Tim Duncan vs Shaq vs Hakeem - Who is ranked higher all time? [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

LAZERUSS

06-30-2014, 11:13 PM

Hakeem > Duncan > Shaq

+1000 blocks more than shaq with one season less

In The Hakeem Olajuwon vs. Shaquille O'Neal Debate, The Dream Remains Unbeatable
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=250889

:roll: :roll: :roll:

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

BTW, look at their H2H block averages in the post-season.

Shaq just OWNED Hakeem...INCLUDING the '95 Finals. No other "great" had his teammates more thoroughly dominant their counterparts than Hakeem's did in '95. Hell, Hakeem's teammates badly outshot HIM. Meanwhile, Shaq crushed Hakeem, especially H2H in that series.

And take it from someone who actually took the time to break those H2H's down.

Colts18...

I decided to rewatch the 1995 finals and chart each possession to see to how effective Shaq and Hakeem were on the court. A special shout out to Jordanbulls for providing the video of this series

Total:
Hakeem: 253 touches, 140 doubles (55.3%)
Shaq: 221 touches, 146 doubles (66.1%)

Here are their stats when they were guarded by each other:
Shaq 32-57 (56.1 FG%), 6-8 FT, 67.3 double teamed%, .578 TS%, 17 assists, 1 O-reb allowed to Hakeem
Hakeem: 31-75 (41.3 FG%), 9-13 FT, 60.2 double teamed%, .446 TS%, 8 assists, 3 O-reb allowed to Shaq

Shaq blocked 2 Hakeem shots, Hakeem blocked 0 Shaq shots. Hakeem did make a 3P on Shaq. Hakeem guarded Shaq on 73.3% of the touches he had, while Shaq guarded Hakeem on 69.6% of his touches. Hakeem got a lot more fastbreak touches than Shaq so in the halfcourt, they guarded each other about even.

When they weren't being guarded by each other, Shaq was being guarded by Charles Jones and Hakeem by Horace Grant.

Shaq vs Jones: 7-11 FG (63.6 FG%), 35 doubles in 52 touches (67.3%), 2 assists
Hakeem vs Grant: 13-24 (54.2 FG%), 33 double teams in 58 touches (56.9%), 6 assists

Jump shots:
Hakeem: 27-62 (43.5%)
Shaq: 2-7 (28.6%)

The vast majority of Shaq's shots were close range hooks.

Dunks:
Hakeem: 1 dunk (vs grant)
Shaq: 9 dunks (2 of them were in Hakeem's face)

Fouls drawn on offense:
Shaq: 37 (17 on Hakeem)
Hakeem: 21 (9 on Shaq)

Hakeem did draw 4 Shaq charges.

Shaq was called for 5 travels, Hakeem 2.

Plus/Minus (Houston outscored Orlando by 28 points total):
On court:
Shaq: -12 in 180 minutes
Hakeem: +17 in 179 minutes

Off court:
Shaq: -16 in 16:37 of action (Houston scored 133 points per 48 in the minutes Shaq missed)
Hakeem: +11 in 17:11 of action (134 points per 48 in the minutes he was off the court)

Interestingly enough, in 2 of the games, the Magic outscored the Rockets when Shaq was on the court. The magic were -8 in about 9 minutes of action without Shaq in game (lost by just 2 points). In game 3, they were -4 in the minutes Shaq missed in a game where they lost by 3 points. In game 1, the Rockets outscored the magic by 9 in the minutes Hakeem missed, but they were outscored by a combined 4 points in games 3 and 4 without Hakeem.

Observations:
-Orlando was for some reason really committed to doubling Hakeem in game 1. They were throwing a lot of hard doubles. Hakeem had 5 assists in that game, all of them 3 pointers, 4 came off of doubles (one was a triple team). I'm guessing it was a response to Hakeem's series vs Robinson. For the rest of the series, Orlando didn't double Hakeem as much and they threw softer doubles.

-Hakeem made like 5 or 6 baskets in transition to Shaq's 1 or so. So while Shaq didn't get credit for giving up those buckets since he didn't guard, a few of those times Shaq was slow in transition. Shaq got about 3 or shots

-One of the commentators compared Horry to Scottie Pippen and Walton took the comment seriously. They are vastly different players IMO

-I'm not sure why Penny wasn't more aggressive. Kenny Smith couldn't guard him at all. When Penny did drive to the basket, he made a few shots over Hakeem.

-Drexler was the man in this series. He really wanted to get his first title badly. For some reason, people rarely talk about him despite him getting more WS than Hakeem in that playoff run

-It's fashionable these days to **** on Hakeem's cast in 94, but this cast was much better than that one. The guards outplayed Orlando's guards. Horry played really well. The 3P shooters benefited a lot from the shortened 3P line.

-Contrary to popular belief, handchecking wasn't allowed in 95. The refs called like 2 handchecking fouls in this series

-I'm so thankful the NBA got rid of the illegal defense. The refs called like 5 of them in each game. It destroyed the flow of the game and limited the ways you could double team a player.

Oh, and while the Hakeem-lovers will gladly point out the '95 Finals (against a 22 year old Shaq), they will NEVER bring up their '99 playoff series, when a prime Shaq just destroyed a helpless Hakeem.

unbreakable

06-30-2014, 11:16 PM

LAZERUSS

06-30-2014, 11:21 PM

Hakeem one of the most overrated players ever... won chips only when MJ retired and already the most watered down league in nba history..

hakeem also missed the playoffs a couple times and not a good man2man defender despite how many blocks he had on little guys, he would routinely get lit up by opposing powerforwards

TIMMY > SHAQ >>>>>>> DREAM

Hell, a 38-39 year old Kareem, who could barely jump over a match-stick, had TEN STRAIGHT games against Hakeem in which he averaged 32 ppg on...get this... a .621 FG%. Included were THREE games of 40, 43, and 46 (and on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes.) A prime Kareem would have routinely dumped 60+ on him.

jayfan

06-30-2014, 11:21 PM

Robert Horry played with all 3. Played with Hakeem and Shaq in both of their primes. I'd say he's a pretty good source for the question. He says Hakeem is the greatest.

Next?

unbreakable

06-30-2014, 11:23 PM

Hell, a 38-39 year old Kareem, who could barely jump over a match-stick, had TEN STRAIGHT games against Hakeem in which he averaged 32 ppg on...get this... a .621 FG%. Included were THREE games of 40, 43, and 46 (and on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes.) A prime Kareem would have routinely dumped 60+ on him.

Kareem would murder Hakeem..

I have a feeling Shaq would murder Kareem tho... and Kareem/Duncan would be a tie :cheers:

Cold soul

06-30-2014, 11:46 PM

As players:
Shaq
Hakeem
Duncan

As far as careers go:
Duncan
Shaq
Hakeem

houston

07-01-2014, 12:40 AM

TheCorporation

07-01-2014, 12:52 AM

Shaq
Duncan
Hakeem

This

Only 2 players have 3-peated, winning Finals MVP each year, in NBA history:

Michael Jeffrey Jordan and Shaquille Rashaun O'Neal

Hands of Iron

07-01-2014, 01:26 AM

This

Only 2 players have 3-peated, winning Finals MVP each year, in NBA history:

Michael Jeffrey Jordan and Shaquille Rashaun O'Neal

He also probably should've joined Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain and Larry Bird as the only players to win three consecutive NBA MVP's over that same time span. 1 MVP looks absurd on his resume, honestly. Duncan wasn't a half bad choice for 2002 though, Shaq started slipping a bit defensively as compared to 2000/2001 when he fully earned those All-D selections with his far more concentrated effort where rim protection, post defense and help defense were concerned. Had some nagging injuries as well. Shaq was still the best player in the L over his 3-peat for me, he did enough. Grateful to witness and remember it.

Big#50

07-01-2014, 01:37 AM

He also probably should've joined Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain and Larry Bird as the only players to win three consecutive NBA MVP's over that same time span. 1 MVP looks absurd on his resume, honestly. Duncan wasn't a half bad choice for 2002 though, Shaq started slipping a bit defensively as compared to 2000/2001 when he fully earned those All-D selections with his far more concentrated effort where rim protection, post defense and help defense were concerned. Had some nagging injuries as well. Shaq was still the best player in the L over his 3-peat for me, he did enough. Grateful to witness and remember it.
Shaq had Kobe at the peak of his athleticism. Kobe was basically equal to Shaq after their first ring. Shaq's peak is overrated.

Hands of Iron

07-01-2014, 01:51 AM

Shaq had Kobe at the peak of his athleticism. Kobe was basically equal to Shaq after their first ring. Shaq's peak is overrated.

Equal in terms of what, volume scoring? He wasn't anywhere near as destructive or efficient, didn't possess nearly the same impact on the glass, didn't draw nearly the same amount of attention, didn't have nearly the same level of impact defensively. A lot of that is positionally designated, but ultimately that means nothing. It's why so many BIGS occupy the Top 10. Ohhh better passer, as it that were some area in which Kobe was amongst the league's best. Like he were Bird-esque there. Yeah, no. Fvck no.

Kobe was definitely an elite player by 2001, he did his part. Shaq was the NBA's best player.

Having each other seems like some two-way street to shit on both these days. I bet you haven't brought up Shaquille O'Neal in Duncan/Kobe debates, right?

Round Mound

07-01-2014, 02:14 AM

As players:
Shaq
Hakeem
Duncan

As far as careers go:
Duncan
Shaq
Hakeem

This.

jayfan

07-04-2014, 11:54 AM

Robert Horry played with all 3. Played with Hakeem and Shaq in both of their primes. I'd say he's a pretty good source for the question. He says Hakeem is the greatest.

Next?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n_-9Z2LF4fI

:confusedshrug:

Harison

07-04-2014, 11:59 AM

Top7: Hakeem
Top8: Shaq
Top9: Duncan

LAZERUSS

07-04-2014, 12:05 PM

Top7: Hakeem
Top8: Shaq
Top9: Duncan

And yet Shaq just crushed Hakeem H2H, was a much greater winner, and was much dominant his entire career.

Duncan's career resume blows Hakeem's away, as well.

Hakeem is no longer even a Top-10 player. Lebron blew by him last year.

r0drig0lac

07-04-2014, 12:05 PM

mj is not retiring after the first 3 peat, it would never be even a debate, Timmy was equal (being better for longer times) with prime Shaq. timmy> shaq> hakeem is the correct answer

LAZERUSS

07-04-2014, 12:08 PM

mj is not retiring after the first 3 peat, it would never be even a debate, Timmy was equal (being better for longer times) with prime Shaq. timmy> shaq> hakeem is the correct answer

I really don't care which you rank higher, Duncan or Shaq (Shaq was a more dominant peak player, while Duncan perhaps has had a better career), but...

Timmy=Shaq >>>>>>>>>>>> Hakeem.

jayfan

07-04-2014, 12:17 PM

I really don't care which you rank higher, Duncan or Shaq (Shaq was a more dominant peak player, while Duncan perhaps has had a better career), but...

Timmy=Shaq >>>>>>>>>>>> Hakeem.

Lets see... Lazeruss or Robert Horry?

It's close, but I think Horry may be a tad more qualified (and a tad more objective) to answer the question.

JellyBean

07-04-2014, 12:29 PM

I have:

1st:Shaq
2nd:Timmy
3rd:Hakeem

LAZERUSS

07-04-2014, 12:30 PM

Lets see... Lazeruss or Robert Horry?

It's close, but I think Horry may be a tad more qualified (and a tad more objective) to answer the question.

Obviously he wasn't.

Next...

NumberSix

07-04-2014, 12:32 PM

Shaq
Hakeem
Duncan

T_L_P

07-04-2014, 01:19 PM

If I were asked who I'd build a team around, it'd go:

Duncan
Hakeem
Shaq

If it's purely accolades:

Duncan
Shaq
Hakeem

Nowitness

07-04-2014, 01:20 PM

Shaq out of the 3.

But why didn't you include KG, he'd be top.

mehyaM24

07-04-2014, 01:24 PM

If I were asked who I'd build a team around, it'd go:

Duncan
Hakeem
Shaq

If it's purely accolades:

Duncan
Shaq
Hakeem

except nobody asked who you would "build around"

you're a confirmed duncan stan

who people in REALITY would build around:
-shaq
-hakeem
-duncan

careers:
-shaq
-duncan
-hakeem

Nowitness

07-04-2014, 01:27 PM

If I were asked who I'd build a team around, it'd go:

Duncan
Hakeem
Shaq

If it's purely accolades:

Duncan
Shaq
Hakeem

You do realize Duncan has been posterized more than any other great. Hakeem was dunked on once by KJ, Shaq never and Duncan I can name like 50. How does it feel?

LAZERUSS

07-04-2014, 01:27 PM

If you want to WIN...

Duncan, Shaq............

Hakeem.

T_L_P

07-04-2014, 01:30 PM

except nobody asked who you would "build around"

you're a confirmed duncan stan

who people in REALITY would build around:
-shaq
-hakeem
-duncan

careers:
-shaq
-duncan
-hakeem

Generally speaking, who you'd build around are the best players.

But you're not building around Shaq before Duncan. Too much of a head case, will probably leave your franchise, only won once without another top 5 player in the league (Duncan never got to play with one, and it's a lot easier to find great role players).

As for accolades/careers, Duncan has one more ring, one more MVP, one less All-Star appearance, same number of All-NBA teams, and 11 more All-Defensive teams.

I might be a Duncan stan, but at least I can back up exactly what I say.

Real14

07-04-2014, 01:35 PM

Shaq iz above them two lamez.

LAZERUSS

07-04-2014, 01:38 PM

If you want to lose in the First Round...

Hakeem, and by a MILE.

juju151111

07-04-2014, 01:39 PM

If you want to lose in the First Round...

Hakeem, and by a MILE.
Hakeem has the same amount of rings has Wilt.:applause:

Nowitness

07-04-2014, 01:44 PM

Hakeem has the same amount of rings has Wilt.:applause:

Wilton, the man who averaged 8 less PPG in the playoffs v weak white men,

mehyaM24

07-04-2014, 01:45 PM

Generally speaking, who you'd build around are the best players.

But you're not building around Shaq before Duncan. Too much of a head case, will probably leave your franchise, only won once without another top 5 player in the league (Duncan never got to play with one, and it's a lot easier to find great role players).

duncan needed stacked teams to win his rings. shaq won his first with kobe practically missing 2 games in the finals and shooting 30% from the field.

duncan also may have not played with a top 5 player, but made up for that by playing with more HOFers and a better coach.

As for accolades/careers, Duncan has one more ring, one more MVP one less All-Star appearance, same number of All-NBA teams, and 11 more All-Defensive teams.

better teammates, but worse finals performer. shaq never had a meltdown in the finals like duncan had in game 7 (missing point blank layups and all).

shaq also has better stats, more win shares (in his peak), better offensive rating (peak/prime) and a better player efficiency rating (in his prime/peak).

thing is, kobe cost the lakers a finals and nearly another with his horrendous play he also cost shaq another finals mvp. shaq has always been better, was just never fortunate to play with high iq teammates like duncan did/does.

LAZERUSS

07-04-2014, 01:46 PM

Hakeem has the same amount of rings has Wilt.:applause:

And one of them came in a season in which the best player in the league took the year off, and that 55-27 Bulls team still lost a close seven series against the 56-26 Knicks, who would lose a close seven game series against the 58-24 Rockets (they actually outscored Houston as well.) Oh, and Hakeem did not face ONE legitimate center in his first three rounds of the playoffs, and his tea barely beat a Knicks team that had no more talent that they had.

And in the '95 Finals, Hakeem's TEAMMATES just SHELLED Shaq's. In fact, Hakeem's TEAMMATES considerably outshot Hakeem in terms of eFG% (and Hakeem was BELOW the post-season league average BTW), and dramatically outshot Hakeem in terms of TS% (as did Shaq...who just brutalized Hakeem in that series.)

In terms of TEAM success, Wilt just BLOWS Hakeem away. Wilt went 12 Conference Finals (Hakeem to FOUR), and Chamberlain went to SIX Finals (Hakeem to THREE.) Wilt played on FOUR teams that won 60+ games, including TWO that went 68-13 and 69-13 (and won 33 straight), while Hakeem played on ZERO. And while Wilt lost ONCE in the First Round, Hakeem folded his tent in EIGHT of them (FIVE in blowout losses.)

jayfan

07-04-2014, 01:47 PM

The most talented basketball player:

1. Hakeem

2. Duncan/Shaq
3. Shaq/Duncan

LAZERUSS

07-04-2014, 01:49 PM

The most talented basketball player:

1. Hakeem

2. Duncan/Shaq
3. Shaq/Duncan

:roll: :roll: :roll:

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

jayfan

07-04-2014, 01:51 PM

:roll: :roll: :roll:

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

I don't need basketball reference. I saw them play.

LAZERUSS

07-04-2014, 01:52 PM

I don't need basketball reference. I saw them play.

You must have been wearing pitch-black sunglasses my friend...

Shaq OWNED Hakeem. The stats do NOT lie.

LAZERUSS

07-04-2014, 01:54 PM

Hakeem has no business being mentioned in the same breath as Shaq and Duncan.

His resume is probably not as great as Moses'.

jayfan

07-04-2014, 01:59 PM

You must have been wearing pitch-black sunglasses my friend...

Shaq OWNED Hakeem. The stats do NOT lie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_By2-Z3tOms

Again... :confusedshrug:

Nowitness

07-04-2014, 02:00 PM

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_By2-Z3tOms

Again... :confusedshrug:

I guess James Worthy is a top player cause MJ put him in his starting 5.

Shaq knows nothing, prolly the worse pundit on TV.

KNOW1EDGE

07-04-2014, 02:01 PM

Hakeem. Duncan. Shaq.

Shaquille was honestly not a very fundamentally great basketball player, but rather a huge athletic freak who could dominate the post.

Duncan and Hakeem were good basketball players. They could make free throws. They had footwork, could pass etc.

Just my opinion feel free to flame on

bdreason

07-04-2014, 02:02 PM

Career - Duncan, Shaq, Hakeem

Pure talent/skills - Hakeem, Duncan, Shaq

Game domination - Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan

T_L_P

07-04-2014, 02:03 PM

duncan needed stacked teams to win his rings. shaq won his first with kobe practically missing 2 games in the finals and shooting 30% from the field.

duncan also may have not played with a top 5 player, but made up for that by playing with more HOFers and a better coach.

better teammates, but worse finals performer. shaq never had a meltdown in the finals like duncan had in game 7 (missing point blank layups and all).

shaq also has better stats, more win shares (in his peak), better offensive rating (peak/prime) and a better player efficiency rating (in his prime/peak).

thing is, kobe cost the lakers a finals and nearly another with his horrendous play he also cost shaq another finals mvp. shaq has always been better, was just never fortunate to play with high iq teammates like duncan did/does.

Aren't you the guy who said Duncan never had to carry a team because he always had a stacked cast, then I provided the stats and you flew away?

Anyway, I already spoke about 2000. One of the all time great title runs, especially when you consider he didn't have another superstar by his side (like he would in his next three).

