, it's not as if he simply stood around in the paint while his less talented teammates did all the hard work on their "islands" on the perimeter, and then, when their men eventually got by them, contest the shots and get his five blocks a game.


Who said that?



> He very effectively guarded the best big men in the league (and back then, the center position had most of the best players).


Hakeem was drafted when? From 1984 to about 1991-1992, the best players in the league were guards and forwards. There was about a 3 year stretch, where MJ, Karl Malone and Charles Barkely notwithstanding, the Center position was dominant. I don't know where you got the idea that the fcenter position had most of the best players. If I didn't know better, I'd think you guys were trying to shrink this argument down to the 3 year period when Hakeem was in his absolute prime.



> His combination of strength, agility, speed, and super-quick reflexes made him a very versatile defender.


Nobody is arguing this.



> He could stop Robinson from hitting all those 15-footers (something that Shaq had difficulty doing), while also being able to stop Shaq in the low post.


How much did shaq average against him in the finals again? and what was his FG%??


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Hakeem's D was quite a bit worse in '95 than from '89 to '94. Didn't even make All-Defense 2nd Team.



The Krakken said:


> I'm beginning to think that the Hakeem lovers in this thread don't respect my right to disagree with them. As such I will refute a few points and then I am done. No sense arguing with a bunch of brick walls.


What makes you say that I don't respect your right to disagree with me? I'm simply expressing my opinion, while adding a bit of good-natured rebuttal, which is exactly what you're doing, too. It's a typical messageboard discussion, as far as I can see. Am I a brick wall because I don't agree with you?


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Pan Mengtu said:


> Anyone have any opinions on Shaquille O'Neal, apparently the topic of this thread, and where he belongs in an all-time list?


wouldn't shaq spot on the all time list also depend on where to rank players such as hakeem in relation to shaq?

if you only want to talk about shaq, why did you bring up the other players to begin with? obviously that will cause arguement as some will argue some players over shaq, while some may argue that shaq should be above other players. but either way, shaq's position in an all time list depends on other players, so why is there a problem with other players being discussed?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

pippen usually guarded opposing 3's. they didn't just put him on the other teams top scorer. he primarily guarded the 3 spot. frankly, jordan was a better overall on-ball defender, pippen was better as a roaming defender, and pippen was better equipped to guard the 3-spot than jordan. 

pippen's greatness defensively was his ability to disrupt the opposing teams offensive scheme. he made things difficult. he was an excellent on-ball defender, but i'd say there've been better. 

hakeem and pippen both affected a game beyond they guy they were guarding. but i'll take the guy in the middle.


----------



## farhan007 (Jun 6, 2003)

The Krakken said:


> And its a point I disagree with.


do you have any knowledge of basketball??? A Dominant interior defender is always more important than a dominant shut down gaurd.... Tim Duncan on defense is more important than Bowen on defense....

People were AFRAID to penetrate when Hakeem was in the lane....
Big men have to stop the other big men AND gaurds penetrating in...
Perimeter defenders only have to stop penetration.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

farhan007 said:


> do you have any knowledge of basketball??? A Dominant interior defender is always more important than a dominant shut down gaurd.... Tim Duncan on defense is more important than Bowen on defense....
> 
> People were AFRAID to penetrate when Hakeem was in the lane....
> Big men have to stop the other big men AND gaurds penetrating in...
> Perimeter defenders only have to stop penetration.


Pippen was different from a normal "shut-down" perimeter defender. He was an all-court defender, disrupting the opposing team's scheme and timing and helping on other players while limiting his own man.

By and large, an excellent perimeter defender only affects one man, but that wasn't true of Pippen, which is why he gets thrown into discussions of the best all-time defender.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Check out this video of Hakeem. Really showcases what a defensive monster he was.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Very cool video, though I felt most of the more eye popping defensive highlights came in the college section. Once the highlights hit the NBA, it seemed that it showcased Olajuwon's offensive ability more. This mix was really fun to watch though. Do you know anywhere that has more of these highlight films?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Awesome video, thanks. What struck me most was how he could make break-away steals the way guards do. His steals weren't all strips of big men, he could ballhawk a pass and fly the other way.

