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

[LAZERUSS]

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]

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.






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





Bill Simmons (May 11, 2007): Duncan is wildly underrated

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.

[Duncan21formvp]

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]

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]

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

[eliteballer]

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

[Hamtaro CP3KDKG]

WTF happened to LAZERUSS

[tanibanana]

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.