therealbig3 wrote:Well, I've never actually thought highly of Hakeem's court vision and passing and reading the defense in terms of what ElGee describes as Global Impact...he read the defense great in terms of being an individual scorer, but he has been criticized as a black hole at times.
So I don't think Hakeem could do EVERYTHING to combat a defense...sometimes, you have to beat a defense with court vision and smart passing, and Shaq was significantly better at that than Hakeem imo. Furthermore, Hakeem was certainly much more versatile than Shaq as an offensive player, but as I said, I feel like his adjustments and his versatility are more individualistic with regards to his scoring, as in, how it makes the game easier for him moreso than for everyone involved. And Shaq's mere presence on the court, without even doing anything, causes all 5 defensive players to be aware of him, because of how huge of a mismatch he is, which opens things up tremendously for the entire team offense without him having to spend much energy.
And although most centers need to wait for the double team in the post to make a play for others...Shaq was basically a mandatory double team as soon as he caught the ball, or else it's 2 points, so there's really no waiting involved, and as I said, he was an excellent passer who was great at finding cutters and open shooters. He had a "bowling ball on a blanket" effect on a defense (as I think Doctor MJ put it), which imo, goes beyond the offensive impact that Hakeem had through his versatility.
And defensively, Shaq wasn't as mobile as Hakeem and couldn't defend the perimeter/PnR nearly as effectively, but at his peak, he was much more imposing as a rim protector, and is imo one of the GOAT (if not the GOAT) low post defenders because of his sheer power. A motivated, in shape Shaq (aka peak Shaq) wasn't too far off defensively from the truly great defensive anchors like Hakeem or Robinson.
Hakeem was criticized early in his career but never at his peak which is the issue at hand. That criticism was warranted to a certain extent in the first half of his career but regardless, it's not something that really applies to a peak Hakeem who was often praised for his unselfishness. Houston's game plan was fairly simple in terms of having Hakeem take more of a scoring mindset if he was being played straight up or become a passer when he was doubled aggressively although even when he was double teamed, he'd still be able to create shots for himself due to his diverse repertoire that allowed him to split, negate and evade doubles and ability to hit jumpers from various spots on the floor. There's multiple games where Hakeem's passing allowed the perimeter game to get going and it was noted as a difference maker such as game 1 vs Orlando in the finals which was the reason Orlando chose to play him straight up in game 2, game 4 vs Seattle in 1997 which forced Seattle to play single coverage in game 5 and focus more on Maloney, game 7 vs Seattle in 1993 etc. Houston essentially forced their opponents to pick their poison with the type of offense they ran and they were successful regardless of the strategy used against them.
Just an interesting piece of info, Hakeem was actually voted the best passer out of double teams in the low-post in 1997, not that I would go that far especially in terms of passing off the catch/in a stand still position but nonetheless, it shows high praise for his passing skills.
Nearly two thirds of the ballots from this week's poll—which queried a coach or executive from each team about the player they most feared as a passer when he draws two defenders in the low post—came back with a Rocket on them. Said Sacramento vice president Geoff Petrie, "When you get down to it, Houston has three of the best in Hakeem Olajuwon, Charles Barkley and Clyde Drexler."
Olajuwon was deemed most effective, with 11 votes, followed by Barkley, with seven. Drexler got one. Portlandcenter Arvydas Sabonis, the only other multiple vote getter, was the pick on five ballots. "Most guys, when it comes in, it doesn't come back out, does it?" says Jazz vice president Scott Layden. "But Sabonis passes like a guard. And then he's got those little trick passes, behind-the-backs and flips." Chris Webber and Karl Malone also received one vote each.
The Rockets, though, had the clear edge at dishing off under pressure. According to the pollees, Barkley relies on his experience to make sound snap decisions, while the 7-foot Olajuwon's athleticism enables him to be the best at negating a double team. And, says one coach, "he has the rings to prove it."
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/ ... /index.htmShaq has an edge in terms of passing off the catch/when he's trapped in a standstill position and he has to release the ball. I thought he did a great job holding the ball away from his body, protecting it from the double teamer and he could hit the open man on the weakside or a cutter with precision. I think Hakeem held the ball a little longer when he was doubled off the catch and was a bit slower in kicking the ball out which allowed the defense to rotate more effectively. Obviously, Shaq had bigger hands and size in general which allowed him to grip the ball and see over the defense a little better especially when he's being doubled with a forward as opposed to a guard so those two physical features give him a natural and inherit edge over Hakeem in terms of passing. But, Hakeem makes up for that with his ability to pass on the move where I feel Hakeem's athleticism and superior footwork helped bail him out in that regard. He was more creative, could use fakes and spin moves to suck the defense (made a lot of passes off the spin) and then kick out to the perimeter. You can also argue Shaq benefited from the triangle which allowed him to showcase his passing skills more often (more man movement, pass-heavy offense, guys like Ron Harper were excellent cutters and Phil also encouraged Shaq to kick the ball out if he didn't immediately have a good look and re-post with deeper position) as opposed to Houston's offense which was more stagnant in terms of guys standing around (little motion and cutters) waiting for Hakeem to get double teamed to receive the ball. Although, you can play devil's advocate and say it could've taken Hakeem longer than Shaq to learn the triangle and use his passing skills more effectively. Anyway, passing is something I'd give to Shaq regardless of whether we're discussing peak or career while playmaking goes to Hakeem.
