Kareem vs Shaq vs Hakeem vs Russell vs Wilt

[VCMVP1551]

I bet you also don't remember Hakeem getting dominated by the Sonics in 1996 or Shaq getting outplayed by Duncan in 2001.

Shaq wasn't outplayed by Duncan in 2001. Shaq outplayed Duncan.

Shaq vs Duncan AND Robinson during the 2001 Western Conference Finals

Shaq- 27.0 ppg, 13.0 rpg, 2.5 apg, 1.3 bpg, 54.1 FG%
Tim Duncan- 23.0 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 4.3 apg, 4.3 bpg, 47.8 FG%

Shaq averaged 27 and 13 on 54% vs two top 5 post defenders while Duncan averaged 23 and 12 on a subpar 48% shooting while getting swept.

shaq is not the greatest center of all time.

A legit argument for Shaq can be made.

[Lax4422Chik1342]

In the never to be settled dispute, my top 5 are listed in a previous post of this thread....


Other honorable mentions for a top ten
Nate Thurmond
Moses Malone
Lynn Parish
Artis Gilmore.....including his ABA time served
Patrick Ewing
David Robinson
Bob Lanier


For a few years Bill Walton was as good as almost anyone.
Special getting the most of size at center mention:
Wes Unseld and Dave Cowens

Just like baseball where there's pre-modern & modern
pre-modern George Mikan

[Carbine]

I know why, but don't agree with people using per game stats as the sole reason why so and so outplayed so and so. It only tells part of the story.

Obviously it's hard to argue against someone when they throw the stat thing at you - that's why people use them, to defend their player or whatever - that will never change.

Remember Shaq/Hakeem in the finals? I remember coming away from that series thinking to myself that Hakeem clearly out-played Shaq - but this many years later I see the stat card pulled. It certainly makes Shaq look a lot better compared to what actually transpired - and those who like Shaq will obviously use it to their advantage. However, the statistical out-put compared to the actual out-put by both players are not close. If that makes sense.

[Lax4422Chik1342]

[QUOTE=Carbine]I know why, but don't agree with people using per game stats as the sole reason why so and so outplayed so and so. It only tells part of the story. Obviously it's hard to argue against someone when they throw the stat thing at you - that's why people use them, to defend their player or whatever - that will never change. Remember Shaq/Hakeem in the finals? I remember coming away from that series thinking to myself that Hakeem clearly out-played Shaq - but this many years later I see the stat card pulled. It certainly makes Shaq look a lot better compared to what actually transpired -/QUOTE]


Statistics can be very misleading and fail to paint the accurate picture e.g those opposed to legalizing marihuana often state it leads to hard drug use because 90% of all heroin users began smoking grass, so what, 100% of all heroin users began drinking milk so shall we ban milk too?

[VCMVP1551]

I know why, but don't agree with people using per game stats as the sole reason why so and so outplayed so and so. It only tells part of the story.

Obviously it's hard to argue against someone when they throw the stat thing at you - that's why people use them, to defend their player or whatever - that will never change.

Remember Shaq/Hakeem in the finals? I remember coming away from that series thinking to myself that Hakeem clearly out-played Shaq - but this many years later I see the stat card pulled. It certainly makes Shaq look a lot better compared to what actually transpired - and those who like Shaq will obviously use it to their advantage. However, the statistical out-put compared to the actual out-put by both players are not close. If that makes sense.

I watched the 2001 Western Conference Finals and Shaq wasn't outplayed by Duncan at all. Shaq had to go against constant double and triple teams and still dominated the low post and the boards.

Edit: I saw Psileas meant 2002.

[plowking]

I bet you also don't remember Hakeem getting dominated by the Sonics in 1996 or Shaq getting outplayed by Duncan in 2001.

I bet you remember Wilt only having two championships, and only one as the main option. No one can ever be considered the greatest at their position with only 1 title as the main option when others around him have 11, 5 and 4 championships to compete with.

Those of you who say Wilt is the best, please explain how. The guy wasn't a winner.

[plowking]

Shaq wasn't outplayed by Duncan in 2001. Shaq outplayed Duncan.

