- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Questions: Who was better, Hakeem or Shaq?
Posted on 12/17/11 at 4:00 pm to TigerintheNO
Posted on 12/17/11 at 4:00 pm to TigerintheNO
Both are underrated. Shaq was more DOMINANT (not dominate, you geniuses), but Hakeem was more versatile.
Shaq's size actually hurt him as his career went on, while Hakeem's didn't. Hakeem was a PF for most of the beginning of his career with Sampson at the center spot and that gave him some advantages statistically. He was able to roam more while Shaq had to stay and hold things down in the middle usually for most of his career.
1 thing most Shaq haters are simply refusing to accept here is that Shaq never had anyone even close to Samson paired up with him in his career.
Hakeem had Drexler and a solid group around him. In fact, his supporting cast was better than Shaq's in LA and Orlando sans Kobe, of course. Shaq had the better number 2, but Hakeem had the better depth in his supporting cast.
Both are amazing players and Shaq's biggest weakness was his free throw shooting.
If you want to go with the most skilled 7' footer overall, you can go with Hakeem. If you want the most dominant center of all time, you can go with Shaq.
As a career, I put them both up there in the top 5, which to me is tough to shuffle around and put in any particular order because each dominated in different ways:
Chamberlain
Abdul-Jabbar
Olajuwon
Shaq
are easily the top 4 all time. Their order is honestly interchangeable as all were extremely good on both sides of the ball, and all had different styles.
Shaq's size actually hurt him as his career went on, while Hakeem's didn't. Hakeem was a PF for most of the beginning of his career with Sampson at the center spot and that gave him some advantages statistically. He was able to roam more while Shaq had to stay and hold things down in the middle usually for most of his career.
1 thing most Shaq haters are simply refusing to accept here is that Shaq never had anyone even close to Samson paired up with him in his career.
Hakeem had Drexler and a solid group around him. In fact, his supporting cast was better than Shaq's in LA and Orlando sans Kobe, of course. Shaq had the better number 2, but Hakeem had the better depth in his supporting cast.
Both are amazing players and Shaq's biggest weakness was his free throw shooting.
If you want to go with the most skilled 7' footer overall, you can go with Hakeem. If you want the most dominant center of all time, you can go with Shaq.
As a career, I put them both up there in the top 5, which to me is tough to shuffle around and put in any particular order because each dominated in different ways:
Chamberlain
Abdul-Jabbar
Olajuwon
Shaq
are easily the top 4 all time. Their order is honestly interchangeable as all were extremely good on both sides of the ball, and all had different styles.
1
Posted on 12/17/11 at 4:07 pm to DP40
Shaq at his peak was the most dominant center of my lifetime. Hakeem had the better overall game but give me an in his prime Shaq every day over Hakeem.
Posted on 12/17/11 at 4:10 pm to H-Town Tiger
Hakeem by a small margin. He wasn't a liability at the end of games on offense and he was a better defender. He never had the same quality of teammates as Shaq did either. Before Dirk last postseason, Hakeem was the last superstar to carry a team to the championship without a star #2 player. And yes, Hakeem outplayed Shaq in their finals match up. You have to actually watch the games.
Posted on 12/17/11 at 4:12 pm to woodoo
quote:
The Rocket championship teams will never get the respect they're due. I think the bulls don't make it past the Knicks and the 95 team with Clyde and crazy arse Vernon maxwell on Jordan, take a 7 game series
I don't think they get teh credit they deserve because of their regular season finishes, and of course no Jordan is huge.
I see both sides. At the time the Magic were pretty green as far as playoff experience. Otherwise that series probably would have been different.
Posted on 12/17/11 at 4:14 pm to ZTiger87
quote:
Hakeem was the last superstar to carry a team to the championship without a star #2 player.
Clyde Drexler?
Posted on 12/17/11 at 4:14 pm to Geaux2002
Sampson NEVER played. If he was healthy, we'd be talking about him. He was amazing in college. 7'4" and ran the court like Karl Malone, but dunked all over people, as you could imagine. He has the degenerative knee problems, that never let him play one whole season. He did make the most amazing shot in NBA history, to beat LA to reach the finals. He also knocked Jerry Seasting 6' the fu*k out in game 5 against the celts.
So hate on, Otis "OT for 2, giant hands" thorpe was far more instrumental in Hakeem's career.
So hate on, Otis "OT for 2, giant hands" thorpe was far more instrumental in Hakeem's career.
Posted on 12/17/11 at 4:15 pm to DP40
As a Houstonish guy I like Hakeem. Shaq will always have the numbers. Shaq was more dominant at the defensive end as well. But apples and oranges to an extent. They illustrated the 2 polar opposite ways to play the position. Dream was essentially a big forward. Also, Hakeem was not a liability in the end of a ball game as he could sink free throws.
Posted on 12/17/11 at 4:24 pm to SPEEDY
bs, a young lew alcindor would kick shaq's arse.
Posted on 12/17/11 at 4:38 pm to woodoo
quote:
Sampson NEVER played. If he was healthy, we'd be talking about him. He was amazing in college. 7'4" and ran the court like Karl Malone, but dunked all over people, as you could imagine. He has the degenerative knee problems, that never let him play one whole season. He did make the most amazing shot in NBA history, to beat LA to reach the finals. He also knocked Jerry Seasting 6' the fu*k out in game 5 against the celts.
In Hakeem's first 2 seasons, Sampson played basically the entire season. It's a little easier to transition into the league with a 7'4 monster next to you (much like Duncan with Robinson), than to be in Shaq's position, where he had to carry the team as a big man in his first season and did so admirably.