The coaching thing is a wash. Some consider Phil the greatest, and some consider Pop the greatest.

Now let's get down to the teammates:

Shaq won four rings with Penny, Scott, Grant, Nick Anderson, Van Exel, Eddie Jones, Kobe, Wade, LeBron. Nash, Amare, Garnett, Pierce and Allen.

Duncan won five rings with Robinson, Derek Anderson, Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili, Bruce Bowen, Richard Jefferson and Kawhi Leonard.

Look at that disparity. :eek:

Shaq definitely didn't have the meltdown, but he had the worst overall Finals of the two (06, where his star had to have one of the greatest Finals performances ever to win).

Shaq has the stats, sure. Like I said, Shaq wins on stats and peak, but those need to be put into context, and when you factor in intangibles (ie defense, the part of the game where Duncan excels and Shaq doesn't), their impact is very similar.

I'm not saying it isn't Shaq. If you think so fine, but it's not an easy decision at all.

But :oldlol: at you talking about Shaq not being as fortunate as Duncan. The guy played with more superstars than anyone else has ever, and he still has less to show for it than Duncan. And superstars run this league.

jayfan

07-04-2014, 02:05 PM

I guess James Worthy is a top player cause MJ put him in his starting 5.

Shaq knows nothing, prolly the worse pundit on TV.

So Shaq isn't qualified to assess a player that he played against for years, but you are? :facepalm

juju151111

07-04-2014, 02:31 PM

And one of them came in a season in which the best player in the league took the year off, and that 55-27 Bulls team still lost a close seven series against the 56-26 Knicks, who would lose a close seven game series against the 58-24 Rockets (they actually outscored Houston as well.) Oh, and Hakeem did not face ONE legitimate center in his first three rounds of the playoffs, and his tea barely beat a Knicks team that had no more talent that they had.

And in the '95 Finals, Hakeem's TEAMMATES just SHELLED Shaq's. In fact, Hakeem's TEAMMATES considerably outshot Hakeem in terms of eFG% (and Hakeem was BELOW the post-season league average BTW), and dramatically outshot Hakeem in terms of TS% (as did Shaq...who just brutalized Hakeem in that series.)

In terms of TEAM success, Wilt just BLOWS Hakeem away. Wilt went 12 Conference Finals (Hakeem to FOUR), and Chamberlain went to SIX Finals (Hakeem to THREE.) Wilt played on FOUR teams that won 60+ games, including TWO that went 68-13 and 69-13 (and won 33 straight), while Hakeem played on ZERO. And while Wilt lost ONCE in the First Round, Hakeem folded his tent in EIGHT of them (FIVE in blowout losses.)
Hakeem dominated the whole 94 playoffs. Did matter who was guarding him. Even a all-time defense like the 94 Knicks couldn't stop him from destroying Patrick Ewing while dropping 27 ppg in one of Tuscany most physical series ever. In 95 Hakeem beat like 2 teams with better records and came back from down 3-1.

mehyaM24

07-04-2014, 02:31 PM

Aren't you the guy who said Duncan never had to carry a team because he always had a stacked cast, then I provided the stats and you flew away?

show stats that say duncan had to carry more than shaq in 2000.

i'll wait

The coaching thing is a wash. Some consider Phil the greatest, and some consider Pop the greatest.

nah pop is better. better with x's and o's and good at making supbar talent into HOFers.

duncan is the ultimate system player

]Now let's get down to the teammates:

Shaq won four rings with Penny, Scott, Grant, Nick Anderson, Van Exel, Eddie Jones, Kobe, Wade, LeBron. Nash, Amare, Garnett, Pierce and Allen.

lets look at HOFers they've won with:

shaq: kobe, wade, horry, payton(on his death bed)
duncan: parker, ginobili, david robinson, horry, bruce bowen and potentially leonard

...now look at that disparity. :eek:

Shaq definitely didn't have the meltdown, but he had the worst overall Finals of the two (06, where his star had to have one of the greatest Finals performances ever to win).

no he didnt. in shaq's "worst finals", he had a better defensive rating, higher shooting percentage, and assist percentage...

Shaq has the stats, sure. Like I said, Shaq wins on stats and peak

all that needs to be said

KNOW1EDGE

07-04-2014, 02:36 PM

Are we talking stats and championships?

Or basketball talent?

If we are talking pure basketball talent it is Hakeem, Duncan then Shaq.

Shaq is the most dominant player I have ever witnessed. But as far as basketball fundamentals go he was very bad

LAZERUSS

07-04-2014, 02:43 PM

Hakeem dominated the whole 94 playoffs. Did matter who was guarding him. Even a all-time defense like the 94 Knicks couldn't stop him from destroying Patrick Ewing while dropping 27 ppg in one of Tuscany most physical series ever. In 95 Hakeem beat like 2 teams with better records and came back from down 3-1.

He didn't face ONE LEGITIMATE starting CENTER in his first three rounds of the '94 playoffs, and while he outplayed Ewing, Shaq used to CRUSH him.

Hakeem's TEAMMATES carried him in the '95 Finals, and in a series in which Shaq just abused him.

The VERY knowledgeable Colts18...

I decided to rewatch the 1995 finals and chart each possession to see to how effective Shaq and Hakeem were on the court. A special shout out to Jordanbulls for providing the video of this series

Total:
Hakeem: 253 touches, 140 doubles (55.3%)
Shaq: 221 touches, 146 doubles (66.1%)

Here are their stats when they were guarded by each other:
Shaq 32-57 (56.1 FG%), 6-8 FT, 67.3 double teamed%, .578 TS%, 17 assists, 1 O-reb allowed to Hakeem
Hakeem: 31-75 (41.3 FG%), 9-13 FT, 60.2 double teamed%, .446 TS%, 8 assists, 3 O-reb allowed to Shaq

Shaq blocked 2 Hakeem shots, Hakeem blocked 0 Shaq shots. Hakeem did make a 3P on Shaq. Hakeem guarded Shaq on 73.3% of the touches he had, while Shaq guarded Hakeem on 69.6% of his touches. Hakeem got a lot more fastbreak touches than Shaq so in the halfcourt, they guarded each other about even.

When they weren't being guarded by each other, Shaq was being guarded by Charles Jones and Hakeem by Horace Grant.

Shaq vs Jones: 7-11 FG (63.6 FG%), 35 doubles in 52 touches (67.3%), 2 assists
Hakeem vs Grant: 13-24 (54.2 FG%), 33 double teams in 58 touches (56.9%), 6 assists

Jump shots:
Hakeem: 27-62 (43.5%)
Shaq: 2-7 (28.6%)

The vast majority of Shaq's shots were close range hooks.

Dunks:
Hakeem: 1 dunk (vs grant)
Shaq: 9 dunks (2 of them were in Hakeem's face)

Fouls drawn on offense:
Shaq: 37 (17 on Hakeem)
Hakeem: 21 (9 on Shaq)

Hakeem did draw 4 Shaq charges.

Shaq was called for 5 travels, Hakeem 2.

Plus/Minus (Houston outscored Orlando by 28 points total):
On court:
Shaq: -12 in 180 minutes
Hakeem: +17 in 179 minutes

Off court:
Shaq: -16 in 16:37 of action (Houston scored 133 points per 48 in the minutes Shaq missed)
Hakeem: +11 in 17:11 of action (134 points per 48 in the minutes he was off the court)

Interestingly enough, in 2 of the games, the Magic outscored the Rockets when Shaq was on the court. The magic were -8 in about 9 minutes of action without Shaq in game (lost by just 2 points). In game 3, they were -4 in the minutes Shaq missed in a game where they lost by 3 points. In game 1, the Rockets outscored the magic by 9 in the minutes Hakeem missed, but they were outscored by a combined 4 points in games 3 and 4 without Hakeem.

Observations:
-Orlando was for some reason really committed to doubling Hakeem in game 1. They were throwing a lot of hard doubles. Hakeem had 5 assists in that game, all of them 3 pointers, 4 came off of doubles (one was a triple team). I'm guessing it was a response to Hakeem's series vs Robinson. For the rest of the series, Orlando didn't double Hakeem as much and they threw softer doubles.

-Hakeem made like 5 or 6 baskets in transition to Shaq's 1 or so. So while Shaq didn't get credit for giving up those buckets since he didn't guard, a few of those times Shaq was slow in transition. Shaq got about 3 or shots

-One of the commentators compared Horry to Scottie Pippen and Walton took the comment seriously. They are vastly different players IMO

-I'm not sure why Penny wasn't more aggressive. Kenny Smith couldn't guard him at all. When Penny did drive to the basket, he made a few shots over Hakeem.

-Drexler was the man in this series. He really wanted to get his first title badly. For some reason, people rarely talk about him despite him getting more WS than Hakeem in that playoff run

-It's fashionable these days to **** on Hakeem's cast in 94, but this cast was much better than that one. The guards outplayed Orlando's guards. Horry played really well. The 3P shooters benefited a lot from the shortened 3P line.

-Contrary to popular belief, handchecking wasn't allowed in 95. The refs called like 2 handchecking fouls in this series

-I'm so thankful the NBA got rid of the illegal defense. The refs called like 5 of them in each game. It destroyed the flow of the game and limited the ways you could double team a player.

And while we are at it, how about posting their '99 playoff H2H's?

jayfan

07-04-2014, 02:47 PM

He didn't face ONE LEGITIMATE starting CENTER in his first three rounds of the '94 playoffs, and while he outplayed Ewing, Shaq used to CRUSH him.

Hakeem's TEAMMATES carried him in the '95 Finals, and in a series in which Shaq just abused him.

The VERY knowledgeable Colts18...

And while we are at it, how about posting their '99 playoff H2H's?

