Shaq vs Hakeem - Who was better?

[Duncan21formvp]

Shaq vs Hakeem - Who was better?

[SpaceJam2]

Shaq, his peak was too strong with 3 straight FMVPs

And those Finals stats were :eek:

Plus Hakeem has 8 first round exits. Yes, I said eight.

[MrFonzworth]

Shaq. Better peak and more success. 3 alpha rings and 1 robin ring.

[And1AllDay]

Shaq, his peak was too strong with 3 straight FMVPs

And those Finals stats were :eek:

Plus Hakeem has 8 first round exits. Yes, I said eight.



Shaq. Better peak and more success. 3 alpha rings and 1 robin ring.

Plus way better long time play in post season being top 5 all time scoring

[AussieSteve]

Hakeem was the undisputed top centre in arguably the greatest ever era for centres.

Ewing... 1st ballot HoF... top 10 C ever... Hakeem owned him
Robinson... 1st ballot HoF... top 10 C ever... Hakeem owned him.
Young Shaq... Hakeem owned him.

Shaq dominated a much weaker era for centres, and if memory serves, Duncan often got the better of him.

At the end of the day, Shaq had Kobe while Hakeem had nobody until an aging Drexler joined him. I'm not sure that peak Shaq would have won rings in Houston in the mid-90s. But I'm completely certain that peak Hakeem would have won three rings next to Kobe.

[kennethgriffen]

hakeem didn't need a top 5 all time player to drag him to the finals past all the real competition

[Prometheus]

Hakeem was the undisputed top centre in arguably the greatest ever era for centres.

Ewing... 1st ballot HoF... top 10 C ever... Hakeem owned him
Robinson... 1st ballot HoF... top 10 C ever... Hakeem owned him.
Young Shaq... Hakeem owned him.

Shaq dominated a much weaker era for centres, and if memory serves, Duncan often got the better of him.

At the end of the day, Shaq had Kobe while Hakeem had nobody until an aging Drexler joined him. I'm not sure that peak Shaq would have won rings in Houston in the mid-90s. But I'm completely certain that peak Hakeem would have won three rings next to Kobe.

Really? The Rockets swept the Magic in the Finals, but Shaq went 6-2 against Hakeem in the RS while with Orlando, and then 8-4 in LA, altogether 14-6... and Shaq outrebounded and outscored Hakeem in their RS matchups as well. Maybe not exclusively young Shaq, but again Orlando won 6/8 of those games, and this was young Shaq against prime Hakeem.

[AussieSteve]

hakeem didn't need a top 5 all time player to drag him to the finals past all the real competition

Not did Shaq... He needed a top 12 player.

[Gileraracer]

Shaq. Better peak and more success. 3 alpha rings and 1 robin ring.

Shaq needed like 5 teams for that while Hakeem stayed loyal and single-handedly won his team 2 rings.

If Hakeem was a team hopper like that he could've had 5 easily.

[plowking]

Hakeem was the undisputed top centre in arguably the greatest ever era for centres.

Ewing... 1st ballot HoF... top 10 C ever... Hakeem owned him
Robinson... 1st ballot HoF... top 10 C ever... Hakeem owned him.
Young Shaq... Hakeem owned him.

Shaq dominated a much weaker era for centres, and if memory serves, Duncan often got the better of him.

At the end of the day, Shaq had Kobe while Hakeem had nobody until an aging Drexler joined him. I'm not sure that peak Shaq would have won rings in Houston in the mid-90s. But I'm completely certain that peak Hakeem would have won three rings next to Kobe.

Yeah, Hakeem didn't own Shaq.

He actually played Hakeem even in that finals series, but his team failed him.

Yes, I know Shaq says that Hakeem dusted him, but that is Shaq being classy.

He actually outscored Hakeem in the clutch in that series, and was far more efficient throughout. Not to mention he was doubled far more often than Hakeem too.

[nayte]

Yeah, Hakeem didn't own Shaq.

He actually played Hakeem even in that finals series, but his team failed him.

Yes, I know Shaq says that Hakeem dusted him, but that is Shaq being classy.

He actually outscored Hakeem in the clutch in that series, and was far more efficient throughout. Not to mention he was doubled far more often than Hakeem too.

Edit.. Nah Shaq knows he got out played. Stats otherwise.

[Rocket]

Hakeem was better. Even Shaq admits that.

[jayfan]

Yeah, Hakeem didn't own Shaq.

He actually played Hakeem even in that finals series, but his team failed him.

Yes, I know Shaq says that Hakeem dusted him, but that is Shaq being classy.

He actually outscored Hakeem in the clutch in that series, and was far more efficient throughout. Not to mention he was doubled far more often than Hakeem too.

Shaq doesn't care about being classy or modest. He's often neither. He punks other players and contemporaries, like Ewing for instance, all the time. Even aside from the finals matchup, he genuinely believes Hakeem was the better player, and ranks Hakeem above himself. Has said so many times.

[stalkerforlife]

Hakeem.

He didn't need a second star.

His back to back titles were the least amount of help all time for a B2B champion.

And he swept Shaq in the finals with less help than Shaq had.

Hakeem was the definition of making teammates better.

[SpaceJam2]

hakeem didn't need a top 5 all time player to drag him to the finals past all the real competition

Neither did Shaq, but top 12 will do it :banana:

[SouBeachTalents]

hakeem didn't need a top 5 all time player to drag him to the finals past all the real competition
Neither did Shaq

[tontoz]

Shaq

I think Hakeem has become overrated over the years. For a lot of his career he was a black hole that settled for jumpers too often. His career TS of 55.3% is pretty weak for a big.

Shaq's poor foul shooting was a big problem but I still would pick him over Hakeem.

[Facepalm]

.

Yes, I know Shaq says that Hakeem dusted him, but that is Shaq being classy.



Shaq being classy? C'mon now :oldlol:

[Euroleague]

Hakeem was better at everything except for dunking and committing offensive fouls.

[Odinn]

People on internet really love to overrate Hakeem. Wow. Shaq was better.

[And1AllDay]

Shaq

I think Hakeem has become overrated over the years. For a lot of his career he was a black hole that settled for jumpers too often. His career TS of 55.3% is pretty weak for a big.

Shaq's poor foul shooting was a big problem but I still would pick him over Hakeem.

Shaq all the way :applause:

[Duncan21formvp]

Hakeem was better. Even Shaq admits that.
In 1995 he does.

[Smook A.]

Hakeem was more skilled

Shaq was more dominant

Both are legends and top 10 players of all time.

[AussieSteve]

People on internet really love to overrate Hakeem. Wow. Shaq was better.

Do you think peak Shaq goes back to back in houston in 94 and 95?

Do you think peak hakeem three-peats in LA in 2000-02?

[Odinn]

Do you think peak Shaq goes back to back in houston in 94 and 95?

Do you think peak hakeem three-peats in LA in 2000-02?
In 1994-95 season, if Houston had threepeat Shaq they wouldn't win just 47 games. Do you know Houston's record with Drexler in regular season? 17-18. Shaq wouldn't put his team in that position. Ever.

Hakeem's 1993-94 season and Shaq's 1999-00 season is pretty comparable. They won the title without a decent supporting cast. Yes, Shaq had Kobe who could average 21 ppg in the playoffs in '00. But Rockets in '94 had a deeper roster.
The next 4 leading scorers comparison; Hou 47.7 ppg / LA 48.8 ppg

You do realize Shaq averaged 38/17/2/3 in '00 Finals. Right?

