Peaks - Shaq vs. Hakeem

[te887848]

Can't believe the poll results. This is Shaq by a lot. Hakeem was able to "do more things" and had a more aesthetically pleasing overall game, but he was not on Shaq's level as far as sheer dominance is concerned. Hakeem's defensive edge is negligible since Shaq's half court offense virtually leads to either an extremely high percentage shot, a free dunk, a foul, or a double team and a wide open look elsewhere. All Shaq had to do was back down and take two dribbles for a free two points.

Hakeem wasn't on that level offensively. Much easier to contain than Shaq.

[JordansBulls]

Can't believe the poll results. This is Shaq by a lot. Hakeem was able to "do more things" and had a more aesthetically pleasing overall game, but he was not on Shaq's level as far as sheer dominance is concerned. Hakeem's defensive edge is negligible since Shaq's half court offense virtually leads to either an extremely high percentage shot, a free dunk, a foul, or a double team and a wide open look elsewhere. All Shaq had to do was back down and take two dribbles for a free two points.

Hakeem wasn't on that level offensively. Much easier to contain than Shaq.

Then who used to contain Hakeem then? If he was much easier to hold down.

[ardee]

I can't answer this question unless you decide which year was each one's peak

I.e. '93, '94 or '95 for Hakeem, and '00 or '01 for Shaq

[JordansBulls]

I can't answer this question unless you decide which year was each one's peak

I.e. '93, '94 or '95 for Hakeem, and '00 or '01 for Shaq

1994 for Hakeem. 2000 for Shaq

[Double Clutch]

I think 1993 was definitely Hakeem's peak. I made a long post about why I felt that way in another thread so I'll just link it here but basically it's the closest we saw his offensive and defensive peak coincide. viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1236043&p=35852853

Shaq's peak is clearly 2000 for me when you look at his year from start to finish.

Yeah, you can argue Shaq performed at roughly the same level in the 2001 playoffs (similar not better) but if you're trying to narrow down a player's best season, I think consistency/effort/injuries can make a difference as negligible as it may be and Shaq's consistency, health, conditioning and effort were at its peak in 2000. A few things that separate the 2 seasons imo:

- Shaq slacked off on defense during the 2001 regular season, not the case in 2000 which was his best year

- Shaq had a few nagging injuries (Achilles tendon, neck, ankle, back) that effected his level of play early in the 2001 season and Phil also commented on how Shaq was staying too close to the paint and not coming out to make himself an easier target for the entry pass

- The 2000 Lakers were a worse 3 pt shooting team than the 2001 version and that obviously has an impact on a dominant low-post player since that makes it easier to load up on him thus impacting his box score production. A guy like Ron Harper wasn't a shooting threat at all although he did play good defense and fit in within the triangle due to past experience in Chicago. A.C Green was someone else teams could routinely play off of without worrying he'd make them pay. This was very evident against Portland in the conference finals

- Shaq had a bigger load to carry in 2000 since the team wasn't nearly as talented as the 2001 squad (worse shooting, worse second option, worse PF which was noticeable on the defensive end ect). Phil Jackson said, "they won 67 games on Shaq's back." Paraphrased and credit to ShaqAttack3234 for the quote. What was even more impressive was LA's 12-3 record without Kobe in November as he was out with a broken right hand so Shaq led them to a great record despite no secondary scoring threat which is a great achievement when you consider they were mainly a 2 man team that lacked scorers otherwise

- 2000 was the first year of the triangle offense and it did take awhile for LA to get used to it (learn all the intricacies, execution ect). Phil actually expected them to struggle early on in the season and Glen Rice, for example, admitted that he never really fit in within the offense which was a big factor since he was supposed to be the third option on the team. He didn't shoot or score at the rate he was expected, didn't move well off-ball and when you consider that his defense was subpar, he wasn't making a big impact out there. That's a big reason he was benched for Fox in the finals. Some of it had to do with the offense not catering to Rice's game as well I think. I don't remember him getting many touches in the post where he was effective. But anyway, this point is more about how quickly they were able to gel and mesh as a team and I think Shaq did a great job learning and fitting within the offense. You can see his scoring + assists really improve after the All-Star break when they were more accustomed to the offense.

Their playoff runs are roughly similar so the regular season is the deciding factor. A lot of times differences in playoff runs can be attributed to circumstances and favorable match ups as well like you'd see if you read my Hakeem post.

[ardee]

Yeah, I think it's clear that 2000 is Shaq's peak, I just included 2001 because some people think his Playoff performance was better.

As for Hakeem, I would break it down like this:

Best offensive regular season: 1993
Best offensive Playoffs: 1995
Best defensive regular season: 1993
Best defensive Playoffs: 1994

I think he hit the highest heights overall as a player during the second half of the 1993 regular season and the 1995 Playoffs. But the 1993 Playoffs (though they were still ridiculously insane) and the 1995 regular season were not on the same level.

So I'd take 1994 as his peak because it was the most consistent year.

Put it this way. Hakeem at his highest heights, IMO, was better than Shaq at his best moments. When Hakeem was in the zone he was all over the place. That video fatal9 posted was the best evidence of this. He was like a tornado. For one game, I'd choose Hakeem.

For a season, I'd go with Shaq with the slightest of edges. It's extremely close though, but 2000 Shaq was ridiculously consistent from start to finish.

I have 2000 Shaq at 3 and 1994 Hakeem at 5, so it is really that close (2013 LeBron separates them).

[Double Clutch]

ardee, I'm curious. What makes you feel he was better defensively in the 1994 playoffs? The Rockets actually had a better defense relative to expectations in the 1993 playoffs if I'm not mistaken. If you look at raw stats, he was rebounding and blocking shots at a higher rate (steals are about equal) and based on tape, he did have a little worse stamina which is partly why his rebounding declined a good bit as well as having to guard a more perimeter oriented C like Ewing in the finals which he obviously did a tremendous job of. Although, you can say he was matched up quite a bit vs Perkins in the Seattle series too who was mainly operating at the 3 pt to line to pull Hakeem away from the paint (he burned Hakeem for helping out in game 2) and Seattle also had a very balanced set of offensive threats on all positions which meant Hakeem had to help out all over the floor which can also having a negative impact on your rebounding.

I also think he was a little more athletic which was evident to me in his mobility on the perimeter (better lateral movement). Like I said, his all around defense in the Seattle series was incredible to watch.

Also, what is your opinion on circumstances and favorable match ups that allowed 1995 Hakeem to have a better offensive post-season? Don't get me wrong, I do think the 1995 post-season was his offensive peak but I also feel the difference is fairly miniscule. Playoff performances/stats aren't accumulated in a vacuum and these two definitely weren't operating under equal playing fields. How would 1995 Hakeem do if he has relatively worse spacing/3 pt shooting around him? How would 1995 Hakeem do going up against two teams that excelled in pressure defenses which make it harder to get the ball into him? How would 1995 Hakeem do with VERY mediocre guard play and no other secondary scoring threat which meant he had to more heavy lifting on his own? It's a safe bet to assume that his offensive numbers would not look nearly as good in that environment although, that's through no fault of his own but more so how the team around him is constructed as well as an inherit disadvantage that big men have due to not being able to initiate offense from the get-go. Is it really fair to penalize 1993 Hakeem (or any player in general) due to the virtue of facing tougher match ups with a worse supporting cast around him?

These are the type of questions that you have to ask yourself when deciding a player's peak/best season and that's why I think a lot of times, people can really get caught up by a small sample size in the playoffs that sways their opinion. At times, it'll be valid when you notice changes in a player's game (maturity, decision making), added weight/strength, improvements in their skillset that could allow them to cope with superior defenses and game planning in the playoffs, ect but some times, all it takes is some favorable or unfavorable circumstances and match ups that can cause a player to have a better playoff run so you have to be a bit careful in terms of how you weigh and let a small sample size effect your conclusion.

[JordansBulls]

Yeah, I think it's clear that 2000 is Shaq's peak, I just included 2001 because some people think his Playoff performance was better.

As for Hakeem, I would break it down like this:

Best offensive regular season: 1993
Best offensive Playoffs: 1995
Best defensive regular season: 1993
Best defensive Playoffs: 1994

I think he hit the highest heights overall as a player during the second half of the 1993 regular season and the 1995 Playoffs. But the 1993 Playoffs (though they were still ridiculously insane) and the 1995 regular season were not on the same level.

So I'd take 1994 as his peak because it was the most consistent year.

Put it this way. Hakeem at his highest heights, IMO, was better than Shaq at his best moments. When Hakeem was in the zone he was all over the place. That video fatal9 posted was the best evidence of this. He was like a tornado. For one game, I'd choose Hakeem.

For a season, I'd go with Shaq with the slightest of edges. It's extremely close though, but 2000 Shaq was ridiculously consistent from start to finish.

I have 2000 Shaq at 3 and 1994 Hakeem at 5, so it is really that close (2013 LeBron separates them).

Put it this way, I think 1994 Hakeem gets maybe the 1993 Rockets into the WCF vs Phoenix.

[ardee]

ardee, I'm curious. What makes you feel he was better defensively in the 1994 playoffs? The Rockets actually had a better defense relative to expectations in the 1993 playoffs if I'm not mistaken. If you look at raw stats, he was rebounding and blocking shots at a higher rate (steals are about equal) and based on tape, he did have a little worse stamina which is partly why his rebounding declined a good bit as well as having to guard a more perimeter oriented C like Ewing in the finals which he obviously did a tremendous job of. Although, you can say he was matched up quite a bit vs Perkins in the Seattle series too who was mainly operating at the 3 pt to line to pull Hakeem away from the paint (he burned Hakeem for helping out in game 2) and Seattle also had a very balanced set of offensive threats on all positions which meant Hakeem had to help out all over the floor which can also having a negative impact on your rebounding.

I also think he was a little more athletic which was evident to me in his mobility on the perimeter (better lateral movement). Like I said, his all around defense in the Seattle series was incredible to watch.

Also, what is your opinion on circumstances and favorable match ups that allowed 1995 Hakeem to have a better offensive post-season? Don't get me wrong, I do think the 1995 post-season was his offensive peak but I also feel the difference is fairly negligible. Playoff performances/stats aren't accumulated in a vacuum and these two definitely weren't operating under equal playing fields. How would 1995 Hakeem do if he has relatively worse spacing/3 pt shooting around him? How would 1995 Hakeem do going up against two teams that excelled in pressure defenses which make it harder to get the ball into him? How would 1995 Hakeem do with VERY mediocre guard play and no other secondary scoring threat which meant he had to more heavy lifting on his own? It's a safe bet to assume that his offensive numbers would not look nearly as good in that environment although, that's through no fault of his own but more so how the team around him is constructed as well as an inherit disadvantage that big men have due to not being able to initiate offense from the get-go. Is it really fair to penalize 1993 Hakeem (or any player in general) due to the virtue of facing tougher match ups with a worse supporting cast around him?

These are the type of questions that you have to ask yourself when deciding a player's peak/best season and that's why I think a lot of times, people can really get caught up by a small sample size in the playoffs that sways their opinion. At times, it'll be valid when you notice changes in a player's game (maturity, decision making), added weight/strength, improvements in their skillset that could allow them to cope with superior defenses and game planning in the playoffs, ect but some times, all it takes is some favorable or unfavorable circumstances and match ups that can cause a player to have a better playoff run so you have to be a bit careful in terms of how you weigh and let a small sample size effect your conclusion.

Well, I'll admit, I haven't watched too many games of both the '93 and '94 Playoffs. I've seen his best performances of '93, the 31/21/7/3/3 game and the closeout against Seattle thanks to links provided by fatal9, and I've seen parts of the '94 WCF run and then the Finals.

Maybe it's just the '94 Finals sticking in my mind when Ewing was -22 ORtg playing against him vs the rest of the Playoffs. Kinda like having someone watch LeBron's 45/15 game 6 and then asking him his opinion on 2012 Bron.

