Hakeem/Lebron or Shaq/Wade or Duncan/Kobe

[Duncan21formvp]

Which duo would you rather build a franchise around?

[PickernRoller]

Which duo would you rather build a franchise around?

Depends on what you're looking for......

[Kews1]

Hakeem/Lebron

[lilgodfather1]

Good one. Hakeem and LeBron would be insanely dominant on both ends, Shaq/Wade would be sick offensively, and no slouches on defense, and Duncan/Kobe would be nice on both ends as well. Although I think you throw Kobe/Duncan out because it will take Kobe 3-4 years do develop. LeBron and Hakeem would be too good to pass up.

[noob cake]

Good one. Hakeem and LeBron would be insanely dominant on both ends, Shaq/Wade would be sick offensively, and no slouches on defense, and Duncan/Kobe would be nice on both ends as well. Although I think you throw Kobe/Duncan out because it will take Kobe 3-4 years do develop. LeBron and Hakeem would be too good to pass up.

Hakeem = Shaq > Duncan

LeBron > Wade = Kobe

Hakeem/LeBron >>>> other two

[RazorBaLade]

Hakeem = Shaq > Duncan

LeBron > Wade = Kobe

Hakeem/LeBron >>>> other two

wow

[albatrosek]

Drummond+Monroe

[oh the horror]

Hakeem = Shaq > Duncan

LeBron > Wade = Kobe

Hakeem/LeBron >>>> other two



Didnt realize we dived into algebra here.

[EnoughSaid]

Hakeem destroyed young Shaq, and LeBron is better than any version of Kobe and Wade. Shaq and Wade would be 2nd.

[MetsPackers]

Getting them when they first come into the league? Gotta go with Duncan and Kobe

[G-Funk]

Kobe & Duncan

[TheNaturalWR]

Shaq in his prime and Wade in 08-09 season form.

[d.bball.guy]

Ammo/Scal

[unbreakable]

whoever has duncan is guaranteed 12+ years of 50+ wins, playoff appearances, and atleast 4-5 rings.

[LikeABosh]

Hakeem/Lebron without a doubt.

[tpols]

Shaq/Wade will give you the most peak dominance. Theyll flounder around for the first and last 5 years but for that one 5 year stretch in the middle theyll sweep through the playoffs 01 Lakers style. Hakeem/Lebron would start getting deadly a few years in and would consistently be in the finals every year for a decade. Duncan/Kobe would be deadly the earliest and would be the most consistent for the longest, but wouldnt be as dominant at the peak.

[jlauber]

Hakeem destroyed young Shaq, and LeBron is better than any version of Kobe and Wade. Shaq and Wade would be 2nd.

Sure did...

He held young Shaq to 28.0 ppg, 12.5 rpg, 6.3 apg, and .595 shooting in the '95 Finals. He outscored Shaq, 32 ppg to 28.0 ppg, BUT, he took TEN more FGAs per GAME to do so (shooting .488 in the process.) Shaq not only ousthot Hakeem, and by a wide margin, he outrebounded him, outassisted him, and even outblocked him.

But yes, Hakeem just "destroyed" him.

Oh and how about their teammates in that series?

Hakeem's teammates shot .467 from the field, .402 from the arc, and MADE 95 FTs.

Shaq's teammates shot .431 from the field, .347 from the arc, and MADE 61 FTs.

BTW, here is a look at ALL of their H2H's...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=onealsh01&p2=olajuha01

In their 20 regular season H2H's...

Hakeem averaged 18.4 ppg, 9.1 rpg, 2.9 apg, 2.4 bpg, and shot .447 from the field.

Shaq averaged 22.1 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 3.6 apg, 1.8 bpg, and shot .544 from the field.

And in their 8 post-season H2H's...

Hakeem averaged 23.0 ppg, 9.4 rpg, 3.0 apg, 1.4 bpg, and shot .465

Shaq averaged 28.8 ppg, 11.4 rpg, 5.1 apg, 3.3 bpg, and shot .556.

That was Hakeem just "destroying" Shaq...

[pauk]

Hakeem & Lebron? :oldlol: Thats 2 of the top 5 most productive players in NBA history especially where it matters (http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/per_career_p.html) ... Where one is a bigman who is probably the most skilled bigman ever and is one of the top 3 best bigman defenders ever (arguably #1) and where one is a perimeter player who is probably the most versatile player in NBA history considering what he can do on both ends at any role/position....

Shaq/Wade vs Duncan/Kobe would be more debatable.... Hakeem/Lebron would be just, not fair... not only because of the raw talent/skill they would combine with to unleash on both ends but because they would complement eachothers games so god damn well, they would be insanely dominant... desperately trying not to be biased here... Think of it like this in a 2 on 2 matchup for example... Hakeem/Lebron together would be able to do anything Duncan/Kobe or Shaq/Kobe can do offensively (and probably better) while guaranteed being able to DEFEND them much better than they would be able to defend them back... what most importantly sets them appart is the defense part...

[bdreason]

Hakeem / LeBron.