Maybe '00 Shaq wouldn't be able to win in '94. But the same chance is there for '94 Hakeem in '00.

Kobe in '00 playoffs; 21.1 - 4.5 - 4.4, LAL record 15-8 and title
Kobe in '01 playoffs; 29.4 - 7.3 - 6.1, LAL record 15-1 and title
Kobe in '02 playoffs; 26.6 - 5.8 - 4.6, LAL record 15-4 and title

You see the correlation, right? What was not changing during that time is Shaq getting 30/15/3/2 in the playoffs and 36/15/3/3 in the finals.
Shaq's worst finals performance during 3peat was 33/16/5/3 against the Sixers who had DPoY Mutombo and that is still better than Hakeem's '95 Finals display which was the better one between his '94 and '95.

And let's not pretend that Shaq didn't have to work for his FMVPs and they were won automatically.

[Lebron23]

https://fadeawayworld.net/nba-media/robert-horry-says-hakeem-olajuwon-was-better-than-shaquille-oneal-i-think-dream-had-more-talent Robert Horry said Hakeem was better

[HoopsNY]

Hakeem no question

[Gudo]

Shaq. But I prefer Hakeem.

[jayfan]

Just last night, on Inside, Shaq said, "Hakeem was way better than me."




.

[HoopsNY]

In 1994-95 season, if Houston had threepeat Shaq they wouldn't win just 47 games. Do you know Houston's record with Drexler in regular season? 17-18. Shaq wouldn't put his team in that position. Ever.

Hakeem's 1993-94 season and Shaq's 1999-00 season is pretty comparable. They won the title without a decent supporting cast. Yes, Shaq had Kobe who could average 21 ppg in the playoffs in '00. But Rockets in '94 had a deeper roster.
The next 4 leading scorers comparison; Hou 47.7 ppg / LA 48.8 ppg

You do realize Shaq averaged 38/17/2/3 in '00 Finals. Right?

Maybe '00 Shaq wouldn't be able to win in '94. But the same chance is there for '94 Hakeem in '00.

Kobe in '00 playoffs; 21.1 - 4.5 - 4.4, LAL record 15-8 and title
Kobe in '01 playoffs; 29.4 - 7.3 - 6.1, LAL record 15-1 and title
Kobe in '02 playoffs; 26.6 - 5.8 - 4.6, LAL record 15-4 and title

You see the correlation, right? What was not changing during that time is Shaq getting 30/15/3/2 in the playoffs and 36/15/3/3 in the finals.
Shaq's worst finals performance during 3peat was 33/16/5/3 against the Sixers who had DPoY Mutombo and that is still better than Hakeem's '95 Finals display which was the better one between his '94 and '95.

And let's not pretend that Shaq didn't have to work for his FMVPs and they were won automatically.

By 2000 Kobe was arguably the best SG in the game. Furthermore, the Rockets added Drexler just after mid-season, so obviously there were chemistry issues, especially with the locker room fallout with Vernon Maxwell who was repeatedly missing practice after the trade. Their 17-18 record wasn't indicative of their team capability, and this was evidenced no greater than in the playoffs and finals itself.

I wouldn't say the supporting casts were even. 2000 Kobe was a better player than '95 Drexler. And Glen Rice was better than any third option you could think of on Houston. Roberty Horry was on both teams. And we're also forgetting that Phil Jackson coached the 2000 Lakers team?

You're also comparing 38 year old Dikembe Mutombo, who was still a great defensive player evidenced by his winning the DPOY award, to prime 1995 Shaq? Who was tougher to defend?

Shaq feasted in an era that saw the demise of the center and the league literally catering to him. The league turned a blind eye and allowed for Shaq to throw his weight around, something you couldn't do for the first 50 years of league. Wilt talked about this when comparing how centers had to rely on skill and footwork as opposed to later on when guys like Shaq came around and weren't called for offensive fouls like they would have been in the 60s and 70s.

Lets not forget the league fixed the 2001 Kings/Lakers series? That was one of the most blatant examples in history.

All a person has to do is look at how Shaq performed against elite centers in the 90s and what he did against piss poor opposition in the the '00s. I did a spread of these stats somewhere on ISH. It certainly helps when the likes of Ewing, Hakeem, Robinson, Daughtery, Mutombo, Mourning, etc are out of their primes or retiring.

[paksat]

I laugh at anyone that doesn't take 2001 shaq first overall in their draft

over jordan, over everybody

no one could stop that guy, angry shaq was fun to watch

[Carbine]

We saw a Baby Shaq go toe to toe with peak Hakeem

If a baby Shaq could hold his own against that version of Hakeem, I have no reservation saying a peak Shaq would at least play him to a draw. With the likely outcome being Shaq outplayinf Hakeem by the same margin Hakeem outplayed a Baby Shaq.

'00 Shaq is a whole different beast. Fully motivated, fully engaged than even his '01 form.

[Nike D'Antoni]

Close call. One of interesting debates i like to read.

[brownmamba00]

Olajuwon's scoring arsenal was on another level. Defensively he was a better aswell.

[SouBeachTalents]

Damn, deadlocked after 50.

[Nike D'Antoni]

Robert Horry on Hakeem Olajuwon vs Shaq: "Hakeem was better. Shaq was more dominant, but Hakeem was better. … I think Dream had more talent. Shaq had handles, but Dream had a little bit better handles. Dream could shoot free throws, and we all know about Shaq’s free throws. Hakeem had a fadeaway."

https://streamable.com/ggcke3

[John8204]

Hakeem Shaq only had two legit rings against inferior competition with better teams


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ySDRAoE3Nc&t=6s


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ITDJBr-iN1I

Those were the two shadiest games I've seen in my lifetime

[Micku]

I would say Shaq.

I feel like Shaq was more unstoppable. Hakeem was better skilled. Hakeem had more ways to score and was better defensively, but Shaq power and agility gave the league more problems than Hakeem's skills.

Shaq had teams on him. Like all five guys at times. I have never seen anything like it. And the league changed the rules in order to get Shaq to be less dominant.

[HoopsNY]

Shaq is the only player who gets excused for everything. He's the only player who gets to play with the best of the best in terms of peak/prime play, fails, and gets excused.

Both Scott and Anderson were capable 20 PPG scorers. Scott put up 20 PPG before getting injured in '92 and Anderson averaged 20 PPG in the '92-'93 seasons. They're not all-stars or elite players, but make them 3rd and 4th options and put them with two All-NBA/MVP candidates and what do you think happens?

Then Orlando added Horace Grant, a year removed from his first All-Star appearance and his second All-Defensive selection. In fact, Grant was All-Defensive 2nd Team four years in a row in the '90s ('93-'96).

In 1998, the Lakers had 4 All-Stars, won 61 games, and got swept by Utah. In 1999, they added Glen Rice (All-Star) who put up 18 PPG on 54% TS% in the lowest scoring year in NBA history (91 PPG). The result? Swept by SAS.

The elite bigs in the league begin to age, retire, or become injured by the late 90s/early 2000s. The NBA begins to referee Shaq differently by the early 2000s as well. This isn't some kind of dispute, it was well spoken of back then and people are acting like the timing of Shaq's peak was coincidental.

Then there's the league fixing the series in 2002 against Sacramento. The Lakers shouldn't have even been in the finals that year.

Kareem played with GOAT level guards in Magic and Oscar. Wilt played with Jerry West and Elgin Baylor. Shaq played with a long list of GOAT or elite level players in their peaks/primes...