Bla...bla...bla..... We've read this a million times. Doesn't change that Hakeem was a more talented player than Shaq. As confirmed by Horry and Shaq himself.

LAZERUSS

07-04-2014, 02:48 PM

Bla...bla...bla.....

The EXACT response I was expecting.

Now move along...

T_L_P

07-04-2014, 02:51 PM

show stats that say duncan had to carry more than shaq in 2000.

i'll wait

nah pop is better. better with x's and o's and good at making supbar talent into HOFers.

duncan is the ultimate system player

lets look at HOFers they've won with:

shaq: kobe, wade, horry, payton(on his death bed)
duncan: parker, ginobili, david robinson, horry, bruce bowen and potentially leonard

...now look at that disparity. :eek:

no he didnt. in shaq's "worst finals", he had a better defensive rating, higher shooting percentage, and assist percentage...

all that needs to be said

Shaq did carry them in 2000. Duncan carried the Spurs from 01-03 too. :facepalm

Calling Duncan a system player now? Have I already exposed your agenda? What was the system during the early 2000s? Oh yeah, it was relying on Duncan for the entire offense.

So Shaq not being able to win with all of these guys should be ignored? ****ing lol. Like I said, Duncan did more with less (ie never playing with anyone who had the ability to score three times as many points as him in a Finals).

This is honestly so easy. So Shaq has the stats. Duncan has the success and the ability to work in a team.

mehyaM24

07-04-2014, 03:11 PM

Shaq did carry them in 2000. Duncan carried the Spurs from 01-03 too. :facepalm

what shaq did in 2000 is carrying. what duncan did from 01-03 is play on an already proven franchise (see 1999) and lament what a system player he is.

Calling Duncan a system player now?
shaq's better stats, prime and peak play should be enough, by proxy, to grasp this fact.

So Shaq not being able to win with all of these guys should be ignored? ****ing lol. Like I said, Duncan did more with less (ie never playing with anyone who had the ability to score three times as many points as him in a Finals).

actually, shaq needed less HOFers to win.

try again

KNOW1EDGE

07-04-2014, 03:26 PM

If u watch them play, Tim is a wayyy better basketball player.

Shaq is a wayyy stronger and dominant post player

LAZERUSS

07-04-2014, 03:28 PM

Again...I can see a close debate between Duncan and Shaq...but what in the hell is Hakeem doing in this topic?

His career RESUME just PALES in comparison to Shaq and Duncan's. And again, Shaq just murdered him H2H.

jayfan

07-04-2014, 03:33 PM

Jacks3

07-04-2014, 03:35 PM

Hakeem
Shaq

Duncan--Clear tier below. The two above were GOAT level at their best. Peak Duncan isn't even better than Peak KG.

T_L_P

07-04-2014, 03:37 PM

what shaq did in 2000 is carrying. what duncan did from 01-03 is play on an already proven franchise (see 1999) and lament what a system player he is.

shaq's better stats, prime and peak play should be enough, by proxy, to grasp this fact.

actually, shaq needed less HOFers to win.

try again

Shaq 2000 regular season (79 games): 18.3 TRB% / 19.3 AST% / 26.48% of team's total points

Duncan 2001-2003 regular season (245 games): 18.2 TRB% / 17.7 AST% / 24.5% of team's total points

Shaq 2000 Playoffs (23 games): 20.4 TRB% / 14.5 AST% / 30.7%

Duncan 2001-2003 Playoffs (46 games): 19.7 TRB% / 23.9 AST% / 27.3% of team's total points

Second options:

Kobe in 2000 regular season: 22.5 PPG / 4.9 APG / .546 TS%
Kobe in 2000 Playoffs: 21.1 PPG / 4.4 APG / .517 TS%

Derek Anderson in 2001 regular season: 15.5 PPG / 3.7 APG / .542 TS%
David Robinson in 2001 Playoffs (Derek Anderson was injured): 16.6 PPG / 1.7 APG / .538 TS%

David Robinson 2002 regular season: 12.2 PPG / 1.2 APG / .562 TS%
Tony Parker 2002 Playoffs (David Robinson was injured) 15.5 PPG / 4.0 APG / .523 TS%

Tony Parker in 2003 regular season: 15.5 PPG / 5.3 APG / .542 TS%
Tony Parker in 2003 Playoffs (thankfully no crippling injury, wins title): 14.7 PPG / 3.5 APG / .468 TS%

--

So, not that you know the stats, can you explain how Shaq carried his team and Duncan didn't?

T_L_P

07-04-2014, 03:38 PM

Hakeem
Shaq

Duncan--Clear tier below. The two above were GOAT level at their best. Peak Duncan isn't even better than Peak KG.

You do realise most people have Duncan's 03 run among the top 3-5 ever? Did you really even watch basketball back then?

Also, Kobe at his best was a tier below all of them as well, surely?

Here's what SI wrote:

"No superstar has done more to drag and undermanned cast to a title."

So again I ask: were you watching back then?

NumberSix

07-04-2014, 03:40 PM

You do realise most people have Duncan's 03 run among the top 3-5 all time? Did you really even watch basketball back then?

Also, Kobe at his best was a tier below all of them?
I dunno about top 5 all time. I mean, come on now. Definitely one of the best of the last 15 years.

Jacks3

07-04-2014, 03:43 PM

You do realise most people have Duncan's 03 run among the top 3-5 ever?

:roll:

Nobody has Duncan as a top 5 peak ever. lol @ this lunacy.

Also, Kobe at his best was a tier below all of them as well, surely?

Nope. Same tier as Duncan.

So again I ask: were you watching back then?
Yep. Shaq at his peak was getting GOAT conversation talk. Duncan was never on that level. Only Sperms stans deny this.

T_L_P

07-04-2014, 03:45 PM

[QUOTE]
:roll:

Nobody has Duncan as a top 5 peak ever. lol @ this lunacy.

Nope. Same tier as Duncan.

Yep. Shaq at his peak was getting GOAT conversation talk. Duncan was never on that level. Only Sperms stans deny this.

Obviously Shaq had the superior peak. I'm not debating that. But you're acting as if Shaq has the GOAT peak and Duncan's wasn't that impressive.

Like I said, many media outlets have ranked Duncan's 03 run among the the three or four greatest ever, and SI even said no other superstar had to do more to win the title.

Also, 03 Duncan > any version of Kobe. That isn't even debatable. Better stats, defense and he won it all without a 20/10 bigman on his side.

Jacks3

07-04-2014, 03:52 PM

Obviously Shaq had the superior peak. I'm not debating that. But you're acting as if Shaq has the GOAT peak and Duncan's wasn't that impressive.
Shaq's peak is far more impressive and when you consider that Shaq also had great longevity...well, it's clear who the superior player was.

Like I said, many media outlets have ranked Duncan's 03 run among the the three or four greatest ever,
What media outlets are these? I've never seen Duncan ranked as a top 5 peak ever. Hell, he might not be in the top 10.

Also, 03 Duncan > any version of Kobe. That isn't even debatable.
:oldlol:

This is typical revisionist history by Duncan stans. Back in 2003 there were about 5 different players in the "best player in the league" talks.

T-Mac
Shaq
Kobe
KG

And Duncan himself.

It wasn't clear-cut at all. Not even close.

Duncan was NEVER the undisputed #1 like Hakeem and Shaq were at their best.

Fact.

T_L_P

07-04-2014, 03:57 PM

Shaq's peak is far more impressive and when you consider that Shaq also had great longevity...well, it's clear who the superior player was.

What media outlets are these? I've never seen Duncan ranked as a top 5 peak ever. Hell, he might not be in the top 10.

:oldlol:

This is typical revisionist history by Duncan stans. Back in 2003 there were about 5 different players in the "best player in the league" talks.

T-Mac
Shaq
Kobe
KG

And Duncan himself.

It wasn't clear-cut at all. Not even close.

Duncan was NEVER the undisputed #1 like Hakeem and Shaq were at their best.

Fact.

What does longevity have to do with this? We're talking about their peaks here.

ESPN ranked Duncan's 03 title run as the third greatest of all time. Look it up.

After the 03 Playoffs, nobody...absolutely nobody was debating who the best player in the league was. :facepalm

In 02 and 03 Duncan won b2b MVPs, a ring, a Finals MVP, and he had the most Win Shares ever in a postseason. Care to name ten players who topped that?

KNOW1EDGE

07-04-2014, 04:01 PM

tpols

07-04-2014, 04:03 PM

What does longevity have to do with this? We're talking about their peaks here.

ESPN ranked Duncan's 03 title run as the third greatest of all time. Look it up.

After the 03 Playoffs, nobody...absolutely nobody was debating who the best player in the league was. :facepalm

In 02 and 03 Duncan won b2b MVPs, a ring, a Finals MVP, and he had the most Win Shares ever in a postseason. Care to name ten players who topped that?
Runs are very circumstantial.. Rick Barry and dirk have had insane runs to titles.. Doesn't mean they were better players than everyone who didn't ever match their runs.. Unless you think Rick Barry and dirk are better than bran kobe bird etc

T_L_P

07-04-2014, 04:04 PM

I take it you guys prefer brute strength (shaq) over actual basketball talent(Hakeem and Duncan)

Hakeem and Duncan are both far superior BASKETBALL PLAYERS, while Shaq was more dominant physically but couldn't make a 10 foot jumper to save the planet

TD and The Dream are far more skilled as basketball players. Shaq was bigger and stronger and therefore able to dominate

People also love overlooking defense.

94 Hakeem and 03 Duncan were on another level defensively. Shaq stood in the paint and blocked some shots, and he couldn't even guard 34-year-old Mutombo properly.