Hakeem didn't carry them after the 1985-86 season to playoff success until 8 years later in the 93-94 season, and they weren't talentless team as many seem to want to claim.
Smith, Elie, Smith, Cassell, Maxwell, Horry and Thorpe were very good players. Just because people were used to teams with multiple stars winning, didn't mean a 1 star team winning = the rest of the team was shite. The team then got better acquiring Drexler the following year.
quote:
So hate on, Otis "OT for 2, giant hands" thorpe was far more instrumental in Hakeem's career.
Yeah, he is one of the most underrated players I've ever seen. He just averaged a double double for the season in 93-94 while putting 2.3 assists and 0.8 steals/game.
I've never seen a team painted over as a collection of shitty players like those Houston teams and I am a huge Olajuwon fan.
Posted on 12/17/11 at 4:43 pm to Lester Earl
quote:
Clyde Drexler?
Wasn't on the 93-94 team. Unless you consider Otis Thorpe a great player
Posted on 12/17/11 at 4:47 pm to ZTiger87
quote:
Wasn't on the 93-94 team. Unless you consider Otis Thorpe a great player
Why does there have to be another "Great" player on the team. It worked in the 80's because the teams were really top heavy. In the 90's talent was more spread out and it resulted in teams that brought in better role players succeeding. It's not like the time frame we are talking about had great teams oustide of the Bulls. It was the Pistons, Celtics, and Lakers decline and occurred only when Jordan was out of the picture for the Bulls.
Posted on 12/17/11 at 4:49 pm to Geaux2002
quote:
Why does there have to be another "Great" player on the team. It worked in the 80's because the teams were really top heavy. In the 90's talent was more spread out and it resulted in teams that brought in better role players succeeding. It's not like the time frame we are talking about had great teams oustide of the Bulls. It was the Pistons, Celtics, and Lakers decline and occurred only when Jordan was out of the picture for the Bulls.
wtf are you talking about?
Posted on 12/17/11 at 4:55 pm to Tiger Ugly
Hakeem gave you more consistent effort, you could do more things with him offensively, and he was better on switching.
It's not a gulf, but I'd take Hakeem every day and any day over O'Neal.
It's not a gulf, but I'd take Hakeem every day and any day over O'Neal.
Posted on 12/17/11 at 4:57 pm to LSU alum wannabe
quote:
Shaq was more dominant at the defensive end as well.
Hakeem having more than 1000 more blocks than Shaq and in one less season and being #8 all-time in career steals among ALL players proves your wrong.
Posted on 12/17/11 at 5:20 pm to DP40
quote:
Hakeem having more than 1000 more blocks than Shaq and in one less season and being #8 all-time in career steals among ALL players proves your wrong.
I don't have a problem with being wrong about Shaq being better than Hakeem.
Posted on 12/17/11 at 5:21 pm to DP40
As an LSU grad, that was in school when Shaq was and long time Rockets fan, I've had the debate before and I always hate it
I agree with LE and SFP that people who say Shaq was only good due to his size are wrong, he had great skills. So, of course did Hakeem. I don't hink you can go wrong picking either.
And to anyone that says the only reason the Rockets won was because Jordan retired. He un retired in 95, so that point is wrong and don't give me this crap about he came in 3/4 into the season. People forget the 93 title was the toughest of the first 3. During that run the news of Jordans gambling broke and he started getting bad press for the first time ever. Seeing as he retired to play baseball because his dad was killed, how into basketball would have really been?
I agree with LE and SFP that people who say Shaq was only good due to his size are wrong, he had great skills. So, of course did Hakeem. I don't hink you can go wrong picking either.
And to anyone that says the only reason the Rockets won was because Jordan retired. He un retired in 95, so that point is wrong and don't give me this crap about he came in 3/4 into the season. People forget the 93 title was the toughest of the first 3. During that run the news of Jordans gambling broke and he started getting bad press for the first time ever. Seeing as he retired to play baseball because his dad was killed, how into basketball would have really been?
Posted on 12/17/11 at 5:24 pm to DP40
Shaq before he got fat.
Posted on 12/17/11 at 5:31 pm to DP40
Shaq = More of a "game changer"
Posted on 12/17/11 at 5:41 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
have you seen MJs personnel decisions in charlotte? i don't know if i'd use him as an example of a great talent evaluator
Not sure if you're serious. He was not evaluating Hakeem's potential.
But, MJ is making comments about what Hakeem already accomplished plus he played against him and many other centers. Having a peer, especially the greatest player, praise your accomplishments means alot.
Posted on 12/17/11 at 5:43 pm to DP40
Shaq was better because he was so much more efficient from the field.
Shaq's career FG% is higher than Hakeem's best year in true shooting percentage. That's how the big the gap is despite the fact that Shaq scored at a higher rate. Also, keep in mind that the league average FG% was always over 47% until 1992 while the league average FG% was around 44% during Shaq's prime. It makes their gap in efficiency that much greater. Shaq also has the edge in rebounding rate and assist rate. Hakeem is better defensively and slightly better in the playoffs. I don't think that's enough to account for the clear advantage that Shaq has in all other aspects of the game.
Shaq's career FG% is higher than Hakeem's best year in true shooting percentage. That's how the big the gap is despite the fact that Shaq scored at a higher rate. Also, keep in mind that the league average FG% was always over 47% until 1992 while the league average FG% was around 44% during Shaq's prime. It makes their gap in efficiency that much greater. Shaq also has the edge in rebounding rate and assist rate. Hakeem is better defensively and slightly better in the playoffs. I don't think that's enough to account for the clear advantage that Shaq has in all other aspects of the game.
Page 6 of 9
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News