Penny
Kobe
Wade
Nash
Amare
LeBron

And then he ring chased and played alongside 4 All-Stars in Boston.

Are people forgetting Shaq played with Kobe+Malone+GP+Phil in 2004 and lost to the Pistons via a gentleman's sweep?

It's like Shaq is the only player who gets every excuse in the book, meanwhile he had arguably the most luxuries after Magic. Hakeem gets none of this. It's absurd.

Shaq isn't anywhere near Hakeem. You give Hakeem that laundry list of luxuries throughout his career and he has more titles than Shaq, as well as more MVPs and FMVPs. Not to mention, Shaq wasn't the defensive juggernaut that Hakeem was.

[John8204]

We saw a Baby Shaq go toe to toe with peak Hakeem

If a baby Shaq could hold his own against that version of Hakeem, I have no reservation saying a peak Shaq would at least play him to a draw. With the likely outcome being Shaq outplayinf Hakeem by the same margin Hakeem outplayed a Baby Shaq.

'00 Shaq is a whole different beast. Fully motivated, fully engaged than even his '01 form.

"Baby Shaq" was also Shaq that wasn't 400lbs and could actually run...

[Hakeem Olajuwon]

1) Depends what your team needs.

2) Hakeem's elite/impressive defense, offense, rebounding, blocks, footwork, post moves, IQ, leadership, FREE THROWS, mid-range jumpers, steals (his speed/agility meant he could also guard on the perimeter) make him the best center of all time. He would dominate any era.

3) it terms of greatness, I do have Kareem, Bill Russell and Shaq ahead of Hakeem in my all-time rankings.

4) Shaq's offensive prime > Hakeem's offensive prime

[Round Mound]

Hakeem. Dream wen't to the finals in his 2nd year as the best player of his team and won against a stacked 1986 Lakers. Just imagine if Dream had Kobe? Probably 5 rings in a row.

[dankok8]

Shaq is the only player who gets excused for everything. He's the only player who gets to play with the best of the best in terms of peak/prime play, fails, and gets excused.

Both Scott and Anderson were capable 20 PPG scorers. Scott put up 20 PPG before getting injured in '92 and Anderson averaged 20 PPG in the '92-'93 seasons. They're not all-stars or elite players, but make them 3rd and 4th options and put them with two All-NBA/MVP candidates and what do you think happens?

Then Orlando added Horace Grant, a year removed from his first All-Star appearance and his second All-Defensive selection. In fact, Grant was All-Defensive 2nd Team four years in a row in the '90s ('93-'96).

In 1998, the Lakers had 4 All-Stars, won 61 games, and got swept by Utah. In 1999, they added Glen Rice (All-Star) who put up 18 PPG on 54% TS% in the lowest scoring year in NBA history (91 PPG). The result? Swept by SAS.

The elite bigs in the league begin to age, retire, or become injured by the late 90s/early 2000s. The NBA begins to referee Shaq differently by the early 2000s as well. This isn't some kind of dispute, it was well spoken of back then and people are acting like the timing of Shaq's peak was coincidental.

Then there's the league fixing the series in 2002 against Sacramento. The Lakers shouldn't have even been in the finals that year.

Kareem played with GOAT level guards in Magic and Oscar. Wilt played with Jerry West and Elgin Baylor. Shaq played with a long list of GOAT or elite level players in their peaks/primes...

Penny
Kobe
Wade
Nash
Amare
LeBron

And then he ring chased and played alongside 4 All-Stars in Boston.

Are people forgetting Shaq played with Kobe+Malone+GP+Phil in 2004 and lost to the Pistons via a gentleman's sweep?

It's like Shaq is the only player who gets every excuse in the book, meanwhile he had arguably the most luxuries after Magic. Hakeem gets none of this. It's absurd.

Shaq isn't anywhere near Hakeem. You give Hakeem that laundry list of luxuries throughout his career and he has more titles than Shaq, as well as more MVPs and FMVPs. Not to mention, Shaq wasn't the defensive juggernaut that Hakeem was.

Shaq would be excused if people mentioned him as a GOAT candidate because with how high he peaked he would have been in that conversation had he checked the other boxes. Thing is people do penalize him for missing regular season games, for mailing it in defensively at times, and yes... for not winning enough.

Do you think Shaq is ranked too high on all-time lists? He's in the 5-8 range on most lists which to me seems fair for a top 5 peak ever who also had insane longevity and won a lot. Hakeem is lower partly because he accomplished less. Was he a lesser player then Shaq? I mean it can be argued both ways. I've seen compelling arguments for Hakeem's two-way impact because defensively Hakeem is at a tier ahead of Shaq. However impact stats like plus minus like Shaq a lot more to the point where Shaq's peak looks a lot better. I'm not even a fan of plus minus but Hakeem's offensive impact doesn't seem significant despite the nice box score numbers and that's probably because he was a limited passer. Besides if we are going to talk excuses, Hakeem did have very good supporting casts from 1995 onwards. Perhaps he should have done better with Barkley and Drexler in 1997 than he did. They lost to a less talented Utah team. And then (and I don't believe in this argument at all) but people often bring up the caveat of MJ's retirement when explaining Hakeem's rings.

By the way I have peak Kareem over both guys.

[RachlNicholsazz]

2001 Shaq was the most unstoppable force the NBA has ever seen. He broke players and coaches alike spirits because defending him was totally hopeless. Hakeem was great but peak Shaq was god tier

[SouBeachTalents]

Shaq is the only player who gets excused for everything. He's the only player who gets to play with the best of the best in terms of peak/prime play, fails, and gets excused.

Both Scott and Anderson were capable 20 PPG scorers. Scott put up 20 PPG before getting injured in '92 and Anderson averaged 20 PPG in the '92-'93 seasons. They're not all-stars or elite players, but make them 3rd and 4th options and put them with two All-NBA/MVP candidates and what do you think happens?

Then Orlando added Horace Grant, a year removed from his first All-Star appearance and his second All-Defensive selection. In fact, Grant was All-Defensive 2nd Team four years in a row in the '90s ('93-'96).
I feel like he led those Magic teams as far as someone would realistically expect him to. He had them in the Finals by his 3rd year where he lost to the defending champs, then lost to the 72 win Bulls in his final year with the team. You can criticize him for getting swept both series, sure, but he actually held his own against a peak Hakeem at just 23 years old, where prime Ewing & Robinson got absolutely destroyed by him, then lost to what's widely considered the greatest team ever, with a key player in Grant missing nearly the entire series too.


In 1998, the Lakers had 4 All-Stars, won 61 games, and got swept by Utah. In 1999, they added Glen Rice (All-Star) who put up 18 PPG on 54% TS% in the lowest scoring year in NBA history (91 PPG). The result? Swept by SAS.
Those '97 & '98 Lakers supporting casts are hideously overrated. Van Exel & Jones were nice players, but they were both TERRIBLE in the playoffs, while Kobe was still a bench player. The one year you pointed to where the Lakers probably should've done better is '99.


Are people forgetting Shaq played with Kobe+Malone+GP+Phil in 2004 and lost to the Pistons via a gentleman's sweep?
You seem to forget Malone was injured in that series, while Kobe had literally one of the worst Finals of all time. Shaq was the only one who showed up for the Lakers that series. And Payton was clearly washed by then. He's a notable player in name only, not performance.