NumberSix

07-04-2014, 04:05 PM

What does longevity have to do with this? We're talking about their peaks here.

ESPN ranked Duncan's 03 title run as the third greatest of all time. Look it up.

After the 03 Playoffs, nobody...absolutely nobody was debating who the best player in the league was. :facepalm

In 02 and 03 Duncan won b2b MVPs, a ring, a Finals MVP, and he had the most Win Shares ever in a postseason. Care to name ten players who topped that?
You suddenly think espn is the authority? If you do, I can find you some other espn quotes that you'll have some explaining to do.

T_L_P

07-04-2014, 04:07 PM

Runs are very circumstantial.. Rick Barry and dirk have had insane runs to titles.. Doesn't mean they were better players than everyone who didn't ever match their runs.. Unless you think Rick Barry and dirk are better than bran kobe bird etc

I agree with you, but all of the factors need to be considered.

Even though Dirk won in 2011 without a real championship cast, he simply doesn't match up to the other all time greats statistically. I honestly don't know enough about Rick Barry to judge it, but I've met some people who thinks he does belong with the all time greats.

Kobe's peak (08-09) saw two Finals appearance and one title...and he had very good stats. His peak is in or around the top 10 imo.

Jacks3

07-04-2014, 04:10 PM

ESPN ranked Duncan's 03 title run as the third greatest of all time. Look it up.
ESPN. :roll:

After the 03 Playoffs, nobody...absolutely nobody was debating who the best player in the league was. :facepalm

You can keep telling yourself this, but the debates continued to rage over the summer. But keep deluding yourself. :oldlol:

In 02 and 03 Duncan won b2b MVPs, a ring, a Finals MVP, and he had the most Win Shares ever in a postseason. Care to name ten players who topped that?
Indisputably better peaks:
Jordan
Russ
Kareem
Magic
Bird
Shaq
Hakeem
Wilt

That's 8.

Duncan is on the 2nd tier with guys like Walton/Erving/Oscar/Bryant/KG etc.

Clear tier below the GOAT level guys.

Deal with it.

T_L_P

07-04-2014, 04:10 PM

You suddenly think espn is the authority? If you do, I can find you some other espn quotes that you'll have some explaining to do.

Not "the authority", but how many lists have the all time great runs ranked? (If you know of any can you post them). Although I think it was Sports Illustrated that said no other star did more to drag an undermanned cast to a title than TD.

But I, along with others, have already talked about the 03 run. If you haven't watched it then it's hard to explain, but he had to do pretty much everything, on both ends of the floor.

mehyaM24

07-04-2014, 04:21 PM

Shaq 2000 regular season (79 games): 18.3 TRB% / 19.3 AST% / 26.48% of team's total points

Shaq's 2000 regular season PER: 30
Duncan's 2001-03 regular season PER: 26

Shaq's 2000 regular sesaon winshares: 19
Duncan's 2001-03 regular season winshares: 16

Shaq's 2000 playoff PER: 31
Duncan's 2001-03 playoff PER: 28

Shaq's 2000 playoff WS: 4
Duncan's 2001-03 playoff WS: 3

:confusedshrug:

Second options:

Kobe in 2000 regular season: 22.5 PPG / 4.9 APG / .546 TS%
Kobe in 2000 Playoffs: 21.1 PPG / 4.4 APG / .517 TS%

now post kobe's stats in the 2000 finals :oldlol:

not like it matters anyway. i've said repeatedly that despite duncan not having another "superstar" beside him, he more than made up for that by playing with more HOFers than shaq.

when shaq won his ring in 2000: kobe/horry only HOFers
when duncan won his ring in 2003: manu/parker/drob/bowen

So, not that you know the stats, can you explain how Shaq carried his team and Duncan didn't?

we know the stats and HOF players on said teams. we know that shaq carried the lakers in 2000 and duncan played with MULTIPLE HOFers en-route to a ring in 2003.

T_L_P

07-04-2014, 04:29 PM

when shaq won his ring in 2000: kobe/horry only HOFers
when duncan won his ring in 2003: manu/parker/drob/bowen

87
we know the stats and HOF players on said teams. we know that shaq carried the lakers in 2000 and duncan played with MULTIPLE HOFers en-route to a ring in 2003.

You are utterly ridiculous. There's a huge difference between being a Hall of Famer and playing like one. Manu was a rookie. Robinson was a year away from retiring, and Parker was so bad he got benched for Speedy Claxton in the 4th.

Here's Manu in 03 (a Hall of Famer): 9/4/3/.522 TS%
Here's Fisher in 01 (not a Hall of Famer) 13/4/3/.618 TS%

But according to you Manu was the best/more important player because he'd end up getting better in his prime?

Can you please answer that question; I'm interested to know.

mehyaM24

07-04-2014, 04:34 PM

You Kobe stans are utterly ridiculous. There's a huge difference between being a Hall of Famer and playing like one. Manu was a rookie. Robinson was a year away from retiring, and Parker was so bad he got benched for Speedy Claxton in the 4th.

Here's Manu in 03 (a Hall of Famer): 9/4/3/.522 TS%
Here's Fisher in 01 (not a Hall of Famer) 13/4/3/.618 TS%

But according to you Manu was the best/more important player because he'd end up getting better in his prime?

Can you please answer that question; I'm interested to know.

im a lebron fan, but ok? :oldlol:

manu and parker in 03 combined were still better than kobe in 2000

thats not including stephen jackson in the playoffs, who averaged 14+ppg or bowen with all time GREAT defense.

T_L_P

07-04-2014, 04:38 PM

im a lebron fan, but ok? :oldlol:

manu and parker in 03 combined were still better than kobe in 2000

thats not including stephen jackson in the playoffs, who averaged 14+ppg or bowen with all time GREAT defense.

How did I know you would avoid the question. :oldlol:

Was Manu better in 2003 than Fisher was in 2001? After all, Manu is the HoFer, therefore he must be.

mehyaM24

07-04-2014, 04:49 PM

How did I know you would avoid the question. :oldlol:

Was Manu better in 2003 than Fisher was in 2001? After all, Manu is the HoFer, therefore he must be.

manu and parker were better than kobe
stephen jackson was better than fisher
shaq had better stats/play than duncan

you got nothing dude :oldlol:

Anaximandro1

07-04-2014, 04:51 PM

Duncan -> TOP 5

Shaq/Hakeem -> TOP 10

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-7PpRJzlivZM/U7cMpKNa0rI/AAAAAAAADMQ/mjqvRCXnHy8/s1600/1.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-p56-wyp43pY/U7cMpHaIB_I/AAAAAAAADME/Z4T4rZqHOHo/s1600/2.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-CmXFAT2SsmQ/U7cSd0qSz0I/AAAAAAAADM0/LmNl7EbNOqc/s1600/3.jpg

T_L_P

07-04-2014, 04:54 PM

manu and parker were better than kobe
stephen jackson was better than fisher
shaq had better stats/play than duncan

you got nothing dude :oldlol:

So you do it again? Do you have some sort of condition?

You literally said Duncan's squad was better because it had more Hall of Famers. Then I ask if a Hall of Famer averaging 9/3/4 is better than a non-Hall of Famer averaging 14/3/3. And then, of course, you twist the question to suit your agenda.

Good work, Star-Man! :applause:

mehyaM24

07-04-2014, 05:21 PM

So you do it again? Do you have some sort of condition?

You literally said Duncan's squad was better because it had more Hall of Famers. Then I ask if a Hall of Famer averaging 9/3/4 is better than a non-Hall of Famer averaging 14/3/3. And then, of course, you twist the question to suit your agenda.

Good work, Star-Man! :applause:

lol

you just got finished talking about duncan's intangibles (after i posted shaq's stats :oldlol:), now you wanna disregard the fact manu and parker have HOF intangibles and shift the discussion to shaq's teammates in 2001 (previously 2000).

its OK though, i'll bite

forget manu's intangibles...what about tony parker (HOFer) and his 16/4 and 14/4 series vs the nets and mavs? or stephenson making up for manu's 9ppg, by playing elite defense and averaging 14+ppg?

but please keep going. you're on a roll :oldlol:

jayfan

07-04-2014, 05:25 PM

T_L_P

07-04-2014, 05:29 PM

lol

you just got finished talking about duncan's intangibles (after i posted shaq's stats :oldlol:), now you wanna disregard the fact manu and parker have HOF intangibles and shift the discussion to shaq's teammates in 2001 (previously 2000).

its OK though, i'll bite

forget manu's intangibles...what about tony parker (HOFer) and his 16/4 and 14/4 series vs the nets and mavs? or stephenson making up for manu's 9ppg, by playing elite defense and averaging 14+ppg?

but please keep going. you're on a roll :oldlol:

And for the fourth time you've avoided the question.

Why is it so hard to answer? Is it because it throws your entire point out the window?

Also, can you please describe the HoF intangibles Manu brought specifically in the 03 season? You do realise Fisher was considered one of the leaders of those Laker teams? Is that intangibles for you? And who the fck is stephenson?

mehyaM24

07-04-2014, 05:33 PM

And for the fourth time you've avoided the question.

Why is it so hard to answer? Is it because it throws your entire point out the window?

Also, can you please describe the HoF intangibles Manu brought specifically in the 03 season? You do realise Fisher was considered one of the leaders of those Laker teams? Is that intangibles for you?

but you've been changing your arguments throughout our entire exchange.

you wanna talk about intangibles when it suits you. different years when the previous ones dont match your agenda. LOL

honestly you're all over the place

And who the fck is stephenson?

stephen jackson. IDK why i want to call him lance stephenson

T_L_P

07-04-2014, 05:38 PM

but you've been changing your arguments throughout our entire exchange.

you wanna talk about intangibles when it suits you. different years when the previous ones dont match your agenda. LOL

honestly you're all over the place

stephen jackson. IDK why i want to call him lance stephenson

Not at all. This whole thing started when you said Duncan never had to carry a team because Duncan had three other Hall of Famers on his team in 03.

