Most Versatile both on D and O
I love Hakeem, but I have to rank him 3rd behind Wilt Chamberlain and Kareem Abdul Jabbar. Some people may call me out, but I put him ahead of Bill Russell because of his offense.
Russell was a dominant defender and argueably the smartest defender of all time and who won more rings than anybody; however, Russell only shot 44% from FG on his career (never shooting above 50% for a season) and 56% FT as a career. Compared with Hakeem's 51% FG 71% FT and Hakeem more than doubled his career points.
Russell was a freakish rebounder, but I think if you put Hakeem in that era he'd be a 17-20 rpg player which isn't much lower than Russell.
My rankings are
4. Bill Russell
Hakeem had no weakness in skills And/or physically, he could do it all. Wilt had his free-throw problem and like Shaq, Wilt had limited range, and while Kareem was long, he was no where near as agile and quick footed as Hakeem. I can point out weakness with every great centers that have played, but I can't think of one for Hakeem. It's hard to believe as great as he is, may very well be indeed still underrated, as far as where he belongs amongst the other great centers.
Thus, Bill Russell is the greatest C ever. Nuff said.
Still see little reason he is the best Center of all-time. I rank him 5th, after the people most would probably rank ahead of him in Shaq, Kareem, Wilt and Russell. I could see making a case for any of those 4, but not Hakeem. He was obviously an incredible talent, and he did beat out two fantastic Centers in both of his NBA Finals victories, not to mention his being the all-time leader in blocked shots. Still, I feel like the other Centers had longer reigns of absolute dominance over the league. If you are going to go by career, I cannot see how one would say that Hakeem had a more dominant career than those four.
Joe, if you do indeed go by that era, Hakeem probably would have been probably even more incredible. Rebounding back than was due to the fact that shooting percentages were far lower than they are now. There were simply more rebounds to be had. So, I would not have been surprised if Hakeem would have been every bit of the rebounder Wilt Chamberlain or Bill Russell was. Nonetheless, I think that you cannot completely take away ones accomplishments, and Bill Russell was the consumate winner in team sports while Wilt produced dominant individual performances that will never be matched. Yes, Hakeem got the better of Shaq in the Finals match-up, but I think during Shaq's relative prime, he may have been better than any Center to have played the game. Kareem's combination of dominance and longevity to me clearly place him in front of Hakeem. I feel like on the Mt. Rushmore of Centers, Hakeem would be the head left off.
Since Hakeem and Shaq played at similar times, it's hard not to notice the decline in caliber of centers Shaq played against when he hit his stride and started to win titles in LA. That doesn't negate his accomplishments, but I think it should factor carry some weight.
When Hakeem really hit his stride in production he was constantly measuring up to Ewing, Robinson, Shaq, Mutombo, for a couple years a healthy Brad Dougherty and a young healthy Alonzo Mourning
Compared to when Shaq started winning titles and really hitting his stride statistically to top centers at the time were not the same caliber.
That is my reason for putting Hakeem over Shaq, I think they're close, but the post lockout NBA was pretty weak, especially at the center position, so in my opinion, Shaq averaging 28,12, and 3 in 2000-2001 (still a monster line and no disrespect) just isn't as impressive ,IMO, as Olajuwon averaging 26, 13, and 4.2 in 1992-93.
I just can't see anybody else up there maybe Kareem but his d wasn't even close to Hakeem IMO . None the less they are all greats wish I was able to watch that era live I was real young back then
I love Hakeem's game, but I have to give the "best C of all time" title to Kareem. I did not see his prime, but I've watched games and highlights. He made the game look too easy on offense. He was miles ahead of other C's in terms of skill(his size helped, of course).
Both Hakeem and Kareem were very fun to watch, but Kareem was the better player IMO.
Kareem is the best center of all time...
Wilt is second...and Russel is 3rd...
4th is up in the air
29.7, 13.6 and 3.8 when he won MVP Joe, that is pretty freaking impressive. He shot 58% from the field over his career! I know that his free throw shooting was awful, but he was a flat-out offensive force. I feel that Shaq was the best Center in the league for a really long time, and while Hakeem may have got the best of him during their duel in the Finals, it was not exactly like Shaq was a slouch:
Shaq: 28 ppg, 12.5 rpg, 6.3 apg, 2.5 bpg while shooting 60% from the field (44-74)
Hakeem: 32.8 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 5.5 apg, 2 bpg while shooting 48% from the field (56-116)
Shaq went to the line more than Hakeem, and I think it was quite obvious that the Rockets played superior team defense, but Shaq still killed it. If Shaq had played during all of these Centers younger years, there is little doubt in my mind that he would still kill them. The Hakeem series is one of the only series I know of where a Center outplayed Shaq.