Shaq isn't anywhere near Hakeem.
And this is where your argument loses complete credibility, and heads towards 3ball lunacy territory :lol

[Micku]

Those '97 & '98 Lakers supporting casts are hideously overrated. Van Exel & Jones were nice players, but they were both TERRIBLE in the playoffs, while Kobe was still a bench player. The one year you pointed to where the Lakers probably should've done better is '99.


Yeah...
It's really unfortunate that they did stink in the playoffs. I think the late 90s Lakers team had more talent than the team that won the chip in 2000-02, but Shaq and Kobe were just better in those championship years. It was the coaching and how they played that really messed things up with the Lakers in 97-99. When SAS beat them, it wasn't due to talent. It was due to team play. And it wasn't entirely Shaq's fault, but he could've played better too against Utah in 97 and SAS in 99. There were a lot of egos on those laker teams. They had the talent to go to the finals, and perhaps win it all, but not the direction. Nick Van Exel had to go though. The way he clashed with Del Harris was too much and he couldn't make shots consistently. He was always exciting to watch, but more flash than substance. I swear Eddie Jones and Kobe could've played together wonderfully if they would've kept him. Eddie Jones seemed to be very coachable, two way player, didn't seem to have a huge ego, and not an asshole. It was a hard pill to swallow. Management felt there could be only one and wanted Glen Rice, and at the same time, give Kobe more mins. So, Eddie had to go.

[SouBeachTalents]

Yeah...
It's really unfortunate that they did stink in the playoffs. I think the late 90s Lakers team had more talent than the team that won the chip in 2000-02, but Shaq and Kobe were just better in those championship years. It was the coaching and how they played that really messed things up with the Lakers in 97-99. When SAS beat them, it wasn't due to talent. It was due to team play. And it wasn't entirely Shaq's fault, but he could've played better too against Utah in 97 and SAS in 99. There were a lot of egos on those laker teams. They had the talent to go to the finals, and perhaps win it all, but not the direction. Nick Van Exel had to go though. The way he clashed with Del Harris was too much and he couldn't make shots consistently. He was always exciting to watch, but more flash than substance. I swear Eddie Jones and Kobe could've played together wonderfully if they would've kept him. Eddie Jones seemed to be very coachable, two way player, didn't seem to have a huge ego, and not an asshole. It was a hard pill to swallow. Management felt there could be only one and wanted Glen Rice, and at the same time, give Kobe more mins. So, Eddie had to go.
I disagree with the bolded. The disparity between Shaq & especially Kobe in the late 90's to the early 2000's is enormous, and the results definitely bare that out.

I agreed with everything else you said though. Van Exel wouldn't have fit when you already had Shaq & Kobe on the team, and I 100% agree they made a big mistake giving up Eddie Jones, he would've been a perfect 3rd wheel; he was a solid all around player, could space the floor, and was arguably the best defensive 2 guard in the league when he was on Charlotte.

[HoopsNY]

Shaq would be excused if people mentioned him as a GOAT candidate because with how high he peaked he would have been in that conversation had he checked the other boxes. Thing is people do penalize him for missing regular season games, for mailing it in defensively at times, and yes... for not winning enough.

Every top 10 player gets immense scrutiny, from Magic to Kobe, Kareem and MJ, LeBron and Bird. Duncan doesn't get any really. Hakeem gets a ton where he's ranked 11th-12th. I rarely have seen Shaq get crucified the way the other guys do.


Do you think Shaq is ranked too high on all-time lists? He's in the 5-8 range on most lists which to me seems fair for a top 5 peak ever who also had insane longevity and won a lot.

Yes. 5-8 is too high IMO and he's especially overrated in relation to Hakeem. If you place Shaq at 5 and Hakeem at 11, then they're basically on different tiers. See my point? Even top 10 vs. top 11-13 is a different tier, which establishes the premise of what it is that I'm saying.


Hakeem is lower partly because he accomplished less. Was he a lesser player then Shaq? I mean it can be argued both ways. I've seen compelling arguments for Hakeem's two-way impact because defensively Hakeem is at a tier ahead of Shaq. However impact stats like plus minus like Shaq a lot more to the point where Shaq's peak looks a lot better. I'm not even a fan of plus minus but Hakeem's offensive impact doesn't seem significant despite the nice box score numbers and that's probably because he was a limited passer.

PS Hakeem '86-'96: 113.7 ORTG
PS Shaq '94-'04: 112.9 ORTG

This obviously isn't a be all end all statistic, but I don't think Hakeem's offensive contributions indicates lack of impact, especially when he commanded crazy doubles that only Shaq and MJ saw during his time.


Besides if we are going to talk excuses, Hakeem did have very good supporting casts from 1995 onwards. Perhaps he should have done better with Barkley and Drexler in 1997 than he did. They lost to a less talented Utah team. And then (and I don't believe in this argument at all) but people often bring up the caveat of MJ's retirement when explaining Hakeem's rings.

I'm very happy you brought that up. The Rockets in 1997 took the Jazz to 6 games. In 1998, they took the Jazz to a deciding 5th game. The Lakers in 1997 and 1998 vs Utah? 1-8. And if Hakeem at the age of 34-35 should have done more with Clyde and Charles, then what should Shaq have done with peak/prime Amare and Nash? You see where the double standards exist?

Here's food for thought:

Shaq vs UTA '97: 22/12/3/0/2 on 49% (56% FTHs)
Hakeem vs UTA '97: 27/9/4/2/3 on 59% (73% FTHs)

Shaq was 24; Hakeem was 34. But Hakeem gets the criticism?

[HoopsNY]

I feel like he led those Magic teams as far as someone would realistically expect him to. He had them in the Finals by his 3rd year where he lost to the defending champs, then lost to the 72 win Bulls in his final year with the team. You can criticize him for getting swept both series, sure, but he actually held his own against a peak Hakeem at just 23 years old, where prime Ewing & Robinson got absolutely destroyed by him, then lost to what's widely considered the greatest team ever, with a key player in Grant missing nearly the entire series too.

Orlando had HCA in the '95 finals. In '96, Orlando was down by 20 before Grant even got injured. And no one brings up the hobbled Bulls (Harper, Kukoc, Pippen). Swept by Houston, swept by Chicago. I guarantee if it was Hakeem getting swept constantly (or gentlemen swept), then we wouldn't hear the end of it.


Those '97 & '98 Lakers supporting casts are hideously overrated. Van Exel & Jones were nice players, but they were both TERRIBLE in the playoffs, while Kobe was still a bench player. The one year you pointed to where the Lakers probably should've done better is '99.

As were the Rockets, but they still faired much better. Check this out:

Shaq vs UTA '97: 22/12/3/0/2 on 49% (56% FTHs)
Hakeem vs UTA '97: 27/9/4/2/3 on 59% (73% FTHs)

The Rockets took that series to 6 games. The Lakers got swept and Shaq was underwhelming. Shaq was 24 and Hakeem was 34. But again, none of this is ever brought up. In fact, we even hear people claiming (Stephen A. Smith) that the Rockets had a super-team!!!


You seem to forget Malone was injured in that series, while Kobe had literally one of the worst Finals of all time. Shaq was the only one who showed up for the Lakers that series. And Payton was clearly washed by then. He's a notable player in name only, not performance.

So the Lakers 3-peated without GP and added him and that somehow makes them worse? It was still a lop sided affair that LAL should have won.


And this is where your argument loses complete credibility, and heads towards 3ball lunacy territory :lol

I already admitted I'm biased so don't even compare me to that lunatic lol.