Also, I had forgotten much of how he played in the 1980s. My enduring memories were of his play in the '90s, typified by the Dream Shake. But, in the 1980s he played like a Kevin Garnett with more dynamic defense and a more attacking personality. He drove, dished and tomahawked much like KG.


----------



## farhan007 (Jun 6, 2003)

man its been a while since i watched Dream in his prime...

there is no way he is 7ft and stil can do all that. He has footwork of a quick gaurd, but the power of a dominant center. thats what makes him one of the most talented players ever. If you watched that video and didnt say WOW... you dont know basketbal.. 
I swear if he was 6' 5" he still would be a great player, just because of his footwork... Man... i loved how he just crossed over... enter the paint, pump fake and slam.... 
And then we have to talk about his defense. My favorite blocks were on the fastbreal where the gaurd thinks he is clear for the open dunk... and BOOM!! H e haning on the rim with the ball way out of bounds.... Dude is a freak.... I dont know how you can move that much being so tall.... Shaq couldnt do 90% of the stuff on that vid


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Yyzlin said:


> Very cool video, though I felt most of the more eye popping defensive highlights came in the college section. Once the highlights hit the NBA, it seemed that it showcased Olajuwon's offensive ability more. This mix was really fun to watch though. Do you know anywhere that has more of these highlight films?


That's because they forwarded to the 1993-95 seasons, where the Rockets won back-to-back championships. Still was a fantastic defender who could run the court with the tiny guards, as shown by that block on Kevin Johnson.

Unfortunately I don't know of any sites that have highlight films of Hakeem or any other great players.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> That's because they forwarded to the 1993-95 seasons, where the Rockets won back-to-back championships. Still was a fantastic defender who could run the court with the tiny guards, as shown by that block on Kevin Johnson.


I think the first 5 minutes were all pre-90's, although I believe that a good majority of those clips were culled from the same playoff. 



> Unfortunately I don't know of any sites that have highlight films of Hakeem or any other great players.


That sucks. How did you find this video? I amazed that they had so many pre-technological boom clips in the mix. I wonder if there's an archive of old NBA video clips anywhere on the net. I could spend hours watching them.


----------



## Junior21 (Jun 26, 2004)

IV said:


> If I ranked the top 10 centers of all time, Shaq is in the 5-7 range. :twocents: So I couldn't begin to think he's top 6 all time.
> 
> I believe that Wilt, Bill Russell, Kareem, and Olajuwan were better cneters than Shaq. & arguably David Robinson(this may be a biased pick because he's one of my all time favs, but he was a better all around center). I think this mostly because Shaq never plays defense, so he'd have a terrible time having to match up against another great center. When there were other great centers in the league, Shaq was great but he wasn't any better than they were, only until now has he reached the status he has. It's all in the absence of other great big men, so I have a hard time ranking him as high as 6th all time.



if you rank the top 10 center of all-time, shaq is arguably #1. I'm sorry even guys who watched Bill Russsel will say he was playing against 5'6" centers back then. David robinson couldn't contain Shaq when he was 22 let alone now, or even 2002. i like david robinson but you have to be a realistic. Shaq is far more dominate & any GM would tell you that. Even hakeem admitted shaq was his toughest foe at when shaq was in his 2nd year. Don't hate on shaq, just embrace the moment, so you can tell your grandkids you watched shaq play.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> Pippen was different from a normal "shut-down" perimeter defender. He was an all-court defender, disrupting the opposing team's scheme and timing and helping on other players while limiting his own man.
> 
> By and large, an excellent perimeter defender only affects one man, but that wasn't true of Pippen, which is why he gets thrown into discussions of the best all-time defender.


Thank you. Even though we disagree, at least you see the basis for my argument. Rather than accusing me of "not knowing anything about basketball"...

+rep.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

Hakeem said:


> Hakeem's D was quite a bit worse in '95 than from '89 to '94. Didn't even make All-Defense 2nd Team.
> 
> 
> What makes you say that I don't respect your right to disagree with me? I'm simply expressing my opinion, while adding a bit of good-natured rebuttal, which is exactly what you're doing, too. It's a typical messageboard discussion, as far as I can see. Am I a brick wall because I don't agree with you?



No. The only birck walls are the ones that respect my right to disagree. See below the post I am quoting.... I disagree, and suddenly I know nothing about basketball


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

The Krakken said:


> Because Hakeem Olajuwon was not the best defensive player of all time, silly.
> 
> He just.....wasn't. In fact, I'm not conviced he was top 3.......or even top 5....


Convincing you is not a prerequiste to the truth.


----------



## The Krakken (Jul 17, 2002)

IV said:


> Convincing you is not a prerequiste to the truth.


Apparantly......


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Junior21 said:


> if you rank the top 10 center of all-time, shaq is arguably #1. I'm sorry even guys who watched Bill Russsel will say he was playing against 5'6" centers back then. David robinson couldn't contain Shaq when he was 22 let alone now, or even 2002. i like david robinson but you have to be a realistic. Shaq is far more dominate & any GM would tell you that. Even hakeem admitted shaq was his toughest foe at when shaq was in his 2nd year. Don't hate on shaq, just embrace the moment, so you can tell your grandkids you watched shaq play.


Sorry, but in no way, shape or form is shaq the #1 center all time.

IMHO, it's a mistake comparing eras. Sure, Shaq in the 60'2/70's would kick major ***. But Jordan against the zone would NOT be the record holder of career PPG. so let's leave it at that and compare what he can.


Wilt is the greatest center ever. No question about it. 50ppg/season, 20+rpg in severall seasons, 100 points in a game, leading the league in assists, you name it. He did it all. and i don't think one could ever dream of saying that if Shaq played in the 60's/70's, he would lead the league in assists, now, would one?

Russel is an enygma, for me. Yes, he was talented. A great rebounder and defender, he had the luxury to play alongside the greatest squad ever built. 11 rings can't be a mere coincidence...

Then there's Kareem: 6 titles. 6 MVPs. All of the awards possible and still kicking *** at age 36... He was the only one to battle the likes of Wilt, Cowens, Mo, Ewing, Hakeem, you name it and come on top. 20 years of sheer dominance...

Then (and only then) one could consider Shaq.


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

Greatness as a basketball player is a difficult thing to measure and argue but you can't just say that one can't compare across eras and then base an argument for greatness based on achievement in weaker eras of the sport. You have to compare across eras. If you're forming the best team possible, which player do you take? Which player do you think would win the individual matchups and have the bigger impact on the game as a whole, playing with other legends (for this comparison)? I think that's a much better way of looking at greatness than looking at who has won what. 

I take Shaq in the middle and I think my team would come out on top, more often than not, because of it.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

SkywalkerAC said:


> Greatness as a basketball player is a difficult thing to measure and argue but you can't just say that one can't compare across eras and then base an argument for greatness based on achievement in weaker eras of the sport. You have to compare across eras. If you're forming the best team possible, which player do you take? Which player do you think would win the individual matchups and have the bigger impact on the game as a whole, playing with other legends (for this comparison)? I think that's a much better way of looking at greatness than looking at who has won what.
> 
> I take Shaq in the middle and I think my team would come out on top, more often than not, because of it.


Well, that's the catch, really. We can't compare eras.

Do you think Michael Jordan would get his stats and/or rings if he had to face a zone defense?
I dare to say Jordan never had to face triple-coverage. Guys like T-Mac and Kobe face it every game.

so, should Michael´s legacy be tarnished?


