prime Shaq vs HOF Cs head-to-head

[KING JAMES1978]

WTF?Hakeem at the '99 Playoffs against Lakers had 13.2 pts and 7.2 reb and Shaq had 29.5 pts and 10.2 reb.But yeah Shaq wasn't dominant.He should have 40 and 20.
And again I'm not a Shaq fan.But at his prime he was a beast.

[Fencer reregistered]

I didn't understand the 2001 Finals when I watched them, and they make no more sense in retrospect. Shaq was allowed to bulldoze Mutombo and Geiger by both the refs and the Philly coaching staff.

The latter makes even less sense. That bulldozing was slooooow. So the refs had some basis for claiming it wasn't a long series of offensive fouls -- although I thought they were wrong at the time. The Philly coaches had no excuse, however, for not going to a quick double-team.

[ManOfSteel]

so honestly GTFO with that bull crap that prime Shaq would "destroy" Hakeem when he couldn't even do that to his 37 year old version playing on last fumes.

sure he couldn't
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zehfeZyNB8s
akeem looked like a scrub there so u GTFO

And the funny thing about the 2001 finals is how people revert the history.
Just because Shaq had some highlights play where he "elbowed" mutombo people think refs just let him do that all the **** time,just go watch some games and see how many offensive fouls shaq got just because he was so strong, that made mutombo look like he was at 220 pounds.U know making calls for Shaq was the hardest think for refs because he was so unique.Refs were actually punishing him because he was so strong.That was not fair IMO...

And i actually dont get the point of this thread when i think about it.
Who ever claimed Shaq dominated prime Drob,Hakkem,and some other elite centers? But the thing is they also never dominated him, sure he had some games where he played better but there was also games where he got outplayed,.And yes prime Shaq also wouldn't dominate them in a true meaning of a word domination,but prime Shaq was on a par with prime Akeem and those two were clearly better than any1 else. Lets say f.e. Jordan played against Pipen, do you think Micahel would average 40 a game with 55%fg and complety dominate him?

So stop the hate and lets all love eachother?

[penbeast0]

Actually, David Robinson was at least arguably better than Hakeem . . . until the playoffs where Hakeem stepped up his game and the Admiral got demoted to Captain. But hard to say Akeem was clearly better when during his Akeem period, Robinson was winning most of the matchups with similar supporting personnel and similar numbers both against the league and head to head -- it was only their classic playoff matchups then Robinson's post-injury play as second big to Tim Duncan that gives them any real separation.

Shaq, of course, doesn't dominate any of the all-time greats, nor do they dominate him with any consistency. Now, if he was a fanatic about being in shape and had natural rebounding instincts to match his unparallelled ability to score close to the hoop, then he'd be Wilt -- but in a much less center oriented league and with much more playoff success and Jordan would just be an afterthought in the GOAT argument.

[bastillon]

Actually, David Robinson was at least arguably better than Hakeem . . . until the playoffs where Hakeem stepped up his game and the Admiral got demoted to Captain. But hard to say Akeem was clearly better when during his Akeem period, Robinson was winning most of the matchups with similar supporting personnel and similar numbers both against the league and head to head -- it was only their classic playoff matchups then Robinson's post-injury play as second big to Tim Duncan that gives them any real separation.

Shaq, of course, doesn't dominate any of the all-time greats, nor do they dominate him with any consistency. Now, if he was a fanatic about being in shape and had natural rebounding instincts to match his unparallelled ability to score close to the hoop, then he'd be Wilt -- but in a much less center oriented league and with much more playoff success and Jordan would just be an afterthought in the GOAT argument.

he'd have to decline as a scorer too (pace adjusted Wilt's numbers don't come even close) and play much worse in the postseason, choking/playing suspiciously in all the big games.

[hasslinghoff]

simple estimate using team-fga:

Code: Select all

                 fg%  3p%  ft%  ts%  trb  ast  stl  blk  tov  pf   pts

s.o'neal00       .574 .000 .524 .578 12.3 3.4  0.4  2.7  2.5  2.9  26.7
w.chamberlain62  .506 n/a  .613 .536 14.6 1.4  n/a  n/a  n/a  0.8  28.6
w.chamberlain67  .683 n/a  .441 .637 16.1 5.2  n/a  n/a  n/a  1.2  16.1


[bastillon]

simple estimate using team-fga:

Code: Select all

                 fg%  3p%  ft%  ts%  trb  ast  stl  blk  tov  pf   pts

s.o'neal00       .574 .000 .524 .578 12.3 3.4  0.4  2.7  2.5  2.9  26.7
w.chamberlain62  .506 n/a  .613 .536 14.6 1.4  n/a  n/a  n/a  0.8  28.6
w.chamberlain67  .683 n/a  .441 .637 16.1 5.2  n/a  n/a  n/a  1.2  16.1


well to me Shaq's scoring is clearly greater than either season. when Wilt scores high volume Shaq's efficiency is just way better. when Wilt's efficiency is great, his volume isn't anywhere near Shaq's. Shaq combined powerful volume with great efficiency.

I know a lot of people will look at this and say "BUT WILT HAD A 50 PPG YEAR" but he shouldn't get any credit for his team taking more shots:

There's more to the differences between leagues than pace differences, but pace adjustment is a must adjustment. The purpose of the game is to score as many points per possession as possible, you get no brownie points for getting those points in 5 seconds instead of 20 seconds. It makes zero sense to favor a player because he got more possessions than another player.

in fact, O'neal's 00 season is, I believe, the best scoring year for any big, ever. KAJ was great but his pace-adjusted numbers were worse, too:

Code: Select all

       year  PPG   RPG   APG   BPG   SPG   TS%
Shaq   '00  29.7  13.6   3.8   3.0   0.5  57.8
Shaq   '01  29.2  12.9   3.8   2.9   0.6  57.4

Kareem '74  23.9  12.8   4.2   3.1   1.2  56.4
Kareem '75  27.4  12.8   3.8   3.0   1.0  55.0
Kareem '76  23.9  14.6   4.3   3.5   1.3  56.7
Kareem '77  23.6  11.6   3.5   2.9   1.1  60.8
Kareem '78  22.7  11.3   3.8   2.6   1.1  58.9
Kareem '79  21.0  11.3   4.8   3.5   1.0  61.2

Kareem '80  22.2   9.7   4.0   3.1   0.9  63.9
Kareem '81  23.8   9.4   3.1   2.6   0.6  61.6
Kareem '82  21.6   7.9   2.7   2.4   0.7  60.8

at some point you have to forget about raw averages and consider other things as well. they were playing 10% faster than peak r'n'g Suns so there's that...

[NYK 455]

Peak Shaq would run through any Center to ever play the game.

[bastillon]

Peak Shaq would run through any Center to ever play the game.

except that he didn't. you seem to be a reasonable poster, why do you think so ? do you really believe he'd dominate Robinson, Ewing or Olajuwon if they were in their primes ?

[NYK 455]

Peak Shaq would run through any Center to ever play the game.

except that he didn't. you seem to be a reasonable poster, why do you think so ? do you really believe he'd dominate Robinson, Ewing or Olajuwon if they were in their primes ?

Shaq peaked at different years than those guys did. And I don't think he'd dominate them, but he'd outplay them, although Hakeem would be very close.

[bastillon]

Peak Shaq would run through any Center to ever play the game.

except that he didn't. you seem to be a reasonable poster, why do you think so ? do you really believe he'd dominate Robinson, Ewing or Olajuwon if they were in their primes ?

Shaq peaked at different years than those guys did. And I don't think he'd dominate them, but he'd outplay them, although Hakeem would be very close.

you said "would run through"... and how big do you think the difference was between Shaq 00 and Shaq in the 90s ? if there was any, it was in terms of team defense, not particularly as a scorer or passer.

[NYK 455]

When I said run through, I basically meant he'd still be getting 27-29 ppg on very high efficency, and he'd do that to pretty much anybody. But someone like Hakeem would get his on Shaq on the other end.

[bastillon]

he didn't get anywhere near that in the 90s so what makes you think he was so much better in 00 ? look at the results posted on the first page - not even close.

[JordansBulls]

SMH....RealGm where Hakeem is God

What does "SMH" mean again?

Shaking My Head

Oh makes sense. Thanks

[ronnymac2]

Shaq sucked. He was actually better in the 90's than during the threepeat. He regressed. Not that that means much. Regressing to a c- Center from the b Center that he was means little.

