Shaq vs Hakeem - Who was better?

[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





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