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

SkywalkerAC said:


> Greatness as a basketball player is a difficult thing to measure and argue but you can't just say that one can't compare across eras and then base an argument for greatness based on achievement in weaker eras of the sport. You have to compare across eras. If you're forming the best team possible, which player do you take? Which player do you think would win the individual matchups and have the bigger impact on the game as a whole, playing with other legends (for this comparison)? I think that's a much better way of looking at greatness than looking at who has won what.
> 
> I take Shaq in the middle and I think my team would come out on top, more often than not, because of it.


has shaq played in a stronger era for centers than wilt, russell, and others? when shaq was young, he played against hakeem, ewing, robinson, and others in their primes. shaq didn't dominate then. he won no titles and was 1st team all nba once from 92-93 to 98-99. it wasn't until the other great centers he was going against started declining that shaq truely started dominated and winning his titles and awards. it's not like shaq has been dominating great centers while older centers dominated terrible ones. shaq hasn't exactly had the best competition at his position either.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

rocketeer said:


> has shaq played in a stronger era for centers than wilt, russell, and others? when shaq was young, he played against hakeem, ewing, robinson, and others in their primes. shaq didn't dominate then. he won no titles and was 1st team all nba once from 92-93 to 98-99. it wasn't until the other great centers he was going against started declining that shaq truely started dominated and winning his titles and awards. it's not like shaq has been dominating great centers while older centers dominated terrible ones. shaq hasn't exactly had the best competition at his position either.


 Do you think Hakeem is a great center? Probably
Do you think guys like Duncan, Amare are great? Probably

Guess what Duncan and Amare are as big/bigger (check out basketball reference.com) then Hakeem. It's a falsehood that Shaq hasn't played great big men throughout his career. Not his fault that many guys who would be classified as a "center" have decided to call themselves PF"s. Shaq has somewhat redefined what we think of a center just because of his massive frame and post presence


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

PauloCatarino said:


> Well, that's the catch, really. We can't compare eras.
> 
> Do you think Michael Jordan would get his stats and/or rings if he had to face a zone defense?
> I dare to say Jordan never had to face triple-coverage. Guys like T-Mac and Kobe face it every game.
> ...


Paulo: I understand what you're trying to say but is there any evidence that the zone has hurt anybody's production? Guys like Tmac, Kobe, Pierce etc have all played in the nozone and zone era. I haven't seen any evidence that the zone has significantly affected any perimeter player's production. If there is let me know


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Pioneer10 said:


> Paulo: I understand what you're trying to say but is there any evidence that the zone has hurt anybody's production? Guys like Tmac, Kobe, Pierce etc have all played in the nozone and zone era. I haven't seen any evidence that the zone has significantly affected any perimeter player's production. If there is let me know


And you are right.

But i was talking about yesterday's players. Guys who never played agaisnt the zone...

BTW, zone defense is one of the reasons our perimeter superstars are shooting at a so dismal %...


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Pioneer10 said:


> Do you think Hakeem is a great center? Probably
> Do you think guys like Duncan, Amare are great? Probably
> 
> Guess what Duncan and Amare are as big/bigger (check out basketball reference.com) then Hakeem. It's a falsehood that Shaq hasn't played great big men throughout his career. Not his fault that many guys who would be classified as a "center" have decided to call themselves PF"s. Shaq has somewhat redefined what we think of a center just because of his massive frame and post presence


are the "great" post players today as good as the "great" post players i was talking about?

during the mid and early 90s it was hakeem, robinson, ewing, mourning, and mutumbo, and then some great pfs with barkley, malone, and young shawn kemp. are there really that many post players right now that are on that level? the answer is no. after duncan, who is there? amare is playing great this year. i wouldn't really put jermaine oneal, kevin garnett, dirk, webber, and guys like that on the same level as the elite post players from the middle 90s. shaq was dominating against those guys. he is dominating now.

i'm not trying to say shaq isn't a great player. he held his own against the great centers of the 90s. but it is very easy to argue that he isn't even at the top of that list, and that's just talking about the centers of one decade. i'd put him at probably the 5th best center and around 10th or so all time.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Shaq went through Mourning and Mutombo in their primes. KG has an MVP which Ewing, Mourning, Mutombo,Kemp never had. I wouldn't underestimate the talent of guys like Dirk, KG, Duncan, Amare. I've watched NBA ball for a long time and these guys would have been all-stars in any era