Hakeem's skills and versatility do have a positive effect on the team's offense too so not all are individualistic. His ability to hit the jumper from multiple spots on the floor will stretch the defense giving his teammates more room to operate for either penetration or post-ups and it can also be critical when they're going up against an elite shot blocker since he'd be forced to come out and guard Hakeem thus making it easier for his teammates to score inside. On possessions where the shot clock is running down and somebody has to get up a bailout shot, his ability to shoot or create something out of nothing can help the team get a shot up unlike say Shaq who wouldn't be somebody you'd look for in that situation. It can allow him to work in a PnP giving the defense another dimension to worry about. It can help the team from a strategic standpoint if there's a mismatch they're trying to exploit or if they're milking the clock for instance though this is interrelated to my first point about stretching the defense. I've talked about this in more detail when there was a Shaq/Hakeem 1995 finals breakdown posted. Here's the link to the post (first half of the post):
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=1242882&start=75Also, individual adjustments aren't to be completely brushed to the side especially when a center is being quickly double teamed without even having the time to put the ball on the floor and this will be further magnified if his teammates are cold from the perimeter. I know this isn't peak Shaq who was a more skilled player but look at his series vs the Bulls in 1995. You expect him to dominate on paper because of the Bulls' Cs but he actually had a clearly worse offensive series than he did in the 1995 finals going up against a great defensive C for example. The Bulls slowed the game down taking away Shaq's transition game, double teamed him with Pippen and often managed to force him into a passing rhythm, he was reluctant to use his turnaround jumper so he couldn't create as many shots for himself (something he clearly improved on though), they had 3 Cs so they had fouls to give which they utilized anytime Shaq was near the basket and at times, this led to Shaq rushing shots which did play a minor part in him shooting only 48% from the field in that series. The Bulls also pressured the entry passer (especially Jordan on Anderson) which meant that at times, Shaq wouldn't even receive the ball. Another example is Portland during the 2000 WCF as there were multiple games where they were able to get away with loading up on Shaq since they were a poor 3 pt shooting team though, they did make them pay in the 4th quarter of game 7 IIRC and Shaq was instrumental in the comeback. They had a big body in Sabonis who could somewhat deny Shaq from getting deep position until the double team came, they had Pippen guarding Harper who was a non-shooting threat which allowed Pippen to pressure the entry passer and double team Shaq off the catch, Sheed was playing off of Green often coming from the weakside and with poor perimeter shooting, this allowed them to limit Shaq's impact to a certain extent. These defensive strategies are something a C like Hakeem can counter due to his plethora of skills and a diverse repertoire. Not entirely of course, there's a reason Seattle kept his shot attempts low in the playoffs due to similar strategies as the ones listed above but he could come out to the wing/top of the key and play a face up game, Houston could run him off some curls for a foul line jumper, he could space the floor so his teammates can play a penetrate and dish style of basketball etc.
With all this said, I view peak Shaq as a tier above peak Hakeem as an offensive player/anchor (simply a bigger mismatch) but there's definitely aspects of offense where Hakeem holds an edge or better put, his skills can be more effective in countering certain defensive strategies.
Lastly, I don't know about Shaq being a much more imposing rim protector either. More intimidating due to his size, sure but I don't know if that led to more effectiveness. In 2000 (Shaq's defensive peak), the Zo led Heat had a better defense in the paint than the Lakers did both in terms of pts allowed as well as FG% (you can check in the paint opponent numbers on hoopsstats). Obviously, some of that could be attributed to the contrasting styles of defense the two teams played. Riley loved fronting the post which obviously leaves room for entry passes to be lobbed over so Zo would have to rotate quickly and help out and Riley would grade his performance on a game by game basis usually giving him high praise. He'd also prefer to have PJ Brown guard the opposing team's best low-post player since he was a better big-man defender and that also allowed Zo to help out and avoid foul trouble. On the other hand, the Lakers' strategy was built around Shaq's presence in the paint so the guards could be aggressive on the perimeter knowing Shaq was behind them to clean up mistakes and they could also funnel their man baseline or in the lane towards Shaq. It was a great strategy since they had the top defense overall but based strictly on the paint results, Miami fared a little better.
