RealGM

Hakeem vs Shaq vs Duncan, who has the greater legacy?

All 3 players were selected #1 in their respective draft. Hakeem in 1984, Shaq in 1992 an Duncan in 1997. Which player has the greater legacy and considered the best out of the 3?

VERY VERY tough question. Hakeem and Shaq IMO rank over Duncan in terms of overall talent and abilities. Duncan though won 4 championships, and who knows maybe more to come, Shaq won 4, and Hakeem won 2. I'll have to say Duncan has the better legacy with leading the Spurs to 4 championships.
Hakeem out of the 3 IMO is the better player, Shaq is next, while Duncan is last, but all 3 IMO are top 15 all time, with Shaq and Hakeem being top 10.

Shaq has four titles, with three Finals MVPs, in six appearances with three teams.

Both are top 10 all-time for me. As players though, I think shaq and hakeem are GOAT candidates. Duncan, not so much.

For their careers, shaq and duncan have 4 titles and 3 finals mvp's. Duncan has 1 more mvp and more all-defense teams, but shaq has more scoring titles, field goal percentage titles, and statistical dominance. Hakeem also has great accomplishments. They were all great big game players in the playoffs.

I have a problem with somebody saying that duncan was the better player than either shaq or hakeem ( in terms of a player-2-player comparison, judging what the players can do, not accomplishments). As for Hakeem and shaq, as players, I think they are very close. My personal preference is shaq because I think he has a larger effect on the game (by just a little bit), and also because shaq is my favorite player lol.

I think shaq and hakeem have the greater overall legacies. People feared them. Shaq led his team to a threepeat. That's only been done by 2 other great players, jordan and russell. Hakeem led his team to back-to-back titles. During these times, there was really no doubt who the best player in the league was. The only time I can really say that for Duncan is 2003 (a legendary playoff performance, amazing). I'm not trying to take anything away from Duncan's sustained excellence. Contrary to what most people believe, I do in fact think the Spurs are a dynasty. It's just that dream and shaq had more dominance in their peaks. And I tend to value peak performance very highly.

Malinhion wrote:Shaq has four titles, with three Finals MVPs, in six appearances with three teams.

Whoops Wades performance was soo good in that finals appearance I forgot about the one with the Heat.

ronnymac2 wrote:Shaq led his team to a threepeat. That's only been done by 2 other great players, jordan and russell.

3. Don't forget George Mikan, who was the first to do it. Gotta give props where props are due.

Shaq has the greater legacy; Hakeem was better.

ThaRegul8r wrote:

ronnymac2 wrote:Shaq led his team to a threepeat. That's only been done by 2 other great players, jordan and russell.

3. Don't forget George Mikan, who was the first to do it. Gotta give props where props are due.

ahh...my bad. lol So Mikan, Russell, and Jordan. And then Shaq.

shawngoat23 wrote:Shaq has the greater legacy; Hakeem was better.

Why do you think shaq will have the greater legacy?

And I know i'm probably doing the thing that i hate in that i'm being too sensitive about my favorite player, but why do you think hakeem was better?

ronnymac2 wrote:

shawngoat23 wrote:Shaq has the greater legacy; Hakeem was better.

Why do you think shaq will have the greater legacy?

And I know i'm probably doing the thing that i hate in that i'm being too sensitive about my favorite player, but why do you think hakeem was better?

Shaq will have the greater legacy because of his four rings, because he dominated his era so completely in his prime (given the lack of quality bigs), because of his charisma, because of his quotable nature, and because he appeals to the streetball culture. He's much more marketable and more of a household name than Hakeem. Both have unique styles, but Shaq's just seems much more appealing to many casual fans.

I believe Hakeem was better because he was able to lead one of the worst championship casts in the league to a ring in 1994 and because he beat Shaq in 1995 despite having less help. (I also understand that Shaq's teammates choked, which didn't help his case, but it was a 4-0 sweep for the Rockets.) I believe his offense is underrated because he did his work against frequent double and triple teams. I believe that his early game is underappreciated, as he was able to team up with Sampson to beat the Showtime Lakers in six in their primes. I know that he was as complete a defensive big as I have ever seen, whereas Shaq could be abused on the pick and roll. I believe that Hakeem's moves were not only more aesthetically pleasing, but more in line with the spirit of basketball. I question whether Shaq would have been so dominant if his offensive fouls were called more consistently.

That's not to say that Shaq isn't a great player, or even a top 10 player. He dominated his position from 1999-2002 as much as I've ever seen anyone--but part of that is due to the pathetic state of the bigs in the NBA at that point. Shaq's resume speaks for itself, but I think Hakeem is better for the reasons I stated. I know many other posters (Harry Palmer?) can elaborate on this point much better than I can.

I think if all things were called equally, Shaq would have gone to the line a lot more than he did, not be called for more offensive fouls...

Duncan and Shaq have more rings, but i doubt they could do more than Olajuwon did vs the great celtics/lakers teams in the 80's and Jordan in the 90's.

Hakeem is the better passser, more offensive talent, better blocker and defender, similar in rebound. But again, he only has 2

shawngoat23 wrote:

ronnymac2 wrote:

shawngoat23 wrote:Shaq has the greater legacy; Hakeem was better.

Why do you think shaq will have the greater legacy?

And I know i'm probably doing the thing that i hate in that i'm being too sensitive about my favorite player, but why do you think hakeem was better?

Shaq will have the greater legacy because of his four rings, because he dominated his era so completely in his prime (given the lack of quality bigs), because of his charisma, because of his quotable nature, and because he appeals to the streetball culture. He's much more marketable and more of a household name than Hakeem. Both have unique styles, but Shaq's just seems much more appealing to many casual fans.

I believe Hakeem was better because he was able to lead one of the worst championship casts in the league to a ring in 1994 and because he beat Shaq in 1995 despite having less help. (I also understand that Shaq's teammates choked, which didn't help his case, but it was a 4-0 sweep for the Rockets.) I believe his offense is underrated because he did his work against frequent double and triple teams. I believe that his early game is underappreciated, as he was able to team up with Sampson to beat the Showtime Lakers in six in their primes. I know that he was as complete a defensive big as I have ever seen, whereas Shaq could be abused on the pick and roll. I believe that Hakeem's moves were not only more aesthetically pleasing, but more in line with the spirit of basketball. I question whether Shaq would have been so dominant if his offensive fouls were called more consistently.

That's not to say that Shaq isn't a great player, or even a top 10 player. He dominated his position from 1999-2002 as much as I've ever seen anyone--but part of that is due to the pathetic state of the bigs in the NBA at that point. Shaq's resume speaks for itself, but I think Hakeem is better for the reasons I stated. I know many other posters (Harry Palmer?) can elaborate on this point much better than I can.

Well ok. If your also talking marketability and the quotes and all, then I guess shaq will have the greater legacy.

I def agree Hakeem was the better defensive player. Shaq's a great anchor, low post presence, low post defender, space taker, and intimidador. He rebounds and blocks shots. But pick-n-roll defense is a weakness of his. And a strength of hakeem's. Plus Hakeem was better on the perimeter. Getting steals and chasing guards. Then recovering inside to block shots.

If Hakeem had really outplayed Shaq in those 95 finals, I'd say okay, thats a valid argument to use in a player-2-player comparison. But he didn't. First off, the stats are pretty even. Hakeem scored more on less efficiency. I think he had over 32 per game to shaq's 28. Shaq had more assists, blocks, and rebounds. Hakeem had more steals and less turnovers. They were close. And they actually guarded each other a lot. How often do we get to see 2 of the greatest players ever, in the finals, who play the same position, go up against each other and actually defend one another? The only comparison I can think of is wilt and russell. And wilt didn't need to worry as much about russell scoring as shaq and hakeem did about each other. We got to see an awesome matchup.

If you watch that series, houston and orlando both played through their big men. And shaq and dream were dominant. They couldn't stop each other really. They affected the other team in a way thats good for their own team. They drew double and triple teams. Both teams shot a lot of 3 pointers in that series, and shaq and hakeem were big reasons why. Watching the games, you just got the feeling that the magic were that young team that didn't really know how to win yet. And the rockets looked like that hungry mix of savvy veterans and aggressive young players that knew how to win games. They knew each other better than the magic did. What Dream did was great. Especially playing against shaq. But the rockets were simply the better team, even if the magic had the talent to win (and i do agree, I think the magic were a bit more talented. But the rockets blended so well, had very good defenders, 3 point shooters, and also clyde drexler, arguably still better at that point in his career than penny, and also very, very hungry for a title after losing twice with portland.)

Talking about the double and triple teams, shaq had to go through those, too. Dream and shaq just had different ways of destroying those double and triple teams. lol

And the aesthetically pleasing part shouldn't matter. Shaq was very skilled and had great footwork. Hakeem was more skilled, and had better footwork. I can't deny that. But somebody might think that shaq backing down, dropping stepping through, and dunking on somebody so hard that they fall down might be aesthetically pleasing, too (and funny lol), so thats kind of subjective. Plus, it's not like shaq's way was less effective. And effectiveness should kind of be the most important thing you look for imo.

