Author Topic: would a young Shaq be able to dominate in the modern nba?  (Read 4045 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: would a young Shaq be able to dominate in the modern nba?
« Reply #90 on: August 25, 2019, 11:43:05 AM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11535
  • Tommy Points: 1352
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.

Re: would a young Shaq be able to dominate in the modern nba?
« Reply #91 on: August 25, 2019, 11:44:28 AM »

Online Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22183
  • Tommy Points: 1059
Let me post this here ONE MORE time - for ALL to see and make their OWN assessments

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id1_hint=Shaquille+O%27Neal&player_id1_select=Shaquille+O%27Neal&player_id1=onealsh01&idx=players&player_id2_hint=Hakeem+Olajuwon&player_id2_select=Hakeem+Olajuwon&player_id2=olajuha01&idx=players

All I ask is that posters look at all the stats...assess Shaq Young / Old versus Hakeem Young / Old.

See for yourself.
From 94-96 about the only real "prime" overlap, Hakeem was better than Shaq.  Your stats do not show what you think they show.  Hakeem was better than Shaq.  He was a more complete offensive and defensive player.  I don't think that is really debatable either.  Shaq's dominance occurred in the early 2000's when the only other HOF centers in the league in their primes were Mourning and Mutombo.  That doesn't mean Shaq wasn't a dominant force, as he was, but I'd much rather have Hakeem than Shaq as Hakeem was just a more complete offensive and defensive player. 

For the record, here are the regular season and playoff stats from those 3 seasons.  7 regular season games (first), 4 playoff games (second).

           FG%   3P%   FT%   TRB   AST   STL   BLK   TOV   PF   PTS
Hakeem   48.1   100  80.3   9.6   4.1   2.4   3.3   2.3   3.4   27.4
Shaq           59.3   0.0   46.4   13.7   3.4   0.9   1.3   3.4   4.6   25.9

Hakeem   48.4   100   69.5   11.5   5.5   2.0   2.0   2.8   4.5   32.8
Shaq           60.0   0.0   55.8   12.5   6.3   0.3   2.5   5.3   4.5   28.0

So the 3 years that they were both arguably in their prime, Hakeem was better showing off his more complete game (both defensively and offensively).  No one is saying Shaq wasn't a monster, he was, but Hakeem was a better and a much more versatile player. 
Historical Draft - Portland Trailblazers
PG - Magic Johnson, Tony Parker
SG - Clyde Drexler, Dennis Johnson, Alvin Robertson
SF - James Worthy, Alex English
PF - Charles Barkley, Ben Wallace
C - Moses Malone, George Mikan, Brad Daugherty

Re: would a young Shaq be able to dominate in the modern nba?
« Reply #92 on: August 25, 2019, 11:58:37 AM »

Online Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22183
  • Tommy Points: 1059
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. 
Historical Draft - Portland Trailblazers
PG - Magic Johnson, Tony Parker
SG - Clyde Drexler, Dennis Johnson, Alvin Robertson
SF - James Worthy, Alex English
PF - Charles Barkley, Ben Wallace
C - Moses Malone, George Mikan, Brad Daugherty

Re: would a young Shaq be able to dominate in the modern nba?
« Reply #93 on: August 25, 2019, 12:00:38 PM »

Online Somebody

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2998
  • Tommy Points: 124
  • KANSEI DORIFUTO
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.
Agreed. I wasn't even born when Shaq had his career year, yet I would never say that lol.
4th place in the Celticsstrong All-Time Draft!
PG: Stephen Curry, Steve Nash
SG: Tracy McGrady, Eddie Jones, Gail Goodrich
SF: Julius Erving, Shawn Marion
PF: Kevin Garnett, Elton Brand, Draymond Green
C: Dave Cowens, Artis Gilmore

Re: would a young Shaq be able to dominate in the modern nba?
« Reply #94 on: August 25, 2019, 12:48:31 PM »

Offline Silky

  • NFT
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2347
  • Tommy Points: 144
So this back and forth is a spillover from the historical draft?  LOL.....I see we're keeping with old times around here.

For the record, you'd have to be pretty nuts to think Shaq wouldn't dominate in any era.  Like, you probably shouldn't be talking about basketball if you think Shaq would be just some average dude.  That's laughable.

No not at all.

Its an debate as to if shaq could still dominate in todays nba.

Has nothing to do with the historical draft thread. Not with me at least no mattet how many times i am accused of it

Yes it does.

ANYONE with the ability to simply "Click on Page 3" of this thread can see where the thread starts to derail with the "Wilt would towel up Shaq" and the comments from Moranis about "Shaq not dominating until David, Hakeem got old"

Interesting that TWO of those posters are MODS that "should" know better. Operative word being "SHOULD."

And then YOU decided to chime in with your comments.

LOOK - if we want to start tearing down our rosters lets do it in the Historical Draft thread. There, I can start referencing how Kobe was EXTREMELY hard on his teammates and helped to run SHAQUILLE O'NEAL out of LA - which effectively ensured BOS's dominance in Banners.

Let's go.

dude, you keep bringing it back to the historical draft, not me.

You started the shaq versus hakeem thing, not me.

Another poster stated "Who could guard shaq" And I stated that Hakeem and Wallace routinely was able to do so.

And then you came in all hot and bothered. stating I was being ridiculous, telling me to prove it, and telling me to just stop.

So I showed footage, and that really sent you into a major tailspin

Re: would a young Shaq be able to dominate in the modern nba?
« Reply #95 on: August 25, 2019, 12:50:13 PM »

Offline KGs Knee

  • Ed Macauley
  • ***********
  • Posts: 11535
  • Tommy Points: 1352
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.