As much as one could say Hakeem's era should tell the difference, there is little evidence to support that, or to the contrary. I suppose it is a personal belief. Nonetheless, I can give the rebuttle that if Shaq had a competent big man to play with in Ralph Sampson, would the sky not have been the limit? I think no matter what one says about the defense prowess of Hakeem Olajuwon, Shaq's incredible offensive dominance was far more staggering. Yes, Hakeem was a better free throw shooter, but Shaq got to the line more. Yes, Hakeem took more FG's per game, but Shaq simply overcame this by shooting a higher percentage and making more. There career numbers are incredibly similar, though I still think that one would favor Shaq's:
Shaq: 23.7, 10.9, 2.5 and 2.3 with a 58% FG
Hakeem: 21.8, 11.1, 2.5 and 3.1 with a 51% FG
Hakeem has slightly better play-off numbers, though I will attribute that in large part to Shaq having played in 71 more play-off games. While Hakeem may have been better than David Robinson and Patrick Ewing, most certainly from a career aspect, I think they spent years nipping at his heels. Shaq, on the other hand, got to a point where he was unquestionably the most dominant Center in the league over a long period of time. He got the better of all of these players in career match-ups against them by a large sum. I believe that while Hakeem's Rockets team was seen as weaker than Orlando, in the end, they proved to be a vastly superior team. Shaq did all that he could, but lost to the older and more experienced player, not to mention his team faired even worse. Had they both gone up against each other in their prime years, I do not know how Hakeem stops the Shaq that put up 29.7 and 13.6 with the Lakers in 1998-99. I just believe with his period of dominance, efficiency and the way he barreled away from all competition, that Shaq is clearly the better of the two from an All-Time perspective. Hakeem's skills are incredible, but he simply was not the physical force that Shaq was in his prime, and to me, that matters.
I'm with Wolf although I put Kareem #1... And actually I wonder how good The Dream really was... Outside of the 2 championships when Jordan left, he wasn't as relevent as say a Ewing? Maybe its because it was NY and Eastcoast bias, but majority of the folks put the Dream up there because of the 2 Championships... Then you add the Offensive low post with the Block shot stats and people automatically say he's Top 5... To be honest outside of those 2 years, including the years Pippen and Barkley joined the Rockets, The Dream wasn't called the best Center... That says A LOT for someone that is considered Top 5...
Hakeem was an underrated superstar during his playing days. He barely got any endorsement, if any, the guy was rocking Spalding shoes lol. Jordan said it himself, that Hakeem was the best Center he's played against, that's coming from a guy who's faced the likes of Shaq, David Robinson, Ewing. Hakeem never got the recognition he deserve, because he was such a low key player, even more low key than what Tim Duncan is. Probably the reason why he never got proper recognition.
shaq and hakeem are absolutely the 2 best centers i have seen myself in their prime not including going back and watching tape. I always felt hakeem was defenitely better then robinson and ewing when those 3 were all considered the best bigs in the league. But if shaq at his best played hakeem at his best, i think shaq takes the advantage. He wasnt nearly as skilled as hakeem as very few bigs to ever play if any were. But shaq was just knocking guys around and most teams either had to foul or double immediately or they were helpless.
During Shaq's prime, I don't think the Incredible Hulk could've defended him.
To be honest, the only thing that's held Shaq back from being the best center of all-time is injuries/not always being in the best shape and then missing free-throws.
To give Shaq his due credit, I've never seen a man in any sport that could carry 350lbs ( what I think he probably weighed 99-03) and maintain the amount of athleticism that he did. He was a wrecking ball on the court, and no I don't think any of the great centers of the early to mid 1990s could have stopped him, but I think they could have done a better job on him than a 35 year old Mutombo, a rookie Yao Ming, or 6'9'' Big Ben which were the top centers of Shaq's most dominant peroid.
I think we'll probably just have to agree to disagree on this one, and I have a lot of respect for Shaq on the court (off the court too, he's a very smart and entertaining guy) but I think Hakeem was the better player. A lot of people feel it's a toss up between Kareem and Wilt ( Kareem being the more skilled and Wilt the more dominant) I feel its a very similar comparison when looking at Hakeem and Shaq. They are both great, but two different styles of player.