Then I asked if 03 Manu was better than 01 Fisher (or even 00 Rice). Then you started avoiding the question to suit your agenda.

01 Fisher > 03 Manu, easily. You can't admit that, because it throws your whole "he played with more Hall of Famers so he needed more help" agenda.

It's hilarious.

mehyaM24

07-04-2014, 05:48 PM

Not at all. This whole thing started when you said Duncan never had to carry a team because Duncan had three other Hall of Famers on his team in 03.

Then I asked if 03 Manu was better than 01 Fisher (or even 00 Rice). Then you started avoiding the question to suit your agenda.

01 Fisher > 03 Manu, easily. You can't admit that, because it throws your whole "he played with more Hall of Famers so he needed more help" agenda.

It's hilarious.

and he didnt. look at tony parkers numbers in those series i posted. stephen jacksons numbers in the playoffs. bruce bowens defense. david robnisnon and manu ginobili's intangibles (named the MVP of both the italian League and the euroleague Finals while also winning b2b regular season MVPs-and i think the only player to win an olympic gold medal, an nba ring and a euroleague championship-this is not a coincidence-manu is one of the greatest international players ever).

so uhh, a definite NO to 2001 fisher being better than 03 manu (all-rookie team), who was a much better playmaker and defender. all fisher did was shoot 3's (and did that well).

Fawker

07-04-2014, 05:52 PM

duncan
shaq
hakeem

mehyaM24

07-04-2014, 06:08 PM

Nowitness

07-04-2014, 06:13 PM

mehyaM24, you sir have been destroyed.

Face it, Kobe carried Shaq.

ShaqWhale was a big body sure, but who was hitting the shots? Who was playing elite defense (second greatest perimeter defender ever outside of GP). Who was leading the team at a young age?

Bean.

The real question is would Kobe be considered the greatest interior player ever if he chose to post up more early in his career, because if we are looking at the best post player during their peak Kobe wins.

T_L_P

07-04-2014, 06:16 PM

to recap:
2000 shaq did more with less than 01-03 duncan
shaq was a better player in his prime AND peak
duncan played/won with more HOFers
manu and parker were better than kobe
manu's intangibles > fisher's 3PT shooting

:cheers:

Wait a minute. Are you saying Manu and Parker were individually better than Kobe?

Shaq: Kobe, Wade, Richmond, Garnett, Pierce, James, Nash, Payton, Malone
Duncan: Robinson, Parker, Manu

Shaq had about three times as many HoFers and he still won less.

Manu 03: 2.1 WS in 24 games
Fisher: 2.5 WS in 16 games

You love those stats, right?

mehyaM24

07-04-2014, 06:16 PM

Face it, Kobe carried Shaq

dont.do.drugs

T_L_P

07-04-2014, 06:26 PM

dont.do.drugs

The same could probably be said for you.

-Duncan has the most Win Shares ever in a postseason
-Is just a system player according to you.

If that doesn't expose your agenda I don't know what will. Calling Duncan a system player is about as ludicrous as calling Kendrick Perkins a star.

So four teams outright tanked in 98 in the hopes of landing a system player?

jzek

07-04-2014, 06:26 PM

Duncan is because of all his accomplishments.

In terms of pure skill and/or dominance, it's Hakeem > Shaq > Timmay

mehyaM24

07-04-2014, 06:28 PM

Wait a minute. Are you saying Manu and Parker were individually better than Kobe?

im saying manu and parker combined were better than 2000 kobe...and after kobe, the lakers were mediocre in talent

Shaq: Kobe, Wade, Richmond, Garnett, Pierce, James, Nash, Payton, Malone
Duncan: Robinson, Parker, Manu

once again HOFers won with:
shaq: kobe, horry, richmond
duncan: manu, parker, drob, bowen, horry and potentially leonard

Manu 03: 2.1 WS in 24 games
Fisher: 2.5 WS in 16 games

You love those stats, right?

manu: better drtg, better assist % and better rebounding % (20+ more steals, assists and 30+ more rebounds in the playoffs)

:confusedshrug:

not only that, but 03 manu > 00 fisher (2000 shaq's supporting cast was the ORIGINAL year referenced)

mehyaM24

07-04-2014, 06:29 PM

The same could probably be said for you.

-Duncan has the most Win Shares ever in a postseason
-Is just a system player according to you.

If that doesn't expose your agenda I don't know what will. Calling Duncan a system player is about as ludicrous as calling Kendrick Perkins a star.

So four teams outright tanked in 98 in the hopes of landing a system player?

what?

SYSTEM as in duncan played for better teams and had better coaching longer than hakeem and shaq did.

mehyaM24

07-04-2014, 06:50 PM

No shit. Of course two players are better than one.

Aren't you forgetting Wade, Mourning and Payton? And :lol at the notion of Bowen even sniffing the Hall of Fame.

horry and shaw = duncan? good to know :oldlol:

and i was just talking about shaq's years as a laker, but sure, you can add the year he was no longer the best player in the league :oldlol:

duncan's HOFers:
manu, parker, drob, horry, bowen, michael finley (will be a shoe in the next few years) and potentially leonard

6 for sure HOFers...7 potentially :eek:

Fisher scored more PPG, had the same number of rebounds, had more assists, a better TS%, more Win Shares, a better WS/48, and a bigger ORtg-DRtg gap (130-101 vs. Manu's 107-97)

manu had a better rebounding % and had more total rebounds in the playoffs. as he did with assists, steals, blocks, and points (226 > 215). also had a better defensive rating.

was also euroleague mvp the year before along with making the all rookie team.

2003 manu > 2001 fisher

T_L_P

07-04-2014, 06:55 PM

horry and shaw = duncan? good to know :oldlol:

and i was just talking about shaq's years as a laker, but sure, you can add the year he was no longer the best player in the league :oldlol:

duncan's HOFers:
manu, parker, drob, horry, bowen, michael finley (will be a shoe in the next few years) and potentially leonard

6 for sure HOFers...7 potentially :eek:

manu had a better rebounding % and had more total rebounds in the playoffs. as he did with assists, steals, blocks, and points (226 > 215). also had a better defensive rating.

was also euroleague mvp the year before along with making the all rookie team.

2003 manu > 2001 fisher

You just said Bowen is gonna make the Hall of Fame, again.

I'm done with this kid.

Also, of course Manu had more rebounds and assists. His team played 8 more games.

Fisher had more PPG and APG though, which is a far better comparison than just totals. . You're honestly the lousiest strawman ever. The fact that you are probably an adult makes it even worse. It's almost as if you suffer from something, but I'm not entirely sure what.

brantonli

07-04-2014, 06:58 PM

He didn't face ONE LEGITIMATE starting CENTER in his first three rounds of the '94 playoffs, and while he outplayed Ewing, Shaq used to CRUSH him.

Hakeem's TEAMMATES carried him in the '95 Finals, and in a series in which Shaq just abused him.

The VERY knowledgeable Colts18...

And while we are at it, how about posting their '99 playoff H2H's?

Fantastic, guess what, I watched the 95 finals too, and it was basically a wash between Hakeem and Shaq, neither dominated each other at all. Something the stats do miss is the ebb and flow of the game, and from watching those games, it wasn't clear that either player dominated the other. Maybe you should download those games and watch them?

mehyaM24

07-04-2014, 07:03 PM

You just said Bowen is gonna make the Hall of Fame, again.

I'm done with this kid.

if horry makes the HOF, then so will bowen.

i can eliminate both of them and it still boils down to shaq's 5 HOF teammates vs duncan's 6 (all of them in their prime too :roll:)

Also, of course Manu had more rebounds and assists. His team played 8 more games.

fisher also played 11 more minutes a game.

idiot

Fisher had more PPG and APG though, which is a far better comparison than just totals.

manu also had a better assist %, rebounding %, steal and block %....while playing 11 less minutes a game.

You're honestly the lousiest strawman ever. The fact that you are probably an adult makes it even worse. It's almost as if you suffer from something, but I'm not entirely sure what.

:sleeping

coming from the guy who actively lives through his favorite player.

all your red-herrings wont change the fact duncan played with more HOFers, more talent and that shaq is a far greater player.

dreamwarrior

07-04-2014, 07:05 PM

Career Per 36 mins
Shaq
24.6, 11.2, .6 on .582%

Tim
20.6, 11.5, 2.3 on .506%

Hakeem
21.9, 11.2, 3.1 on .512%

Give me Shaq, Hakeem, then Tim. Tim misses too many shots, especially championship-winning layups.

mehyaM24

07-04-2014, 07:07 PM

T_L_P

07-04-2014, 07:13 PM

if horry makes the HOF, then so will bowen.

i can eliminate both of them and it still boils down to shaq's 5 HOF teammates vs duncan's 6 (all of them in their prime too :roll:)

fisher also played 11 more minutes a game.

idiot

manu also had a better assist %, rebounding %, steal and block %....while playing 11 less minutes a game.

:sleeping

coming from the guy who actively lives through his favorite player.

all your red-herrings wont change the fact duncan played with more HOFers, more talent and that shaq is a far greater player.

Horry probably isn't making the Hall of Fame. If he does he would have just skimmed through. But Bowen? Are you being serious?

Duncan won with less Hall of Famers (Robinson-Parker-Manu vs Kobe-Richmond-Wade-Payton-Mourning), and he has more to show for it.

