Is Hakeem Overrated?

[ambchang]

Already conceded that it was MOSTLY Shaq. Never did I say it was all Kobe, or even 50% in 2000 or 2001. I just find it silly to say it was ALL Shaq, even in 2000. 65-75% Shaq (not counting role players)? No problem. ALL Shaq is from the Skip Bayless, Stephen A Smith school of basketbal analysis, and I would hope you are better than that. But your bias clouds your judgement ... when Kobe and Duncan are not the subject matter, your posts are usually well informed. But this is a lot of horsehit, backed by the fact Shaq was not only the MVP of the league (when healthy and in shape) not only the Lakers. I get that. Yet still it was not ALL Shaq, I know I watched the Lakers for almost 25 years. When it was all Shaq, he got swept out of the playoffs ...consistently. He could not and did not win until Kobe and later Wade stepped up. He was not clutch because his FT shooting and (on the road) and foul trouble limited his effectiveness late in games.That is not hating. Just fact. It's also a fact, Shaq especially in Game 1's at home was the most dominanting player I have EVER seen not named MJ. Since you looked at Shaq's stats check his game 1 splits. I bet plenty of those eleven came in Games 1 and 2 and I bet at LEAST 7 are home games. Plenty of 30 and 15 games in those scenarios. But as the series shifts to San Antonio, Portland, Sacramento etc. his game suffered due to the lack of home-cooking and Kobe stepped up, even in 2000.

I believe you are getting into the semantics. Of course ALL Shaq means all of the general success of the Lakers was due to Shaq and nobody else. If Shaq was subbed out of the Lakers, there would not be a single player in the entire league at that time that he could be subs uted with in 00 and 01, not even with Duncan, not even with Garnett. Shaq achieved a peak Duncan never did (though Duncan had him beat on longevity, and I believe overall accomplishments).

On the other hand, Kobe could reasonably subs uted with a player in that era (Carter, T-Mac, AI) and the Lakers would have the same degree of success. Could they have gone 15-1 and have the most dominating playoff run in NBA history? I don’t know, probably not I would venture, but they would have won the championship in dominating fashion anyways.

I can say the 03 championship by the Spurs were all Duncan, but was Robinson, Ginobili, Parker, Kerr, and even Glenn Robinson not important? Of course not, but they could be reasonably subs uted by another comparable player, and the Spurs would have that level of success. The 03 Spurs were built around Duncan, the 00 and 01 Lakers were built around Shaq. There are no arguments around that.

On the other hand, taking 5 championship rings from Kobe, without any context of his involvement in those championship and declaring he is as accomplished as Shaq and Duncan because of those 5 rings is assasine.

[ambchang]

So we agree. Shaq was great. Where we disagree on is Kobe's importance to their teams. You can post all the bull- theories or stats you want, I saw those games and if you did too and watched objectively, how was 2000 ALL Shaq?! I watched al those games. I even have them on VHS.

BTW, What le run was ALL Duncan or even MJ? Shaq had a future HOF to help him. Sure Kobe was young and not as good as he would someday be, but he had a ALL NBA team-mate at his side who they do not win without. 2001 was not ALL Shaq but of course he was important, he was the real MVP of the league at that time (2000-2002). Kobe, Fisher, Fox and Horry ALL made huge contributions. Shaq was the biggest but Kobe began to narrow that gap. I would say more 60-40 than 65/35 (2001) and 55/45 by 2002.

I am not so sure you watched those games given your comments about 01 of Spurs having Bowen. But that aside, I would say 99, 03, and even 05 were all Duncan. Ginobili was fantastic in 05, but let’s face it, Duncan was the Spurs in 05, and any Spurs opposition game plan strictly for Duncan.

All six les of Jordan were all Jordan. Pippen was great, HoFer, but Jordan was the Bulls.

[Killakobe81]

I am not so sure you watched those games given your comments about 01 of Spurs having Bowen. But that aside, I would say 99, 03, and even 05 were all Duncan. Ginobili was fantastic in 05, but let’s face it, Duncan was the Spurs in 05, and any Spurs opposition game plan strictly for Duncan.

All six les of Jordan were all Jordan. Pippen was great, HoFer, but Jordan was the Bulls.

I have not missed a Lakers playoff game since 1984. I made a mistake, and I owned up to it. But havent watched those tapes in over 5 years. I dont even have my VCR set-up currently. But i watched ALL of those games and some of them more than once.





Duncan was amazing in 2003 he did a HUGE portion of the heavy lifting. But Jordan never won before Pippen developed, and Shaq none before Kobe did. Olajawon is the only Major superstar in 25 years (Pistons in 2004 had no true superstars) that won a le without a HOFer or future HOFer as a #2. Duncan had David for the first two and Parker and Manu for the last two.

