Put prime Hakeem in Bill Russell's era

[GovernmentMan]

would he be the most dominant player of all time?

[donald_trump]

kareem used to get the better of hakeem even in his late 30's, and wilt used to outplay kareem. so no. he'd be worse than chamberlain.

[SunsCaptain]

What about prime Hakim?

[Ben Wallace]

What about prime Hakim?

Prime Hakim Warrick? Dayuummm now that's a good question :D

[millwad]

Prime Hakeem would abuse them all, Russell had no offense so Hakeem would neutralize him easily. Wilt couldn't even beat Russell, Hakeem would have destroyed Wilt.

[BlackJoker23]

What about prime Hakim?
warrick would phucking rape those garbage scrubs. queers like bill russell and that phagg0t nate thurmond would get dunked on every possession.phucking garbage scrubs played in the 60s

[millwad]

kareem used to get the better of hakeem even in his late 30's, and wilt used to outplay kareem. so no. he'd be worse than chamberlain.

No, he didn't use to be better than Hakeem late in his 30's, he got Hakeem in his rookie season and then in Hakeem's 2nd pro season he absolutely toy'd Kareem and the showtime Lakers in the playoffs and led his Rocket team to an easy 4-1 win in the WCF..:facepalm

[Sarcastic]

100/100/100 would not be out of the question.

[Fazotronic]

kareem used to get the better of hakeem even in his late 30's, and wilt used to outplay kareem. so no. he'd be worse than chamberlain.

http://www.allmystery.de/dateien/vo65665,1283892466,godzilla-facepalm-godzilla-facepalm-face-palm-epic-fail-demotivational-poster-1245384435.jpg

what the hell kind of logic is that?
hakeem didn't even grow up playing basketball. he started playing bball later than 99% of the nba players would.
Now ppl are using his rookie year against KAJ (one of the greatest of all time) to judge how good he would be in the weak ass era of the 50s/60s? GTFO

hakeem >> wilt/russell

[Legends66NBA7]

There's no time machines so it doesn't work that way.

The real question is:

"What if Hakeem was born in 1934 (the year Russell was born) ? Would he still be the same player ?"

Obviously not. Doesn't mean he wouldn't be great, but he wouldn't be the same player, at all.

[artificial]

If I say Hakeem would be a scrub and constantly get abused, no one could prove me wrong.

If I say Hakeem would dominate, no one could prove me wrong. Or right, for that matter.



This threads and fun and all, but sometimes I feel some of you really believe you are making actual statements or proving anything within this hypothetical scenarios. Hope I'm wrong.

[millwad]

http://www.allmystery.de/dateien/vo65665,1283892466,godzilla-facepalm-godzilla-facepalm-face-palm-epic-fail-demotivational-poster-1245384435.jpg

what the hell kind of logic is that?
hakeem didn't even grow up playing basketball. he started playing bball later than 99% of the nba players would.
Now ppl are using his rookie year against KAJ (one of the greatest of all time) to judge how good he would be in the weak ass era of the 50s/60s? GTFO

hakeem >> wilt/russell

Good point, and also no one mentions how he in his 2nd year toy'd Kareem and the Lakers in the playoffs. Guys like Jlauber spam's about regular season games without any importance at all but he always forgets to tell that the Lakers in '86 had no answer for Hakeem in the playoffs.

And even though Hakeem wasn't close his prime he led the Rockets to an easy 4-1 in the series and he was unstoppable. In game 5 in that series, the game that came to be the last in that series, he just abused the Lakers putting up 17 freaking points just in the 3rd quarter of that game.

[millwad]

There's no time machines so it doesn't work that way.

The real question is:

"What if Hakeem was born in 1934 (the year Russell was born) ? Would he still be the same player ?"

Obviously not. Doesn't mean he wouldn't be great, but he wouldn't be the same player, at all.

That should be the real discussion, obviously the game and the player has gotten better over time but idiots like Jlauber claims that the guys in the 60's would be just as good or even better than the players of the modern era.

Instead of praising the oldschool ballers for being pioneers people are now laughing at them because of stupid wankers like Jlauber who spams 24/7 while "MY GOD":ing people all the time over how amazing the guys in the 60's used to be and how crappy the modern era ballers are..

[Fazotronic]

There's no time machines so it doesn't work that way.

The real question is:

"What if Hakeem was born in 1934 (the year Russell was born) ? Would he still be the same player ?"

Obviously not. Doesn't mean he wouldn't be great, but he wouldn't be the same player, at all.

your correct. olajuwon wouldn't evolve to the player he was in 95 if he would play in the 60s. russell would evolve to a much better player today than he was in the 60s.
Cold fact is that russell would never stand out from the masses as much as he did in the 60s today.
its just logic to say that a phenom like hakeem that actually was better than almost everyone in the NBA (a worldwide popular NBA) would be more successful than a guy like russell.
I mean ther is no footage of wilts 100 points game. Way much smaller and unathletic competition in a sport that depends so much on size.
can you imagine how many super athletes didn't even knew about basketball?
how can anyone with a straight face say that russel would dominate the league today? I found it to be much easier to say todays players would have a better chance at being succsessful in the 60s just beacause of the fact that they are tested against the whole world.

[PHILA]

Top 3 center.

[jlauber]

http://www.allmystery.de/dateien/vo65665,1283892466,godzilla-facepalm-godzilla-facepalm-face-palm-epic-fail-demotivational-poster-1245384435.jpg

what the hell kind of logic is that?
hakeem didn't even grow up playing basketball. he started playing bball later than 99% of the nba players would.
Now ppl are using his rookie year against KAJ (one of the greatest of all time) to judge how good he would be in the weak ass era of the 50s/60s? GTFO

hakeem >> wilt/russell

Logic??? You do realize that a 38 year old Kareem (yes 38 years old) absolutely MURDERED a a 23 year old Hakeem that season (his SECOND season BTW)??? 33 ppg on .634 shooting, with TWO 40+ point games??? This was a an OLD Kareem who could barely get off the floor to get 6 rpg. Just what would a 23 year old Kareem (who LED the NBA in scoring at 32 ppg on .580 shooting, and won the MVP and FMVP) have wrought on a 38 year old Hakeem, who was just a SHELL????

And while Dickwad brings up that Hakeem outplayed that Kareem in the post-season, my god, Kareem STILL had TWO games of 33 and 31 in that series, and averaged 27 ppg. And I haven't seen the FG%'s, either, but I wouldn't be surprised if Kareem outshot him by a large margin. Once again, though...downright embarrassing that a 23 year old Hakeem couldn't OVERWHELM a 38 year old Kareem. And once again...how bad would a 23 year old Kareem have battered a 38 year old Hakeem?

BTW, that OLD Kareem also annihilated Ewing in that same season with a game in which he outscored him, 40-9, and outshot him, 15-22 to 3-17.)

Weak ass era of the 60's??? Kareem had TWO post-seasons, in his PRIME, and against an aging Thurmond, who held Kareem to 22.8 ppg in both, and on .405 and .428 shooting.

Against a Wilt in the twilight of his career? Kareem shot .429 against Wilt in their one H2H game in '69. He shot .437 against Wilt in the '71 regular season (a PRIME Kareem), and then only .481 against him the playoffs. Dickwad brings up Kareem's 40 ppg season on 50% shooting in the REGULAR season of '72 against Wilt. Well, for one, Kareem had a 50 point "stat-padded" and "shot-jacked" game against a Laker team that BLEW OUT his Bucks (and BTW, Wilt outrebounded Kareem in that game, 25-8.) In fact, Wilt led his Lakers to a 4-1 record against Kareem's 63-19 Bucks in that regular season. THEN, in the post-season, Kareem shot .457, including .414 over the last FOUR games of that series...all while Wilt was knocking his skyhook into the seats. And, how about Wilt in his LAST season against Kareem. He held Kareem to .450 shooting in SIX games, all while shooting .737 himself.

One can only wonder just how bad Kareem would have shot against Russell and his Celtics in the 60's.

Juding by just how much a PRIME Kareem struggled against the best centers of the 60's, and how much an OLD Kareem just SHELLED the best centers of the 80's (and 90's)...well, I think you know exactly where this is going.

[Kblaze8855]

At age 38(coming up on 39) Kareem put up:

25/8/6 on 62% vs Mark Eaton
25/5/4 on 59% vs Eaton
35/7/3 vs Hakeem/Ralph
20/4/4 on 5-19 vs Eaton(only bad game vs these guys)
26/8 on 59% vs Ewing
38/5 on 63% vs laimbeer
40/4/6 blocks on 68% vs Ewing
46/11 on 70% vs Hakeem/Ralph
43/7 on 67% vs Hakeem/Ralph again


Does kinda make you wonder how Thurmond and Wilt types help him in check in his prime.

[jlauber]

At age 38(coming up on 39) Kareem put up:

25/8/6 on 62% vs Mark Eaton
25/5/4 on 59% vs Eaton
35/7/3 vs Hakeem/Ralph
20/4/4 on 5-19 vs Eaton(only bad game vs these guys)
26/8 on 59% vs Ewing
38/5 on 63% vs laimbeer
40/4/6 blocks on 68% vs Ewing
46/11 on 70% vs Hakeem/Ralph
43/7 on 67% vs Hakeem/Ralph again


Does kinda make you wonder how Thurmond and Wilt types help him in check in his prime.

Thurmond was truly a marvel. He and Kareem went H2H in some 50+ games, many of which were near the end of Nate's career, and yet Kareem's high game against him was only 34 points. In fact, he had quite a few games of under 20 against Thurmond. Not only that, but he seldom shot 50% against Thurmond, and in fact, had two straight playoff runs of .405 and .428 against him.

I have said it before, but FG%'s went thru the roof in the 80's. And the centers were among the biggest beneficiaries. Kareem had EIGHT seasons of .564 or better, and his FOUR highest season's, including one of .604, and another of .599 at age 37. Yet, in the 70's, he had seasons of .539, .529, .518, and even .513.

Gilmore went from from seasons of .522, .559, and .575, and in his prime in the 70's, to SIX straight seasons of .670, .652, .626, .631, .623, and .618. Think about this...in his 76-77 season, at age 27, he averaged 18.6 ppg on .522 shooting. In his 81-82 season, at age 31, he averaged 18.5 ppg on .652 shooting. And then, at age 35, he averaged 19.1 ppg on .623 shooting.

And it went the other way too. Players that came into the NBA in the 80's, generally declined in FG% into the 90's. Here again, centers were also affected.

It's no coincidence that Hakeem's highest FG% came in his ROOKIE season, when he shot .534. Why? Because it occurred in the 84-85 season, or the absolute zenith of NBA efficiency (.492.)

Ewing had his three highest seasons from 87-88 thru 89-90 (.555, .567, and .551), after that he had a dramatic drop. He even had seasons in the 90's of under 50%.

David Robinson came into the league in the late 80's, and in his first three seasons, he shot .531, 552, and .551. From 92-93 on...a steady decline.

Why?

Meanwhile, in the early 60's, in was just the opposite. Even GREAT players were shooting relatively poorly. Baylor had a season of .401. Havlicek had one of .399. West, with the picture perfect jump shot, had two straight seasons of .419 and .445. Even Wilt, who would go on to blow away the league in terms's of efficiency, had a rookie season of .461.

I could give many more examples of both. The league averages don't lie. The NBA in the early 60's was very poor in terms of FG%'s, and it was never higher than in the 80's.

I bring that up only because there are those that just assume that you could take any modern player who shoots 50% and drop him into the early 60's, and that he would dominate. However, that player would have to deal with a ball that was not uniform (I believe G.O.A.T dug up the fact that it was not uniform until 1970), and there is footage of players playing with near bald basketballs. Some were lighter, and some were heavier. I remember playing in city leagues with lopsided ones.

And PHILA has posted another important drawback that those players had to endure. COLD and BREEZY arenas. Some were downright FRIGID. Most all of us have played outside, and the cold affects the ball dramatically. And, of course, the wind affects it dramatically. PHILA even pointed out that there were floors with dead-spots and some with nails popping out.

Then there was what I believe to be the major reason why players shot so poorly...the BRUTAL schedule. For example, in Wilt's '62 season (and in a season in which he missed a TOTAL of EIGHT minutes), he had a TON of B2B games. Not only that, but he played in six separate runs of "three-in-a-row." But it gets even worse. He had another THREE separate runs of "four-in-a-row." AND, he even had another separate string of FIVE-IN-A-ROW, and NONE of them included any home B2B's.

And, the lanes were PACKED in that era, too. There was no 3pt shot, and opposing defenses collapsed on the better centers. There was a reason that, aside from Wilt, there was only ONE season, in the entire decade of the 60's, in which a center averaged 20+ FGAs, and it was Bellamy's 61-62 season (23 FGAs.)

Factor all of the above with much worse traveling conditions and accomodations, along with players being asked to play more minutes (and at a higher pace), AND, being asked to play with INJURIES, with poorer medical technology...and there is just no way that Hakeem, taken from his prime, would be shooting anywhere near what he shot in the 80's and 90's. Given the fact that he was generally around 30-40 points higher than the league average in the 80's and 90's...and given the fact that the NBA was shooting from between ,410 thru .446 in the decade of the 60's (and obviously worse early on), I suspect that he would have been around a 44% to 48% shooter in that decade. So, yes, he would have scored more (slightly higher pace and being asked to play more minutes), but his numbers probably would not have been much better than 30-33 ppg at his peak.

I suspect a PEAK Hakeem would have averaged around 33-20 .475 in his best seasons in that decade. And with Russell, Wilt, and Thurmond, he would have only been about the 4th best defensive center in the league.

[DCL]

they were all whining to themselves that old bald ass sky hooking muthafugga...

[millwad]

Logic??? You do realize that a 38 year old Kareem (yes 38 years old) absolutely MURDERED a a 23 year old Hakeem that season (his SECOND season BTW)??? 33 ppg on .634 shooting, with TWO 40+ point games??? This was a an OLD Kareem who could barely get off the floor to get 6 rpg. Just what would a 23 year old Kareem (who LED the NBA in scoring at 32 ppg on .580 shooting, and won the MVP and FMVP) have wrought on a 38 year old Hakeem, who was just a SHELL????

And while Dickwad brings up that Hakeem outplayed that Kareem in the post-season, my god, Kareem STILL had TWO games of 33 and 31 in that series, and averaged 27 ppg. And I haven't seen the FG%'s, either, but I wouldn't be surprised if Kareem outshot him by a large margin. Once again, though...downright embarrassing that a 23 year old Hakeem couldn't OVERWHELM a 38 year old Kareem. And once again...how bad would a 23 year old Kareem have battered a 38 year old Hakeem?


Pure bullshit again.
It's funny, I bet you even haven't seen the series and we are talking about rookie Hakeem and 2nd year Hakeem and by the end of his 2nd year he absolutely trashed Kareem and the Lakers.

Like in final game of the series where 2nd year pro Olajuwon who was no where close his prime put up 17 points in the 3rd quarter, it was pure domination and the Lakers and Kareem could do nothing about it.

And it's funny, Hakeem toying Kareem for real is not outplaying but Wilt getting outscored by 23 points per game while getting outshot and outassisted is Wilt "schooling" and "crushing" Kareem. Get real, you old fart.

And have you realized that you always talk about stats? You haven't seen the series AT ALL, you can't even point out anything in this series Olajuwon did good or anything about the defense they tried to put up on Olajuwon and still he just went around them and trashed them.

And again, this was 2nd year pro Olajuwon. Hakeem in his prime was better in every part of the game.

[millwad]

And Jlauber always spams about how close it was between Kareem and Akeem in '86 playoffs, just to make it clear, "close" was the last thing that should be used to define Akeem's pure dominance.


They've come in waves, a gold and purple Pacific of defenders—Kurt Rambis, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Maurice Lucas, Mitch Kupchak. All have tried to stop the Houston Rockets' Akeem Olajuwon, and all have failed. They've fronted him and backed him, elbowed him out of position, yanked him to the floor, sent him to the free-throw line and moved their quick-handed guards, Magic Johnson and Byron Scott, down low to double-and triple-team him. Better they should have tried to tie his shoelaces together

Nothing has worked against Olajuwon, a mixture of brute and ballet dancer, a center so swift and so strong he can kill you softly or violently.

Defend the NBA title? Puh-leese. The next words out of Los Angeles might well be no mas. "I know Kareem won't give up," said Olajuwon, "but I don't think they can win three in a row."
[B]
Not if Akeem were to continue at his latest implausible pace, anyway. He scored 40 and 35 points last weekend at the Summit in Houston as the young Rockets, having suddenly changed from diapers to combat fatigues, beat the Lakers twice to take a 3-1 lead in the Western Conference finals. Next up was a game in the Forum on Wednesday, but even there the Lakers were not safe. Houston beat L.A. 112-102 in Game 2 on Tuesday of last week in that very arena, a result that heralded the changing of the guard in the West that the Rockets obviously had in mind - SI

Here you can read the rest of the article and I can give you many more just to shut you up..: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1064854/1/index.htm

That's from SI and this was before game 5 where Hakeem just trashed Kareem and the Lakers again and in the third quarter in that game which also came to be the last of the series, Hakeem put up 17 points. 17 points by a 2nd year pro against the reigning worldchamps... IN ONE QUARTER.

So much for "Akeem getting trashed" in his 2nd year as a pro when the kid absolutely toy'd the worldchamps and Kareem. Don't be butthurt now, after all, you can bring up the regular season games of Olajuwon's rookie season if that makes you feel better? We all know that you're all about regular season stats since that's when Wilt always killed his competition while gently regressing in the playoffs, the sucker even got a lower PPG average than Olajuwon while shooting on worse FG%, haha..

Olajuwon killed the Lakers in '86, deal with it.

[PTB Fan]

He'd have been a terrific player. His skills will translate everywhere well, but would be less physically gifted IMO.

[PTB Fan]

And Jlauber always spams about how close it was between Kareem and Akeem in '86 playoffs, just to make it clear, "close" was the last thing that should be used to define Akeem's pure dominance.



Here you can read the rest of the article and I can give you many more just to shut you up..: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1064854/1/index.htm

That's from SI and this was before game 5 where Hakeem just trashed Kareem and the Lakers again and in the third quarter in that game which also came to be the last of the series, Hakeem put up 17 points. 17 points by a 2nd year pro against the reigning worldchamps... IN ONE QUARTER.

So much for "Akeem getting trashed" in his 2nd year as a pro when the kid absolutely toy'd the worldchamps and Kareem. Don't be butthurt now, after all, you can bring up the regular season games of Olajuwon's rookie season if that makes you feel better? We all know that you're all about regular season stats since that's when Wilt always killed his competition while gently regressing in the playoffs, the sucker even got a lower PPG average than Olajuwon while shooting on worse FG%, haha..

Olajuwon killed the Lakers in '86, deal with it.

Great post. Although it was close, i agree that Hakeem was having his way with the LA defense

[millwad]

Great post. Although it was close, i agree that Hakeem was having his way with the LA defense

It wasn't close, my friend.
Watch the games, they are all on youtube and Hakeem demolished the Laker big men. No one thinks that series was close, at least none of us who saw it.

[Fazotronic]

Logic??? You do realize that a 38 year old Kareem (yes 38 years old) absolutely MURDERED a a 23 year old Hakeem that season (his SECOND season BTW)??? 33 ppg on .634 shooting, with TWO 40+ point games??? This was a an OLD Kareem who could barely get off the floor to get 6 rpg. Just what would a 23 year old Kareem (who LED the NBA in scoring at 32 ppg on .580 shooting, and won the MVP and FMVP) have wrought on a 38 year old Hakeem, who was just a SHELL????

And while Dickwad brings up that Hakeem outplayed that Kareem in the post-season, my god, Kareem STILL had TWO games of 33 and 31 in that series, and averaged 27 ppg. And I haven't seen the FG%'s, either, but I wouldn't be surprised if Kareem outshot him by a large margin. Once again, though...downright embarrassing that a 23 year old Hakeem couldn't OVERWHELM a 38 year old Kareem. And once again...how bad would a 23 year old Kareem have battered a 38 year old Hakeem?

BTW, that OLD Kareem also annihilated Ewing in that same season with a game in which he outscored him, 40-9, and outshot him, 15-22 to 3-17.)

Weak ass era of the 60's??? Kareem had TWO post-seasons, in his PRIME, and against an aging Thurmond, who held Kareem to 22.8 ppg in both, and on .405 and .428 shooting.

Against a Wilt in the twilight of his career? Kareem shot .429 against Wilt in their one H2H game in '69. He shot .437 against Wilt in the '71 regular season (a PRIME Kareem), and then only .481 against him the playoffs. Dickwad brings up Kareem's 40 ppg season on 50% shooting in the REGULAR season of '72 against Wilt. Well, for one, Kareem had a 50 point "stat-padded" and "shot-jacked" game against a Laker team that BLEW OUT his Bucks (and BTW, Wilt outrebounded Kareem in that game, 25-8.) In fact, Wilt led his Lakers to a 4-1 record against Kareem's 63-19 Bucks in that regular season. THEN, in the post-season, Kareem shot .457, including .414 over the last FOUR games of that series...all while Wilt was knocking his skyhook into the seats. And, how about Wilt in his LAST season against Kareem. He held Kareem to .450 shooting in SIX games, all while shooting .737 himself.

One can only wonder just how bad Kareem would have shot against Russell and his Celtics in the 60's.

Juding by just how much a PRIME Kareem struggled against the best centers of the 60's, and how much an OLD Kareem just SHELLED the best centers of the 80's (and 90's)...well, I think you know exactly where this is going.

:facepalm jesus, you don't even try to think about it. You just read stats and make conclusions.
Thats why i can't take you seriously.
Hakeem faced experienced, big and skilled competition. First he had to Learn the game befor becoming a force.
Kareem entering the league in 1969 being a athletic GIANT dude, was an instant dominant force in the Basketball world.
This fact alone destroyes your conclusion of "wilt > rookie Kareem = wilt > olajuwon beacause kareem > rookie olajuwon".
WTF is that? Do you read this shit yourself? That makes no sense at all.

You jerking off all night watching those stats on nba reference never made you think why kareem, who made significant improvements over his whole career, put up those kind of numbers in his first years and than just stays the same or even get worse?

And what has a 23 year old Kareem being the better player against a 38 year old Hakeem to do with anything? Its a fact that Olajuwon declined faster. So what? I said Hakeem > Wilt and what you do is showing me how much better Kareem was. Did i say that i think Kareem > wilt?

I bet if a big extreme rare athletic hakeem would have played in the 40s, and dominate wilt in his rookie year without any footage and only watched live, you would make the same retarded conclusion and call Hakeem the best center ever.

[Rake2204]

At first I wasn't quite sure how Hakeem Olajuwon would fare against Bill Russell and his teammates. But then I found this video and it's pretty much indisputable evidence:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeTTM7nE6mQ

[HighFlyer23]

he would've murdered those 60s ****

it was like prototype basketball back then

[millwad]

He'd have been a terrific player. His skills will translate everywhere well, but would be less physically gifted IMO.

Oh, I missed this one. Hakeem's physic was amazing, dude, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

And less physically gifted than who? Chamberlain and Russell or in general?

[jlauber]

:facepalm jesus, you don't even try to think about it. You just read stats and make conclusions.
Thats why i can't take you seriously.
Hakeem faced experienced, big and skilled competition. First he had to Learn the game befor becoming a force.
Kareem entering the league in 1969 being a athletic GIANT dude, was an instant dominant force in the Basketball world.
This fact alone destroyes your conclusion of "wilt > rookie Kareem = wilt > olajuwon beacause kareem > rookie olajuwon".
WTF is that? Do you read this shit yourself? That makes no sense at all.

You jerking off all night watching those stats on nba reference never made you think why kareem, who made significant improvements over his whole career, put up those kind of numbers in his first years and than just stays the same or even get worse?

And what has a 23 year old Kareem being the better player against a 38 year old Hakeem to do with anything? Its a fact that Olajuwon declined faster. So what? I said Hakeem > Wilt and what you do is showing me how much better Kareem was. Did i say that i think Kareem > wilt?

I bet if a big extreme rare athletic hakeem would have played in the 40s, and dominate wilt in his rookie year without any footage and only watched live, you would make the same retarded conclusion and call Hakeem the best center ever.

Let's make this as simple as we can for the mentally challenged here...

First of all, give me a list of all of the NBA players who played to age 38, and compare it to ALL of those that have played in the NBA. Maybe 1-2%?

Then, let's take that list of those NBA players who managed to make it to age 38, and let's it break it down to those that were better players, at age 38, than they were at age 23.

As great as Kareem was at 38, and he was a better player than Hakeem was at 23, he was nowhere near as quick, fast, nor as athletic as he was at age 23. Nor was he anywhere near as dominant, either. Granted, he wasn't as strong at 23, but strength was never one of his attributes. Powerful centers gave him trouble his entire career. Thurmond and a considerably past his prime Wilt. Gilmore battled him as well as anyone in the 70's. And a prime Moses physically pounded Kareem.

Even Wilt, who many considered would have been great into his 40's, was nowhere near as quick, athletic, nor as skilled at age 36, as he was at 23.

Again...give me a list of those that were better NBA players at age 38, than at 23.

[eliteballer]

...and Moses Malone gave Kareem the business in the 83 Finals. No one thinks Moses was quite as good as Hakeem.

...and Kareems Bucks DID beat Wilts Lakers in the playoffs.

See how those comparisons DONT work.

[jlauber]

...and Moses Malone gave Kareem the business in the 83 Finals. No one thinks Moses was quite as good as Hakeem.

...and Kareems Bucks DID beat Wilts Lakers in the playoffs.

See how those comparisons DONT work.

First of all, Moses has a case over Hakeem. More MVP's, and more dominant single seasons. Furthermore, Moses was 27 in '83, while Kareem was 35.

Secondly, what does TEAM play have to do with INDIVDUAL play? BTW, in that series in which Kareem's BUCKs beat Wilt's LAKERs, Chamberlain was without BOTH West and Baylor. The 23 year old Kareem, was in arguably his greatest statistical season (including post-season play), ... while the 34 year old Wilt, who was a year removed from major knee surgery, was way his past prime, and was in arguably his WORST season. How did their H2H go? Kareem outscored Wilt in that playoff series, per game 25-22; while Wilt ourebounded Kareem, per game, 19-17; and Chamberlain outshot Kareem in that series, .489 to .481.

And only a complete fool would claim that THAT Wilt was anywhere NEAR his prime.

[L.Kizzle]

Nigerian basketball player in America in the mid 1950s'. :no:

[jlip]

Nigerian basketball player in America in the mid 1950s'. :no:

LOL...I was actually going to post something similar to this.

[jlauber]

...and Moses Malone gave Kareem the business in the 83 Finals. No one thinks Moses was quite as good as Hakeem.

...and Kareems Bucks DID beat Wilts Lakers in the playoffs.

See how those comparisons DONT work.

Maybe you can answer my previous post, then...

Give me a list of all of the NBA players who were better at age 38, than at age 23.

BTW, for every ONE that you MIGHT find (and it won't be much more than that), I can find HUNDREDS of NBA players that did not even make it to age 38.

[eliteballer]

Setting aside the fact that Kareem is the exception to just about any age related rule....

Anything can happen in a regular season game.

Scrubs have had good games against Kobe and Jordan. It happens. You cant make a translation across a 20 year timespan. Especially when the game changed THAT much.

He got owned by Hakeem and Sampson in the 86 playoffs.

A seasoned vet is going to be able to get his vs Rookies. You're talking years of experience and skill sharpening. That sky hook is going in whether he's 25 or 45.


I think Wilt would be able to play now. He'd be a star too. There just arent tha many 6-10+ players capable of playing the game at a decent level(now or ever) for him not to. He's not averaging 50 and 25 though. Or better numbers than Shaq did. No tall tales are going to change that

You want to explain to me how Wilt lost in 61 with homecourt advantage to a 38 win team starting a 6-9 center while shooting below 50%?

You want to explain to me why he only averaged over 24 a game twice after they widened the lane?

[jlauber]

Setting aside the fact that Kareem is the exception to just about any age related rule....

Anything can happen in a regular season game.

Scrubs have had good games against Kobe and Jordan. It happens. You cant make a translation across a 20 year timespan. Especially when the game changed THAT much.

He got owned by Hakeem and Sampson in the 86 playoffs.

A seasoned vet is going to be able to get his vs Rookies. You're talking years of experience and skill sharpening. That sky hook is going in whether he's 25 or 45.


I think Wilt would be able to play now. He'd be a star too. There just arent tha many 6-10+ players capable of playing the game at a decent level(now or ever) for him not to. He's not averaging 50 and 25 though. Or better numbers than Shaq did. No tall tales are going to change that

You want to explain to me how Wilt lost in 61 with homecourt advantage to a 38 win team starting a 6-9 center while shooting below 50%?

You want to explain to me why he only averaged over 24 a game twice after they widened the lane?

Kareem's overwhelming obliteration of Hakeem in the '86 regular season occurred over FIVE straight H2H games. Not only that, but he had a known 40 point game against Hakeem in the '85 season, as well.

And no, Kareem was NOT the exception to the rule. He was NOWHERE near the player that he was in '71, and at age 23. He played 40 mpg in '71... 33 in '86. He LED the NBA in scoring at age 23, at 31.7 ppg...while he was at 23.4 ppg in '86. . He shot .577 in '71, in a league that shot .449 (by contrast, even with far fewer attempts in '86, he shot .564 in a league that shot .487.) He grabbed 16 rpg in '71... 6 in '86. BTW, he WON the MVP award in '71, and then capped it off with a FMVP.

Kareem got OWNED in the '86 WCF's? Hmmm... 27 ppg and games of 33 and 31 points. Here again...the man was 38 years old! AND, given the fact that this 38 year old could hang 40 and 46 point (on 21-30 shooting and in only 37 minutes) games on HAKEEM...just what would a 23 year old Kareem have bombed him with? 60-70 point games?

As for Wilt in '61...he only averaged 37 ppg, with 23 rpg and shooting .469 in a league that shot .415...or WAY over the league average. How did his opposing center, multiple all-star Red Kerr fare? I really don't have his numbers from that series, but in his 8 playoff games, he averaged 9.5 ppg, 12.4 rpg, and shot .341. Oh, and BTW, we do KNOW how Kerr fared against Wilt in the '60 and '62 playoffs. In '60, he averaged 13.7 ppg, 8.3 rpg...and shot, get this... .294 from the floor. In the '62 playoffs against Wilt, he 17.6, 16.0 rpg, and shot .376 (while Wilt was hanging a 37 ppg 24 rpg .466 series against him....including a 56 point, 35 rebound clinching game five performance.)

Oh, and how did Wilt's TEAMMATES shoot in that '61 series? .380.