Shaq vs Duncan AND Robinson during the 2001 Western Conference Finals

Shaq- 27.0 ppg, 13.0 rpg, 2.5 apg, 1.3 bpg, 54.1 FG%
Tim Duncan- 23.0 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 4.3 apg, 4.3 bpg, 47.8 FG%

Shaq averaged 27 and 13 on 54% vs two top 5 post defenders while Duncan averaged 23 and 12 on a subpar 48% shooting while getting swept.



A legit argument for Shaq can be made.

It sucks when your own argument gets debunked doesn't it Psileas. If you seem to throw random comments out like "Shaq got dominated" when he was obviously the better player, then I'm going to have an even harder time listening to your case for Wilt being the greatest centre.

[VCMVP1551]

I bet you remember Wilt only having two championships, and only one as the main option. No one can ever be considered the greatest at their position with only 1 title as the main option when others around him have 11, 5 and 4 championships to compete with.

Well if you're going by total titles for Shaq, Kareem, Russell, Hakeem and Wilt then it's.

1.Russell- 11
2.Kareem- 6
3.Shaq- 4
T/4.- Wilt/Hakeem- 2

Titles as the teams best player

1.Russell- obviously the most, I don't know how many titles he was the best player but it was atleast 6-7 and arguably as many as 9 or 10
T/2.Shaq/Kareem- 3
3.Hakeem 2
4.Wilt 1

However that isn't the argument people will make for Wilt. The argument is how much Wilt dominated at both ends of the court, how important he was to the game of basketball, how much he changed the game, how many things he could do on the court ect.

Wilt has a very good case for best center ever as do the other 4 mentioned in the thread. They all have a good case for different reasons though.

[knicks4eva]

1.wilt
2.shaq
3.Hakeem
4.Kareem
5.Rusell

[millwad]

1. The Dream and Jabbar
3. Wilt Chamberlain
4. Shaq
5. Bill Russell

Yeah, you heard me right, Hakeem and Jabbar are the 2 best centers to ever play the game of basketball.

Like comparing Wilt and Bill to the Dream isn't a bit fair, the two of 'em dominated the worst era of basketball, Hakeem played in the best era of basketball and played hof-centers on daily bases and he did it often with crappy teammates and still he took them to the playoffs year after year and he always dominated his fellow-center on the opposing team.

Bill Russell played with the best players of his era and his offensive dominance against those crappy teams is no where close to Hakeem's dominance on offensive end. I know you shouldn't stare blind with the stats but Bill Russell's offensive stats are pure crap, he was terrible from the FT-line, people are always talking about Shaq being pure crap from the FT-line, so was Russell but nobody are talking about that. Russell's FG-percentage is damn low too, and that against white midgets, the level of competition in the Wilt and Russell-era was nowhere close to the players Hakeem faced and still dominated.

So, I think Hakeem is better than Wilt because Wilt never really faced the competition The Dream did and and considering the fact that Wilt wasn't able to win anything without a fellow-superstar in the way Dream did. The domination of Wilt under his prime was sick but only 2 titles in that crappy era when you dominate like Wilt did isn't that impressive.

And Bill Russell relied on his teammates, having no chance against Wilt he won with the help of his teammates, 11 rings wouldn't be one if he was playing on the teams the Dream did. Considering the fact that Russell was on the best team of his era with the best players it isn't that impressive to win 11 titles. AND(!), he has a career-average of 15 ppg against white midgets with a very bad FT-percentage and FG-percentage which is too freaking low for playing in the era he did. He wasn't good enough on the offensive end of the court to be compared to Olajuwon and everyone knows how freaking good Olajuwon was on D and even if Bill according to some of you was better on the defensive end it wasn't as much difference as the offensive skills of them both.

The reason why I didn't mention Jabbar in this message is that it's kinda obvious that he is the best already...

[DarkSephiroth]

This whole thread is creating chaos because the term "Greatest of All Time" can mean many different things.

Are we talking about a player, at his peak on any given day, playing against the other players on the list?
Are we talking about a player's total career achievements in his era?

It's not really fair to compare eras because almost everyone can understand the competition back then was not what it is now. That being said, for a player to stand out back then, he had to in some way revolutionize the game and do things other people didn't really do. To accomplish such things in their own era still deserves great respect.

On the other hand, the players of today are bigger, faster, more athletic and more skilled. If you place them in battles with players of the past they will obviously dominate. But the real discussion here is factoring in the eras that players played in with their success. This may be one of the most difficult things to analyze in Basketball.

[nycelt84]

1.Bill Russell
2.Wilt Chamberlain
3.Kareem Abdul-Jabbar
4.Shaquille O'Neal
5.Hakeem Olajuwon

[Psileas]

Tell me one time Hakeem was "seriously limited by nobodies"? You're full of bs.

Wow, 7 posts here and you're already trying to judge people. The usual quality of ISH newcomers...
Search Hakeem against the Supersonics in the 1996 WCS. He scored a pitiful 6 points (and had only 4 rebounds) in game 1, 17 points on 8/21 fg in game 2 and had only 6 rebounds and 0 blocked shots in game 4, with his team getting swept. All these against the all-time greats Ervin Johnson and 35-year old Sam Perkins. Go on, find me one such series that Kareem had up to the same age, let alone while having to face centers like the ones I mentioned.

And Shaq getting dominated by Shaq may have been caused by Hakeem being 36 and injurieplagued while Shaq being in his prime? 4 years earlier Hakeem swept Shaq's ass in the finals.

So what? Someone mentioned Kareem getting beaten by Moses in 1983 as if this would supposedly hurt his legacy. Guess what: Kareem was also 36, he beat Artis Gilmore one round before, and then got beaten by the league's MVP and probably the best center of the 80's. If people use this case against Kareem, I, for sure, can use Hakeem's defeat to Shaq back then. Not to mention of course that, after the respective ages of 35, Kareem was inarguably the better player and beat more great opponents than Hakeem did at the same age.

Shaq wasn't outplayed by Duncan in 2001. Shaq outplayed Duncan.

Shaq vs Duncan AND Robinson during the 2001 Western Conference Finals

Shaq- 27.0 ppg, 13.0 rpg, 2.5 apg, 1.3 bpg, 54.1 FG%
Tim Duncan- 23.0 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 4.3 apg, 4.3 bpg, 47.8 FG%

Shaq averaged 27 and 13 on 54% vs two top 5 post defenders while Duncan averaged 23 and 12 on a subpar 48% shooting while getting swept.

Read my old post, I meant 2002, not 2001. Shaq in 2002 against the Spurs was a shell of his usual self. I even remember him placing himself only like 3 feet away from the basket and preferring to softly try and lay the ball in instead of bringing down the basket, as he usually did.

I bet you remember Wilt only having two championships, and only one as the main option. No one can ever be considered the greatest at their position with only 1 title as the main option when others around him have 11, 5 and 4 championships to compete with.

Those of you who say Wilt is the best, please explain how. The guy wasn't a winner.

Wilt was the best player in both titles he won. The "first option" thing is based only on the perception of who was the leading scorer of his team and is very inadequate for translating his overall presence. Kobe in 2003 and 2004 was also the "first option" for his team judging from his scoring and FG attempts. Hell, he almost matched Shaq's scoring even in 2001 (and took more shots). Does this make Kobe the more valuable player because of this?

As for the rest, only Bill Russell was inarguably the bigger winner but he fell short in other areas. Shaq won only 1 title more as the best player of his team. Kareem also won only 1 title more up to the same age (and 0 titles more as the overall best player of his team-he did win the 1985 Finals' MVP, but he wasn't better than Magic overall, only during the Finals). Hakeem didn't even win as much: 2 titles and 1 more trip to the Finals compared to 2 titles and 4 trips to the Finals (sure, the number of teams does pla a role, but only if the legit title contenders are equally increased. After all, once Wilt got better teams, he won more than he did before, even though he also faced more teams than he did before).

Like comparing Wilt and Bill to the Dream isn't a bit fair, the two of 'em dominated the worst era of basketball, Hakeem played in the best era of basketball and played hof-centers on daily bases and he did it often with crappy teammates and still he took them to the playoffs year after year and he always dominated his fellow-center on the opposing team.