[Smoke117]

Hakeem/Lebron, easily. Lebron has shown he can be the main guy leading a team to a championship now and Olajuwon is the greatest modern defensive player of all time and one of the great scorers/first options at Center. You are guaranteed to be at least top 3 in defensive every season with that duo. Duncan is inferior to both as scorers and defensively anyone is a good amount inferior to an young to prime Olajuwon in his prime defensively. Offensively Duncan is really inferior to Shaq and even though Shaq was lazy in general he still made a pretty good impact defensively. In the end It comes down to the perimeter players and I just can't pick Kobe over a Lebron or Wade when starting a franchise knowing how good they would be and the big man they would play with. Hakeem and Shaq in my opinion are just too much better than Duncan in the end.

[lbj23clutch]

Hakeem>Shaq>Duncan




Hakeem's is the most skilled post player of the three big men and is by far the best defensively of the three. LeBron and Hakeem would be ridiculously versatile on defense. That team would be a top 2 defensive team for a decade. And both are very unselfish players. I'll take Hakeem and LeBron. The defense and the versatility of these two just put's it over the top for me.

[TheCorporation]

Hakeem destroyed young Shaq, and LeBron is better than any version of Kobe and Wade. Shaq and Wade would be 2nd.

Agreed :cheers:

[PJR]

Difficult. But imma always roll with peak Shaq who + any superstar perimeter player. And considering Shaq and Wade won 1 with Shaq being past his prime? Can't even imagine how nasty peak Wade and Shaq would be. Plus there would be no ego as Wade has already shown that he is the most unselfish superstar EVER, so they would be no breakup ala with Kobrick...They would run off with titles.

[StateOfMind12]

It's close between Hakeem/Lebron and Duncan/Kobe. Wade/Shaq have a dominant peak but a short one. Their championship window is much shorter than those other two and their chances of winning a championship during their peak aren't that much higher, if at all higher than those other twos.

Wade/Shaq is last for sure but Duncan/Kobe and Hakeem/LeBron are close.

I would probably go with Kobe/Duncan just because of longevity and consistency, not to mention they would flourish under one another.

[Sakkreth]

Hakeem/LeBron

[G-Funk]

Hakeem destroyed young Shaq, and LeBron is better than any version of Kobe and Wade. Shaq and Wade would be 2nd.
:oldlol:

[Horde of Temujin]

Huh? Is this a trick question? Hakeem/lebron of course, unless we are including 2006/2002 refs in which Whistle/Shaq would be the clear victors.

[General]

Hakeem destroyed young Shaq, and LeBron is better than any version of Kobe and Wade. Shaq and Wade would be 2nd.
I'd choose Kobe and Duncan. Lebron will take 9 years to overcome his mental weakness and would choke too many times, plus Kobe is just the better player to me. Wade is not better than Kobe:oldlol: I'd take Duncan over lazy Shaq any day...

[PJR]

Let's add another

Michael Jordan and Patrick Ewing

[Vienceslav]

You

[Mr. Jabbar]

Duncan and Kobe of course. Guaranteed multiple championships, longer primes, and they won't be jumping around the league from team to team shortcutting into a ring if things don't go as expected.

No brainer really.

[ihoopallday]

Lol too hard to choose. But if you put a gun to my head and I have to pick one duo, LeBron/Hakeem.

[blablabla]

duncan kobe would be the perfect duo

[Dragonyeuw]

1995 Hakeem and 2010 Lebron

[ShaqAttack3234]

Hakeem is perhaps the best layer out of any listed, I go back and forth between Dream and Shaq, they're in a virtual tie as far as I'm concerned, I was leaning towards Hakeem for a while, but lately, Shaq has the edge on my list.

However, I think they'd be the worst fit together. Lebron is the most ball-dominant of the 3 perimeter players, while Hakeem in his prime had taken the next level due to Rudy T building a 4 out/1 in offensive system around him that involved Hakeem getting the ball in the post almost every time down the floor and either scoring with his many moves, his game being based around his baseline fadeaway, or drawing 2 or 3 defenders and kicking it out to the perimeter. I don't see that being the best fit with Lebron's style. Lebron hanging around on the perimeter would be a disaster....see the 2011 finals. Hakeem had more of a score first mindset, but for the duo to work best, Lebron may have to be the first option. They'd obviously be a contender, each of them are too talented to not contend. They have the type of talent where you don't need to put much talent around them like Shaq and Kobe. And Hakeem will guarantee that they'd be a fine defensive team, and Lebron has become a very good defender the last 4 seasons, and truly a fantastic defensive player the last 2.

Shaq and Wade are the proven duo, they won a title together in '06 with Shaq still a huge impact player, the best center and a borderline top 10 player in the league, but well past his prime. And prior to Shaq's injury late in the season/playoffs, and then Wade's injury in he conference finals, the '05 Heat looked like arguably the best team in the league. Wade and Shaq in their primes would be phenomenal, for example you have their 3rd seasons to look forward to('95 Shaq and '06 Wade), and even with a very raw Shaq in his second year, you'd have two elite players with tremendous physical gifts, so they could contend. You'd also their 6th years when Shaq was entering his prime('98 level) and Wade was at his peak('09 level), and their 8th seasons would be '00 level Shaq and '11 Wade who still compared to anyone in the league. Wade slipped last year, but he won a title with Lebron who wasn't as good as '01 Shaq and it wasn't the natural inside/outside duo. While I think this would be the most devastating duo in their primes, and Shaq had excellent longevity, Wade's longevity is questionable. He had a normal length prime from '06-'11, but he basically lost 2 of those years to injuries in '07 and '08. Shaq and Wade are also easily the least durable.