BTW, how about a 27 year old Hakeem in the '89-90 playoffs? 18.5 ppg on .443 shooting in...yet ANOTHER FIRST ROUND EXIT. So, while you can find ONE playoff series in which Wilt did not make it past the first round (and in which he hung a 37-23 series), I can find EIGHT in Hakeem's career.

[UltimaFX]

Weren't there only like 4 players over 6'8 in the days of Russel and Wilt?

[jlauber]

Weren't there only like 4 players over 6'8 in the days of Russel and Wilt?

Nope. None. Not even Russell and Wilt were over 6-8. The league was filled with six-footers who were released on weekends from their local rest homes to play half-court games on eight-foot peach-baskets, where they stood around shooting set-shots, and rebounds were pulled up from the floor.

[Mr Know It All]

:facepalm jesus, you don't even try to think about it. You just read stats and make conclusions.
Thats why i can't take you seriously.
Hakeem faced experienced, big and skilled competition. First he had to Learn the game befor becoming a force.
Kareem entering the league in 1969 being a athletic GIANT dude, was an instant dominant force in the Basketball world.
This fact alone destroyes your conclusion of "wilt > rookie Kareem = wilt > olajuwon beacause kareem > rookie olajuwon".
WTF is that? Do you read this shit yourself? That makes no sense at all.

You jerking off all night watching those stats on nba reference never made you think why kareem, who made significant improvements over his whole career, put up those kind of numbers in his first years and than just stays the same or even get worse?

And what has a 23 year old Kareem being the better player against a 38 year old Hakeem to do with anything? Its a fact that Olajuwon declined faster. So what? I said Hakeem > Wilt and what you do is showing me how much better Kareem was. Did i say that i think Kareem > wilt?

I bet if a big extreme rare athletic hakeem would have played in the 40s, and dominate wilt in his rookie year without any footage and only watched live, you would make the same retarded conclusion and call Hakeem the best center ever.

I have nothing to add to this discussion, just like to point out how moronic this post is, it's really hilarious. I love how people berate jlauber around here but all the guy does is come up with hard stats and data to support his claims (something very few people here are able to do), and if you actually read them they are thought out and make a hell of a lot of sense.

People like you just cannot accept that the era of Wilt and Russell deserve respect, and stats like the ones jlauber brings forth prove that. The ONLY way we can argue about how these guys would play against each other is by analyzing the transitioning into each era. I was converted into a firm Wilt supporter (That is, that he is the greatest and most dominant player of all time), when I became aware of his play against Kareem in the twilight of Wilt's career.

I'll continue to smile at these arguments though. Jlauber will keep destroying morons like you with hard facts, and you will come back with weak trash like "I bet if so and so played then he would dominate", which proves nothing and only puts forth your own bullshit opinion. If you want to participate in an argument like this, you need facts and not reckless speculation, you sound like a child. I'd hate to see some of these people write an essay.:facepalm

[Rooster]

Weren't there only like 4 players over 6'8 in the days of Russel and Wilt?

There were a couple of players who are 6'10 I think and Wilt was the only 7 footer.

[Kblaze8855]

Wilt was not the only 7 footer. Or the first one. Or the tallest.

[jlauber]

Weren't there only like 4 players over 6'8 in the days of Russel and Wilt?

How tall were the players that Russell battled back in the 50's at USF?

http://www.usfdons.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/101999aab.html


In the meantime, with Mullen out, Oregon State had sagged its defense around Bill Russell, not only with the 7'3" Swede Halbrook, but also with the 7'0" Phil Shadoin, virtually ignoring forward Stan Buchanan. In response to his teammates' urging to shoot from long range, Buchanan drilled consecutive twenty footers, forcing the Beavers to adjust their strategy and play all the USF players straight up. What followed is one of the most incredible games in NCAA annals. Darrell Wilson of the Chronicle reported: "The game's big men--7'3" Swede Halbrook and 6'10" Bill Russell from USF--fought it out around the backboard in a leap-for-leap battle in a higher area than most basketball fans have ever witnessed."

[millwad]

Kareem's overwhelming obliteration of Hakeem in the '86 regular season occurred over FIVE straight H2H games. Not only that, but he had a known 40 point game against Hakeem in the '85 season, as well.


Kareem got OWNED in the '86 WCF's? Hmmm... 27 ppg and games of 33 and 31 points. Here again...the man was 38 years old! AND, given the fact that this 38 year old could hang 40 and 46 point (on 21-30 shooting and in only 37 minutes) games on HAKEEM...just what would a 23 year old Kareem have bombed him with? 60-70 point games?

You only prove that you're an idiot time after time..

First of all, you haven't even seen the series and obviously you didn't read the article I sent you and I can give you plenty more if you'd like so if you wanna play the game you always do. Kareem and the Lakers got trashed by Akeem..

And you know what's funny, according to you Wilt "crushed" and "schooled" Kareem in '72 when Kareem averaged 40 points on 50% shooting on Wilt in the regular season over 5 games. We NEVER see you trash Wilt over that even though he was in defensive prime according to MANY.

Like that wasn't enough, Wilt later got outscored with 23 points per game in the playoffs while shooting a worse FG% than what Kareem did... And still Kareem got "schooled" and "crushed"..

Don't you understand how biased and stupid you are? First you act like the regular season games of 1972 never occured and then you act like Wilt "crushed" Kareem in the playoffs because you don't know the meaning of "decisively" and then when it comes to Hakeem you see it in a completely other way.

So lets break it down, Jlauber sees Kareem's total domination of Wilt as Wilt schooling Kareem. In this case stats doesn't matter even though Kareem averaged 40 points on Wilt on 50% over 5 regular season games and then outscoring him with 23 points per game on better FG%.

When it comes to Hakeem the same old fart ALWAYS spams about Kareem scoring big vs rookie and 2nd year pro Olajuwon but he never mentions how Akeem absolutely trashed the Laker big guys in the 1986 playoffs. And he didn't see the series, he only checked basketball-reference, that's why he only talks about stats. Everyone knows how Olajuwon totally destroyed the Lakers that year.


BTW, how about a 27 year old Hakeem in the '89-90 playoffs? 18.5 ppg on .443 shooting in...yet ANOTHER FIRST ROUND EXIT. So, while you can find ONE playoff series in which Wilt did not make it past the first round (and in which he hung a 37-23 series), I can find EIGHT in Hakeem's career.

Stupid argument, Wilt played with way better players in his career and Wilt had the luxury to face 3 teams in the playoffs in the first round that even didn't manage to win 40 games that actual season...:facepalm

And you always talk about first round exits but you never tell us what years Hakeem should have led his team realistically out of the first round during his career. Consider the guys he played with those years and tell me now what years he should have led his team much further.. That's something you never will be able to do since you haven't even seen the guy play.

And still, Hakeem in the playoffs both had a higher points per game average and he also shot with a better FG% than Wilt, and he also was a way better scorer if you wanna compare the two seasons he won compared to the two seasons Wilt won. Wilt in '72 didn't even average over 14 pathetic points.. Remove his all-stars and HOF:ersthat year and give him a roster like Hakeem had in '94 and he'd be a one time champion..

[millwad]

How tall were the players that Russell battled back in the 50's at USF?

http://www.usfdons.com/sports/m-baskbl/spec-rel/101999aab.html

You spam about Swede Halbrook crazy much considering that the guy only played in the league 2 years while only being able to average 5.5 points on 34% shooting while your beloved big guy only averaged 6.6 rebounds per game..

Couldn't you find a better scrub?

[Kblaze8855]

Walter dukes is a better choice. But there were quite a few big guys from back then nobody remembers.

[Psileas]

...and Moses Malone gave Kareem the business in the 83 Finals. No one thinks Moses was quite as good as Hakeem.

...and Kareems Bucks DID beat Wilts Lakers in the playoffs.

See how those comparisons DONT work.

First of all, Kareem still wasn't in his prime in '83. His prime ended after around '80 or '81. In '83, he was already 36, and on the other hand, Moses was 27-28 and in his prime. Second, like already mentioned, Kareem's defensive weakness was against big players who played a physical offensive game, with Moses being among the GOAT at this. I'd actually say Moses was THE toughest offensive opponent of Kareem ever.
Obviously, comparisons like this are not 100% linear, but you can't claim there's not any kind of relationship, either.

Regarding Kareem vs Hakeem, I'm not into the 39 y.o Kareem being better than 23 y.o Hakeem stuff (mainly due to Hakeem's defensive and rebounding advantage being more crucial than Kareem's passing and FG% ones), but you have to admit he did a job that's just not possible for almost any 39 y.o to do. Hakeem averaged an excellent 30.6/11.2 on Kareem in the '86 playoffs, while Kareem averaged a great 27.0/6.8 and Hakeem is still considered as having performed supremely, despite this. Imagine 2002 Jordan (same age with '86 Kareem) going head to head in a playoff series with an entering his prime Kobe and still hang 27.0 ppg on him vs Kobe's 30.6? Nobody in his right mind would be talking about a crashing victory for Kobe, even if he had better all-around stats. For me, the fact that the Rockets beat the Lakers is far more impressive than Hakeem managing to outplay a 39 y.o Kareem. Heck, the fact alone that he wasn't expected to outplay him like this is impressive, although this was to somewhat be expected, after Kareem gave the Rockets 33.0/7.6/3.2 during the regular season, so "only" managing 27.0 ppg in the playoffs was considered underperforming, lol.

[NugzHeat3]

People really need to stop looking at the statsheet. Especially the teenaged Wilt fan; I have him on ignore (only person on there) but people keep quoting him.

Read the recap of Kareem's 46 point game. Hakeem is overplaying him the whole time because he's just overmatched. Kareem has roughly 5 inches in height, definitely had a lower stronger body at that point and 15 pounds on him.

That just causes Hakeem to be overmatched and he's forced to gamble on the entry pass. The Rockets also don't bother helping after Hakeem gets beat; Sampson is glued to the PFs the whole time (its said in the recap).

Kareem had an 18 point game in the last game against Houston in the season and Sampson was the initial defender on him. Sampson was again the initial defender on him in the playoffs where Kareem averaged 27 a game. Hakeem was coming over from the weakside trying to help out.

Are you going to claim Sampson is a better defender than Hakeem because he held him to 18 points?

That whole "that wasn't even a prime Kareem" doesn't work. Kareem lost something in rebounding, stamina and defense. He was infinitely worse in that regards but he could still score and pass. He was the Lakers main guy in the halfcourt set up until 1986. In some ways, he was better suited for certain match ups than he was in the early 70s because he was stronger with more weight on. Look at his per 36 scoring numbers, they don't fluctuate it that much.

Secondly, Shaq in 1995 did better against Hakeem than he did against a 38 year old Hakeem in 2001. And I'm just going off the statsheet here which I normally hate doing because its deceptive since we don't know who was guarding each other, the game plans ect ect.

Shaq in 2001, against Hakeem, had a 24 pt 8/19 game with 4 turnovers, a 14 6/14 game with 5 turnovers and a 25 pt on 9/17 game with 2 turnovers. Those first two games are Shaq's worst games of the season. Another thing to be noted is that Shaq had a 43 point game on 17/23 with 0 turnovers against Houston that year where Hakeem did not play.

So yeah, Hakeem must have shut down by using some of dullards logic on here.

And MY GOD, just imagine what would a Hakeem in his defensive prime would hold a peak Shaq to.

I'm guessing 0 points on 0/10 shooting with 6 turnovers.

Hakeem the GOAT. :bowdown:

[NugzHeat3]

First of all, Kareem still wasn't in his prime in '83. His prime ended after around '80 or '81. In '83, he was already 36, and on the other hand, Moses was 27-28 and in his prime. Second, like already mentioned, Kareem's defensive weakness was against big players who played a physical offensive game, with Moses being among the GOAT at this. I'd actually say Moses was THE toughest offensive opponent of Kareem ever.
Obviously, comparisons like this are not 100% linear, but you can't claim there's not any kind of relationship, either.

Regarding Kareem vs Hakeem, I'm not into the 39 y.o Kareem being better than 23 y.o Hakeem stuff (mainly due to Hakeem's defensive and rebounding advantage being more crucial than Kareem's passing and FG% ones), but you have to admit he did a job that's just not possible for almost any 39 y.o to do. Hakeem averaged an excellent 30.6/11.2 on Kareem in the '86 playoffs, while Kareem averaged a great 27.0/6.8 and Hakeem is still considered as having performed supremely, despite this. Imagine 2002 Jordan (same age with '86 Kareem) going head to head in a playoff series with an entering his prime Kobe and still hang 27.0 ppg on him vs Kobe's 30.6? Nobody in his right mind would be talking about a crashing victory for Kobe, even if he had better all-around stats. For me, the fact that the Rockets beat the Lakers is far more impressive than Hakeem managing to outplay a 39 y.o Kareem. Heck, the fact alone that he wasn't expected to outplay him like this is impressive, although this was to somewhat be expected, after Kareem gave the Rockets 33.0/7.6/3.2 during the regular season, so "only" managing 27.0 ppg in the playoffs was considered underperforming, lol.
Hakeem did not outplay Kareem in the 1986 playoffs unless you're just looking at who the better player in the series was. In that case, he definitely did because he was the best player on the floor.

But I personally find it pretty stupid to claim one guy outplayed the other without being matched up with one another. Hakeem did not guard Kareem as the initial defender and vice versa.

I've watched the series on lakeptic's channel. It rarely happened. About as much as Jordan guarded Kobe in their meetings and we know that hardly happened.

[Fazotronic]

Let's make this as simple as we can for the mentally challenged here...

First of all, give me a list of all of the NBA players who played to age 38, and compare it to ALL of those that have played in the NBA. Maybe 1-2%?

Then, let's take that list of those NBA players who managed to make it to age 38, and let's it break it down to those that were better players, at age 38, than they were at age 23.

As great as Kareem was at 38, and he was a better player than Hakeem was at 23, he was nowhere near as quick, fast, nor as athletic as he was at age 23. Nor was he anywhere near as dominant, either. Granted, he wasn't as strong at 23, but strength was never one of his attributes. Powerful centers gave him trouble his entire career. Thurmond and a considerably past his prime Wilt. Gilmore battled him as well as anyone in the 70's. And a prime Moses physically pounded Kareem.

Even Wilt, who many considered would have been great into his 40's, was nowhere near as quick, athletic, nor as skilled at age 36, as he was at 23.

Again...give me a list of those that were better NBA players at age 38, than at 23.

who cares? my point was that it is stupid to just make the conclusion of wilt being better than hakeem, beacause a less good (old) version of kareem, dominated a rookie hakeem, while the better and younger version of kareem did not dominate a old wilt.
Considering that we are talking about 3 decades of (developing) Basketball and that hakeem was not the player he was gonna be, this is a extremely superficial argument and you present it as a ice cold fact to determined who was the best player.
Only a mentally challenged person would do that. Don't point the finger at me.


I have nothing to add to this discussion, just like to point out how moronic this post is, it's really hilarious. I love how people berate jlauber around here but all the guy does is come up with hard stats and data to support his claims (something very few people here are able to do), and if you actually read them they are thought out and make a hell of a lot of sense.

People like you just cannot accept that the era of Wilt and Russell deserve respect, and stats like the ones jlauber brings forth prove that. The ONLY way we can argue about how these guys would play against each other is by analyzing the transitioning into each era. I was converted into a firm Wilt supporter (That is, that he is the greatest and most dominant player of all time), when I became aware of his play against Kareem in the twilight of Wilt's career.

I'll continue to smile at these arguments though. Jlauber will keep destroying morons like you with hard facts, and you will come back with weak trash like "I bet if so and so played then he would dominate", which proves nothing and only puts forth your own bullshit opinion. If you want to participate in an argument like this, you need facts and not reckless speculation, you sound like a child. I'd hate to see some of these people write an essay.:facepalm

what do you want me to accept? the fact alone of wilt dominating a rookie kareem is enough to rate him higher than Hakeem AND Kareem?
screw that. that makes zero sense to me. those stats are inflated and any person using them to compare them to anything in 6 decades of nba basketball is just straight stupid.
Congratulation for joining that club.

Yea does are Hard stats and data when you consider the circumstances which you and jlauber clearly don't. You compare them 1 to 1 with any year of nba history and you dare to call me a moron? :applause:

And don't be a fool. You're not smiling at all. You're angry of the fact that you and Jlauber are the minority that puts wilt so high.
Also nice job ignoring my whole post and just quoting the last part.
Any of my points is more valid than just copy and past inflated stats to make your guy look better and especially more valid to what you contribute. which is nothing.
Destroying? haha get real.

[millwad]

who cares? my point was that it is stupid to just make the conclusion of wilt being better than hakeem, beacause a less good (old) version of kareem, dominated a rookie hakeem, while the better and younger version of kareem did not dominate a old wilt.
Considering that we are talking about 3 decades of (developing) Basketball, this is a extremely superficial argument and you present it as a ice cold fact to determined who was the best player.
Only a mentally challenged person would do that. Don't point the finger at me.



Actually, younger version of Kareem dominated Wilt a la the '72 season where Kareem averaged amazing 40 points per game against Wilt in the regular season on 50% shooting. The same year he also outscored Wilt in the playoffs with 23 points per game as an average on better FG% while averaging more assists as well. Don't believe the nonsense Jlauber puts up, he's an obsessed old fart and his only purpose in life is copying and pasting crap to defend Wilt Chamberlain on the net. The same Wilt Chamberlain he barely saw play, he was only a kid when Wilt had his amazing stat-years and the rest of it was too long ago, no one remembers 40 year old basketball games.

Especially not Jlauber since he used to post stuff about the modern era being better then after seeing some footage of Wilt on youtube and reading some silly quotes he totally changed his mind and became this pathetic old fart spamming all over about how great Wilt Chamberlain really was. The same Chamberlain he barely saw play...:facepalm

[Pointguard]

People want to put current players back in time with their full skill set and modern conveniences that developed their game in the present day but want to transport Wilt up to these times without modern day advantages.

No way does Hakeem make the league in the 60's. More than likely there isn't an indoor basketball hoop in Nigeria in the 60's. If he lucks up and does get here. He can't copy Adrian Dantley's post moves. The dream shake is a walk which would demand that his game be more fluid with less moves. He won't get calls and would get treated harsh for being a foreigner and African. There is no big man's camp. He doesn't get access to gyms so his shot suffers. He doesn't have big man coaches to work on his excellent foot work. He doesn't have the same access to video tape to accelerate his learning... . His prime would be delayed because access to things is just plain harder. His skills suffer because they can't be developed like they were in the '80s. Best case scenario he peaks as a player similar to Bill Russel for two years.

If Wilt transports to these times: He would have Hakeem tapes to copy Hakeem's moves. He employs a power game. He would have big man's camp and developed his left hand and probably a jump hook. He gets 24 hour access to gyms so his shot improves and he dribbles better. He gets calls in his favor instead of MMA moves practiced on him. He would have the best last step and first step the game ever saw because his leg length was unbelievable. Wilt would improve on moves like the Shaq giant drop step, Akeem shake, MaHale up and under, because he originated them but was under tighter whistle constraints. Plus he would have to option to employ a giant Ewing hop move, Shaq shuffle, Shaq baby hook.

He has a ton less psychological things to deal with. He can play all out at full blast cause he got masseuse, days off, diet control, better weight trainers. His muscle explosion would be better because of stretching excercises. Gyms have temperature control and even floors. Balls are uniform and new... .

His biggest problem would be his getting up to play another good center (Wilt was rarely outplayed in center duties). He would be saving his energy for DH who would only have a quickness advantage.

Wilt would be much better than he was then. He wouldn't average 50ppg but he would still be almost nondescript. And fully capable of 34 and 17 with 6 blocks over a 7 year prime. And 32 and 17 with 5 blocks on a contender. His size, height, skill, athleticism, speed, long legs, scoring mentality and know how, determination on the boards, good timing would still be the best among centers by a huge gap. DH would be the only one close and its only in the athleticism department where he would be close in those categories.

[lakers_forever]

What a dumb and stupid thing to say. It just does not work like that.

I can show you with this analogy:

Let's put my high school science teacher in Galileo's era. He would know more things about science than Galileo, therefore my hs teacher is smarter than Galileo. :roll: :roll:

[Pointguard]

What a dumb and stupid thing to say. It just does not work like that.

I can show you with this analogy:

Let's put my high school science teacher in Galileo's era. He would know much things about science than Galileo, therefore he my hs teacher is smarter than Galileo. :roll: :roll:

:lol You need to worry about your English teacher more than Science teachers. And I can tell you never had an Analogy teacher.

[Fazotronic]

@millwad he has my compassion ;)


What a dumb and stupid thing to say. It just does not work like that.

I can show you with this analogy:

Let's put my high school science teacher in Galileo's era. He would know much things about science than Galileo, therefore he my hs teacher is smarter than Galileo. :roll: :roll:

duh really?
what a stupid comparison. Even today were the players are so skilled, a very athletic big guy, can instantly become a somewhat important player.
If anything those athletes would get a even bigger advantages in the first days of basketball were everybody had a very basic understanding of basketball.
this is very easy to understand while your argument is just flatout random.:wtf:

[lakers_forever]

:lol You need to worry about your English teacher more than Science teachers. And I can tell you never had an Analogy teacher.

Talk to me when you learn how to speak and write in at least 3 different languages.

[lakers_forever]

duh really?
what a stupid comparison. Even today were the players are so skilled, a very athletic big guy, can instantly become a somewhat important player.
If anything those athletes would get a even bigger advantages in the first days of basketball were everybody had a very basic understanding of basketball.
this is very easy to understand while your argument is just flatout random.:wtf:

Really? That's not what has hapenned in the NBA recently. Big and tall centers have been so shitty that teams have been playing PF's as centers.

My argument was to demonstrate that you can't judge a player with today standards. You just can't compare Hakeem to Russell. Because if not for Russel, maybe the game would not have evolved to where it is today, hence Olajuwon might have been a different player.

[Pointguard]

Talk to me when you learn how to speak and write in at least 3 different languages.

I can. And that doesn't mean you are making sense here either.

[Fazotronic]

Really? That's not what has hapenned in the NBA recently. Big and tall centers have been so shitty that teams have been playing PF's as centers.

My argument was to demonstrate that you can't judge a player with today standards. You just can't compare Hakeem to Russell. Because if not for Russel, maybe the game would not have evolved to where it is today, hence Olajuwon might have been a different player.

yes they are shitty and they don't even belong in the nba. yet they get paid more than all the others and are effective without having any skill in that sport.
Imagine a athletic guy like shaq with all his gifts that god gave him playing against a bunch of 6'0 white guys.
who cares how good he would be? he would handle them anyways. More than ever

[millwad]

Really? That's not what has hapenned in the NBA recently. Big and tall centers have been so shitty that teams have been playing PF's as centers.

My argument was to demonstrate that you can't judge a player with today standards. You just can't compare Hakeem to Russell. Because if not for Russel, maybe the game would not have evolved to where it is today, hence Olajuwon might have been a different player.

I agree totally.

Although I don't see that the centers of the 60's are better than the one's today based on skillset, I still agree with the other thing you said.

Of course Olajuwon wouldn't have been the player he was in the 80's and 90's if it wouldn't have been for the earlier era's, from every era something improves and stuff like training, nutrition etc has changed so much since Russell's time.

And personally I have no doubt that a guy like Russell or Wilt would be greater today than what they were back if they got the same opportunities like the modern era player and that's what the discussion should be about. Instead on this board because of idiots like Jlauber who by the way barely saw these guy's play, the discussion starts and ends with obvious discussions of what era had the greatest players based on skillset..

[lakers_forever]

I agree totally.

Although I don't see that the centers of the 60's are better than the one's today based on skillset, I still agree with the other thing you said.

Of course Olajuwon wouldn't have been the player he was in the 80's and 90's if it wouldn't have been for the earlier era's, from every era something improves and stuff like training, nutrition etc has changed so much since Russell's time.

And personally I have no doubt that a guy like Russell or Wilt would be greater today than what they were back if they got the same opportunities like the modern era player and that's what the discussion should be about. Instead on this board because of idiots like Jlauber who by the way barely saw these guy's place, the discussion starts and ends with obvious discussions of what era had the greatest players based on skillset..

:rockon:

[jlauber]

You spam about Swede Halbrook crazy much considering that the guy only played in the league 2 years while only being able to average 5.5 points on 34% shooting while your beloved big guy only averaged 6.6 rebounds per game..

Couldn't you find a better scrub?

Once again...Dickwad the dumb...

First of all...I "SPAM Swede like crazy"? What a complete moron. Please provide ALL of those "spammed posts" of mine. The ONLY time I bring up Holbrook is when idiots, like yourself, claim that Wilt didn't face tall players. BUT, once again, please find ALL of the MANY times that I have brought up my "beloved big guy."

BTW, Holbrook was no worse a center than players like 7-5 Chuck Nevitt, who averaged 1.6 ppg in NINE seasons, most all of which occurred in the Olajuwon era.

WHY did I bring up the FACT that Russell, in the 50's, had to battle a frontline that included a 7-0 forward and a 7-3 center? Because another idiotic poster (they are all over the place) claimed that Wilt and Russell only played against 6-8 guys.

Now, think about what I posted (I know...you can't comprehend it.) Russell had to battle TWO legitimate 7-0+ footers at the SAME time...and in 1955! You will be hard-pressed to find two seven-footers manning a college frontline TODAY. I can only recall a couple myself (although I'm sure there were a few others), James Edwards and James Donaldson, and Pembrook Burrows and Artis Gilmore (both of whom were dominated by UCLA's 6-9 Sidney Wicks in the NCAA title game BTW.)

OK, let's get back to the REAL question...who were the players that Wilt ROUTINELY faced in his career?

Kareem Abdul Jabbar: 7'2"
Dennis Awtrey: 6'11"
Walt Bellamy: 6'11"
Tom Boerwinkle: 7'0"
Nate Bowman: 6'11"
Mel Counts: 7'0"
Walter Dukes: 7'0"
Jim Eakins: 6'11"
Ray Felix: 6'11"
Hank Finkel: 7'0"
Artis Gilmore: 7'2"
Swede Halbrook: 7'3"
Reggie Harding: 7'0"
Bob Lanier: 6'11"
Jim McDaniels: 6'11"
Otto Moore: 6'11"
Dave Newmark: 7'0"
Rich Niemann: 7'0"
Billy Paultz: 6'11"
Craig Raymond: 6'11"
Elmore Smith: 7'0"
Jim Fox: 6-11"
Chuck Share: 6'11"
Ronald Taylor: 7'1"
Nate Thurmond: 6'11"
Walt Wesley: 6'11"

Those were just some of the players that Wilt battled (and yes, heights may vary according to reference.). FURTHERMORE, most all of them were measured in BARE FEET...unlike the CURRENT NBA where players are measured in SHOES. So, you can basicaly add an inch to virtually all of them. Which, of course, means that Wilt was facing QUITE a few "seven-footers" in his career. And before someone mentions that Gilmore did not play in Wilt's leagues, so what? Wilt did battle him in the 71-72 NBA-ABA all-star game, and blocked a couple of his shots, and powered thru him for a couple of dunks in only a few minutes. Furthermore, Gilmore battled MANY of the same centers that Wilt just CRUSHED in his career. Gilmore was never as dominant against the same centers...nor was KAREEM.

And Wilt dominated those guys from his first game of his pro career, until his LAST. Chamberlain's "scoring seasons" were in the first half of the decade...in SLIGHTLY faster paced leagues than later eras. AND, he also hung the HIGH games in EVERY season of the decade of the 60's. He had EIGHT of his 32 60+ point games after the league widened the lane (and BTW, his scoring hardly dropped at all in the two seasons AFTER that, AND his FG% went UP.) He had TWO 60+ games in the 68-69 season alone...in a year in which he averaged 14 FGAs per game...and in a league that averaged 112 ppg. Not only that, but Kareem faced BOTH of those guys the very next season, and couldn't come close to that. Furthermore, in Wilt's 69-70 season (Kareem's rookie season), he was averaging 32 ppg on 60% shooting in his first nine games, and before he shredded his knee (in a game in which he scored 33 points on 13-13 shooting.)

Even as late as his 71-72 season, and near the end of his career, he hung a 31-32 game on 6-11 HOFer Bob Lanier...one of TWO 30-30 games that he had that season (out of the 103 he had in his career.) Oh, and BTW, Kareem only had ONE 30-30 game in his ENTIRE 20 year career (and it came after Wilt retired.)

A couple of other points, too. There were only eight to 17 teams per season in Wilt's 14 season career, and about 12 on average. There were less seven-footers because there were less teams.

Secondly, many players in the 60's and 70's were UNDER-measured. Wilt was generally regarded as at least 7-2 (despite his own assertion that he was a little over 7-1.) Kareem was generally regarded as taller than 7-2. Bill Walton was taller than 6-11. Elvin Hayes was listed at 6-8 in college, and was found to be 6-9 1/2. Wicks was listed at 6-8 in college, and was 6-9. Bill Russell, for some reason was listed at 6-9 in the NBA, but was listed at 6-10 in college (and BTW, he himself claimed he was 6-10.)

By contrast, there have been players in later eras that were OVER-measured. Hakeem, himself, was listed at a ridiculous 7-0, when he was no more than 6-10. Ben Wallace was listed at 6-9, when he himself claimed he was no more than 6-7. Ralph Sampson was no more than 7-2 (and no less than 7-4 Mark Eaton claimed as much), AND, he had a long neck and short arms. Kevin Love is slightly over 6-9. Barkley was listed at 6-6 and was probably not even 6-5.

Finally, height, in itself has not proven to be a key to performance. Who was the best defensive center of the last decade? 6-7 Ben Wallace. Who was the best defensive center of the 60's? 6-10 Russell. Who was the best rebounder of the 00's? Here again, 6-7 Ben Wallace. Hell, 6-9 white guy Love ran away with the rebounding title in 2011. How about the 90's? Was it 7-1 Shaq, or 7-1 Robinson, or even 6-10 Hakeem? Nope... 6-8 Rodman, and by a MILE. My god, the 6-5 Barkley not only won a rebounding title...but when he was paired up with Hakeem later on (and both at the same age BTW), Barkley KILLED Hakeem (he outrebounded Olajuwon by FOUR per game.) You can go back to the 80's, too. 6-10 Moses dominated his era in rebounding and power.

In any case, Dickwad continues to make a jackass of himself.

[Dizzle-2k7]

the pumpfake, dropstep, and spinmove were not common moves back then..

you put prime hakeem in there, dont matter how big or strong the dudes are, he's shaking em out of their shoes.

i say he averages wiltesque scoring, but less rebounding, definitely more blocks because he'd be chasin people down left and right, but i dont think he ever tries to lead the league in assists.

[jlauber]

People really need to stop looking at the statsheet. Especially the teenaged Wilt fan; I have him on ignore (only person on there) but people keep quoting him.

Read the recap of Kareem's 46 point game. Hakeem is overplaying him the whole time because he's just overmatched. Kareem has roughly 5 inches in height, definitely had a lower stronger body at that point and 15 pounds on him.

That just causes Hakeem to be overmatched and he's forced to gamble on the entry pass. The Rockets also don't bother helping after Hakeem gets beat; Sampson is glued to the PFs the whole time (its said in the recap).

Kareem had an 18 point game in the last game against Houston in the season and Sampson was the initial defender on him. Sampson was again the initial defender on him in the playoffs where Kareem averaged 27 a game. Hakeem was coming over from the weakside trying to help out.

Are you going to claim Sampson is a better defender than Hakeem because he held him to 18 points?

That whole "that wasn't even a prime Kareem" doesn't work. Kareem lost something in rebounding, stamina and defense. He was infinitely worse in that regards but he could still score and pass. He was the Lakers main guy in the halfcourt set up until 1986. In some ways, he was better suited for certain match ups than he was in the early 70s because he was stronger with more weight on. Look at his per 36 scoring numbers, they don't fluctuate it that much.

Secondly, Shaq in 1995 did better against Hakeem than he did against a 38 year old Hakeem in 2001. And I'm just going off the statsheet here which I normally hate doing because its deceptive since we don't know who was guarding each other, the game plans ect ect.

Shaq in 2001, against Hakeem, had a 24 pt 8/19 game with 4 turnovers, a 14 6/14 game with 5 turnovers and a 25 pt on 9/17 game with 2 turnovers. Those first two games are Shaq's worst games of the season. Another thing to be noted is that Shaq had a 43 point game on 17/23 with 0 turnovers against Houston that year where Hakeem did not play.

So yeah, Hakeem must have shut down by using some of dullards logic on here.

And MY GOD, just imagine what would a Hakeem in his defensive prime would hold a peak Shaq to.

I'm guessing 0 points on 0/10 shooting with 6 turnovers.

Hakeem the GOAT. :bowdown:

First of all, we KNOW that Hakeem TRIED to guard a 38 year old Kareem...and FLOPPED. 33 ppg on .634 shooting in FIVE H2H's in '86 (and another 40 point game on Hakeem in the '85 season.) It's was embarrassing enough that Kareem could averaged the 33 ppg (and 27 ppg in the playoffs), but that .634 shooting is just stunning. Of course, Shaq went for a 28 ppg .595 series against Hakeem in the '95 Finals, as well. Once again, Hakeem WAS guarding Kareem for the 40+ point games. That Fitch finally gave up and had Sampson guarding Kareem in the playoffs (and with Hakeem helping) just illustrates the fact that Hakeem just COULDN'T guard an OLD Kareem.

Dickwad brings up a PRIME Kareem's scoring against an OLD Wilt...but, in their 28 H2H games (27 of which occurred after Wilt's knee injury, and all of those from a 34+ old Chamberlain)...how about this stat? Kareem shot .464 COMBINED in those 28 games. Here was a PRIME Kareem, shooting WAY under a 100 points under his regular season FG%'s. In fact, Kareem shot .559 over the course of his entire career...and that .464 against Wilt. BTW, an OLD Kareem faced Hakeem-led teams in a 22 games from '86 thru his last season in '89...and shot .599 (and probably higher when guarded by Hakeem.) So, a PRIME Kareem shot 100 points UNDER his career FG% against an OLD Wilt...and 50 points OVER that career mark as an OLD Kareem against a younger Hakeem.

As for Kareem's "36 minute" production...get that NONSENSE out of here. Kareem couldn't even PLAY 36 mpg in the '86 season. In his '71 season he averaged 40 mpg in both the regular season, and the post-season, BUT, he could have played much more. Why? His Bucks went 66-16 and had a +12.2 ppg differential...and then went 12-2 in the playoffs with a record differential of +14.5 However, in his '70 season he averaged 43 mpg in both the regular season, and the post-season. In his '72 season he averaged 44 mpg in the regular season, and 46 mpg in the post-season. In his '86 season, he was at 33 mpg in the regular season, and 35 mpg in the playoffs. The very next season he was at 31 in both.

Kareem, at 38, was FAR slower, and not nearly as athletic. To say that it didn't affect his OFFENSE is pure crap. A 23 year old Kareem could move MUCH quicker, and jump MUCH higher.

And that "per 36 minute" stat is almost as ridiculous as Fecal's +/-. How can you compare a player that plays 30 mpg to a player that plays 45+? There is a reason a player only plays 33 mpg...he simply CAN'T play more. And, if he HAD to play more, his numbers would SURELY decline...especially as the season wore on. Meanwhile, how much more EFFICIENT would a player like Wilt have been, had he only played 40 mpg in his career? 6-8 mpg, multiplied over the course of an entire season, and then multipled over the course of his 14 year career??!!!

Not only that, but you, like many others fail to take into LEAGUE AVERAGE FG%. Kareem's .564 FG% in '86 came in a league that shot .487. In his '71 season, he shot .577 in a league that shot .449. He was a MUCH more efficient shooter in '71. And yes, the numbers bare that out. Take a look at most all of the CENTERS that played in the 70's and into the 80's. Most all shot better (or MUCH better...see Gilmore) in the 80's. THEN, take a look at most all of the CENTERS that played in the 80's and then into the 90's. Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing...all shot much better in the 80's (or early 90's as in Robinson's case.) Why? Why was Hakeem shooting his CAREER best in his ROOKIE season? Because the ENTIRE league was shooting better. Put a PRIME Kareem (or Wilt) in the 80's, and it is almost a certainty that they would have shot MUCH better.

Regarding Shaq against Hakeem. How about the '99 playoffs. 29 ppg on .516 shooting. Granted, it was as overwhelming as his 28 ppg on .595 (!) shooting in the '95 Finals, but he reduced Hakeem to a pathetic 13 ppg on .426 shooting. It was comical to watch, too. Hakeem would dance around with his "dream shake", and Shaq would just stand flat-footed, waiting until Hakeem would finally take the shot, and then he would either block it, or alter it. He also dumped a 37 point game on Hakeem in that series, and on 14-22 shooting. Interesting, though, that that was Shaq's high game against Hakeem, and yet an old Kareem could dump THREE 40+ on Hakeem.

And how about their CAREER H2H's?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=olajuha01&p2=onealsh01


Regular season...covering 20 games...

Hakeem averaged 18.4 ppg, 9.1 rpg, 2.9 apg, and on .447 shooting.
Shaq averaged 22.1 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 3.6 apg, and on .544 shooting.

Playoffs...

Hakeem was at 23.0 ppg, 9.4 rpg, 3.0 apg, and on .465 shooting.
Shaq with 28.8 ppg, 11.4 rpg, 5.1 apg, and .556 shooting.

A PEAK Hakeem was not even as good as a young Shaq...much less comparing them over the course of their H2H's.

So, here is what we do KNOW. A PRIME Kareem struggled mightily against an OLD Wilt. And, he didn't come CLOSE to the domination that a PRIME Chamberlain bombed many of the SAME centers that the two faced in his careers. Then, an OLD Kareem (REAL OLD) leveled Hakeem in the '86 regular season, and battled him pretty damned well in the playoffs (being SLIGHTLY outscored.) This was a 23 year old Hakeem...the same age that Kareem was when he LED the NBA in scoring, won the MVP, and then won the FMVP.

What we were deprived of viewing was a PRIME Kareem against a PRIME Hakeem. From what we do KNOW, it would just not have been close. Secondly, we never got to see a PRIME Wilt against a PRIME Kareem. The closest we ever got, was a Wilt, well past his prime in '69, just pounding a rookie Kareem. After that, Wilt blew out his knee, and was never the same... although in his LAST season, and in SIX H2H games against Kareem, he held Kareem to .450 shooting, while shooting .737 against Abdul Jabbar. He even outscored him one game, 24-21, while outshooting him, 10-14 to 10-27.

In any case, and by extension, a PRIME Wilt would have done just fine against a PRIME Hakeem. And that would be BEFORE receiving all of the advantages that he would have had playing in the 80's and 90's.

[jlauber]

People want to put current players back in time with their full skill set and modern conveniences that developed their game in the present day but want to transport Wilt up to these times without modern day advantages.

No way does Hakeem make the league in the 60's. More than likely there isn't an indoor basketball hoop in Nigeria in the 60's. If he lucks up and does get here. He can't copy Adrian Dantley's post moves. The dream shake is a walk which would demand that his game be more fluid with less moves. He won't get calls and would get treated harsh for being a foreigner and African. There is no big man's camp. He doesn't get access to gyms so his shot suffers. He doesn't have big man coaches to work on his excellent foot work. He doesn't have the same access to video tape to accelerate his learning... . His prime would be delayed because access to things is just plain harder. His skills suffer because they can't be developed like they were in the '80s. Best case scenario he peaks as a player similar to Bill Russel for two years.

If Wilt transports to these times: He would have Hakeem tapes to copy Hakeem's moves. He employs a power game. He would have big man's camp and developed his left hand and probably a jump hook. He gets 24 hour access to gyms so his shot improves and he dribbles better. He gets calls in his favor instead of MMA moves practiced on him. He would have the best last step and first step the game ever saw because his leg length was unbelievable. Wilt would improve on moves like the Shaq giant drop step, Akeem shake, MaHale up and under, because he originated them but was under tighter whistle constraints. Plus he would have to option to employ a giant Ewing hop move, Shaq shuffle, Shaq baby hook.

He has a ton less psychological things to deal with. He can play all out at full blast cause he got masseuse, days off, diet control, better weight trainers. His muscle explosion would be better because of stretching excercises. Gyms have temperature control and even floors. Balls are uniform and new... .

His biggest problem would be his getting up to play another good center (Wilt was rarely outplayed in center duties). He would be saving his energy for DH who would only have a quickness advantage.

Wilt would be much better than he was then. He wouldn't average 50ppg but he would still be almost nondescript. And fully capable of 34 and 17 with 6 blocks over a 7 year prime. And 32 and 17 with 5 blocks on a contender. His size, height, skill, athleticism, speed, long legs, scoring mentality and know how, determination on the boards, good timing would still be the best among centers by a huge gap. DH would be the only one close and its only in the athleticism department where he would be close in those categories.

Excellent post...as always.

:cheers:

[Sarcastic]

the pumpfake, dropstep, and spinmove were not common moves back then..

you put prime hakeem in there, dont matter how big or strong the dudes are, he's shaking em out of their shoes.

i say he averages wiltesque scoring, but less rebounding, definitely more blocks because he'd be chasin people down left and right, but i dont think he ever tries to lead the league in assists.

Well how would Hakeem know how to do them if he played in that era, unless you are presupposing a time machine?

[jlauber]

who cares? my point was that it is stupid to just make the conclusion of wilt being better than hakeem, beacause a less good (old) version of kareem, dominated a rookie hakeem, while the better and younger version of kareem did not dominate a old wilt.
Considering that we are talking about 3 decades of (developing) Basketball and that hakeem was not the player he was gonna be, this is a extremely superficial argument and you present it as a ice cold fact to determined who was the best player.
Only a mentally challenged person would do that. Don't point the finger at me.



what do you want me to accept? the fact alone of wilt dominating a rookie kareem is enough to rate him higher than Hakeem AND Kareem?
screw that. that makes zero sense to me. those stats are inflated and any person using them to compare them to anything in 6 decades of nba basketball is just straight stupid.
Congratulation for joining that club.

Yea does are Hard stats and data when you consider the circumstances which you and jlauber clearly don't. You compare them 1 to 1 with any year of nba history and you dare to call me a moron? :applause:

And don't be a fool. You're not smiling at all. You're angry of the fact that you and Jlauber are the minority that puts wilt so high.
Also nice job ignoring my whole post and just quoting the last part.
Any of my points is more valid than just copy and past inflated stats to make your guy look better and especially more valid to what you contribute. which is nothing.
Destroying? haha get real.

What a moronic post. Kareem was the "bridge." If there was ever a VALID comparison, it would be the Wilt-Kareem, then Hakeem-Wilt H2H's. Did Kareem's game improve in his 20 years? Prove it. He was more dominant in his 71 and 72 seasons than at any other point in his career. In fact, he had some other seasons AFTER that that were considerably WORSE than what he had in the 80's. So, you can't have it both ways. He was dominant early in his career, leveled off in his physical prime, and then, while being a very good center in the 80's was nowhere near as dominant. As mentioned earlier, Moses pounded him in their post-season H2H's.

Furthermore, and as I have stated MANY times...Kareem played IN the Wilt-era for FOUR years. If his competition was so weak back then, how come he couldn't come CLOSE to the numbers that a PRIME Wilt put up? How come Wilt, in the 68-69 season, and considerably past his prime, could hang TWO 60+ point games (in a league that only averaged 112 ppg), and against two centers that Kareem would face the very next year...and yet, where are Kareem's 60+ point games? Don't bother looking them up...you won't find ANY. And how come Wilt could put up TWO 30-30 (of his 103 BTW) in the 71-72 season, including a 31-32 game against 6-11 HOFer Bob Lanier...and yet Kareem only had ONE in his ENTIRE 20 year career? And, here again, Kareem played FOUR years in the Wilt era.

Furthermore, in Wilt's LAST post-season, he averaged 22.5 rpg over the course of 17 playoff games. Kareem never came close to those numbers in his entire post-season career (and that was among Wilt's WORST post-seasons.) In fact, Kareem's HIGH post-season was 18.2 (and Wilt, as usual outrebounded him H2H in that one.) BTW, Kareem's 17.7 rpg in the '77 post-season was the next highest post-season since Wilt's LAST post-season of 22.5 rpg.

And, one more damned time..."inflated stats?" What the hell does that REALLY mean? Wilt's 50.4 ppg season would translate into a 42 ppg season in 2011. Just use basic math you idiot. In 2011 the NBA averaged 99.6 ppg. In Wilt's '62 season, the NBA averaged 118.8 ppg. 2011 was at 83% of 1962.

Of course there is no way of PROVING what a PRIME Chamberlain would REALLY average in 2011. What we do KNOW though, is that a PRIME Chamberlain was FAR more dominant against MANY of the SAME centers that Kareem faced. And we KNOW that an OLD Wilt battled a PRIME Kareem to a statistical draw in their TEN H2H games in the '71 season. And we KNOW that an OLD Kareem carpet-bombed a young 23 year old Hakeem in his second season...at the same age that Kareem was in his statistical PRIME. Hakeem went on to be among the best centers in the 90's, and even gave a young Shaq all he could handle in '95. And we KNOW that Shaq just abused the NBA from '95 thru '05.

Now, you tell me just what a 7-2 Wilt (and 7-3 in shoes), with a 7-8 wingspan, and at a massively strong 280-300 lbs, and with a high-jump that WON a Big-7 title in college, and with a sprinter' speed that enabled him to run with KU's 4x100 team, and with solid range of up to 15 ft., and with a myriad of post moves...do in a 2011 NBA in which the only decent center is a 6-10 Howard, who would be much shorter, not nearly as long, no more athletic, and not nearly as strong, and with less skills?

[jlauber]

Well how would Hakeem know how to do them if he played in that era, unless you are presupposing a time machine?

Once again, these posters provide NOTHING, except their OPINIONS. They just ASSUME that ANY player from today would crush the players of the 60's...despite the FACT that there has never been a season in which anyone could claim that THAT is when the NBA became what it is today.

You can take any particular season, say 1980, and make a moronic claim that THAT is when the NBA became what we see today. And yet, take a look at the best players in the year before (1979.) You will see players who dominated the better players in 1980. Once again, you can do that with ANY season.

True, there has been a very SLOW and SMALL progression since 1960, but it has been minimal. These idiotic posters who claim that the players of the 60's couldn't dribble with their left hand (which is complete nonsense BTW), ignore the FACT that Earl Monroe was a spectacular dribbler, as was Pisto Pete in the 60's at LSU. Yet, neither were considered among the very best guards of their era (West, Oscar, Bing, Sam Jones, and Greer.)

Connie Hawkins and Gus Johnson were doing sensational dunks in the 60's (Johnson smashed THREE backboards BTW), and yet, neither were considered anywhere near the players that Baylor, Lucas, and Barry were.

And of course, even in the early 70's we had players like Archibald, Dr. J, David Thompson, and McAdoo. All of whom had as much SKILL and ATHLETICISM as anyone playing TODAY.

[jlauber]

First of all, Kareem still wasn't in his prime in '83. His prime ended after around '80 or '81. In '83, he was already 36, and on the other hand, Moses was 27-28 and in his prime. Second, like already mentioned, Kareem's defensive weakness was against big players who played a physical offensive game, with Moses being among the GOAT at this. I'd actually say Moses was THE toughest offensive opponent of Kareem ever.
Obviously, comparisons like this are not 100% linear, but you can't claim there's not any kind of relationship, either.

Regarding Kareem vs Hakeem, I'm not into the 39 y.o Kareem being better than 23 y.o Hakeem stuff (mainly due to Hakeem's defensive and rebounding advantage being more crucial than Kareem's passing and FG% ones), but you have to admit he did a job that's just not possible for almost any 39 y.o to do. Hakeem averaged an excellent 30.6/11.2 on Kareem in the '86 playoffs, while Kareem averaged a great 27.0/6.8 and Hakeem is still considered as having performed supremely, despite this. Imagine 2002 Jordan (same age with '86 Kareem) going head to head in a playoff series with an entering his prime Kobe and still hang 27.0 ppg on him vs Kobe's 30.6? Nobody in his right mind would be talking about a crashing victory for Kobe, even if he had better all-around stats. For me, the fact that the Rockets beat the Lakers is far more impressive than Hakeem managing to outplay a 39 y.o Kareem. Heck, the fact alone that he wasn't expected to outplay him like this is impressive, although this was to somewhat be expected, after Kareem gave the Rockets 33.0/7.6/3.2 during the regular season, so "only" managing 27.0 ppg in the playoffs was considered underperforming, lol.

Here's the thing...we KNOW that Hakeem TRIED to guard the 38 year old Kareem in that '86 season (and in at least one 40 point game in '85.) The results...a season of 33 ppg on a mind-boggling .634 FG%. Included was that 46 point game, on 21-30 shooting (70% for the uneducated here), and in only 37 minutes.

I mentioned it previously in this topic, but let's get real here. How many players have even played to the age of 38 in their careers? And, of those, how many were even close to where they were at at age 23? Kareem and Hakeem certainly weren't. Kareem was among the best players in the game at age 38 (he finished 5th in the MVP balloting)...but that was a FAR cry from his PEAK seasons...of which he had MANY. His numbers PALED in comparison to his best seasons, too, especially when league averages are included. And it was a given that Kareem was nowhere NEAR at his PHYSICAL peak.

Kareem at age 38? 23.4 ppg, 6.1 rpg, and .564 shooting. And he was nowhere to be found on the all-defensive teams. Career HIGH's? 34.8 ppg, 16.9 rpg, and .604 shooting. He also had several first and second all-defensive seasons in his career. There is simply no comparison.

Hakeem at 38 was just a SHELL. Hakeem at age 23? He was not at his peak, BUT, consider this... the man averaged 23.5 ppg, 11.5 rpg, and shot .526 from the field. Not only that, but in his very next season, he was voted first-team all-defense. His career HIGH's? 27.8 ppg, 14.0 rpg, and .534 FG%(which, BTW, occurred in his ROOKIE season.)

I find it AMAZING that a 38 year old could so thoroughly outplay a 23 year old. BTW, and one more time...Hakeem in '86, averaged 23.5 ppg on .526 shooting over the course of the entire season. Kareem, in that same season, averaged 23.4 ppg on .564 shooting.

And, THAT is the real issue. Kareem at age 38 was, at worst, very near the equal of a 23 year old Hakeem (and he hammered him in the regular season.) BUT, just what a more PRIME Kareem have done?

[Dizzle-2k7]

Well how would Hakeem know how to do them if he played in that era, unless you are presupposing a time machine?

the topic says PRIME HAKEEM ..

so yes this is assuming we had a time machine.

now what ya gotta say , jlauber?

*crickets crickets*

[jlauber]

the topic says PRIME HAKEEM ..

so yes this is assuming we had a time machine.

now what ya gotta say , jlauber?

*crickets crickets*

A PRIME Hakeem was not much better than a 23 year old Hakeem. Of course, there will be those that use his 13 games in the '94 and '95 playoffs as some kind of sample size (his seven games against Ewing in the '94 Finals, and his six games against Robinson in the '95 playoffs.) Yet, they will ignore the fact that in his other 1238 regular season games, and his other 132 playoff games, he was just a very good player. You want a REAL sample size? How about an 18 SEASON career, in which he NEVER led the NBA in scoring, nor in FG%. He led the NBA in rebounding, TWICE, and in blocked shots, THREE times. What does THAT tell you? He simply COULDN'T lead the NBA in scoring, nor in efficiency from the floor. He was, at his peak, a very good rebounder, and nothing more. In fact, when he was paired with Barkley in '97, Barkley outrebounded him by FOUR per game.

Now, if a PRIME Kareem was putting up 35 ppg seasons and on .574 shooting, I suspect that he would have been over 40 ppg, but on a considerably lower FG% in the early 60's. BUT, Hakeem was NEVER even CLOSE to the scorer, or shooter, that a PRIME Kareem was. So, I just don't see Hakeem putting up anything more than 30-33 ppg, and on 46-47% shooting, in the early 60's. Certainly very good numbers, BUT, obviously they would have PALED in comparison to Wilt's seasons (year-after-year.)

[TMacsOneGoodEye]

Prime Olajuwon would feast on them dudes. He was something else.

[millwad]

A PRIME Hakeem was not much better than a 23 year old Hakeem.


Which only shows you have no idea what you're talking about, jackass. Prime Hakeem was by far better than 23 year old Hakeem, is your head full of crap, seriously?:facepalm

[millwad]

Once again...Dickwad the dumb...

First of all...I "SPAM Swede like crazy"? What a complete moron. Please provide ALL of those "spammed posts" of mine. The ONLY time I bring up Holbrook is when idiots, like yourself, claim that Wilt didn't face tall players. BUT, once again, please find ALL of the MANY times that I have brought up my "beloved big guy."


At least 20 times I've seen you spam about Swede, what a moron:facepalm..




OK, let's get back to the REAL question...who were the players that Wilt ROUTINELY faced in his career?

Kareem Abdul Jabbar: 7'2" - GOAT CENTER
Dennis Awtrey: 6'11" - He was 6'10 and he was a scrub
Walt Bellamy: 6'11" - Baller
Tom Boerwinkle: 7'0" - scrub
Nate Bowman: 6'11" - He was 6'10 and he was a scrub
Mel Counts: 7'0" - Scrub
Walter Dukes: 7'0" - Scrub
Jim Eakins: 6'11" - You idiot, he never played against Wilt, he was in the ABA
Ray Felix: 6'11" - Scrub
Hank Finkel: 7'0" - Scrub
Artis Gilmore: 7'2" - What a jerk you are, Jlauber, he came to NBA in '76
Swede Halbrook: 7'3" - SCRUUUUUB
Reggie Harding: 7'0" - Scrub
Bob Lanier: 6'11" - Barely faced Wilt
Jim McDaniels: 6'11" - Scrib
Otto Moore: 6'11" - Scrub
Dave Newmark: 7'0" - Scrub
Rich Niemann: 7'0" - Scrub
Billy Paultz: 6'11" - You ass, he came to the NBA in '76
Craig Raymond: 6'11" - Played 27 games in the NBA:facepalm.. SCRUB
Elmore Smith: 7'0" - Barely faced Wilt, diff. conference and only for 2 years
Jim Fox: 6-11" - Scrub
Chuck Share: 6'11" - Scrub for one year when Wilt came, then retired
Ronald Taylor: 7'1" - You ass, he never played in the NBA
Nate Thurmond: 6'11" - Baller
Walt Wesley: 6'11" - 1 good year, scrub rest of it


Fixed, and I liked that you namedropped players Wilt never faced as well, "routinely" my ass... You are pathetic.

[millwad]

Can anyone tell me why Jlauber still spams about rookie and 2nd year pro Olajuwon when the title says "PRIME HAKEEM"? And still he puts up pure lies, he won't ever tell you that Olajuwon absolutely demolished the Laker bigs in the playoffs of '86.. It was brutal, 2nd year pro crushing the world champs big man..:applause: And still that was Olajuwon being no where close to his prime..

[jlauber]

Can anyone tell me why Jlauber still spams about rookie and 2nd year pro Olajuwon when the title says "PRIME HAKEEM"? And still he puts up pure lies, he won't ever tell you that Olajuwon absolutely demolished the Laker bigs in the playoffs of '86.. It was brutal, 2nd year pro crushing the world champs big man..:applause: And still that was Olajuwon being no where close to his prime..

Yep... a 23 year old Olajuwon, who got his clocked cleaned in the regular season by a 38 year old Kareem to the extent that his coach finally had to concede that Hakeem couldn't guard Kareem in the playoffs (although he did have to help)...and then outscored by him 31-27 in that series.

Here again, a 23 year old Kareem would have been hanging 50 a night on him.

And Hakeem "nowhere near his prime?" Wow he dramatically improved in his prime. Let's take a closer look shall we? Most would probably consider Hakeem's prime his 93-94 season, when, in a league in which MJ did not play, he won his ONLY MVP. In that season he averaged 27.3 ppg, 11.9 rpg, 3.6 apg, 3.7 bpg, and shot .528 (BTW, he only shot .517 the very next season, when he averaged a career high 27.8 ppg.) All in a career high 41 mpg.

How about the Hakeem that was "nowhere near his prime" in '86? In his 36.3 mpg, he 23.5 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 2.0 apg, 3.4 bpg, and a .526 FG%.

So, he was able to score 3.8 ppg more, grab 0.4 rpg more, hand out 1.6 apg more, block 0.3 bpg more, and shoot .002 better. In 5 mpg more per game. Wow!

Now, just for the sake of argument, how about that 38 year old Kareem. He could only go 33 mpg, and obviously he was nearing the end. He averaged 23.4 ppg, 6.1 rpg (yes, 6.1 rpg), 3.5 apg, 1.6 bpg, and shot .564.

Before I get to Kareem's best regular season, we will use his '71 season first (which I consider his second best regular season ever, and overall, his best if you include the post-season.) 40.1 mpg, 31.7 ppg, 16.0 rpg, 3.3 apg, and .577 FG% (in a league that shot .449.)

Here was his 71-72 regular season numbers: 44.2 mpg, 34.8 ppg, 16.6 rpg, 4.6 apg, and .574 shooting. BTW, bpg were not officially kept until the 73-74 season.

So, let's compare shall we? Kareem averaged 11.4 ppg more, 10.5 rpg more, 1.1 apg more, and shot .010 better (in a league that shot .455 instead of .487 in '86.) And that does not include his defense, which was WAY better in the 70's.

I would say that Kareem in '72 was a FAR greater player than a Kareem in '86.

[-23-]

A PRIME Hakeem was not much better than a 23 year old Hakeem. Of course, there will be those that use his 13 games in the '94 and '95 playoffs as some kind of sample size (his seven games against Ewing in the '94 Finals, and his six games against Robinson in the '95 playoffs.) Yet, they will ignore the fact that in his other 1238 regular season games, and his other 132 playoff games, he was just a very good player. You want a REAL sample size? How about an 18 SEASON career, in which he NEVER led the NBA in scoring, nor in FG%. He led the NBA in rebounding, TWICE, and in blocked shots, THREE times. What does THAT tell you? He simply COULDN'T lead the NBA in scoring, nor in efficiency from the floor. He was, at his peak, a very good rebounder, and nothing more. In fact, when he was paired with Barkley in '97, Barkley outrebounded him by FOUR per game.

Now, if a PRIME Kareem was putting up 35 ppg seasons and on .574 shooting, I suspect that he would have been over 40 ppg, but on a considerably lower FG% in the early 60's. BUT, Hakeem was NEVER even CLOSE to the scorer, or shooter, that a PRIME Kareem was. So, I just don't see Hakeem putting up anything more than 30-33 ppg, and on 46-47% shooting, in the early 60's. Certainly very good numbers, BUT, obviously they would have PALED in comparison to Wilt's seasons (year-after-year.)

A prime Hakeem is MUCH better than a 23 year old Hakeem. I've followed Hakeem since 84'. :no:

[jlauber]

A prime Hakeem is MUCH better than a 23 year old Hakeem. I've followed Hakeem since 84'. :no:

The NUMBERS clearly do NOT show a MUCH better Hakeem in '94 than in '86. Stats aren't everything, but even in his very next season, in '87, he was first team all-defense.

BTW, a PRIME Hakeem couldn't lead the league in scoring (and was considerably behind the leader.) And he was MILES behind the leaders in FG% and rebounding. How come?

Yet, a PRIME Kareem just BLOWS AWAY the same 38 year old Abdul Jabbar that was scoring 33 ppg on .634 shooting against Hakeem in their FIVE H2H's in the '86 regular season (and then another 27 ppg, with two 30+ games in their five playoff games.)

[Fazotronic]

im going to show you exactly were your logic fails.


What a moronic post. Kareem was the "bridge." If there was ever a VALID comparison, it would be the Wilt-Kareem, then Hakeem-Wilt H2H's. Did Kareem's game improve in his 20 years? Prove it. He was more dominant in his 71 and 72 seasons than at any other point in his career. In fact, he had some other seasons AFTER that that were considerably WORSE than what he had in the 80's. So, you can't have it both ways. He was dominant early in his career, leveled off in his physical prime, and then, while being a very good center in the 80's was nowhere near as dominant. As mentioned earlier, Moses pounded him in their post-season H2H's.


ther you have it. can't you see it? i said like a thousend times that big athletic guys had it easier in the 50s/60s.
You said it yourself that kareem was more dominant in his first seasons.
Why is that? beacause he was better? thats your logic but i say no. beacause the competition was weaker. Your claim just proves my point.


And, one more damned time..."inflated stats?" What the hell does that REALLY mean? Wilt's 50.4 ppg season would translate into a 42 ppg season in 2011. Just use basic math you idiot. In 2011 the NBA averaged 99.6 ppg. In Wilt's '62 season, the NBA averaged 118.8 ppg. 2011 was at 83% of 1962.

thats exaclty the reason why you make no sense at all.
oh today the nba averages 99.6. back than 118.8. just do the simple math right?
WRONG. what about the competition? what about the overall talente? what about the globel interest of basketball? what about the millions and millions of ppl that didn't even knew about basketball back than? all those ppl wilt didn't have to worry about beacause they never even heard of the nba let alone playing against them.
You just completly ignore all of these and go like "oh so if wilt puts that many points in this era, ill just do the math with todays league averages and get a clear view of how wilt would do today."
Why even bother thinking that wilt maybe would have much more trouble averaging those numbers considering that ALL his opponents would be almost as big as he was and stuff like that.
It makes me crazy to read the shit you come up with and think its just logical. No its NOT!


