Hakeem v.s Shaq Historically

Shaq retired yesterday. Just like that, one of the most interesting NBA careers ever is over. Shaq was a physical freak the likes of which the NBA has never, ever seen. He hung on for too long, so for many people the image of Shaq is a slow, plodding, giant of a man, effective for 10-15 minutes a game only if he stayed within 8 feet of the basket. They will remember how effective (and annoying) Hack-a-Shaq was. I can think of only two players who were so good that other teams resorted to literally beating them up to have a chance (Jordan being the other - remember how much punishment the Bad Boy Pistons and Ewing Knicks gave Jordan? Could you imagine if someone did that to Lebron now?). Shaq’s struggles at the foul line fed the party line that he was not a basketball player, he was just a physical specimen. His detractors always said that he dominated because he was so much bigger and stronger than his peers (the actual reason Shaq only won a single MVP when he should have won 3 or 4). But young Shaq, the Shaq that led the Magic to the finals in ‘95, was an incredible, destructive, athletic force. He had a reliable baby hook and could actually run. He peaked at the perfect time, stepping easily into the competitive void post-lockout as the best player on three straight champions and added a 4th ring with Miami for good measure after he and Kobe had a messy divorce in LA (a divorce, by the way, that did more good for Shaq’s legacy than anything - I would wager 95% of NBA fans took Shaq’s side of that argument).

His playoff dominance was incredible. In ‘01, the Lakers went 15-1 en route to the NBA title, sweeping the Blazers, Kings, and the Duncan Spurs along the way. Shaq averaged an astonishing 30.4 points and 15.4 rebounds per game. Not since Jordan averaged 43 a game in the ‘93 Finals had anyone dominated like that in the playoffs. That was by far the best post-Jordan team and the only post-Jordan team that could have played with the ‘96 Bulls.

So where do you rank Shaq historically amongst centers (note that I relish writing posts like this)? There are only four centers who can compete with Shaq’s resume: Russell, Wilt, Kareem and Olajuwon (five if you consider Moses Malone a center). Shaq lacked Russell’s rings, the sheer audacity of Wilt’s numbers, the MVPs of Kareem, or the wide array of post moves of Olajuwon (and it bears mentioning that Hakeem’s Rockets swept Shaq’s Magic in the ‘95 Finals). But remember that when Russell and Wilt played, they were the only elite, athletic centers. If you unleashed Shaq on the NBA in 50s and 60s, wouldn’t his numbers have looked just like Wilt’s? And remember that Kareem won 4 of his 6 MVPs in a diluted league when the ABA was siphoning talent from the NBA. Hakeem peaked at the perfect time to take advantage of Michael Jordan’s 18 month absence from the league.

I cannot objectively or subjectively rate the careers of Wilt, Russell or Kareem. I didn't witness their primes, so I cannot accurately rate them. But I can discuss Hakeem vs. Shaq as they battle for the coveted title of "Hobbserver's Best Center of the Past 25 Years."

The Case for Shaq

Shaq won 4 titles to Hakeem's 2. He won one MVP but should have won at least 3. Shaq was the best player on the best post-Jordan team. He destroyed Dikembe Mutumbo (the best defensive center that season) in the '01 Finals. When Shaq left the Magic, they regressed horribly while he turned the Lakers into contenders. When Shaq left the Lakers, they barely made the playoffs as the Heat soared to a title. You can objectively say that from '00 to '06 Shaq and Tim Duncan were the two best players in the league, something you cannot say for Hakeem.

The Case Against Shaq

Abysmal free throw shooter. In the 2000 Finals, Shaq was actually 36/93 from the foul line. A convincing argument could be made that Shaq could not win a title without another elite scorer. Since his free throw shooting was so bad, you could not run offense through him in a close playoff game. Shaq was fortunate to play with 3 elite guards during his prime (Penny Hardaway in Orlando, Kobe for 3 titles in LA, Wade in Miami). And finally, for a guy his size, he never made 1st team All-Defense (2nd team three times).

The Case for Hakeem

Destroyed David Robinson, Ewing, and Shaq in '94 and '95 en route to winning two titles, effectively destroying all three of his rivals. Only one MVP, but he absolutely should have won two. He wasn't blessed with Shaq's supporting cast, playing with only four All-Stars in his career: Ralph Sampson, Otis Thorpe, Clyde Drexler, and Barkley (at the tail end of career). Made the Finals in '86 and could have made several more if Sampson's career wasn't derailed by injury. For his first 11 years, he never averaged worse than a 20-10 and never averaged less than 2.7 blocks or 1.2 steals a game. He was the best defensive center of his era (nine time First Team All-Defense, Defensive Player of the Year in '93 and '94). Hakeem was the best low post scorer of his generation, superior to Shaq in terms of the variety of ways he could score. Better than 70% from the line for his career so he wasn't killing you in crunch time.

The Case Against Hakeem

Missed the playoffs during his prime ('92). Hakeem was fortunate historically that he peaked during the two years Jordan was off playing baseball so that he had the two titles on his resume. He was never as dominant as Shaq was from 2000-02.

Conclusion

It's close, but my vote goes to Hakeem for two simple reasons:

(1) He was a superior defensive player; and

(2) You could run offense through him at the end of games.

Shaq's larger than life personality will make his make him resonate longer than Hakeem, but I watched them both and I pick Hakeem. Feel free to chime in.