For a Duncan/Kobe duo, think a better version of the Kobe/Gasol duo which was pretty damn good already. Kobe probably takes over as the 1st option fairly early on, though some coaches prefer to run the offense through a post player. But I have very little doubts these 2 will succeed. Duncan gives you perhaps the best defensive anchor of his era, certainly the most successful of his era. That's because Duncan was a premier shot blocker, but also mobile, committed to defense, and so fundamentally sound. He was the best in the league at blocking shots flatfooted because he seldom bit on fakes, but also had terrific timing and length. However, he could jump and block shots when he had to. Despite Kobe truly learning to incorporate his individual talent into a team concept in the '01 playoffs, Duncan and Kobe would probably reach contender status in their 3rd seasons, though Duncan was out for the playoffs with an injury in his 3rd season. By their 4th seasons, you get '01 Duncan and '00 Kobe, certainly a team you can contend with given the right pieces. And in their 5th years, you get Duncan nearing his peak in '02 form, and Kobe joining the NBA's elite in '01 form. A duo that could obviously be phenomenal. And you still have many potential years to look forward to such as their 10th years which would be Kobe in '06 form which was arguably his peak, and Duncan in '07 form, when he led a team to another titke. And even in their 12th seasons, Duncan was really starting to slow down, but still one of the top 15 players in the game and pretty close to '09 Gasol's level, and you'd have '08 Kobe, who was still arguably at his peak and better than he was in '09 when he won his first title with Gasol. And you'd still potentially be able to keep them contending a few more years if you have a deep team because Kobe was a top 5 player this past season and Duncan was still very effective and a key player on a legit championship contender. One of Duncan's advantages over the other 2 big men goes to waste, and that's being by far the most polished and easily the closest to his prime level of any of the 3 big men because Kobe wasn't nearly as NBA ready as Lebron and Wade entering the league, but this duo looks like they'll fit together far better than Hakeem/Lebron and easily outlast Shaq/Wade.

So my rankings are obvious from my post, but in case anyone wants to skip my post.

1.Duncan/Kobe
2.Shaq/Wade
3.Hakeem/Lebron

[NumberSix]

Hakeem/LeBron, obviously. lol.

People, this isn't even close.

[Quickening]

Hakeem/LeBron, obviously. lol.

People, this isn't even close.
This.

[sundizz]

This.


This.

I disagree. I think the only fair way to do this is to pick 3 average to slightly above average players and add them to the teams and compare. We'll go from the current era so that it makes more sense for everyone. Additionally, the three teams play all at the same time (1999-2014).

How this will go is everyone is a rookie on their team and no one gets traded or injured, including the coach. They are 'clones' of each other. It's a what if situation so I'm taking this liberty to create a proper scenario. We need to add 1 more team, so that there are 2 'super teams' in each conference. We'll add Michael and Karl Malone. To make it fun, we'll put Malone/Jordan and Shaq/Wade in the East, and Kobe/Duncan and Hakeem/Kobe in the West. They still come out at the same time though (Kobe, Lebron out of high school etc so there would be an age discrepancy).

Pg: Andre Miller
Sg: Aaron Affalo (for Lebron's team)
Sf: Danilo Gallinari (for Kobe, Jordan and Wade)
Pf: Luis Scola (for Lebron, and Wade)
C: Martin Gortat (for Kobe, and Michael)

Coach: Doug Collins

6th man: Jose Calderon
7th man: Klay Thompson, could possible be switched with Affalo, or Danilo.
8th man: Shane Battier

Team 1
Hakeem + Lebron: I think that they would be insanely insanely dominant in the regular season. I think they would have the biggest points differential in the league and the best regular season of all four teams. I think that if they played together for 15 years that they would win 0 championships. I think that closing against 3 other teams (2* they'd play) with perimeter players of insane abilities would be too much for Lebron to mentally take that burden. If he succeed he would minimize Hakeem's offensive abilities because he has to dribble drive to be successful and playing post, off the screen, in pure isolation at the high post etc is still his most glaring weakness. Their best chance would be during the first year, when alpha status is still a tough issue for the rest of the ego filled teams.

Wade + Shaq: I think that in years 4 and 5 they win because of Shaq's insane dominance during a two year period. Additionally Wade would be close enough to the level of Jordan and Kobe to effectively be at least a good enough sidekick to get it done.

Kobe + Duncan: I think in years 1 (due to Duncan), 3, years 6, year 8, years 9, 10, years 15 they win. I think in year 3 Kobe would be good enough and Duncan an insane enough force where there ability to play as teammates (as evidenced by an unwilling Shaq and Kobe) would be the best out of the 4 teams. I think in the prime of the 4 and 5 years the competition would be too tough. I think that from year 6 to year 10 it would come down to Michael and Kobe's team in the finals every year almost and that they would basically split it. Mostly due to Duncan's superior ability to Malone to play the right way and corral Kobe into the right attitude through his constant support. Malone and Jordan would be explosive but but heads on critical times. Duncan's work ethic and laid back attitude would make him an ideal partner for Kobe.

Malone + Jordan: I think that even though they'd but heads a ton that Jordan's superior ability would take them to the top in years 2, years 7, 11, 12, 13, 14. I think that Jordan needs a perimeter partner to make him the player he was. A big man that demands the ball wouldn't work as well with his style. Still he isn't regarded as the best of all time without good reason. As such, they'd win but not with the consistency him and Pippen had.

[jlauber]

I'll take a prime Chamberlain and a prime Magic.

[raprap]

Duncan/ Kobe

Both high character, hard workers and very competitive.

[Fazotronic]

Hakeem is perhaps the best layer out of any listed, I go back and forth between Dream and Shaq, they're in a virtual tie as far as I'm concerned, I was leaning towards Hakeem for a while, but lately, Shaq has the edge on my list.

However, I think they'd be the worst fit together. Lebron is the most ball-dominant of the 3 perimeter players, while Hakeem in his prime had taken the next level due to Rudy T building a 4 out/1 in offensive system around him that involved Hakeem getting the ball in the post almost every time down the floor and either scoring with his many moves, his game being based around his baseline fadeaway, or drawing 2 or 3 defenders and kicking it out to the perimeter. I don't see that being the best fit with Lebron's style. Lebron hanging around on the perimeter would be a disaster....see the 2011 finals. Hakeem had more of a score first mindset, but for the duo to work best, Lebron may have to be the first option. They'd obviously be a contender, each of them are too talented to not contend. They have the type of talent where you don't need to put much talent around them like Shaq and Kobe. And Hakeem will guarantee that they'd be a fine defensive team, and Lebron has become a very good defender the last 4 seasons, and truly a fantastic defensive player the last 2.

Shaq and Wade are the proven duo, they won a title together in '06 with Shaq still a huge impact player, the best center and a borderline top 10 player in the league, but well past his prime. And prior to Shaq's injury late in the season/playoffs, and then Wade's injury in he conference finals, the '05 Heat looked like arguably the best team in the league. Wade and Shaq in their primes would be phenomenal, for example you have their 3rd seasons to look forward to('95 Shaq and '06 Wade), and even with a very raw Shaq in his second year, you'd have two elite players with tremendous physical gifts, so they could contend. You'd also their 6th years when Shaq was entering his prime('98 level) and Wade was at his peak('09 level), and their 8th seasons would be '00 level Shaq and '11 Wade who still compared to anyone in the league. Wade slipped last year, but he won a title with Lebron who wasn't as good as '01 Shaq and it wasn't the natural inside/outside duo. While I think this would be the most devastating duo in their primes, and Shaq had excellent longevity, Wade's longevity is questionable. He had a normal length prime from '06-'11, but he basically lost 2 of those years to injuries in '07 and '08. Shaq and Wade are also easily the least durable.

For a Duncan/Kobe duo, think a better version of the Kobe/Gasol duo which was pretty damn good already. Kobe probably takes over as the 1st option fairly early on, though some coaches prefer to run the offense through a post player. But I have very little doubts these 2 will succeed. Duncan gives you perhaps the best defensive anchor of his era, certainly the most successful of his era. That's because Duncan was a premier shot blocker, but also mobile, committed to defense, and so fundamentally sound. He was the best in the league at blocking shots flatfooted because he seldom bit on fakes, but also had terrific timing and length. However, he could jump and block shots when he had to. Despite Kobe truly learning to incorporate his individual talent into a team concept in the '01 playoffs, Duncan and Kobe would probably reach contender status in their 3rd seasons, though Duncan was out for the playoffs with an injury in his 3rd season. By their 4th seasons, you get '01 Duncan and '00 Kobe, certainly a team you can contend with given the right pieces. And in their 5th years, you get Duncan nearing his peak in '02 form, and Kobe joining the NBA's elite in '01 form. A duo that could obviously be phenomenal. And you still have many potential years to look forward to such as their 10th years which would be Kobe in '06 form which was arguably his peak, and Duncan in '07 form, when he led a team to another titke. And even in their 12th seasons, Duncan was really starting to slow down, but still one of the top 15 players in the game and pretty close to '09 Gasol's level, and you'd have '08 Kobe, who was still arguably at his peak and better than he was in '09 when he won his first title with Gasol. And you'd still potentially be able to keep them contending a few more years if you have a deep team because Kobe was a top 5 player this past season and Duncan was still very effective and a key player on a legit championship contender. One of Duncan's advantages over the other 2 big men goes to waste, and that's being by far the most polished and easily the closest to his prime level of any of the 3 big men because Kobe wasn't nearly as NBA ready as Lebron and Wade entering the league, but this duo looks like they'll fit together far better than Hakeem/Lebron and easily outlast Shaq/Wade.

So my rankings are obvious from my post, but in case anyone wants to skip my post.

1.Duncan/Kobe
2.Shaq/Wade
3.Hakeem/Lebron

while you're right, you don't think that hakeem could change his role a bit to fit with lebrons ball dominate playingstyle?
also teams not being able to double hakeem due to having lebron on his team would make things so much easier for hakeem.

[rhythmic]

Hakeem = Shaq > Duncan

LeBron > Wade = Kobe

Hakeem/LeBron >>>> other two
:roll:

:biggums:

[rhythmic]

It's between James & Hakeem and Kobe & Duncan.
It's impossible to choose without further context.

Duncan & Garnett are two superstars that I would pair with Kobe, moreso thn any other superstar in history. Especially Duncan, who had a better post-game.

[ShaqAttack3234]

while you're right, you don't think that hakeem could change his role a bit to fit with lebrons ball dominate playingstyle?
also teams not being able to double hakeem due to having lebron on his team would make things so much easier for hakeem.

Teams would still double Hakeem. They just wouldn't double off of Lebron.

And those 2 players are good enough to be dangerous, but I just don't think it's as natural of a fit as the other 2. Both other two duos can play their games without being limited while playing together, but Lebron and Hakeem seem less natural to me. I don't see Duncan/Kobe and Shaq/Wade having to make any real adjustments to their game while playing together.

So I have to rank that duo 3rd in this hypothetical.

[scandisk_]

Duncan and Frobe :rockon:

[Eat Like A Bosh]

Remember, we're talking about all the players in their primes.

Hakeem & Lebron would start getting really good after maybe 4 years or so, and they would be contenders for a decade, and I imagine with that much talent they would definitely win 2-3 rings at least. They would also have a long stretch of being good. Think the Chauncey Billups Pistons.

Shaq & Wade will probably have the best peak, they would probably constantly get bounced in the first round the first couple years and fade into obscurity in their late years. However, they will have a median of 2-5 years where they will absolutely dominate the playoffs 01 Lakers style and win a couple chips.

Duncan & Kobe would become elite contenders earlier than all the other 2 duos, they wouldn't have the best peak, they wouldn't have a 01 Lakers playoff run, but they would be consistently on top for about a decade or more. They probably win 3-5 rings.

[jlauber]

Remember, we're talking about all the players in their primes.

Hakeem & Lebron would start getting really good after maybe 4 years or so, and they would be contenders for a decade, and I imagine with that much talent they would definitely win 2-3 rings at least. They would also have a long stretch of being good. Think the Chauncey Billups Pistons.

Shaq & Wade will probably have the best peak, they would probably constantly get bounced in the first round the first couple years and fade into obscurity in their late years. However, they will have a median of 2-5 years where they will absolutely dominate the playoffs 01 Lakers style and win a couple chips.

Duncan & Kobe would become elite contenders earlier than all the other 2 duos, they wouldn't have the best peak, they wouldn't have a 01 Lakers playoff run, but they would be consistently on top for about a decade or more. They probably win 3-5 rings.

I don't get it. For some reason fans seem to think that Shaq had a relatively short "peak." Take a closer look, PLEASE. The man was a stud the day he stepped on the court. He was a Top-5 player in the league from Day1 thru 2005, or so. And I would argue that he was the BEST player in the league from '98 to '04. Aside from Moses from '79 thru '85, and Chamberlain in the entire decade of the 60's, no other center so thoroughly outplayed their peers.

[Punpun]

There is that guy named KAJ.

[jlauber]

There is that guy named KAJ.

Kareem had a long and great career. But, he simply did not dominate ALL of his peers to the extent that a peak Moses, Shaq, and Chamberlain did, even at his very best. Hell, Nate Thurmond, who is a relative unknown here, reduced him to just awful shooting percentages. And later, Moses outplayed him in the vast majority of their H2H's, and just CRUSHED him in many. And from I have gathered, even Gilmore played him about even.

[Punpun]

Nobody dominated as much as Shaq. Go away with your weak comparisons.

[jlauber]

Nobody dominated as much as Shaq. Go away with your weak comparisons.

Do some REAL RESEARCH and get back to me...

[Punpun]

How can I come back at you when I made you go away searching true comparisons.

[Punpun]

Oh ****, I just realized, you are flirting with me.

:yaohappy:

[ShaqAttack3234]

Remember, we're talking about all the players in their primes.

Hakeem & Lebron would start getting really good after maybe 4 years or so, and they would be contenders for a decade, and I imagine with that much talent they would definitely win 2-3 rings at least. They would also have a long stretch of being good. Think the Chauncey Billups Pistons.

Shaq & Wade will probably have the best peak, they would probably constantly get bounced in the first round the first couple years and fade into obscurity in their late years. However, they will have a median of 2-5 years where they will absolutely dominate the playoffs 01 Lakers style and win a couple chips.

Duncan & Kobe would become elite contenders earlier than all the other 2 duos, they wouldn't have the best peak, they wouldn't have a 01 Lakers playoff run, but they would be consistently on top for about a decade or more. They probably win 3-5 rings.

Well, I don't think the OP was just talking about their primes because he was talking about building a franchise around them. For their primes I'm taking Shaq and Wade, but I'm building around Duncan and Kobe because of Wade's lack of longevity.

I don't think Duncan and Kobe become elite earlier than the others because Kobe was the only player out of the 3 that didn't become an all-star caliber player until his 3rd season, and not a borderline top 10 player until his 4th season or a legit superstar until his 5th. But I do think they remain contenders for the longest, just not the earliest.


I don't get it. For some reason fans seem to think that Shaq had a relatively short "peak." Take a closer look, PLEASE. The man was a stud the day he stepped on the court. He was a Top-5 player in the league from Day1 thru 2005, or so. And I would argue that he was the BEST player in the league from '98 to '04.

