Very surprised that the Hakeem romanticism has him being ranked ahead of Shaq. Shaq had a higher peak but slightly worse longevity, I'd pick Shaq as the better player tbh.
I'm not bothered by the Hakeem v Shaq debate. I think there is a legit argument for either player. Shaq did seem to have a slightly higher peak, though. I also don't think it's entirely fair to hold their 1 finals matchup against Shaq, either. Shaq was superb in those finals, so was Hakeem. Hakeem had the better, more experienced team, and was a more experienced player than Shaq was at that time. I think LA Shaq would have been too much for Hakeem to handle, but it's not a given by any stretch. Hakeem was an amazing player.
What does raise my ire is seeing posters attempt to claim Shaq would just be some average dude today. Nobody who watched Shaq play would say that with a straight face.
Houston was obviously more experienced, but I don't know if I'd say they were better. That was the better of the 2 teams as they added Drexler, but you can argue that those are 2 of the worst championship teams in history, especially the first team. Even that second team was Hakeem, Clyde, and a bunch of scrubs. Robert Horry, Mario Elie, and Kenny Smith were the other 3 starters (solid role players but no one is going to claim they were uber talented). 2nd year Sam Cassell, Chucky Brown, and Charles Jones are the other 3 players to play in every game and then Pete Chilcutt played in 3 games though only 3 minutes total. Even with the 2 HOFers, that is an awful team. The Magic were a much deeper and talented team. They had not only Shaq and Penny, but also Horace Grant, Brian Shaw, Nick Anderson, Dennis Scott. Plus, Anthony Bowie. Jeff Turner also played in all 4 games with Donald Royal, in just 1.
Penny outperformed Clyde so there wasn't even an advantage to the Rockets in that match-up. The games were all relatively close and the real difference in the end was Hakeem was just better than Shaq overall. Shaq's crappy foul shooting, in particular, really hurt the Magic down the stretch of those close games.
I suppose you're right that on paper Orlando was better, but at least from my recollection, Orlando seemed not quite ready for the moment. Houston's stars had already been to the finals. Orlando's stars were much younger and on that stage for the first time.
But Hakeem absolutely was better at that point in time than Shaq. Shaq was in his prime but didn't hit his peak for another 3 years. Hakeem was probably just past his peak, but still in his prime. Hakeem was at that sweet spot where his athletic abilities hadn't waned more than his mental prowess could overcome. Shaq still hadn't yet mastered the mental part of the game.
I do think I'd rather have absolute peak Shaq over absolute peak Hakeem, but it would be a great battle. I'd definitely take Hakeem over the course of their careers, though. Shaq wasted too much of his not taking the game seriously enough.
all fair. Obviously Shaq would be great today, but so would any of the great big men of prior eras. Shaq is the last truly great big man (Dwight was never on his level) and I do really wonder how dominant his career ends up if he had been drafted in the 80's and spent his prime battling Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, etc. No question he would still be great, but I'm not so sure he as dominant or with the sort of peak he had.
Are we forgetting that Tim Duncan exists? Also Robinson couldn't stop Shaq, until TD came and helped him.
Robinson won basically all of the early match-ups between him and Shaq. When Duncan came along Robinson was out of his prime and Shaq won all of the head to head match-ups, though the Spurs held their own as a team, because of Duncan.
https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id1_hint=David+Robinson&player_id1_select=David+Robinson&player_id1=robinda01&idx=players&player_id2_hint=Shaquille+O%27Neal&player_id2_select=Shaquille+O%27Neal&player_id2=onealsh01&idx=players
No he didn't.
"Shaq" won those early matchups with David, while in ORL. His "Team" won....therefore "HE" won.
David / SAS did manage to get a few while he was still in ORL. David even seemed to win several head-head matchups when Shaq got to LA.
Overall - David won 12 matchups. Shaq won 11. Shaq had a slightly better statistical advantage. Shaq won more rings than David.
So NO - Moranis - David did not win "basically ALL" those early matchups with Shaq.
You should be more detailed when giving out information.
If you are going to respond at least read the response. I clearly said EARLY match-ups. 12-11 is their entire regular season history. The Spurs won the first 5 match-ups and Robinson dominated Shaq in those. Orlando won the next 2, but Robinson was better statistically in those games. So while in Orlando, Shaq was 2-5 against Robinson and Shaq only won 1 of the statistical match-ups in the head to head. They played twice in the 97-98 season, the Lakers won both match-ups, but they each won an individual statistical game. By the 98-99 season, Robinson was aging and Shaq won all of the individual match-ups while the Lakers generally won the games as well (except for the 99 playoffs when the Spurs swept the Lakers, though Shaq dominated Robinson in the individual match-up).
Nothing I said was inconsistent. Shaq didn't dominate Robinson until Robinson got old. That is a fact. The stats bear that out. And you can't have it be team match-up when it favors your guy and individual when it doesn't.
The simple truth is Shaq dominated a league that lacked elite big men (which for the record is why he would dominate today as well). Perhaps Shaq would have still been just as dominate if he was drafted in the 80's, but maybe not. There is no way to really know since he was drafted in the 90's and his prime didn't overlap with the great big men of the prior generation and no great big men have entered the league since him (so his tail end didn't have the next wave either).
Topic: would a young Shaq be able to dominate in the modern nba? (Read 13902 times)