Olajuwon vs. Shaq: let's not talk about this again
I can't believe I'm even entertaining this debate.
One reason I don't get into these discussions with many people, is comparing players usually comes across as dissing one, and I don't really diss great players.
I prefer to celebrate greatness.
Shaq is one heck of a basketball player and will end up having a great career.
But I can't believe anybody out there who paid any attention (or has much basketball knowledge) really believes Shaquille O'Neal is a better basketball player than Hakeem Olajuwon.
Seriously?
All they can even remotely argue is that Shaq was a more dominant player. Which is incorrect.
• • •
There is one, and only one, important category in which Shaq tops Olajuwon, and that is in championships. He has won four and Olajuwon won only two.
Generally, we overemphasize the championship element when comparing players.
One way to look at les when comparing players who played the same position is to determine as best you can (and this is all guesswork, isn't it?) if the team would have won the les if you sub in the other player.
Shaq gets a full nod for four les won. That's impressive. Whoop de darn do.
O'Neal didn't win a le that would not have been won if Olajuwon were the center on those teams instead of him. To be fair, I'm pretty sure that the Rockets would have won its two les with Shaq in the middle instead of Dream.
(I say pretty sure, because that seven-game Finals against the Knicks was so tight that taking a step down from Olajuwon to O'Neal might have made Ewing a champion.)
• • •
Forge that Olajuwon and Russell are the two best defensive centers to ever play the game, and, comparatively, No. 3 is waaay down the chart. (And his name isn't Shaquille O'Neal.)
Forget that for every offensive move Shaq had, Olajuwon had five. Anyway, scoring is scoring, it doesn't matter whether you dream shake or power over a guy for a dunk, two points is two points, so Shaq was an offensive force.
Here is where Shaq is so much less a basketball player than Olajuwon, that we should never talk about it again.
Shaq was swept out of the playoffs six times. SIX times. Swept. And three other times his team won just one game in a series.
How in the world can you be this spectacularly dominant player when in so many years you were erased from the postseason with relative ease?
So the other team is better. Well if you're the best, most dominant player on the court, you step it up and win at least one lousy game. Jeez.
Or you suffer defeat meekly.
It happened to Olajuwon twice. Once to the Lakers in a three-game mini-series in 1991 — Magic scored 38 points in the clincher — and to Seattle, which finished 16 games ahead of the Rockets, in '96 with an overtime finale.
• • •
Did I mention in college basketball? Shaq and Olajuwon each played three seasons.
One dominant player never made it to the Final Four. The other advanced to the Final Four every season.
• • •
Now it is difficult to make too much of Bill Russell' 11 championships in 13 seasons.
One le he didn't win, he was injured — missing two games and playing just the first half of two others — and the Celtics lost to Bob Pet , Slater Martin and the Hawks 4-2 in the Finals. The other loss came in his first year as player-coach, the Celts' first year without Red Auerbach on the sideline. It came after they had won eight in a row. Not to mention, the 76ers had one of the best seasons of all-time.
And here is a number Bob Ryan, who I have talked about basketball with on many occasions, reminded of yesterday.
Russell played in 21 winner-take-all games (NCAA Tournament games and Game 7s or Game 5s in the NBA playoffs) in his college and NBA careers.
His teams went 21-0.
Oh, his championships mean a heck of a lot.
Hakeem > any other center
Shaq was swept out of the playoffs six times. SIX times. Swept. And three other times his team won just one game in a series.
How in the world can you be this spectacularly dominant player when in so many years you were erased from the postseason with relative ease?
So the other team is better. Well if you're the best, most dominant player on the court, you step it up and win at least one lousy game. Jeez.
Or you suffer defeat meekly.
The above is why Hakeen, Duncan and Kobe are ALL better than Shaq
PLUS you could NEVER go to him down the stretch because he would DWIGHT HOWARD the FT's at an EVEN WORSE rate ....
Shaq = Barry sanders great but when it came to the clutch (for Barry the goaline for Shaq ft's late game shots) he could not come through ...
Top 5 player no way ....but he was the most dominat paint player in NBA history ...but the game is played outside of the blocks and at the FT line as well ...
Kareem is the greatest I have seen ..Hakeem close 2nd ...
Hakeem was like Kevin McHale on steroids... Shaq is like a gorilla on steroids. Kareem was in a league of his own.
1a) Kareem
1b) Wilt
3) Shaq
4) Hakeem
Hakeem had a few dominant years but not enough continuity.
Too bad all those years were vs the Suns... and that Cancer from Philly Barkley...
LMFAO calling Barkley a cancer. If Danny Manning was healthy in 1995 Suns beat the Rockets. Not Barkley's fault.
So you don't think Nash is a cancer, but you think Barkley was? Wow...
Seriously. At least Barkley got the team to the finals.
Both have the same number of les, both had seasons with key players missing. Also I wrote that just to piss DoK off.
Not quite. Since Shaq is 37, I'll compare his numbers to Hakeem's up to the age 37 (I don't want his last two years to skew the numbers).
PPG: Shaq: 24.7, Hakeem: 23.1
REB: Shaq: 11.2,Hakeem: 11.6
FG%: Shaq: 58.2%, Hakeem: 51.3%
BLK: Shaq: 2.3, Hakeem: 3.26
AST: Shaq: 2.6, Hakeem: 2.6
STL: Shaq: 0.6, Hakeem: 1.8
Close, but I'll take Shaq (though you can't really go wrong either way).
Up to age 37, Hakeem missed the playoffs twice (1992 and 2000), Shaq twice (1993 and 2009). Shaq's been knocked out of the playoffs in the first round 3 times (1994, 2007, and 2008), while Hakeem was knocked out in the first 6 times (1985, 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1998, 1999).Shaq was swept out of the playoffs six times. SIX times. Swept. And three other times his team won just one game in a series.
How in the world can you be this spectacularly dominant player when in so many years you were erased from the postseason with relative ease?
So the other team is better. Well if you're the best, most dominant player on the court, you step it up and win at least one lousy game. Jeez.
Or you suffer defeat meekly.
Hakeem from 93-95 is the 2nd greatest player of all time. Please GTFO with that Wilt and Bill Russel . Call me when there are pterodactyls flying around outside meaning we've hit a time warp and I'll reconsider.
Put Wilt in that timewarp and he's easily 1st Team All-NBA and DPOY today.
He didn't have any post moves outside of "jump really high and reaching over the defender to lay the ball in" and his moves and release were slow. I'm not so sure that he'd be very dominant at all. And besides there's no real way to tell.
Bill Russell is extremely overrated.
I can't help but think that this is some way of dissing Shaq to make Kobe's 1st 3 championship more significant on Kobe's resume.
What about finals appearances?
Also the 1993 Suns would have dominated if they played in the 2005-2007 era. On the flip side the 2005-2007 Suns would have gotten their pushed in if they played from 1993-1995.
For me it's a toss up : Hakeem or Kareem?
Both ahead of their time, amazing players
And he'd still be able to do that move today with ease, since he was 7'1" and had a huge wingspan. Wilt was an athletic freak in the 60s. Could you imagine him now with modern weight training techniques and medical procedures that would've let him continue to play at a high level after screwing his knee?
LOL Shaq vs. hakeem isn't even an argument.
I will agree there is some argument to that (for me) but at the same time that's not my article. I just posted it here because of that Slam rankings posted last week ...also the arguments made for SHAQ here being the best center and like the writer said it doesn't mean I dont think Shaq wasn't great but his flaws ...pnr defense, FT shooting lack of post moves made Kobe more relevant and critical to Shaq winning. He needed Kobe to win his first 3 and Wade to be incredible to win his 4th. Those are the facts Just like Kobe had not won one without SHAQ ...
Now that has changed a logical person would either conclude that they need each other or Shaq needs more help than Kobe because Gasol is not equal to Wade or Kobe as players but Kobe won with Gasol as his wingman SHAQ needed a top 3 perimeter player for all 4 rings and his Finals Sweep (penny) ...those that say he is better than Hakeem, Duncan or Kobe ...please argue or refute that.
Personally I dont care who on here ranks Kobe below Shaq becuase i think when both careers are over despite his flaws persoanlly and professionally no one can argue that Kobe is clutch and that he squeezes every drop out of his talent.
My problem with SHAQ is he has not done that. If he has Kobe's focus or MJ's heart and will and had dedicated as much energy to his game, FT's and defense as he does to taking shots at people he would have left Duncan, Hakeem and MAYBE Kareem in his wake as the MDE Center but we all know he didn'tI lived in LA for all of Shaq's years and he got us 3 but for his gifts he should of won 5 ...at least. YOu tell me if Hakeem/Duncan has Eddie Jones, van Exel, Horry etc. that they would of been swept by Utah?
Shaq is great top 3 center of his era but those that say he did it all for the first 3 les or didn't need Kobe are either just Kobe haters, Shaq lovers or just blind to reality. He was a great Laker center but even I know Hakeem was better ...Duncan too.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
