Nikola Jokić/Shai Gilgeous-Alexander comparison

[shopson67]

He would absolutely deserve it.

Has Jokic had a slightly better season?

I think so. But not enough to negate the difference in the win column.

Wouldn't the better argument be that the player with lesser players around him is more valuable to his team?

 

[tlance]

Wouldn't the better argument be that the player with lesser players around him is more valuable to his team?

OKC has had a lot of missed time from their top 4.

So no.

The win differential makes up for that.

Both great choices.

This is SGA’s year.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

OKC has had a lot of missed time from their top 4.

So no.

The win differential makes up for that.

Both great choices.

This is SGA’s year.

Win it or not, Jokic is going to have an insane run of either winning MVP's or being runner up

 

[tlance]

Win it or not, Jokic is going to have an insane run of either winning MVP's or being runner up

For sure.

He is an all time great player

 

[Mr. Friscus]

For sure.

He is an all time great player

Jokic (so far) or Hakeem?

Jokic may have surpassed him, and Shaq.

 

[tlance]

Jokic (so far) or Hakeem?

Jokic may have surpassed him, and Shaq.

I can’t do that yet.

Give it a few more years.

But it is not an easy decision.

I actually have Hakeem barely above Shaq. I think most would disagree with that.

IMO Hakeem’s 2 rings are more impressive than Shaq’s 4 because of the respective rosters for both teams.

And Hakeem destroyed a young Shaq head to head for one of them.

 

[msgkings322]

I can’t do that yet.

Give it a few more years.

But it is not an easy decision.

I actually have Hakeem barely above Shaq. I think most would disagree with that.

IMO Hakeem’s 2 rings are more impressive than Shaq’s 4 because of the respective rosters for both teams.

And Hakeem destroyed a young Shaq head to head for one of them.

A lot of fans have Hakeem above Shaq actually (slightly), that's the right call. Hakeem was far more skilled and versatile.

Jokic definitely has a shot at top 10 status, it would help to win more rings though. Top 20 is pretty much already locked.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I can’t do that yet.

Give it a few more years.

But it is not an easy decision.

I actually have Hakeem barely above Shaq. I think most would disagree with that.

IMO Hakeem’s 2 rings are more impressive than Shaq’s 4 because of the respective rosters for both teams.

And Hakeem destroyed a young Shaq head to head for one of them.

Hakeem vs. Shaq is a great debate. To pick at your point, the "problem" is that Shaq at his prime was simply more dominant than Hakeem was. Rules were changed for Shaq. Few players can claim rules were changed for them because they were too dominant. Off the top of my head it would be Wilt, Shaq, and soon to be Steph Curry. They changed rules for Jordan to protect the NBA/ESPN/Nike golden boy, not because he changed the game.

And I'm entirely certain the Rockets would have won 2 championships even if MJ didn't retire. If you look up the matchups and games of Bulls vs. Rockets during MJ's tenure... the Rockets were one of the teams that clearly had their number. The Bulls had bad matchups.

I guess it comes down to how you value things. At their absolute peak, I'd take prime Shaq over prime Hakeem. Hakeem had footwork and developed legendary touch, Shaq had brute force and admittedly sloppy presence that ironically dominated. I have them in the same tier.. and I don't think one can claim to be "above" the other.

 

[tlance]

Hakeem vs. Shaq is a great debate. To pick at your point, the "problem" is that Shaq at his prime was simply more dominant than Hakeem was. Rules were changed for Shaq. Few players can claim rules were changed for them because they were too dominant. Off the top of my head it would be Wilt, Shaq, and soon to be Steph Curry. They changed rules for Jordan to protect the NBA/ESPN/Nike golden boy, not because he changed the game.

And I'm entirely certain the Rockets would have won 2 championships even if MJ didn't retire. If you look up the matchups and games of Bulls vs. Rockets during MJ's tenure... the Rockets were one of the teams that clearly had their number. The Bulls had bad matchups.

I guess it comes down to how you value things. At their absolute peak, I'd take prime Shaq over prime Hakeem. Hakeem had footwork and developed legendary touch, Shaq had brute force and admittedly sloppy presence that ironically dominated. I have them in the same tier.. and I don't think one can claim to be "above" the other.