What good team makes a defensive game-plan strictly for one player? Brooks and Spoletstra are morons and Im pretty sure their devensive schemes are not strictly for durant and Lebron. Your argument is so full of holes.

Duncan is a great player, arguably better than Kobe and Hakeem it's also debatable he is not. But no need to discredit anyone to prop up his accomplishments. You are knocking the contributions of HOF caliber players David, Pippen, Kobe, Mau and Parker to suck off Tim ....

Gameplans were STRICTLY for Duncan .. you love to speak in absolutes, dont you?

[Killakobe81]

Shaq played with 5 other HOF caliber players in his career. I wont count Boston or that would be 8. He was the star twice and the #2 option 3 times. Only Kobe and Wade were able to lift enough to help shaq win a le even though you point out how dominant Shaq was. That doesnt help your argument, it helps mine. Kobe helped Shaq win 3 of his 4 rings. Wade, Penny Nash and Lebron got him one ...

[Killakobe81]

YOU also realize you are doing the same crap Kobe fanbois do to prop up Kobe? I wouldnt even give ALL the credit to Kobe in 2009 or 2010.

[ambchang]

I have not missed a Lakers playoff game since 1984. I made a mistake, and I owned up to it. But havent watched those tapes in over 5 years. I dont even have my VCR set-up currently. But i watched ALL of those games and some of them more than once.

No problem, nobody’s perfect. It just casted some doubt in my mind.

Duncan was amazing in 2003 he did a HUGE portion of the heavy lifting. But Jordan never won before Pippen developed, and Shaq none before Kobe did. Olajawon is the only Major superstar in 25 years (Pistons in 2004 had no true superstars) that won a le without a HOFer or future HOFer as a #2. Duncan had David for the first two and Parker and Manu for the last two.

What good team makes a defensive game-plan strictly for one player? Brooks and Spoletstra are morons and Im pretty sure their devensive schemes are not strictly for durant and Lebron. Your argument is so full of holes.

Defensive game-plans are sometimes designed around one player, because an entire team’s offence could be designed around one player. 94 Rockets was an extreme example. Those three pointer shooters were there strictly because of Hakeem. Does that mean the other teams decide not to guard any of the other guys? Of course not, but the general defense was planned around one player, and in 00 and 01, it was undoubtedly Shaq (I would argue 02 as well, but NBA revisionist is changing it up).

Duncan is a great player, arguably better than Kobe and Hakeem it's also debatable he is not. But no need to discredit anyone to prop up his accomplishments. You are knocking the contributions of HOF caliber players David, Pippen, Kobe, Mau and Parker to suck off Tim ....

Gameplans were STRICTLY for Duncan .. you love to speak in absolutes, dont you?

Duncan and Hakeem are arguable. I would say Hakeem was most definitely the better individual player. Put them in a game one on one, and Hakeem would destroy Duncan every single time. And I mean destroy.

In a team context though, if both players were surrounded by a reasonable supporting cast of comparable role players that play to their strengths, I think Duncan’s team would come out slightly on top in a 7-game series, and Duncan’s team would be easier to build.

On the other hand, Kobe? It isn’t even debatable, Kobe is not in the same strata as Hakeem, Duncan and Shaq. He is slightly, but clearly a level below.

Shaq played with 5 other HOF caliber players in his career. I wont count Boston or that would be 8. He was the star twice and the #2 option 3 times. Only Kobe and Wade were able to lift enough to help shaq win a le even though you point out how dominant Shaq was. That doesnt help your argument, it helps mine. Kobe helped Shaq win 3 of his 4 rings. Wade, Penny Nash and Lebron got him one ...

Shaq had a two year absolute prime. During his Orlando days, he was a poor passer. During his Heat and Suns day, he was over the hill. Your argument would have made sense if Shaq was consistently good for 20 years, but everyone knows Shaq’s prime was with the Lakers.

Also, Phil Jackson and Pat Riley may have a little something to do with this.

YOU also realize you are doing the same crap Kobe fanbois do to prop up Kobe? I wouldnt even give ALL the credit to Kobe in 2009 or 2010.

Did I say 09 and 10 were all Kobe?

[timvp]

Missing the playffs during one's prime.

[spursncowboys]

You had to see him play. He was dominant, unshakeable.

Just look at his stats. He was ridiculous.

I think it is because how he went out. He stayed in too long.

[mavs>spurs]

Always putting Kobe where he doesnt belong. Nobody in their right mind would consider Kobe at 4. Excluding old timers:

MJ
KAJ
Magic
Bird
Shaq
Duncan
Dream
Kobe

Hasnt the biggest knock on Olajuwon always been the fact that he had a relatively short prime? Or is that BS??

If you don't know then why even rank him at all? Dream was a motha in beast