Reply With Quote
I thought the fact that I was comparing franchise players would be obvious. Apparently I gave some of you too much credit.
So Matt Bonner and Fisher are better than Stockton and Malone ?
I thought the fact that I was comparing franchise players would be obvious. Apparently I gave some of you too much credit.
Jam, with the goods.
LOL
Yes 2000 Shaq was one scary dude ...and the main reason why so many Laker fans are frustrated with the BIG POTENTIAL ...
He could of and should of made this a no doubt debate ...
Shaq should of not ONLY been the greatest ever Center but he had the physical gifts to give Jordan a run at GOAT status ...
Shaq was ahead of his time and a freakish athlete almost the way MJ was but in a bigger package ...
The problem is Shaq never put in the kind of work MJ or more apropos for this discussion, Hakeem put in.
That is why many on here (not only Rox fans) give the Dream the nod over Shaq ...
Kobe has little do with it ...I just wanted much more from a guy as gifted as Shaq ...
He still does, except now he's moved past centers.
Why.. when someone says Player A is better than Player B because he has more rings ... when both A and B are of similar quality... does someone always has to say Robert Horry > MJ or Horry > anyone less than 7 rings.
I know alot of people are stupid.. as evidenced by this thread...but obviously the rings debate becomes legitimate when the two players in question are of similar stature... ei Shaq and Hakeem.
I think it's the other way around!!!
Laker fans have no reason to be frustrated with Shaq. He single handedly gift wrapped your franchise 3 championships and it would have been 4 in 5 years had it not been for the Kobe-Shaq feud.
Dream had a great career, but Shaq has had a better one. People don't realize this, but Shaq has been a stat machine for 10 years (He's put in 29/14/4/3 numbers in his first 10 seasons). Those are GOAT numbers and for a big man to endure for so long is even more incredible.
I know a lot of Laker don't appreciate Shaq enough, but fans of other franchises would give any thing to have had Shaq in his prime. Shaq was the Big Unstoppable in his prime and no Hakeem nor Wilt could've stopped him.
It might be debatable but imo Shaq is the Greatest Center of all time!!!
the game is about more than stats, Hollinger.
Shaq did much of what he did while:
1. getting INCREASINGLY out of shape
2. Feuding with the 2nd best player on the team
3. ing at the front-office
4. and building a whole town of bricks at the FT line
5. Spending more time rappping and acting in crappy movies
Yes I am grateful for his BIG PART in 3 les ...and i do think he is a top 5 center and top 15 player no doubt about it ...
BUT
I wanted more out of him like I said if he had put forth the kind of dedication to his craft he could of been the GOAT and he most definitely would of made the best center debate moot.
So you are telling me if you have a kid with a world of potential ...you would tell them just do enough to get A's or would you push them to be the best they could be?
Another example the reason I think duncan is greater than david Robinson is that duncan was not blessed with the speed power or physique that david had YET he is STILL better at ALMOST EVRYTHING on a basketbal court exept maybe FT shooting and blocking shots because he worked on perfecting his craft. You can SEE it his footwork, his bankshot and teh way he helps his team on defense.
If you never seen any of the guys play you would take David or Shaq over Tim everyday of the week because of the size of Shaq or the muscles on David. But Tim busts they ass because he has mastered things thet neither of those 2 HOF'ers could.
THAT is MY frustration with Shaq...there is NO way in this world Duncan should be a better player than Shaq but IMHO he was and is ...
You people need to stop using the "so Horry is better than...?" argument. No, Horry is not better than Shaq, or Jordan, or Malone, or whoever because he has 7 rings. He did not win those rings as a #1 option. Shaq, Jordan, Tim...all these guys did. That's the point.
To be fair then, when people in this thread have said Shaq is better than Hakeem because 4>2, at the very least it should be 3>2 since Shaq's fourth le wasn't with him as "the guy" on the team. A tangental argument could say Hakeem is better than Shaq because 1>0, as in Hakeem won 1 le without any future Hall of Famers on his team while Shaq hasn't won any without a future Hall of Famer on his le teams.
There are numerous ways to try to skew arguments for one over the other, as there are with a bunch of other player v. player comparisons. Shaq in his prime was perhaps the most dominant offensive player ever (with due respect to Wilt as possibly more dominant) while Hakeem in his prime might have been the best and most complete player ever.
There are plenty of different variables you could add to argue one over the other, from their peak years to their overall careers. I think a Shaq in his prime facing Hakeem in his would have made for an incredible match-up and could have resulted in a different outcome if their two teams met while both in their prime. The scary part is that even before hitting his prime already put up 28 points on 60% shooting from the field on Hakeem in his prime in a playoff series. Shaq in his prime would have been more than a handful for Hakeem even in Hakeem's peak years.
Hakeem didnt have Kobe.
Flame suit on.
LOL people who pull out shaqs 3 rings against hakeems 2 and automatically give him the edge are too close minded. there other considerations you have to take such as compe ion, era, coaching, supporting players etc.... wtf did shaq and the 3 peat lakers have to play against or what kind of centers did shaq have to go against when playing for that 3 peat team? a battered david robinson and who else? finals team like the pacers, nets, and 76ers were a ing joke....also phil jackson is undoubtly a better coach than rudy t and kobe, fox, fisher, and the rest of that lakers squad was better than hakeems squad. to ultimately decide which player was better indivdiually based over rings is pretty ing stupid. raise up your ing game show some stats give me any other reason than 1>0.
Last edited by Nash2TimeMVp; 08-04-2010 at 01:32 PM.
great sig of Nash!
Hakeem is his prime would destroy Shaq.
How about a stacked Blazers and Kings teams in 2000 and 2002, or Tim Duncan in his prime from 1999 onwards?
1999 - 2007 Spurs >>>>>>>>> 1994 Knicks, 1995 Magic.
lol we are talking about the shaq 3 peat lakers and dreams 93-95 repeat. the spurs got curbstomped by the lakers in there championship runs. 1999, 2003-present spurs are not in the discussion..... also i don't really recall tim duncan having to guard shaq in most of those postseason matchups usually drob with a broken back or some 7 foot stiff that shaq would manhandle. also the only times the spurs have beaten the lakers at there peak was 2003. 1999 was a young kobe with kurt rambis has head coach and who knows who else was on that roster
ya the blazers and kings were good but so were the jazz, suns, supersonics, knicks, magic all which rockets had to play. just face it. shaqs situation in la for that 3 peat was much more favorable than hakeems in 93-95, coaching, compe ion, surrounding players etc. which gives him the oppurtunity to win that much more, if shaq had any of dreams qualities off the court he could have won 5 straight with phil, kobe and the rest of the lakers. also on an indvidual player account i would agree with michael jordan and take dream over oneal. when your only arsenal is to back down the opponent and dunk the ball and hope you make a free throw it's pretty easy to pick dreams 4 moves and 5 counter moves as my option.
Last edited by Nash2TimeMVp; 08-04-2010 at 06:39 PM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions