We all know Shaq is a great player, one of the greatest ever, I even had him in my top 10 players alltime, but why is he considered by many the second greatest player ever? Many people say Wilts competition was nothing, but look at who Shaq has dominated. Vlade Divac? Dikembe Mutombo? Eric Dampier? Is that any competition? Not to mention he didnt start winning rings until the competition died down, and while an amazing player his entire career, didnt begin truly dominating until there was no one else. It also took him kobe Bryant to win his rings, while people like Hakeem won 2 rings with very little surrounding casts, including a win agaist Shaq, and a win agaist patrick Ewing. Two of the greatest C's ever, and he proved he deserved those rings by winning finals MVPs in both, and winning one of his rings without Clyde Drexler even.And then there's Kareem who won 6 rings, and before MJ was the only player to win a championship and a scoring title in the same season, multiple 1st defensive team, and over a decade worth of 1st team awards, Why isnt he ranked above Shaq?there's Bill Russell, he has more rings then any other player, He was the definition of defense, he was the only player who dominated to be able to say they dominated a prime Wilt Chamberlain, was always a great scorer of above 20 PPG on a very talented scoring team where shots were hard to come by.Lastly we have Wilt Chamberlain, a player who scored 100 points in a game, rebounded over 50 times in a game, averaged 50 PPG for a season playing in an era with HOF C's like Wes Unseld,Nate Thurmond, and Bill Russell. It took a nearly 20 year career to beat him out for alltime scorer, alltime leader in rebounds, and one of the greatest shot blockers and defenders ever, while winning multiple championships with the Lakers. Can you really rank Shaq above him? It's hard to even rank MJ above him.All of these Players are much better, and while I see shaq as one of the greatest ever, and the most dominant force since Wilt Chamberlain, comparing him to these players when he won his rings agaist inferior competition with superior supporting cast really weakens his case. I really hate the Shaq-Hakeem comparison, seeing as Hakeem played agaist Much greater players to win his championships, and had a much lesser supporting cast, and came in as a 5-6 seed and went all the way to the championship, even once without Clyde, and even beating Shaq in the finals.Dont get me wrong, Shaq is a great player, top 10 alltime, amazing scorer, great rebounder, maybe only a decent defender, but stepped it up in big games. But He is not the greatest C ever, and no where near the 2nd greatest player alltime, at least when he's never beat a great player to win a championship.
how many more great players are you going to question? i don't think many people rank shaq number 2 all time anyway. to me it's probably gotta be wilt. you really like hakeem too much.
Shaq was a dominant force for many years, but lately he gets all the calls from the refs and is allowed to do whatever he wants to get post position. Touch calls get called on the defenders and at the same time he barrells over them. I dont like how the refs give him all the calls, but I respect what he has done in his career. Having said that, I definatly dont think hes number 2 all time..Somewhere between 10-15, if you ask me..
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (nykfan4life @ Mar 5 2006, 02:27 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'> how many more great players are you going to question? i don't think many people rank shaq number 2 all time anyway. to me it's probably gotta be wilt. you really like hakeem too much.</div>And I thought you were actually gonna put some insight into this? :g: I dont really like Hakeem that much at all, He's one of my favorite players but I really never liked him until Pippen got traded to the Rockets, but I defend him because he deserves the respect as a top 5 alltime player, espically considering who he dominated. I just end up defending him a lot, the same with most players i believe are underrated, most people find it surprising my favorite players are MJ,Magic,and Shaq with how many times i take agaist their side in debates but I'm really unbiased when it comes to my opinion.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PrimeTime @ Mar 5 2006, 02:38 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>And I thought you were actually gonna put some insight into this? :g: I dont really like Hakeem that much at all, He's one of my favorite players but I really never liked him until Pippen got traded to the Rockets, but I defend him because he deserves the respect as a top 5 alltime player, espically considering who he dominated. I just end up defending him a lot, the same with most players i believe are underrated, most people find it surprising my favorite players are MJ,Magic,and Shaq with how many times i take agaist their side in debates but I'm really unbiased when it comes to my opinion.</div>i gave no insight because there was no need to. i don't think shaq is 2nd best all time. i don't think anyone does. he is better than hakeem tho. he's got more rings and he'll have more when he retires as long as he finishes his career in miami with d wade. hakeem is not a top 5 all time player. i'll name 5 guys who are better. (not top 5 all time)1. shaq2. bill russell3. wilt4. kareem5. david robinson
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (nykfan4life @ Mar 5 2006, 02:44 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>i gave no insight because there was no need to. i don't think shaq is 2nd best all time. i don't think anyone does. he is better than hakeem tho. he's got more rings and he'll have more when he retires as long as he finishes his career in miami with d wade. hakeem is not a top 5 all time player. i'll name 5 guys who are better. (not top 5 all time)1. shaq2. bill russell3. wilt4. kareem5. david robinson</div>How are Shaq and David Robinson better then Hakeem when he just raped them during the 90s. If i remember right Hakeem averaged his best stats playing agaist Shaq, including sweeping him in the finals while Shaq had 3 allstars on his team and Hakeem had Kenny Smith,a young robert horry, and a young sam cassell each averaging only 10/5.Also Hakeem averaged around 30 for his career agaist the Spurs, so explain to me how those 2 are both better?As far as Russell,Wilt,and Kareem, those are fair comparisons, even though I consider Hakeem better then each of them other then Wilt. but this thread is not about Hakeem, it's about Shaq.
It also took him Kobe Bryant to win his rings, while people like Hakeem won 2 rings with very little surrounding casts, including a win against Shaq, and a win against Patrick Ewing. Two of the greatest C's ever, and he proved he deserved those rings by winning finals MVPs in both, and winning one of his rings without Clyde Drexler even.Hakeem had a very good team. No one can get to the Finals with a mediocre team. Hakeem had a 20 Point scorer in Clyde Drexler, a shooter to benefit him that could also create for himself (The Jet), and various components around him that could hustle and shoot (Mario Ellie) Hakeem did not have a weak team around him at all. And yes he did beat Shaq for one title, but Shaq was in his first few years at the time, far from his prime. Patrick Ewing was also vastly overrated at that time, chocking in the clutch more than LeBron James.And then there's Kareem who won 6 rings, and before MJ was the only player to win a championship and a scoring title in the same season, multiple 1st defensive team, and over a decade worth of 1st team awards, Why isn?t he ranked above Shaq?Kareem won a title as the best player on a Milwaukee Bucks squad in the 70s. After that he went to the Lakers, where they were consistently a 45 win team until they got Magic Johnson. They never threatened anyone in the playoffs in that span, and were not even heavy contenders. Every team Shaq has been on has immediately become a contender, winning 50 games every single year he was there.there's Bill Russell, he has more rings then any other player, He was the definition of defense, he was the only player who dominated to be able to say they dominated a prime Wilt Chamberlain, was always a great scorer of above 20 PPG on a very talented scoring team where shots were hard to come by.Who do you think Chamberlin set an NBA rebound record against? Bill Russell. Bill Russell never averaged over 19 PPG in his career, and the offence has been stated many times to have been run through him. Plus in that time, the game was very fast paced; meaning shots would have been even easier to come by.Basically, Shaq has been on three teams, all of which he has been the focal point of (Until this year) and all of which he has instantly transformed into a contender. Kareem averaged 25 PPG on 56% shooting, while Shaq has averaged 26 on 58% shooting. Shaq is actually a more efficient scorer, Kareem just played for 18 years or so, allowing him to score more. Basically, Shaq is a winner, and has always been the focal point on his squad while they win. Let's remember, early in the 80s Kareem was the 2nd best player on his team, and later on, the 3rd best player.Shaq and Hakeem is a close debate, but again, Shaq's ability to simply win wherever he goes is astounding. Hakeem got to the Finals twice in his career, Shaq has already been there 4 times, and the Heat are only getting better.Bottom line for me: Wherever Shaq has gone, success has followed. He is an incredible scorer, an incredible passer, and early in his career both ran the floor and defended. Yes Russell was even more a winner, but this guy was 6-10, 220. There are 6'4 guys in today's league with more athleticism and strength than Bill, and factor in they were going up against 6'5 guys on a nightly basis... It's kind of hard to compare.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PrimeTime @ Mar 5 2006, 02:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>How are Shaq and David Robinson better then Hakeem when he just raped them during the 90s. If i remember right Hakeem averaged his best stats playing agaist Shaq, including sweeping him in the finals while Shaq had 3 allstars on his team and Hakeem had Kenny Smith,a young robert horry, and a young sam cassell each averaging only 10/5.Also Hakeem averaged around 30 for his career agaist the Spurs, so explain to me how those 2 are both better?As far as Russell,Wilt,and Kareem, those are fair comparisons, even though I consider Hakeem better then each of them other then Wilt. but this thread is not about Hakeem, it's about Shaq.</div>shaq was in his 3rd season when he was in the finals. hakeem was in his 10th. he had experience. maybe i was wrong about david robinson i'll change my list then.1. the best "overrated" player in the nba2. bill russell3. shaq4. wilt5. kareem
