[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Hell, [B]Shaq was already a better player in 93-95[/B]...and [B]by 00-02 he was light years better[/B].[/QUOTE]
Comedy routine? What's your agenda here? Because anyone who's objective that seriously thinks this....is retarded.
Printable View
[QUOTE=LAZERUSS]Hell, [B]Shaq was already a better player in 93-95[/B]...and [B]by 00-02 he was light years better[/B].[/QUOTE]
Comedy routine? What's your agenda here? Because anyone who's objective that seriously thinks this....is retarded.
Shaq's edge on offense isn't enough for me to overlook Hakeem's edge on defense. Hakeem was so complete as a player. Arguably the most versatile big man to ever play the game and easily the greatest footwork for a big.
Shaq had a few weaknesses: 1)Free throw shooting. He was such a liability at the foul line that if the Lakers needed a bucket in crunch time, Shaq came out because they couldn't afford for him to go to the line needing to make 1 or 2 free throws. Horry, Fox, and Fisher were the options for taking the shot if they couldn't get the ball to Kobe. 2)Pick and roll defense. Utah exposed them in the 90s. It was so predictable like clockwork. Stockton has ball at point, Malone sets pick, Shaq tries to come out to help and can't because he's too slow, Malone blows past him for the easy bucket. Jerry Sloan ran that play down their throats in '97 and '98. 3)Conditioning. Watching Shaq ran up the court half the time was painful, even for me.
Hakeem didn't have those weaknesses Shaq had. He also won a title with an inferior squad.
Hakeem no question. Shaq was more dominate offensively but Hakeem was better. Defensively Hakeem kills Shaq.
[QUOTE=D.J.]Shaq's edge on offense isn't enough for me to overlook Hakeem's edge on defense. Hakeem was so complete as a player. Arguably the most versatile big man to ever play the game and easily the greatest footwork for a big.
Shaq had a few weaknesses: 1)Free throw shooting. He was such a liability at the foul line that if the Lakers needed a bucket in crunch time, Shaq came out because they couldn't afford for him to go to the line needing to make 1 or 2 free throws. Horry, Fox, and Fisher were the options for taking the shot if they couldn't get the ball to Kobe. 2)Pick and roll defense. Utah exposed them in the 90s. It was so predictable like clockwork. Stockton has ball at point, Malone sets pick, Shaq tries to come out to help and can't because he's too slow, Malone blows past him for the easy bucket. Jerry Sloan ran that play down their throats in '97 and '98. 3)Conditioning. Watching Shaq ran up the court half the time was painful, even for me.
Hakeem didn't have those weaknesses Shaq had. He also won a title with an inferior squad.[/QUOTE]
I do not like the Hakeem won with lesser argument.
1993-94 Hakeem Olajuwon and 2002-03 Tim Duncan were of the few won without an all-star teammate. But 1999-00 Shaquille O'Neal was almost equally helpless.
Also what's the point of talking about something happened in the '90s? Thread title says threepeat Shaq and he finished 2nd to Zo in DPoY voting in 2000. And you can make a serious case for him. He wasn't slouch on PnR defending either. Also, although Hakeem was the better defender Shaq was almost as impactful as Hakeem due to his huge body in the paint. Their bpg numbers don't suggest that but it was harder and scarier, going up against Shaq in the paint. Finally, let's not act like Hakeem on defense didn't have a flaw. He was gambling way too much to deny the shot or steal the ball.
Hakeem. Shaq's competition included Todd Maculugh and Matt Geiger.
Dream was playing against prime Ewing, prime Robinson, and a young Shaq.
Who were the top 5 centers between 2000-2002?
Shaq
Zo
Deke
Vlade
way past prime Robinson
[QUOTE=Odinn]But 1999-00 Shaquille O'Neal was almost equally helpless.[/QUOTE]
I guess 23/6/5/1+/1 doesn't qualify as help. That same player averaging 31/5/3/1.5 in the first games against Sacramento or dropping 25/11/7/4 in game 7 against Portland doesn't qualify as help either.
[QUOTE]He wasn't slouch on PnR defending either.[/QUOTE]
He most certainly was. No surprise the Lakers went far once they didn't have to go up against Utah.
[QUOTE]Also, although Hakeem was the better defender Shaq was almost as impactful as Hakeem due to his huge body in the paint. Their bpg numbers don't suggest that but it was harder and scarier, going up against Shaq in the paint.[/QUOTE]
If it was harder going up against Shaq, he'd be winning DPOYs, not Olajuwon.
[QUOTE]Finally, let's not act like Hakeem on defense didn't have a flaw. He was gambling way too much to deny the shot or steal the ball.[/QUOTE]
Just because he wasn't flawless doesn't change the fact he was a better defender and outplayed Shaq at 32 years old(out of Shaq's own mouth).
shaq handz down. If john starks would of made that shot in tha 94 finals while jordan not retired than hakeem wouldnt be overrated as he iz:no:
[QUOTE=Fresh Kid]shaq handz down. If john starks would of made that shot in tha 94 finals while jordan not retired than hakeem wouldnt be overrated as he iz:no:[/QUOTE]
Starks would have missed like he did those other 19 shots that night.
There's probably no Hakeem fan bigger than I but I take Shaq without thinking twice. At his peak he commanded so much more respect on offense and he played defense very well in the playoffs. Shaq in '00 put everything together whereas Hakeem around '94 was already declining as a rebounder and IMHO was never the passer out of double teams that Shaq was.