Official #8 NBA Player Of All Time According To ISH

[Psileas]

Again, I didn't see Kareem, but there isn't much doubt in my mind that Shaq was the better individual player. From videos I've seen, the skyhook was deadly, but Kareem didn't dominate on both ends the way Shaq does. It's close of course, I would never say it's not, but Shaq was simply more dominant on offense, and more of a force on defense (debatable).

Maybe you only watched old Kareem videos. Kareem was arguably more dominant than Shaq on the combination of both ends, because of his dominance in defense. Shaq is big, strong and therefore makes it tough for small guys to penetrate, but I've never seen him limit centers as much as Kareem did, let alone of course the All-D teams that each made (and it's not like Kareem didn't have to face strong defenders, either).
As for offense, Shaq shoots a little higher FG%, but Kareem has the advantage on FT shooting, passing (although Shaq became a good passer after his Orlando days) and was easier to get the ball, because he was more mobile.

[Brunch@Five]

My vote goes to Moses Malone. He's the most underrated legend on this board.

[dejordan]

Originally Posted by Psileas

Whether I pick a great big man over him is another topic and is not so releant with the topic. I'd pick Garnett over Cousy, e.g, yet I'd never
I pick Oscar for #8, because of his meaning to the game. Prototype do-it-all- big guard, recorded as many triple-doubles in his first 5 years as Magic did throughout almost his whole career, he was dubbed selfish, yet, he did accept the role of the lesser star to Kareem, as a team player would do.
Hakeem is close, but he wasn't always "The Dream" that we remember from the mid-90's and there were times when his health and his leadership abilities were questioned. Duncan won 4 championships, but he brought nothing really new to basketball (well, maybe he did: Became the first player to be considered at times as the best in the world and still be viewed by many as boring to watch...) and his stats and dominance are not as overwhelming as Hakeem's in his own prime.



Yeah, I guess Hakeem wasn't a championship contender in 1986, 1993, 1996, 1997 or 1998...
OK, let me make a bold statement of my own: Put prime Hakeem to the 00's Spurs and till now he has 5 rings and 5 Finals' MVP's...

nice post psileas. good reasoning for picking O.

i agree that hakeem is a better player than duncan, better scorer, better rebounder, better defender, better free throw shooter when they really matter, (not quite as good a passer but close). i do think tim is a better leader.

i also think you underrate the fact that tim committed himself to defending pfs for so much of his career. he took the two towers lineup to a new level by being able to utilize a typical 4 game and 5 game at the highest level (yeah i watched the rockets in 86, and even though they had two bigs sharing the starting line-up, sampson was actually a 7' sf, and hakeem clearly played the 5). i would say that was something new tim brought to the game.

i also agree that we're not talking about "i'd take this player first if starting a team" are we? aren't we talking about "greatness"? duncan DID win 4 rings in 10 years. he does have great numbers. he has been the best player of the last 5 years. as i've maintained throughout, i think there are a lot of different ways to look at this greatest list, and i completely respect your reasons for taking oscar here. i just think tim has a good case too. and hakeem. and moses. etc.

[B-Real]

The Big O

[Psileas]

i also think you underrate the fact that tim committed himself to defending pfs for so much of his career. he took the two towers lineup to a new level by being able to utilize a typical 4 game and 5 game at the highest level (yeah i watched the rockets in 86, and even though they had two bigs sharing the starting line-up, sampson was actually a 7' sf, and hakeem clearly played the 5). i would say that was something new tim brought to the game.

I know it's kind of innovative, but mainly when you consider consistancy. The Twin Tower sceme is older than those Rockets. The 1964 Warriors used Nate Thurmond to play 25+ minutes beside Wilt (who played at his usual 46+ minute clip) and Thurmond was technically a C playing PF. They reached the NBA Finals that year, but Wilt left during the next season, so the orology "Twin Towers" couldn't be used accurately (after all, the WTC started being built like 1-2 years later!).

i also agree that we're not talking about "i'd take this player first if starting a team" are we? aren't we talking about "greatness"? duncan DID win 4 rings in 10 years. he does have great numbers. he has been the best player of the last 5 years. as i've maintained throughout, i think there are a lot of different ways to look at this greatest list, and i completely respect your reasons for taking oscar here. i just think tim has a good case too. and hakeem. and moses. etc.

For sure. I just replied to a couple of guys who questioned Oscar by the logic of who they'd rather build on. And that's beside the point.

[Richie2k6]

I have seen some highlights. He had a good outside shot, and looked very athletic. Is he clutch? Well, let's check out what he did in the playoffs:

His averages of 22ppg, 9ast, and 7reb in the playoffs is pretty good.

Averaging good numbers in the playoffs doesn't make you clutch. Ask Dirk from '06.

[hateraid]

Big O

BTW, l.kizzle = best list maker on ISH
this is how you make a list.

[Timmy D for MVP]

Originally Posted by Psileas

Yeah, I guess Hakeem wasn't a championship contender in 1986, 1993, 1996, 1997 or 1998...
OK, let me make a bold statement of my own: Put prime Hakeem to the 00's Spurs and till now he has 5 rings and 5 Finals' MVP's...

Yeah well I can say, keep Ginobli away from Dirk in game 7 and the Spurs have 5 titles and Duncan with a likely 4 MVP's. It's hard to talk about what could haev been, because it didn't happen!

[mlh1981]

Hakeem