[HoopsNY]

Yeah...
It's really unfortunate that they did stink in the playoffs. I think the late 90s Lakers team had more talent than the team that won the chip in 2000-02, but Shaq and Kobe were just better in those championship years. It was the coaching and how they played that really messed things up with the Lakers in 97-99. When SAS beat them, it wasn't due to talent. It was due to team play. And it wasn't entirely Shaq's fault, but he could've played better too against Utah in 97 and SAS in 99. There were a lot of egos on those laker teams. They had the talent to go to the finals, and perhaps win it all, but not the direction. Nick Van Exel had to go though. The way he clashed with Del Harris was too much and he couldn't make shots consistently. He was always exciting to watch, but more flash than substance. I swear Eddie Jones and Kobe could've played together wonderfully if they would've kept him. Eddie Jones seemed to be very coachable, two way player, didn't seem to have a huge ego, and not an asshole. It was a hard pill to swallow. Management felt there could be only one and wanted Glen Rice, and at the same time, give Kobe more mins. So, Eddie had to go.

I'm not even saying it's necessarily Shaq's fault. Though in '97, you can definitely make that argument. The point is, everyone takes Hakeem to task for the demise of his franchise, the first round exits, not making the playoffs. So if we're gonna play that game, then what about Shaq?

[kawhileonard2]

Too close to call like comparing Lebron and Dr J.

[dankok8]

Every top 10 player gets immense scrutiny, from Magic to Kobe, Kareem and MJ, LeBron and Bird. Duncan doesn't get any really. Hakeem gets a ton where he's ranked 11th-12th. I rarely have seen Shaq get crucified the way the other guys do.

Hmm I disagree with this. I've seen Shaq get crucified as much as the other guys.


Yes. 5-8 is too high IMO and he's especially overrated in relation to Hakeem. If you place Shaq at 5 and Hakeem at 11, then they're basically on different tiers. See my point? Even top 10 vs. top 11-13 is a different tier, which establishes the premise of what it is that I'm saying.

Even if Shaq is at #5 and Hakeem is at #11 it's not necessarily a different tier. I for one have Russell, Jordan, Kareem and Lebron in tier 1. And then in tier 2 there are eight players including Shaq and Hakeem. Ranking players isn't exact science. I think Hakeem at #5 all time and Hakeem at #12 all-time are both justifiable rankings. It's a reasonable range depending on your criteria and how you weigh different factors.


PS Hakeem '86-'96: 113.7 ORTG
PS Shaq '94-'04: 112.9 ORTG

This obviously isn't a be all end all statistic, but I don't think Hakeem's offensive contributions indicates lack of impact, especially when he commanded crazy doubles that only Shaq and MJ saw during his time.

Like I said plus-minus stats for what it's worth paint Shaq as a godly force.

In terms of team impact, Shaq's offenses were some of the best ever and those teams struggled when Shaq sat much more so than Hakeem's teams struggled without Hakeem. And that's perhaps a bit surprising considering Hakeem probably had less talent around it but those rosters were respectable when Hakeem missed games.

With that being said, in 1995, Drexler was really really good. I would say somewhere in the range of 2000 Kobe maybe better when you consider how great he was in the finals while Kobe got injured in his finals. And other role players in Houston were fantastic in both titles years in 1994 and 1995. Sometimes having a worse 2nd option automatically means a bad supporting cast to many observer where that may not be the case. If a different teammate scores 20 points every night is that really a lot worse than having a 20 ppg second option?


I'm very happy you brought that up. The Rockets in 1997 took the Jazz to 6 games. In 1998, they took the Jazz to a deciding 5th game. The Lakers in 1997 and 1998 vs Utah? 1-8. And if Hakeem at the age of 34-35 should have done more with Clyde and Charles, then what should Shaq have done with peak/prime Amare and Nash? You see where the double standards exist?

Here's food for thought:

Shaq vs UTA '97: 22/12/3/0/2 on 49% (56% FTHs)
Hakeem vs UTA '97: 27/9/4/2/3 on 59% (73% FTHs)

Shaq was 24; Hakeem was 34. But Hakeem gets the criticism?

How about in 1998?

Hakeem also had a bunch of bad playoffs in 1990 and 1991. Not just team-wise but individually.

[Phoenix]

I disagree with the bolded. The disparity between Shaq & especially Kobe in the late 90's to the early 2000's is enormous, and the results definitely bare that out.

I agreed with everything else you said though. Van Exel wouldn't have fit when you already had Shaq & Kobe on the team, and I 100% agree they made a big mistake giving up Eddie Jones, he would've been a perfect 3rd wheel; he was a solid all around player, could space the floor, and was arguably the best defensive 2 guard in the league when he was on Charlotte.

Yeah, in retrospect they should have held onto Eddie. I guess at the time Kobe's emergence made him expendable and they felt better served by bringing in Rice as a shooter, but the scoring Rice ended up providing could easily have been filled in by Eddie plus all-NBA level D. Not to forget giving up Elden Campbell who would have been a perfectly servicebale backup for Shaq during the 3peat.

[HoopsNY]

Hmm I disagree with this. I've seen Shaq get crucified as much as the other guys.

Really? Where? lol. Okay, how about this. I think it's safe to say that Shaq gets some of the least criticism, and certainly less than Hakeem.


Even if Shaq is at #5 and Hakeem is at #11 it's not necessarily a different tier. I for one have Russell, Jordan, Kareem and Lebron in tier 1. And then in tier 2 there are eight players including Shaq and Hakeem. Ranking players isn't exact science. I think Hakeem at #5 all time and Hakeem at #12 all-time are both justifiable rankings. It's a reasonable range depending on your criteria and how you weigh different factors

Yea, I understand what you mean. Though in my mind, there's a notable difference between someone being #5 and #11.


Like I said plus-minus stats for what it's worth paint Shaq as a godly force.

They did some analytics on this on RealGM once to get some numbers from the 90s using their own data sets. IIRC, D-Rob was blowing everyone out the water. I don't remember if they had playoff numbers. There isn't +/- numbers before the '97 season from what I know. What are you using for Hakeem? I remember they did one for 1994 and Hakeem's was near 15 for his net rating. Seems comparable to Shaq in the early 2000s.


In terms of team impact, Shaq's offenses were some of the best ever and those teams struggled when Shaq sat much more so than Hakeem's teams struggled without Hakeem. And that's perhaps a bit surprising considering Hakeem probably had less talent around it but those rosters were respectable when Hakeem missed games.

Respectable? You mean like when Shaq missed games? For the duration of Shaq's prime/peak, his teams usually faired well without him.

'94 w/o Shaq: 1-0
'95 w/o Shaq: 2-1
'96 w/o Shaq: 20-8
'97 w/o Shaq: 18-13
'98 w/o Shaq: 15-7
'99 w/o Shaq: 0-1
'00 w/o Shaq: 1-2 (Kobe missed one of these games)
'01 w/o Shaq: 5-3
'02 w/o Shaq: 7-8
'03 w/o Shaq: 5-10
'04 w/o Shaq: 7-8 (Kobe missed half of these games, but was 5-3 without Shaq)
'05 w/o Shaq: 6-3

Now let's look at Hakeem....

'86 w/o Hakeem: 7-7
'87 w/o Hakeem: 2-5
'88 w/o Hakeem: 1-2
'91 w/o Hakeem: 16-10
'92 w/o Hakeem: 2-10
'94 w/o Hakeem: 1-1
'95 w/o Hakeem: 3-5
'96 w/o Hakeem: 1-9
'97 w/o Hakeem: 3-1
'98 w/o Hakeem: 15-20

The only year that stands out is 1991 and Houston was still better with Hakeem than without him.