And again, you're being an idiot if you think Manu was better in 03 than Fisher in 01. More PPG, APG, PER, WS, WS/48, ORtg. Saying someone played more minutes than Manu is incredible naive. He never played big minutes.

You want to talk about players in their primes?

With Duncan, Robinson averaged 13/10/2/1/2.

With Shaq, Kobe averaged 23/5/5/1/1. Wade averaged 28/6/6/2/1

Imagine if Duncan ever got to play with a legit superstar, not just aging vets and role players.

Duncan did more with less without the headaches. You can say it's Shaq if you want, but you have a gross misunderstanding of the game, confirmed when you called Duncan a system player and Bowen/Finley Hall of Famers.

Have a good one, strawman. :cheers:

ArbitraryWater

07-04-2014, 07:15 PM

mehyaM24

07-04-2014, 07:30 PM

Horry probably isn't making the Hall of Fame. If he does he would have just skimmed through. But Bowen? Are you being serious?

bowen is one of the greatest defensive players ever. if horry is in the HOF for making big shots, then surely bowen is for his all-time defense.

Duncan won with less Hall of Famers (Robinson-Parker-Manu vs Kobe-Richmond-Wade-Payton-Mourning), and he has more to show for it.

lets try this again, this time we remove horry and bowen

HOFers won with
duncan: drob,parker,manu,finley,leonard (all in their primes)
shaq: kobe, richmond, wade, payton, mourning (3 removed from their primes)

once more, shaq comes out on top. again this isnt a coincidence either. shaq is just ****ing better.

And again, you're being an idiot if you think Manu was better in 03 than Fisher in 01.

nope. manu with a better assist, rebound, block and steals rate, better defensive rating and played less minutes than fisher (manu was a proven european MVP and made the all-rookie team in 2003).

He never played big minutes.

still out performed fisher in 2001, who played 11 more minutes

You want to talk about players in their primes?

With Duncan, Robinson averaged 13/10/2/1/2.

With Shaq, Kobe averaged 23/5/5/1/1. Wade averaged 28/6/6/2/1
Imagine if Duncan ever got to play with a legit superstar, not just aging vets and role players.

funny how you talk about "straw-mans" yet continually bring up second options. why would duncan need a second option if he had better 3, 4, and 5 options? a flat out better team with a better coach? LOL

Duncan did more with less without the headaches.

more conjecture...

bottom line, shaq won with the same amount of HOFers, 3 being out of their prime. so no, actually, shaq did more with less.

btw, duncan being a "system player" is me acknowledging the spurs' strength. the goat coach and HIS system. i mean, after all, it is a team game :cheers:

Y2ktors

07-04-2014, 07:35 PM

7. Hakeem
8. Kobe
9. Duncan
10. Shaq

mehyaM24

07-04-2014, 07:37 PM

also LOL at the agenda

david robinson also put up 16/10 with GOAT defense in '99 en-route to a championship.

T_L_P

07-04-2014, 07:48 PM

mehyaM24

07-04-2014, 07:56 PM

This guy is unbelievable..calling Finley a Hall of Famer.

I love the guy as much as the next fan, but the dude isn't even close to being a Hall of Fame player. The notion that he is one is laughable. The same goes for Bowen (btw, Horry probably won't get in, but if he does it'd be because he won way more rings than these other guys you're listing).

you're only showing your ignorance.

finley in dallas was the truth. a beast. multiple all-star too.

and ring counting? that would be stupid. you could do that for many role players...they would all be HOFers.

Also, can you explain exactly what the Popovich system was before 07

manu and gino were still growing, but their defense was still amongst the best. after 2007, parker and gino became the spurs' best offensive players (as i've always said).

Duncan played with three legit Hall of Famers (not Finley and not Bowen, they won't even be considered).

yes and if shaq played with more than 5 HOFers than duncan played with 7
bowen, manu, parker, drob, horry, finley, leonard

Kobe is generally considered a top 10 player and Wade is in the top 25. Robinson is in the top 25 and Manu/Parker are outside the top 50. Duncan has one more ring to show for it though, and he definitely never outscored by more than three times in a Finals in his prime (or only just out of it).

and top to bottom, the spurs were deeper. the lakers/heat had that 1-2 punch....and solid role players (unlike duncan, shaq played with most of his HOFers removed from their prime).

Kobe was All-NBA for all three titles, and so was Wade. The only Spur who made the All-NBA team in 99, 03, 05 and 07 is Duncan.

and duncan won with more HOFers, all in their primes.

you're failing hard dude...LOL

T_L_P

07-04-2014, 08:02 PM

you're only showing your ignorance.

finley in dallas was the truth. a beast. multiple all-star too.

and ring counting? that would be stupid. you could do that for many role players...they would all be HOFers.

manu and gino were still growing, but their defense was still amongst the best. after 2007, parker and gino became the spurs' best offensive players (as i've always said).

yes and if shaq played with more than 5 HOFers than duncan played with 7
bowen, manu, parker, drob, horry, finley, leonard

and top to bottom, the spurs were deeper. the lakers/heat had that 1-2 punch....and solid role players (unlike duncan, shaq played with most of his HOFers removed from their prime).

and duncan won with more HOFers, all in their primes.

you're failing hard dude...LOL

Is there really any point in debating this if you keep calling Finley and Bowen Hall of Famers?

If you show me one article that even hints at the notion of them making it then maybe I'll believe you, but right now that is a huge stretch. Parker and Manu are sure-fire Hall of Famers, but saying Bowen and Finley will make it is absurd.

In fact, here is BBallReference's Hall of Fame probability list.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/hof_prob.html

Neither Finley or Bowen are in the top 250. Derek Fisher has a higher percentage, so I'm just gonna list him as a Hall of Famer, is that alright?

I just searched "Bowen Hall of Fame". No articles on it, just a thread on a Spurs forum. And guess what, most Spurs fan don't even think he will make it. :facepalm:

mehyaM24

07-04-2014, 08:08 PM

Is there really any point in debating this if you keep calling Finley and Bowen Hall of Famers?

If you show me one article that even hints at the notion of them making it then maybe I'll believe you, but right now that is a huge stretch. Parker and Manu are sure-fire Hall of Famers, but saying Bowen and Finley will make it is absurd.

http://www.notinhalloffame.com/basketball/the-basketball-futures/2016-basketball-eligibles/item/2408-michael-finley

(article discussing players that SHOULD be in the HOF)

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=118672&page=2

(posters saying that finley is a potential HOF candidate)

like i said dude, you're only making a fool of YOURSELF. its obvious you're a casual who decided to bandwagon an all-time great. i'd bet my money you're not even from the states either.

T_L_P

07-04-2014, 08:15 PM

http://www.notinhalloffame.com/basketball/the-basketball-futures/2016-basketball-eligibles/item/2408-michael-finley

(article discussing players that SHOULD be in the HOF)

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=118672&page=2

(posters saying that finley is a potential HOF candidate)

like i said dude, you're only making a fool of YOURSELF. its obvious you're a casual who decided to bandwagon an all-time great. i'd bet my money you're not even from the states either.

The posters just said Finley probably won't make it.

So I've posted Reference's probability list, a thread on a Spurs forum about Bowen, now you've provided an ISH thread where people don't consider Finley a Hall of Famer.

So you've just shown me a post on a site dedicated to players who aren't in the Hall of Famer.

Bowen and Finley: sure-fire Hall of Famers. :bowdown:

I forgot to add Fisher to the Hall of Fame list though. So now the amount of them they've played with is equal I believe.

pauk

07-04-2014, 08:15 PM

1. Shaq
2. Duncan
3. Hakeem

mehyaM24

07-04-2014, 08:19 PM

The posters just said Finley probably won't make it.

So I've posted Reference's probability list, a thread on a Spurs forum about Bowen, now you've provided an ISH thread where people don't consider Finley a Hall of Famer.

So you've just shown me a post on a site dedicated to players who aren't in the Hall of Famer.

Bowen and Finley: sure-fire Hall of Famers. :bowdown:

I forgot to add Fisher to the Hall of Fame list though. So now the amount of them they've played with is equal I believe.

the article polled finley's HOF chances (50% voted that he should be in, the other 50% said they didnt care and it wouldnt be the end of the world if he made it)

all im saying is, if horry makes it then bowen definitely will too.

finley is a shoe-in. it took mitch richmond years and he was a smilar player to finley. just be patient, duncan fan. :oldlol:

houston

07-04-2014, 10:49 PM

Big#50

07-04-2014, 11:41 PM

Hakeem is not on Duncan and Shaq's tier. Sorry. Hakeem has to be the most overrated player ever. More so than Kobe,

raprap

07-05-2014, 12:14 AM

1. Shaq
2. Duncan

3. Hakeem

Kobe and Bron is somewhere between the space above.

catch24

07-05-2014, 01:09 AM

Big#50

07-05-2014, 01:31 AM

Duncan has compiled a career that's just ridiculous. When it pertains to all-time legacy, how can you not put him over Hakeem? Shaq can be debated, but w/ Duncan's longevity and true 2-way play.. Man that is tough.

Far as peak goes, Shaq and Hakeem were better. Dont think anyone would disagree there.
99-02 give Duncan a true second option and he wins every ring. Those Spurs teams had no business winning that many games. His peak was better than both. I always thought Shaq was top dog. But after watching and reviewing, Kobe was nearly as good. Exceot for 2000 but then agin, he abused Davis, Perkins, and an old ass Smits. Shaq has dropped in my all time rankings. Dude was lazy. He benefitted from Lakers favoritism. He elbowed, traveled and barreled people and never got called.

GimmeThat

07-05-2014, 01:53 AM

unfortunately

Duncan
Shaq
Hakeem

if the NBA season wasn't 82 games per-season
Shaq may have had a much better chance at being better than Duncan as well as other greats.

if I was a coach, I wouldn't get the guy up for 82 games a season, because it's just unessecary burden on his body for meaningless minutes.

regular season is like garbage time for the guy.

but you gotta play by the rule in order to get the seeding etc.

rest is history.

moe94

07-05-2014, 01:55 AM

Legends66NBA7

07-05-2014, 02:06 AM

jayfan

07-05-2014, 02:07 AM

I just think it's awesome how all these lab technicians on here think they know better than the guy who actually played with all 3 and won championships with all 3 during each of their primes.

LAZERUSS

07-05-2014, 03:40 AM

Why does Laz obsessively hate Hakeem and shit on all his accomplishments while propping up Wilt? They both have 2 rings, yet he'll do everything to say Wilt is the GOAT and Dream is overrated. Just had a mini meltdown to start the thread lol

It's just ridiculous, that's why. Hakeem's resume is MILES behind these other greats. In his 18 seasons, he played on only five teams that won 50+ games, with a high of 58. In the MVP balloting, again in 18 seasons, he was voted MVP ONCE, second ONCE, and 4th TWICE. In fact, he was only voted in the Top-10, ten times, or in about HALF of his career. And yet I am supposed to rank him anywhere near players that were either winning multiple MVPs, or routinely in the Top-4...or against players that won more than two rings?

The Wilt-Hakeem debate is a complete joke. Even if we disregard the fact that Chamberlain's TEAMs lost to the eventual champion, TEN times, FIVE in game sevens, and FOUR of those by margins of 2, 1, 4, 2 points, while Hakeem was getting blown out in the FIRST ROUND EIGHT times...how can you compare their MVP votes, or the absolute domination that Chamberlain leveled against his peers. Where were Hakeem's SEVEN scoring titles; NINE FG% titles; ELEVEN rebounding titles; and hell, an assist title? And do want to compare Hakeem's "records", which probably don't exceed more than a handful, against Wilt's HUNDREDS, most of which will never be broken?

And as for the Shaq-Hakeem debate...there simply isn't ANY. Shaq was more dominant in both his regular seasons, and post-seasons, won more rings, had more FMVPs, and was consistently voted higher in the MVP voting (and was probably considered the best player in the league from '99 thru '05, with possibly Duncan nudging him in a couple of years.) And then the capper...Shaq just abused Hakeem in their career H2H's.

Duncan? FIVE rings, more MVPs, more FMVPs, and a FAR greater winner. The man has averaged about 60 wins per year in his career, which is more than Hakeem had in his BEST season.

Sorry, but any rational view would have Hakeem's resume ranked WAY behind the likes of Duncan, Shaq, and most certainly, Wilt's.

GimmeThat

07-05-2014, 04:16 AM

Why does Laz obsessively hate Hakeem and shit on all his accomplishments while propping up Wilt? They both have 2 rings, yet he'll do everything to say Wilt is the GOAT and Dream is overrated. Just had a mini meltdown to start the thread lol

Hakeem at his very best, won 2 rings.

Wilt at his very best, didn't win any rings.

this sounds like a really odd logic I know.
but Wilt>Hakeem

davehos

07-05-2014, 04:24 AM

Tim Duncan vs Shaq vs Hakeem - Who is ranked higher all time?

Ah, not this shit again.

I'll take all three with Jordan as the 2 and Magic at the 1 and crush all your hopes and dreams in the most magical, mystical game of best 5 ever.

I'd have to bench Shaq though. He's too fat. Bird would sign on as the 3 since he was a ring chaser.

1. Magic
2. Jordan
3. Bird
4. Duncan
5. Dream Shake

/drunken sarcasm

LAZERUSS

07-05-2014, 04:28 AM

Hakeem at his very best, won 2 rings.

Wilt at his very best, didn't win any rings.

this sounds like a really odd logic I know.
but Wilt>Hakeem

Chamberlain was at his very best in his first title run. Probably the greatest season ever by anyone. He just crushed Bellamy, Thurmond, and Russell in their H2H's, and back then he faced them all 9-15 games each (including the playoffs.)

Don't let his perceived "lack" scoring fool you. Just the year before he led the league in scoring at 33.5 ppg. And in the '67 season, he still hung the NBA high game, with 58. Then, in '68, he had games of 52, 53, 53, and 68. Just look at his FG% in '67... .683...in a league that shot .441. And he also finished THIRD in assists, and ran away with the rebounding title. And likely he was over 8+ bpg (and some estimates show him at well over 10.)

Anaximandro1

07-05-2014, 08:41 AM

99-02 give Duncan a true second option and he wins every ring. Those Spurs teams had no business winning that many games. His peak was better than both. I always thought Shaq was top dog. But after watching and reviewing, Kobe was nearly as good. Exceot for 2000 but then agin, he abused Davis, Perkins, and an old ass Smits. Shaq has dropped in my all time rankings. Dude was lazy. He benefitted from Lakers favoritism. He elbowed, traveled and barreled people and never got called.

Tim was a one man army in the early 2000s. The Spurs reached the WCF in 2001, the WCSF in 2002 and won the championship in 2003.

As you can see, Duncan had to do everything.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-dQXOSULK58U/U6yFUr-CTNI/AAAAAAAADGI/Kfx9FBFs3jI/s1600/2.jpg

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-tZKU2E9Bg3k/U6wKwSGo8kI/AAAAAAAADF4/-et_Dz1ZupM/s1600/8.jpg

It's hard to envision Shaq winning a championship with Speedy Claxton / Stephen Jax playing PG / SG at crunch time ... Duncan is criminally underrated.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-LRxpY6UxPMk/U7fsdGsvWRI/AAAAAAAADN8/SWUJLd0Nxyw/s1600/2.jpg

Bill Simmons (May 11, 2007): Duncan is wildly underrated
(http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/070509)

Assuming the Spurs win the 2007 title and Duncan captures his fourth Finals MVP award (both decent bets), his first professional decade will have concluded with four rings, two regular-season MVP awards and nine first-team All-NBA nods.

His best teammates have been David Robinson (who turned 33 in Duncan's rookie year), Manu Ginobili (never a top-15 player) and Tony Parker (ditto).

In fact, Duncan has never played for a dominant team; the Spurs have never had quite enough talent to roll through the league.

Trapped at the top of the standings, they've been forced to rely on others' failed lottery picks, foreign rookies, journeymen and head cases with baggage.

Zoom through San Antonio's past 10 rosters on basketball-reference.com some time.

You'll be shocked. Tim Duncan has never played on a great basketball team.

Not once.

No one has done more with less than Tim Duncan.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-RW-lbusTKiQ/U7Z5pXondII/AAAAAAAADKc/z2CQR7ZZFEM/s1600/1.jpg

Duncan21formvp

01-25-2019, 11:28 PM

Chamberlain was at his very best in his first title run. Probably the greatest season ever by anyone.
Not when 5th in scoring in the finals.

rmt

01-26-2019, 03:02 PM

Lets see... Lazeruss or Robert Horry?

It's close, but I think Horry may be a tad more qualified (and a tad more objective) to answer the question.

Horry played with Hakeem when Horry was a star-struck rookie and during Hakeem's MVP years. Also played with Shaq during his peak/MVP years. Hakeem was a blase veteran who played with Duncan after his peak/MVP years (when he was playing north of 40 mins/game).

Rocket

01-26-2019, 07:16 PM

1) Hakeem
2) Shaq
.
.
.
.
3) Duncan

eliteballer

01-27-2019, 02:09 AM

Hakeem was better than Duncan at their peaks but Duncan had a better career.

Hamtaro CP3KDKG

01-27-2019, 02:42 AM

WTF happened to LAZERUSS:lol :lol :roll: :roll:

tanibanana

01-27-2019, 10:53 AM

It's just ridiculous, that's why. Hakeem's resume is MILES behind these other greats. In his 18 seasons, he played on only five teams that won 50+ games, with a high of 58. In the MVP balloting, again in 18 seasons, he was voted MVP ONCE, second ONCE, and 4th TWICE. In fact, he was only voted in the Top-10, ten times, or in about HALF of his career. And yet I am supposed to rank him anywhere near players that were either winning multiple MVPs, or routinely in the Top-4...or against players that won more than two rings?

The Wilt-Hakeem debate is a complete joke. Even if we disregard the fact that Chamberlain's TEAMs lost to the eventual champion, TEN times, FIVE in game sevens, and FOUR of those by margins of 2, 1, 4, 2 points, while Hakeem was getting blown out in the FIRST ROUND EIGHT times...how can you compare their MVP votes, or the absolute domination that Chamberlain leveled against his peers. Where were Hakeem's SEVEN scoring titles; NINE FG% titles; ELEVEN rebounding titles; and hell, an assist title? And do want to compare Hakeem's "records", which probably don't exceed more than a handful, against Wilt's HUNDREDS, most of which will never be broken?

And as for the Shaq-Hakeem debate...there simply isn't ANY. Shaq was more dominant in both his regular seasons, and post-seasons, won more rings, had more FMVPs, and was consistently voted higher in the MVP voting (and was probably considered the best player in the league from '99 thru '05, with possibly Duncan nudging him in a couple of years.) And then the capper...Shaq just abused Hakeem in their career H2H's.

Duncan? FIVE rings, more MVPs, more FMVPs, and a FAR greater winner. The man has averaged about 60 wins per year in his career, which is more than Hakeem had in his BEST season.

Sorry, but any rational view would have Hakeem's resume ranked WAY behind the likes of Duncan, Shaq, and most certainly, Wilt's.

:applause: