Excluding himself:

1. Kareem
2. Russell
3. Wilt
4. Hakeem
5. Robinson

IBT 4 page Hakeem versus Robinson debate...

Hakeem won two Finals MVPs. I'm not sure anyone has a problem with him being ranked a spot ahead of someone without a Finals MVP .

Solid list.

As far as I'm concerned, Hakeem ended the Hakeem/Robinson debate in the 95 WCF. I like both players.

Can't argue with top 3. Shaq vs Hakeem is debatable and also Moses. If you allow for PF/Cs then Duncan is arguable for top 4. But Robinson isn't in the conversation

If I'm Picking one I take shaq over both.

On my A-list, I put Russell, Chamberlain, and Jabbar.

On my B-list, I put Malone, Shaq, and Olajuwon.

Is there another Malone I'm not thinking about or did you just throw in a player that never played center in his career.

moses

shaq, hakeem, kareem, wilt, bill are my top 5, in no order...robinson and m.malone next two

ahh, Moses!

He did not even register.

How far down the list was Erick Dampier?

Shawn Bradley

quote:

---

How far down the list was Erick Dampier?

---

pretty far, but i'd imagine the $90+ million he's stolen, uh earned, helps him cope with mediocrity

Russell = #1. That is all.

I think when discussing best ever, availability and length of career is overlooked.

Also, if you can't be the man at the end of the game, and actually because an offensive liability by being on the floor, that is a problem.

Kareem was the greatest center to play the game.

790 here in Houston had the discussion the other day about who GMs would pick to build a team around (assuming that player was in his prime). I don't remember Charley's exact order, but if I remember correctly it was more in the order of...
- Tier 1: Kareem/Wilt/Olajuwon (in any order)
- Tier 2: Russel/Shaq

The reason for The Dream in the top group and not Shaq was that Olajuwon was a much better defensive player.

Anyone who puts shaq above Hakeem is a fool, seeing as Hakeem has schooled him in the past and shaq has admitted himself that Hakeem is better

To be honest, I kind of have 2 standards when it comes to ranking players.

One set comes from what they did on the hardwood, the other factors in what they did for the game of basketball as ambassadors of the game.

I think the most fair way is the latter; yes, some players may perform better on the court, but did not manage to transcend the game and make it what it is today.

It is for that reason I put Russell as #1...when you combine his championship pedigree with what he did for African Americans in the league, as well as being a player/coach...it's just unreal what that man did for the game. If you ever watch interviews of future HOF big men, they talk about Russell like he is a god. He may not have been flashy, but he was a champion on and off the court.

Also, I think that same set of criteria is what allows Dirk and Manu to be mentioned at a higher spot in the "rankings" than just what they did on the court as well.

The impact that the two had on the international game and making basketball a global affair can't be understated. Just looking at on court production is short sighted.

It's also the reason there might not be another MJ. He single handedly made the NBA awesome. I don't know about you, but I'd be just as big of a fan of the NBA today whether or not Kobe or LeBron had ever played.

I think for anyone to truly surpass MJ, they are going to have to be a media icon who sells the game to the world and makes the NBA enormous on the global stage. Being great isn't about just playing basketball, it's about taking basketball to the next level.

[This message has been edited by n00badactyl (edited 6/5/2011 1:41a).]

Jack, Shaq in his prime with the Lakers is better than Hakeem. You can't compare the two at that point in their careers. That is like saying Isiah Thomas is better than Jordan because he beat him twice. I love Hakeem and grew up a Rockets fan, but I would put him 5th behind Wilt, Russell, Kareem, and Shaq. Robinson is 6th. He may have had better stats, but he was excellent at feasting on inferior players and couldn't handle the big guys.

No Robert Parish?

Wilt is my favorite, by the way.

Hakeem >robinson..but more like 1...1A.

I'm pretty shocked Robinson even ended up on that list. I would have figured Oneal would take one last opportunity to back-stab DRob while anyone still cares what he thinks.

quote:

---

Anyone who puts shaq above Hakeem is a fool, seeing as Hakeem has schooled him in the past and shaq has admitted himself that Hakeem is better

---

1994/1995 Hakeem versus 2001/2002 Shaq would be fun to watch. Hakeem "schooled" Shaq in his formative years when Hakeem had hit his prime, so I don't think head-to-head is necessarily a fair comparison. If they had played after Shaq had learned some footwork, I doubt the result would have been the same.

[This message has been edited by MassAggie97 (edited 6/7/2011 3:03p).]

But Shaq was never the defensive player that Hakeem and Robinson were.

Shaq could score with more force and was probably a better scorer than Hakeem, but I would take Hakeem's prime or Robinson's prime over Shaq's prime anyday. What Shaq has over Robinson is his longevity. Shaq was pretty much at the top of his game from 93-05. Robinson was really only on his from 90-98 (minus 97).

quote:

---

Jack, Shaq in his prime with the Lakers is better than Hakeem. You can't compare the two at that point in their careers. That is like saying Isiah Thomas is better than Jordan because he beat him twice. I love Hakeem and grew up a Rockets fan, but I would put him 5th behind Wilt, Russell, Kareem, and Shaq. Robinson is 6th. He may have had better stats, but he was excellent at feasting on inferior players and couldn't handle the big guys.

---

Shaq's prime was probably bettered by two or three players at most (Jordan, Oscar Robertson, Wilt?) in the history of the NBA. The problem is that he maintained that dominance for only three years. Because of that and his aforementioned defensive disadvantage, he is a lesser player than Hakeem Olajuwon.

For perspective regarding career arcs, Shaquille O'Neal's career was basically opposite of Tim Duncan's if it were displayed on a line chart.

Shaq's best season:
29.7p (led league)
13.6r (second)
3.0b (only time he topped 3 - third in league)
3.8a
.5s
30.6 PER (league leader)

Shaq is third all time in PER after Jordan and LeBron.

Hakeem had a few that could probably be considered his "best"
94 (MVP)
27.3p (3rd)
11.9r (4th)
3.7b (2nd)
3.6a
1.6s
25.3PER (3rd)

1990:
24.3p (ninth)
14.0r (first)
4.6b (first)
2.1s (eighth)
2.9a
24.8PER (eighth)

Robinson's peak
92:
23.2p (seventh)
12.2r (fourth)
4.5b (first)
2.3s (fifth)
2.7a
27.5PER (second to Jordan)

94:
29.8p (first)
10.7r (playing with Rodman)
4.8a (first among centers)
3.3b (third)
1.8s
30.7 PER (first)

95 and 96 were similar to 94, with a little less scoring. and more rebounds after shipping Rodman off in 95. Robinson ledthe league in PER from 94-96. I believe Robinson and Kareem are the only two players to lead the league in rebounds, scoring and blocks.

Shaq and Chamberlain were both massive liabilities at the free-throw line, and O'Neal got progressively worse as his career went on, it's hard to give either that much adulation when they had a huge flaw in their games and could never improve on it.

Russell shot .492 from the line his first year but got above 61% a couple of times; Chamberlain was at 61% in his third year, and finished his career at 51%. O'Neal had six full seasons under 50%; Meanwhile, Kareem was 72% for his career and Olajuwon was at 71.2%, and showed marked improvement from his early days.

Robinson shot 74% from the line for his career.

could hakeem do this?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKVqpXl3M18

how big is the gap between Hakeem and Kareem?

Olajuwon was the better shot blocker and is also top 10 all-time in steals. Hakeem never played with Magic Johnson or Oscar Robertson. And frankly Kareen didn't get much done in the playoffs without those 2 all-time great guards. Hakeem did not have that kind of supporting cast