Greatest players of all time (Number 7)

[ChrisWoj]

Originally Posted by Wilt_The_Stilt

Yeah but I guess Duncan doesn't count as competition for Shaq.

I thought he was competition - but since nobody brought him up in the debate last round, I didn't see a reason to jump in and say "Hey, what about Timmy?"

[Wilt_The_Stilt]

Originally Posted by ChrisWoj

I thought he was competition - but since nobody brought him up in the debate last round, I didn't see a reason to jump in and say "Hey, what about Timmy?"

Sorry didn't mean it as critcism of you. It was aimed at the idea that Shaq never had any competition and yet one of his primary rivals is getting votes in this poll.

[Dee-Zy]

I reiterated it because somebody asked what are the arguments for Hakeem over Shaq. Calm down.

Shaq may have played against the same competition for a little while but he didn't win shit until he got Kobe and all the big superstars of the 90s like Ewing, Hakeem, DRob, Barkley, Malone are gone.

And just because MJ was playing baseball, that discredits Hakeem? If anything, it shows that Hakeem was the second top dog during arguably the decade of the second highest level level of competition, the 90s (and no, the 2000s are not the most competitive decade).

[Wilt_The_Stilt]

The point that you are arguing with regards to Shaq not having competition is just wrong. Who were the great players Shaq didn't play against? If not MJ than who? Ewing? Robinson? He got the best of those guys even when he was just a youngster. Then you throw in Duncan and it's fair to say Shaq showed he could play with the great bigs of his day.

And arguing that Shaq didn't win while he was a youngster is a bit much. Was he supposed to beat Jordan? (He did once) Was he supposed to beat a prime Hakeem as a 22 year old?

Hakeem won his titles against the Ewing led Knicks and a baby Shaq. What is so much more impressive about that versus getting past the Duncan Spurs?

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Dee-Zy

I reiterated it because somebody asked what are the arguments for Hakeem over Shaq. Calm down.

Shaq may have played against the same competition for a little while but he didn't win shit until he got Kobe and all the big superstars of the 90s like Ewing, Hakeem, DRob, Barkley, Malone are gone.

And just because MJ was playing baseball, that discredits Hakeem? If anything, it shows that Hakeem was the second top dog during arguably the decade of the second highest level level of competition, the 90s (and no, the 2000s are not the most competitive decade).

So you're harping on Shaq for not winning anything as a 22 year old while simultaniously pimping a guy who didn't win anything until he was in his 30's? That doesn't make any sense.

And it absolutely discredits Hakeem that the league's best player wasn't playing. He was the best player in the world! He essentially won six in a row and I'm supposed to believe that a guy who never won anything prior to his sabbatical would have stopped him twice? I don't buy it.

The 90's weren't the second strongest era. That's a ridiculous statement.

Shaq had the better peak, prime, playoff resume, and overall resume. Hakeem can't touch him and no amount of anyone posting videos of the "dream shake" or talking about his defensive prescence is going to change that.

How can a player who only made 6 all NBA first teams be considered the 7th best player of all time? Especially when going against players that had a better peak? It doesn't make any sense.

[Dee-Zy]

You can't swing the argument both ways.

Either Shaq was too young and saying that he went up against the Malone, Barkley, of the 90s was unfair, and that you should only look at his resume when he was in his prime. Which, means that you have to look at the competition he had afterwards in the likes of TD, KG, AI, T-Mac (Who are NOT on the same level as the Malone/Barkley of the 90s).

Or you have to look at it all and say that he went against the Malone/Barkley in the 90s without much success UNTIL those guys were gone or on the decline.

Because if you argue that you should take into account the talent in the 90s (when he was young), then the same would have to hold for Hakeem, who went against Magic, Kareem, Bird in the 80s.

At the end of the day, neither were that successful before their prime (in terms of winning titles) or if you take into account everything, then you have to look at how Hakeem had to play against tougher competition in both the 80s and 90s, where Shaq played the same competition in the 90s, but weaker competition in the 2000s.

[Dee-Zy]

Originally Posted by Luke

So you're harping on Shaq for not winning anything as a 22 year old while simultaniously pimping a guy who didn't win anything until he was in his 30's? That doesn't make any sense.

And it absolutely discredits Hakeem that the league's best player wasn't playing. He was the best player in the world! He essentially won six in a row and I'm supposed to believe that a guy who never won anything prior to his sabbatical would have stopped him twice? I don't buy it.

The 90's weren't the second strongest era. That's a ridiculous statement.

Shaq had the better peak, prime, playoff resume, and overall resume. Hakeem can't touch him and no amount of anyone posting videos of the "dream shake" or talking about his defensive prescence is going to change that.

How can a player who only made 6 all NBA first teams be considered the 7th best player of all time? Especially when going against players that had a better peak? It doesn't make any sense.

Jordan said it himself that he doesn't think that he would of been able to defeat Hakeem had they met in the finals. Rockets owned the Bulls in the regular season and if you show up the argument that regular season and playoffs are two different beasts (which is true), then just take the word of the most competitive player who ever played the sport.