In the supposedly "worst era of basketball", Wilt, even during his early years, would have to face Russell 12+ times a year, Walt Bellamy another 12, Clyde Lovelette and Bob Pettit 10 more in a 75-80 game schedule. After this, Nate Thurmond was added, Willis Reed was added, Zelmo Beaty was added. If that's the "worst era in basketball", then the average center Hakeem faced should be at the level of Patrick Ewing. Instead, there were only 3 such guys (or 4 at best, if you consider Mourning at the same level). Hof-centers on daily basis? Go no further than Wilt himself.

Bill Russell played with the best players of his era and his offensive dominance against those crappy teams is no where close to Hakeem's dominance on offensive end. I know you shouldn't stare blind with the stats but Bill Russell's offensive stats are pure crap, he was terrible from the FT-line, people are always talking about Shaq being pure crap from the FT-line, so was Russell but nobody are talking about that. Russell's FG-percentage is damn low too, and that against white midgets, the level of competition in the Wilt and Russell-era was nowhere close to the players Hakeem faced and still dominated.

And this guy is saying that I am the one full of bs. Let's play the same funny game once more: Who were these crappy midgets that Russell faced? Wilt? Thurmond? Bellamy? Lovelette? It's easy to put blames and half judge things you have no knowledge about. How about trying to prove the things you claim?

So, I think Hakeem is better than Wilt because Wilt never really faced the competition The Dream did

You're right. He faced far better competition at center than Hakeem. At least, when Wilt went out, it happened while facing teams with centers like Russell or Kareem or Reed. Not against teams with centers like Ervin Johnson, Alton Lister, James Donaldson, a past prime Michael Cage or a young Vlade Divac...

And Bill Russell relied on his teammates, having no chance against Wilt he won with the help of his teammates, 11 rings wouldn't be one if he was playing on the teams the Dream did. Considering the fact that Russell was on the best team of his era with the best players it isn't that impressive to win 11 titles.

Is that why, historically, so many other great teams won 11 titles (or even 6-7 for that matter)? Is that why the Celtics never won more than 62 regular season games? Is that why the Celtics won championships even without having the best record in the league? Is that why the Celtics never approached the Finals before Russell and didn't even make the playoffs just one year after his retirement? If 11 titles in 13 years (with the only lost finals' series coming at the time Russell got injured), "aren't that impressive" what on earth would be impressive? Like 15 in 13 seasons?

I guess Magic's/Kareem's titles with the Lakers and Bird's with the Celtics weren't impressive either, since they played for the best teams in the league, as well.

[Psileas]

Ops, I missed this:

It sucks when your own argument gets debunked doesn't it Psileas. If you seem to throw random comments out like "Shaq got dominated" when he was obviously the better player, then I'm going to have an even harder time listening to your case for Wilt being the greatest centre.

And it sucks for you that I had already corrected this by saying that I meant 2002. Also, I didn't say he was dominated, I said he was "pretty clearly outplayed", and I'm staying by it:

Shaq vs Spurs in 2002 playoffs: 21.4 ppg (44.7% FG), 12.2 rpg, 3.2 apg, 3.0 bpg
Duncan vs Lakers in 2002 playoffs: 29.0 ppg (42.5% FG), 17.2 rpg, 4.6 apg, 3.2 bpg

Duncan beats Shaq in almost every category (in some by a considerable margin) and even in the sole category Shaq has the upper hand (FG%), his regression from his usual numbers in still bigger than Duncan's.
Note that some people would even call this kind of numbers' margin "domination". I don't, but it's quite easy to see that Shaq was clearly outplayed.

It's quite obvious that you're trying your best to find ways to accuse me of telling lies, while you are the one who's misinterpreted my words and ignored the conscious correction I made to my own post. Try better next time.

[Lax4422Chik1342]

In the never to be settled dispute, my top 5 are listed in a previous post of this thread....


Other honorable mentions for a top ten
Nate Thurmond
Moses Malone
Lynn Parish ***********
Artis Gilmore.....including his ABA time served
Patrick Ewing
David Robinson
Bob Lanier

For a few years Bill Walton was as good as almost anyone.
Special getting the most of size at center mention:
Wes Unseld and Dave Cowens

Just like baseball where there's pre-modern & modern
pre-modern George Mikan

My bad, I have occasional brain farts as I approach my 58th, but of course the Chief is Robert and not Lynn. My brain cramps are caused by my overindulgence of nearly 40 years for what got Parrish in a bit of turmoil a few years back.