bionic77 said:
Shaq was playing great in 94-95, but his game kind of fell apart after the finals. He blamed it on a stomach injury, but I don't know, that whole Magic team just seemed to have quit (hmm, this seems to be a habit of the Magic? 0-19?

). Shaq then regained his form the year Phil showed up and maintained that for 3 years before he stopped working out and became fat again. He looks to be in shape again now, so maybe he will being to peak again this year?
And yeah I agree the Dream only dominated for 3-4 years, but he was at a higher level then Shaq ever reached. It isn't just me that believes this, Dream's teammate Horry believes that the Dream is the greatest player he has ever played with. I wonder how good Hakeem would have been if he had grown up playing basketball instead of soccer?
And finally Hakeen killed a damned Lion with his bare hands. A LION! Shaq never killed a Lion with his bare hands.
Dream > Shaq > Kemp > Jordan (he is just too short)
Shaq can eat a lion, Dream can't.
First off, nobody is denying that Shaq was playing "great ball" in '94-95, but that wasn't the point. You said that he was in his "prime" back then, which is patently
false. First off, none of the all-time greats come into the league with a few lackluster seasons before they all of a sudden "become" an all-time great (the exception being the recent influx of high school draftees like KG/Kobe/J. O'Neal etc., who may all become/are all-time greats). Every great player from Barkley, to Malone and Stockton, to Jordan, to Shaq and Hakeem-- all of them came into the league kicking all sorts of ass. That doesn't mean that they were in their "prime", however. The fact of the matter is that Hakeem in his prime was NOT playing against Shaq in HIS prime, which is what you stated. Was he playing against a great young player in Shaq? Sure. But a player's prime is when he puts it all together and becomes a complete player and a dominating presence in the game. And personally, I'd take 1999-2002 Shaq on my team WAY before I took Hakeem-- he just changes the entire complexion of a game by his very presence in a way that Hakeem simply never did.
Like I said, I have NO problem admitting that Hakeem was the more skilled player, the more talented and gifted big man-- but the criterion for my personal top 5 lists usually consists of "who would I want on my team", not "who has better skills". Oscar Robertson may have been a more skilled player than Larry Bird, going by the numbers-- does that make him a better player? Not to my mind, it doesn't; Bird's clutch ability, leadership, rings. and just plain bad-assedness puts him over the top, despite Robertson's statistical edge (which can be interpreted as greater "skill"). It's a similar situation with Shaq/Hakeem, though in Shaq's case the factors separating him from Shaq are different from those separating Bird from Oscar.
Btw, Shaq also put up one of-- if not THE-- sickest stat line I've ever seen in a game back in 1993-94 against NJ:
39 points on 14-18 shooting (if he'd have hit more than 11 of his 21 foul shots that game, it would've been in the mid-high 40's),
28 rebounds (his career high),
15 blocks (also his career high), and like 8 or 9 assists. He almost became only the third or fourth player in history to notch a quadruple double, but with RIDICULOUS #'s like that, who cares that he fell short? That's just a MONSTROUS line.