Shaq was as dominant as any big aside from Chamberlain.

But his peak was short. And Hakeem’s game translates a lot better to the modern era.

 

[msgkings322]

Hakeem vs. Shaq is a great debate. To pick at your point, the "problem" is that Shaq at his prime was simply more dominant than Hakeem was. Rules were changed for Shaq. Few players can claim rules were changed for them because they were too dominant. Off the top of my head it would be Wilt, Shaq, and soon to be Steph Curry. They changed rules for Jordan to protect the NBA/ESPN/Nike golden boy, not because he changed the game.

And I'm entirely certain the Rockets would have won 2 championships even if MJ didn't retire. If you look up the matchups and games of Bulls vs. Rockets during MJ's tenure... the Rockets were one of the teams that clearly had their number. The Bulls had bad matchups.

I guess it comes down to how you value things. At their absolute peak, I'd take prime Shaq over prime Hakeem. Hakeem had footwork and developed legendary touch, Shaq had brute force and admittedly sloppy presence that ironically dominated. I have them in the same tier.. and I don't think one can claim to be "above" the other.

At the level of the all time greats there's no way to really scientifically 'prove' one was above another. They are indeed in the same tier. There's the GOAT tier with 3 people in it, then the just below that tier with Magic and Bird and Hakeem and Shaq and Wilt, then another tier, on down...how you rank them reflects what you value.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

But his peak was short. And Hakeem’s game translates a lot better to the modern era.

Does it? As you know, the NBA modern game is all about stretch 4's and 5's. You have to be able to shoot beyond 15-18ft. While Shaq didn't have this, neither did Hakeem. Hakeem had a better mid-range shot, but we don't see many of those players in the modern game. Meanwhile, while we see almost no dominant post players... a prime Shaq's physicality and mass would still be effective in today's game against more scrawny, fast post players. His power would be so overwhelming that he could jump the hurdle into the modern game IMO. There are exceptions to rules, and as far as bringing old-style post players into today's NBA, Shaq is one of the exceptions. Hakeem would not offer enough to be as dominant.

Now, I hate and never want to rip people out of their era and generation and just implant them into another one. It's unfair, lazy, and just near insulting, usually done to downplay players who aren't in someone's era of fandom. If Hakeem was trained in shooting mid-range to 3-point shots (as big men are today), he'd likely be serviceable enough to likely pressure my initial claim. I would say Shaq would have no hope of developing an 18+ game.

 

[trojanfan12]

I think that even Shaq would put Hakeem above Shaq.

To this day, he calls Hakeem "Mr. Olajuwon" because of what Hakeem did to him.

 

[Mr. Friscus]

I think that even Shaq would put Hakeem above Shaq.

To this day, he calls Hakeem "Mr. Olajuwon" because of what Hakeem did to him.

There's grace/performance vs. real feelings. Shaq can even think what he thinks, but I watched em both. I'm in my 40's, I saw who was more dominant.

 

[tlance]

Does it? As you know, the NBA modern game is all about stretch 4's and 5's. You have to be able to shoot beyond 15-18ft. While Shaq didn't have this, neither did Hakeem. Hakeem had a better mid-range shot, but we don't see many of those players in the modern game. Meanwhile, while we see almost no dominant post players... a prime Shaq's physicality and mass would still be effective in today's game against more scrawny, fast post players. His power would be so overwhelming that he could jump the hurdle into the modern game IMO. There are exceptions to rules, and as far as bringing old-style post players into today's NBA, Shaq is one of the exceptions. Hakeem would not offer enough to be as dominant.

Now, I hate and never want to rip people out of their era and generation and just implant them into another one. It's unfair, lazy, and just near insulting, usually done to downplay players who aren't in someone's era of fandom. If Hakeem was trained in shooting mid-range to 3-point shots (as big men are today), he'd likely be serviceable enough to likely pressure my initial claim. I would say Shaq would have no hope of developing an 18+ game.

100% for sure.

And it has nothing to with offense.

Hakeem could move his feet and would have been able to switch and defend in space. Shaq did not do that.