[ChrisWoj]

I could be the most fundamentally sound basketball player on the planet - Muggsy Bogues would still school the shit out of me. Athletic ability isn't everything, but it makes up for a hell of a lot as long as the athletically skilled one still has some basketball ability. There is a reason guys with massive athletic upside get drafted in the top-5 despite exhibiting no basketball ability - because only developing a little bit is enough to make them great NBA assets.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Dee-Zy

You can't swing the argument both ways.

Either Shaq was too young and saying that he went up against the Malone, Barkley, of the 90s was unfair, and that you should only look at his resume when he was in his prime. Which, means that you have to look at the competition he had afterwards in the likes of TD, KG, AI, T-Mac (Who are NOT on the same level as the Malone/Barkley of the 90s).

Or you have to look at it all and say that he went against the Malone/Barkley in the 90s without much success UNTIL those guys were gone or on the decline.

Because if you argue that you should take into account the talent in the 90s (when he was young), then the same would have to hold for Hakeem, who went against Magic, Kareem, Bird in the 80s.

At the end of the day, neither were that successful before their prime (in terms of winning titles) or if you take into account everything, then you have to look at how Hakeem had to play against tougher competition in both the 80s and 90s, where Shaq played the same competition in the 90s, but weaker competition in the 2000s.

Shaq was good enough to win titles in the 90's. He played Hakeem outstandingly well for a 22 year old. Shaq's problem, much like Jordan, is that his team was not ready until he had reached his apex. Once Shaq had a championship calibur roster around him he won 3 straight titles with four finals apperances in five years.

Tim Duncan is better than any big that Hakeem ever played. Ever. And it's not close. I would probably take KG over those guys as well and I hate KG.

People hate on Shaq's defense because he wasn't quick enough to guard the pick 'n roll when he was heavier and because he didn't have Kobe or MJ's work ethic. People tend to forget that Shaq was a great defensive player that anchored contenders for over a decade.

And in spite of Hakeem's adorable post moves, O'Neal was on another planet offensively.

[Dee-Zy]

Just out of curiosity, do you also have TD higher than Hakeem?

[Wilt_The_Stilt]

Originally Posted by Dee-Zy

You can't swing the argument both ways.

Either Shaq was too young and saying that he went up against the Malone, Barkley, of the 90s was unfair, and that you should only look at his resume when he was in his prime. Which, means that you have to look at the competition he had afterwards in the likes of TD, KG, AI, T-Mac (Who are NOT on the same level as the Malone/Barkley of the 90s).

Or you have to look at it all and say that he went against the Malone/Barkley in the 90s without much success UNTIL those guys were gone or on the decline.

Because if you argue that you should take into account the talent in the 90s (when he was young), then the same would have to hold for Hakeem, who went against Magic, Kareem, Bird in the 80s.

At the end of the day, neither were that successful before their prime (in terms of winning titles) or if you take into account everything, then you have to look at how Hakeem had to play against tougher competition in both the 80s and 90s, where Shaq played the same competition in the 90s, but weaker competition in the 2000s.

I never said to only look at his resume from his prime. You just need context. Leading a team to the Finals as a 22 year old is impressive. That should be taken into account. I'm not going to punish him for losing to a guy that was in his prime.

[Wilt_The_Stilt]

Originally Posted by Luke

Shaq was good enough to win titles in the 90's. He played Hakeem outstandingly well for a 22 year old. Shaq's problem, much like Jordan, is that his team was not ready until he had reached his apex. Once Shaq had a championship calibur roster around him he won 3 straight titles with four finals apperances in five years.

Pretty much.

[Dornado]

Originally Posted by Luke

Shaq was good enough to win titles in the 90's. He played Hakeem outstandingly well for a 22 year old. Shaq's problem, much like Jordan, is that his team was not ready until he had reached his apex. Once Shaq had a championship calibur roster around him he won 3 straight titles with four finals apperances in five years.

Tim Duncan is better than any big that Hakeem ever played. Ever. And it's not close. I would probably take KG over those guys as well and I hate KG.

People hate on Shaq's defense because he wasn't quick enough to guard the pick 'n roll when he was heavier and because he didn't have Kobe or MJ's work ethic. People tend to forget that Shaq was a great defensive player that anchored contenders for over a decade.

And in spite of Hakeem's adorable post moves, O'Neal was on another planet offensively.

Everyone is in love with this "its not close" nonsense... nobody who seriously watched David Robinson and Patrick Ewing play in their primes would say that they were "not close" to Tim Duncan. They may not have the resume Duncan has, but either one of those guys would have more than held their own against Duncan, and I love Duncan. Ewing was an old-ass man by the time Duncan came into the league.

[Luke]

Ewing and D-Rob were the shit no doubt, but they don't touch Duncan. Just like they don't touch Shaq.

[Luke]

Originally Posted by Dee-Zy

Just out of curiosity, do you also have TD higher than Hakeem?

Absolutely.