As much as I hate Shaq, just as I've said before, when Shaq was at his peak between 99-03, there wasn't a better center EVER. As great on D as Russell was, he wouldn't have stopped the Diesel. Same goes for Hakeem,Wilt,Kareem, or any other center you wanna randomly throw out. I give The Dream super props for being the only Star other the MJ to win during the 90's, but he just wasn't the dominant force Shaq was. The only thing that EVER stopped Shaq, was SHAQ. His laziness and immaturity was always what held him back. I can only imagine how great we would be talking about him being had he just been willing to accept the role KAJ was willing to accept of being the 2nd star beside of Kobe. I still think they would have ran off another 3peat as Kobe became the best closer/scorer in the game.
1.KAJ (Most all-around. Individual accolades,titles, and longevity)
2.Russell (11 titles in 13 years)
3.Wilt(100pts, along with 2 titles and video game statistics)
4.Shaq(4titles, incredible individual numbers, and decent longevity except for usually missing 30+games per yr)
5.Hakeem(2 titles during the 90's, indivual numbers, and all-time leading shot-blocker,but was a little shortIMO)
6.David Robinson(71 pts in a single game, 10x all-star, 2x champion, played until he was 37)
7.Moses Malone(individual stats,1x champ,12xASG,22 and 14 playoffs. not long enough indivually dominant)
8.Pat Ewing(longevity, R.O.Y, consistency. Was never as individually dominant as those ahead.)
9.Bill Walton(2xNBA champ,1x finals and league MVP,6thMOY poor man's KAJ. too injury prone)
10. Dwight Howard(still playing and proving himself. 3straight DPOY,1finals,20-14 playoff career. will challenge Karl Malone for most turnovers after he retires)
Falling short: George Mikan,Dikembe Mutumbo, Alonzo Mourning, Kevin Willis, and Arvydis Sabonis(came to NBA too late in his career. otherwise he'd have been top 5 IMO)
Though, I will say, I still am not with you on Hakeem's 1992-93 season being more impressive than some of Shaq's best seasons. Shaq as a rookie actually averaged more rebounds than Hakeem did that year, plus the next two years he put up over 29 per game. Also, I just wanted to measure them up against one each other and the top Centers in the league. Just like Dwight Howard, it is not Shaq's fault that he did not have competition close to him. Just the way things worked out. Still, I do not see Dwight Howard dominating to the extent Shaquille O'Neal did, and had Hakeem not had those other Centers, I am not sure he would have either. Hakeem's teams were not always the strongest, and he never had a Kobe Bryant, or a Dwyane Wade, but they were much better structured. Well, here are some of the match-up breakdowns against the Best Centers they faced off against, including against each other. I do realize that Hakeem was a lot older than Shaq when this took place, but I still find it interesting:
Hakeem vs. Shaq: http://bkref.com/tiny/Bnyd0
Hakeem vs. Kareem: http://bkref.com/tiny/vKtjd
Hakeem vs. Ewing: http://bkref.com/tiny/EPiOp
Hakeem vs. David Robinson: http://bkref.com/tiny/RHmwW
Hakeem vs. Mutombo: http://bkref.com/tiny/NOqNQ
Hakeem vs. Daugherty: http://bkref.com/tiny/My3Oa
Hakeem vs. Mourning: http://bkref.com/tiny/Hy7J9
Hakeem vs. Smits: http://bkref.com/tiny/qvvmF
Hakeem vs. Bowie (Why not?): http://bkref.com/tiny/eeMwE
Shaq vs. Ewing: http://bkref.com/tiny/r0g5q
Shaq vs. David Robinson: http://bkref.com/tiny/0c27O
Shaq vs. Mutombo: http://bkref.com/tiny/IwOXo
Shaq vs. Mourning: http://bkref.com/tiny/9puxR
Shaq vs. Smits: http://bkref.com/tiny/0NuYy
Shaq vs. Ming: http://bkref.com/tiny/j5DGv
Shaq vs. Dwight Howard: http://bkref.com/tiny/1IX06
Shaq vs. Ben Wallace: http://bkref.com/tiny/7iJZR
Shaq vs. Shawn Bradley (Just for fun): http://bkref.com/tiny/Gogfn
Out of all the the threads I have read on this site, this one by far has the most informed posts while omitting subjective and irrelavent material. So kudos to you all on that. Now I'm going to put my two cents in.