And you're right to look at DRtg against individual ORtgs, I made the mistake of looking at overall Drtg, which is obviously nonsensical in the Playoffs.

I'll give you that, '93 Hakeem was probably better defensively in the Playoffs when I come to think of it. I'm probably focussing on his absurd man D, when in '93 he was probably slightly more athletic and did a better job of covering the entire floor and helping on shooters.

[ronnymac2]

Hakeem in game 7 in 1993 against Seattle was the best transition defender for a center in NBA history (excluding Bill Russell).

[ushvinder88]

This is clearly shaq in my opinion. People here are too stubborn to realize that individual offense for a player provides a far bigger impact than individual defense. Teams as a whole make a big impact defensively, not individual players, especially compared to individual offense. Shaq was a full notch above him on offense and 2000 shaq is flat out better than hakeem, nostalgia wins again on realgm like always.

[JordansBulls]

Hakeem in game 7 in 1993 against Seattle was the best transition defender for a center in NBA history (excluding Bill Russell).

So do you think Hakeem 1993 was the best version of him?

[TheChosen618]

This is clearly shaq in my opinion. People here are too stubborn to realize that individual offense for a player provides a far bigger impact than individual defense. Teams as a whole make a big impact defensively, not individual players, especially compared to individual offense. Shaq was a full notch above him on offense and 2000 shaq is flat out better than hakeem, nostalgia wins again on realgm like always.

Pretty sure nostalgia is irrelevant in this thread since both players were at their peak 10+ years ago. You would have nostalgia for whichever player you choose.

[Gregoire]

IMO if we take peak playoffs impact and production on both sides+intangibles these two are in top-3:
1.MJ
2.Hakeem
3.Shaq

[JordansBulls]

IMO if we take peak playoffs impact and production on both sides+intangibles these two are in top-3:
1.MJ
2.Hakeem
3.Shaq

No offense but what does Mj have to do with these two guys?

[TheChosen618]

IMO if we take peak playoffs impact and production on both sides+intangibles these two are in top-3:
1.MJ
2.Hakeem
3.Shaq

No offense but what does Mj have to do with these two guys?

He is more than likely talking about his all-time peak ranking list.

I think my top 5 is....

1. 92 Jordan
2. 13 Lebron
3. 94 Hakeem
4. 00 Shaq
5. 67 Wilt

I'm a bit undecided if Wilt should be higher or not. I'm pretty convinced that the rest is correct though.

[nolunch]

IMO if we take peak playoffs impact and production on both sides+intangibles these two are in top-3:
1.MJ
2.Hakeem
3.Shaq

No offense but what does Mj have to do with these two guys?

He is more than likely talking about his all-time peak ranking list.

I think my top 5 is....

1. 92 Jordan
2. 13 Lebron
3. 94 Hakeem
4. 00 Shaq
5. 67 Wilt

I'm a bit undecided if Wilt should be higher or not. I'm pretty convinced that the rest is correct though.

LOL...13 Lebron cannot score over 20 pts against Leonard with enough spacing.

[nolunch]

IMO if we take peak playoffs impact and production on both sides+intangibles these two are in top-3:
1.MJ
2.Hakeem
3.Shaq

No offense but what does Mj have to do with these two guys?

He got lost in MJ's garden.

[Gregoire]

Someone more lost in Shaqs

[TheChosen618]

LOL...13 Lebron cannot score over 20 pts against Leonard with enough spacing.

Lebron was scoring fine over Leonard and the Spurs when he had snipers everywhere, see the end of the 3rd quarter and the beginning of the 4th quarter of Game 6 if you want to know what I'm talking. It wasn't 4 shooters either, it was 3, Birdman was the Center during that run. They rallied back because Lebron was playing with good spacing. He had a more difficult time with Wade out there because Wade kills the spacing. In Game 7, Lebron got the confidence in his shot back though and he killed the Spurs in that game despite Wade being out there and killing the spacing.

Nevertheless, he isn't above Jordan because of his lack of confidence in his jump shot at times (most of the 2013 Finals). He does have enough in his game to be above just about everyone else though.