Again considering a rookie/young Shaq more then held his own against prime hakeem and drob, and Ewing. Shaq in his prime during the Laker threepeat added terrific passing and post moves. I would take him over any center since Kareem and then even then an argument can be made that a prime Shaq equals a prime Kareem or Russell


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Pioneer10 said:


> Shaq went through Mourning and Mutombo in their primes. KG has an MVP which Ewing, Mourning, Mutombo,Kemp never had. I wouldn't underestimate the talent of guys like Dirk, KG, Duncan, Amare. I've watched NBA ball for a long time and these guys would have been all-stars in any era
> 
> Again considering a rookie/young Shaq more then held his own against prime hakeem and drob, and Ewing. Shaq in his prime during the Laker threepeat added terrific passing and post moves. I would take him over any center since Kareem and then even then an argument can be made that a prime Shaq equals a prime Kareem or Russell


i'm talking about as low post players which is what shaq is. you said that talking about the centers today wasn't good enough because of guys like duncan. dirk and kg aren't really low post players that would compete with shaq in the paint like the hakeem, ewing, robinson low post players of the 90s. that's what i'm talking about when i'm saying that he hasn't been dominating great competition.


----------



## IV (Jul 16, 2002)

Junior21 said:


> if you rank the top 10 center of all-time, shaq is arguably #1. I'm sorry even guys who watched Bill Russsel will say he was playing against 5'6" centers back then. David robinson couldn't contain Shaq when he was 22 let alone now, or even 2002. i like david robinson but you have to be a realistic. Shaq is far more dominate & any GM would tell you that. Even hakeem admitted shaq was his toughest foe at when shaq was in his 2nd year. Don't hate on shaq, just embrace the moment, so you can tell your grandkids you watched shaq play.


I'm not hating on Shaq just because we have a difference of opinion. No one player could guard Shaq in the paint, that is true. It's also true that Shaq can't guard any of the great centers including David Robinson. Mind you, Shaq was not first team all nba at the center spot perennially until all the other great centers were either retired, or over the hill. Once the competition was lessened, he became the most dominate ever _(in his and your opinion, I guess)_ 

Also, I'd be enlightened to know who was an NBA center at 5'6, just curious?


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

rocketeer said:


> i'm talking about as low post players which is what shaq is. you said that talking about the centers today wasn't good enough because of guys like duncan. dirk and kg aren't really low post players that would compete with shaq in the paint like the hakeem, ewing, robinson low post players of the 90s. that's what i'm talking about when i'm saying that he hasn't been dominating great competition.


 Ewing and Robinson were great post players? These two guys made their living with midrange jumpshots. I watched plenty of both and their greatest weakness IMO was they never developed a great post game like Hakeem. Just because players are big and listed as centers doesn't necessarily mean they are great "post players". How many times did Robinson go with his back to a basket move? He loved to face up and drive/shoot. Ewing (stupidly IMO) settled for jumpers and took himself out of the lane where his size would have done damage. The great thing about Shaq is he puts himself in position where he does damage. He stays inside where he should be unlike many other centers

I'll repeat Shaq has dominated Duncan, Mourning (pre-kidney), and Mutombo (who knows when his prime was maybe in college?). And a yound shaq without any post moves and less passing ability was the equal to a "prime" hakeem, drob, and ewing. He also went against Malone during his MVP years and Duncan is as good a "post" player" as anybody outside maybe Hakeem


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> Well, that's the catch, really. We can't compare eras.
> 
> Do you think Michael Jordan would get his stats and/or rings if he had to face a zone defense?
> I dare to say Jordan never had to face triple-coverage. Guys like T-Mac and Kobe face it every game.
> ...


Yes, I think the disparity in defense should be taken into account. I think one can argue that Tmac and Kobe are on the same level, they're certainly better outside shooters which helps when playing against the collapsing defenses of today. I'm a new school kind of guy. I think the NBA is stronger than it has ever been and that many of today's players have physical advantages and more complete skillsets than their predescessors. Just so you know, my best possible team is the following:

Lebron
Kobe
Jordan
KG
Shaq


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Pioneer10 said:


> Ewing and Robinson were great post players? These two guys made their living with midrange jumpshots. I watched plenty of both and their greatest weakness IMO was they never developed a great post game like Hakeem. Just because players are big and listed as centers doesn't necessarily mean they are great "post players". How many times did Robinson go with his back to a basket move? He loved to face up and drive/shoot. Ewing (stupidly IMO) settled for jumpers and took himself out of the lane where his size would have done damage. The great thing about Shaq is he puts himself in position where he does damage. He stays inside where he should be unlike many other centers


as far as guys that actually defended shaq and that shaq played defense against, yes they are. shaq had to go against hakeem, robinson, ewing, mourning, mutumbo, and others. shaq doesn't even consistantly go against duncan in their matchups.


----------



## farhan007 (Jun 6, 2003)

Pioneer10 said:


> Shaq went through Mourning and Mutombo in their primes. KG has an MVP which Ewing, Mourning, Mutombo,Kemp never had. I wouldn't underestimate the talent of guys like Dirk, KG, Duncan, Amare. I've watched NBA ball for a long time and these guys would have been all-stars in any era
> 
> Again considering a rookie/young Shaq more then held his own against prime hakeem and drob, and Ewing. Shaq in his prime during the Laker threepeat added terrific passing and post moves. I would take him over any center since Kareem and then even then an argument can be made that a prime Shaq equals a prime Kareem or Russell


Shaq did not hold his own as well as you think..... remember 4-0 sweep....


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

farhan007 said:


> Shaq did not hold his own as well as you think..... remember 4-0 sweep....


 How many times do people have to be reminded that team performance is not the same thing as individual performance. If Nick Anderson didn't destroy his career with those four missed ft's then even that seemingly decisive sweep might have ended very differently. 

Recent history for a Rocket fan: was tmac any less of player because he was on a lousy team? No


Also Shaq was what in his second year and Hakeem in his prime. Even then Shaq put up equivalent numbers


----------



## farhan007 (Jun 6, 2003)

Junior21 said:


> if you rank the top 10 center of all-time, shaq is arguably #1. I'm sorry even guys who watched Bill Russsel will say he was playing against 5'6" centers back then. David robinson couldn't contain Shaq when he was 22 let alone now, or even 2002. i like david robinson but you have to be a realistic. Shaq is far more dominate & any GM would tell you that. Even hakeem admitted shaq was his toughest foe at when shaq was in his 2nd year. Don't hate on shaq, just embrace the moment, so you can tell your grandkids you watched shaq play.


If you ever watche hakeem play... no way you would say Shaq is number 1.... Shaq was okay defensivly.... but Hakeem is one of the best defenders ever.... 
Dream never had a player of the caliber of Kobe(Drexler wasnt in his prime)....
Dream won as the ONLY go to guy on his team.... Shaq had another go to guy on his team to help.... Plus no oned would consider Shaq clutch... kobe wasthere for that. But for the champ Rockets, they depended on Hakeem to come through in the clutch(nohack a Dream... Dream could make free trhos)

Plus hakeem was WAY more versitile, and a bigger talent... HE wasjust as dominant inside as he was in the mid range game... Can you say that about Shaq? 

FOr Shaq you need to set him up in the Rocht position to be effective. For Hakeem, he can create big plays out of broken ones... You can give Dream teh ball from the 3pt line and he would drive it in...Shaq is incable of doing such a thing. Plus Hakeem stripped balls out of players and ran the fastbreak like a gaurd!!! Remeber he was 7ft and just as dominant inside.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

rocketeer said:


> as far as guys that actually defended shaq and that shaq played defense against, yes they are. shaq had to go against hakeem, robinson, ewing, mourning, mutumbo, and others. shaq doesn't even consistantly go against duncan in their matchups.


 Shaq actually did matchup with Duncan especially in the fourth quarter when he was with the Lakers. It works both ways though: Duncan (as big or nearly as big as any center from the 90's) and an acknowledged terrific defender is barely put on Shaq the other way because no single player has been able to stop a prime Shaq.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

SkywalkerAC said:


> Just so you know, my best possible team is the following:
> 
> Lebron
> Kobe
> ...


Can't argue with Jordan and Shaq's selctions, really. (due to your reasoning)

But i'm very interested to read why didi you pick Lebron (at PG, it seems) over the likes of Magic, Oscar, Stockton, Isiah or Payton (all of them guys that, IMHO, could play and excell ina any era and any system)

Kobe and Jordan seems a mistake, IMHO. They are both stricktly SGs...

KG at PF over Malone or Duncan? why?


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Junior21 said:


> Even hakeem admitted shaq was his toughest foe at when shaq was in his 2nd year.


And Shaq admitted the title of MDE was passed to him by Hakeem after '99 or so when it was pretty clear Hakeem was close to retirement. Technically it should be '97, when Hakeem had his knee surgery.


----------



## Ghost (Jun 21, 2002)

This thread is great, there are about 5 different topics being disscused. Anyway here is my tiers.

No order

1st - Michael Jordan, Wilt, Kareem, Oscar Robertson
2nd - Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Shaq
3rd - Tim Duncan, Hakeem, Bill Russell
4th - Kevin Garnett, Karl Malone, Jerry West 
5th - Tons of Players


----------



## djtoneblaze (Nov 22, 2004)

Pan Mengtu said:


> I think it's arguable. I would rank players like this (no order), in tiers:
> 
> 1st tier: Wilt Chamberlain, Michael Jordan, Oscar Robertson
> 2nd tier: Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Bill Russell
> ...


Magic was better than Kareem was, and was also better than Bird was, so he shouldn't be on the same tier as Bird. Magic was also better than Oscar. Magic, Jordan, and Wilt belong on a tier of their own.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

djtoneblaze said:


> Magic was better than Kareem was, and was also better than Bird was, so he shouldn't be on the same tier as Bird. Magic was also better than Oscar. Magic, Jordan, and Wilt belong on a tier of their own.


based on what?


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

kflo said:


> based on what?


Common sense? :biggrin:


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> Common sense? :biggrin:


people have varying levels of common sense, paulo.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

kflo said:


> people have varying levels of common sense, paulo.


Not when it's borderline heresy!! :biggrin: 

IMHO, Magic was better than Oscar and Bird. Maybe not by much, but he was. About Kareem, i´d say it's perfectley debatable, but i´ll still go with Magic.

The only "strong" argument people use is Oscar's tripe double greatness. i don't think that's enough to put him above Magic.
Bird i love. I consider him to be the perfect basketball player. But Magic had something else, Off course, if Bird had stayed healthy, things could have been different...


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

from '80 to '88 (before bird's back surgery), he finished ahead of magic in mvp voting 8 of 9 years.

magic won more, but his teams were more talented as well, imo. as a matter of fact, bird acknowledges that the '84 title team wasn't as talented as that years laker team.

i think it's a toss up, impossible to distinguish. can't see placing them on different tiers, no less.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

kflo said:


> from '80 to '88 (before bird's back surgery), he finished ahead of magic in mvp voting 8 of 9 years.
> 
> magic won more, but his teams were more talented as well, imo. as a matter of fact, bird acknowledges that the '84 title team wasn't as talented as that years laker team.
> 
> i think it's a toss up, impossible to distinguish. can't see placing them on different tiers, no less.


 ^ then Magic won two MVP's after going against if anything tougher competition, a prime MJ

Anyway you stretch it hard to distinguish the two


----------



## SkywalkerAC (Sep 20, 2002)

PauloCatarino said:


> Can't argue with Jordan and Shaq's selctions, really. (due to your reasoning)
> 
> But i'm very interested to read why didi you pick Lebron (at PG, it seems) over the likes of Magic, Oscar, Stockton, Isiah or Payton (all of them guys that, IMHO, could play and excell ina any era and any system)
> 
> ...


Lebron is basically unguardable if you surround him with finishers of this calibre. He has all the talent necessary and physically outmatches pretty much everyone. Would you honestly want to choose Magic or Stockton for your team, knowing they had to guard Lebron (or Kobe or Jordan)? Oscar is a similar player, obviously, but he's still physicallly outclassed by Lebron.

Kobe and Jordan work because they're near perfect on both sides of the court. They leave the team a little short on outside shooting but with open looks, both can be proficient from outside. With post passers and a "PG" with Lebron's passing talents they would be largely unstoppable. Both can also play and defend the point guard position. 

KG gets my pick (over Duncan) because he's the bigger freak (more athletic and more pure talent) and I think he'd complement Shaq oh so nicely. Also, can defend basically any position. 

Basically, I pick the player that I think can play better defense on their opponent than their opponent can on them. 

Kobe's pretty arguable but he's just so good. I guess Tmac would be my first alternate but I'd also be tempted to bring in Amare and move KG to small forward...

Anyways, Shaq is the constant. I'd probably take out Jordan before I took him out.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

SkywalkerAC said:


> Lebron is basically unguardable if you surround him with finishers of this calibre. He has all the talent necessary and physically outmatches pretty much everyone. Would you honestly want to choose Magic or Stockton for your team, knowing they had to guard Lebron (or Kobe or Jordan)? Oscar is a similar player, obviously, but he's still physicallly outclassed by Lebron.


Sorry, Sky, but James nas been proving to be unguardable at the SF position, not PG. and in that position Magic (the greatest of the all) is also the most unguardable: a great slasher, knew how to draw contact and the foul, almost unfallible FT shooter and the greatest post up game from a backcourt player. Oscar and stockton were also ungauardables. So, unless James can consistentely play the PG position at an elite level, i'd put him nowhere near the all-time top 10 at the position...




> Kobe and Jordan work because they're near perfect on both sides of the court. They leave the team a little short on outside shooting but with open looks, both can be proficient from outside. With post passers and a "PG" with Lebron's passing talents they would be largely unstoppable. Both can also play and defend the point guard position.


True, but one of them would defend taller Sfs... could have a problem there. Jordan or Kobe defending Nique and Bird? Hmmm....



> KG gets my pick (over Duncan) because he's the bigger freak (more athletic and more pure talent) and I think he'd complement Shaq oh so nicely. Also, can defend basically any position.


 KG can't defend any position. That's BS. Don't believe me? just picture him trying to deny Wade, AI or Kobe the lane guarding them in the perimeter... they would blow right past him...

I'm a known KG-hater, but in my best case scenario he is the 4th best PF (considering the offense-defense total), after Malone, Duncan and McHale... 



> Basically, I pick the player that I think can play better defense on their opponent than their opponent can on them.
> 
> Kobe's pretty arguable but he's just so good. I guess Tmac would be my first alternate but I'd also be tempted to bring in Amare and move KG to small forward...
> 
> Anyways, Shaq is the constant. I'd probably take out Jordan before I took him out.


 :greatjob:


----------



## Julo (Nov 23, 2002)

SkywalkerAC said:


> Yes, I think the disparity in defense should be taken into account. I think one can argue that Tmac and Kobe are on the same level, they're certainly better outside shooters which helps when playing against the collapsing defenses of today. I'm a new school kind of guy. I think the NBA is stronger than it has ever been and that many of today's players have physical advantages and more complete skillsets than their predescessors. Just so you know, my best possible team is the following:
> 
> Lebron
> Kobe
> ...


that's exactly how I see it. World records are constantly broken, athletes are getting bigger/faster/stronger, more competition to make the Pros... it's the evolution of competative sports

Put Shaq (or KG, Duncan, even Amare for that matter) in the Wilt era, and they would fill up the stats sheet too. It's hard to argue which was the best team ever.... but the skill/athletic level is definately getting higher. I think a 2001 Lakers or '96 Bulls team would have a good chance against anyone in the 50s-80s


----------