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (KMart @ Mar 5 2006, 02:50 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>It also took him Kobe Bryant to win his rings, while people like Hakeem won 2 rings with very little surrounding casts, including a win against Shaq, and a win against Patrick Ewing. Two of the greatest C's ever, and he proved he deserved those rings by winning finals MVPs in both, and winning one of his rings without Clyde Drexler even.Hakeem had a very good team. No one can get to the Finals with a mediocre team. Hakeem had a 20 Point scorer in Clyde Drexler, a shooter to benefit him that could also create for himself (The Jet), and various components around him that could hustle and shoot (Mario Ellie) Hakeem did not have a weak team around him at all. And yes he did beat Shaq for one title, but Shaq was in his first few years at the time, far from his prime. Patrick Ewing was also vastly overrated at that time, chocking in the clutch more than LeBron James.And then there's Kareem who won 6 rings, and before MJ was the only player to win a championship and a scoring title in the same season, multiple 1st defensive team, and over a decade worth of 1st team awards, Why isn?t he ranked above Shaq?Kareem won a title as the best player on a Milwaukee Bucks squad in the 70s. After that he went to the Lakers, where they were consistently a 45 win team until they got Magic Johnson. They never threatened anyone in the playoffs in that span, and were not even heavy contenders. Every team Shaq has been on has immediately become a contender, winning 50 games every single year he was there.there's Bill Russell, he has more rings then any other player, He was the definition of defense, he was the only player who dominated to be able to say they dominated a prime Wilt Chamberlain, was always a great scorer of above 20 PPG on a very talented scoring team where shots were hard to come by.Who do you think Chamberlin set an NBA rebound record against? Bill Russell. Bill Russell never averaged over 19 PPG in his career, and the offence has been stated many times to have been run through him. Plus in that time, the game was very fast paced; meaning shots would have been even easier to come by.Basically, Shaq has been on three teams, all of which he has been the focal point of (Until this year) and all of which he has instantly transformed into a contender. Kareem averaged 25 PPG on 56% shooting, while Shaq has averaged 26 on 58% shooting. Shaq is actually a more efficient scorer, Kareem just played for 18 years or so, allowing him to score more. Basically, Shaq is a winner, and has always been the focal point on his squad while they win. Let's remember, early in the 80s Kareem was the 2nd best player on his team, and later on, the 3rd best player.Shaq and Hakeem is a close debate, but again, Shaq's ability to simply win wherever he goes is astounding. Hakeem got to the Finals twice in his career, Shaq has already been there 4 times, and the Heat are only getting better.Bottom line for me: Wherever Shaq has gone, success has followed. He is an incredible scorer, an incredible passer, and early in his career both ran the floor and defended. Yes Russell was even more a winner, but this guy was 6-10, 220. There are 6'4 guys in today's league with more athleticism and strength than Bill, and factor in they were going up against 6'5 guys on a nightly basis... It's kind of hard to compare.</div>You Bring up some very good points.And i'm not saying Hakeem had no talent around him, but compared to the talent level of the 90s, espically in the east, it was very amazing to take an aging allstar, and go from the 5th seed to beating a team with 3 allstars on it. If that didnt cement him as better nothing did, and Hakeem was a 12 year vet at that time,while Shaq was a 3 year vet, and Shaq from day 1 was in his prime anyway. I think i player in his mid 20s has a huge advantage over a player in his 30s so that's irrelevent.As far as Shaq winning, Every team Shaq has went on has had a player in the all-NBA 1st teamer. If you matched Hakeem with MJ and then Hakeem with kobe, he would have won just as much, and it's not like he didnt win rings, he won his championships each as a huge underdog by playing better then any center has ever played in the playoffs, and put them on his back. So of course when you put two-1st teamers on one team they become instant contenders, and also look at competition. Like I