As for the quality of centers in the nba, shaq did have to go against drob, ewing, and dream in their absolute primes when he was young. And he more than held his own against them. Then, in his prime, he dominated the way he should have, the way that was expected...he won 3 titles in very dominating fashion. He had to go through great players and teams, too.

Anyway you look at it, these guys were completely dominant. I honestly think you can make a legit argument for both of them as GOAT. They probably aren't the GOAT, but they have a legit claim. I do disagree with you, and I think shaq was better. I'd take him over Hakeem. But I don't have many problems with you or anyone else taking hakeem over shaq, because dream was that good.

I understand all the points you made, and they were quite valid. My position is that Hakeem is better than Shaq by a bit, not that he **** on Shaq.

Indeed, their head-to-head statistics were quite comparable, but I believe Hakeem affected the defensive end in a way that's not indicated by the stats. More importantly, I believe he took the games over when they mattered the most (especially in game 1), and most of all, his team won the series in dominating fashion. Certainly, Shaq's young and talented teammates let him down; however, in a sport in which one game can affect a superstar's legacy, I have a tough time excusing him for a four-game sweep.

About the double and triple teams: Shaq handled as many as I can remember anyone handling in recent years, by a considerable margin. But I believe someone wrote a post a while back which indicated that Hakeem might have faced more double and triple teams than anyone ever, especially in his younger days (of which I have no recollection). I can't say for sure that's valid, but he certainly received a lot of focus from the opposing teams.

Finally, I understand that the aesthetically pleasing part doesn't matter--two points is two points, and it's a bonus when you can demoralize the opponent the way Shaq did it. However, that wasn't the crux of my argument. I was trying to say that Shaq's go-to moves didn't seem compatible with the spirit of basketball. Perhaps my opinion is influenced by having recently rewatched clips of Game 6 of the 2002 WCF, but I think he would be much less effective if he didn't get the superstar treatment from referees, which in part allowed him to be so dominant with his bruising style. Indeed, he was extremely athletic and had great footwork, but his game is not exactly versatile by any standard; I think that if referees were inclined to call ticky-tack fouls consistently, his effectiveness on offense would be greatly impaired.

That's not to disrespect Shaq. I don't think he has a legitimate argument for GOAT, but I do believe he has one for MDE, which I believe is different in a subtle way. Certainly, if you value the way he dominated his peers at the position and demoralized opposing teams, his case becomes that much stronger.

As far as playing ability goes, Hakeem takes the cake. He's quick with his hands with feet, can do everything defensively any center would dream of, and his offensive game is much more polished than the fundamentally sound Duncan and the dominant Shaq. Shaq completely changes the face of the game because he simply had no opposition when he had the best performances of his career, and while you can't say that for Duncan, he's been consistently at the top and can meld with many different teammates due to his ability to take over a game and defer to his teammates when needed. His 03 quest for the title was probably the most impressive given Robinson was at the end of his career and he doesn't have much to rely on scoring wise to get the job done.

Shaq and Duncan are pretty close, and I don't even like Shaq and think in terms of all time he's a tad overrated.

But he's not nearly as overrated as Hakeem, who for some inexplicable reason has become more than he really was in the minds of a lot of posters here.

shawngoat23 wrote:I understand all the points you made, and they were quite valid. My position is that Hakeem is better than Shaq by a bit, not that he **** on Shaq.

Indeed, their head-to-head statistics were quite comparable, but I believe Hakeem affected the defensive end in a way that's not indicated by the stats. More importantly, I believe he took the games over when they mattered the most (especially in game 1), and most of all, his team won the series in dominating fashion. Certainly, Shaq's young and talented teammates let him down; however, in a sport in which one game can affect a superstar's legacy, I have a tough time excusing him for a four-game sweep.

About the double and triple teams: Shaq handled as many as I can remember anyone handling in recent years, by a considerable margin. But I believe someone wrote a post a while back which indicated that Hakeem might have faced more double and triple teams than anyone ever, especially in his younger days (of which I have no recollection). I can't say for sure that's valid, but he certainly received a lot of focus from the opposing teams.

Finally, I understand that the aesthetically pleasing part doesn't matter--two points is two points, and it's a bonus when you can demoralize the opponent the way Shaq did it. However, that wasn't the crux of my argument. I was trying to say that Shaq's go-to moves didn't seem compatible with the spirit of basketball. Perhaps my opinion is influenced by having recently rewatched clips of Game 6 of the 2002 WCF, but I think he would be much less effective if he didn't get the superstar treatment from referees, which in part allowed him to be so dominant with his bruising style. Indeed, he was extremely athletic and had great footwork, but his game is not exactly versatile by any standard; I think that if referees were inclined to call ticky-tack fouls consistently, his effectiveness on offense would be greatly impaired.

That's not to disrespect Shaq. I don't think he has a legitimate argument for GOAT, but I do believe he has one for MDE, which I believe is different in a subtle way. Certainly, if you value the way he dominated his peers at the position and demoralized opposing teams, his case becomes that much stronger.

I agree with the comments about hakeem and game 1. He did take over when it mattered. He was a big game performer. Though I must add shaq played very well down the stretch, too. I think he had 10 of his 26 in the 4th quarter and ot.

As for the offensive and defensive fouls against shaq while shaq was on offense.....Shaq is one of the hardest players to referee ever. He's probably the most physical ever in terms of whenever he's around, there's going to be contact, no matter what the play is...a rebound, a fight for position, a dunk attempt, etc. He did offensive foul players. A lot of guys also flopped. Or were simply overpowered. When they actually get overpowered, is that an offensive foul? Should shaq get penalized for having a physical advantage?

Again, I have no problem with you or anybody else taking hakeem over shaq by a bit, like you said. But i'd take shaq.

In terms of ability, Hakeem gets a significant edge over Shaq due to team defense -- i.e., shotblocking, as well as Shaq's general disinclination to do anything about pick-and-rolls.

If I could pick any player in history to start a team, Hakeem might be #1 for me ahead of Russell, Jabbar, or Wilt. Shaq would be a little behind Duncan, and would have trouble cracking the top 10. (The 4 I named, Magic, Bird, West, Duncan, probably Moses -- anybody else and he's into the teens.)

I also agree with the prior comment that Shaq is very dependent, for good or ill, on the rules of his era. Driving your shoulder into an opponent and knocking him over has, in some periods of NBA history, been considered an offensive foul.

How many teams and sidekicks did Shaq have? He had Penny, Kobe, Wade and am I missing anyone else? Duncan is the only player to stay on one team his entire career with a few role players without the bevy that Shaq has been fortunate enough to play with and Hakeem swept Shaq in 95' for his second ring. I'd rate Duncan and Hakeem ahead of Shack at this point. Tim and Olajuwan are interchangeable though I'd expect Duncan to be ahead just based on the points I already laid out.

I think their legacies will be as follows:

Akeem- remembered for winning back to back titles with "inferior supporting cast" (if you call Clyde Drexler, Kenny Smith, and Robert Horry inferior; personally , I think that argument is not true)

TD- probably will be remembered as one of the best PF's to play (even though he is a center, but doesn't want to be called one). If he wins another title as the main option, most of you will put him ahead of Shaq, although he doesn't belong there.

Shaq- next to Wilt, the most dominant center ever. He simply could not be stopped by anyone or any team for years. He ranks in the top 10 of all time.

As far as his style of play, (Oneal) someone mentioned that he just puts his shoulder down to knock players out of the way, but they failed to mention the illegal tactics that defenders would resort to before the ball was even in his hands. He is constantly grabbed, held, pushed, etc. before he gets the ball. Little contact initiated by him results in defenders falling down, but when a smaller player (Billups if famous for that) does the same thing, it's not called a foul. So what is the correct call? Is it just a foul on Shaq because he's big? Or should it be a foul on Billups? If so, then Barkley, and even the great MJ should have been called for initiating contact to get to the rim, because they made a living doing that. The point is that for everyone that claims the refs let Shaq have the "star treatment" probably are fans of teams that he's beaten. Because people that have followed his career know that he's been called unfairly his entire career.

All 3 have excellent legacies, but I think people on this board overrate Akeem very much. I think it should be Shaq (for taking 3 different teams to the finals; 3 peat, and being to the finals 6 times. TD will be remembered for 4 rings and possibly being the best PF to play. But I still think that he misses the top 10 because he never repeated. His 4 rings are as much a testament to his team's coach and management for continuously reloading the team to keep it competitive.

Hakeem is not overrated. People don't think Hakeem deserve to be mentioned with the other great centers because he won in the Jordan-less years. When Horry was asked which center he played with was the greatest, he answered that Hakeem was the best big man he ever played with without any hesitiation. Shaq lost pretty much all of his post moves when he started the 3 peat, and while Duncan is great, he's a guy that does everything well without exceeding expectations. Hakeem's footwork, quick hands, as well as his versatility on defense is pretty much unmatched.