Personally, I think it is very difficult to compare the Wilt, Russell, and co. to Hakeem, Shaq, and other modern day players. The eras have too many dissimilarities, so it is extremely hard to compare credentials. Would Russell win 11 titles in 13 years in an era with 30 teams? Would Wilt average 50 points with the adjusted pace and more complex defensive strategies of today? The answer for both is a resounding no. So for the sake of this discussion, let's start at the NBA-ABA merger in 1976.
Since that time, I think Hakeem is by far the best center to come through the NBA, and to be honest, it's not really that close. You need look no further than the all-time record books to see Hakeem's impact on the defensive side of the ball. He is convincingly #1 in blocks (although Russell and Wilt would surely challenge him had that stat been kept in their era), and even more amazingly, is in the top 10 all time in steals. He was a menace all over the court. From protecting the rim with a vengeance to containing the pick and roll to jumping the passing lanes, Hakeem could singlehandedly disrupt every component of the opposing team's offense. There have been many centers who were proficient at patrolling the lane, but Hakeem's defensive versatility is unrivaled by anyone at his position.
Hakeem entered the league as an incredibly fluid and agile center, and overtime was able to transform his offensive into the most complex we've ever seen from a post player. But if you break it down, you can start to see his genius. For every move, he had a counter move, and for every counter move, he had a counter to that. His understanding of offensive post concepts is illustrated in the youtube video where he is instructing Dwight Howard. Everything is predicated on being able to do a simple jump hook in the lane, and from there you can branch out into a myriad of different moves. Hakeem understood this to a tee, and used it to torture other centers. Howard's game, while still far from perfect, took a big leap forward this past year, and I think we can attribute this to the time he spent learning from Hakeem.
Lastly, I think Hakeem's most convincing case was his dominance over his Hall of Fame contemporaries. During the Rockets two year championship run, he dominated Patrick Ewing, dominated David Robinson, and dominated Shaq in seperate playoff series's on both ends of the court. Quarterbacks are judged against how they perform against another team's defense; pitchers are judged on how they perform against another team's offense. Basketball is an interesting sport because you can compare players at the same position based on how they perform against each other, and Hakeem emphatically cemented his place as the best center of his era by whacking down everyone whom he was measured against on the biggest stages of his sport. To me, this was one of the most impressive accomplishments I've ever seen in sports.
The one player I could argue might rank ahead of Hakeem is Kareem. Once we start comparing him to Wilt and Russell, there is too many abstract theories on how to compare them. Although Kareem's prime was a little before the merger, his sustained dominance through the 70s and early 80s and continued effectiveness later in his career give him a very solid case, not to mention his skyhook was unstoppable. I would say it is a virtual wash between the two, with Kareem's ridiculous credentials giving him a slight edge. Shaq is difficult to evaluate because, in my personal opinion, I believe the rules were bent in his favor. He seemingly was allowed to blatantly elbow players in the chest or head without any repercussions from the officials. Also, his dominance with the Lakers can be contributed to the lack of any real competition at center, as opposed to Hakeem's prime years, when there was an abundance of challenging matchups. Also, Shaq had many holes in his game, most notably free throw shooting and pick and roll defense. There is no questioning Shaq's ability or dominance, but if I had to choose between him and Hakeem, I wouldn't have to think twice.
Yet, I still feel like had Hakeem and Shaq played against each other in each ones relative prime, it would go to Shaq. Their primes were at completely different periods, I think that Shaq reached his when he was younger, while Hakeem had his during his late 20's early 30's. Hakeem lost a NBA Finals in his second year, Shaq lost it in his third. Just so happened, he was playing Hakeem, but I think that as you see, the match-up started going the other way.
Had they played each other during their relative prime, I believe that Shaq would have more than likely gotten the better of him. Hakeem got the better of most big guys, Shaq did the same, usually with even more destructive consequences. I just feel like Shaq's overall physical ability and strength has never been duplicated, and while Hakeem had skills and agility that no other Center has displayed, size matters. That is where I think Shaq had the overwhelming edge.