Now, you tell me just what a 7-2 Wilt (and 7-3 in shoes), with a 7-8 wingspan, and at a massively strong 280-300 lbs, and with a high-jump that WON a Big-7 title in college, and with a sprinter' speed that enabled him to run with KU's 4x100 team, and with solid range of up to 15 ft., and with a myriad of post moves...do in a 2011 NBA in which the only decent center is a 6-10 Howard, who would be much shorter, not nearly as long, no more athletic, and not nearly as strong, and with less skills?

and now your are just twisting shit again. it was always about wilt and hakeem. and i will tell you that i truly belevie hakeem would have the much better skillset and career.

[millwad]

The NUMBERS clearly do NOT show a MUCH better Hakeem in '94 than in '86. Stats aren't everything, but even in his very next season, in '87, he was first team all-defense.

BTW, a PRIME Hakeem couldn't lead the league in scoring (and was considerably behind the leader.) And he was MILES behind the leaders in FG% and rebounding. How come?

Yet, a PRIME Kareem just BLOWS AWAY the same 38 year old Abdul Jabbar that was scoring 33 ppg on .634 shooting against Hakeem in their FIVE H2H's in the '86 regular season (and then another 27 ppg, with two 30+ games in their five playoff games.)

You are just retarded, you show it time after time.
The problem is that you never saw him play, basketball-reference is the only way you know about him. Instead of posting this crap, go and watch the '86 series vs the Lakers, it's on youtube. When you're done with that, go and watch the 94 and 95 playoffs and then you'll shut up. Almost everyone on ISH ranks Hakeem's runs higher than Wilt and especially Wilt's second one..:facepalm

You are so stupid that you think he was just as good in '86 as he was from 93-95 which only proves you stupidity.. The same Kareem and his beloved Lakers big got their ass kicked by Olajuwon in the playoffs still and it wasn't close, Olajuwon killed the Lakers and Jabbar in the WCF and it's not even close. Jabbar killing Olajuwon is a joke considering that Olajuwon the same season abused him and his team in the playoffs.

And prime Hakeem not leading the league in scoring is just a terrible argument, in 1994 he had the third highest PPG average and in 1995 he was the 4th best scorer and the same season he crushed Robinson who was the MVP that year and Robinson was the league's 2nd best scorer that season and in the finals he outplayed Shaq who had the highest scoring average.

And Hakeem still has the highest ppg average in the playoffs for any center of all-time, not Wilt. And Hakeem scored way more than what Wilt did during his runs, in fact, in 1995 Hakeem scored twice as many points per game as an average than what Wilt did during his 2nd run.. Haha.

And by the way, Wilt didn't win crap when he had his high scoring season's and when he finally won in '67 he had the leagues 5th best scoring average and in '72 when he won the 2nd time haha, he averaged 14 points per game..:facepalm

[jlauber]

im going to show you exactly were your logic fails.



ther you have it. can't you see it? i said like a thousend times that big athletic guys had it easier in the 50s/60s.
You said it yourself that kareem was more dominant in his first seasons.
Why is that? beacause he was better? thats your logic but i say no. beacause the competition was weaker. Your claim just proves my point.



thats exaclty the reason why you make no sense at all.
oh today the nba averages 99.6. back than 118.8. just do the simple math right?
WRONG. what about the competition? what about the overall talente? what about the globel interest of basketball? what about the millions and millions of ppl that didn't even knew about basketball back than? all those ppl wilt didn't have to worry about beacause they never even heard of the nba let alone playing against them.
You just completly ignore all of these and go like "oh so if wilt puts that many points in this era, ill just do the math with todays league averages and get a clear view of how wilt would do today."
Why even bother thinking that wilt maybe would have much more trouble averaging those numbers considering that ALL his opponents would be almost as big as he was and stuff like that.
It makes me crazy to read the shit you come up with and think its just logical. No its NOT!



and now your are just twisting shit again. it was always about wilt and hakeem. and i will tell you that i truly belevie hakeem would have the much better skillset and career.

Your arguments are flawed on so many levels.

First of all, basketball was not invented in the 1960's. It was invented in the 1890's. Collleges were playing it in the 1890's, and there were PRO leagues in the 1920's. And aside from the 24 sec shot clock in the mid-50's, and the 3 pt shot in the late 70's, the game has changed very little. Yes, there have been minor tweaks, like the widening of the lane, offensive and defensive goal-tending, etc, but overall, the game is very much the SAME as it was in the early 1900's.

So, when idiots like yourself claim that Wilt's stats were "inflated", they never back up their arguments, except with "pace" and "competition." True, the pace was SLIGHTLY higher in the early 60's, but by even as late as 1968-69, it was already down to 112.3 ppg. But once again, even today's game is played at only 83% of the NBA's peak scoring in 61-62. MJ's and Hakeem's 86-87 season was at 92.5% of Wilt's highest scoring season.

I have shredded these "pace" arguments MANY times here before. Using Wilt's 61-62 season, and transferring it to ANY other season, and it STILL blows away ANY other season. For instance, if youy reduce Wilt's FGAs and FTA's down to MJ's levels in '87, Wilt would have scored 42 ppg. And that is BEFORE adjusting for LEAGUE AVERAGE FG%. In Chamberlain's 61-62 season, the NBA shot .426. In MJ's 86-87 season, the NBA shot .480. AFTER adjusting for the differences in FG%, Wilt's NUMBERS rise to about 46 ppg.

Competition? Using your logic, that there are more people in the world today, and therefore today's talent levels are at their highest, then we have to dismiss EVERY season before 2011. Your beloved Hakeem hasn't played a decnet game in over ten years, and he was a shell at that time. MJ hasn't played a meaningful game since 1998. Furthermore, were those two in their PRIMES in those years?

Furthermore, give a season in which YOU believe that the NBA became what we see today? I can GUARANTEE you that I will find other players who were more dominant just the season before ANY season you select. I get so sick-and-tired of these assertions. Even MJ, in the late 80's wasn't winning MVPs, and players like Magic and Bird in the mid-80's were BETTER. Go back to 1980, and then take the '79 season. Players like Moses, Dr. J, Kareem, McAdoo, and Unseld were just as dominant than those in 1980 (including some of the same players.)

Which brings up another point, when does a player PEAK? According to your reasoning, it looks like Kareem PEAKED in 1986, and at age 38. You are claiming that his 70-71 and 71-72 seasons were achieved in "weak" eras. Ok, then what happened in 74-75 and 75-76, when his FG%'s dropped dramatically down to .513 and .529? Was the "competition" better in those two years. Then there was his 78-79 season, when he averaged 23.8 ppg and on .577 shooting. A year later he averaged 24.8 ppg on .604 shooting. Then it went to 26.2 ppg on .574 shooting in 80-81. Hmmm, a roller coaster ride. Of course, his rebounding declined almost every season since his high in 75-76, at 16.9, down to his 6.1 rpg in 85-86. And then he REALLY dropped off in scoring, rebounding, and FG%. Of course, he was 39 thru 41 in those three years.

BUT, here again, it appears that you are claiming that the Kareem who just SHELLED Hakeem in that 85-86 was at his PEAK. If not, then give me the year in which it was at his peak. Obviously, you claim that it couldn't have been in 70-71 and 71-72, despite the fact that he dominated the NBA in those two seasons FAR more than he did in ANY other year of his career.

In any case, if you believe that Kareem at 38 was at his peak, then he sure dropped off in the course of ONE year, and just a couple of years later he was a complete shell.

And, using your logic, when was Hakeem's peak? His NUMBERS were hardly different in that 85-86 season, than they were in 93-94. Oh, and BTW, Hakeem was 31 in that 93-94 season. So, if Kareem was at his PEAK at age 38, what happened to Hakeem at age 38? 11.9 ppg, 7.4 rpg, and .498. Oh, I know...the league was more talented in that 2000-2001 season, That would also explain why MJ's NUMBERS were so much lower in that season than what he had in the 80's and 90's.

And according to you, a player gets better every year until they turn 38. Of course, there are other's that simply believe that a player gets better every year until they peak, and then they decline every year after that. Obviously BOTH arguments are extremely flawed.

How about Rick Barry? In his 66-67 season, he averaged 35.6 ppg on .451 shooting. His NBA NUMBERS declined again until, all of sudden, in 74-75, he averaged 30.6 ppg on .464 shooting. Interesting, while Barry had one of hios greatest seasons in that 74-75 season, as did Bob McAdoo, Kareem merely had a very good season with 30.0 ppg on a career LOW .513 shooting. Why was the "competition" so much weaker for Barry and McAdoo (who averaged a staggering 34.5 ppg in the 75-76 season, in a league that only averaged 102.6 ppg), and yet so much more difficult for Kareem?

The REALITY is, almost ALL players have peaks and valleys throughout their careers, and it occurs in ALL sports. And you are right, some players peak late in their careers, and some decline rapidly in their's. Some peak in one year, decline a few years, and then suddenly peak again. And how do we KNOW that? Their NUMBERS.

How about Sandy Koufax. He was an average pitcher, at best, in the first half of his career. Then, all of a sudden, he exploded. And, a case could be made that he was at his PEAK in his LAST season, and at age 30. 27-9 with a 1.73 ERA. Now you tell me, was his "competition" getting WEAKER each year he was in the league.

And how about Ted Williams? In his 1941 season, and only his third year in the league at age 22, he batted .406 (the last time anyone ever hit .400) with 37 HRs. Ok, while he had many exceptional seasons after that, his numbers were nowhere that 1941 season. In 1950, and at age 31, and three years after integration, he was down to .317 with 28 HRs. Obviously, his numbers were "inflated " in that 1941 season because it was "pre-integration" right? Ok, then what happened in 1957? All of a sudden, and at age 38, he batted .388 with 38 HRs. Oh, wait, he was age 38, same as Kareem in 85-86. HOWEVER, there was a major difference between Kareem, at age 38, and Williams, at 38. Williams nearly matched his greatest seasonal NUMBERS, at age 38, as he did at age 22. Kareem's NUMBERS, at age 38, were NOWHERE NEAR what they were at age 23 or 24.

How about Willie Mays? In 1955, at age 24, he slugged 51 HRs on a .319 average. By 1960, at age 29, he was batting .319, but with only 29 HRs. Obviously he was slowing down. Oh wait, what happened in 1965, when, at age 34, he batted .317 with 52 HRs? Not only that, but his 13 HR differential over the nest highest ML batter was the largest since the Ruth era, and in fact, is STILL the largest differential. How is that possible? How can a player have TWO peaks?

OJ Simpson was so bad in his first four years of his career, that his coach was about to convert him to a wide receiver. Fortunately for him, his new coach in 1972 decided to build an OL around him, and he exploded for a 1200 yard season. His 1973 season may very well have been the greatest by a RB in NFL history, when he rushed for 2003 yards. In fact, considering that the Bills QB play was arguably the WORST in NFL history, and that opposing defenses geared up exclusively for him, it was even more staggering. However, he could "only" rush for 1000 yards the very next season. Obviously, his peak was over right? Oh, wait, in 1975 he rushed for 1817 yards, and added another 426 in receiving. It was perhaps an even greater season than his '73 season. In any case, what happened in 1974? Was his "competition" greater in '74 than in '73 and '75?

To be continued...

[jlauber]

Continuing...

Furthermore, how do we explain players like Roger Maris in 1961, or Denny McLain in 1968? Maris came out of nowhere to hit 61 HRs, and while McLain went from a good pitcher, to having an "immortal" season in 1968? And, as quickly as both exploded into greatness, they fell back down to earth, and were basically washed up within a couple of seasons.

Of course, using YOUR logic, ANY time a player has a truly "immortal" season, it must be attributed to "weaker" competition, right?

Kareem's 70-71 and 71-72 seasons were two of those staggering seasons. BUT, according to you, they were accomplished because of "weak " competition. Let's take a closer look at that 71-72 season, shall we? Kareem faced centers like Cowens, Hayes, Lanier, Bellamy, Reed, Thurmond, Unseld, and an old washed up Chamberlain...ALL in the HOF (and in only a 17 team league.) But, none of those guys would be any good in today's era, right?

And yet, Kareem in 85-86, at age 38, and with dramatically reduced physical skills, was at his PEAK? If he was, he STILL CRUSHED Hakeem. Here again, we KNOW that Kareem averaged 33 ppg on just an eye-popping .634 FG%. He even hung a 46 point game, on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes on Hakeem (and that was just one of THREE 40+ point games that Kareem carpet-bombed Hakeem with BTW.)

Of course, you and Dickwad argue that Hakeem was "nowhere near" his peak in 85-86, despite the FACT that his NUMBERS in 85-86 were only SLIGHTLY lower than in his 93-94 season.

So, when Kareem's NUMBERS drop DRAMATICALLY from his PEAK NUMBERS of 71-72 down to merely exceptional NUMBERS in his 85-86 season, according to you, it was not because Kareem was 38 in 85-86, but because his "competition" was tougher in '86 (even though he didn't face nearly the same number of HOF centers in '86.)

AND, somehow we are supposed to then believe that Hakeem's PEAK came in 93-94, even though his NUMBERS were only SLIGHTLY better than in '86...and in a league with even LESS HOF centers.

Which brings me back to Wilt's "inflated" numbers. BEFORE Wilt came into the NBA, the NBA scoring record was 29.2 ppg, and the FG% mark was .490. In Wilt's 14 seasons, he SHATTERED the RECORD BOOK. 45 and 50 ppg seasons. 27 and 27.2 rpg seasons. .683 and .727 FG% seasons.

Not only that, but it was ONLY Wilt. too. Take Chamberlain out of those 14 years, and Barry's 35.6 ppg season in '67 and little known Johnny Green's .587 FG% in 70-71 were the highs. Wilt was LIGHT YEARS ahead of his "competition"...which included players like Bellamy, Reed, Hayes, Unseld, Embry, Lovellette, Schayes, Pettit, Cowens, Thurmond, Lanier, Russell,...and Kareem. ALL in the HOF. And...ONLY Wilt. Why? Was it because those players were "weak" competition?

Of course, Kareem could only shoot .464 against Wilt in their 28 H2H games (27 of which came after Wilt turned 34 and on a surgically repaired knee.) Kareem didn't even shoot 45% against Nate Thurmond, either, in some 50 H2H games. And, Kareem's HIGH game against Thurmond was only 34 points. BTW, Wilt not only had SEVERAL 30+ point games against Thurmond in their few H2H games in Chamberlain's "scoring seasons" he even had one game in which he battered Thurmond 45-13. He also had 20 ppp seasons on .562 shooting against Thurmond's Warriors, and overall he had THREE post-seasons of .500, .550, and .560 against him. Meanwhile, in Kareem's three post-seasons against Thurmond, he only shot .486, .428, and a horrid .405.

And how about Wilt hanging THREE games of 50+ on HOFer Reed, including a high game of 58 points? Or Chamberlain pounding 6-11 HOFer Walt Bellamy with THREE games of 60+, including a 73 point game??!!

Kareem faced Thurmond, Reed, and Bellamy, and yet, he never came CLOSE to dominating those three in the OVERWHELMING fashion that a PRIME Wilt did.

My god, in Wilt's 68-69 season, in a league that averaged 112 ppg, and in a season in which he only averaged 14 FGAs per game, he STILL hung TWO 60+ point games (Including the most efficient 60+ game in NBA history, when he scored 66 points on 29-35 shooting)? What is the significance of those two games? Kareem came in the league the very next season (69-70), and faced BOTH of those SAME centers...and yet, he never came CLOSE to putting up 60 games on them. In fact, his career high game was only 55 points...in 20 seasons. Wilt had 118 games of 50+, and 32 of 60+...and against MANY of the SAME centers that Kareem faced. How come?

And once again...a 37-38 year old Kareem could MURDER a 22-23 year old Hakeem with THREE games of 40+...AND on just mind-boggling FG%'s. While an OLD Wilt held a PRIME Kareem (yes, Kareem's REAL prime was in the early 70's...and against a HUGE number of HOF centers), to about 100 points BELOW his career FG% (Chamberlain held Kareem to .464 shooting those 28 H2H games, while Kareem shot .559 in his career)...and yet an OLD Kareem could not only score at will against a young Hakeem (and whose PRIME NUMBERS were not significantly better than those in '86) he shot .599 in their 22 H2H games (and in which Kareem was between the ages of 38 thru 41)...or nearly 50 points ABOVE his career FG%. How?

And yet, idiots like you and Dillweed claim that Hakeem was better than Wilt? There is no EVIDENCE to suggest anything NEAR that conclusion.

Of course, using YOUR logic, players like a PRIME MJ (probably late 80's), Hakeem (probably early to mid 90's...although his NUMBERS were hardly better than those of his mid-80's shooting, which was at his peak in his ROOKIE season), Kareem (whose PRIME was OBVIOUSLY in the early 70's), and even Shaq (whose PRIME was late 90's to early 00's) would not be NEARLY as great today, since the league is more talented, right?

[jlauber]

You are just retarded, you show it time after time.
The problem is that you never saw him play, basketball-reference is the only way you know about him. Instead of posting this crap, go and watch the '86 series vs the Lakers, it's on youtube. When you're done with that, go and watch the 94 and 95 playoffs and then you'll shut up. Almost everyone on ISH ranks Hakeem's runs higher than Wilt and especially Wilt's second one..:facepalm

You are so stupid that you think he was just as good in '86 as he was from 93-95 which only proves you stupidity.. The same Kareem and his beloved Lakers big got their ass kicked by Olajuwon in the playoffs still and it wasn't close, Olajuwon killed the Lakers and Jabbar in the WCF and it's not even close. Jabbar killing Olajuwon is a joke considering that Olajuwon the same season abused him and his team in the playoffs.

And prime Hakeem not leading the league in scoring is just a terrible argument, in 1994 he had the third highest PPG average and in 1995 he was the 4th best scorer and the same season he crushed Robinson who was the MVP that year and Robinson was the league's 2nd best scorer that season and in the finals he outplayed Shaq who had the highest scoring average.

And Hakeem still has the highest ppg average in the playoffs for any center of all-time, not Wilt. And Hakeem scored way more than what Wilt did during his runs, in fact, in 1995 Hakeem scored twice as many points per game as an average than what Wilt did during his 2nd run.. Haha.

And by the way, Wilt didn't win crap when he had his high scoring season's and when he finally won in '67 he had the leagues 5th best scoring average and in '72 when he won the 2nd time haha, he averaged 14 points per game..:facepalm

I am getting so tired of constantly making a complete fool out of you, but one more time.

I SAW virtually every big game and series in the NBA since the 1963-64 season, including the televised game of that 85-86 WCF series. And no Hakeem NEVER "owned" Kareem. Hell, he couldn't even guard him. This from a 23 year old Hakeem, whose NUMBERs in his supposed "prime" were only SLIGHTLY better later in his career. And, once again, this from a 38 year old Kareem. It is truly comical that a 38 year old could average 33 ppg and on a shocking .634 FG% against a 23 year old Hakeem, who would not be signficantly better even in his so-called prime. A 38 year old Kareem that so annihilated that 23 year old, that in recap, the Houston coach was chastised for allowing the obliteration. A 46 point game, on a staggering 70% FG%, and in only 37 minutes. The recap even claimed that Kareem probably would have easily eclipsed his career high game of 55 points had he played longer.

And you are so proud of that 23 year old Hakeem outscoring that 38 year old Kareem (who had a bad habit of shrinking in the post-season BTW), by a 31-27 margin, too. If anything, that makes Olajuwon look even WORSE. Once again, what would a PRIME Kareem have SHELLED that Hakeem with? 50-60- and perhaps even 70+ point games?

Hakeem played 18 seasons. Yet, his highest scoring season was 27.8 ppg (and on only a .517 FG%, too.) He NEVER came CLOSE to winning a scoring title. Why? Especially since you claim that Hakeem played with poor rosters. How come players like Kobe could score 35 ppg with crappy rosters, or MJ with a 37 ppg season with poor rosters...or a WILT could score 45 and 50 with PUTRID rosters...and yet Hakeem couldn't even approach 30 ppg? Obviously, he couldn't do it.

As for Wilt not "winning crap" in his "scoring seasons. Hmmm, five of those seven seasons were on WINNING teams. AND, Wilt came into the league with a roster that had been in LAST PLACE before he arrived. In fact, he even LED the NBA in scoring (33.5 ppg) in his 65-66 season, and BTW, his TEAM had the BEST RECORD in the league (and oh, BTW, Wilt also averaged a league leading 24.6 rpg, and a then-record FG% of .540.) First of all, Hakeem NEVER led the NBA in scoring, NOR did he ever lead his team to the BEST RECORD in the league.

And this ridiculous assertion that Hakeem was a better scorer in the post-season. True, he had a higher average. BUT, Chamberlain averaged 33 ppg along with 27 rpg, and on .510 shooting...in leagues that averaged .430 shooting in his first SIX post-seasons...COMBINED! In fact, he averaged 29.3 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg and on .518 shooting in his first EIGHT straight post-seasons...COMBINED! Give me ONE post-season in which Hakeem averaged 29 ppg, 27 rpg, and shot .518.

He also had FOUR post-seasons of 33.2, 34.7, .35.0 and 37.0 ppg. How many 30+ ppg post-seasons did Hakeem have? Not to mention that in those four post-seasons, Wilt averaged 23.0, 25.2, 25.8, and 26.6 rpg.

And Wilt had series of 37, 37 and 38.6 ppg, too. He also had FOUR post-seasons of 30+ against Russell, including one of 30 ppg and 31 rpg.

As for Hakeem's slight edge of .528 to .522 in the playoffs...Hakeem played in leagues that averaged over 47% shooting, while Wilt played in leagues that shot about 44% on average. So, the REALITY was, Wilt was shooting FAR higher against his peers than what Hakeem was against his.

Oh, and did I forget to mention that Wilt faced a starting HOF center in 99 of his 160 post-season games, while Hakeem faced one in 32 of his 145? Or that Hakeem's HIGH playoff scoring and rebounding series came in a four game series in which, as USUAL, his team was eliminated in the FIRST ROUND?

His playoff runs in either 93-94, or 94-95 PALES in comparison to Wilt's OVERWHELMING run in '67 too. Wilt had the Sixers HIGH game, of 41 points (on 19-30 shooting) in that post-season, And he DOMINATED in the clinching wins, unlike Greer, who did not. Of course, Wilt not only CRUSHED Russell and Thurmond, he averaged 21.7 ppg, 29.1 rpg, 9.2 apg, and shot .579 in that post-season. How about Hakeem in '94. He led a favored team over Ewing's less talented Knick team in a seven game series, and on .500 shooting. Then, in the '95 Finals, he was FLAMED by a .595 to .483 shooting margin by a young Shaq. Has any other "great" been so thoroughly outshot in a Finals.

Speaking of Finals...Wilt shot .560 in his SIX Finals, while Hakeem shot .488 in his THREE (covering 17 games.) Hell, his high Finals was an even 50%. How about Wilt? He not only had a career .560 in those 35 Finals games, he had one Finals in which he shot .625 (and on ONE leg), along with 23.2 ppg and 24.1 rpg. Find me a Finals like that Hakeem? You won't.

And I can't help by laugh my ass off at Dickwad claiming that he had poorer teammates. First of all, Wilt's teams were ROUTINELY outgunned by HOFers. In fact, in every post-season but two, covering 13, he faced a team with MORE HOFers, and by large a margin as 8-2. Hakeem seldom faced a team with THREE, and when he did, his team lost. His '94 Rockets were as talented as Ewing's Knicks, and they STILL barely won that series. And then in '95, he had a 2-1 edge in HOFers against Shaq's team.

Of course, Hakeem also never had teammates that collectively shot less than 40%. How about Wilt? He had SIX that shot .382, .380, .354, .352, .352 (on a team that went 55-25 BTW...,while Wilt shot .509 in that post-season), and even .332. How did Wilt get those team's, with teammates shooting that poorly to one Finals, and two ECF's against the HOF-laden Celtics, and then in those two ECF's, they went to game seven's, and with losses by TWO and ONE point?????? Hakeem NEVER had to overcome such OVERWHELMING adversity. And, when he did, he and his TEAMs flopped in the first round.

[jlauber]

Continuing...

And that was the REAL legacy of Hakeem. The only "great" that "led" EIGHT teams (out of 15 playoff seasons) to FIRST ROUND exits (and most all were blowout series too.) He also "led" FOUR higher seeds to series defeats, as well.

Yep...the SAME Hakeem who was so highly regarded that he won ONE MVP (and that was in a year in which the REAL best player took the year off.) The SAME Hakeem who managed ONE other season in which he came in SECOND. The SAME Hakeem who would finish as high as FOURTH, on TWO more occasions. There you have it...in an 18 season career, Hakeem was voted in the Top-FOUR...FOUR measley times. In fact, he didn't even finish in the TOP_10 in HALF of those EIGHTEEN season (NINE times he couldn't crack the Top-10 in his 18 seasons.)

His TEAM success PALES in comparison to Wilt's who not only led SIX teams to the Finals (and against FAR stronger competition), but got his teams to the Conference Finals in TWELVE of them. And, he didn't have the luxury of facing "cannon-fodder" teams in the first rounds that Hakeem so routinely "stats-padded" in (while taking his team down in flames in the process.) Wilt LED FOUR teams to 60+ wins...including two of 68-13 and 69-13. And how did they do in those two overwhelming title seasons? They routed a 60-21 Celtic team that had SIX HOFers. Then in '72 Wilt easily outplayed Kareem (in which EVERYONE who WATCHED that series claimed that he not only outplayed Kareem, but there were those that claimed that he DECISIVELY outplayed him), and then they buried a Knick team that had FIVE HOFers. Give me a list of teams that Hakeem faced in which he beat that had as many as FOUR. Once again, in his title runs, Hakeem had as many HOFers as Ewing, and MORE than Shaq.

So, Wilt, at his PEAK was FAR better scorer in BOTH the regular season, and then again, in the POST-SEASON. He was LIGHT YEARS ahead of Hakeem in rebounding in BOTH. He won NINE FG% titles, and in leagues that shot FAR worse. And in the post-season, he outshot the LEAGUE AVERAGE by a considerably higher differential than Hakeem did. And, one can only imagine what Wilt would have shot had he played in the "defenseless 80's: when entire LEAGUES were shooting nearly 50%, and even 30-52 teams were shooting as high as .504? Had he had the luxury of playing his post-seasons in the 80's...he would have been shooting at FAR greater clips.

Defense? Take a look at the highest Defensive Win-Shares...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/dws_season.html

Wilt just BLOWS Hakeem AWAY.

130+ RECORDS. SEVEN scoring titles (and he averaged 40 ppg over that span COMBINED.) NINE FG% titles (and he had the TWO highest in NBA history...and by a MILE.) And ELEVEN rebounding titles. All in 14 seasons. He had FIVE seasons in which he LED the NBA in BOTH scoring AND rebounding, at the SAME time. He had FOUR seasons in which he LED the NBA in scoring AND FG%, at the SAME time. He had EIGHT seasons in which he LED the NBA in FG% and rebounding, at the SAME time. And he had THREE seasons in which he LED the NBA in scoring, rebounding, AND FG%, at the SAME time! He even LED the NBA in assists one season (as well as rebounding and FG% at the SAME time.)

How about Hakeem? Two rebounding titles (and he barely won those.) He also had seasons in which he finished MILES behind the leader (the 6-8 Rodman had him by FIVE per game one season). And when he was paired with a another very good rebounder, as he was with Barkley in '97, he was outrebounded by the 6-5 Charles, by FOUR per game.

Unlike Wilt, he was a black hole in the post. While Wilt averaged 4.5 apg in his career, and in leagues in which assists were harder to come by, Hakeem came in at 2.5 apg, Wilt had seasons of 8.6 and 7.8..along with a 5.2 apg season in a year in which he averaged 33.5 ppg. Even in the post-season, Wilt CRUSHED Hakeem. In Wilt's dominating playoff runs he was putting up 9.2 apg and 6.5 apg post-seasons...and he even had TWO series in which he averaged aTRIPLE DOUBLE.

And we all know that Wilt was the greatest shot blocker of all-time, and only Russell came close. In Wilt's WORST seasons he was estimated to have blocked around 6 bpg...or better than the all-time record of 5.6 by Mark Eaton (who, BTW, won more block titles than Hakeem, and they played in the same era.) And we KNOW that Wilt recorded 23 blocks in a nationally televised game in '68, which blows away the "official" mark of 17 by Elmore Smith.

Wilt was, quite simply, better at every facet of the game. He even MADE more FTs than Hakeem, and his IMPACT at the line was considerably greater. Scoring, shooting, passing, defense, blocking shots, and rebounding...Chamberlain...and it's not even close.

TEAM success, and CLUTCH play...again, Wilt by a MILE.

MVP voting? Wilt...by a HUGE margin (4-1, and then a whopping edge in overall voting, too.)

Other than all of that...well, maybe Hakeem has a case.

[millwad]

Again pure nonsense copy and paste job from Jlauber without any good or even decent points.. AS USAL.

The funny thing is that you think you think you're owning everyone everytime you write one of those idiot-essays but people only think you're a tool since the text itself is pure garbage.


Come back when you've seen the guy play. You comment on games you even haven't seen, you've made the most ignorant and stupid comments about Hakeem and it's so obvious that you haven't seen the games you comment at all since all you do is writing, "My god, look at this stat".

And still the "crappy" Hakeem won two titles, the same amount of titles Wilt won while dominating way more than what Wilt did during his 2 runs while having way worse supporting casts. I know you're butthurt over the fact that people rank Hakeem's runs over Wilt's but come on, get real, it's just basketball and Wilt played 50 years ago. You didn't even see Wilt play, you were a kid and there's no way you remember 40-50 year old basketball games anyway.

Only really few people rank Wilt's first run over Hakeem's both runs, most of us are sure about the FACT that Hakeem was more dominant during his runs. And don't even get me started on Wilt's 2nd run, getting outscored with 23 points per game by Kareem who also had better FG% and also outassisted Wilt..:facepalm

You're the same idiot who a couple of years ago used to think that the modern era is better in every way there is and suddenly you got butthurt over and insecure and you made a 180 turn. Fact still remains that you changed your mind over some youtube-footage we all saw and some silly quotes which only shows how little of Wilt you'd seen before which takes away your whole credibility.

People, just check Jlauber's previous comments:

[QUOTE]
[B]Originally Posted by jlauber

[Duncan21formvp]

would he be the most dominant player of all time?

Is he going to the Celtics? If so, then probably.