said Hakeem beat a very talented team of Patrick Ewing,Charles Oakley, and John Starks with Pat Riley as head coach basically by himself, with Clyde being gone.As far as comparing Shaq's career average to Kareem Abdul Jabbar, it's an unfair comparison, kareem played the second most seasons by any player and Shaq has just begun to decline.And as far as that team went, that laker squad never won a ring without Kareem's leadership. And if Shaq won rings with Mj, just because he's a lesser player then Mj, would that make him any less of a player because he wouldnt be the vocal point of the offense.As far as Wilt and Russell, Nate Thurmond,Artis Gilmore, and Wes Unseld are not 6,5'' so I dont know where you heard of them playing 6,5 centers. And jsut because by todays standards they werent huge centers doesnt make them lesser, just like linemen of the NFL used to be smaller.And setting a rebound record agaist Russell is very amazing, consider Russell is one of the greatest players ever at boxing out and getting boards.<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (nykfan4life @ Mar 5 2006, 02:55 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>shaq was in his 3rd season when he was in the finals. hakeem was in his 10th. he had experience. maybe i was wrong about david robinson i'll change my list then.1. the best "overrated" player in the nba2. bill russell3. shaq4. wilt5. kareem</div>You dont think a 25 year old player in their prime has an advantage of a player getting into his mid 30s?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (PrimeTime @ Mar 5 2006, 03:09 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>You dont think a 25 year old player in their prime has an advantage of a player getting into his mid 30s? </div>i said he has experience. read the post. tell me how shaq is in his prime when he was in his 3rd season? you're acting like that was hakeem's final season. shaq was in his prime when he was on the lakers.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (nykfan4life @ Mar 5 2006, 03:15 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>i said he has experience. read the post. tell me how shaq is in his prime when he was in his 3rd season? you're acting like that was hakeem's final season. shaq was in his prime when he was on the lakers.</div>Shaq was in his prime the day he stepped onto a basketball court, he had better stats on the Lakers because the second best center in the NBA was a 37 year old Dikembe Mutombo 92-93 ORL 81 81 37.9 .562 .000 .592 4.2 9.6 13.9 1.9 .74 3.53 3.79 4.00 23.4 93-94 ORL 81 81 39.8 .599 .000 .554 4.7 8.5 13.2 2.4 .94 2.85 2.74 3.50 29.3 94-95 ORL 79 79 37.0 .583 .000 .533 4.2 7.3 11.4 2.7 .92 2.43 2.58 3.30 29.3 95-96 ORL 54 52 36.0 .573 .500 .487 3.4 7.7 11.0 2.9 .63 2.13 2.87 3.60 26.6 96-97 LAL 51 51 38.1 .557 .000 .484 3.8 8.7 12.5 3.1 .90 2.88 2.86 3.50 26.2 97-98 LAL 60 57 36.3 .584 .000 .527 3.5 7.9 11.4 2.4 .65 2.40 2.92 3.20 28.3 98-99 LAL 49 49 34.8 .576 .000 .540 3.8 6.9 10.7 2.3 .73 1.67 2.49 3.20 26.3 99-00 LAL 79 79 40.0 .574 .000 .524 4.3 9.4 13.6 3.8 .46 3.03 2.82 3.20 29.7 00-01 LAL 74 74 39.5 .572 .000 .513 3.9 8.8 12.7 3.7 .64 2.76 2.95 3.50 28.7 01-02 LAL 67 66 36.1 .579 .000 .555 3.5 7.2 10.7 3.0 .61 2.04 2.55 3.00 27.2 02-03 LAL 67 66 37.8 .574 .000 .622 3.9 7.2 11.1 3.1 .57 2.37 2.93 3.40 27.5 03-04 LAL 67 67 36.8 .584 .000 .490 3.7 7.8 11.5 2.9 .51 2.48 2.91 3.40 21.5 04-05 MIA 73 73 34.1 .601 .000 .461 3.5 6.9 10.4 2.7 .49 2.34 2.78 3.60 22.9 Those are pretty damn consistent looking to me. He actually had one of his best seasons the year they went to the finals.
What difference does it make if Shaq didn't have to play a few great centers a couple times each year?
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (BCB @ Mar 5 2006, 03:37 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>What difference does it make if Shaq didn't have to play a few great centers a couple times each year?</div>Almost every team in the 90s had a half-decent center, by the 2000-2003 standards, they'd almost all be allstars. it wasnt just he didnt have to play Hakeem,Ewing,and Drob. There was still Dale Davis,Elden Cambell,Vlade Divac,Dikembe Mutombo,Greg Ostertag,Luc Longley,Antonio Mcdyess,Bill Cartwright,Horace Grant,etc.
I just don't see how that matters. Shaq gets double teamed by all the leagues best PF's so I don't think it's a big deal at all.