Re: would a young Shaq be able to dominate in the modern nba?
« Reply #96 on: August 25, 2019, 04:22:38 PM »

Online Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22183
  • Tommy Points: 1059
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. 
Historical Draft - Portland Trailblazers
PG - Magic Johnson, Tony Parker
SG - Clyde Drexler, Dennis Johnson, Alvin Robertson
SF - James Worthy, Alex English
PF - Charles Barkley, Ben Wallace
C - Moses Malone, George Mikan, Brad Daugherty

Re: would a young Shaq be able to dominate in the modern nba?
« Reply #97 on: August 25, 2019, 08:24:43 PM »

Offline RockinRyA

  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3869
  • Tommy Points: 505
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.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2019, 08:32:45 PM by RockinRyA »

Re: would a young Shaq be able to dominate in the modern nba?
« Reply #98 on: August 25, 2019, 09:46:26 PM »

Online Moranis

  • Global Moderator
  • Sam Jones
  • **********************
  • Posts: 22183
  • Tommy Points: 1059
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. 
Historical Draft - Portland Trailblazers
PG - Magic Johnson, Tony Parker
SG - Clyde Drexler, Dennis Johnson, Alvin Robertson
SF - James Worthy, Alex English
PF - Charles Barkley, Ben Wallace
C - Moses Malone, George Mikan, Brad Daugherty

Re: would a young Shaq be able to dominate in the modern nba?
« Reply #99 on: August 25, 2019, 10:46:34 PM »

Offline Geo123

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1470
  • Tommy Points: 33
Yes

Re: would a young Shaq be able to dominate in the modern nba?
« Reply #100 on: August 26, 2019, 06:53:51 AM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13275
  • Tommy Points: 2509
  • Welcome Kemba!
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.
CELTICSSTRONG HISTORICAL DRAFT 2019 MIA HEAT:
C - SHAQUILLE O'NEAL / ARVYDAS SABONIS / NATE T.
PF -CHRIS WEBBER / NATE THURMOND/ BOBBY
       JONES
SF - PAUL GEORGE  / DETLEF SHREMPF
SG - DWYANE WADE / MANU GINOBILI
PG - JERRY WEST / RICKY PIERCE / MARCUS SMART

Re: would a young Shaq be able to dominate in the modern nba?
« Reply #101 on: August 26, 2019, 07:23:13 AM »

Online Somebody

  • Jim Loscutoff
  • **
  • Posts: 2998
  • Tommy Points: 124
  • KANSEI DORIFUTO
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.
On a side note Robinson dominated Hakeem aside from that playoff series, going 30-12 against the Dream. I don't have any of those centers so I'm not saying this to belittle any big man lol.
4th place in the Celticsstrong All-Time Draft!
PG: Stephen Curry, Steve Nash
SG: Tracy McGrady, Eddie Jones, Gail Goodrich
SF: Julius Erving, Shawn Marion
PF: Kevin Garnett, Elton Brand, Draymond Green
C: Dave Cowens, Artis Gilmore

Re: would a young Shaq be able to dominate in the modern nba?
« Reply #102 on: August 26, 2019, 07:34:04 AM »

Offline GreenFaith1819

  • K.C. Jones
  • *************
  • Posts: 13275
  • Tommy Points: 2509
  • Welcome Kemba!
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.
On a side note Robinson dominated Hakeem aside from that playoff series, going 30-12 against the Dream. I don't have any of those centers so I'm not saying this to belittle any big man lol.

EXACTLY!

See how this works? When a person is biased against a person or a player they have the power to cherry-pick stats, information - just about ANYTHING they want to paint an untruth or a half-truth.

It is up to US to dig for the truth.

If I were to go off of a few youtube videos and not dig for stats / head to head matchups...even look for videos showing David (or Shaq, or whomever) in a POSITIVE light then I'd be caught up in believing one thing and not seeing the broad picture.
CELTICSSTRONG HISTORICAL DRAFT 2019 MIA HEAT:
C - SHAQUILLE O'NEAL / ARVYDAS SABONIS / NATE T.
PF -CHRIS WEBBER / NATE THURMOND/ BOBBY
       JONES
SF - PAUL GEORGE  / DETLEF SHREMPF
SG - DWYANE WADE / MANU GINOBILI
PG - JERRY WEST / RICKY PIERCE / MARCUS SMART

Re: would a young Shaq be able to dominate in the modern nba?
« Reply #103 on: August 26, 2019, 08:05:25 AM »

Offline Silky

  • NFT
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2347
  • Tommy Points: 144
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.
On a side note Robinson dominated Hakeem aside from that playoff series, going 30-12 against the Dream. I don't have any of those centers so I'm not saying this to belittle any big man lol.

Team wins do not make semse when looking at individual players.

Sas had better teams.

Raw stats head to head they we almost identical.

In the playoffs it wasnt even close as hakeems raw stats blew robinsons away.

I do indeed think shaq would be a desired player in this era....he just woupdnt be the same as he was when he was.

I also dont think he would have fared as well if he came up at the same time as hakeem and the admiral.

And i also believe out of all the old school centers hakeem fares the best. Then david. Then russell. Then wilt and shaq.



Re: would a young Shaq be able to dominate in the modern nba?
« Reply #104 on: August 26, 2019, 08:15:47 AM »

Offline Silky

  • NFT
  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2347
  • Tommy Points: 144
For a while...shaq was the best player in the nba.

But

With the style of play that he was allowed 15 years ago, with rule changes, with the spacing of today, and with the emphasis on switch defense out past the 3pt line i dont think he is the best player.

There is still lebron, curry, harden, giannis. Etc.

So if he isnt the top player in the league then he isnt the same dominate force he was 20 years ago

 

Hello! Guest

Welcome to the CelticsStrong Forums.

Community

Signup to win FREE tickets

* indicates required