How about in 1998?

Shaq faired better in '98, but you'd kinda expect that no? Why does '97 get excused, meanwhile Hakeem was 10 years older?


Hakeem also had a bunch of bad playoffs in 1990 and 1991. Not just team-wise but individually.

This goes back to my earlier point about casts. Houston was often a lower seeded team with no HCA. In both years, they faced a top seeded Lakers. It's not like Hakeem performed that way for say, three rounds. And in '91, he didn't do too badly, despite all of the drama going on in Houston with management. Hakeem put up 22/15/2/1/3 on 58% (63% TS%). He was 28 then. Imagine if he had Kobe like Shaq did at that age?

[Red Pill Sports]

Shaquille O'Neal had 2 of the Top 3 shooting guards ever in all his rings, the last of which he was a glorified role player. Hakeem won a ring with Vernon Maxwell as his best perimeter option.

Hakeem may have a lot of 1st round exits, but it was usually because his support was garbage. Shaq was swept out of the postseason five times before winning his first ring, all of them at the hands of teams with less talent than his own.

Shaq didn't peak until Hakeem, Robinson and Ewing were dinosaurs.

[dankok8]

They did some analytics on this on RealGM once to get some numbers from the 90s using their own data sets. IIRC, D-Rob was blowing everyone out the water. I don't remember if they had playoff numbers. There isn't +/- numbers before the '97 season from what I know. What are you using for Hakeem? I remember they did one for 1994 and Hakeem's was near 15 for his net rating. Seems comparable to Shaq in the early 2000s.

Yea D Rob was insanely great in the regular season... But Shaq also has some of the best plus-minus numbers ever since 1994 along with Lebron and KG. Hakeem was a lot worse based on those metrics. Which like I said aren't everything and I don't even love plus-minus but it's still note-worthy.

Something that doesn't show up in the stats is that Shaq is a much better passer than Hakeem. That alone makes him at least a tier better as an offensive weapon. And he is a bit more efficient and did get opposing bigs in foul trouble which is also huge. Now you can say Hakeem is a tier better on defense and I won't argue that at all. Heck he could be two tiers better on defense for that matter. At the end of the day though, Shaq still anchored some very good defensive teams and godly offensive teams at the same time. So individual defense doesn't appear to be quite as valuable as individual offense is.

But if you think peak Hakeem is roughly equal to peak Shaq, I won't argue too much. Better? I don't buy it. I'd have to see some more evidence or data to believe that and there isn't any I've seen.


Respectable? You mean like when Shaq missed games? For the duration of Shaq's prime/peak, his teams usually faired well without him.

'94 w/o Shaq: 1-0
'95 w/o Shaq: 2-1
'96 w/o Shaq: 20-8
'97 w/o Shaq: 18-13
'98 w/o Shaq: 15-7
'99 w/o Shaq: 0-1
'00 w/o Shaq: 1-2 (Kobe missed one of these games)
'01 w/o Shaq: 5-3
'02 w/o Shaq: 7-8
'03 w/o Shaq: 5-10
'04 w/o Shaq: 7-8 (Kobe missed half of these games, but was 5-3 without Shaq)
'05 w/o Shaq: 6-3

Now let's look at Hakeem....

'86 w/o Hakeem: 7-7
'87 w/o Hakeem: 2-5
'88 w/o Hakeem: 1-2
'91 w/o Hakeem: 16-10
'92 w/o Hakeem: 2-10
'94 w/o Hakeem: 1-1
'95 w/o Hakeem: 3-5
'96 w/o Hakeem: 1-9
'97 w/o Hakeem: 3-1
'98 w/o Hakeem: 15-20

The only year that stands out is 1991 and Houston was still better with Hakeem than without him.

I mean it's shocking that the 3-peat Lakers that are among the greatest teams of all time only went 13-12 in games Shaq missed. In terms of missed games, both guys seem to have had a very solid impact in this respect where their teams got a lot worse without them.


Shaq faired better in '98, but you'd kinda expect that no? Why does '97 get excused, meanwhile Hakeem was 10 years older?

Fair enough. Shaq isn't blameless at all in some of those losses particularly 1997 vs. Jazz and 1999 vs. Spurs.


This goes back to my earlier point about casts. Houston was often a lower seeded team with no HCA. In both years, they faced a top seeded Lakers. It's not like Hakeem performed that way for say, three rounds. And in '91, he didn't do too badly, despite all of the drama going on in Houston with management. Hakeem put up 22/15/2/1/3 on 58% (63% TS%). He was 28 then. Imagine if he had Kobe like Shaq did at that age?


To be fair prime Shaq only had a prime Kobe for 3 seasons (2001-2003).

As for playoff disappointments, Hakeem's had a quite a few as well. Losing to the 47-win Sonics in 1989 was kind of rough and he didn't set the world on fire either. Like I said in 1990 and 1991 against the Lakers it's not that the team lost but he struggled individually. In 1992 he missed the playoffs. In 1993 and 1996 he lost to the Sonics and struggled pretty mightily in the later series if I may add that point.

Again not even arguing for Shaq here but just trying to add balance. I think you do love Hakeem a bit too much as you even admitted! :lol

[Phoenix]

The two of you are tit for tating the numbers( which is what we sports nerds tend to do of course), but there's one obvious difference between Hakeem and Shaq: free throws. Hakeem was averaging for the 94 and 95 runs 74%( not Steph Curry level obviously), Shaq 53%. What it simply boiled down to was you couldn't emply a 'hack a Hakeem' strategy and get the ball out of his hands at the end of games. This elevated the importance of guys like Kobe and Wade as closers in the years Shaq won.

That being said, I think the 'Shaq didn't win until the other great centers got old' thing is a bit overflown. Hakeem won during the two years MJ retired( I'm in the camp that thinks the Rockets would have beaten the Bulls in 95 even if he hadn't left, but it's something we'll never know). Robinson didn't win a title until Duncan took over the team, and his playoff futility outside of that is well-known. Ewing never won period nor did he and Shaq ever face-off in the playoffs. Out of all the bigs Hakeem beat during his run, 23 year old Shaq played Hakeem the best. Ewing was outclassed in 94 and the Admiral got nuked in 95.

[jayfan]

Shaq is very full of himself. He thinks he was better than everybody. Except Hakeem.

[Overdrive]

They're my AT fav players and I think their weaknesses compared to the other were offset by strengthes they had the other didn't.

They're both in the same range of all time players imo.

...and Shaq caught alot of flack when he played. Especially for injuries, playoff shortcomings before 2000 and lazyness. It's just that most of the criticism back then wasn't online. Shaq was the superstar that went from the analogue to the digital age. And he just won at the right time to avoid internet scrutiny.

I remember a letter a reader sent to a basketball mag where he asked how a guy like Shaq could play in the NBA, when he can't shoot normal jumpshots. That's how he was viewed by quite some people at the time. Especially in Europe where everyone is high on basics.

[hold this L]

Really? Where? lol. Okay, how about this. I think it's safe to say that Shaq gets some of the least criticism, and certainly less than Hakeem.



Yea, I understand what you mean. Though in my mind, there's a notable difference between someone being #5 and #11.



They did some analytics on this on RealGM once to get some numbers from the 90s using their own data sets. IIRC, D-Rob was blowing everyone out the water. I don't remember if they had playoff numbers. There isn't +/- numbers before the '97 season from what I know. What are you using for Hakeem? I remember they did one for 1994 and Hakeem's was near 15 for his net rating. Seems comparable to Shaq in the early 2000s.



Respectable? You mean like when Shaq missed games? For the duration of Shaq's prime/peak, his teams usually faired well without him.

'94 w/o Shaq: 1-0
'95 w/o Shaq: 2-1
'96 w/o Shaq: 20-8
'97 w/o Shaq: 18-13
'98 w/o Shaq: 15-7
'99 w/o Shaq: 0-1
'00 w/o Shaq: 1-2 (Kobe missed one of these games)
'01 w/o Shaq: 5-3
'02 w/o Shaq: 7-8
'03 w/o Shaq: 5-10
'04 w/o Shaq: 7-8 (Kobe missed half of these games, but was 5-3 without Shaq)
'05 w/o Shaq: 6-3

Now let's look at Hakeem....

'86 w/o Hakeem: 7-7
'87 w/o Hakeem: 2-5
'88 w/o Hakeem: 1-2
'91 w/o Hakeem: 16-10
'92 w/o Hakeem: 2-10
'94 w/o Hakeem: 1-1
'95 w/o Hakeem: 3-5
'96 w/o Hakeem: 1-9
'97 w/o Hakeem: 3-1
'98 w/o Hakeem: 15-20

The only year that stands out is 1991 and Houston was still better with Hakeem than without him.



Shaq faired better in '98, but you'd kinda expect that no? Why does '97 get excused, meanwhile Hakeem was 10 years older?



This goes back to my earlier point about casts. Houston was often a lower seeded team with no HCA. In both years, they faced a top seeded Lakers. It's not like Hakeem performed that way for say, three rounds. And in '91, he didn't do too badly, despite all of the drama going on in Houston with management. Hakeem put up 22/15/2/1/3 on 58% (63% TS%). He was 28 then. Imagine if he had Kobe like Shaq did at that age?

Shaq has a career 15%+ when he plays/doesn't, Hakeem is at 11%. Noticeably better than the guy that couldn't win shit until MJ was kicked off the league.

[KNOW1EDGE]

Shaq was more physically dominant. The most dominant force I’ve ever witnessed play in the NBA.

Hakeem was far more talented as a basketball player. Fundamentally sound, could shoot, had amazing footwork.

[HoopsNY]

Yea D Rob was insanely great in the regular season... But Shaq also has some of the best plus-minus numbers ever since 1994 along with Lebron and KG. Hakeem was a lot worse based on those metrics. Which like I said aren't everything and I don't even love plus-minus but it's still note-worthy.

I don't know about a lot. The RealGM numbers, IIRC, were almost +15, similar to Shaq.


Something that doesn't show up in the stats is that Shaq is a much better passer than Hakeem. That alone makes him at least a tier better as an offensive weapon. And he is a bit more efficient and did get opposing bigs in foul trouble which is also huge. Now you can say Hakeem is a tier better on defense and I won't argue that at all. Heck he could be two tiers better on defense for that matter. At the end of the day though, Shaq still anchored some very good defensive teams and godly offensive teams at the same time. So individual defense doesn't appear to be quite as valuable as individual offense is.

The benefits of the triangle. I'm not trying to minimize Shaq's ability as a passer. But it's evident that Shaq became a much better passer under Phil due to the triangle offense.

Shaq '00-'03: 3.4 APG
Shaq '93-'99: 2.4 APG

As mentioned before, this isn't about belittling Shaq, this is about understanding what Hakeem had at his disposal. Hakeem was a great passer during his peak years. I'm not sure why anyone would think differently. Now imagine Hakeem was in the triangle offense.


But if you think peak Hakeem is roughly equal to peak Shaq, I won't argue too much. Better? I don't buy it. I'd have to see some more evidence or data to believe that and there isn't any I've seen.

Evidence is mostly situational and all based on circumstances. You can't subtract context from the situation as it does really matter. Shaq's peak years are massively overrated, especially when you consider the refs fixing the 2002 WCF.


I mean it's shocking that the 3-peat Lakers that are among the greatest teams of all time only went 13-12 in games Shaq missed. In terms of missed games, both guys seem to have had a very solid impact in this respect where their teams got a lot worse without them.

Which is why I said he's overrated. The reality is, Shaq usually played on some really great teams with really solid casts.


To be fair prime Shaq only had a prime Kobe for 3 seasons (2001-2003).

He was the best SG in the game in 2000. And I'd take 2000 Kobe over any guard Hakeem played with, including '95 Drexler who couldn't defend anything. But the Lakers had such great pieces that year too. Not to mention, he was All-NBA 2nd Team, an All-Star, and All-Defensive 1st Team.

Kobe
Rice
Horry
Green
Shaw
Harper
Phil

The perfect mix of young talent (Kobe+Shaq) with veteran leadership and an all-time great coach.


As for playoff disappointments, Hakeem's had a quite a few as well. Losing to the 47-win Sonics in 1989 was kind of rough and he didn't set the world on fire either. Like I said in 1990 and 1991 against the Lakers it's not that the team lost but he struggled individually. In 1992 he missed the playoffs. In 1993 and 1996 he lost to the Sonics and struggled pretty mightily in the later series if I may add that point.

47 win Sonics? The Rockets were a 45 win team. And yea, sure, he didn't dominate to some obscene level, but 25/13/3/3/3 on 52% isn't bad.


Again not even arguing for Shaq here but just trying to add balance. I think you do love Hakeem a bit too much as you even admitted! :lol

Not in this case. I think my case for Hakeem is reasonable. lol

[HoopsNY]

Shaq has a career 15%+ when he plays/doesn't, Hakeem is at 11%. Noticeably better than the guy that couldn't win shit until MJ was kicked off the league.

Where are you getting these numbers from? Not disagreeing with you, but I'd like to take a look myself.

[hold this L]

Where are you getting these numbers from? Not disagreeing with you, but I'd like to take a look myself.


https://youtu.be/4zxq70PjnC8?t=638
10:38 with Shaq, I did Hakeem's myself on statmuse for Hakeem to compare to the other 11 guys

[HoopsNY]

https://youtu.be/4zxq70PjnC8?t=638
10:38 with Shaq, I did Hakeem's myself on statmuse for Hakeem to compare to the other 11 guys

I'm not sure this makes much sense. Let's focus on the years that matter, really, for either of these guys.

Houston won 41% of their games without Hakeem between 1985-97; during that same span, they won 61% of their games with him. that's a difference of +20%.

HOU w/Hakeem '85-'97: 596-382 (.609%)
HOU w/o Hakeem: '85-'97: 36-52 (.409%)

Let's look at Shaq for the years that matter (Orlando, LA, Miami).

ORL w/Shaq: 185-110
ORL w/o Shaq: 23-10

LAL w/Shaq: 377-137
LAL w/o Shaq: 58-52

MIA w/Shaq: 120-52
MIA w/o Shaq: 35-39

Total: w/Shaq: 682-299 (.695)
w/o Shaq: 116-101 (.534)

So basically, his teams had a +16%, lower than Hakeem's.

[red1]

shaq is the most talented basketball player of all-time



I wouldnt mind the talent of being 7'1 and athletic strong and durable as ****, and adding that to my own life.





shaq was truly a gifted specimen.

[dankok8]

I don't know about a lot. The RealGM numbers, IIRC, were almost +15, similar to Shaq.