The offensive prowess of Shaq, during a period where the role of Centers was being completely changed, does not come close to being matched by anyone at this point in time. Dwight Howard's best scoring season has not even been equivalent to Shaq's career scoring average. During his first 12 years in the league, he was only behind Michael Jordan and Wilt Chamberlain. Shaq's numbers tallied off during the end, playing a different role in Miami, but with 4 championships and 6 Finals appearances, in 14 seasons just seems incredibly impressive. To me, if I were to choose one Center to build a championship around, with moderate talent around him, Shaq would be the guy. It takes a team, but even with what Hakeem provided, I do not think even he could stop Shaq when he was at his best. Shaq did not stop him either, but I think, as you see, that Shaq was incredibly dominant, even as a 3rd year player who had not even hit the fringe of his potential.
Shaq was simply dominant. Laziest center in the game and STILL managed to put up nearly 30-15 in playoffs every year. With any kind of real work-ethic, he could have been 35-15 in the modern era no problem. Hakeem was skilled, but Shaq was nearly just as skilled but had a raw power game unmatched by anyone. Wilt included.
Side not, KAJ was still the best. Even more skilled than Hakeem IMO.
^Shaq was nearly just as skilled? No way dude, Shaq couldnt shoot a jump shot and aside from his drop step he barely had a jump hook. He was great because he was big and athletic, not because he was a very skilled offensive player. No one could move the guy, but he looked un comfortable with a basketball outside of 8 feet.
He had good handles and foot work for a big man, but there is no "Shaq shake", Dwight Howard or Kobe Bryant aren't going to learn post moves from Shaq in the offseason. He wasn't almost as skilled as Hakeem with the ball in his hands, he just was a 310-350 lb athletic dude (who's vert was still over 30'' at 350lbs) who could bench over 400 lbs and knew how to use that to his advantage. He's still an all-time great, but comon' a skilled offensive player he was not.
But his physical prowess is what made him the offensive force that he was. All in all, he shot a better FT % than Wilt Chamberlain, who was not exactly shooting from outside 8 feet very often either. As much it is amazing to score in a variety of ways, it is just as good, I believe, to score effectively. That is what Shaq did better than any other big man in history with his astronomical FG%, regardless of where it was from. Ultimately, you want your post player to play in the post.
Hakeem's agility is something that has never been seen by a player his size. Shaq never would have it. You watch Dwight Howard train with Hakeem today, and you will see Dwight will never have it. Yes, he can learn moves from Hakeem, but he will never have the grace and balance to do them close to as effectively. Shaq, to me, had the ability to control the paint more than any other player in history. This made him the offensive force he was. Even if you were not impressed with how Shaq scored his points, he was an offensive master.
I had a friend in 6th grade who was way taller than anyone at my school. I was well under 5 feet, and he was 5'6 (we were obviously not a very tall school, lol). Well, we would get to talking about "If I were your height" or "If you were my height" and it would always end in, "Well, you're not". The fact is, Shaq was who he was. If he were two inches shorter, maybe he would not have been as great. But, we will never know, because he was 7'1 300/350 pounds (I believe, at a time, he was damn near 400 during his last years with the Lakers). His carrying this weight and still being as athletic as he was is what made him as dominant as he was.
It is honestly the same debate people get into about LeBron James. "Kevin Durant and Carmelo Anthony are better scorers". Yes, that may be, if by "better scorer", one means that they can score in more of a variety of ways, than that is possible. That could make them more difficult to stop offensively, and they are better free throw shooters. But, ultimately, the fact that LeBron is currently third all-time in scoring, with an overall FG % clearly higher than those two players (His is at 48% for his career, while Melo and Durant are at 46%. I consider 2% a pretty decent sum, not to mention LeBron shot 51% last season while both players were around their career percentage), I think LeBron may indeed take the claim as being a more difficult player to stop. Maybe even a "better scorer"?
It is all in how one sees it. Can you teach someone to be LeBron James? No, not really. But I feel with some of the best players in history, they are that for reasons that you cannot teach. That is why I feel that while people will discredit LeBron and Shaq by claiming that others were more skilled, which they very well could be, those same players were not necessarily better, through no fault of their own. Shaq and LeBron are two players with physical builds that greatly helped their success. But, at the same time, while you could use these characteristics to discredit them and their ability to dominate offensively (which people do), the fact is, this is what made them great and they were given that ability. We will never know what it would be like if they were given different physical characteristics, but the ones they were given have made them two of the most dominant offensive forces in NBA history, regardless of how they score their points.
