# Hakeem 'The Dream' Olajuwon OR Shaquille 'The Diesel' O'Neal??



## Kobe8Bryant11 (Jun 30, 2005)

There seems to be some difference of opinions in another thread of mine on this topic, so I thought that I might make it a separate post, who do you guys think is the better player??


----------



## clien (Jun 2, 2005)

i say hakeem...but that may be just b/c i dislike shaq.....didnt see hakeem play much though


----------



## Shady* (Jul 3, 2005)

Why did you put their nicknames in the title and the poll?


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Dream is overrated. I thought Ballocks made a great point in the other thread. Hakeem really only had about 2 seasons where he was great. But in those other seasons you wouldn't have taken him over Patrick Ewing or David Robinson.

Shaq has been what he is, for almost his entire career. He also had two years where he was really really dominant. But he was dominant before those years as well.

I don't like Shaq, but when he retires, it's very lilkely he will be in the company of Wilt, Bill Russell, and MJ. Especially if he gets to five rings.


----------



## RoyWilliams (May 25, 2003)

Give me Shaq anyday.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> I don't like Shaq, but when he retires, it's very lilkely he will be in the company of Wilt, Bill Russell, and MJ. Especially if he gets to five rings.


But the same is true for Olajuwon. Both are in virtually everyone's top-ten of all-time, with those other three guys.

And there's no point when I'd have taken Ewing or Robinson over Olajuwon, until the very end of Olajuwon's career, when Robinson was better than him, having started his career later.


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> Dream is overrated. I thought Ballocks made a great point in the other thread. Hakeem really only had about 2 seasons where he was great. But in those other seasons you wouldn't have taken him over Patrick Ewing or David Robinson.
> 
> Shaq has been what he is, for almost his entire career. He also had two years where he was really really dominant. But he was dominant before those years as well.
> 
> I don't like Shaq, but when he retires, it's very lilkely he will be in the company of Wilt, Bill Russell, and MJ. Especially if he gets to five rings.


while not seeing Hakeem through his athletic prime I cant really judge how great of a player he was in the 80s or early 90s really...but his numbers suggest that he great for more than 2yrs..

maybe its because those Rocket teams were awful after Samson got hurt and didn't turn things aound until about '91

He was a much better defender and rebounder than Pat ever was...

Also, its a good thing Shaq wont get those 5 titles cause it would be shame ti see MJs name and Shaq's in the same sentence


----------



## Hoopla (Jun 1, 2004)

futuristxen said:


> Hakeem really only had about 2 seasons where he was great. But in those other seasons you wouldn't have taken him over Patrick Ewing or David Robinson.


The perception of Hakeem certainly was very different before he won his 2 titles. He wasn't considered the consensus best center in the league, as Robinson, Ewing (to a lesser extent), and later Shaq were always in the discussion with him. Myself, I had a difficult time choosing between Hakeem, Robinson, and Shaq in the early 90s.

As for this comparison, I have to go with Shaq. As great an arsenal of moves as Hakeem had, Shaq was simply the better offensive player. And, I know it's saying a lot, but Shaq had a better peak than Hakeem.


----------



## nextghitman (Jul 17, 2005)

uhh...Shaq easily!!!


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Shaquille O'Neal. As for reasoning, there have been several threads in the past where I have explained and elaborated my views.


----------



## Quills (Jun 18, 2005)

I Would'nt Take Shaq if you paid me to Take him . Shaq is a Scrub when compared to Hakeem a Untalented Scrub .


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Its easily Hakeem, this question is laughable at best...now Hakeem or Russell would spark more of a thought imo. I think SHaq is really really overrated. I don't mind the guy, but he wasn't THAT great.


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> Dream is overrated. I thought Ballocks made a great point in the other thread. Hakeem really only had about 2 seasons where he was great. But in those other seasons you wouldn't have taken him over Patrick Ewing or David Robinson.


I responded to that and I agree with Minstrel in taking Hakeem over DRob/Ewing. Hakeem was never seen as a winner or class act until his later years, but he was always great player. I'm sure you can find the post, honestly, I'm a bit lazy to repeat what I said :biggrin:.

I'll take the Dream. Far better defensively, rather equal offensively. Shaq has more power, Hakeem had more moves. Hakeem was a better rebounder too.


----------



## Jester (Feb 7, 2005)

Hakeem would bother Shaq's offense more than Shaq would bother Hakeem's. Hakeem could dream shake and shoot jumpers over Shaq all day.


----------



## RoyWilliams (May 25, 2003)

Jester said:


> Hakeem would bother Shaq's offense more than Shaq would bother Hakeem's. Hakeem could dream shake and shoot jumpers over Shaq all day.


I disagree, Shaq would just over power him like everyone else.


----------



## azswami (Mar 26, 2003)

Shaq is to Hakeem what Lamar Odom is to Magic Johnson.


----------



## Jester (Feb 7, 2005)

RoyWilliams said:


> I disagree, Shaq would just over power him like everyone else.


Shaq wasn't able to set himself higher than Hakeem, Ewing, or Robinson until they got older. And competition at center today is nowhere near what it was in the '90s. Hakeem, however, _was_ able to set himself apart, albeit not widely until his championship runs.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

LOL @ futuristxen's attempted stab at a Rocket, then a quick exit from the thread never to return. Typical.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

FanOfAll8472 said:


> Hakeem was never seen *as a winner* or class act until his later years, but he was always great player.


Well he did take the Rockets to the NBA Finals along with Ralph Sampson in his 2nd season. It really is unfair to compare Hakeem's early career in regards to W-L compared against Shaq or Kareem, because his team was absolute crap in the late 80's and early 90's.


----------



## nextghitman (Jul 17, 2005)

Wow i dont believe so many people can actually choose Hakeem over Shaq. Yes Hakeem was one of the best, but Shaq is FAR better. Even though i hate the guy to my guts, THERE IS NOT ONE PLAYER THAT HAS EVER PLAYED IN THE NBA THAT CAN TAKE ON SHAQ ONE-ON-ONE IN HIS PRIME...NOT ONE PLAYER.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

nextghitman said:


> Wow i dont believe so many people can actually choose Hakeem over Shaq. Yes Hakeem was one of the best, but Shaq IS and WILL be the best. even though i hate the guy to my guts, THERE IS NOT ONE PLAYER THAT HAS EVER PLAYED IN THE NBA THAT CAN TAKE ON SHAQ ONE-ON-ONE IN HIS PRIME...NOT ONE PLAYER.


You can say the same thing about Hakeem in his offensive prime... except he did it demolishing great centers like Ewing and Robinson, whereas Shaq was backing up against an aging Mutombo, Rik Smits, etc.


----------



## MonStrSquad*JK RJ VC* (Jun 17, 2005)

How could you pick Diesel over Hakeem when Hakeem played him in the Finals and he won every catergory of that matchup and earning Finals MVP in the process....Even the Diesel has said that "THE DREAM" was the best center in the league back when Hakeem was in his prime still........Plus does anyone even Remember Hakeem constantly embarrassing The Admiral with Spin moves, and Fade Aways....Hmmm Da Dream Shake...... whenever they played against each other.....and don't even get me started about the Playoff series......Hakeem straighted owned him during the 96 playofff series........By the way Ewing lost to Hakeem in the Finals too and he also was out performed during that Finals series......Even though Starks didn't help out in Game 7 at all........Give me a prime Hakeem over Shaq anyday.


----------



## Jester (Feb 7, 2005)

Why do people always forget about defense when praising Shaq? It's always, "He's the best because no one can stop a prime Shaq!" Well, guess what? Shaq, whose man-to-man defense only goes so far as 3.0 blocks, isn't stopping any superstar center either. Hakeem has a better chance at limiting Shaq's offense than Shaq does at limiting Hakeem's, and that's what it comes down to when comparing these two offensively elite players.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Jester said:


> Why do people always forget about defense when praising Shaq? It's always, "He's the best because no one can stop a prime Shaq!" Well, guess what? Shaq, whose man-to-man defense only goes so far as 3.0 blocks, isn't stopping any superstar center either. Hakeem has a better chance at limiting Shaq's offense than Shaq does at limiting Hakeem's, and that's what it comes down to when comparing these two elite players.


To be honest, neither really has the tools to shut each other down. But then again, no center has. Hakeem doesn't have the low center of gravity to keep Shaq out of the paint, and Shaq isn't quick enough to stop Hakeem offensively. In terms of having a defensive anchor, you have to with Hakeem. Superior shot blocker, cat like reflexes, can play the passing lanes or can come quickly off rotations and contest every shot. The best defensive player the league has seen since Bill Russell.


----------



## azswami (Mar 26, 2003)

MonStrSquad*JK said:


> Even though Starks didn't help out in Game 7 at all........


Clank! Clank! Clank! Clank!, Etc.

Gotta remember that Hakeem was swatting away so many of Karl Malones shots in the playoffs back then that Karl looked half scared to shoot. Never saw that before or since.


----------



## Jester (Feb 7, 2005)

I suppose you're right. I need to stop seeing these threads as one-on-one matchups and instead evaluate one's entire game within the context of a team... That said, I adamantly stick by Hakeem.


----------



## The One (Jul 10, 2005)

I would have to say Hakeem because I still find Shaq a little one dimensional. Hakeem had the whole offensive arsenal while Shaq really only had dunks plus power.


----------



## USSKittyHawk (Jul 22, 2005)

MonStrSquad*JK said:


> Even the Diesel has said that "THE DREAM" was the best center in the league back when Hakeem was in his prime still.........


That's right Squad, and that statement alone should make Hakeem the winner by default. Yippie! :banana:


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

nextghitman said:


> Wow i dont believe so many people can actually choose Hakeem over Shaq. Yes Hakeem was one of the best, but Shaq is FAR better. Even though i hate the guy to my guts, THERE IS NOT ONE PLAYER THAT HAS EVER PLAYED IN THE NBA THAT CAN TAKE ON SHAQ ONE-ON-ONE IN HIS PRIME...NOT ONE PLAYER.


 FAR BETTER????

How???

In what way???

examples please..


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> But the same is true for Olajuwon. Both are in virtually everyone's top-ten of all-time, with those other three guys.
> 
> And there's no point when I'd have taken Ewing or Robinson over Olajuwon, until the very end of Olajuwon's career, when Robinson was better than him, having started his career later.


The Hakeem I remember was constantly *****ing about living in Houston(he eventually got himself traded to Toronto after he had become washed up, but even before the championship run, he was not happy about being in Houston), and he was never seriously in the arguement for best center in the league until he started his prime 2 years when everything clicked for him.

What exactly is the arguement for Hakeem anyways? Shaq's best season's are better statistically. Hakeem's highest scoring average was 27.8ppg on 51% shooting.

Shaq's lowest FG% ever was 55.7. And he had 5 seasons with a scoring average better than Hakeem's best. Right now Shaq's career rebouding average is higher than Hakeem's as well.

Hakeem's career numbers are startling close to Patrick Ewing's.
In fact up until 1992 at the earliest, Ewing was having a better career than Hakeem.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> LOL @ futuristxen's attempted stab at a Rocket, then a quick exit from the thread never to return. Typical.


I'm sorry I haven't been able to give you the attention you need baby. I'll try harder. I promise.


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

It seems that every time two players from two different era's are compared, especially between today's players and guys in the 80's early 90's, the "era" reasoning is used. I know that's not what the whole argument is based upon, but I think it's rather repetitive when someone says "Look at who Player A played against and look at who Player B played against." 


Shaq is flat out the better offensive player, no question about that. He scored 29 PPG in his 2nd and 3rd years in the league, the same years that Olajuwon was playing against Ewing, Robinson in their primes. Defensively, yes, it's Olajuwon with his insane block and steal numbers and fantastic rebounding years. I'd go with Shaq. I haven't seen much of Olajuwon either, but from what I have seen I'd say Shaq is the better player.


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> Well he did take the Rockets to the NBA Finals along with Ralph Sampson in his 2nd season. It really is unfair to compare Hakeem's early career in regards to W-L compared against Shaq or Kareem, because his team was absolute crap in the late 80's and early 90's.


The labels Hakeem received in his younger days were unfair. He was unable to win a championship, on both the NCAA and NBA levels until 1994, but he did have a terrible supporting cast for many years after Sampson left.



> What exactly is the arguement for Hakeem anyways? Shaq's best season's are better statistically. Hakeem's highest scoring average was 27.8ppg on 51% shooting.


Best season isn't the best gauge. But I'll play this game.
Hakeem's best season (take your pick):
1989-90: 24.3 ppg, 50%, 14 rpg, 3 apg, 2.1 spg, 4.6 bpg, 3.8 TO's pg
1992-93: 26.1 ppg, 53%, 13 rpg, 3.5 apg, 1.8 spg, 4.2 bpg, 3.2 TO's pg

Shaq's best season (take your pick):
1993-94: 29.3 ppg, 60%, 13.2 rpg, 2.4 apg, 0.9 spg, 2.9 bpg, 2.7 TO's pg
1999-00: 29.7 ppg, 57%, 13.6 rpg, 3.8 apg, 0.4 spg, 3.2 bpg, 2.7 TO's pg

Shaq's seasons aren't clearly better.



> Shaq's lowest FG% ever was 55.7. And he had 5 seasons with a scoring average better than Hakeem's best. Right now Shaq's career rebouding average is higher than Hakeem's as well.


Of course his career rebounding average is higher, he is only starting his decline. We could take out Hakeem's numbers after his '97 season and then compare the career rebounding average. Has Shaq ever averaged over 13 rpg for 3 consecutive seasons? Not many players have.



> Hakeem's career numbers are startling close to Patrick Ewing's.
> In fact up until 1992 at the earliest, Ewing was having a better career than Hakeem.


Except for the fact that he had more steals, assists, and rebounds. And occasionally more points and blocks. Olajuwon was also clearly the better defender. Ewing was not having a better career than Hakeem, unless you only look at the highest ppg.


----------



## superdude211 (Apr 3, 2004)

Not Question it's gotta be Shaq he would just overpower Hakeem all day


----------



## azswami (Mar 26, 2003)

superdude211 said:


> Not Question it's gotta be Shaq he would just overpower Hakeem all day


Then why didn't he?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> The Hakeem I remember was constantly *****ing about living in Houston


Whether true or not, I don't really see what this has to do with anything.



> What exactly is the arguement for Hakeem anyways?


That he was arguably the greatest defensive center ever, unarguably one of the top two or three all-time defensively, and a tremendous post-player offensively with a nice mid-range shot.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

Minstrel said:


> That he was arguably the greatest defensive center ever, unarguably one of the top two or three all-time defensively, and a tremendous post-player offensively with a nice mid-range shot.


also, hakeem is one of the few big men that you could go to at the end of games. give hakeem that ball, and he would create a shot. you can't really do that with shaq because of his free throw shooting.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Like with Pippen, Kobe and McGrady, I think that Hakeem and Shaq (and Duncan) are all locked together at the same level. It's hard to choose one over the other, because so much of it just depends on the make-up of the team around them.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

FanOfAll8472 said:


> Best season isn't the best gauge. But I'll play this game.
> Hakeem's best season (take your pick):
> 1989-90: 24.3 ppg, 50%, 14 rpg, 3 apg, 2.1 spg, 4.6 bpg, 3.8 TO's pg
> 1992-93: 26.1 ppg, 53%, 13 rpg, 3.5 apg, 1.8 spg, 4.2 bpg, 3.2 TO's pg
> ...


Are we looking at the same numbers? Shaq has a lot more points on nearly 10 percentage points better shooting. The rebounds are almost even. Assists are even, and then there's an obvious gap in shotblocking. And Hakeem turned the ball over a lot more.

How do those numbers not support the claim that Shaq is the better player? And look--93-94 is only one year after one of Hakeem's best years. 29.3ppg on 60% shooting is about as close to unstoppable as you can be in today's game.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> That he was arguably the greatest defensive center ever, unarguably one of the top two or three all-time defensively, and a tremendous post-player offensively with a nice mid-range shot.


That's not much. Shaq is arguably the most dominating offensive center of all-time. The only comparison is Wilt, and Wilt was playing against albino canadian midgets who had never seen a basketball before.

And defensively, sure you can say Hakeem was one of the top two or three all-time. But Shaq was still a defensive presence. His shotblocking and rebounding numbers are nothing to sneer at.

I would also posit that Hakeem was never the singular most dominating defensive player of his era. David Robinson and Dikembe Mutombo both had times when they were as good. To mention two. Shaq was clearly the most dominating offensive center of his era. There's no modern day center who really stacks up to Shaq offensively. It's just Shaq and Wilt all-time for offensive dominance.


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> Are we looking at the same numbers? Shaq has a lot more points on nearly 10 percentage points better shooting. The rebounds are almost even. Assists are even, and then there's an obvious gap in shotblocking. And Hakeem turned the ball over a lot more.
> 
> How do those numbers not support the claim that Shaq is the better player? And look--93-94 is only one year after one of Hakeem's best years. 29.3ppg on 60% shooting is about as close to unstoppable as you can be in today's game.


Again, if we're using a single peak year to determine which player is better, we're definitely going in the wrong direction. 
There is definitely a big gap in FG%, but I don't see the big deal about the 3 and 5 ppg difference. IMO, Hakeem more than made up for that with his defensive play.



> Shaq was clearly the most dominating offensive center of his era.


He was better offensively than Ewing, Robinson, and Olajuwon, but clearly the most dominating center only came after those guys retired. Offensively, Olajuwon is right behind Shaq, but the gap between Shaq and Olajuwon defensively is much bigger.

I'm not a big fan of head-to-head comparisons, but Hakeem handed it to Shaq in the '95 Finals. I can't recall the stats and I was looking for them, when I found this, "I was the first guy to say Hakeem Olajuwon beat me in the [1995] NBA finals. He killed me. He dominated me." from Shaq. Of course, this was a 3rd year Shaq and an older Olajuwon, but it was the second straight year Shaq scored 29 ppg. Shaq, was no doubt, very dominant at the time. Similarily, I rank Robinson right below Shaq (but still right below Hakeem) and Hakeem dominated Robinson more than he dominated Shaq.



> It's just Shaq and Wilt all-time for offensive dominance.


This is a side note, but I'm curious, what about Cap?


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

futuristxen said:


> [Hakeem] was never seriously in the arguement for best center in the league until he started his prime 2 years when everything clicked for him.


So his four All-NBA 1st Team selections prior to '94 were never a serious argument? 1985 was his rookie season. In '86 Kareem was named to the 1st Team, though everyone saw what a bad decision that was in the Conference Finals. Hakeem was on the 1st Team in '87, '88 and '89. Ewing, having the best season of his career, beat him out for a spot in 1990. Injuries and off-court problems (and pulling a Vince Carter, which people like to pretend never happened) saw him out of it in '91 and '92. 1st Team again in '93, when he finished 2nd in MVP voting. 



> What exactly is the arguement for Hakeem anyways?


The argument for Hakeem? He was a much better defender and only a slightly worse offensive player. 
Ppg is quite heavily dependent on the circumstances in which the player plays (e.g. teammates, opposition). Anyway, IMO, Hakeem was better in the late '80's than he was in his MVP years. He was better in '93, too. Back then, the Rockets roster consisted of Hakeem, Otis Thorpe, Sleepy Floyd (with his atrocious defense, head-slapping mistakes and frustrating inconsistency), and a bunch of zombies stuffed into Rockets jerseys. Chemistry was poor and most of those guys seemed to not want to win (at least the '95 scrubs like Chucky Brown and Pete Chilcutt tried). Hakeem was doubled and tripled extremely heavily -- 1994 was nothing compared to that -- but he still managed to put up some good scoring averages (24-25 ppg on 50+%), while playing amazing defense and grabbing 14 rpg. He didn't have as many fancy moves, and his ballhandling and his passing weren't as good as they were in the mid-'90's, but he was freakishly athletic and more attacking in style, and that made up for it. I feel that if he had a decent supporting cast, he could have done big things (and had a better stat line). Remember, the Rockets lost Sampson and their three best guards in the space of one-and-a-half years.



> Hakeem's career numbers are startling close to Patrick Ewing's.
> In fact up until 1992 at the earliest, Ewing was having a better career than Hakeem.


Until 1992, Ewing was on the All-NBA 1st Team once and was never 1st Team All-Defense. Hakeem was three times on the All-NBA 1st Team and three times on the All-Defense 1st Team. As far as team success goes, the Knicks only won more than 38 games twice from Ewing's rookie season until 1992. The Rockets never won fewer than 41 games over that period, and made it to the Finals once.



> That's not much.


Being "arguably the greatest defensive center ever" and being "a tremendous post-player offensively" isn't much? 



> And defensively, sure you can say Hakeem was one of the top two or three all-time. But Shaq was still a defensive presence. His shotblocking and rebounding numbers are nothing to sneer at.


Just as Hakeem's offensive prowess was nothing to sneer at.



> I would also posit that Hakeem was never the singular most dominating defensive player of his era. David Robinson and Dikembe Mutombo both had times when they were as good. To mention two. Shaq was clearly the most dominating offensive center of his era. There's no modern day center who really stacks up to Shaq offensively. It's just Shaq and Wilt all-time for offensive dominance.


The fact that there haven't been any other superstar centers in recent years doesn't make Shaq any better a player.
And there's no real way to prove that Hakeem was a better defender than Robinson and Mutombo, but most will agree that he was. The only bit of hard evidence I have is Olajuwon's and Robinson's averages against each other from '92 to '96: Hakeem's 27 ppg to D-Rob's 21.8.


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

somebody's talkin out their *** in this thread


----------



## Raxel (Nov 10, 2004)

Shaquille O'Neal is in top 3 C of all time. Dream maybe in top10.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> That's not much. Shaq is arguably the most dominating offensive center of all-time. The only comparison is Wilt, and Wilt was playing against albino canadian midgets who had never seen a basketball before.
> 
> And defensively, sure you can say Hakeem was one of the top two or three all-time. But Shaq was still a defensive presence. His shotblocking and rebounding numbers are nothing to sneer at.
> 
> And defensively, sure you can say Hakeem was one of the top two or three all-time. But Shaq was still a defensive presence. His shotblocking and rebounding numbers are nothing to sneer at.


You're simply using rhetoric, not logic, to diminish one side and emphasize the other. There's no trick to that. I can do the same for the opposite side:

_That's not much. Hakeem is arguably the most dominating defensive center of all-time. The only comparison is Russell, and Russell was playing against albino canadian midgets who had never seen a basketball before.

And offensively, sure you can say Shaq was one of the top two or three all-time. But Hakeem was still an offensive presence. His scoring and array of post moves are nothing to sneer at.

I would also posit that Shaq was never the singular most dominating offensive player of his era. David Robinson and Hakeem Olajuwon both had times when they were as good. To mention two. Olajuwon was clearly the most dominating defensive center of his era. There's no modern day center who really stacks up to Olajuwon defensively. It's just Hakeem and Russell all-time for defensive dominance._

Of course, neither viewpoint is entirely correct. There are those who would argue for other centers on both offensive and defensive grounds. But the point remains; you certainly aren't contrasting them objectively when you dismiss Olajuwon's defensive dominance and play up Shaq's offensive dominance.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> Shaq was clearly the most dominating offensive center of his era. There's no modern day center who really stacks up to Shaq offensively. It's just Shaq and Wilt all-time for offensive dominance.


Again, Shaq could not win in the era of great centers (Hakeem, Admiral, Ewing) as FanofAll pointed out. Play up the word 'dominant' all you want for Shaq, but having Kobe on the perimeter sure as hell didn't hurt the Lakers. All the Rockets did to win 2 championships was dump the ball down to Hakeem and set up around the perimeter. He produced, time and time again to the point where it got monotonous. Shaq has had the luxury of Hardaway's, Kobe's and Wade's, so it negates the need for him to be versatile. Hakeem's game allows him to succeed in any scenario, really.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Shaq couldn't win in the era of great centers? He got his team to the Finals in his second year just like Hakeem did with the Rockets. We know as a second year player Shaq was able to hold his against a prime Hakeem. 

When he matured a prime Shaq was simply better then a prime Hakeem. There is basically no statistically way to get around it. Playing in an era with fewer possesions Shaq scored more at a more efficient rate. Interestingly enough as well Hakeem's best rebounding years didn't come when he was at his scoring peak either while Shaq's did.
Hakeem is interesting in that he was almost two completely different players as he aged. As a young man he was rebounding and defensive machine and while that declined his offense significantly improved.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> You're simply using rhetoric, not logic, to diminish one side and emphasize the other. There's no trick to that.


Why do folks hate on rhetoric? Rhetoric has accomplished far more in this world than logic ever has. Rhetoric is one of the most devestating arguementive tools in the history of debating second only to the sucker punch.

It's hard to have a logical debate when none of the Hakeem supporters even want to entertain the statistical data, or the championships, or anything beyond the idea that it's an offense to nature that Shaq would ever be considered better than Hakeem.

I don't really have a bias in this discussion. I'm not a fan of either guy. It's just that to me all the evidence points to Shaq. And I'm old enough to have seen both players in their prime. And so I can say that from what I saw Shaq is the superior player. Shaq is the most dominating player I've seen. When he got the ball on offense it was all over. The numbers only tell half of the story. Shaq in his prime was even better than the numbers.

You as a Blazer fan should know this. The sheer joy you got whenever one of the Laker's perimeter players decided to jack up a jumper instead of giving Shaq the ball. Going against Shaq in his prime was like trying to fight up hill all night. It was just so easy for him.

Hakeem had to juke and jive, you thought you had a chance against Hakeem. Whether you did or not is arguable. But with Shaq you knew your team had no answer for him.


----------



## clien (Jun 2, 2005)

I picked hakeem but Im kinda suprised its not alittle closer


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Pioneer10 said:


> Shaq couldn't win in the era of great centers? He got his team to the Finals in his second year just like Hakeem did with the Rockets. We know as a second year player Shaq was able to hold his against a prime Hakeem.


If you're going by stats, as many of the Shaq-supporters are in this thread, then you'll have to admit that Shaq was as good in '94 as he was in '00. His ppg, rpg, topg, bpg and mpg were almost exactly equal those two years, while his apg was lower in '94 and his spg and scoring efficiency were higher. Now, I don't really believe that Shaq was as good in '94 as he was later, but if you're going by the stats, and if you're claiming that '95 was Hakeem's prime because he had his career high scoring average then, then that's what it is.

In '94, the Magic were swept and Hakeem scored 33 ppg to Shaq's 28. Shaq shot at a higher percentage, but Hakeem was doubled more heavily. In fact, Robert Horry scoring so much had a lot to do with Horace Grant leaving him so often to help on Hakeem (Horry played a lot at PF that series). But Hakeem wasn't in his prime then. His defense had dropped off, even from the previous year. '95 was only the second year since '86 in which the Rockets weren't in the top four in defensive efficiency (they were twelfth). '95 was also the year when the Rockets decided to double good opposing centers like Shaq and Robinson and Ewing a bit more. Before that, Hakeem played them straight up a fair bit of the time.



> When he matured a prime Shaq was simply better then a prime Hakeem. There is basically no statistically way to get around it. Playing in an era with fewer possesions Shaq scored more at a more efficient rate. Interestingly enough as well Hakeem's best rebounding years didn't come when he was at his scoring peak either while Shaq's did.
> Hakeem is interesting in that he was almost two completely different players as he aged. As a young man he was rebounding and defensive machine and while that declined his offense significantly improved.


Is there any real basis for saying that his offense significantly improved? In '94 he scored 32 pp 48 mins, while he had 32.3 in '89. His pp 48 mins throughout the '80's was only very slightly lower than what they were in the mid-'90's, and that was while playing with terrible teammates. The only sudden increase in his scoring came when he finally got the chance to play beside another good scorer in Drexler.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> Why do folks hate on rhetoric? Rhetoric has accomplished far more in this world than logic ever has. Rhetoric is one of the most devestating arguementive tools in the history of debating second only to the sucker punch.


Rhetoric is a nice way to frame logic. When it's presented empty of logic, it's just a lot of sound and fury signifying nothing. I showed that by parroting your very same rhetoric with the names and offense / defense swapped. And it worked just as well.



> It's hard to have a logical debate when none of the Hakeem supporters even want to entertain the statistical data


I'm willing to entertain the statistical data. On the other hand, though, defense is equally as important as offense but not adequately described by stats. So limiting the discussion purely to statistics biases the debate towards Shaq.



> or the championships


Because championships are a team measure, not an individual one. You only use such things when it's convenient to your position. How do you feel about measuring LeBron James against Carmelo Anthony by playoff appearances? Or LeBron James versus Kobe Bryant by championships won?



> or anything beyond the idea that it's an offense to nature that Shaq would ever be considered better than Hakeem.


More empty rhetoric. I haven't seen anyone suggest that it's an offense to consider O'Neal better. Some people just disagree with you that O'Neal was better.

As for me, it's possible that O'Neal was better. But I think it's extremely close, there's an argument for both and it's nothing like as conclusive as you paint it.


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

futuristxen said:


> It's hard to have a logical debate when *none of the Hakeem supporters even want to entertain the statistical data, or the championships,* or anything beyond the idea that it's an offense to nature that Shaq would ever be considered better than Hakeem.


?? This discussion has included stats. Unfortunately, defense cannot be measured in stats, and defense is one half of basketball.

Some great players have not won championships - Malone, Ewing, Barkley, etc. Winning championships is a team achievement.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Pioneer10 said:


> When he matured a prime Shaq was simply better then a prime Hakeem.


Shaq's playoff averages in the 3 championship years (playing against who?):
99-00: 30.7 ppg
00-01: 30.4 ppg
01-02: 28.5 ppg

Hakeem (outplaying Ewing, Robinson, a young Shaq):
93-94: 28.9 ppg
94-95: 33.0 ppg

Hakeem always had the ability to score when he got the touches, even early in his career. He averaged 37.5 ppg, 16.8 rpg in the '88 playoffs. We're not even counting all the fast break points he generated off of steals, deflections and blocks. He was the ultimate disruptor once a player got in the lane.

And of course, we can never disregard what an atrocious FT shooter Shaq was. FT shooting is a big part of basketball, and another reason why Shaq never touched the ball in clutch situations.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> Shaq's playoff averages in the 3 championship years (playing against who?):
> 99-00: 30.7 ppg
> 00-01: 30.4 ppg
> 01-02: 28.5 ppg
> ...


 This is still a very poor argument:
First of all possesions per game were much lower so Shaq's scoring is diminished. In addition you don't point out his other playoff numbers such as rpg:
rpg 00: 15,4
rpg 01: 15.4
rpg 02: 12.6
hakeem
93-4 rpg 11
94-5 rpg 10.3
Huge difference in favor of Shaq

Hakeem had an edge in blocks and assits but then had much more TO's then Shaq

In addition, Shaq had to go through Deke who DPOY, the combination of Duncan (who is taller and bigger then Hakeem) and D.Robinson - a better combination of C and PF then any Hakeem had to face, and the tag team duos of Sabonis/R. Wallace/B. Grant and Webber/Divac. Frankly the tag team of Duncan and Robinson (even old) is as good defensive interior force as I've seen play and the other PF/C duos would have mathced up well in any era as well. The idea that Shaq didn't have to play great big men is simply a fallicy.


----------



## futuristxen (Jun 26, 2003)

Minstrel said:


> As for me, it's possible that O'Neal was better. But I think it's extremely close, there's an argument for both and it's nothing like as conclusive as you paint it.



COMMIT TO A POSITION MINSTREL!!!!!


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

futuristxen said:


> COMMIT TO A POSITION MINSTREL!!!!!


I did. My position, which I'm committed to, is that the two are of a very similar caliber and, when you factor in both defense and offense, picking one over the other boils down to preference rather than a material advantage.

And yes, I have passion. I passionately believe that.


----------



## f22egl (Jun 3, 2004)

They are both of the similar caliber to me. There needs to be more time and seperation from Shaq's competition since the teams he played were not that great. Th


----------



## O2K (Nov 19, 2002)

I would take hakeem over shaq, hakeem had the all-around game


----------



## Hoopla (Jun 1, 2004)

Pioneer10 said:


> In addition, Shaq had to go through Deke who DPOY, the combination of Duncan (who is taller and bigger then Hakeem) and D.Robinson - a better combination of C and PF then any Hakeem had to face, and the tag team duos of Sabonis/R. Wallace/B. Grant and Webber/Divac. Frankly the tag team of Duncan and Robinson (even old) is as good defensive interior force as I've seen play and the other PF/C duos would have mathced up well in any era as well. The idea that Shaq didn't have to play great big men is simply a fallicy.


The difference in the quality of defense that Shaq had to face when he reached his prime, as opposed to the early 90s, is being overrated. But it wouldn't have affected his offensive production much anyway. Here are the numbers a younger Shaq (ie, with Orlando) put up against Ewing and Robinson while the latter two were still in their prime:

Shaq vs. Ewing: 31.0 ppg, 12.2 rpg, 59%FG
Shaq vs. DRob: 28.6 ppg, 13.4 rpg, 51%FG

Now, Ewing's defense was never anything special, and later on Riley would rotate the Shaq responsibilities, but the Knicks overall were a great defensive team. Yet Shaq simply tore them apart time and time again.


----------



## Amareca (Oct 21, 2002)

Shaq by far.

You can look at defensive numbers all you want but Shaqs block numbers are also lower because he was much more of a presence and inside force that basically every player tried to avoid.

You could have put Shaq in his prime on any team and got it far. Can't say the same about Hakeem, he wasn't nearly as dominant.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Pioneer10 said:


> This is still a very poor argument:
> First of all possesions per game were much lower so Shaq's scoring is diminished. In addition you don't point out his other playoff numbers such as rpg:
> rpg 00: 15,4
> rpg 01: 15.4
> ...


It is a poor argument compared to what, your claim that a prime Shaq was 'simply better' than a prime Hakeem? We are talking about offensive prowess here, so I thought I'd just put out their scoring averages in the years they won titles. Obviously Hakeem is going to have more TO's, as the ball starts out in his hands on most posessions and he does alot more ball handling than Shaq whose game consists of calling for the ball when he's under the basket. 



> In addition, Shaq had to go through Deke who DPOY, the combination of Duncan (who is taller and bigger then Hakeem) and D.Robinson - a better combination of C and PF then any Hakeem had to face, and the tag team duos of Sabonis/R. Wallace/B. Grant and Webber/Divac. Frankly the tag team of Duncan and Robinson (even old) is as good defensive interior force as I've seen play and the other PF/C duos would have mathced up well in any era as well. The idea that Shaq didn't have to play great big men is simply a fallicy.


Duncan and an aged Robinson are a pretty tough interior force, but not much compared to Ewing and Oakley on a grind-it-out Knicks team, or Robinson and Rodman. And please don't tell me you tried to sell the "tag team duo" of Webber and Divac as anything more than floppers? 

Try to remember this David Robinson you speak of as such a strong interior force was the one Hakeem completely destroyed in the '95 playoffs. It was arguably the most dominating playoff performance ever in the Jordan era. Even Rocket fans felt sorry for Robinson as he shook his head during the post-game press conferences.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Amareca said:


> *You could have put Shaq in his prime on any team and got it far*. Can't say the same about Hakeem, he wasn't nearly as dominant.


Right, just make sure you have an explosive guard to go along that capable of being a playmaker and a scorer. Didn't Hakeem basically take "any team" to a championship when he won with a bunch of spot up shooters and Otis Thorpe? The whole dominant aspect of Shaq's game closes up when it comes to the the last 3 minutes of the game and he doesn't always get the ball under the basket, or is forced to go to the FT line. Thank God for Penny. And Kobe. And Dwayne.


----------



## white360 (Apr 24, 2004)

The Dream all the way


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> It is a poor argument compared to what, your claim that a prime Shaq was 'simply better' than a prime Hakeem? We are talking about offensive prowess here, so I thought I'd just put out their scoring averages in the years they won titles. Obviously Hakeem is going to have more TO's, as the ball starts out in his hands on most posessions and he does alot more ball handling than Shaq whose game consists of calling for the ball when he's under the basket.


You still havent' accounted for the fact that possessions are far lower in the present game then with Hakeems' prime. Even with that Shaq was a more prolific scorer and rebounder in his prime





> Duncan and an aged Robinson are a pretty tough interior force, but not much compared to Ewing and Oakley on a grind-it-out Knicks team, or Robinson and Rodman. And please don't tell me you tried to sell the "tag team duo" of Webber and Divac as anything more than floppers?
> 
> Try to remember this David Robinson you speak of as such a strong interior force was the one Hakeem completely destroyed in the '95 playoffs. It was arguably the most dominating playoff performance ever in the Jordan era. Even Rocket fans felt sorry for Robinson as he shook his head during the post-game press conferences.


I didn't mention Robinson alone but with Duncan (who is a better player then either Robinson or Ewing). In addition Duncan is bigger and longer then Hakeem. I would take Duncan and Robinson over Ewing and Oakley and day. Particularly in part because against the NY tandem (Oakley) you didn't have to expend as much energy guarding them Ny had the ball. So Shaq in his prime pretty much dominated Duncan(TD> Drob, Ewing) who had help from a still good defender in old but effective D. Rob and a defensive player of the year in Dikembe. 

I mentioned Webber and Divac because they were good but not necessarily on the defensive end. On the other hand people forget how tough Portland frontcourt was that lost to the Lakers they had Sabonis/R. Wallace/and a preinjury Brian Grant. I've watched a lot of ball through the years and that frontcourt would have done well in any era. Yet still Shaq didn't go against good big men?


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Pioneer10 said:


> You still havent' accounted for the fact that possessions are far lower in the present game then with Hakeems' prime. Even with that Shaq was a more prolific scorer and rebounder in his prime


Shaq was always going to have a higher ppfga in his prime because most of his baskets come under the basket. This doesn't necessarily make him a better offensive player than Hakeem, but he certainly was more efficient in his situation. His lack of versatility would make him vulnerable if he had no Kobe, but that is a situation we never saw during the Lakers championship run.



> I didn't mention Robinson alone but with Duncan (who is a better player then either Robinson or Ewing). In addition Duncan is bigger and longer then Hakeem.


Since when has that meant anything in the NBA?



> Yet still Shaq didn't go against good big men?


He did well against all types of opponents, as did Hakeem, but was still outplayed by Hakeem in his early offensive prime. Outscored and outmatched in the '95 finals, Shaq's one dimensional game made it tough for him to succeed without another very good teammate. Without Penny's heroics, the Magic weren't a great team. Hakeem dominated opposing big men offensively/defensively, while making his team better at the same time as a defensive anchor and offensive playmaker. Yes, Shaq was effective in the triangle, but the Lakers went from a borderline team to a great team because of the *tandem* of Kobe and Shaq. It just isn't fair for Shaq supporters to overlook this, while Hakeem made guards like Kenny Smith and Sam Cassell appear to be good defenders and created a living for spot up shooters like Mario Elie. You can double Shaq and send him to the FT line. Double Hakeem, and he'll hit a turnaround jumper on you.

Put Hakeem in any situation Shaq was in, and you have a better team. You won't have the more dominant scorer, but you won't need to.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

> It's hard to have a logical debate when none of the Hakeem supporters even want to entertain the statistical data, or the championships,


None of your arguments are any good. Statistically it’s very close. 10% higher FG% for Shaq one season doesn’t mean jack if you’re dopey enough to ignore FT%. Yeah, minor oversight. Shaq has 3 titles to Hakeem’s two. Shaq has had Kobe to help him win his titles. Hakeem had an aging Drexler for one of his titles and no one for the other. Shaq played in the least dominant era of centers in NBA history. Hakeem played in the most dominant era of centers in NBA history. 

Considering the facts, there’s a stronger case for Hakeem and most knowledgeable fans would agree. “Dominance” is relative and mostly a bunk argument when it’s not qualified.



> Hakeem had to juke and jive, you thought you had a chance against Hakeem. Whether you did or not is arguable. But with Shaq you knew your team had no answer for him.


This is just sensational nonsense. If Shaq was so dominant his entire career then how on earth did the Rockets ***** sweep the Magic in 95? Or is team success not important anymore because it works against your logic?


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

shaq was the more efficient scorer, no matter how you slice the fg/ft%'s. he was the more dominant scorer, no matter how you slice it. he was a better passer. he turned it over less. he simply had a bigger impact on the offensive end, imo. hakeem had a bigger impact on the defensive end. hakeem was more trustworthy to close out games. hakeem's rebounding peak didn't coincide with his offensive peak, making it a bit tougher to compare.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Pioneer10 said:


> Hakeem had an edge in blocks and assits but then had much more TO's then Shaq


Much more turnovers? In the playoffs of 2000, '01 and '02, Shaq had 2.4 topg, 3.6 and 3.3, respectively. In '94, Hakeem had 3.6, and in '95, 3.1. That's about equal. And Hakeem's statistical "edge" in blocks and steals don't fully tell you how much better a defender he was.



> In addition, Shaq had to go through Deke who DPOY, the combination of Duncan (who is taller and bigger then Hakeem) and D.Robinson - a better combination of C and PF then any Hakeem had to face, and the tag team duos of Sabonis/R. Wallace/B. Grant and Webber/Divac. Frankly the tag team of Duncan and Robinson (even old) is as good defensive interior force as I've seen play and the other PF/C duos would have mathced up well in any era as well. The idea that Shaq didn't have to play great big men is simply a fallicy.


Robinson wasn't close to the defender that he was in the mid-'90's. Defensively, a prime Robinson was as good as Duncan, if not better. Rodman, after Duncan, is the greatest defensive power forward of all time. Hakeem scored 35 ppg on close to 60% against those two, while playing very good defense. He also went through Ewing and Oakley and Shaq and Horace Grant, scoring 27 ppg (in a series in which the Rockets averaged 86 ppg -- much less than the Lakers 104 ppg in their three winning Finals series) and 33 ppg respectively against them. Shaq's opposition of Duncan and a senescent, post-injury Robinson, Divac and Webber, a 36-year-old Sabonis with Rasheed and B. Grant (that frontcourt was actually pretty good, I'll give you that), a 35-year-old Mutombo, a catatonic Rik Smits, and the Todd MacCulloch/Aaron Williams/K-Mart combo simply don't compare.



> You still havent' accounted for the fact that possessions are far lower in the present game then with Hakeems' prime. Even with that Shaq was a more prolific scorer and rebounder in his prime


_Far_ lower? The '94 Rockets scored almost exactly the same ppg as each of the Lakers' three title teams.



Hoopla said:


> The difference in the quality of defense that Shaq had to face when he reached his prime, as opposed to the early 90s, is being overrated. But it wouldn't have affected his offensive production much anyway. Here are the numbers a younger Shaq (ie, with Orlando) put up against Ewing and Robinson while the latter two were still in their prime:
> 
> Shaq vs. Ewing: 31.0 ppg, 12.2 rpg, 59%FG
> Shaq vs. DRob: 28.6 ppg, 13.4 rpg, 51%FG
> ...


Sorry, but those ppg figures are off. 

Shaq's averages in Orlando:
vs Robinson: 25.3 ppg, 13.4 rpg, 51%FG
vs Ewing: 28.8 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 59%FG
vs Olajuwon: 23.9 ppg, 13.4 rpg, 56.6%FG

Hakeem's averages from '92 to '96:
vs Robinson: 27.0 ppg, 11.3 rpg, ?%FG
vs Ewing: 25.8 ppg, 12.7 rpg, 48.7%FG
vs Shaq: 27.8 ppg, 11.2 rpg, 46.6%FG

Robinson's averages from '92 to '96:
vs Shaq: 29.1 ppg, 12.5 rpg, 52.2%FG
vs Olajuwon: 21.8 ppg, 12.6 rpg, ?%FG

Ewing's averages from '92 to '96:
vs Shaq: 25.5 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 44.5%FG
vs Olajuwon: 20.1 ppg, 11.4 rpg, 43.7%FG

As can be seen, Shaq scored more efficiently (though not from the line), but was significantly worse defensively. And it should be noted that the Rockets and the Spurs didn't generally double Shaq as much as the Magic doubled them. After Shaq's rookie season, during the regular season the difference wasn't a lot, but it's worth mentioning.


----------



## ghoti (Jan 30, 2005)

You can analyze this 8 ways from Sunday, but I just asked myself which one I would take to start my new franchise.

I'll take Shaq.


----------



## olavski (Jun 17, 2005)

Hakeem is, quite obvious, the better basketball player.

Shaq is all about power, i don't like watching that.

Olajuwon has (had) way more finesse and a good technique.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

olavski said:


> Hakeem is, quite obvious, the better basketball player.
> 
> Shaq is all about power, i don't like watching that.
> 
> Olajuwon has (had) way more finesse and a good technique.


there are many players who have more finesse and good technique than shaq - that doesn't make them better basketball players. power is part of the game. so is size.


----------



## olavski (Jun 17, 2005)

kflo said:


> there are many players who have more finesse and good technique than shaq - that doesn't make them better basketball players. power is part of the game. so is size.


I know that, it's a personal opinion right? 

I'm not talking about winning games here, i'm talking about my viewing pleasure. :biggrin:

Just don't like to see Shaq play, it looks horrible and it hurts my eyes, that's all.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

fair enough.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> The whole dominant aspect of Shaq's game closes up when it comes to the the last 3 minutes of the game and he doesn't always get the ball under the basket, or is forced to go to the FT line. Thank God for Penny. And Kobe. And Dwayne.


Heh. One of the biggest myths is that O'Neal turns into this terribly inefficient player when it comes to clutch time. Despite being fouled more, his FG% is so freaking high enough, that his PSA is still superior or comparable with his guard sidekick. Over the last three years starting from 2003-2005, O'Neal's PSA during clutch time as defined by 82games.com has been 1.19, 1.08, 1.10 respectively. Bryant's over the same time period has been 0.98, 1.12, 0.96. Wade's last year was 1.15.


----------



## Hoopla (Jun 1, 2004)

Hakeem said:


> Sorry, but those ppg figures are off.


I used the statistics from the 1993-94 year to 1996-97 (whenever they were both in the game). I didn't include Shaq's rookie year, as he wasn't on the same level as he's been since then. And it's ok, you don't need to apologize.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> Robinson wasn't close to the defender that he was in the mid-'90's. Defensively, a prime Robinson was as good as Duncan, if not better. Rodman, after Duncan, is the greatest defensive power forward of all time. Hakeem scored 35 ppg on close to 60% against those two, while playing very good defense. He also went through Ewing and Oakley and Shaq and Horace Grant, scoring 27 ppg (in a series in which the Rockets averaged 86 ppg -- much less than the Lakers 104 ppg in their three winning Finals series) and 33 ppg respectively against them. Shaq's opposition of Duncan and a senescent, post-injury Robinson, Divac and Webber, a 36-year-old Sabonis with Rasheed and B. Grant (that frontcourt was actually pretty good, I'll give you that), a 35-year-old Mutombo, a catatonic Rik Smits, and the Todd MacCulloch/Aaron Williams/K-Mart combo simply don't compare.


Regardless, I think his point was that whatever era, O'Neal still would have dominated, as evidenced by his numbers against guys like Ewing, Robinson, Olajuwon, etc. 




> _Far_ lower? The '94 Rockets scored almost exactly the same ppg as each of the Lakers' three title teams.


Posessions and PPG is an entirely different topic. O'Neal's teams had lesser possessions per game. The fact that the Rockets had more possessions and only managed to score "almost exactly the same PPG" only shows that they were more inefficient on offense. 




> Sorry, but those ppg figures are off.
> 
> Shaq's averages in Orlando:
> vs Robinson: 25.3 ppg, 13.4 rpg, 51%FG
> ...


Hey, where did you find those numbers from? Did you calculate them yourself, is there a website with information like that? 

Anyways, it seems that both were equal at a point in their careers when both players were very successful. O'Neal was more efficient that Olajuwon, though PSA would be a more valuable benchmark if you could get that information. Especially looking solely at the Olajuwon vs O'Neal matchup, from my perspective, it's skewed heavily in O'Neal's favor right now. He has about 2 more RPG, and his FG% is 10% higher though his FGA was obviously lower.


----------



## Timmons (May 25, 2005)

Anybody else see Hakeem average 35 pts. a game in the Western Finals against David Robinson in 1995 (I think)? The Dream dominated. Footage was replayed on ESPN Classic. 

Rockets were CLUTCH CITY!

Hakeem is more complete a player than Shaq, but Shaq is virtually unguardable. Well he was anyway. Guy with Shaq's size and athleticism has never been seen before.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Yyzlin said:


> Heh. One of the biggest myths is that O'Neal turns into this terribly inefficient player when it comes to clutch time. Despite being fouled more, his FG% is so freaking high enough, that his PSA is still superior or comparable with his guard sidekick. Over the last three years starting from 2003-2005, O'Neal's PSA during clutch time as defined by 82games.com has been 1.19, 1.08, 1.10 respectively. Bryant's over the same time period has been 0.98, 1.12, 0.96. Wade's last year was 1.15.


Why are we using data from the last 3 years? Furthermore, how many FGA did O'Neal have in clutch play between 1999-2002?


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

I wonder if 3 seconds were enforced would Shaq's numbers look the same?


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> Why are we using data from the last 3 years? Furthermore, how many FGA did O'Neal have in clutch play between 1999-2002?


Because that's as far back as 82games.com goes. I don't know of any other source that tracks clutch time numbers.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

HKF said:


> I wonder if 3 seconds were enforced would Shaq's numbers look the same?


Probably not. You could ask in the same vein if traveling was enforced, would Hakeem's numbers look the same. Either way, it's entirely irrelevant to the argument at hand.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Yyzlin said:


> Because that's as far back as 82games.com goes. I don't know of any other source that tracks clutch time numbers.


 So you're telling me it's a *myth* that Shaq wasn't able to produce in clutch time during the 3 NBA championships using based on the last 3 years? It's not typical for a center to handle the ball or create for himself in a limited time frame. Hakeem could do it, Shaq could not. No way around it, even if you want to bring up stats from 3 years where Shaq won no championships and stats that don't include the amount of FG's attempted in clutch play. When he did make big plays, they were off putbacks and the occassional baby hook.


----------



## Timmons (May 25, 2005)

I would like to believe that Hakeem could not guard Shaq b/c of Shaq's size, but Hakeem dominated the young Diesel in '95. 
Shaq can't shoot the fade, the free throw, or dish like the Dream.

I still think the only thing w/ Shaq is that he's a football player that bangs his way to glory in basketball. But it works and should that take away from his greatness? Can his size work against him?

Guy's a freak of nature w/ a decent baby hook. Hard to deny that Shaq can dribble a little...
Dream a lanky fella w/ some actual basketball skills.

I can't decide. I'm done.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> So you're telling me it's a *myth* that Shaq wasn't able to produce in clutch time during the 3 NBA championships using based on the last 3 years? It's not typical for a center to handle the ball or create for himself in a limited time frame. Hakeem could do it, Shaq could not.


Well, if O'Neal could do it the last three years, I would assume he could do it in the three years he won a championship. After all, he was a superior player then. What limited time frame? It's not as if the shot clock suddenly shortens during the end of the game. 



> No way around it, even if you want to bring up stats from 3 years where Shaq won no championships and stats that don't include the amount of FG's attempted in clutch play. When he did make big plays, they were off putbacks and the occassional baby hook.


FGA are obviously skewed for O'Neal because he gets fouled far more often during "clutch" moments. Here are his rough scoring possessions (FGA +FT x.44) per 48 minutes over the last three years during clutch time: 30.4, 24.7, 23.9. He's obviously taken a hit these last two years. For comparison, here are his regular season scoring possessions per 48 minutes: 28.9 ,24.3, 27.6. So except for last season, he also used more scoring possessions in clutch time than he normally does.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Yyzlin said:


> Well, if O'Neal could do it the last three years, I would assume he *could do it* in the three years he won a championship. After all, he was a superior player then. What limited time frame? It's not as if the shot clock suddenly shortens during the end of the game.


Do what? Be efficient? That's what O'Neal does. But as I try to point out below, it's irrevelant when he isn't taking a whole lot of clutch shots. 



> FGA are obviously skewed for O'Neal because he gets fouled far more often during "clutch" moments. Here are his rough scoring possessions (FGA +FT x.44) per 48 minutes over the last three years during clutch time: 30.4, 24.7, 23.9. He's obviously taken a hit these last two years. For comparison, here are his regular season scoring possessions per 48 minutes: 28.9 ,24.3, 27.6. So except for last season, he also used more scoring possessions in clutch time than he normally does.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but the stats are skewed once you bring in FGA per 48 minutes to measure clutch situations. For example, if O'Neal only takes 2 shots in the last 3 minutes of the game, he still has a per 48 FGA of 32. Compare that to his regular season per 48 minute FGA average of 21.09 (04-05 season). Maybe it's because I'm not counting FT's, but with his percentages, shouldn't that be a good thing?


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> Do what? Be efficient? That's what O'Neal does. But as I try to point out below, it's irrevelant when he isn't taking a whole lot of clutch shots.


Well, my other post pretty much clears that issue. He has more scoring possessions in clutch time than he does usually, and does so at a superior or equal rate than Bryant or Wade. So what's your point of contention? That O'Neal wasn't effective in clutch time? That he shot less that he normally does during those moments? Neither have proven to be true so far. So, thus, that's why I am asserting that the Shaq "is far less dominant" during clutch time belief is just a myth. 




> Correct me if I'm wrong, but the stats are skewed once you bring in FGA per 48 minutes to measure clutch situations. For example, if O'Neal only takes 2 shots in the last 3 minutes of the game, he still has a per 48 FGA of 32. Compare that to his regular season per 48 minute FGA average of 21.09 (04-05 season). Maybe it's because I'm not counting FT's, but with his percentages, shouldn't that be a good thing?


I'm not quite sure what you are saying. I used FGA/48 because thats what 82games.com supplies in order to normalize all clutch time statistics, as obviously, players would have a large variance of the number of minutes in those situations that they would accrue over a season.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Yyzlin said:


> Posessions and PPG is an entirely different topic. O'Neal's teams had lesser possessions per game. The fact that the Rockets had more possessions and only managed to score "almost exactly the same PPG" only shows that they were more inefficient on offense.


Do you have the possessions figures, though? I don't know where to find such a stat. All I've got are ppg (which are equal for both teams) and fga's (which the Lakers had more of two out of the three years), which are certainly better than nothing.



> Hey, where did you find those numbers from? Did you calculate them yourself, is there a website with information like that?


I found them on some website about a year ago, and I pasted them into a Word document. I can't remember the address, but I think it was called "Hoop Talk", or something like that. There were also stats for a few other players, but unfortunately I didn't copy those. 



> Anyways, it seems that both were equal at a point in their careers when both players were very successful. O'Neal was more efficient that Olajuwon, though PSA would be a more valuable benchmark if you could get that information. Especially looking solely at the Olajuwon vs O'Neal matchup, from my perspective, it's skewed heavily in O'Neal's favor right now. He has about 2 more RPG, and his FG% is 10% higher though his FGA was obviously lower.


I don't know how you can say that it's skewed "heavily" in Shaq's favor from their matchups.
Shaq: 23.9 ppg, 13.4 rpg, 56.6%FG
Hakeem: 27.8 ppg, 11.2 rpg, 46.6%FG

Hakeem scores 4 ppg more, grabs 2 fewer rpg, and shoots at 10% lower from the field. This ignores ft%, blocks, steals and assists. It also ignores the fact that because Hakeem was such a good defender, the Rockets didn't double Shaq as much, while the Magic always doubled Hakeem (same thing goes for Robinson). This was particularly the case in '93 and in the Finals, but also to an extent in '94 and '95. It doesn't apply for '96. So I don't see how it's skewed in Shaq's favor. Also, when looking at the performance of Ewing and Robinson against Shaq and Hakeem respectively, you can tell that Hakeem was a considerably better defender.


----------



## James_Posey (Jul 31, 2005)

Shaq. He is more dominate and he just shaq. One more time Shaq is the best


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

James_Posey said:


> Shaq. He is more dominate and he just shaq. One more time Shaq is the best


Just one more time?


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> Do you have the possessions figures, though? I don't know where to find such a stat. All I've got are ppg (which are equal for both teams) and fga's (which the Lakers had more of two out of the three years), which are certainly better than nothing.


basketball-reference.com



> I don't know how you can say that it's skewed "heavily" in Shaq's favor from their matchups.
> Shaq: 23.9 ppg, 13.4 rpg, 56.6%FG
> Hakeem: 27.8 ppg, 11.2 rpg, 46.6%FG
> 
> Hakeem scores 4 ppg more, grabs 2 fewer rpg, and shoots at 10% lower from the field. This ignores ft%, blocks, steals and assists.


You misread what I said. I said "it's skewed heavily in O'Neal's favor right now". From the statistics shown, I would say that the overwhelming majority of people would agree. Additional statistics may balance the overall picture more, but unfortunately, that isn't provided, and I'm certainly not going to spend a few hours going through the box scores to calculate them. 



> It also ignores the fact that because Hakeem was such a good defender, the Rockets didn't double Shaq as much, while the Magic always doubled Hakeem (same thing goes for Robinson). This was particularly the case in '93 and in the Finals, but also to an extent in '94 and '95. It doesn't apply for '96. So I don't see how it's skewed in Shaq's favor. Also, when looking at the performance of Ewing and Robinson against Shaq and Hakeem respectively, you can tell that Hakeem was a considerably better defender.


As for who was doubled more, that's a fairly subjective issue and one I don't have information to judge, since I haven't seen any O'Neal/Olajuwon games outside of the Finals. Statistics may shed some more light, particularly assist numbers. Since both players are very talented passers (and similar caliber), it's a fair assumption to make that the player who had more assists probably was doubled more. For example, in the 95 Finals, O'Neal averaged more APG than Olajuwon, which helps disprove the belief that the Rockets didn't double Shaq as much. I mean, if you watch the tape, you would have to be blind to not notice the immediate double team that came O'Neal's way every time. 

And yeah, I agree that from the numbers and from personal observations, it shows that Olajuwon was a superior defender, and I don't think that's a claim that anyone denies.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Yyzlin said:


> Well, my other post pretty much clears that issue. He has more scoring possessions in clutch time than he does usually, and does so at a superior or equal rate than Bryant or Wade. So what's your point of contention? That O'Neal wasn't effective in clutch time? That he shot less that he normally does during those moments? Neither have proven to be true so far. So, thus, that's why I am asserting that the Shaq "is far less dominant" during clutch time belief is just a myth.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not quite sure what you are saying. I used FGA/48 because thats what 82games.com supplies in order to normalize all clutch time statistics, as obviously, players would have a large variance of the number of minutes in those situations that they would accrue over a season.



You are riding your stats too hard on this one. There isn't much to be confused about -- per 48 minutes stats don't do justice to clutch/non-clutch players. It's not a myth if we've rarely seen Shaq make big shots, especially in the playoffs as opposed to Hakeem who could knock them down on a consistent basis, and make the big defensive plays such as blocking Starks potential championship winner. You cannot compare the two in the clutch, as Hakeem's knack for hitting big shots based on his ability to create shots out of nothing got him the title as the greatest clutch center ever (atleast by me  ).


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

thetobin73 said:


> I would like to believe that Hakeem could not guard Shaq b/c of Shaq's size, but Hakeem dominated the young Diesel in '95.


how did hakeem dominate him, didn't shaq actually outproduce hakeem? but in any effect, they lost so i guess that's where the "dominate" notion comes from. 

myself, i'd take shaq because;
1-didn't see hakeem play in his prime
2-shaq seems to be more of a presence than hakeem, whenever i catch him on espn classic.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

sherako said:


> how did hakeem dominate him, didn't shaq actually outproduce hakeem?


No... Hakeem outscored him in every game.

After the series:

"“He’s got great moves, a great attitude. He’s a class act. I have no problem with Hakeem being called the best player in the game.” - Shaq


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

I remember Shaq once said that he finds it tough to go hard against players he genuinely likes, like Hakeem and Yao. He said the secret to his dominance was that he would make himself hate whoever the opposing center was (Zo and D-Rob come to mind). He'd find a reason(s) to hate the guy, but he could never bring himself to hate Hakeem or Yao because they're so kind they make it impossible.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

Spriggan said:


> I remember Shaq once said that he finds it tough to go hard against players he genuinely likes, like Hakeem and Yao. He said the secret to his dominance was that he would make himself hate whoever the opposing center was (Zo and D-Rob come to mind). He'd find a reason(s) to hate the guy, but he could never bring himself to hate Hakeem or Yao because they're so kind they make it impossible.


 In what way was David Robinson _not_ kind? He made a puppy dog seem as scummy as a drug-dealer who hung around elementary schools by comparison.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

Minstrel said:


> In what way was David Robinson _not_ kind? He made a puppy dog seem as scummy as a drug-dealer who hung around elementary schools by comparison.


True, but he and Shaq absolutely hated each other. I don't really remember why.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

To my recollection, Shaq never fully respected Hakeem until after he was swept by him in the finals. They had that whole eye gouging dispute, and Shaq was in tears after he lost to the Rockets. But I could be wrong.


----------



## Hoopla (Jun 1, 2004)

Spriggan said:


> True, but he and Shaq absolutely hated each other. I don't really remember why.


The story was that Shaq, while in high school in Texas, was trying to get an autograph from Robinson but was snubbed. But if I remember right, Robinson once said he remembers nothing of the incident.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Yyzlin said:


> basketball-reference.com


Where on basketball-reference.com? I couldn't find it on the team pages.



> You misread what I said. I said "it's skewed heavily in O'Neal's favor right now". From the statistics shown, I would say that the overwhelming majority of people would agree. Additional statistics may balance the overall picture more, but unfortunately, that isn't provided, and I'm certainly not going to spend a few hours going through the box scores to calculate them.


I didn't misread what you said. I can't see how it's skewed heavily in Shaq's favor. 



> As for who was doubled more, that's a fairly subjective issue and one I don't have information to judge, since I haven't seen any O'Neal/Olajuwon games outside of the Finals.


I've seen quite a few, and I know who was doubled more.



> Statistics may shed some more light, particularly assist numbers. Since both players are very talented passers (and similar caliber), it's a fair assumption to make that the player who had more assists probably was doubled more. For example, in the 95 Finals, O'Neal averaged more APG than Olajuwon, which helps disprove the belief that the Rockets didn't double Shaq as much.


Overly simplistic. Different teammates. It's harder to pass out of a double-team. Passes out of double-teams don't turn into a lot of assists (both were excellent at it, but never averaged more than around 3.5 a game). 



> I mean, if you watch the tape, you would have to be blind to not notice the immediate double team that came O'Neal's way every time.


If you watch the series, you'd have to be blind (or at least a little unobservant) to not notice that Hakeem was doubled more. Obviously we're talking about players who commanded double-teams most of the time, regardless of who was defending them. So it's not like Hakeem played Shaq straight up half the time. We're speaking in relative terms. But over the course of the series, the Rockets didn't double Shaq as much as the Magic doubled Hakeem. I am certain of that. They even mentioned it in at least one article afterwards. The Rockets got worried after the other Spurs scored a lot on them when they doubled Robinson, especially since the Magic had better offensive weapons around Shaq. The Magic got worried after they saw Hakeem take apart Robinson, especially since Robinson was a better defender than Shaq.



> And yeah, I agree that from the numbers and from personal observations, it shows that Olajuwon was a superior defender, and I don't think that's a claim that anyone denies.


... Anyone except Amareca. Anyway, I don't think very many will deny that Shaq was better offensively. I just think the difference between their offense was quite a bit smaller than the difference between their defense.



Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> To my recollection, Shaq never fully respected Hakeem until after he was swept by him in the finals. They had that whole eye gouging dispute, and Shaq was in tears after he lost to the Rockets. But I could be wrong.


He had nothing but praise for him as a rookie, but that changed a little the next year until after the Finals. I'm not sure why, though.


----------



## The One (Jul 10, 2005)

Kobe8Bryant11 said:


> There seems to be some difference of opinions in another thread of mine on this topic, so I thought that I might make it a separate post, who do you guys think is the better player??


*Hakeem "The Dream"*. Thread over.:biggrin:


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

Shaquille O'Neal was the better player. But it's close. Hakeem was THAT great of player. 

It's curious thinking about both players. One was all finesse, flair and well-rounded game. A great defender too. The other was/is a massive brute who powered his way through opponents...

But Shaq was doubled and tripled teamed more often than not (what in Hakeems' days would be called an instant illegal defense foul), and players would simply hack his arms and hands, or even jump into (and even over) him to avoid him taking a shot. That shows the difference, IMHO...


----------



## Quills (Jun 18, 2005)

A True Reiterration on Shaqs take on the leagues big men when he came into the league as a rookie this was done I belive either during the 95 finals or the start of 96 for the 50 greatest players archive



Shaq on Hakeem : "he's the Best , has all the moves . can bang but is so Finesseful he can do that as well"

Shaq on David : "He's very athletic & Very Soft he's not really a center more like a tall SF"

Shaq on Ewing : "I thought he was supposed to be the Inside force like I am ,but all he does in Flops"


Agains these are not Direct Quates but instead the Jest of what Shaq said during the Interview with either Marv or Grey or Costas


----------



## Quills (Jun 18, 2005)

Shaq is Doubled because the Quality of Bigmen is So low that he has to be Doubled , Hakeem was Doubled going up against better Competion . So Hakeems being doubled is more impresives then shaq being doubled


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> You are riding your stats too hard on this one. There isn't much to be confused about -- per 48 minutes stats don't do justice to clutch/non-clutch players. It's not a myth if we've rarely seen Shaq make big shots, especially in the playoffs as opposed to Hakeem who could knock them down on a consistent basis, and make the big defensive plays such as blocking Starks potential championship winner. You cannot compare the two in the clutch, as Hakeem's knack for hitting big shots based on his ability to create shots out of nothing got him the title as the greatest clutch center ever (atleast by me  ).


I still have no idea what you're talking about, both regarding statistics or the how you've rarely seen O'Neal make big sots, cause I have, but OK. I still love you Mr. Franchise Bling. :biggrin:


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

You guys are all haters.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Summary on why, IMO, Hakeem is superior:

1. Greater defensive anchor, man to man, and weakside. Even in his offensive prime I would take his defense easily over Shaq. Deflections, steals, blocks, rebounding he did it all against the best in the league.

2. Shaq may be more dominant offensively as an individual, but Hakeem does a better job helping his team win by passing, going to the hoop or hitting the mid range turnaround/fadeaway/jumper. Again, I think his offensive versatility will allow him to thrive in any system, NO ONE has won with a weaker group than Hakeem did in 1994 and it sure as hell wasn't a fluke. 

3. Say what you want about Shaq having a few clutch moments in the last 10 years, Hakeem was undisputedly the greater clutch player. Only big man who could be relied on to make clutch shots because of his versatility. 

4. Hakeem won a title with Otis Thorpe and Mario Elie. Cmon. That's got to mean something. No penetration whatsoever, just throwing it down to Hakeem and swinging it around the perimeter when he was tripled. With Shaq, it's hard to see him succeed without a penetrator.


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> 4. Hakeem won a title with Otis Thorpe and Mario Elie. Cmon. That's got to mean something.



How about Derek Fisher and Devean George?


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Quills said:


> A True Reiterration on Shaqs take on the leagues big men when he came into the league as a rookie this was done I belive either during the 95 finals or the start of 96 for the 50 greatest players archive


Nice find. After his rookie season, it was something like:

Shaq on Hakeem: "He's the best center in the league.... A class act.... If you're going to compare me to one player, compare me to him."

On Robinson: "Tough to guard because of his range.... Next season I want to run the floor like him."

On Ewing: "Great competitor, great player.... Very intese.... I don't want to be compared to him. We're different players."

On Daugherty: "He'll be a great player."

On Mutombo: "He's dirty."

He also said that Harold Miner, Shawn Kemp, Jim Jackson, Larry Johnson, Zo and himself would lead the NBA into the 21st Century.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

KokoTheMonkey said:


> How about Derek Fisher and Devean George?


and kobe bryant.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> Where on basketball-reference.com? I couldn't find it on the team pages.


Pace is the same thing as possessions per game. 




> I didn't misread what you said. I can't see how it's skewed heavily in Shaq's favor.


Shaq has a FG% that is 10% higher, while only scoring 4 PPG less. He has more RPG. What's not to see? 



> I've seen quite a few, and I know who was doubled more.


But you're also looking through biased eyes, *Hakeem*. :biggrin: 




> Overly simplistic. Different teammates. It's harder to pass out of a double-team. Passes out of double-teams don't turn into a lot of assists (both were excellent at it, but never averaged more than around 3.5 a game).


It's harder to pass out of a double team, but it also leads to more open men on the perimeter. Plus, both guys were excellent at it, as you said. Different teammates, yes, but I think you'd find it hard to argue one's teammates as offensively superior to the other. 




> If you watch the series, you'd have to be blind (or at least a little unobservant) to not notice that Hakeem was doubled more. Obviously we're talking about players who commanded double-teams most of the time, regardless of who was defending them. So it's not like Hakeem played Shaq straight up half the time. We're speaking in relative terms. But over the course of the series, the Rockets didn't double Shaq as much as the Magic doubled Hakeem. I am certain of that. They even mentioned it in at least one article afterwards. The Rockets got worried after the other Spurs scored a lot on them when they doubled Robinson, especially since the Magic had better offensive weapons around Shaq. The Magic got worried after they saw Hakeem take apart Robinson, especially since Robinson was a better defender than Shaq.


I've never seen an article mention that at all. Both Shaq and Hakeem got doubled on virtually every time they got the ball. I mean, when you reach a certain point, there can exist no differences. You could argue that there were maybe 3-4 possession differences between the number of double teams each received per game, but that's impossible for the naked eye to determine without counting every double team in the series. 




> ... Anyone except Amareca. Anyway, I don't think very many will deny that Shaq was better offensively. I just think the difference between their offense was quite a bit smaller than the difference between their defense.


I don't agree, but there's obviously no right answer. It's also a tricky topic because both players have a lot of their game that is unmeasurable or even inconcievable of ever being able to measure. For example, intimidation. Who was more intimidating on defense. Not only is defense include the tangible aspects of what we usually pescribe to that half of the side, but there are aspects that can never be measured like the ability to prevent the opposition from driving and taking more jumpshots instead. Olajuwon had the simply defensive beast working for him. You had to always wary of where he was, because you knew that you had a very good chance of getting your shot swatted. Then, there's O'Neal, who is simply the single most physically intimidating person in the history of the league. Olajuwon is a big guy, but can look like a stick next to O'Neal. When a player gets fouled or run into by O'Neal, it's probably like hitting a brick wall. It's not fun, and that alone has probably prevented who knows how many drives into the lane. And O'Neal of course is a mighty fine shot blocker himself. On offense, there are still many unmeasurables. In particular, O'Neal's (and Olajuwon to a lesser degree) ability to put players in foul trouble. It has benefits for his matchup as it increases the chance of him going up against an inferior player, and it forces the ones in foul trouble to play more conservatively. Secondly, it has benefits for his team by pushing the opposing team fouls up, and making it quicker to get to the bonus. Not only are these thing statistically difficult to measure, but watching games doesn't really help in evaluating these things as their effects are both subliminal and very subjective. Of course, that's just scratching the tip of the iceberg. It's just interesting to think of all the things that a player can do to impact a game, and yet go pretty much unnoticed by the people watching the game even astute ones, and unobserved by statistics.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Yyzlin said:


> When a player gets fouled or run into by O'Neal, it's probably like hitting a brick wall. It's not fun, and that alone has probably prevented who knows how many drives into the lane.


 How many times has that actually happened? Intimidating to me and you, but to a regular NBA player, Shaq would be no more intimidating than Hakeem. Remember, Hakeem was always much quicker off his feet, so penetrators have that in the back of their mind. Beating Hakeem was not easy.



> And O'Neal of course is a mighty fine shot blocker himself. On offense, there are still many unmeasurables. In particular, O'Neal's (and Olajuwon to a lesser degree) ability to put players in foul trouble. It has benefits for his matchup as it increases the chance of him going up against an inferior player, and it forces the ones in foul trouble to play more conservatively. Secondly, it has benefits for his team by pushing the opposing team fouls up, and making it quicker to get to the bonus. Not only are these thing statistically difficult to measure, but watching games doesn't really help in evaluating these things as their effects are both subliminal and very subjective. Of course, that's just scratching the tip of the iceberg. It's just interesting to think of all the things that a player can do to impact a game, and yet go pretty much unnoticed by the people watching the game even astute ones, and unobserved by statistics.


 Agreed, but that 'uncertainty' comes with every sports debate. They are significant, but not significant enough to alter your view when comparing two very good players.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> Summary on why, IMO, Hakeem is superior:
> 
> 1. Greater defensive anchor, man to man, and weakside. Even in his offensive prime I would take his defense easily over Shaq. Deflections, steals, blocks, rebounding he did it all against the best in the league.
> 
> ...


Grr. I wrote a long thing and it got ****ed up. Anyways, here's a more succinct version of what I had. 

I don't think anyone clearly believes that Olajuwon was a better passer. I really think you underrate O'Neal's passing ability. Does versatility equal better? Efficiency has to enter the picture, and O'Neal has always been more efficient than Olajuwon. I mean, I think one of the reasons why O'Neal never developed more versatility is because he never needed it. No one could stop him, whether it was Olajuwon, Ewing, Robinson, whoever. And if you can pretty much have your way, it doesn't really make sense to take a 15 foot jumper instead of a dunk or a lay up. As for Hakeem winning with the weakest group, do people just forget about Ewing and his rag tag group? His team was just as bad, and yet, he lead to six points within a championship. If the Knicks had won the series (which they had a good shot doing if Starks didn't pull one of the most monumental choke jobs of all time), does that make Ewing a top five player? Of course not. An accomplishment like that, while impressive, isn't exactly an accurate indicator of how good a player is.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> How many times has that actually happened? Intimidating to me and you, but to a regular NBA player, Shaq would be no more intimidating than Hakeem. Remember, Hakeem was always much quicker off his feet, so penetrators have that in the back of their mind. Beating Hakeem was not easy.


O'Neal had atleast 50 pounds on Olajuwon (even more during most of Shaq's career) . I don't know about you, but that's a huge difference. Obviously, this is not proven, but I'm sure if you ask any guard, they much rather get fouled by Olajuwon than O'Neal. 





> Agreed, but that 'uncertainty' comes with every sports debate. They are significant, but not significant enough to alter your view when comparing two very good players.


They are on a whole entirely uncertain variables, not only in who was better, but the exact magnitude of the variable's effect. You may not think they are very significant, but in my eyes, I can see their effect being *very* significant.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Yyzlin said:


> If the Knicks had won the series (which they had a good shot doing if Starks didn't pull one of the most monumental choke jobs of all time), does that make Ewing a top five player? Of course not. An accomplishment like that, while impressive, isn't exactly an accurate indicator of how good a player is.


Hakeem played a much more significant role than Ewing because he was the only one on his team who could create shots for himself or others. The manner in which Houston won that first title, literally relying on Hakeem to create every bucket for himself or for the campers on the perimeter, makes it so memorable for those who saw it. With the Rockets, teams knew all they were going to do was throw it down to Hakeem, yet there was still nothing anyone could do about it. Shaq has always had many more weapons around him, and it's always worked to his advantage.

O'Neal can practice all he wants, but he'll never be a good FT shooter or be able to knock down mid range jump shots. His game is using his huge frame to get good positioning and finishing close to the rim. Versatility wasn't an option for O'Neal, he never had any skills 5 feet away from the basket.

Oh yeah, another thing. O'Neal is one of the worst defenders off the pick and roll that I've ever seen. Horrible.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Yyzlin said:


> O'Neal had atleast 50 pounds on Olajuwon (even more during most of Shaq's career) . I don't know about you, but that's a huge difference. Obviously, this is not proven, but I'm sure if you ask any guard, they much rather get fouled by Olajuwon than O'Neal.


Yao has about 4 inches and 50 pounds on Mutombo, yet you won't find many who say he is more intimidating than Mutombo. As big as Yao is (2 bpg), Mutombo just has the natural shot blocker instincts and is just as feared. Yao won't ever foul as hard as Shaq, but again, how many incidents have there been where Shaq took down players who weren't big men?


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> Hakeem played a much more significant role than Ewing, because he was the only one on his team who could create shots for himself or others. The manner in which Houston won that first title, literally relying on Hakeem to create every bucket for himself or for the campers on the perimeter, makes it so memorable for anyone who saw it. With the Rockets, teams knew all they were going to do was throw it down to Hakeem, yet there was still nothing any could do about it.


You need to stop exaggerating when you talk about Hakeem. :biggrin: 

I mean, really, compare the teams. Olajuwon, Thorpe, Maxwell, K. Smith, Horry, etc. vs Ewing, Starks, Oakley, G. Anthony, A. Mason, etc. 



> O'Neal can practice all he wants, but he'll never be a good FT shooter or be able to knock down mid range jump shots. His game is using his huge frame to get good positioning and finishing close to the rim. Versatility wasn't an option for O'Neal, he never had any skills 5 feet away from the basket.


I don't if this is supposed to be a rebuttal or something, or if you just completely missed by point. The fact is, it doesn't matter. Why would O'Neal ever settle for a 15 foot jumper if he can always pretty much get a shot within 5-8 feet for a higher percentage? 



> Oh yeah, another thing. O'Neal is one of the worst defenders off the pick and roll that I've ever seen. Horrible.


The pick and pop or the pick and roll? He's actually quite effective defending the pick and roll, because he rarely follows the big man out to the perimeter anyone, so when the "roll" part comes, he's already sitting in the paint ready to defend. Pick and pop, I agree that he rarely comes out to defend, so usually, it leaves a pretty open jump shot for the offense.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> Yao has about 4 inches and 50 pounds on Mutombo, yet you won't find many who say he is more intimidating than Mutombo. As big as Yao is (2 bpg), Mutombo just has the natural shot blocker instincts and is just as feared. Yao won't ever foul as hard as Shaq, but again, how many incidents have there been where Shaq took down players who weren't big men?


Yeah, but Olajuwon ain't even close to Mutombo on the sharp elbow level. That's also another thing. Sharp elbows are a *****, and they hurt just as much as running into a 300 lb guy. Mutombo could cut diamonds with those. And the second question, are you really asking that? Guards always fall to the ground when they run into Shaq.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Yyzlin said:


> Pace is the same thing as possessions per game.


OK. The 2000 Lakers had 1.8 fewer possessions per game than the '94 Rockets and 1.0 fewer than the '95 Rockets. The 2001 Lakers had about 3 more possessions per game, and the '02 Lakers had about 2 more. How much of a difference would that make?



> Shaq has a FG% that is 10% higher, while only scoring 4 PPG less. He has more RPG. What's not to see?


Even leaving aside blocks, steals, free throw percentage and assists, in all of which Hakeem would most likely have the advantage, it's not "heavily skewed" in Shaq's favor. Just as the difference between 47% and 57% from the field is significant, there is a significant difference between 27.8 ppg and 23.9. Shaq gets more rebounds, but that’s ignoring the fact that Hakeem helped Otis Thorpe rebound, while Shaq actually took away rebounds from Horace Grant (). So, again, I can’t see how it’s "heavily" in anyone’s favor, even if you do ignore all the other factors and just look at these three statistical categories.



> But you're also looking through biased eyes, *Hakeem*. :biggrin:


Honestly, though, I think I’m pretty objective, even when it comes to my favourite players. And it’s rather hard to be biased when looking for double-teams.



> It's harder to pass out of a double team, but it also leads to more open men on the perimeter. Plus, both guys were excellent at it, as you said. Different teammates, yes, but I think you'd find it hard to argue one's teammates as offensively superior to the other.


If it’s harder to pass out of a double team, but it also leads to an extra open man on the perimeter, who can say which had the bigger effect on assists? And Shaq’s teammates were better offensively.



> I've never seen an article mention that at all.


Does that mean it didn’t exist and that I just made the whole thing up? You weren’t reading the papers or magazines in 1995. Only a tiny fraction of all the articles written on the ’95 Finals are available on those Internet research archives. Honestly, I hardly remember anything about that article(s?) I read that mentioned it then, but I am certain that it was mentioned. It might have been in the loveably pulpy ‘Basketball Superstars’ magazine, of which I was a regular reader, but I can’t be sure.



> Both Shaq and Hakeem got doubled on virtually every time they got the ball. I mean, when you reach a certain point, there can exist no differences. You could argue that there were maybe 3-4 possession differences between the number of double teams each received per game, but that's impossible for the naked eye to determine without counting every double team in the series.


Though there was certainly more than just a 3-4 possession difference between the number of double teams each received -- there was enough so that I thought it fairly easy for a moderately astute observer to notice -- it was more when the double teams came to each player. When Shaq was doubled, over the course of the series, he generally got it only when he was at a certain point. Hakeem, on the other hand, generally got the double much sooner after he got the ball. The double was more immediate. I felt that the Magic overreacted to the result of the WCF. There was even more of a difference in Shaq’s rookie season, but that, I think, had more to do with the Rockets feeling comfortable allowing the DPoY to guard to rookie straight up more often.



> I don't agree, but there's obviously no right answer. It's also a tricky topic because both players have a lot of their game that is unmeasurable or even inconcievable of ever being able to measure.


I think that works to Olajuwon’s advantage in this debate, as the argument for him is that he was a much better defender, and defense is much harder to measure than offense.



> Then, there's O'Neal, who is simply the single most physically intimidating person in the history of the league. Olajuwon is a big guy, but can look like a stick next to O'Neal. When a player gets fouled or run into by O'Neal, it's probably like hitting a brick wall. It's not fun, and that alone has probably prevented who knows how many drives into the lane.


I think professional basketballers would be more concerned about whether or not their shot gets blocked than how hard they get knocked to the ground. Really, how many players have gotten injured by running into Shaq? And is there really that much of a difference between running into a 265 lb guy and a 315 lb guy? (And it’s not like that extra 50 lb was pure, hard muscle, anyway.)



> I mean, I think one of the reasons why O'Neal never developed more versatility is because he never needed it. No one could stop him, whether it was Olajuwon, Ewing, Robinson, whoever. And if you can pretty much have your way, it doesn't really make sense to take a 15 foot jumper instead of a dunk or a lay up.


Probably the only two reasons why Shaq never developed more versatility was that he is a) stubborn and egotistical, and b) because he simply couldn’t even if he tried his best to. Anyway, why stop at 57% from the field? If he had more versatility on offense, he could get more easy buckets. Image if Shaq was able to hit 16-foor jump-shots like Ewing could. He’d be even more unstoppable. And versatility goes beyond simple shooting percentages. It helps the player’s whole team.



> As for Hakeem winning with the weakest group, do people just forget about Ewing and his rag tag group? His team was just as bad, and yet, he lead to six points within a championship. If the Knicks had won the series (which they had a good shot doing if Starks didn't pull one of the most monumental choke jobs of all time), does that make Ewing a top five player? Of course not. An accomplishment like that, while impressive, isn't exactly an accurate indicator of how good a player is.


Why not? If a player can win it all with a mediocre supporting cast, that almost certainly means he is an exceptional player. There is no reason at all for saying that success with ordinary teammates isn’t a fairly accurate indicator of how good a player is. 
And Ewing definitely had better teammates than Hakeem. If, in the Finals, he had played as well as Hakeem did, the Knicks would have easily won. Starks choked in Game 7, but he was unstoppable in Game 6. He had 17 points in the 4th. That was the way he was. A streaky shooter. He got hot in Game 6, but they still lost. Hakeem was clutch defensively. The Rockets didn't score for what seemed like ages at the end of the 4th quarter, but Olajuwon's defense held them up. 
Starks, Oakley, Mason, Harper and Charles Smith were all good to very good players (all of them are underrated as defenders because people picture(d) the Knicks as a team whose defense was somehow magically better than the sum of its parts). The Knicks had shooters. They had depth.
The ’94 Rockets had Otis Thorpe (a poor man’s Oakley), the cancerous headcase Vernon Maxwell (who at times seemed to think it was his team, and whose defense was overrated because he always overplayed his man, knowing that Hakeem had his back), Kenny Smith and Sam Cassell (who, as I said in another thread the other day, made up possibly the worst PG combo ever defensively). And Mario Elie and Robert Horry. Little depth and no defense from the other guys (apart from Carl Herrera, who looked astonishingly like Bill Duke).

I think Hakeem was better than Shaq because he played incredible defense while being nearly as good offensively despite having crap teammates for most of his career. I do think Shaq benefited from having another good scorer always beside him. And I still think Hakeem was better in the late ‘80’s than in ’95. Worse teammates, was doubled and tripled and quadrupled like nothing I’ve seen since, and was a defensive and rebounding monster.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> OK. The 2000 Lakers had 1.8 fewer possessions per game than the '94 Rockets and 1.0 fewer than the '95 Rockets. The 2001 Lakers had about 3 more possessions per game, and the '02 Lakers had about 2 more. How much of a difference would that make?


I'd say not much difference at all. 



> The Knicks had shooters. They had depth.
> The ’94 Rockets had Otis Thorpe (a poor man’s Oakley), the cancerous headcase Vernon Maxwell (who at times seemed to think it was his team, and whose defense was overrated because he always overplayed his man, knowing that Hakeem had his back), Kenny Smith and Sam Cassell (who, as I said in another thread the other day, made up possibly the worst PG combo ever defensively). And Mario Elie and Robert Horry. Little depth and no defense from the other guys (apart from Carl Herrera, who looked astonishingly like Bill Duke).


Agreed. Although Maxwell was very underrated, he was still a headcase.



Yyzlin said:


> Yeah, but Olajuwon ain't even close to Mutombo on the sharp elbow level. That's also another thing. Sharp elbows are a *****, and they hurt just as much as running into a 300 lb guy. Mutombo could cut diamonds with those. And the second question, are you really asking that? Guards always fall to the ground when they run into Shaq.


Olajuwon's elbows are just as sharp as Mutombo's. He doesn't swing them as vehemently as Mutombo, but the difference isn't much.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Yyzlin said:


> I mean, really, compare the teams. Olajuwon, Thorpe, Maxwell, K. Smith, Horry, etc. vs Ewing, Starks, Oakley, G. Anthony, A. Mason, etc.


Yeah... the Knicks win every matchup except Hakeem vs Ewing. 




> I don't if this is supposed to be a rebuttal or something, or if you just completely missed by point. The fact is, it doesn't matter. Why would O'Neal ever settle for a 15 foot jumper if he can always pretty much get a shot within 5-8 feet for a higher percentage?


I believe you said he never _had_ to develop a versatile game because of his dominance near the basket, and all I added was that he wouldn't be able to if he wanted to.



> The pick and pop or the pick and roll? He's actually quite effective defending the pick and roll, because he rarely follows the big man out to the perimeter anyone, so when the "roll" part comes, he's already sitting in the paint ready to defend. Pick and pop, I agree that he rarely comes out to defend, so usually, it leaves a pretty open jump shot for the offense.


Agreed, but every time he's brought out to the perimeter he doesn't have the speed or lateral movement to cover a guard off the pick and roll... leaving an easy path to the basket for the guard. Unless, of course, he's shaking in his boots at the thought of going near O'Neal even though this is basketball, not football. 

Not every NBA player has the Eddie Robinson mindset. They attack the basket hard and some even want to draw contact. Going to the floor isn't the biggest deal in the world, I know I don't mind it. I would rather penetrate against the fat guy who could potentially knock me on my *** than the bony guy with the quickest reflexes in the league.


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

rocketeer said:


> and kobe bryant.



Clyde Drexler? Not as good as Kobe, sure.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

KokoTheMonkey said:


> Clyde Drexler? Not as good as Kobe, sure.


There was no Drexer in the 93-94 season... he was acquired for Otis Thorpe the next season.


----------



## Hoopla (Jun 1, 2004)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> Shaq may be more dominant offensively as an individual, but Hakeem does a better job helping his team win by passing, going to the hoop or hitting the mid range turnaround/fadeaway/jumper.


First, I would give Shaq the edge in passing. But why should Shaq have to hit jump shots when he’s so ridiculously efficient near the basket? Whether it’s a fadeaway or a dunk, the result is the same.



> Again, I think his offensive versatility will allow him to thrive in any system


I don’t see how this is an argument in favor of Hakeem over Shaq. Shaq’s dominance allows him to *be *the offense, which has been shown wherever he's been.



> NO ONE has won with a weaker group than Hakeem did in 1994 and it sure as hell wasn't a fluke.


This might be true, but it doesn't serve much purpose when comparing him to Shaq. Statements like this are too difficult to contextualize. 

His supporting cast wasn’t significantly worse than Ewing’s, whose team was a Starks jumper away from a title. And Scottie Pippen, whose Bulls took the Knicks to 7 games (with the Knicks having homecourt), didn’t have much of a supporting cast either.



Hakeem said:


> And Ewing definitely had better teammates than Hakeem.


I would agree that Ewing's supporting cast was better, but I don't think the difference is much.



> Starks, Oakley, Mason, Harper and Charles Smith were all good to very good players (all of them are underrated as defenders because people picture(d) the Knicks as a team whose defense was somehow magically better than the sum of its parts).


You say underrated, so I'm not sure what your reference point is. Mason, Oakley, Harper, and to a lesser extent, Starks, were all fine defenders. But in that year, only Starks, and at times Harper were good offensive players. And Smith was a weak defender, and a talented but ultimately average offensive player whose confidence was always an issue.



> The Knicks had shooters.


The shooting was fairly equal. The Knicks might have had the best shooter (Davis), but the Rockets had more options and could put more than 2 threats on the floor at a time.

The Knicks' bench I would only give a slight edge over the Rockets'.



> The ’94 Rockets had Otis Thorpe (a poor man’s Oakley)


I definitely wouldn't label Thorpe as a poor man's Oakley. He was a different player. He wasn't as good an overall defender as Oakley, but was clearly the better offensive player. It's closer to a wash.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> OK. The 2000 Lakers had 1.8 fewer possessions per game than the '94 Rockets and 1.0 fewer than the '95 Rockets. The 2001 Lakers had about 3 more possessions per game, and the '02 Lakers had about 2 more. How much of a difference would that make?


You mean less? And I wasn't the one making the argument. Someone else was. I was just pointing out that PPG and possessions per game aren't the same thing. 



> Even leaving aside blocks, steals, free throw percentage and assists, in all of which Hakeem would most likely have the advantage, it's not "heavily skewed" in Shaq's favor. Just as the difference between 47% and 57% from the field is significant, there is a significant difference between 27.8 ppg and 23.9. Shaq gets more rebounds, but that’s ignoring the fact that Hakeem helped Otis Thorpe rebound, while Shaq actually took away rebounds from Horace Grant (). So, again, I can’t see how it’s "heavily" in anyone’s favor, even if you do ignore all the other factors and just look at these three statistical categories.


I would doubt that Olajuwon has the advantage in APG. I don't know about you, but I would take the 24 PPG on a 57% clip over the 28 PPG on a 47% clip every single day. And Horace Grant was only around for two of the 4 seasons in discussion. His rebound numbers were basically the same as Thorpe's anyways. You can make the argument that before Grant, O'Neal didn't really have anyone else good in rebounding, so that boasted his rebonuding numbers if you want. 




> Honestly, though, I think I’m pretty objective, even when it comes to my favourite players. And it’s rather hard to be biased when looking for double-teams.


Why? Unless you count each double team, it leads to alot of subjectivity. 




> If it’s harder to pass out of a double team, but it also leads to an extra open man on the perimeter, who can say which had the bigger effect on assists? And Shaq’s teammates were better offensively.


I'm not sure what your first sentence means. Can you clarify? As for which teammatse were better offensively, that would be really hard to convince me of. Olajuwon had Drexler, Horry, M. Elie, Cassell, and K. Smith. O'Neal had Hardaway, Grant, N. Anderson, and D. Scott. 



> Does that mean it didn’t exist and that I just made the whole thing up? You weren’t reading the papers or magazines in 1995. Only a tiny fraction of all the articles written on the ’95 Finals are available on those Internet research archives. Honestly, I hardly remember anything about that article(s?) I read that mentioned it then, but I am certain that it was mentioned. It might have been in the loveably pulpy ‘Basketball Superstars’ magazine, of which I was a regular reader, but I can’t be sure.


No, it just means that it doesn't really mean much in the context of this argument. Anyone can say "Yeah, but I read this in blah blah magazine back in whatever year", but what does it add to the debate? Nothing. 




> Though there was certainly more than just a 3-4 possession difference between the number of double teams each received -- there was enough so that I thought it fairly easy for a moderately astute observer to notice -- it was more when the double teams came to each player. When Shaq was doubled, over the course of the series, he generally got it only when he was at a certain point. Hakeem, on the other hand, generally got the double much sooner after he got the ball. The double was more immediate. I felt that the Magic overreacted to the result of the WCF. There was even more of a difference in Shaq’s rookie season, but that, I think, had more to do with the Rockets feeling comfortable allowing the DPoY to guard to rookie straight up more often.


When both players were doubled pretty much every time they touched the ball (except O'Neal's rookie season as you said), again, how would the difference in double teams received by anything more than minimal? As for when each player received the double team, if it is true, is that relevant? Can you outline for me the effect that the timing of double teams has? Keep in mind the illegal defense rules. 




> I think that works to Olajuwon’s advantage in this debate, as the argument for him is that he was a much better defender, and defense is much harder to measure than offense.


Why? Because it is unknown, it can work both ways. Who knows if Olajuwon's perceived superiority in defense is as large as it is? Maybe it's larger. Maybe it's smaller. I don't see how it can work in anyone's direction. 




> I think professional basketballers would be more concerned about whether or not their shot gets blocked than how hard they get knocked to the ground. Really, how many players have gotten injured by running into Shaq? And is there really that much of a difference between running into a 265 lb guy and a 315 lb guy? (And it’s not like that extra 50 lb was pure, hard muscle, anyway.)


Have you ever fell hard on the court? It hurts. ALOT. I guess in a manly way, you can say that getting knocked to the ground shouldn't have any effect on a player, but in my opinion, both mentally and physically, it has a large effect. Do you think it's a coincidence that this year, Miami was tied for 2nd in highest "percentage of shots taken by the opposition were jumpshots"? A year ago, the Lakers were third. Obviously, there are several other factors that play into that, but I do think it's interesting. And yes, 50 pounds is alot. 




> Probably the only two reasons why Shaq never developed more versatility was that he is a) stubborn and egotistical, and b) because he simply couldn’t even if he tried his best to. Anyway, why stop at 57% from the field? If he had more versatility on offense, he could get more easy buckets. Image if Shaq was able to hit 16-foor jump-shots like Ewing could. He’d be even more unstoppable. And versatility goes beyond simple shooting percentages. It helps the player’s whole team.


I agree that O'Neal could have been an even better player, but my point was, that there was never a situation that he needed versatility (other than free throws). Sure, he could have easily been the best player ever probably if he just had a higher free throw percentage, but I can't think of an instances during O'Neals where throwing it down and watching him work didn't work. 




> Why not? If a player can win it all with a mediocre supporting cast, that almost certainly means he is an exceptional player. There is no reason at all for saying that success with ordinary teammates isn’t a fairly accurate indicator of how good a player is.


Obviously, it indicates he's a great player. But we are trying to differentiate between great players, and that achievement doesn't help us. 



> And Ewing definitely had better teammates than Hakeem. If, in the Finals, he had played as well as Hakeem did, the Knicks would have easily won. Starks choked in Game 7, but he was unstoppable in Game 6. He had 17 points in the 4th. That was the way he was. A streaky shooter. He got hot in Game 6, but they still lost. Hakeem was clutch defensively. The Rockets didn't score for what seemed like ages at the end of the 4th quarter, but Olajuwon's defense held them up.


Starks was just as bad as Maxwell. Terrible undersized defensive player. A guy who was the definition of a shot chucker, and made you cringe more often than he made you happy. 



> Starks, Oakley, Mason, Harper and Charles Smith were all good to very good players (all of them are underrated as defenders because people picture(d) the Knicks as a team whose defense was somehow magically better than the sum of its parts).


And Maxwell, Thorpe, Horry, K. Smith, Mario Eli, and Sam Cassell weren't? 



> The Knicks had shooters. They had depth.


The Rockets had just as many, if not more shooters than the Knicks. How were the Knicks deeper than the Rockets? 



> The ’94 Rockets had Otis Thorpe (a poor man’s Oakley), the cancerous headcase Vernon Maxwell (who at times seemed to think it was his team, and whose defense was overrated because he always overplayed his man, knowing that Hakeem had his back), Kenny Smith and Sam Cassell (who, as I said in another thread the other day, made up possibly the worst PG combo ever defensively). And Mario Elie and Robert Horry. Little depth and no defense from the other guys (apart from Carl Herrera, who looked astonishingly like Bill Duke).


How was Otis Thorpe a poor man's Oakley? He had a higher PER than Oakley that year. You could argue that Oakley was a superior defender, but really, saying that Thorpe was a poor man's Oakley is a foolish statement. I'm not sure what "Mario Elie and Robert Horry" means, but both were very valuable players. 



> I think Hakeem was better than Shaq because he played incredible defense while being nearly as good offensively despite having crap teammates for most of his career. I do think Shaq benefited from having another good scorer always beside him. And I still think Hakeem was better in the late ‘80’s than in ’95. Worse teammates, was doubled and tripled and quadrupled like nothing I’ve seen since, and was a defensive and rebounding monster.


I think Shaq was better than Hakeem because he was arguably the most dominant offensive player while being a very good defensive player as well. I do think Hakeem's reputation benefits from winning a title without another superstar, but a change of a few points and Ewing would be there instead. I also think Hakeem benefited from the period he played in. Whereas O'Neal could dominate in any league condition, Olajuwon would likely have a more difficult time in a league that doesn't have illegal defense. His offensive post game is predicated on a lot of movement, and those players don't have as much success today.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> Olajuwon's elbows are just as sharp as Mutombo's. He doesn't swing them as vehemently as Mutombo, but the difference isn't much.


Man, Olajuwon's weren't close to Mutombo's. I'm not in the mood to get into an elbow sharpness argument, but there's a reason why Mutombo's has a reputation and Olajuwon's never have. Plus, Mutombo was much more apt to use his elbows than Olajuwon.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> Yeah... the Knicks win every matchup except Hakeem vs Ewing.


Do you care to back that up because I don't see it. 




> I believe you said he never _had_ to develop a versatile game because of his dominance near the basket, and all I added was that he wouldn't be able to if he wanted to.


Right, but his lack of versality never hurt him because he never needed it, except free throws. 



> Agreed, but every time he's brought out to the perimeter he doesn't have the speed or lateral movement to cover a guard off the pick and roll... leaving an easy path to the basket for the guard. Unless, of course, he's shaking in his boots at the thought of going near O'Neal even though this is basketball, not football.


But O'Neal rarely does go out to the perimeter, so he doesn't get burned by the pick and roll. That's my point. It's also why O'Neal always had a little more difficulty guarding the shooting centers like Sabonis. It puts Shaq in a difficult predicament. 



> Not every NBA player has the Eddie Robinson mindset. They attack the basket hard and some even want to draw contact. Going to the floor isn't the biggest deal in the world, I know I don't mind it. I would rather penetrate against the fat guy who could potentially knock me on my *** than the bony guy with the quickest reflexes in the league.


Right, and players might not have been as afraid of Olajuwon. Sure, he had very quick reflexes, but as long as they drew body contact, they knew that they could get a foul call. Against O'Neal, you either got blocked, or if you drew contact, it was tough contact that got your *** knocked hard to the ground. Also, I'm not saying that O'Neal was more intimidating than Olajuwon. I'm just saying it's a large factor that is entirely unknown, and it's easy to see both sides of the argument as having the larger imapct.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

> I would doubt that Olajuwon has the advantage in APG. I don't know about you, but I would take the 24 PPG on a 57% clip over the 28 PPG on a 47% clip every single day. And Horace Grant was only around for two of the 4 seasons in discussion. His rebound numbers were basically the same as Thorpe's anyways. You can make the argument that before Grant, O'Neal didn't really have anyone else good in rebounding, so that boasted his rebonuding numbers if you want.


Why wouldn't Olajuwon have had the advantage in apg from '93 to '96? He averaged 3.5-3.6 apg over that period. Shaq averaged between 1.9 and 2.9. I would also take the 24 ppg on 57% guy -- if they were equal in all other departments. But once gain, it's not _heavily_ in anyone's favour. And Hakeem was better in every other area. 
Also Shaq had the advantage of going against a Hakeem whose defense was quite a bit worse in '95 and '96. You might say Hakeem had the advantage of going against a rookie Shaq, but Shaq wasn't doubled much of the time then. You could also say that '95 and '96 Shaq's defense was worse than it was in 2000, but IMO he was very nearly as good back then.



> Why? Unless you count each double team, it leads to alot of subjectivity.


How? You either see a double team or you don't. Anyway, who are you to accuse me of being biased? You don't hear me saying "You've only really seen Shaq play, and were overawed by his dominance against the likes of Rik Smits. You've hardly even seen Hakeem play. You're biased." I don't say it because I don't know if you're biased.



> I'm not sure what your first sentence means. Can you clarify? As for which teammatse were better offensively, that would be really hard to convince me of. Olajuwon had Drexler, Horry, M. Elie, Cassell, and K. Smith. O'Neal had Hardaway, Grant, N. Anderson, and D. Scott.


My first sentence? It is difficult to tell if being doubled more would lead to more assists per game, or if it's the other way around. The apg is a weak argument as there is no clear link between double teams and assists, especially on different teams.
Shaq had better teammates offensively. The Magic had Penny and a very good third scoring option in Nick Anderson (who was over 41% from downtown, and who was averaging 20 ppg a couple of years earlier as the second option on the team). Dennis Scott (43% from three-point range) and Horace Grant, could also be relied on.
The Rockets? Aside from Drexler (who was about as good as Penny), we had Kenny Smith (who was about as good as Dennis Scott offensively) and Robert Horry (the only times he started for a championship team was with the '94 and '95 Rockets). With Thorpe gone, Mario Elie had to start. Cassell was OK off the bench, but he didn't really offer anything that Kenny Smith didn't. So it's basically equal if we just leave out Nick Anderson (who was good enough to, I think, break 50 points in Shaq's rookie season). But that wouldn't do.



> No, it just means that it doesn't really mean much in the context of this argument. Anyone can say "Yeah, but I read this in blah blah magazine back in whatever year", but what does it add to the debate? Nothing.


It shows that I wasn't the only one who noticed it.



> When both players were doubled pretty much every time they touched the ball (except O'Neal's rookie season as you said), again, how would the difference in double teams received by anything more than minimal? As for when each player received the double team, if it is true, is that relevant? Can you outline for me the effect that the timing of double teams has? Keep in mind the illegal defense rules.


The difference in double teams received was more than minimal. Again, it was enough for me to notice, and I don't consider myself a basketball expert who can pick up every little thing. Even then, though, I saw that there was a difference. As for when each player received the double team, it is quite obvious why that is relevant. Just think -- if Hakeem often immediately got doubled after getting the ball, not just when he got to a threatening position, wouldn't it have made it harder for him? You don't think it would have helped his teammates more? 



> Have you ever fell hard on the court? It hurts. ALOT. I guess in a manly way, you can say that getting knocked to the ground shouldn't have any effect on a player, but in my opinion, both mentally and physically, it has a large effect. Do you think it's a coincidence that this year, Miami was tied for 2nd in highest "percentage of shots taken by the opposition were jumpshots"? A year ago, the Lakers were third. Obviously, there are several other factors that play into that, but I do think it's interesting. And yes, 50 pounds is alot.


Yeah, I've fallen on the court. It hurts, and it jars you, but I think hardened professional athletes who are being paid millions to do that stuff would be more concerned about playing well. And I think having their shot blocked would have more of a mental effect. With such a good shot-blocker there, players would always have that at the back of their minds. It's not just the couple of extra blocks that Hakeem got. It's also the countless shots altered and plays disrupted before a shot is taken. Shaq wouldn't have nearly the same effect. All he's got is 50 lb, much of which is fat. It's not like hitting the floor after running into a 265 lb guy is going to hurt a whole lot less. And remember -- and I think this whole part of the discussion is a bit silly -- Hakeem was three inches shorter and bony.



> I agree that O'Neal could have been an even better player, but my point was, that there was never a situation that he needed versatility (other than free throws). Sure, he could have easily been the best player ever probably if he just had a higher free throw percentage, but I can't think of an instances during O'Neals where throwing it down and watching him work didn't work.


Shaq misses over 40% of his shots from the field. If he was more versatile, he would be even more unstoppable. I can't see how anyone could disagree with that.



> Obviously, it indicates he's a great player. But we are trying to differentiate between great players, and that achievement doesn't help us.


It does. Obviously it doesn't mean that Hakeem was definitely the better player, but it's another argument in his favor. It shows that Hakeem could succeed in different situations. Shaq hasn't been able to win without a Penny or a Kobe or a Wade.



> Starks was just as bad as Maxwell. Terrible undersized defensive player. A guy who was the definition of a shot chucker, and made you cringe more often than he made you happy.


What? Terrible defensive player? He was a good defender (as was Maxwell, though Starks was better). He shot 42% from the field. He was 34% from long range, attempting 5.7 threes a game -- like T-Mac now, except Starks shot at a higher percentage. Maxwell, on the other hand, shot 39% from the field and less than 30% from three-point range. Starks had the better attitude and I'd have much rather had him on my team.



> And Maxwell, Thorpe, Horry, K. Smith, Mario Eli, and Sam Cassell weren't?


Starks > Maxwell. Mad Max wasn't a good player. Really, anyone could have scored 14 ppg taking that many shots. He wasn't a nice player to have on your team. 
Oakley > Thorpe.
Mason > Horry.
Harper > K. Smith and Cassell.
Charles Smith = Elie. 



> The Rockets had just as many, if not more shooters than the Knicks. How were the Knicks deeper than the Rockets?


I said the Knicks had shooters because the Rockets biggest strength, apart from Olajuwon, was its shooters. The Knicks had shooters, but those guys could also play defense. 
The Knicks were deeper. The Rockets had to give significant minutes to guys like Carl Herrera (a likeable but throwaway hybrid of the respective strengths of Clarence Weatherspoon and Ryan Bowen). We had Sam Cassell coming off the bench, but again, he was like Kenny Smith, only worse. The Knicks were giving Herb Williams only 6 mpg, while we were giving an even older Earl Cureton (!) 10.



> How was Otis Thorpe a poor man's Oakley? He had a higher PER than Oakley that year. You could argue that Oakley was a superior defender, but really, saying that Thorpe was a poor man's Oakley is a foolish statement. I'm not sure what "Mario Elie and Robert Horry" means, but both were very valuable players.


See, you probably never even saw Otis Thorpe play in the mid-'90's, yet, relying on PER, you say that I've made a foolish statement. Otis Thorpe was on the team mainly for his rebounding and defense. Charles Oakley was on the Knicks for similar reasons, except he was a better rebounder and a far superior defender. Don't get me wrong -- Thorpe was one of my favourite players, and he was a pretty good defender himself, but Oakley was considerably better. Thorpe was better offensively -- which is what PER mainly measures -- but it's not like he could create his own shot.
You're not sure what "Mario Elie and Robert Horry" means? What's so hard to understand about that? I was listing the major pieces on the '94 Rockets. I included Elie and Horry without comment. Is there a problem with that? Those guys were very valuable because the Rockets had no one else. 



Yyzlin said:


> Do you care to back that up because I don't see it.


Hakeem averaged 27 ppg on 50% that series. Ewing had 19 ppg on 36%. It still went to seven games. Excluding Olajuwon, of the ten other Rockets who played, seven of them shot below 40% from the field. 
Derek Harper, by all accounts, played very well on both ends of the floor. Kenny Smith and Cassell couldn't do anything to him, and he contained them very well. 
Mason played better than Horry (who shot at 32% from the field).
Starks outplayed Maxwell.
Oakley was better than Thorpe. 
Elie and Bullard were each 20% from the field.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> Why wouldn't Olajuwon have had the advantage in apg from '93 to '96? He averaged 3.5-3.6 apg over that period. Shaq averaged between 1.9 and 2.9.


That's true. I forgot that we were using 92-96 as the parameter, when O'Neal wasn't as adept at passing. 



> I would also take the 24 ppg on 57% guy -- if they were equal in all other departments. But once gain, it's not _heavily_ in anyone's favour. And Hakeem was better in every other area.


But again, I was merely saying that based on the statistics given, O'Neal has the clear advantage, and it seems you agree with that as well. 



> Also Shaq had the advantage of going against a Hakeem whose defense was quite a bit worse in '95 and '96. You might say Hakeem had the advantage of going against a rookie Shaq, but Shaq wasn't doubled much of the time then. You could also say that '95 and '96 Shaq's defense was worse than it was in 2000, but IMO he was very nearly as good back then.


Right, there are alot of concessions that you can make both ways. You could make the argument that neither player was in their prime (depending on how you see their careers) during the years that are being discussed. 




> How? You either see a double team or you don't. Anyway, who are you to accuse me of being biased? You don't hear me saying "You've only really seen Shaq play, and were overawed by his dominance against the likes of Rik Smits. You've hardly even seen Hakeem play. You're biased." I don't say it because I don't know if you're biased.


Because what qualifies as a double team? What about simply crowding in from your defender? There are alot of issues at play, though obviously, less so during the illegal defense years than now. My most extensive viewing of Olajuwon was during his absolute best, during his two championship runs. Seeing more of Olajuwon would probably only diminish my opinion of Olajuwon. I never said conclusively that you were biased, but it's possible. I mean, come on, your favorite player is Olajuwon. 



> My first sentence? It is difficult to tell if being doubled more would lead to more assists per game, or if it's the other way around. The apg is a weak argument as there is no clear link between double teams and assists, especially on different teams.


Getting more APG would get you doubled more? I'm still not understanding your point, especially the "or if it's the other way around" part. 



> Shaq had better teammates offensively. The Magic had Penny and a very good third scoring option in Nick Anderson (who was over 41% from downtown, and who was averaging 20 ppg a couple of years earlier as the second option on the team). Dennis Scott (43% from three-point range) and Horace Grant, could also be relied on.
> The Rockets? Aside from Drexler (who was about as good as Penny), we had Kenny Smith (who was about as good as Dennis Scott offensively) and Robert Horry (the only times he started for a championship team was with the '94 and '95 Rockets). With Thorpe gone, Mario Elie had to start. Cassell was OK off the bench, but he didn't really offer anything that Kenny Smith didn't. So it's basically equal if we just leave out Nick Anderson (who was good enough to, I think, break 50 points in Shaq's rookie season). But that wouldn't do.


So, you're saying that everything is equal except Nick Anderson>Elie and Cassell right? It's interesting that Elie's PPG/40 is 15.0 PPG on a 1.26 PSA while Anderson's PPG/40 is 18.5 PPG on a 1.19 PSA. Anderson was more capable of creating his own shot, but Elie had the higher PSA. Also, you have to realize that even if Cassell doesn't offer anything significant over Smith, it's a huge plus to be able to go to your bench without any loss in production. Whereas the Magic's best offensive player off the bench was Brian Shaw and his wonderous 10.4 PER that year, the Rocket's benefited alot from being a scoring spark plug off the bench like Cassell. 



> The difference in double teams received was more than minimal. Again, it was enough for me to notice, and I don't consider myself a basketball expert who can pick up every little thing. Even then, though, I saw that there was a difference. As for when each player received the double team, it is quite obvious why that is relevant. Just think -- if Hakeem often immediately got doubled after getting the ball, not just when he got to a threatening position, wouldn't it have made it harder for him? You don't think it would have helped his teammates more?


You could make a similar argument for being doubled later. It still accomplishes the effect of having two men on you for the shot attempt, lowering the shot probablity, and at the same time, making the window to dish to an open player far far smaller than if you were doubled earlier. Doubling later makes it easier for the player to get a shot attempt off, but also makes it much more difficult to help your teammates. Either way, I don't see how either is worse or better in terms of overall team result. 

It's also interesting that Olajuwon had more FGA's while O'Neal had more APG in the Finals. The results seem to contradict the belief that it was Olajuwon who was doubled earlier, and O'Neal doubled later. 



> Yeah, I've fallen on the court. It hurts, and it jars you, but I think hardened professional athletes who are being paid millions to do that stuff would be more concerned about playing well. And I think having their shot blocked would have more of a mental effect. With such a good shot-blocker there, players would always have that at the back of their minds. It's not just the couple of extra blocks that Hakeem got. It's also the countless shots altered and plays disrupted before a shot is taken. Shaq wouldn't have nearly the same effect. All he's got is 50 lb, much of which is fat. It's not like hitting the floor after running into a 265 lb guy is going to hurt a whole lot less. And remember -- and I think this whole part of the discussion is a bit silly -- Hakeem was three inches shorter and bony.


Well, I just disagree, but alas, there's no real right answer unless we survey every NBA playe. But statistical evidence does consistently show that teams with O'Neal make their opponents take a higher percentage of jump shots than average and often are among the top 2-3 teams in that regard, so O'Neal even today where he is a lot less active on the defensive end, has a huge effect which I would attribute to the sheer intimidation of his size. Of course, we don't have the same numbers for Olajuwon, so it's who knows. 



> Shaq misses over 40% of his shots from the field. If he was more versatile, he would be even more unstoppable. I can't see how anyone could disagree with that.


Isn't that what I said? He would be the best player ever if he were more versatile, but even as is, he was already as unstoppable offensively (depending on your opinions of Wilt) as any other player in the history of the league. Would versatility have helped? Yes. Did he ever really need it? No. 




> It does. Obviously it doesn't mean that Hakeem was definitely the better player, but it's another argument in his favor. It shows that Hakeem could succeed in different situations. Shaq hasn't been able to win without a Penny or a Kobe or a Wade.


O'Neal won 61 games with Eddie Jones. And is it O'Neal's fault that he has never been in a situation without a great guard? 



> What? Terrible defensive player? He was a good defender (as was Maxwell, though Starks was better).


Ugh. Sorry, but it's a pet peeve. Starks' defense was very overrated during the hey day years of the Knicks because it was this media creation that somehow everyone was this great defender on the team, when really, it's easy to see that it was a specific few (the frontline) that really held the team together defensively. I think it was you that mentioned it, but Ewing really gets the short end of the stick when talking about the Knicks defense. 



> He shot 42% from the field. He was 34% from long range, attempting 5.7 threes a game -- like T-Mac now, except Starks shot at a higher percentage. Maxwell, on the other hand, shot 39% from the field and less than 30% from three-point range. Starks had the better attitude and I'd have much rather had him on my team.


Stark's overall offensive efficiency was below average. You point out McGrady, but he's doing it a significantly tougher offensive era with way more FGA. Though yeah, reevaluating my position, I would rather have Starks that year. Maxwell's efficiency in the regular season that year was really bad. 



> Starks > Maxwell. Mad Max wasn't a good player. Really, anyone could have scored 14 ppg taking that many shots. He wasn't a nice player to have on your team.
> Oakley > Thorpe.
> Mason > Horry.
> Harper > K. Smith and Cassell.
> Charles Smith = Elie.


My take. 

Starks > Maxwell.
Oakley=Thorpe
Mason= Horry
Harper and G. Anthony< K. Smith and Cassell
C. Smith < Elie



> I said the Knicks had shooters because the Rockets biggest strength, apart from Olajuwon, was its shooters. The Knicks had shooters, but those guys could also play defense.


So why didn't you just say that the Knicks had a better defense than the Rockets did outside of their centers? That I would agree with. I wouldn't agree that the Knicks had better shooters. 



> The Knicks were deeper. The Rockets had to give significant minutes to guys like Carl Herrera (a likeable but throwaway hybrid of the respective strengths of Clarence Weatherspoon and Ryan Bowen). We had Sam Cassell coming off the bench, but again, he was like Kenny Smith, only worse. The Knicks were giving Herb Williams only 6 mpg, while we were giving an even older Earl Cureton (!) 10.


So, the Knicks gave even more minutes per game to Charles Smith, the absolute definition of a softie if there ever was one and about as trustworthy in end of the games situation as the Cookie Monster and cookie jars. Then, you had Anthony Bonner playing 1400 minutes that season for them. "Who?" exactly. And seriously, having Cassell off the bench is a plus, not a minus. Cuerton only played 2 games. That's a pretty poor argument. Don't forget that the Knicks also had Blackman playing almost 1000 minutes for them that season. Can you say retread? He would retire the next year. 



> See, you probably never even saw Otis Thorpe play in the mid-'90's, yet, relying on PER, you say that I've made a foolish statement. Otis Thorpe was on the team mainly for his rebounding and defense. Charles Oakley was on the Knicks for similar reasons, except he was a better rebounder and a far superior defender. Don't get me wrong -- Thorpe was one of my favourite players, and he was a pretty good defender himself, but Oakley was considerably better. Thorpe was better offensively -- which is what PER mainly measures -- but it's not like he could create his own shot.


Thorpe was much better offensively than Oakley. Oakley on offense was the definition of garbage man. He couldn't create his own shot if his life depended on it. Thorpe at least had some decent moves and could score by himself at times without anyone else setting him up. The dude _was_ a 20 PPG scorer before. And Thorpe was more efficient than Oakley as well. PER takes into account rebounding as well. So, I easily feel that Thorpe's advantage offensively was equal to Oakley's advantage defensively. 



> You're not sure what "Mario Elie and Robert Horry" means? What's so hard to understand about that? I was listing the major pieces on the '94 Rockets. I included Elie and Horry without comment. Is there a problem with that? Those guys were very valuable because the Rockets had no one else.


Well, that's what I would assume but you had that sentence in the middle of a paragraph slandering all of Olajuwon's teammates, and I was really wondering if you thought that both Elie and Horry was so bad that mentioning their name alone was enough slander. 




> Hakeem averaged 27 ppg on 50% that series. Ewing had 19 ppg on 36%. It still went to seven games. Excluding Olajuwon, of the ten other Rockets who played, seven of them shot below 40% from the field.
> Derek Harper, by all accounts, played very well on both ends of the floor. Kenny Smith and Cassell couldn't do anything to him, and he contained them very well.
> Mason played better than Horry (who shot at 32% from the field).
> Starks outplayed Maxwell.
> ...


I agree that Ewing's teammates played better than Olajuwon's during the Finals, but I don't see how that has to do the discussion of which star center's cast was better, unless one series means everything nowadays. Outside of Olajuwon, his teammates shot 39%. Ewing's shot 42%. A difference, but not a huge one. I don't see how Oakley was better than Thorpe. Ewing, while having offensive troubles, was also had some positives like having more BPG, RPG, and less TOPG than Olajuwon. Hubert Davis shot 20% for the Knicks.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Yyzlin said:


> But again, I was merely saying that based on the statistics given, O'Neal has the clear advantage, and it seems you agree with that as well.


I think it's pretty close, but Shaq gets the edge. Certainly not heavily in anyone's favour, though. 



> Right, there are alot of concessions that you can make both ways. You could make the argument that neither player was in their prime (depending on how you see their careers) during the years that are being discussed.


While I don’t think Shaq was in his prime in the mid-‘90’s, I think that, overall, for the factors we’re considering in their individual matchups (scoring and defense), he was no worse than he was in 2000. His scoring stats were better in '93-94 and '94-95 than they were at any other point in his career. His defense was very nearly as good as it was in 2000. Hakeem's offensive numbers were also at their highest, but again, his defense was quite a bit worse in '95 and even more so in '96. It’s a small sample size though, so I most likely won’t discuss this any more.



> Because what qualifies as a double team? What about simply crowding in from your defender? There are alot of issues at play, though obviously, less so during the illegal defense years than now. My most extensive viewing of Olajuwon was during his absolute best, during his two championship runs. Seeing more of Olajuwon would probably only diminish my opinion of Olajuwon. I never said conclusively that you were biased, but it's possible. I mean, come on, your favorite player is Olajuwon.


Why would seeing more of Olajuwon diminish your opinion of him? Even if you just saw some games from '93 and '94, you'd have a better appreciation of how good a defender he was. I'd say if a semi-knowledgeable viewer saw Hakeem in some '80's playoff games they'd be even more impressed. 
My favourite player is Olajuwon, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm biased. It's possible, though, just as it's possible that you're biased yourself. Many young fans are biased against players whom they didn’t see play. I’ve seen many posts by these people saying that today’s players are just flat out better than their counterparts from a decade or more ago. But all these kids have really seen is Shaq dominating. They figure that if no one can stand up to Shaq now, no one in history could have, either. Now, remember, I’m not calling you biased, but it’s possible.



> Getting more APG would get you doubled more? I'm still not understanding your point, especially the "or if it's the other way around" part.


OK, here: "We can't know if getting doubled more would lead to more assists, or if getting doubled less would lead to more assists." Double teams lead to an open man, but it is easier to make a good pass when there is no double team. So you can't say "They got approximately the same number of assists, therefore they were doubled the same amount." The best way to tell here is to watch the entire series.



> So, you're saying that everything is equal except Nick Anderson>Elie and Cassell right?


No, I'm saying that the starting fives were about equal offensively, except Nick Anderson was much better than Elie. As for the benches, it's Cassell, Chilcutt, Jones and Brown versus Shaw, Bowie, Turner and Royal. Edge goes to Houston there.



> It's interesting that Elie's PPG/40 is 15.0 PPG on a 1.26 PSA while Anderson's PPG/40 is 18.5 PPG on a 1.19 PSA. Anderson was more capable of creating his own shot, but Elie had the higher PSA.


It is pointless to compare pp40 mins for two players who were on completely different levels offensively and who had different roles on their respective teams. By the same logic, Scott Brooks and Tracy Murray were the third and fourth best scorers on the Rockets, with Scott Brooks having the highest PSA on the team. Why did they only get 6 and 8 mpg respectively, then? 
Mario Elie's role on the Rockets wasn't dissimilar to Bruce Bowen's current role on the Spurs -- play defense and knock down wide open threes. Nick Anderson, on the other hand, was a legitimate scoring threat. Like I said, he was a 20 ppg scorer on a borderline playoff team before Penny came along. Mario Elie could never have been a second option on any team or a third option on a decent team.



> Also, you have to realize that even if Cassell doesn't offer anything significant over Smith, it's a huge plus to be able to go to your bench without any loss in production. Whereas the Magic's best offensive player off the bench was Brian Shaw and his wonderous 10.4 PER that year, the Rocket's benefited alot from being a scoring spark plug off the bench like Cassell.


It's definitely a plus, but I wouldn't call it a "huge" plus if your guy off the bench is pretty much a clone of the guy he's replacing (only worse). 
And if you're going by PER, then Horace Grant was significantly superior to Robert Horry offensively (not to mention defense). 



> You could make a similar argument for being doubled later. It still accomplishes the effect of having two men on you for the shot attempt, lowering the shot probablity, and at the same time, making the window to dish to an open player far far smaller than if you were doubled earlier. Doubling later makes it easier for the player to get a shot attempt off, but also makes it much more difficult to help your teammates. Either way, I don't see how either is worse or better in terms of overall team result.


Read what I said again: "Just think -- if Hakeem often immediately got doubled after getting the ball, not just when he got to a threatening position, wouldn't it have made it harder for him? You don't think it would have helped his teammates more?"
You basically repeated what I said. Remember, my point is that Hakeem was doubled earlier, which made it harder for him to score, but which helped his teammates more. 
On second thoughts, however, I don’t think we can tell if being doubled earlier would always help a player’s teammates more. Like I said, it’s harder to pass out of a double team.



> It's also interesting that Olajuwon had more FGA's while O'Neal had more APG in the Finals. The results seem to contradict the belief that it was Olajuwon who was doubled earlier, and O'Neal doubled later.


Too simplistic. They're different players on different teams. You can't say "if Hakeem was doubled earlier he should have taken less shot attempts than Shaq and gotten more assists". If it was a computer simulation and you were pitting the Orlando Magic against a clone of itself, only then would you be able to fairly come to that conclusion. I know I saw Hakeem get doubled more and generally doubled earlier.



> Well, I just disagree, but alas, there's no real right answer unless we survey every NBA playe. But statistical evidence does consistently show that teams with O'Neal make their opponents take a higher percentage of jump shots than average and often are among the top 2-3 teams in that regard, so O'Neal even today where he is a lot less active on the defensive end, has a huge effect which I would attribute to the sheer intimidation of his size. Of course, we don't have the same numbers for Olajuwon, so it's who knows.


Just out of curiosity, which part of my paragraph do you disagree with?
And I don't disagree with you that Shaq is an intimidator. But you've got to remember that there aren't many good centers are in the league these days. Also, I'm not sure if that stat is a very good indicator. I clicked about a third of the teams on 82games.com, where I'm assuming you got the stat from, and the Rockets and the Sixers were the teams whose opposition shot the highest percentage of jump-shots. The Spurs were worse than the Knicks in that regard.



> Isn't that what I said? He would be the best player ever if he were more versatile, but even as is, he was already as unstoppable offensively (depending on your opinions of Wilt) as any other player in the history of the league. Would versatility have helped? Yes. Did he ever really need it? No.


What exactly do you think "need" means in this context? Obviously no superstars _needed_ to be better in any area. Karl Malone didn’t _need_ to play better defense. Michael Jordan didn’t _need_ to be a better 3-point shooter. But it would have been great if they had. So the phrase "he didn't need versatility" doesn't really mean anything. 



> O'Neal won 61 games with Eddie Jones. And is it O'Neal's fault that he has never been in a situation without a great guard?


Eddie Jones, NVE and a young Kobe Bryant, you mean. It isn’t Shaq’s fault that he has always been blessed with good teammates (apart from in his rookie season), but it is a fact we must remember. Having good teammates makes it easier for a center to play well.



> Ugh. Sorry, but it's a pet peeve. Starks' defense was very overrated during the hey day years of the Knicks because it was this media creation that somehow everyone was this great defender on the team, when really, it's easy to see that it was a specific few (the frontline) that really held the team together defensively. I think it was you that mentioned it, but Ewing really gets the short end of the stick when talking about the Knicks defense.


A pet peeve? Really, how many times have you seen mid-‘90’s Starks play, apart from when the Knicks get torched by Jordan or Reggie on ESPN Classic? It wasn’t a media creation that everyone on the Knicks was a great defender. It was a media creation that the Knicks were somehow this great defensive team that had a great coach but only a couple of really good defenders and a bunch of mediocre-to-good defenders, who played incredibly well together, like some Roman platoon. Starks wasn’t a great defender, but a good one.



> My take.
> 
> Starks > Maxwell.
> Oakley=Thorpe
> ...


In ’94, Thorpe definitely wasn’t “much” better than Oakley offensively. Sure, he was a 20 ppg scorer six years earlier in Sacramento, just like Gary Payton was a 20 ppg scorer two years ago or Vin Baker was a 20 ppg scorer seven years ago. But by ’94, he could only very rarely create his own shot. Oakley has always had this image as a gorilla. Like he’d beat the crap through you to protect his territory, but throw him a ball and he wouldn’t know what to do. There’s some truth in that, but it’s not entirely accurate. You love stats, right? Oakley in ’94 averaged 12 ppg on a PSA of 1.08. Thorpe had 14 ppg on 1.19. Not much of a difference. But Oakley was by far the better defender. He’s one of the best defensive forwards I’ve ever seen. Thorpe was a good defender, too, but wasn’t in the same league.
And why do you say “Mason = Horry”? In ’94, approximately, Mason was to Horry as Oakley was to Thorpe. Horry was slightly better offensively, but Mason was a better rebounder and a considerably better defender. Horry was outplayed in the Finals.
And why “Harper and G. Anthony< K. Smith and Cassell”? The Rockets duo were better offensively, but not by a whole lot. Defensively, it was enormously in Harper’s favor. He absolutely killed them in the Finals.



> So why didn't you just say that the Knicks had a better defense than the Rockets did outside of their centers? That I would agree with. I wouldn't agree that the Knicks had better shooters.


I don’t see what the problem is. I said that the Knicks had shooters, which is true. I never said the Rockets had better shooters. In my last post I explained that I mentioned that the Knicks had shooters because the Rockets biggest strength was its shooters. 



> So, the Knicks gave even more minutes per game to Charles Smith, the absolute definition of a softie if there ever was one and about as trustworthy in end of the games situation as the Cookie Monster and cookie jars. Then, you had Anthony Bonner playing 1400 minutes that season for them. "Who?" exactly. And seriously, having Cassell off the bench is a plus, not a minus. Cuerton only played 2 games. That's a pretty poor argument. Don't forget that the Knicks also had Blackman playing almost 1000 minutes for them that season. Can you say retread? He would retire the next year.


Look at the playoff mpg figures. They are more relevant. Bonner only played 9 mpg in 9 playoff games and Blackman only played 6 mpg in 6 games. Cureton played 10 playoff games and had 10 mpg. Herrera played 16 games and had 16 mpg.
Charles Smith could occasionally create his own shot. His problem was inconsistency. He wasn’t that soft and he didn’t choke that much. He got that reputation from just a couple of bad incidents.



> Well, that's what I would assume but you had that sentence in the middle of a paragraph slandering all of Olajuwon's teammates, and I was really wondering if you thought that both Elie and Horry was so bad that mentioning their name alone was enough slander.


Telling you that Kenny Smith and Sam Cassell couldn’t play defense was slander? 



> I agree that Ewing's teammates played better than Olajuwon's during the Finals, but I don't see how that has to do the discussion of which star center's cast was better, unless one series means everything nowadays. Outside of Olajuwon, his teammates shot 39%. Ewing's shot 42%. A difference, but not a huge one. I don't see how Oakley was better than Thorpe. Ewing, while having offensive troubles, was also had some positives like having more BPG, RPG, and less TOPG than Olajuwon. Hubert Davis shot 20% for the Knicks.


So you think we should just ignore seven consecutive games in which the teams were pitted against each other, trying their absolute hardest? The hard thing about seeing how good Ewing supporting cast was for you is that they were generally better defensive players than offensive players, and 40 mins stats and PER and what not don’t measure that very well. 
Ewing’s bpg doesn’t mean he played very good defense when you realise that Olajuwon scored 27 ppg on 50% against him in a series in which the Rockets averaged 87 ppg. Anyway, he only had three more blocks and seven less turnovers, while Hakeem had two more steals and thirteen more assists.


Decent discussion, but I may not reply next time. This is again taking too long. And I don't see us getting anywhere, since we disagree on nearly all the main points: Double teams (I say Hakeem was doubled more), supporting casts (I say Shaq's was better offensively and that Ewing's was better overall) and the intimidation factor (I say Hakeem's was much greater).


----------



## ii9ce (Feb 1, 2005)

futuristxen said:


> Dream is overrated. I thought Ballocks made a great point in the other thread. Hakeem really only had about 2 seasons where he was great. But in those other seasons you wouldn't have taken him over Patrick Ewing or David Robinson.
> 
> Shaq has been what he is, for almost his entire career. He also had two years where he was really really dominant. But he was dominant before those years as well.
> 
> I don't like Shaq, but when he retires, it's very lilkely he will be in the company of Wilt, Bill Russell, and MJ. Especially if he gets to five rings.


if you think the dream is over rated than you have never watched him play. a lot of the moves guys like duncan, garnett, j. o'nieal even shaq use in the post, hakeem either invented or made effective. 

for me, he will go down as the most creative big man in the history of the L. to say that there was nothing between him and david robinson and ewing is rubbish. did you see what hakeem did to david robinson in the playoffs? 

i acknowledge that shaq has been a dominant center, arguably the most dominant in recent history. but look at shaq, 350+ pounds @ 7'1 or is it 7'2...with his mobility and power, its been a lot easier for shaq to dominate. 

dont forget that hakeen 'schooled' shaq in the finals when shaq played for the magic


----------



## Quills (Jun 18, 2005)

94 Knicks at Rockets


Ewing=Olajuwan : Olajuwan Scored more Efficently but most of his points came early on . Ewing was Erratic Shooting but that was because Riley Decided him not to feed him Consestenly . Ewing Out Defended Olajuwan in the Serries , Since even Though Ewing was Matched up on Thorpe as Much as Olajuwan . Ewing never Needed Help to Guar Olajuwan & Did so with out Help forthe most part . Where As Every Time down the Floor Olajuwan had Help Doubling Ewing , Every Time Ewing Touched the Ball he was Doubled . Hell the Anouncers even Said the Rockets are playing a 3-2 Trapping Zone to the Knicks Man Defence

Thorpe>Oakley : Oakley was a better player over the Course of his Careat , but in 93-96 Thrope was the Better player . playeying Equal Defence to Oakley & Rebounding at around the Same Clip while being more of a Offenive Option . Thorpes Production over Oakleys was one of the Reasons We lost the Serries

Horry>Nameless : At the Time it was a wide held belife that people over 6'10" cant shoot 3s , but Bob Horry was one of the 1st players to break that mold . & That caused a Huge Problem for Us because once it was Shown he was able to hit from long range & finsh at the Basket with a Driveing Dunk . He Became our Biggest matchup Problem & was the Main 1 of the Main Reasons why the Rockets won the Serries

Starks=Maxwell : Again over the Course of his Carear Starks was a Better player , but in the 94 Finals Maxwell was a Better player . since he always outshot Starks in the Serries from a % Standpoint & did'nt turn the Ball over as much as Starks . who made many a Dumb Play & that was A Advantage Maxwell always had over Starks . He might not as able to put up a Big Night as Startks , but when his Temper was under controll he always layed Smarter then Starks .

Harper>Smith : This won is a waste of Time to debate , all I'll say is Why did'nt Cassell start is beyond me


----------------------------Bench--------------------------------------

Not picking By Position , but by how they came off the Bench



Mason=Cassell : Both had relitvly the Same Impact on the Game , Cassell was the other Dude besideHorry to hit the Teams big Shots & Mason was the Knick that played Olajuwan the most (Which is why Olajuwan shot a High %) & id as a Effective Job as anyone could . 


Herrea>Anthony : Herrea was the X factor in the Serries his impact is what swayed it over to Houston the Advantage because the Knicks where not planning for him to play & when he did he Bust our Butts

Elie>Davis : This was Another match up we lost on Since Hubert Avis decided to take a Vaction to the 7th game of the Serries & Elie ws Just Chugging along the Whole time Hustling

Bonner>Bullard : Neither player was used as much as they would of liked to of been & in Bonners case Should of been . But when on the Court Bonner had a bigger impacts on the 2 wins at the Garden then Bullard did in game 1


--------------------------Coaching-------------------------------------


Rudy T>>>>Riley : Riley look lost the Entire Serries & had no idea what he was Doing since from game 7 of the Eastern Finals to Game 1 of the Finals in Incorpriated a New Philoshpy that Costed us the Serries . Make Ewing the #2 option behind Starks , since in the Finals he went from always giving the Rock to Ewing for 8 Seconds to Dictate the Offence . He Decided to Go with Starks & hopes he drived to the Hole & dish it off Rather then Stop & Pop & go for manic Lay ups , but Hoping does'nt do it When you Know your player is a Gunner & not a Playmaker . He Also Decided to keep Starks in Games 1 & 2 where he shot 4-18 & 2-19 in each of the 2 loses we could of had Won . Riley also Showed Absolutly No Faith in His Bench playing only 9 players topps on any given night , most of the Time 8 . While Rudy T was more Trusting in his Bench which proved to be an Obstical we Could'nt overcome because he was able to keep his players fresher then the Knicks could . Using your entire Roster Helps & Rudy would play 9 man a Night Regadless sometimes 10 . & he also never went away from his Teams Strengths while Riley did .


Also the Rockets where A MUCH Better Shooting team then the Knicks , the Knicks where Still the Bricks & the Rockets had all there Guards with 3 point capabiltys as well as there Fowards . our Fowards where there to defend & Rebound & thats it ,Except Nameless he Sucks


-------------------------------------------------------------------------


& yes Early on Ewing & Olajuwan where Equals & Robinson too once he got into the Fold & that should not be Viewed as a Detrimate Since you can make a case for all 3 having better Games then Shaq . But in 94 Olajuwan Morphed into a Top Tier Russell-Wilt-Kareem type Center & had the Competition to make him one . Shaq may of had Good Numbers but Always agaist Older-Worser-Smaller-Weaker Competition then any other Center of the past Except George Mikan had to Endure . Had Shaq came out 5 years Earlyier he would of been the 4th Center mentioned in a Ewing-RobinsonDream-shaq Debate . Hell he might of been 5th had Daugherty never got hurt . Shaq is a product of Being the Only Real Center in a land full of Scrub Centers & Power Fowards to Soft to play Center Consistently . Because everyone hear likes to think Duncun is up there with Robinson-Ewing or Olajuwan & he's not he's a step below all of them & Shaq . I put him with players like KG-Malone-Rodman-Hill-Greer-Dumars-Zo players just below the level of players like a Ewing-Barkley-Pippen-Robinson-Shaq-Iverson-McHale .


That & the Fact Shaq is not as Good a Rebounder-Defender-Passer-Ball Handler-Overall Scorer as Hakeem makes my oringinal Statment more True in my Eyes any way . That Shaq is a Untalented Scrub Next to Hakeem 


People alway bring up the Size & athleticim of todays players . You people relize that Every Generation that People get bigger & Faster & more athletic . If Wilt played today do you still think he would still be 7'2 280 Running the Track times he did in the 50's you have to equate that for today . Wilt would of Probelly of been like 7'5" 330 with a Morden day track Star Time & Great Stregth . Where as Shaq 40 Years ago would be Smaller & more Athletic . You always think that you can just take a players Skills today & it Ammiditly Cross over .You got to think about todays players in relation to todays player then match him up with an Appropriate counter part from the Past . Like I did with Wilt , Since he was Considered on of the Better Track guys oh his Time . Most people only think of him as a Track athlete for that Time , What about Wilt being a Track Star in Todays world . That type of Speed would rival Boykins for fastest player in the Game , where As it was always how Strong Wilt was & How much he Worked out .You don't think Chgamberlain or Even someone who came out latter like a Olajuwan or Ewing you Don't thinbk they would all be bigger & more Powerfull had they had the Brolic Foods shot up with Steriods & Harmones like we do today , not to mention the Emphatsis placed on Weight Training & Fitness now as Compared to ever 15 years ago ??? Not to mention that Wilt-Ewing-Robinson-Olajuwan & Pretty much every other Great Center Besides Shaq took Great Care of themselves & Worked out Regularly .& had they the Advantages that Shaq has in todays society they would of All Bullied Shaq as much as out Skilling him


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Quills said:


> Ewing=Olajuwan : Olajuwan Scored more Efficently but most of his points came early on . Ewing was Erratic Shooting but that was because Riley Decided him not to feed him Consestenly . Ewing Out Defended Olajuwan in the Serries , Since even Though Ewing was Matched up on Thorpe as Much as Olajuwan . Ewing never Needed Help to Guar Olajuwan & Did so with out Help forthe most part . Where As Every Time down the Floor Olajuwan had Help Doubling Ewing , Every Time Ewing Touched the Ball he was Doubled . Hell the Anouncers even Said the Rockets are playing a 3-2 Trapping Zone to the Knicks Man Defence


I disagree. Olajuwon's points came early on? Do you mean early on in the series or early on in the games? His points for each game were: 28, 25, 21, 32, 27, 30, 25. Seems pretty even to me. Within games, his baskets were spread evenly, too, apart from Game 6 in which he didn't score at all for the last few minutes, but made a couple of crucial defensive plays to win the game.
Riley decided not to feed Ewing consistently? Ewing took ten more shots than Hakeem did over the course of the series.
And I completely disagree with the doubling argument. 



> Thorpe>Oakley : Oakley was a better player over the Course of his Careat , but in 93-96 Thrope was the Better player . playeying Equal Defence to Oakley & Rebounding at around the Same Clip while being more of a Offenive Option . Thorpes Production over Oakleys was one of the Reasons We lost the Serries


Oakley was a better rebounder and a much better defender. Thorpe's production over Oakley's was one of the reasons the Knicks lost? Thorpe averaged 9 and 11 on 53%, while Oakley had 11 and 12 on 48%. And Oakley was helping with Olajuwon some of the time.



> Horry>Nameless : At the Time it was a wide held belife that people over 6'10" cant shoot 3s , but Bob Horry was one of the 1st players to break that mold . & That caused a Huge Problem for Us because once it was Shown he was able to hit from long range & finsh at the Basket with a Driveing Dunk . He Became our Biggest matchup Problem & was the Main 1 of the Main Reasons why the Rockets won the Serries


Horry was shooting threes and being clutch since he was a rookie in '93. Everyone knew that. It didn't come as a surprise to the Knicks. But he was not one of the reasons why the Rockets won. He was one of the reasons why it was as close as it was. He shot at 32%. "Nameless" shot at 44% and scored 1 ppg less despite playing far fewer minutes.



> Starks=Maxwell : Again over the Course of his Carear Starks was a Better player , but in the 94 Finals Maxwell was a Better player . since he always outshot Starks in the Serries from a % Standpoint & did'nt turn the Ball over as much as Starks . who made many a Dumb Play & that was A Advantage Maxwell always had over Starks . He might not as able to put up a Big Night as Startks , but when his Temper was under controll he always layed Smarter then Starks.


Maxwell was not a smart player at all. Again, at times he seemed to think he was the main man. It was a good thing we cast him aside in the '95 playoffs. Starks was the better player all year, and he was better in the Finals, too. I don't like relying too much on stats, but since we fundamentally disagree, I have to use them: Maxwell had 13 and 3 on 36% from the field and 23% from long range; Starks had 18 and 6 on 37% from the field and 32% from long range.



> Also the Rockets where A MUCH Better Shooting team then the Knicks , the Knicks where Still the Bricks & the Rockets had all there Guards with 3 point capabiltys as well as there Fowards . our Fowards where there to defend & Rebound & thats it ,Except Nameless he Sucks


They were equally good shooting teams. Both teams only had one 40+% three-point shooter. The only Rockets forward who could shoot threes was Robert Horry. Cassell and Maxwell were both sub-30% three-point shooters. In the Finals, the Knicks were 34% from long range, while the Rockets were 30%.


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

This is hard to say, i havent seen much of Hakeem (altho i like him) but im going with Shaq.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

65-63 Shaq.

Not often a poll goes my way...


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> I think it's pretty close, but Shaq gets the edge. Certainly not heavily in anyone's favour, though.


It's heavily in Shaq's favor in my opinion, but whatever. 



> Why would seeing more of Olajuwon diminish your opinion of him? Even if you just saw some games from '93 and '94, you'd have a better appreciation of how good a defender he was. I'd say if a semi-knowledgeable viewer saw Hakeem in some '80's playoff games they'd be even more impressed.
> My favourite player is Olajuwon, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm biased. It's possible, though, just as it's possible that you're biased yourself. Many young fans are biased against players whom they didn’t see play. I’ve seen many posts by these people saying that today’s players are just flat out better than their counterparts from a decade or more ago. But all these kids have really seen is Shaq dominating. They figure that if no one can stand up to Shaq now, no one in history could have, either. Now, remember, I’m not calling you biased, but it’s possible.


Olajuwon was very dominant in the 94 playoffs, and I doubt he was superior in any other season. It's "possible" I'm biased toward today's players but it's also "possible" you're biased towards older players. None of it is really specifically relevant to the argument anyways, since O'Neal and Olajuwon weren't really from that different eras. 



> OK, here: "We can't know if getting doubled more would lead to more assists, or if getting doubled less would lead to more assists." Double teams lead to an open man, but it is easier to make a good pass when there is no double team. So you can't say "They got approximately the same number of assists, therefore they were doubled the same amount." The best way to tell here is to watch the entire series.


In general, most assists from centers like O'Neal and Olajuwon result from double teams. It's fairly rare for them get straight up assists. 



> No, I'm saying that the starting fives were about equal offensively, except Nick Anderson was much better than Elie. As for the benches, it's Cassell, Chilcutt, Jones and Brown versus Shaw, Bowie, Turner and Royal. Edge goes to Houston there.


So, there ya go. Outside of O'Neal and Olajuwon, you can't really state that either team was superior offensively. 



> It is pointless to compare pp40 mins for two players who were on completely different levels offensively and who had different roles on their respective teams. By the same logic, Scott Brooks and Tracy Murray were the third and fourth best scorers on the Rockets, with Scott Brooks having the highest PSA on the team. Why did they only get 6 and 8 mpg respectively, then?
> Mario Elie's role on the Rockets wasn't dissimilar to Bruce Bowen's current role on the Spurs -- play defense and knock down wide open threes. Nick Anderson, on the other hand, was a legitimate scoring threat. Like I said, he was a 20 ppg scorer on a borderline playoff team before Penny came along. Mario Elie could never have been a second option on any team or a third option on a decent team.


Both Brooks and Murray are terrible defensive players. Other than that, I don't know why. For Brooks, it's pretty tough to get minutes behind Cassell and Smith. Either way, the analogy is poor. Both Brooks and Murray didn't get the minutes. Elie did, thus using per 40 statistics are more apt. Like I said, Anderson was superior at creating his own shot, while Elie was more efficient. 




> It's definitely a plus, but I wouldn't call it a "huge" plus if your guy off the bench is pretty much a clone of the guy he's replacing (only worse).
> And if you're going by PER, then Horace Grant was significantly superior to Robert Horry offensively (not to mention defense).


Why? Not losing any production off the bench is an incredible asset to have. Grant has a huge rebounding advantage over Horry, which explains pretty much most of the PER difference. 



> Read what I said again: "Just think -- if Hakeem often immediately got doubled after getting the ball, not just when he got to a threatening position, wouldn't it have made it harder for him? You don't think it would have helped his teammates more?"
> You basically repeated what I said. Remember, my point is that Hakeem was doubled earlier, which made it harder for him to score, but which helped his teammates more.
> On second thoughts, however, I don’t think we can tell if being doubled earlier would always help a player’s teammates more. Like I said, it’s harder to pass out of a double team.


But again, it conflicts with results. If it was so much harder for O'Neal to help his teammates, why did he have more APG? Was he a better passer than Olajuwon? I don't think that's the case. 



> Too simplistic. They're different players on different teams. You can't say "if Hakeem was doubled earlier he should have taken less shot attempts than Shaq and gotten more assists". If it was a computer simulation and you were pitting the Orlando Magic against a clone of itself, only then would you be able to fairly come to that conclusion. I know I saw Hakeem get doubled more and generally doubled earlier.


Then, how do you explain the results? When the results don't coincide with the explaination, you want to find out why. 




> Just out of curiosity, which part of my paragraph do you disagree with?
> And I don't disagree with you that Shaq is an intimidator. But you've got to remember that there aren't many good centers are in the league these days. Also, I'm not sure if that stat is a very good indicator. I clicked about a third of the teams on 82games.com, where I'm assuming you got the stat from, and the Rockets and the Sixers were the teams whose opposition shot the highest percentage of jump-shots. The Spurs were worse than the Knicks in that regard.


I disagree with the physical intimdiation/hitting the floor part. 

Well, the Rockets do have Yao Ming. I'm not so sure why the Sixers rank well. They have Dalembert, but he didn't really play that many minutes. 




> What exactly do you think "need" means in this context? Obviously no superstars _needed_ to be better in any area. Karl Malone didn’t _need_ to play better defense. Michael Jordan didn’t _need_ to be a better 3-point shooter. But it would have been great if they had. So the phrase "he didn't need versatility" doesn't really mean anything.


Exactly what I said. O'Neal didn't need versatility. It's hard to understand until you go back to the context of the original argument. Olajuwon was more versatile, but my point was that O'Neal didn't need versatility to still be dominant and a better offensive weapon than Olajuwon. 



> Eddie Jones, NVE and a young Kobe Bryant, you mean. It isn’t Shaq’s fault that he has always been blessed with good teammates (apart from in his rookie season), but it is a fact we must remember. Having good teammates makes it easier for a center to play well.


Remember it, yes, but you can't hold it against Shaq like you were doing in your previous statement. 



> A pet peeve? Really, how many times have you seen mid-‘90’s Starks play, apart from when the Knicks get torched by Jordan or Reggie on ESPN Classic? It wasn’t a media creation that everyone on the Knicks was a great defender. It was a media creation that the Knicks were somehow this great defensive team that had a great coach but only a couple of really good defenders and a bunch of mediocre-to-good defenders, who played incredibly well together, like some Roman platoon. Starks wasn’t a great defender, but a good one.


I lived in NJ pretty much my whole life, and well, I watched tons and tons of Knicks games as a kid simply because, well, it was the thing to do, even if they weren't my team. Classic Knicks games always get shown ad naseum on MSG, and I usually always catch them when they are on, so yeah, the mid-late 90's Knicks are definitely a team I'm very familiar with. And, yes, Starks was a very bad defender. 



> In ’94, Thorpe definitely wasn’t “much” better than Oakley offensively. Sure, he was a 20 ppg scorer six years earlier in Sacramento, just like Gary Payton was a 20 ppg scorer two years ago or Vin Baker was a 20 ppg scorer seven years ago. But by ’94, he could only very rarely create his own shot. Oakley has always had this image as a gorilla. Like he’d beat the crap through you to protect his territory, but throw him a ball and he wouldn’t know what to do. There’s some truth in that, but it’s not entirely accurate. You love stats, right? Oakley in ’94 averaged 12 ppg on a PSA of 1.08. Thorpe had 14 ppg on 1.19. Not much of a difference. But Oakley was by far the better defender. He’s one of the best defensive forwards I’ve ever seen. Thorpe was a good defender, too, but wasn’t in the same league.


I think we can both agree that Thorpe was much better at creating his own shot than Oakley. He's also more efficient. I agree that Oakley was a better defender, but not in another league as a defender. 



> And why do you say “Mason = Horry”? In ’94, approximately, Mason was to Horry as Oakley was to Thorpe. Horry was slightly better offensively, but Mason was a better rebounder and a considerably better defender. Horry was outplayed in the Finals.


Horry was slightly better offensively. Mason was a slightly better rebounder. Defense is about equal. Horry is really probably one of the most underrated defensive players of our time, especially earlier in his career. He's not physical like Mason, but he was more active and was more apt at creating turnovers. There was a reason why he got touted as the next Scottie Pippen early on. 



> And why “Harper and G. Anthony< K. Smith and Cassell”? The Rockets duo were better offensively, but not by a whole lot. Defensively, it was enormously in Harper’s favor. He absolutely killed them in the Finals.


Well, Anthony is the weak link. This isn't just Harper playing 48 minutes versus K. Smith and Cassell. 




> Look at the playoff mpg figures. They are more relevant. Bonner only played 9 mpg in 9 playoff games and Blackman only played 6 mpg in 6 games. Cureton played 10 playoff games and had 10 mpg. Herrera played 16 games and had 16 mpg.


Actually, Bonner played 13 games. I'm still not sure why it's more relevant. 




> Charles Smith could occasionally create his own shot. His problem was inconsistency. He wasn’t that soft and he didn’t choke that much. He got that reputation from just a couple of bad incidents.


Ha. Seriously, ask any Knicks fan from that time. He was absolutely hated. 




> Telling you that Kenny Smith and Sam Cassell couldn’t play defense was slander?


Slander was the wrong word, as it implies falseness. Criticizing is what I meant. 




> So you think we should just ignore seven consecutive games in which the teams were pitted against each other, trying their absolute hardest?


Ignore? No. But I don't see how seven games is somehow more valid than 82. You are using the Finals as the final word, when they should be nothing more than supplemental evidence. 



> The hard thing about seeing how good Ewing supporting cast was for you is that they were generally better defensive players than offensive players, and 40 mins stats and PER and what not don’t measure that very well.


I also account for defense in my analysis. 



> Ewing’s bpg doesn’t mean he played very good defense when you realise that Olajuwon scored 27 ppg on 50% against him in a series in which the Rockets averaged 87 ppg. Anyway, he only had three more blocks and seven less turnovers, while Hakeem had two more steals and thirteen more assists.


I never said he played very good defense. I was just acknowledging some positives in an otherwise abysmal peformance from Ewing. 



> Good discussion, but I might not reply next time. This is again taking too long.


Yup. Running trend, ain't it?


----------



## Rocket Man (Jun 10, 2005)

Well, I saw both players develope to the superstar status. Shak was always surrounded with better talent than The Dream. With both at the top of their game it would be very hard to choose. As far as comparison per season I do not think anyone has ever had a better playoff series than the Dream - especially against David Robinson the year that David won the MVP. Hakeem embaressed him time after time on both ends of the court. My vote goes to Hakeem for his domination on the defensive end of the court along with his multiple offensive skills and rebounding.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Yyzlin said:


> Olajuwon was very dominant in the 94 playoffs, and I doubt he was superior in any other season.


His playoff performance was generally better than his regular season performance. He was better in the '87, '88, '89 and '93 playoffs. Again, I don't think you could fully appreciate his defensive prowess from just a few games in the '94 and '95 playoffs.



> So, there ya go. Outside of O'Neal and Olajuwon, you can't really state that either team was superior offensively.


No, I said Anderson was much better than Elie offensively, but the bench was slightly in the Rockets' favor.



> Why? Not losing any production off the bench is an incredible asset to have. Grant has a huge rebounding advantage over Horry, which explains pretty much most of the PER difference.


I disagree that it's an incredible asset when your sixth man is a clone. It would be incredible if you suffered no loss in production with your bench player providing something that the other guy lacks.
And, OK, ignore PER when comparing Grant to Horry. But what about your pp40 mins stats? Grant had 14.1 pts, Horry had 12.6. PSA? Grant had 1.19, Horry had 1.11. 



> But again, it conflicts with results. If it was so much harder for O'Neal to help his teammates, why did he have more APG? Was he a better passer than Olajuwon? I don't think that's the case.


I didn't say it was "so much harder". In fact, I said that it might not have been harder. And there isn't a clear enough link between double teams and assists to say "Because Shaq had 0.8 more apg I must have completely imagined that Hakeem got doubled more and doubled earlier, and I must have dreamed that I read that article that talked about it." There are too many other factors that come into play, such as the way your team is playing, the quality of your teammates, your team's strategy, your confidence in your ability to score against the opposition, and the fact that of the many passes made out of double teams the number of assists created is usually relatively small but varies greatly.



> Exactly what I said. O'Neal didn't need versatility. It's hard to understand until you go back to the context of the original argument. Olajuwon was more versatile, but my point was that O'Neal didn't need versatility to still be dominant and a better offensive weapon than Olajuwon.


I thought you said that there was never a point in Shaq's career in which he needed versatility. I may be wrong, but I can't be bothered to go back and check.



> And, yes, Starks was a very bad defender.


I disagree.



> I think we can both agree that Thorpe was much better at creating his own shot than Oakley.


Not "much" better at creating his own shot, IMO. Not in '94, at least. Oakley could never create his own shot. Thorpe could, but only rarely.



> Horry was slightly better offensively. Mason was a slightly better rebounder. Defense is about equal. Horry is really probably one of the most underrated defensive players of our time, especially earlier in his career. He's not physical like Mason, but he was more active and was more apt at creating turnovers. There was a reason why he got touted as the next Scottie Pippen early on.


There is also a reason why he was considered a big disappointment. Horry was a good defender, but Mason was a lot better. 



> Well, Anthony is the weak link. This isn't just Harper playing 48 minutes versus K. Smith and Cassell.


Combine their stats, then. Harper and Anthony: 20 ppg, 8 apg, 4 rpg, 2 topg, 43%. Smith and Cassell: 16 ppg, 6 apg, 4 rpg, 5 topg, 41%.



> Actually, Bonner played 13 games. I'm still not sure why it's more relevant.


Because we're talking about the benches in the Rockets-Knicks series. What's the point of discussing minutes played by players who only played in the regular season but not in the playoffs?



> Ha. Seriously, ask any Knicks fan from that time. He was absolutely hated.


I know he was hated. He still is. Doesn't change my point that his tendency to choke and his softness were greatly exaggerated.



> Ignore? No. But I don't see how seven games is somehow more valid than 82. You are using the Finals as the final word, when they should be nothing more than supplemental evidence.


No, I am not using the Finals as the final word.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

PauloCatarino said:


> Not often a poll goes my way...


Don't forget to vote for your own team in your "Man vs Machine" battle.


----------



## Shady* (Jul 3, 2005)

After 10 pages of posts...Its a clear cut tie!


----------



## Rocket Man (Jun 10, 2005)

I have to go with Olajuwon because each year he developed. A new shot, a new move, better free throw shooting, and better rebounding. I did not see this developement with Shak or is his uncalled offensive fouls each time he lowers his shoulder for his drop step to the basket to be considered. How much time did Shak ever put in practicing free throes to improve his game. Yes Shak is dominate be so would I be if I was his size, not called for many offensive fouls, and could pad my stats constantly with only dunks. How many times does he make a shot outside of 6 feet? Enough said.


----------



## rocketeer (Oct 7, 2002)

did someone mess with the poll? last night when i read the thread is was 60-40 in favor of hakeem(after 100 votes). now it's 66-66. seems odd that shaq would get 26 votes to hakeem's 6 when there was a difference like there was.

not that the poll really matters.


----------



## Quills (Jun 18, 2005)

Noticed that as well I thought I was Bugging


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> His playoff performance was generally better than his regular season performance. He was better in the '87, '88, '89 and '93 playoffs. Again, I don't think you could fully appreciate his defensive prowess from just a few games in the '94 and '95 playoffs.


Sorry, I missed a word in there, but I meant to say that he was very dominant in the 94 playoffs, and even if he was more dominant in other playoffs, it was very miminal, and at that same point, he probably wasn't as offensively dominant as well as he was in the playoffs. Anyway, my point wasn't that the 94 and 95 playoffs were his most dominant stretch of games. He likely has had games where he was even more dominant. My point was that by watching the 94 and 95 playoffs, he was already playing above his usual ability, and it more than gave me an accurate picture of what he could accomplish. 



> No, I said Anderson was much better than Elie offensively, but the bench was slightly in the Rockets' favor.


I'm pretty sure your original point was that Olajuwon had worse offensive teammates period than O'Neal, but I don't really care enough to go back a few pages to look for it. If that was your point, than OK. So, in reality, do you accept that overall, both teams had basically the same offensive personnel outside of their centers? 


[quoteI disagree that it's an incredible asset when your sixth man is a clone. It would be incredible if you suffered no loss in production with your bench player providing something that the other guy lacks.[/quote]
Of course, it's an asset when most teams are bringing a guy that's worse and doesn't provide the same production that your starter does. 



> And, OK, ignore PER when comparing Grant to Horry. But what about your pp40 mins stats? Grant had 14.1 pts, Horry had 12.6. PSA? Grant had 1.19, Horry had 1.11.


Hmm, yeah, you're right. It appears Grant was a better offensive weapon. 



> I didn't say it was "so much harder". In fact, I said that it might not have been harder. And there isn't a clear enough link between double teams and assists to say "Because Shaq had 0.8 more apg I must have completely imagined that Hakeem got doubled more and doubled earlier, and I must have dreamed that I read that article that talked about it." There are too many other factors that come into play, such as the way your team is playing, the quality of your teammates, your team's strategy, your confidence in your ability to score against the opposition, and the fact that of the many passes made out of double teams the number of assists created is usually relatively small but varies greatly.


I never said it disproves anything or that is was definite, did I? When I presented it, I even clearly stated that there are so many other factors that come into play. But it can still be useful to challenge some of our current conceptions. So when I see the 95 Finals, and see no real difference between the doubling of O'Neal and Olajuwon, and you do, I'm providing it as an impetus for you to revisit your opinions and maybe watch the series again. 




> I thought you said that there was never a point in Shaq's career in which he needed versatility. I may be wrong, but I can't be bothered to go back and check.


Yeah, that's what I said, that he never needed versatility in his career other than free throws. He could have been even better with it, but he never needed it. 



> Not "much" better at creating his own shot, IMO. Not in '94, at least. Oakley could never create his own shot. Thorpe could, but only rarely.


I disagree. 



> There is also a reason why he was considered a big disappointment. Horry was a good defender, but Mason was a lot better.


I disagree. It wasn't like these comparisons came from college. It came from his early Houston days, and there was a reason why. 



> Combine their stats, then. Harper and Anthony: 20 ppg, 8 apg, 4 rpg, 2 topg, 43%. Smith and Cassell: 16 ppg, 6 apg, 4 rpg, 5 topg, 41%.


Why are you continuing to use the Finals statistics as if it somehow provides proof that one player is superior to another. Use regular season numbers as the most accurate picture of a player's ability, or at the very least the complete playoff numbers. 



> I know he was hated. He still is. Doesn't change my point that his tendency to choke and his softness were greatly exaggerated.


Exaggerated? Perhaps. Greatly? No. 



> No, I am not using the Finals as the final word.


Well, it seems like you are.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Yyzlin said:


> I'm pretty sure your original point was that Olajuwon had worse offensive teammates period than O'Neal, but I don't really care enough to go back a few pages to look for it. If that was your point, than OK. So, in reality, do you accept that overall, both teams had basically the same offensive personnel outside of their centers?


No. Once again, I'm saying that Nick Anderson was a much better offensive weapon than Mario Elie, which brought things significantly to Orlando's favor, while Houston's bench got the _edge_ over Orlando's. So, overall, I think Olajuwon had worse teammates offensively.



> Of course, it's an asset when most teams are bringing a guy that's worse and doesn't provide the same production that your starter does.


Yes, but it's not an "incredible" asset.



> Hmm, yeah, you're right. It appears Grant was a better offensive weapon.


From the stats, it appears he was significantly better. But I don't think that's the case. My point is that I wouldn't rely too heavily on the numbers, as there are too many factors that aren't (and can't) be considered.



> Yeah, that's what I said, that he never needed versatility in his career other than free throws. He could have been even better with it, but he never needed it.


It's quite off topic, so I don't even know why I am pursuing this, but I think that is a meaningless statement. No great player really "needs" any improvement. If Shaq didn't need versatility, why did he need good free-throw shooting? He was still able to score almost 30 ppg on a high percentage from the field and win three titles.



> I disagree. It wasn't like these comparisons came from college. It came from his early Houston days, and there was a reason why.


It mainly only came from his first couple of years in the league. Then, when he failed to improve in the leaps and bounds that would have been necessary for him to reach a similar level to Pippen at some point in his career, people stopped saying it. Anyway, what does a comparison mean? People compared Harold Miner to Jordan. Amare Stoudemire was compared to a young Olajuwon. It only meant that Miner had a 40+" vertical leap and pretty good body control, and that Amare had great athleticism and an aggressive style on offense. It didn't mean that Miner would be able to dunk on everybody, or that Amare would use his athleticism to become a force on both ends of the floor. Likewise, when Horry was compared to Pippen, it didn't necessarily mean that he was a brilliant defender. Just that he reminded people of one, and that he may have had the potential to become one. People love to compare young players to greats. I myself honestly thought Grant Hill would become almost the next Jordan (not in the way he played, but in popularity and dominance). But the fact that Horry was compared to Pippen doesn't mean that he was a great defender. Good, but not great. Mason was better, IMO.



> Why are you continuing to use the Finals statistics as if it somehow provides proof that one player is superior to another. Use regular season numbers as the most accurate picture of a player's ability, or at the very least the complete playoff numbers.


Because the results from the Finals were so unsurprising. Derek Harper was a good defender, which is why Smith's and Cassell's production dropped. The Rockets duo were atrocious defenders, which is why Harper's production rose. Smith and Cassell were routinely killed by opposing point guards (they'd do fairly well offensively themselves, but they usually couldn't contain anyone).



> Well, it seems like you are.


Why? I've contended that Mason was a better defender than Horry and that Oakley was a better defender than Thorpe, without bringing up the Finals. I've criticized Maxwell for his bad attitude and poor shot selection, and Kenny Smith and Cassell for their terrible defense, using the Finals stats, if at all, only as supplementary evidence. I've suggested that you're being too hard on Charles Smith and John Starks, rarely using the Finals as evidence (though they both outplayed their Rockets' counterparts). I only used Ewing's Finals stats to show that he can hardly be praised for carrying his not-quite-great supporting cast to within a few points of the title, since the reason they lost was that he was so badly outplayed by Olajuwon. I have used the Finals as evidence, but certainly not as the final word.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> No. Once again, I'm saying that Nick Anderson was a much better offensive weapon than Mario Elie, which brought things significantly to Orlando's favor, while Houston's bench got the _edge_ over Orlando's. So, overall, I think Olajuwon had worse teammates offensively.


We just disagree then. I don't feel Anderson was a much better offensive weapon than Elie. Anderson was basically a taller, better rebounding Cuttino Mobley. The bench evens things out. 




> Yes, but it's not an "incredible" asset.


Maybe not, but it's a very valuable one. 




> From the stats, it appears he was significantly better. But I don't think that's the case. My point is that I wouldn't rely too heavily on the numbers, as there are too many factors that aren't (and can't) be considered.


Well, the advantage that Horry has is that he can shoot three's, which make him more valuable dependent on the offensive system. 




> It's quite off topic, so I don't even know why I am pursuing this, but I think that is a meaningless statement. No great player really "needs" any improvement. If Shaq didn't need versatility, why did he need good free-throw shooting? He was still able to score almost 30 ppg on a high percentage from the field and win three titles.


O'Neal needed better free throw shooting, though. It was the one area where he was vulnerable and reduced to a state less than dominant. 



> It mainly only came from his first couple of years in the league. Then, when he failed to improve in the leaps and bounds that would have been necessary for him to reach a similar level to Pippen at some point in his career, people stopped saying it. Anyway, what does a comparison mean? People compared Harold Miner to Jordan. Amare Stoudemire was compared to a young Olajuwon. It only meant that Miner had a 40+" vertical leap and pretty good body control, and that Amare had great athleticism and an aggressive style on offense. It didn't mean that Miner would be able to dunk on everybody, or that Amare would use his athleticism to become a force on both ends of the floor. Likewise, when Horry was compared to Pippen, it didn't necessarily mean that he was a brilliant defender. Just that he reminded people of one, and that he may have had the potential to become one. People love to compare young players to greats. I myself honestly thought Grant Hill would become almost the next Jordan (not in the way he played, but in popularity and dominance). But the fact that Horry was compared to Pippen doesn't mean that he was a great defender. Good, but not great. Mason was better, IMO.


Miner was compared to Jordan before he even stepped a foot on a NBA court, whereas Horry only gained the comparison when he came to the league, so that analogy doesn't really work. I've never even heard the Olajuwon comparison for Amare. All of the comparisons I've heard are Shawn Kemp. Moses Malone is a good one for Stoudemire too. The thing is Horry showed enough defensive skill to be compared to Pippen. Was he as good as Pippen? No. He didn't have to be to be as good as Mason defensively.



> Because the results from the Finals were so unsurprising. Derek Harper was a good defender, which is why Smith's and Cassell's production dropped. The Rockets duo were atrocious defenders, which is why Harper's production rose. Smith and Cassell were routinely killed by opposing point guards (they'd do fairly well offensively themselves, but they usually couldn't contain anyone).


Like you accuse me of doing, I think you are making too much of playoff mishaps. If you browse the regular season log for 1994, you will see that they seemed to do a good job of keeping the better point guards of the time (Payton, Van Exel, K. Johnson, etc) in line with their regular season averages or below. The only guy they seemed to have a consistent problem with was John Stockton, for whatever reason. Hell, in that same season, they held Derek Harper to three below average games for him. Here are the links to the boxscores if you want to check. 

http://basketballreference.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=1993&b=19931218&tm=hou 
http://basketballreference.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=1993&b=19940105&tm=dal
http://basketballreference.com/teams/boxscore.htm?yr=1993&b=19940224&tm=hou



> Why? I've contended that Mason was a better defender than Horry and that Oakley was a better defender than Thorpe, without bringing up the Finals. I've criticized Maxwell for his bad attitude and poor shot selection, and Kenny Smith and Cassell for their terrible defense, using the Finals stats, if at all, only as supplementary evidence. I've suggested that you're being too hard on Charles Smith and John Starks, rarely using the Finals as evidence (though they both outplayed their Rockets' counterparts). I only used Ewing's Finals stats to show that he can hardly be praised for carrying his not-quite-great supporting cast to within a few points of the title, since the reason they lost was that he was so badly outplayed by Olajuwon. I have used the Finals as evidence, but certainly not as the final word.


"Hakeem averaged 27 ppg on 50% that series. Ewing had 19 ppg on 36%. It still went to seven games. Excluding Olajuwon, of the ten other Rockets who played, seven of them shot below 40% from the field. 
Derek Harper, by all accounts, played very well on both ends of the floor. Kenny Smith and Cassell couldn't do anything to him, and he contained them very well. 
Mason played better than Horry (who shot at 32% from the field).
Starks outplayed Maxwell.
Oakley was better than Thorpe. 
Elie and Bullard were each 20% from the field."
^^
Probably posts like this, when you were responding to "Do you care to back up that the Knicks supporting cast was better than Olajuwon's."


----------



## Quills (Jun 18, 2005)

You still don't want to admidt to the Fact that Ewing was Doubled 80% of that Serries by Olajuwan & Thorpe . The Reason Ewing Shot badley was because the Rocketts played Zone Defence Around him & Any one the LOOKED at the Serries Nows that Ewing was Always Doubled team & the 2 & 3rd quarters Mason was Guarding Olajuwan by Himself . Ewing normally played much better down the Strech then Olajuwan Especilly in the Games the Knicks won . Olajuwan would get most of his points in the 1st 6 mins each quarter & around the Time the 4th Quarter Came around Ewing Dominated Olajuwan Normally Doubling up in Rebounds & Blocks while putting up the Same number of points . I Agree the Dream was more Effective Offencivly but thats only becuse the Knicks refused to Doubled him & they always had6'7" Mason on him to keep ewing out of foul trouble like he was in game 1 , but as the Serries Progressed Olajuwan had just as many Fouls as Ewing & The Rocketts had a ton more Illegul defences due to there 3-2 Zone they where playing Against us . 


Also the Rockets had Horry-Bullard-Smith-Cassell-Maxwell & Brooks to hit 3s in that Serries the Knicks had Starks-Harper-Davis & Anthony .

Never mind the Fact in every Deciding game 1 & 7 that Maxwell outshot Starks & did more distrubting the Ball better then Starks . Since Maxwell knew to get the Ball to Hakeem & Starks knew he was the 1st option for some assinine reason .


Also regardless of the Numbers Thrope outplayed Oakley badley that Series . Most of Oakley Rebounds came at one possesion a game where he would fight for the Offencive reboung & end up getting like 3 of them on one play . While thorpe was a much more Consistent player over the course of the game . his defence was on par with oakleys & his Offence was much better . Since it was'nt just & open jumper the Knicks had to defend him , which might be a reason we did'nt double Olajuwan & the Rocketts Doubled Ewing because there was no need to Guard Oakley

Mason & Horry pretty much Cancel each other out but due to more clutch play you have to give it to Horry . But Mason did as good a job as you can do giving the Situation against Olajuwan .

Derrek Harper was a beast Scoring the Ball but as bad as the Rocketts PG Defence was they where good enough to relize to let Harper get his as long as he did'nt get Ewing or Others involved & he did'nt not like he did all season long . While the Rocketts PG's where smart enough to get the ball to Hakeeem every chance they got 


We lost this Serries because the Rockets had a Deeper bench with a Coach that had more faith in his Bench then we did in ours .




But the 95 Magic had a Much better Team then the Rockets even with Drexler that Year & they just got Stright up Whupped . I dont care young Shaq or Not , Hell Shaq was a Better Rebounder & Defender when he 1st came into the league then he was in his Prime or Now . So to me this Series is What Proves Olajuwan is Better then Shaq because Shaq then was pretty much the Same shaq with the Lakers . Lesser Offence but more Defence & Rebounding .


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Hoopla said:


> First, I would give Shaq the edge in passing.


To be honest they can both be pretty deft passers; it's hard to make a strong argument for either. Early in his career, Hakeem never had a passing mentality and was extremely impatient on offense. You could also say he never had anyone to pass the ball to. Shaq's assist numbers only thrived in the triangle offense as well, which is set up to get the 5 spot some assists. IMO Hakeem gets the edge for court vision.



> But why should Shaq have to hit jump shots when he’s so ridiculously efficient near the basket? Whether it’s a fadeaway or a dunk, the result is the same.
> I don’t see how this is an argument in favor of Hakeem over Shaq. Shaq’s dominance allows him to *be *the offense, which has been shown wherever he's been.


We keep underestimating the fact that Shaq has always had a superstar guard and that has allowed his one-dimensional game prosper. Switch him with KG in Minnesota and the Wolves aren't much better. Not enough scoring to take the pressure off of Shaq, opposing teams can just sit back/send doubles and contain Shaq. 



Yyzlin said:


> Do you care to back that up because I don't see it.


Kenny Smith vs. John Starks - Starks, no contest. Kenny Smith was a guy who had no court vision and could play no defense, but thanks to Hakeem those faults were overlooked. He could take care of the ball and knock down open three's, but that was about it. 

Vernon Maxwell vs. Derek Harper - Maxwell was an aggressive perimeter defender who was sometimes the fire this team needed. Unfortunately he was extremely inefficient on offense, shooting three's under 30% and FG's under 40% during the regular season. He upped his averages a little in the playoffs, but still not as effective as defensive specialist Derek Harper.

Robert Horry vs. whoever the Knicks threw at him - With all the matchup problems the Knicks tried to create I can't remember who Horry started against. Horry had an excellent playoff run for a rookie and made some big defensive plays, but only shot 43% in the playoffs. Charles Smith shot 48% and averaged only 3 ppg less than Horry in 10 less minutes per game.

Otis Thorpe vs. Charles Oakley - Oakley. Although Thorpe scored efficiently throughout the playoffs. 

Oakley, Ewing and Starks were All-Stars in '94. 

Cassell was the only notable on the bench for the Rockets, whereas the Knicks had super rebounder Anthony Mason and sharpshooter Greg Anthony coming off the bench. 




> But O'Neal rarely does go out to the perimeter, so he doesn't get burned by the pick and roll. That's my point. It's also why O'Neal always had a little more difficulty guarding the shooting centers like Sabonis. It puts Shaq in a difficult predicament.


The Lakers almost lost a series after Bibby exploited it.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Yyzlin said:


> Well, the advantage that Horry has is that he can shoot three's, which make him more valuable dependent on the offensive system.


Horry was also a better passer, and he could create his own shot better. Just like Nick Anderson. Offensively, Horace Grant was about equal to Horry, but Nick Anderson was a whole lot better than Mario Elie.



> O'Neal needed better free throw shooting, though. It was the one area where he was vulnerable and reduced to a state less than dominant.


Why did he "need" it? He was still unstoppable. He still won three titles. Sure, it would have made him even better, but so would versatility. 



> Miner was compared to Jordan before he even stepped a foot on a NBA court, whereas Horry only gained the comparison when he came to the league, so that analogy doesn't really work. I've never even heard the Olajuwon comparison for Amare. All of the comparisons I've heard are Shawn Kemp. Moses Malone is a good one for Stoudemire too. The thing is Horry showed enough defensive skill to be compared to Pippen. Was he as good as Pippen? No. He didn't have to be to be as good as Mason defensively.


It hardly matters that Miner was compared to Jordan before he entered the league. He was playing basketball before that. My point remains that comparisons mean very little when it comes to a player's actual prowess. I heard quite a few "Amare is like a young Hakeem" comparisons, especially in Amare's rookie season. Again, they stopped when people realised that he is a crap defender and a mediocre rebounder, and that he much more often rolls to the basket rather than creating from scratch. But that's missing the point. Even if there have been a hundred times more Amare-Moses comparisons, it doesn't mean that Amare is one of the greatest players of all time. Just that he seems to have the potential to become one.
Horry was compared to Pippen not just for his overall defensive prowess, but because he played defense in a similar manner (e.g. he was a better team defender and general disruptor than a man defender), because of his dunking style and speed in the open court, and because of his appearance (when Horry was in the red jersey with his long arms and the same hairstyle as Pippen and a similar mug, I'll bet many were reminded of Pip for that alone). Again, when people compared him to Pippen, they simply thought that he might become like Pippen one day. It didn't necessarily mean that he was great defender, or even a very good one. Horry was good, but Mason was better. Mason was an excellent defender.



> Like you accuse me of doing, I think you are making too much of playoff mishaps. If you browse the regular season log for 1994, you will see that they seemed to do a good job of keeping the better point guards of the time (Payton, Van Exel, K. Johnson, etc) in line with their regular season averages or below. The only guy they seemed to have a consistent problem with was John Stockton, for whatever reason. Hell, in that same season, they held Derek Harper to three below average games for him. Here are the links to the boxscores if you want to check.


They were terrible defenders. Ask any Rockets fan who watched the team in the early-to-mid-'90's. A few bad nights from a few point guards don't change that. Kevin Johnson did very well against us in the playoffs, and almost destroyed us the next year. Gary Payton averaged 19 ppg on 56% against us in '94, while his season average was 16.5 ppg on 50%. He always did well against us in the playoffs, too. Stockton, as you said, generally killed us. Avery Johnson scored 20 ppg against us in the '95 WCF, and he was never a big scorer. Penny Hardaway averaged 26 ppg against us in the Finals, which was well above his season average. Rod Strickland torched us in the '94 playoffs. Hell, Mookie Blaylock and Muggsy Bogues killed us that year. It is also important to remember that in 1994 the Rockets were one of the best defensive teams in the league. Olajuwon's presence made things tough for the opposition and easier for his teammates. Also keep in mind that Vernon Maxwell was sometimes used to defend opposing point guards if they were very good. For all his faults, Maxwell was still a good defender. 



> Hakeem averaged 27 ppg on 50% that series. Ewing had 19 ppg on 36%. It still went to seven games. Excluding Olajuwon, of the ten other Rockets who played, seven of them shot below 40% from the field.
> Derek Harper, by all accounts, played very well on both ends of the floor. Kenny Smith and Cassell couldn't do anything to him, and he contained them very well.
> Mason played better than Horry (who shot at 32% from the field).
> Starks outplayed Maxwell.
> ...


I applaud you on your ability to dig up a paragraph in which I used Finals stats, somehow proving that I am using the Finals as the "final word".


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Quills said:


> You still don't want to admidt to the Fact that Ewing was Doubled 80% of that Serries by Olajuwan & Thorpe.


I don't know the exact percentage, but I agree that Ewing was doubled most of the time. However, Olajuwon was doubled just as much. 



> the 2 & 3rd quarters Mason was Guarding Olajuwan by Himself .


That would make Mason arguably the greatest defender ever... if it were true. While Mason was on Olajuwon a fair bit, he didn't guard him by himself.



> Ewing normally played much better down the Strech then Olajuwan Especilly in the Games the Knicks won . Olajuwan would get most of his points in the 1st 6 mins each quarter & around the Time the 4th Quarter Came around Ewing Dominated Olajuwan Normally Doubling up in Rebounds & Blocks while putting up the Same number of points .


I remember Hakeem only having one bad fourth quarter. It was a while ago, so it might have been two or three, but I doubt it, since I remember him making some clutch plays that series, and because he generally finished games strongly, especially in the playoffs. I also remember him having at least one huge second half. If, as you say, Ewing dominated Olajuwon in the fourth quarters of the games, he must have been virtually nonexistant in the previous three periods in order to have put up such terrible numbers. 



> Also the Rockets had Horry-Bullard-Smith-Cassell-Maxwell & Brooks to hit 3s in that Serries the Knicks had Starks-Harper-Davis & Anthony.


Well, it appears Starks, Harper, Davis and Anthony were pretty successful, since they shot at over 34% from beyond the arc, while their Rocket counterparts shot at less than 31%.



> Never mind the Fact in every Deciding game 1 & 7 that Maxwell outshot Starks & did more distrubting the Ball better then Starks . Since Maxwell knew to get the Ball to Hakeem & Starks knew he was the 1st option for some assinine reason .


Maxwell knew to get the ball to the center better than Starks did? You've got to be kidding. Maxwell was selfish and delusional. If ever a second-banana thought he was the 1st option, it was Mad Max. Starks scored considerably more than Maxwell, while shooting at a higher percentage and getting nearly twice the amount of assists.



> Also regardless of the Numbers Thrope outplayed Oakley badley that Series . Most of Oakley Rebounds came at one possesion a game where he would fight for the Offencive reboung & end up getting like 3 of them on one play .


That only happened once.



> While thorpe was a much more Consistent player over the course of the game . his defence was on par with oakleys & his Offence was much better . Since it was'nt just & open jumper the Knicks had to defend him , which might be a reason we did'nt double Olajuwan & the Rocketts Doubled Ewing because there was no need to Guard Oakley


Oakley had a pretty good mid-range jumper. He couldn't create for himself, but he was no Ryan Bowen. The Rockets didn't just leave him open. And he was a much better defender than Otis Thorpe. 



> Mason & Horry pretty much Cancel each other out but due to more clutch play you have to give it to Horry . But Mason did as good a job as you can do giving the Situation against Olajuwan .


Horry played like crap. Mason was much better. And I don't recall Horry making any clutch plays that series.



> Derrek Harper was a beast Scoring the Ball but as bad as the Rocketts PG Defence was they where good enough to relize to let Harper get his as long as he did'nt get Ewing or Others involved & he did'nt not like he did all season long . While the Rocketts PG's where smart enough to get the ball to Hakeeem every chance they got


I think the Rockets point guards did the Knicks a favor if they indeed "let Harper get his as long as he didn't get Ewing or others involved", since Ewing shot at 36% and the others at not much better. Not that I think it's true. How did Ewing take 10 more shots than Olajuwon if he wasn't involved in the offense and the Rockets' guards were getting Hakeem the ball every chance they got?


----------



## Quills (Jun 18, 2005)

No Olajuwan was'nt Doubled as much he Just had Every Knick besides Ewing Guard him , which I did'nt like . But the Only time We Doubles Olajuwan was when he was already at the Rim & we needed to foul him or get to him . Ewing was Doubled as soon as he Got the Ball , Olajuwan was Doubled when he beat his man 



I'm not Saying Mase was the Greatest Defender (Even though he did say Olajuwan was scared of him & that he was the Dreams Nightmare after Game 4 , Why I don't Know) I'm saying Olajuwan Scored a Fair Amount of Points on Mase , Yeah Everyone & there mother tooks turns Guarding Dream

Ewing 1st Quarter (Ewing normally gotten eaten up here)
Mason-Smith & Oakley 2nd & 3rd (They did a good Job for being mismatched but olajuwan just Shot over them , he did'nt really get points in the Paint or Rebound)

Ewing 4t Quarter (If you noticed this is Where Ewing normally took it right at Hakeem the Games the Knicks one Ewing normally Doubled Olajuwans Rebounds in the Quarter &Blocks in the Quarter while matching him in points , Dream had the Assist-Shhoting % & Steals . But it was Ewing who normally had to Do more because aside from Game 2 & 5 Starks never had a good 4th quarter in the Serries (Which is why I keep saying maxwell did as good as starks because he showed up more in the 4th quarter)



I'm not Saying Olajuwan did'nt make Big Plays in Every Quarter , I'm Just saying down the Strech Ewing made more & Depending on your Objective you can say outside of Offence Ewing had a Bigger impact overall on the Game with Rebounding & Defence while keeping pace with olajuwan Scoring dispite consitent double teams . OK it's to strong to say Ewing Dominated . But to me it's faint praise to merly say Ewing Held his Own . To me Ewing Outplayed him , but did so Ugly . But Olajuwan's Game just looked better & did it in a way that was appeasing cause his offence was'nt sticking like Ewings was . Even Though Ewings shot was'nt falling he had good looks dispite the Double team & Olajuwan his Shots where just not falling , Give Credit to the Dream but his Shots where not falling 


You Keep Bring up Percentages in Shooting Whats the Total of Actual 3 Pointers made in Attepted , Because if the Rockets to more & I belive they did it would be understandable to mis a few & end up with a lower percentage . Also regardeless of Percentages the Rocketts team was more of a Threat to the Knicks from deep (Which is why we played a Strict man D) then we where to you (Which is why we got Traped Zoned to death) 



Sorry your discription of "Mad Max" fits "Bag boy" much better . Max was Crazy & Headstrong yes , but he was at least smart enough to get Hakeem the Ball more then he would Chuck it . Starks was a Stright Chucker & Hardley looked to pass it inside unless Riles called a play for the Post on the DRebound . Again Numbers don't Always tell the Stroy with Assist , does'nt Compute passes that dont lead into assist . So you really cant tell how much someone is passing with it , Since with a Dream Shake & Dribble you lose your opertunity for a Assist . 


Horry made the 3's in Game 7 that Kept you up in the early in the 4th quarter to keep our early run in thay quarter quwelshed , cause had we started one then we could of won that game still . Also in game 1 He made some big bucketts down the Streach as well . I mean by no means the Robert Horry of Todays Standereds . But Every Knick fan knew who he was after that Serries & Knew he was Clutch . I Agree Mason was much better overall MUCH , But Robby has the Intangbles going for him to closen the Gap



No Actually in games 2-4-5-6 Oakley had gotten like 3-5 Rebounds in one effort cause he could'nt get a good shot off over Thorpe or Hakeem & he kept getting his Rebound

Ewing got more Shots out of the Offence they where really running the plays for him ,But Pat being Pat . Took it apon himself to Just shoot it every chance he got & never pass it . Thats why he shot more because once Ewing got the Ball he was Shooting the Ball . It did'nt matter if it was a bad Shot or Not he was Taking it , which hurt us & his rep . Becaus as much as they where doubling him Ewing would/Should of had a much Higher Number of Assist & a Better Rep as a Passer . Since he Could pass , he just never did it .


----------



## Kobe8Bryant11 (Jun 30, 2005)

Wow, when I posted this thread I never knew that it would be this debatable lol, I am sooo happy with the discussion being made about these 2 legends...I love it. Thanks guys for the great comments. Keep um comin.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Quills said:


> No Olajuwan was'nt Doubled as much he Just had Every Knick besides Ewing Guard him , which I did'nt like . But the Only time We Doubles Olajuwan was when he was already at the Rim & we needed to foul him or get to him . Ewing was Doubled as soon as he Got the Ball , Olajuwan was Doubled when he beat his man


I disagree. While Ewing wasn't on him at times, Olajuwon was doubled just as heavily as Ewing. 



> Starks never had a good 4th quarter in the Serries (Which is why I keep saying maxwell did as good as starks because he showed up more in the 4th quarter)


Starks had a 17-point fourth quarter in Game 6. 



> I'm not Saying Olajuwan did'nt make Big Plays in Every Quarter , I'm Just saying down the Strech Ewing made more & Depending on your Objective you can say outside of Offence Ewing had a Bigger impact overall on the Game with Rebounding & Defence while keeping pace with olajuwan Scoring dispite consitent double teams .


I remember Hakeem making several big plays late in the games in that series, on both ends of the floor. I disagree that Ewing had a bigger impact defensively, since Olajuwon contained him so well. Ewing did play some of the time on Thorpe. He didn't do particularly well on him, either. Anyway, the Knicks could afford that luxury to keep him out of foul trouble, as they had Oakley and Mason to go on Hakeem.
Also, I completely disagree with the "Ewing kept pace with Olajuwon in scoring" bit. He scored 10 ppg less on 14% lower.



> You Keep Bring up Percentages in Shooting Whats the Total of Actual 3 Pointers made in Attepted , Because if the Rockets to more & I belive they did it would be understandable to mis a few & end up with a lower percentage . Also regardeless of Percentages the Rocketts team was more of a Threat to the Knicks from deep (Which is why we played a Strict man D) then we where to you (Which is why we got Traped Zoned to death)


The Rockets attempted 121 three-pointers over the course of the series, while the Knicks attempted 105. The Rockets hit 37; the Knicks hit 36. So, of the 16 extra three-pointers that the Rockets attempted, they only made one of them.
I don't think either of the teams had an advantage in three-point shooting. The Rockets had one 40% shooter in Kenny Smith. Robert Horry and Mario Elie were both in the low-30's. Cassell and Maxwell were both under 30%. The Knicks had Hubert Davis, who was a 40% shooter, although he didn't get a lot of minutes in the Finals. Derek Harper was 37% from long range. Starks was in the low-30's. Greg Anthony was 30% exactly. If I had to say one team had the advantage, I'd say it was the Rockets, but it was very slight. Anyway, it didn't mean much in the Finals.



> Sorry your discription of "Mad Max" fits "Bag boy" much better . Max was Crazy & Headstrong yes , but he was at least smart enough to get Hakeem the Ball more then he would Chuck it . Starks was a Stright Chucker & Hardley looked to pass it inside unless Riles called a play for the Post on the DRebound . Again Numbers don't Always tell the Stroy with Assist , does'nt Compute passes that dont lead into assist . So you really cant tell how much someone is passing with it , Since with a Dream Shake & Dribble you lose your opertunity for a Assist .


I just disagree with you on this. I think Maxwell was more of a chucker.



> Horry made the 3's in Game 7 that Kept you up in the early in the 4th quarter to keep our early run in thay quarter quwelshed , cause had we started one then we could of won that game still . Also in game 1 He made some big bucketts down the Streach as well . I mean by no means the Robert Horry of Todays Standereds . But Every Knick fan knew who he was after that Serries & Knew he was Clutch . I Agree Mason was much better overall MUCH , But Robby has the Intangbles going for him to closen the Gap


Horry didn't become clutch with that series. I don't think the '94 Finals added to his reputation at all. He had been clutch since he was a rookie in '93. The first instance that I remember was when he hit a three late in the game against the Magic that year to win the game. 
And he didn't hit a single three in Game 7.



> No Actually in games 2-4-5-6 Oakley had gotten like 3-5 Rebounds in one effort cause he could'nt get a good shot off over Thorpe or Hakeem & he kept getting his Rebound


I think that is a gross exaggeration. If he really did get 3-5 rebounds in the space of a few seconds in games 2, 4, 5 and 6 because he kept rebounding his misses, how did he manage to shoot at 50% that series? You'd think with so many misses, his fg% would take a big hit. But it didn't.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> Why did he "need" it? He was still unstoppable. He still won three titles. Sure, it would have made him even better, but so would versatility.


Because, his lack of free throw ability rendered him a liability at times when his free throw shooting was off. There were almost never moments where O'Neal was reduced to a less than dominant player because of his lack of versatility. There were moments where that happened because of his lack of free throw ability. 



> It hardly matters that Miner was compared to Jordan before he entered the league. He was playing basketball before that. My point remains that comparisons mean very little when it comes to a player's actual prowess. I heard quite a few "Amare is like a young Hakeem" comparisons, especially in Amare's rookie season. Again, they stopped when people realised that he is a crap defender and a mediocre rebounder, and that he much more often rolls to the basket rather than creating from scratch. But that's missing the point. Even if there have been a hundred times more Amare-Moses comparisons, it doesn't mean that Amare is one of the greatest players of all time. Just that he seems to have the potential to become one.
> Horry was compared to Pippen not just for his overall defensive prowess, but because he played defense in a similar manner (e.g. he was a better team defender and general disruptor than a man defender), because of his dunking style and speed in the open court, and because of his appearance (when Horry was in the red jersey with his long arms and the same hairstyle as Pippen and a similar mug, I'll bet many were reminded of Pip for that alone). Again, when people compared him to Pippen, they simply thought that he might become like Pippen one day. It didn't necessarily mean that he was great defender, or even a very good one. Horry was good, but Mason was better. Mason was an excellent defender.


I'm just going to have to disagree. Horry's defense was very good. So was Mason's. Both were tweeners that had some liabilities depending on where they played. Horry often got out muscled when he played at the 4. Mason often got outquicked on the perimeter when he played at the 3. 



> They were terrible defenders. Ask any Rockets fan who watched the team in the early-to-mid-'90's. A few bad nights from a few point guards don't change that. Kevin Johnson did very well against us in the playoffs, and almost destroyed us the next year. Gary Payton averaged 19 ppg on 56% against us in '94, while his season average was 16.5 ppg on 50%. He always did well against us in the playoffs, too. Stockton, as you said, generally killed us. Avery Johnson scored 20 ppg against us in the '95 WCF, and he was never a big scorer. Penny Hardaway averaged 26 ppg against us in the Finals, which was well above his season average. Rod Strickland torched us in the '94 playoffs. Hell, Mookie Blaylock and Muggsy Bogues killed us that year. It is also important to remember that in 1994 the Rockets were one of the best defensive teams in the league. Olajuwon's presence made things tough for the opposition and easier for his teammates. Also keep in mind that Vernon Maxwell was sometimes used to defend opposing point guards if they were very good. For all his faults, Maxwell was still a good defender.


The Payton thing is almost moot. Payton played more MPG in each of his games against Houston than his regular season average. Against Houston, he averaged 39.5 MPG, 19 PPG, 56% FG, and 4.8 APG. In the regular season, if given the same minutes, he would average 18.5 PPG and 6.7 APG. Rod Strickland was torching everyone that season. Some people were calling him the best point guard in the league that season. He was a playoff stud, too, during those years. Blaylock did so good at torching the Rockets his first game of the season that he decided to shoot 6 for 20 in his second outing that season. Bogues shot 5-17 in his game against the Rockets in 95. There's no doubt that neither Smith nor Cassell were great or even good defenders. But they were both passable and hovered around league average or slightly below. Were they the weak links in Houston's defense? Yes. Were they much worst than other point guards in the league? Not so much. 



> I applaud you on your ability to dig up a paragraph in which I used Finals stats, somehow proving that I am using the Finals as the "final word".


I simply showing that there are instances where you have tried to use Finals statistics to prove that someone was better than another contrary to your assertions that you have never done such a thing.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Yyzlin said:


> Because, his lack of free throw ability rendered him a liability at times when his free throw shooting was off. There were almost never moments where O'Neal was reduced to a less than dominant player because of his lack of versatility. There were moments where that happened because of his lack of free throw ability.


Is there a rule that a player only needs improvement in an aspect of his game when he is less than dominant in that area? What defines "dominant"? Why stop at 57% from the field and 30 ppg? I still think the "Shaq never needed versatility" statement is meaningless. If he were more versatile, his overall game would be better, just as it would if he were a better foul shooter.



> The Payton thing is almost moot. Payton played more MPG in each of his games against Houston than his regular season average. Against Houston, he averaged 39.5 MPG, 19 PPG, 56% FG, and 4.8 APG. In the regular season, if given the same minutes, he would average 18.5 PPG and 6.7 APG. Rod Strickland was torching everyone that season. Some people were calling him the best point guard in the league that season. He was a playoff stud, too, during those years. Blaylock did so good at torching the Rockets his first game of the season that he decided to shoot 6 for 20 in his second outing that season. Bogues shot 5-17 in his game against the Rockets in 95. There's no doubt that neither Smith nor Cassell were great or even good defenders. But they were both passable and hovered around league average or slightly below. Were they the weak links in Houston's defense? Yes. Were they much worst than other point guards in the league? Not so much.


I find it strange that you're arguing this, having seen so little of Kenny Smith and Sam Cassell play in Rockets jerseys. Really, how could you possibly have a good idea of how they were defensively? At least on offense you've got some stats. Those two were pathetic defensively. They were like Steve Nash is now, except it's easier to see how bad Nash is because of the Suns' lack of interior defense.
Any point guard who put up numbers against Houston that were equal to or better than their season averages shouldn't have. With Hakeem there, and with Maxwell on them at times, they should have done significantly worse. 
You say Strickland was torching everyone in '94. He averaged 17 ppg on 48% in the regular season. In the playoffs against the Rockets, he averaged 23.5 ppg on 50%. "But he scored 23.5 ppg in the next season's playoffs, too!" I hear you say. But in the '95 regular season he was averaging 19 ppg. In the playoffs, he shot at only 42% from the field, and was up against another very poor -- though not quite as bad -- defender in KJ.
Blaylock was always an inconsistent shooter. Yet he averaged 22 ppg on 46% against the Rockets in '94. His season average was 14 ppg on 41%. In '93, he averaged 14.5 ppg on 52% against the Rockets, while his season average was 13.4 ppg on 43%. In '95, he averaged 23 ppg on 43% against the Rockets, while his season average was 17 ppg on 43%. In '96, he averaged 18.5 ppg on 39% against the Rockets, while his season average was 15.7 ppg on 40.5%
K. Smith and Cassell were decent players. But they sucked on defense. I'm no expert, but I could easily tell this from watching them. The thing is, they weren't even criticised very much by the media. They were made to appear better than they were because of Olajuwon.



> I simply showing that there are instances where you have tried to use Finals statistics to prove that someone was better than another contrary to your assertions that you have never done such a thing.


I have used Finals statistics, but not as the "final word". What did you expect me to do when trying to prove that Derek Harper was better than Kenny Smith? Simply state that he was the better defender and leave it at that? Use regular season stats? I have not used many regular season stats, since the Knicks guys generally had the advantage because of their defense, which isn't shown well in stats.


----------



## The One (Jul 10, 2005)

Wow this thread is still going on? Well I'll gladly end it. "THE DREAM" *Thread Over*


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> Is there a rule that a player only needs improvement in an aspect of his game when he is less than dominant in that area? What defines "dominant"? Why stop at 57% from the field and 30 ppg? I still think the "Shaq never needed versatility" statement is meaningless. If he were more versatile, his overall game would be better, just as it would if he were a better foul shooter.


No, I never suggested there was a rule. But it's obvious that free throws was by far the biggest problem of Shaq, and it was an aspect of his game that needed huge improvement. Offensive versatility would have helped O'Neal, but it wasn't a vital point because he was could still easily dominant without. By your description, every player has something that they could use to improve their overall game, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.



> I find it strange that you're arguing this, having seen so little of Kenny Smith and Sam Cassell play in Rockets jerseys. Really, how could you possibly have a good idea of how they were defensively? At least on offense you've got some stats. Those two were pathetic defensively. They were like Steve Nash is now, except it's easier to see how bad Nash is because of the Suns' lack of interior defense.


It's not too difficult to evaluate defense given around 10 games of exposure. Defense performance, itself, isn't nearly as flunctuatable from game to game as say, offensive performance. Seeing around 10 games can give you an decent guage of where a player's defensive ability is. I mean, really, defensive evaluation itself is such an inaccurate science. Can anyone really say with any certainty who's a better defender between two players unless there's a clear difference? No. Even nowadays when I watch tons of games, i find it hard to seperate players' defensive performance based on my observations unless the performance difference is significant. I simply tend to group, on defense, players into broad groups. Trying to differentiate defensive performance between the players themselves in each of the groups is pretty much impossible for me, atleast. 

Going back to the Smith and Cassell, I do feel I've seen enough of both players from the two playoffs unless you feel that there are elements of their defense that I'm missing (and please clarify if you do). Plus, I have plenty of exposure to Cassell lately and while there isn't a huge difference, I do believe he was a better defender in his Houston days than his recent Milwaukee and Minnesota days. And come on, I seriously just don't see how they were pathetic defensively. 



> Any point guard who put up numbers against Houston that were equal to or better than their season averages shouldn't have. With Hakeem there, and with Maxwell on them at times, they should have done significantly worse.
> You say Strickland was torching everyone in '94. He averaged 17 ppg on 48% in the regular season. In the playoffs against the Rockets, he averaged 23.5 ppg on 50%. "But he scored 23.5 ppg in the next season's playoffs, too!" I hear you say. But in the '95 regular season he was averaging 19 ppg. In the playoffs, he shot at only 42% from the field, and was up against another very poor -- though not quite as bad -- defender in KJ.


Actually, Strickland didn't get a starting job until a few months into the season I believe. I recall reading that he put up 20 PPG and 9 APG or something close to that after he got the starting job, basically ending Porter's reign there. And basically, I do think KJ, Smith, and to a lesser extent, Cassell are in the same defensive group. 



> Blaylock was always an inconsistent shooter. Yet he averaged 22 ppg on 46% against the Rockets in '94. His season average was 14 ppg on 41%. In '93, he averaged 14.5 ppg on 52% against the Rockets, while his season average was 13.4 ppg on 43%. In '95, he averaged 23 ppg on 43% against the Rockets, while his season average was 17 ppg on 43%. In '96, he averaged 18.5 ppg on 39% against the Rockets, while his season average was 15.7 ppg on 40.5%


With the exception of 93, it appears to me that he's not really becoming more efficient against the Rockets, but merely taking more shots against them. And if you glance at the boxscores, a large part of those additional shot attempts are coming from beyond the 3 point line, as his 3PA are much higher against the Rockets than his season average. Atlanta never really had much offensive talent upfront, so it's likely that against excellent defensive frontcourts like Houston's, Atlanta has to take a more perimeter approach, thus requiring more shots from Blaylock. 



> K. Smith and Cassell were decent players. But they sucked on defense. I'm no expert, but I could easily tell this from watching them. The thing is, they weren't even criticised very much by the media. They were made to appear better than they were because of Olajuwon.


Eh, I just disagree. K. Smith was in the group right below average. Cassell was average. 



> I have used Finals statistics, but not as the "final word". What did you expect me to do when trying to prove that Derek Harper was better than Kenny Smith? Simply state that he was the better defender and leave it at that? Use regular season stats? I have not used many regular season stats, since the Knicks guys generally had the advantage because of their defense, which isn't shown well in stats.


Just state that he was the better defender. I mean, really, what does the Finals statistics do? Or any small sample of games, period? They don't mean anything. Like I did before, I easily quoted three games from that same season where K. Smith and Cassell handily outplayed Derek Harper.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Yyzlin said:


> No, I never suggested there was a rule. But it's obvious that free throws was by far the biggest problem of Shaq, and it was an aspect of his game that needed huge improvement. Offensive versatility would have helped O'Neal, but it wasn't a vital point because he was could still easily dominant without. By your description, every player has something that they could use to improve their overall game, so I'm not sure what you're trying to say.


I am saying that it was pointless to say "Shaq never needed versatility" in response to someone's statement that Shaq wasn't versatile.



> It's not too difficult to evaluate defense given around 10 games of exposure. Defense performance, itself, isn't nearly as flunctuatable from game to game as say, offensive performance. Seeing around 10 games can give you an decent guage of where a player's defensive ability is. I mean, really, defensive evaluation itself is such an inaccurate science. Can anyone really say with any certainty who's a better defender between two players unless there's a clear difference? No. Even nowadays when I watch tons of games, i find it hard to seperate players' defensive performance based on my observations unless the performance difference is significant. I simply tend to group, on defense, players into broad groups. Trying to differentiate defensive performance between the players themselves in each of the groups is pretty much impossible for me, atleast.


It is often difficult to differentiate defensive prowess within groups, but I don't think it's impossible, especially not when considering groups at the extremes (i.e. excellent or terrible). You don't think you'd be able to make a fairly accurate ranking of the top ten defenders in the league? Also, I don't think it's hard to separate players into several groups. For example, terrible (Nash, Crawford, Baker), very poor (Tim Thomas, Sura, Amare), poor (Marbury, Arenas, Dirk), average (Christie, Gasol, Brad Miller), good (Dampier, Parker, Francis), very good (JO, Yao, Marion), and excellent (Duncan, the Wallaces, Artest).



> Going back to the Smith and Cassell, I do feel I've seen enough of both players from the two playoffs unless you feel that there are elements of their defense that I'm missing (and please clarify if you do). Plus, I have plenty of exposure to Cassell lately and while there isn't a huge difference, I do believe he was a better defender in his Houston days than his recent Milwaukee and Minnesota days. And come on, I seriously just don't see how they were pathetic defensively.


This past season Cassell was as bad as he was in Houston as a rookie, but before that he was better. 
And if all you've seen of Cassell and Smith in Houston is from the playoffs in '94 and '95, I seriously just don't see how you can say they were not pathetic defensively. It was in the playoffs that they were exposed the most. In those two playoffs, there wasn't one point guard who didn't kill them (though it was Stockton who was the worst in relative terms, funnily enough). In '94, Strickland, KJ, Stockton and D. Harper; in '95, Stockton, KJ, Avery Johnson and Penny (though Drexler was on him at times).



> Actually, Strickland didn't get a starting job until a few months into the season I believe. I recall reading that he put up 20 PPG and 9 APG or something close to that after he got the starting job, basically ending Porter's reign there.


Strickland averaged almost exactly the same mpg in '94 as he did in '95.



> With the exception of 93, it appears to me that he's not really becoming more efficient against the Rockets, but merely taking more shots against them. And if you glance at the boxscores, a large part of those additional shot attempts are coming from beyond the 3 point line, as his 3PA are much higher against the Rockets than his season average. Atlanta never really had much offensive talent upfront, so it's likely that against excellent defensive frontcourts like Houston's, Atlanta has to take a more perimeter approach, thus requiring more shots from Blaylock.


You'd think if Blaylock was chucking up more shots than usual, his shooting percentage would go down. But not only was he much more efficient than usual in '93, but in '94 he averaged 8 ppg more than his season average on 5% higher, in '95 he averaged 6 ppg more on an equal percentage, and in '96 he averaged 3 ppg more on 1.5% lower.
Atlanta never really had much offensive talent upfront? They only had Kevin Willis scoring nearly 20 ppg and Dominique Wilkins getting nearly 30 a game in '93 and '94.



> Just state that he was the better defender. I mean, really, what does the Finals statistics do? Or any small sample of games, period? They don't mean anything. Like I did before, I easily quoted three games from that same season where K. Smith and Cassell handily outplayed Derek Harper.


So, when trying to prove that Derek Harper was better than Smith and Cassell, you want me to simply say "Harper was a better defeder" and leave it at that, completely ignoring seven consecutive games in which they were pitted against each other, with all of them trying their absolute hardest and playing for the championship? At least with superstars, we have many other things with which to go by, but when comparing ordinary players like these guys we can't ignore such things.
In 18 games against the Rockets from '92 to '94, Derek Harper averaged 16 ppg on 46% from the field. This was against one of the best defensive teams in the league with arguably the greatest defensive center ever. His weighted average against all teams over that time frame was 13 ppg on 42%.


----------



## DaBigTicketKG21 (Apr 27, 2003)

Gotta go with Shaq and his three rings.


----------