[jaypo]

You're right, Ronnymac. Hell, he couldn't even drop 90 and 50 on a 37 yr old top 10 player ever. (Even though he did outplay him h2h in 95 at 32 yrs old). And he sucks because he only won 4 rings against 6'1 white centers that sucked. I mean- Mutombo. He bought the DPOY award on Ebay. I know it because I sold it to him. And the finals MVP's- I know for a fact that Stern hated Kobe, so instead of giving them to Kobe for bailing out Shaq (even though he was dropping like 35 and 15), he gave them to Shaq because he was scared Shaq would elbow him too, since that is the only way he could score. Shaq played against slow, white, short, skinny centers like Smitz, Zo, Akeem, Ewing, Drob, Mutombo, Duncan, Ben Wallace, Yao, Howard. They all suck, and none of them can be mentioned as good competition because of how watered down the league was when Shaq was (is) in it. And his impact is still not felt judging how Yao, Howard, and Gasol struggle against him, even though he is the worst defensive center ever. Hell, Oliver Miller was a better center. They just didn't allow him to use his weight to "bulldoze" over people (thank God!).

And what do the experts know, huh? I mean, none of them actually PLAYED in the league, right? You know, all those players, coaches, and GM's that say he was one of the best ever? That he was one of only 2 to win 3 finals MVP's in a row? That he is near the top on all meaningful all time lists (scoring, rebounding, playoff #'s, FG%, etc). That he was voted as top 50 ever before he even won a title? Then he won 4?? Dumb. All of them. Much less credibility than the obvious non biased geniuses here on this thread! Yeah, guys. You've completely made me change my mind. I think he sucked. He is less valuable than an injured Greg Oden!

[An Unbiased Fan]

^
That's all nice jaypo, but you didn't refute the fact that Shaq played in the weakest era ever for centers, and that he wasn't even regarded as the best center until both Hakeem & DRob were past their primes. No one is saying that Shaq isn't a HOF, just that his "dominance" is overrated.

[jaypo]

And I disagree. He played in 3 eras- 90's, 00's, and now 2010. In the 90's, he played against a whole crop of HOF'rs. In the 00's, he played against players like Smitz, Deke, Duncan (many on here INSIST that he is a center), Vlade, Sabas, Zo, Wallace, Yao, Howard, Gasol. Now, he's a role player and the game has changed so much that it's irrelevant to use this era. And he did fine against all of those guys. And I didn't even mention guys like the Davis boyz, Rasheed Wallace, and oversize PF's that used to have to fill in because Shaq would have the whole team in foul trouble.

It's flat out incorrect to say he played in a weak era of centers because his career has spanned for 20 years. You're basically saying that the last 20 years has been the weakest era for centers ever? That is just trying to revise history to make his accomplishments seem less impressive than they actually are. It's basically a sin to say that Witl "dominated" against unathletic, shorter, smaller players. But it's okay to say that Shaq dominated "inferior" players? Like the ones mentioned above? And then, to try to strengthen the argument, you guys say that he only did what he did because he was allowed to play outside of the rules??? Why is it that Kobe, Wade, Lebron, Melo don't get crap for having the rules changed in their favor. You know what? If Shaq weren't so dominant, why did they change the rules because of him???? You guys will stop at nothing!

But you know what? No matter how much you try to revise history, you cannot erase his 4 rings. His MVP. His 3 consecutive Finals MVP's (only other person to do that is MJ). His stats on the all time scoring, rebounding, playoff, and fg% lists. His record All Star appearances and MVP's. His 6 finals trips with 3 different teams. His ROY. And all the other accolades he has produced in his HOF career. It doesn't really matter what a bunch of biased haters post. Because as I discovered on another thread, by most of you guys' own admission , the majority of the people posting are young guys that grew up in the Kobe/Lebron era where Sportcenter Highlights hold more weight than actually watching thousands of hours of NBA games. Where TS% is more important than having to change a team's entire game plan on both ends of the court to play against a single player. Where twisting the stats is more important than being able to recognize things that don't show up in the boxscore. Where a reg season MVP is more important than a finals MVP because it shows how much better the player is (even though winning the Finals MVP usually means that you also achieved the ultimate goal as an NBA player!!!-- this is currently being debated as we speak!!) So keep up the debate. Keep up the hating. Keep trying to revise what REALLY happened. It won't change a thing! He'll still have more rings than Akeem. He'll still have 3 peated and won 3 consecutive finals MVP's. He'll still be on those lists. And he'll still have those 4 trophies! And I'm sure no matter what you guys say to try to diminish those accomplishments, he can make himself feel better by polishing any 1 of his shiny, O'brien trophies!!

[bastillon]

Shaq supporters: prime Shaq would dominate/run through any HOF C
research: prime Shaq didn't dominate any of the 90s HOF Cs
Shaq supporters: you're trying to make it seem like Shaq was a scrub

give me a break. most of you, like Ronny, Jaypo are talking BS offtopic. refer to the results of Shaq playing an elite competition to a standstill and don't pretend as if he was much better than these guys. we're not trying to minimize what Shaq did, but putting his accomplishments in all-time context, which is extremely important in this case, considering the competition.

[TrueLAfan]

Well, I agree that the late 90s/early 00s were the weakest period for Cs in NBA history. But that doesn’t detract from how great Shaq was. If you have the best car in a race, your car doesn’t get worse if the competition is lesser.

Was threepeat Shaq better/worse than young Shaq? I think it largely balances out. The style of play at the time was slower than it ever had been (or would be)…and that benefited a bigger Shaq. He was a better passer, but I (personally) don’t think he was quite as good on D. I think the style of the period helped him out there. It’s a small distinction for a guy who was so great. The fact that there was little to choose from between Shaq and Hakeem and Drob in the early and mid-90s says a lot. Hakeem is an all-time Top 10 player; if DRob hadn't had injuries (and had choked a little less), he would be too. Being more or less equal to the peak of guys like that is hardly an insult.

I’m assuming that we aren’t talking about all HOF Cs, but a select few…the group in, say, the top 50-60 or so players of all time. That means something like Kareem, Wilt, Russell, Hakeem, Moses, DRob, Gilmore, Reed, Lanier, Cowens, Thurmond … maybe Walton. I think all of them would bring different things to the table against Shaq. But I think it’s rare that anyone is able to “stop” a top 10 player like Shaq. It would be interesting to see how an intelligent defender like Walton or an undersized guy like Cowens or a flat out angry guy like Lanier would deal with Shaq. I’d go with the intelligence and multi-faceted D of a guy like Walton over the hustle and positioning of a Cowens, although I think Cowens (and Willis Reed) would make Shaq work a lot. The best guy would be a fluid guy who could get steals and blocks and could counter Shaq’s outstanding footwork. Against Shaq, my .02 is that I’d rate the players like this

1. Russell. Best at getting position and denying the ball. Best shot blocker.
2. Hakeem. Bill Russell lite; his footwork would outpoint Shaq’s to some degree.
3. Thurmond. Smart, smart defender that would know how to force Shaq to play into his (few) weaknesses.
4. Wilt. Biggest question mark…but Wilt of the early 1970s still had enough hops and speed to go with 300+ pounds to make life tough on Shaq.
5. Kareem. Not as good at reducing touches at Russell or Hakeem, which would be more important than vertical or bulk, IMO. Had the fluidity and intelligence to adapt, though.
6. Walton. Walton is to Kareem as Hakeem is to Russell…a slightly lesser, though still great version.
7. Gilmore. This is younger Gilmore, pre-knee injury. He still wasn’t good at using his length for anything but blocks, however; he didn’t deny usage like a Kareem or Walton. But he was quick and big and strong.
8. Cowens. Cowens was good with big, strong players. But he never played one who had the footwork of Shaq. He gave Wilt fits, though.
9. Reed. Same as Cowens.
10. Robinson. For years, I thought Shaq walked all over Robinson (mainly because that’s what Shaq said happened). Actually, in RS play between 1993 and 2000, DRob held Shaq under his scoring and rebounding averages, and Shaq shot more poorly (27.5/12.4/.577 vs. 25.1/11.7/.563). It’s possible I have DRob too low here. 7-10 is hard to tell.
11. Lanier. Depends on how you look at it. Lanier was a good defender, but Shaq would overwhelm him (although Shaq would really hate going out to defend Lanier). Eventually, Lanier would get mad and start swinging. In the 90s/00s, he’d be suspended. In the 70s, they’d let it go, and the Dobber was a really good fistfighter. On the court, Lanier’s D couldn’t stand up to Shaq. In a fight, however, the Big Aristotle would be The Big Punching Bag.
12. Moses. Tireless worker; got tons of points off of offensive rebounds. Was not great on the defensive end, either in terms of fundamentals or getting position for rebounds. Not enough length to keep the ball away from Shaq. Not skilled enough to have a toolkit to adapt.

What would be the difference between top and bottom? Between 1993 and 1998,. Shaq averaged 22.8/13.6 on .563 shooting against Hakeem. Russell was better on the defensive boards, so I figure he’d drop Shaq’s rebounding and shooting a bit overall…make it about 23/12/.550. Moses would get, relatively speaking, torched…maybe 28/13/.580. I think Shaq would have increasingly less turnovers as you go down the list as well.

So that’s my guess (because nobody can do anything other than guess, of course), and it shows that “stopping” Shaq would be holding him to 23 and 12 on 55% shooting. Which, again, points out just how great Shaq was at his peak.