There is the AuPM data I found from Ben Taylor's Greatest Peaks project.

Hakeem
1994 - 5.5
1995 - 4.4
1996 - 3.5
1997 - 3.3

Shaq
1998 - 5.6
1999 - 3.9
2000 - 6.0
2001 - 5.8
2002 - 5.1

There is also PIPM. Shaq has a career PIPM of 5.96 and Hakeem just 2.90. Hakeem leads Shaq in defensive D-PIPM by a solid margin +1.49 to +0.86 but Shaq crushes him in offensive O-PIPM by a 5.11 to 1.41 margin. Hakeem didn't really move the needle much on offense.


The benefits of the triangle. I'm not trying to minimize Shaq's ability as a passer. But it's evident that Shaq became a much better passer under Phil due to the triangle offense.

Shaq '00-'03: 3.4 APG
Shaq '93-'99: 2.4 APG

As mentioned before, this isn't about belittling Shaq, this is about understanding what Hakeem had at his disposal. Hakeem was a great passer during his peak years. I'm not sure why anyone would think differently. Now imagine Hakeem was in the triangle offense.

Assist stats don't mean much. Shaq was a much better passer than Hakeem. That's not just my opinion. That's consensus. Hakeem in the mid 90's became a decent passer. Before that it was actually kind of a glaring flaw. Hakeem didn't react well to double teams at all. Ben Taylor's Hakeem episode includes a breakdown of his passing.

[HoopsNY]

There is the AuPM data I found from Ben Taylor's Greatest Peaks project.

Hakeem
1994 - 5.5
1995 - 4.4
1996 - 3.5
1997 - 3.3

Shaq
1998 - 5.6
1999 - 3.9
2000 - 6.0
2001 - 5.8
2002 - 5.1

There is also PIPM. Shaq has a career PIPM of 5.96 and Hakeem just 2.90. Hakeem leads Shaq in defensive D-PIPM by a solid margin +1.49 to +0.86 but Shaq crushes him in offensive O-PIPM by a 5.11 to 1.41 margin. Hakeem didn't really move the needle much on offense.



Assist stats don't mean much. Shaq was a much better passer than Hakeem. That's not just my opinion. That's consensus. Hakeem in the mid 90's became a decent passer. Before that it was actually kind of a glaring flaw. Hakeem didn't react well to double teams at all. Ben Taylor's Hakeem episode includes a breakdown of his passing.

I don't know much about those analytics honestly. I'll have to look more into them.

My point about the assists wasn't so much that they matter per se, but that Shaq got more opportunities in an offense that flowed better, despite the league slowing down significantly to when he came into the league. This is what the triangle brought to both him and Kobe (and of course MJ and Pippen).

The whole idea is that Hakeem didn't have the luxuries they other guys had. He was the perfect mix to capitalize on any of them. If Hakeem played today, he'd be raining threes and I'm thoroughly convinced of that.

If he came up in the triangle-offense, his in and out game with shooters like Fisher, Paxson, or Kerr, would have made him look like a great passer. I do admit, a lot of my memory is based off what I saw in the '94 and '95 playoffs and finals, where Hakeem's passing really became elevated.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl4WffHJF2A&ab_channel=talkhoops

I also admit that we can't base everything off of that year run, but again, what do his peak years ('93-'95) look like in a triangle-offense? Hakeem averaged 4.4 assists in the playoffs between '93-'95.

[Doomsday Dallas]

You guys are putting way too much thought into this.

I vote Shaq.

it's close... and even though Hakeem beat Shaq in the Finals, Shaq beat Jordan... and if you beat mid 90's Jordan in the playoffs... it says something.

[Axe]

Shaq was more physically dominant. The most dominant force I’ve ever witnessed play in the NBA.

Hakeem was far more talented as a basketball player. Fundamentally sound, could shoot, had amazing footwork.
Agreed. His personality even makes him more of a brute force at the low post. Could have been better in defense and rebounding tho. But yeah, what you said about hakeem makes him more versatile otoh.

[HoopsNY]

You guys are putting way too much thought into this.

I vote Shaq.

it's close... and even though Hakeem beat Shaq in the Finals, Shaq beat Jordan... and if you beat mid 90's Jordan in the playoffs... it says something.

The '95 Magic were essentially a super-team given how great their starting 5 was. You honestly think peak Hakeem with Penny/Scott/Anderson/Grant wouldn't beat that Chicago team with MJ coming back after nearly a 2 year layoff and no inside defensive presence like Grant or Rodman? C'mon.

[90sgoat]

I think it's interesting to go back and see Shaq play in his first 5 seasons, particularly Orlando.

He was dominant, but he was not unstoppable by any means. He had plenty of games where he couldn't get it done.

Like in the 97 series vs Jazz, Shaq had these stinkers:

Game 1: 17 points on 6/16
Game 2: 25 points on 10/25
Game 5: 23 points on 9/17

Against Greg Ostertag.

Shaq could be bullied well into his early Laker days. He didn't use his power to full effect yet. That was particularly true for Orlando Shaq.

I don't think prime Hakeem was ever that inefficient.

[SouBeachTalents]

I think it's interesting to go back and see Shaq play in his first 5 seasons, particularly Orlando.

He was dominant, but he was not unstoppable by any means. He had plenty of games where he couldn't get it done.

Like in the 97 series vs Jazz, Shaq had these stinkers:

Game 1: 17 points on 6/16
Game 2: 25 points on 10/25
Game 5: 23 points on 9/17

Against Greg Ostertag.

Shaq could be bullied well into his early Laker days. He didn't use his power to full effect yet. That was particularly true for Orlando Shaq.

I don't think prime Hakeem was ever that inefficient.
That's one series, I'm sure I could cherry pick a series Hakeem was just as inefficient too. Shaq more often than not played very well in the playoffs before his title years, including against a peak Hakeem at just 23 years old. But yes, he obviously hit his peak and reached MDE status with the Lakers.

[Overdrive]

I think it's interesting to go back and see Shaq play in his first 5 seasons, particularly Orlando.

He was dominant, but he was not unstoppable by any means. He had plenty of games where he couldn't get it done.

Like in the 97 series vs Jazz, Shaq had these stinkers:

Game 1: 17 points on 6/16
Game 2: 25 points on 10/25
Game 5: 23 points on 9/17

Against Greg Ostertag.

Shaq could be bullied well into his early Laker days. He didn't use his power to full effect yet. That was particularly true for Orlando Shaq.

I don't think prime Hakeem was ever that inefficient.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1990-nba-western-conference-first-round-rockets-vs-lakers.html

[90sgoat]

https://www.basketball-reference.com/playoffs/1990-nba-western-conference-first-round-rockets-vs-lakers.html

5.8 blocks and 2.5 steals tho :lebronamazed:

[Nike D'Antoni]

This is legit discussion.

[HighFlyer23]

Hakeem did more with less for sure. He had more skill offensively and was a defensive juggernaut but his efficiency and offensive production werenÂ’t up to par with Shaqs.

ShaqÂ’s 2002 ring is in question due to the debacle that was the 2002 Western Conference Finals.

Shaq also played a brand of basketball that blurred the line for officiating.

Shaqs absolute peak is hard to argue against

[Im Still Ballin]

A very tough question. I'll go with Shaq but it's incredibly close. Depends what type of team you have/want to build. Hakeem's advantage is defense, free-throw shooting, and scoring in the clutch. Shaq's advantage is rebounding, passing, and overall offensive value.