Well, Shaq did have a normal length prime from about '98-'02 or '03 and he was elite for a much longer time.

But he wasn't top 5 as a rookie, he was quite raw, but still physically dominant. He was probably a top 10 player as a rookie, though. He was still very raw in '94, but I'd say he was probably top 5 by that point, some would say top 3 and definitely remained one through '05. By '95, he was the second best player in the league, imo and top 3 a decade later in '05.

[jlauber]

How can I come back at you when I made you go away searching true comparisons.

How about this...

A PRIME Chamberlain had an ENTIRE season, of NINE H2H's, and against HOFer Willis Reed, in which he AVERAGED 40.1 ppg. Included were games in which he oustcored Reed by margins of 41-8, 52-23, and 58-28. And in the many career H2H's that I could find, I could only find two in which Reed outrebounded Wilt (one by a 19-18 margin.)

How about against Thurmond? Remember now, Kareem faced Thurmond in 43 career H2H starts (and Thurmond was nearly done in the last two seasons), and yet, Abdul Jabbar could only put up SEVEN games of 30+, with a HIGH of 34 (and he also had SEVEN below 20 BTW.) A PRIME "scoring" Wilt only played from '60 to '66, so he only faced Thurmond in a small amount of games, BUT, from his last game in the '65 season, thru nine H2H's in the '66 season, and even their first encounter in the '67 season...covering 11 straight games, Chamberlain averaged 30 ppg. Included in those 11 games, were games of 30, 33, 34, 34, 38, and 45 points (and he outscored Nate by margins of 33-17, 33-10, 38-15, and 45-13 in them.)

Not only that, but Kareem battled Thurmond in three straight playoff series from '71 thru '73, and shot .486, .428, and even .405 in them. Chamberlain also faced Nate in three playoff series, and outshot Thurmond by margins of .500 to .392; .550 to .398; and in the '67 Finals, by a staggering .560 to .343 margin.

Russell? The two battled 142 times, and in them, Chamberlain held a 92-42-8 rebounding margin, and outscored him in 132 of those 142 games. MANY bu HUGE margins. I could go on for hours, but real quickly...24 games of 40+ points (including 17 40-30 games, and even a 44-43 game); FIVE games of 50+ (including a 50-35 playoff game); and a high game of 62 (on 27-45 shooting.) Russell had three games of 30+ against Wilt (with a high of 37), and Chamberlain outscored him in all three.

Chamberlain had ENTIRE SEASONS (with between 9-11 H2H games) of 38, 40, and 38 ppg against Russell.

Chamberlain also had some staggering games, seasons, and post-seasons against Russell in the rebounding department. Wilt held a 7-1 H2H edge in 40+ rebound games (Russell's high was an even 40), including one game in which Wilt outrebounded Russell by a 55-19 margin. And Wilt held a 23-4 edge in their H2H's, in 35+ rebounding games.

And in the known H2H's, Wilt generally outshot Russell by solid margins (as much as .556 to .358 in the post-season, too.)

How about 6-11 HOFer Walt Bellamy, (who would measure at 7-0 today)? Think about this... the two went at 20 straight times in their 61-62 and 62-63 seasons, and Chamberlain averaged 48.2 ppg against Bellamy in those 20 games (including 52.7 ppg on .500 shooting...in a league that shot .426...in 61-62.)

Even in the mid-60's Wilt was just ABUSING Thurmond, Bellamy, and Russell. How about their 65-66 season?

He faced Thurmond in nine H2H games, and outscored him 8-1 (including margins of 26-9, 33-17, 33-10, 38-15 and 45-13.)

He faced Bellamy in 10 games, and outscored him 8-1-1 in those ten games. Included were margins of 34-19, 37-22, 38-23, and 50-26.

Chamberlain also faced Russell in 14 total games in the 65-66 season (nine regular season, and five more in the playoffs.) He outscored Russell, 13-1 in those 14 games, including margins of 31-11, 31-11, 27-6, 32-8, 30-5, 29-3, and 46-18. And he outrebounded Russell, 10-4, including margins of 30-20, 32-22, 32-18, 36-20, 42-25, 30-10, and 40-17.

And how about Chamberlain against Russell in the 64-65 ECF's?

Thanks to Julizaver...


Game 1 - 04.04.1965 - Boston win

Chamberlain 48 min 33 points (13-22 FG and 7/12 FT) 31 rebs, 3 assists
Russell 48 min 11 points (5-13 FG and 1/5 FT) 32 rebounds, 6 assists

Game 2 - 06.04.1965 - Phila win

Chamberlain 48 min 30 points (12-19 FG and 6/9 FT) 39 rebs, 8 assists, 8 blocks
Russell 48 min 12 points (5-12 FG and 2/3 FT) 16 rebounds, 5 assists, 5 blocks

Game 3 - 08.04.1965 - Boston win

Chamberlain 48 min 24 points (7-21 FG and 10/15 FT) 37 rebs, 1 assist, 1 steal
Russell 48 min 19 points (9-17 FG and 1/4 FT) 26 rebounds, 8 assists, 3 steals

Game 4 - 09.04.1965 - Phila win

Chamberlain 53 min 34 points (11-24 FG and 12/20 FT) 34 rebs, 3 assists
Russell 52 min 18 points (8-19 FG and 2/7 FT) 25 rebounds

Game 5 - 11.04.1965 - Boston win

Chamberlain 30 points (13-23 FG and 4/8 FT) 21 rebs, 2 assists, 2 blocks
Russell 12 points (4-7 FG and 4/5 FT) 28 rebounds, 7 assists, 12 blocks, 3 steals

Game 6 - 13.04.1965 - Phila win

Chamberlain 48 min 30 points (13-22 FG and 4/8 FT) 26 rebs, 4 assists, 6 blocks *at least
Russell 22 points (8-19 FG and 6/10 FT) 21 rebounds, 5 assists

Game 7 - 15.04.1965 - Boston win

Chamberlain 48 min 30 points (12-15 FG and 6/13 FT) 32 rebs, 2 assists, 1 block
Russell 15 points (7-16 FG and 1/2 FT) 29 rebounds, 8 assists, 6 blocks


The series averages:

W. Chamberlain - 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, 3.3 apg 55.48 FG % and 58.33 FT%
B. Russell - 15.6 ppg, 25.3 rpg, 6.5* apg 44.67 FG % and 47.22 FT %

* no data available for Game 4, so averages for 6 games

[Punpun]

Yep, you only proved that Shaq is way more dominating than Chamberlain, russell, Kaj, thurmond, moses, Bellamy. Your point being ?

[jlauber]

Yep, you only proved that Shaq is way more dominating than Chamberlain, russell, Kaj, thurmond, moses, Bellamy. Your point being ?

Hmmm...care to explain that to me?

I clearly showed that a PRIME Moses dominated HIS peers; and a PRIME Chamberlain (for an entire decade BTW) dominated HIS peers.

How does that "prove" that Shaq was MORE dominating?

[jlauber]

Well, I don't think the OP was just talking about their primes because he was talking about building a franchise around them. For their primes I'm taking Shaq and Wade, but I'm building around Duncan and Kobe because of Wade's lack of longevity.

I don't think Duncan and Kobe become elite earlier than the others because Kobe was the only player out of the 3 that didn't become an all-star caliber player until his 3rd season, and not a borderline top 10 player until his 4th season or a legit superstar until his 5th. But I do think they remain contenders for the longest, just not the earliest.



Well, Shaq did have a normal length prime from about '98-'02 or '03 and he was elite for a much longer time.

But he wasn't top 5 as a rookie, he was quite raw, but still physically dominant. He was probably a top 10 player as a rookie, though. He was still very raw in '94, but I'd say he was probably top 5 by that point, some would say top 3 and definitely remained one through '05. By '95, he was the second best player in the league, imo and top 3 a decade later in '05.


Well, by Shaq's SECOND season (93-94), he was averaging 29.3 ppg, 13.2 rpg, and on .599 shooting. It was arguably his greatest statistical season.

And we both know that no other player, post-Wilt, ever commanded the double and triple teams that Shaq faced for most of his career.

I remember the famous "Hack-A-Shaq" series that he faced in his 2000 post-season. While most might think it was some kind of defensive strategy, I really believe that opposing coach's were just "throwing in the towel." They knew that they had no chance to stop him, so might as well limit him to one point on each possession, instead of two.

I honestly think a PRIME Shaq, and that includes from '93-94 thru say '04-05, was either among the top-5, or the BEST player in the league. And at his peak...and here again, that could entail separate seasons, such as '94, '95, '98, '99, '00, and '01...he was among the most dominant to have ever played the game.

In any case, it is pure nonsense to label Shaq as having a short peak. Even among the greatest who have ever played the game, Shaq had many seasons from '94 thru '05 that were as great as they had at their absolute peaks.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Well, by Shaq's SECOND season (93-94), he was averaging 29.3 ppg, 13.2 rpg, and on .599 shooting. It was arguably his greatest statistical season.

Well, his '00 and '01 seasons were better statistically, and the game was also more up tempo in '94. Plus most of his prime was spent in the triangle, adjusting his game to the system. But numbers aren't the best way to judge players of Shaq's caliber anyway because guys like that can score much more than they do if they're focusing on scoring a lot rather than winning titles. For example, Shaq averaged 36 ppg over his final 20 games in the 1999-2000 season.

Regardless of numbers, Shaq's '94 season definitely wasn't even one of his own 5 best.

He was a better player than he was in '94 from '95 through at least '03, possibly '05 because even though he lost athleticism, he had become much smarter and more skilled compared to '94.


I honestly think a PRIME Shaq, and that includes from '93-94 thru say '04-05, was either among the top-5, or the BEST player in the league. And at his peak...and here again, that could entail separate seasons, such as '94, '95, '98, '99, '00, and '01...he was among the most dominant to have ever played the game.

'94 definitely wasn't prime Shaq, and he was definitely a bit past his prime by '05, even though he remained one of the 3 best players in the game.

Shaq's prime would be about '98-'02, possibly '03.

His extended prime, when he was relatively close to '98-'02 or '03 would be '95-'03.


In any case, it is pure nonsense to label Shaq as having a short peak. Even among the greatest who have ever played the game, Shaq had many seasons from '94 thru '05 that were as great as they had at their absolute peaks.