OK, so because Hakeem had a Dream shake and better footwork you're going to say Shaq didn't compare in terms of skillset?
Shaq was one of those kind of guys who get the rebound, ignite the break and either dish to a teammate with a no look pass,behind the back, alley-oop, or he could simply spin off of his defender for the dunk, finger roll it in, or simply power through. Just because he didn't have The Dream's post game doesn't mean he was worlds less skilled. The gyu could at times play like a &$#%#&@! guard. i think perhaps either you are too young to truely remember some of the stuff Diesel was out there doing with Nick the Quick, Eddie, Kobe and co, or haave simply decided to forget, because this was had skills. Hakeem didn't push the ball like that. And he would have in NO WAY matched Shaq in a power game.Shaq may not have had a regular mid range game, but at one point the guy was knocking down 17 ft turnaround hook shots and had a little one handed floater from about 15ft on the baseline.
And a couple just for fun.
I think you guys are misunderstanding me. I'm not listing his physical prowess as an unfair advantage, and I'm not saying he's not skilled either. There is a reason why Shaq is an all-time great and Michael Olawakandi isn't. It's not like any 7' foot athletic guy who steps foot on the court is destined for the hall of fame, but I'm sorry I just think if you look at each players skills on paper Hakeem is the more skilled of the two by a decent margain.
There are a lot of moves Hakeem could do that Shaq couldn't and I don't see it the other way around. I think Shaq's best skill was his footwork in the post and his ball handling, but I don't think either one was head and shoulders better than Hakeem, but Hakeem was head and shoulders above Shaq in a lot of skills. In terms of post moves I feel it's Hakeem #1 McHale #2 Kareem #3 and Shaq somewhere down around 8-10. That's all I'm saying with the last post.
Here is 5 and a half minutes of Hakeem demonstrating his superior skillset. Again, I didn't say Shaq had some sort of unfair size advantage, but you can't tell me Shaq could do even half of these moves
I was not saying that you were, I was hoping you did not interpret it that way, but I see how you did. Still, what I was trying to get across was that despite Hakeem's superior foot work and post moves, he was still not the same that Shaquille O'Neal was in the paint. He could score in more ways than Shaq, but not necessarily more proficiently. They were both at their best during their first 13 years in the league, with Shaq averaging 26.7 and Hakeem at 24.1. The difference at the end was 23.7 to 21.8, so they ended up closer together, but I feel that whatever Hakeem did better at the offensive end is negated by the fact that Shaq flat out scored at a better rate.
Shaq obviously was not as "skilled" as Hakeem, he did not have as many ways to score. Nonetheless, he was a much more dangerous offensive player. Had he played in the time that you felt was full of dominant Centers, which by your accounts ended Shaq's rookie year (when you said Hakeem's 1992-93 season was more impressive than Shaq's MVP season. I am kidding when I say this, but I thought that you saying Hakeem's season was more impressive than Shaq's may have not been entirely true) I still feel that Shaq would have put these numbers up.
When he got to his highest point, the competition was not the same, but he was an unstoppable force, even more so than any Center I believe has played the game. To me, effectiveness and skill level should both be taken into account, but I feel Shaq's career accomplishments, with his incredibly effective method of getting it done, trump Hakeem's ability to score more creatively. I hope this makes sense and I am not saying you are slighting Shaq necessarily, I just tend to disagree with Hakeem being better due to a more advanced skill set and agility. Shaq's combination of power and athleticism, not to mention having this ability while being 70 pounds heavier than Hakeem, gives Shaq the edge over the grace with which Hakeem played the game with.
I hear you mikey, when you are anyone else makes the case of Shaq having a better career or being ranked higher on the all-time list, although I don't agree, I understand and accept that as a valid arguement, because Shaq is an All-Time great and how people view top players is subjective...unless of course you view Michael Jordan as vastly overrated, like that one guy, haha.
My comments today were more aimed at iguapops420, because I do feel Hakeem is much more skilled. He may not have been much more effective but I feel he did have the superior skillset...by a pretty big margain.
He's more skilled, but I just don't think it was that wide. I've just seen the guy so many times make crazy passes and spin moves while leading breaks looking like Lamar Odom out there. I see where you're coming from, and agree in the post that Hakeem had a more superior skillset, but overall skills, I don't see such a gap. Contary to the gap in power game between the two. It's an honest debate, one u can't really go wrong on. I just personally prefer Shaq and his dominance.