Well, peak itself is a short period when a player was at his absolute best, which was 2000 for Shaq(he was still at that level in '01 as well). but I get the point you're making which is that Shaq didn't lack longevity and he actually compares favorably to most greats in that regard.

[jlauber]

Well, his '00 and '01 seasons were better statistically, and the game was also more up tempo in '94.

Regardless of numbers, Shaq's '94 season definitely wasn't even one of his own 5 best.

He was a better player than he was in '94 from '95 through at least '03, possibly '05 because even though he lost athleticism, he had become much smarter and more skilled compared to '94.



'94 definitely wasn't prime Shaq, and he was definitely a bit past his prime by '05, even though he remained one of the 3 best players in the game.

Shaq's prime would be about '98-'02, possibly '03.

His extended prime, when he was relatively close to '98-'02 or '03 would be '95-'03.



Well, peak itself is a short period when a player was at his absolute best, which was 2000 for Shaq(he was still at that level in '01 as well). but I get the point you're making which is that Shaq didn't lack longevity and he actually compares favorably to most greats in that regard.

Obviously, Shaq became more skilled as the seasons went by. The same can be said for virtually any all-time great. But I do find it fascinating the in many cases, players hit their "statistical primes" very early on. Kareem's came in his 2nd and 3rd seasons (his 2nd seasons numbers were less because he only played 40 mpg, compared to 44 mpg in '72.)

And it seems to follow suit with centers, more than other positions. Shaq's best statistical season may have been in his second season. Chamberlain's is a little tougher. He was actually MORE skilled early on, at least with more range. MJ's best statistical seasons were early in his career, as well.

Of course, you can find players who became better later...like Magic, Bird, and Hakeem. But even in their cases, the numbers didn't go up dramatically (and they usually involve a decline in other areas, too.) Magic put up some HUGE seasons, in terms of FG%, in the early to mid-80's.

And, I have also noticed that the all-time great rebounders, tend to have their best seasons very early in their careers, as well.

Having said that, most all-time greats tend to shoot on more efficiency later in their careers, too. But, that is usually accompanied by far less attempts, as well.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Obviously, Shaq became more skilled as the seasons went by. The same can be said for virtually any all-time great. But I do find it fascinating the in many cases, players hit their "statistical primes" very early on. Kareem's came in his 2nd and 3rd seasons (his 2nd seasons numbers were less because he only played 40 mpg, compared to 44 mpg in '72.)

And it seems to follow suit with centers, more than other positions. Shaq's best statistical season may have been in his second season. Chamberlain's is a little tougher. He was actually MORE skilled early on, at least with more range. MJ's best statistical seasons were early in his career, as well.

Of course, you can find players who became better later...like Magic, Bird, and Hakeem. But even in their cases, the numbers didn't go up dramatically (and they usually involve a decline in other areas, too.) Magic put up some HUGE seasons, in terms of FG%, in the early to mid-80's.

And, I have also noticed that the all-time great rebounders, tend to have their best seasons very early in their careers, as well.

Having said that, most all-time greats tend to shoot on more efficiency later in their careers, too. But, that is usually accompanied by far less attempts, as well.

Well, sometimes players put up big numbers early because they're on worse teams than later.

Either way, Shaq's 2000 season was also his best statistically. Career high in scoring, second highest rebounding season, career high in assists, and his second highest block season.

Jordan's 3 best statistical seasons were from '88-'90. I'd say his true prime started in the '89 season. The following year Phil took over and implemented the triangle which lowered his all around numbers slightly from the ball dominant role Doug Collins had him in, going from 33/8/8 to 34/7/6. Pretty similar numbers despite Jordan playing more off the ball in the triangle, while he played point guard for the last 24 games of the regular season and the playoffs in '89.

Jordan's 3 best years overall, not going by statistics, but level of play were '90-'92. His numbers dropped a little in '91 because the coaches made a real effort to get him some more rest that year, though he did start looking for his shot more early in games because of that. His numbers continued to drop in '92 because his team was much better than 2 or 3 years earlier with Pippen joining the NBA's elite and Horace Grant also improving noticeably.

Players usually enter their primes in their mid 20's, and they usually seem to peak at 27 or 28, sometimes a year or 2 out of that range either way. And most player's primes end around 30 or 31, but there are some exceptions like Malone, Hakeem and Kareem.

[Umad101]

Teams would still double Hakeem. They just wouldn't double off of Lebron.

And those 2 players are good enough to be dangerous, but I just don't think it's as natural of a fit as the other 2. Both other two duos can play their games without being limited while playing together, but Lebron and Hakeem seem less natural to me. I don't see Duncan/Kobe and Shaq/Wade having to make any real adjustments to their game while playing together.

So I have to rank that duo 3rd in this hypothetical.

Man I *** everytime this guy post, easily the best poster on here

[arifgokcen]

I would go with hakeem/lebron.Just too good to pass up.Even though shaq is the most dominant player of that group,lebron/hakeem duo is just too good offensively and defensively.Both of them are one of the best defensive and offensive players of their respective positions.

Without a doubt Hakeem/Lebron

[jlauber]

Man I *** everytime this guy post, easily the best poster on here

I agree.
:cheers: