How is Kobe better than Olajuwon in the all time list?

[Fazotronic]

I often read here that ppl rank kobe higher than olajuwon which i disagree with.
yea i know rings matter but i think when we're talking about all time list, you have to consider the man who was most responsible for it.

Playing alongside the most dominant player sure helped him alot.
So you take the 3 away and all of the sudden you're 2vs2. (EDIT: by that i mean as the man. of course you can't take away anyones rings ;).)
In that case i see now way how you could rank him higher than Olajuwon.

I could say the same thing about shaq since he was a ring chaser and had alltime great caliber teammates.
But i can't deny the way he played unlike kobe that takes to much credit for all of his 5 rings.

I don't post often here but im aware that we have alot of kobe fans here so keep in mind that im in noway trying to diss kobe since i like him as a player just like i like all the all time greats. they're all great.

i'am not a native english speaker. pls no grammar police ;)

[EnoughSaid]

He shouldn't be. Hakeem was better in so many parts of the game, and was just dominant.

[Dictator]

Why is every thread about Kobe?

[TheMarkMadsen]

Why is every thread about Kobe?


This.

And how can you just "take away" 3 ring (OP)

Go watch the 2001 WCF & tell me you're still taking rings.

Kobe = the only player ever who's rings don't count.

Lebron gets a lot of un deserved hate, but got damn Kobe is up there.

It used to be he can't win w/o shaq.

Then it was "well he won't do it again"

Then it was "um um um um **** it we just hate Kobe"

[jlauber]

Single-handedly carrying rosters like he did in '06.

Being the best player on the team in two titles, and a valuable contributor in three more (including carrying the Shaq-led teams in the WCF's in two of them.)

Going to SEVEN Finals, and winning in FIVE of them.

Being the most prolific scorer since MJ.

I love Duncan, and I rank him over both Kobe and Hakeem, but in his playoff H2H's, Kobe has been the best player on the floor in the majority of them.

Look, you can argue supporting rosters all you want. Hakeem didn't win a title both Drexler and Barkley, either.

And Kobe has been regarded as the best player of the entire decade of the 00's. No one in their right mind would have selected Hakeem in either the 80's or 90's.

And think about this...Kobe has been voted in the Top-4 in MVP balloting NINE times. Hakeem...FOUR.

[lilblingy]

-both has 1 MVP
-Kobe has 5 rings 2 FMVP(2 of those non-fmvp rings are still very valuable) compared to Hakeems 2 rings and 2 FMVP


While Kobe's peak was not better than Hakeem's, he has managed to find a way to be in the argument for top 1-3 player for the past decade.

Edit- As someone stated in this thread already, its funny how Kobe's 2001 and 2002 rings(i willl leave out 2000) somehow don't count but nobody ever gives Kareem and Magic any probs for playing with each other.

[Bigsmoke]

longevity i guess

Kobe sure isn't better

[Cali Syndicate]

Kobe had the better career however I wouldn't take Kobe over Olajuwan as a franchise player.

[caliman]

So you take the 3 away and all of the sudden you're 2vs2.



That 1 sentence invalidates anything else that you say. You cant "take away" something that happened.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

I often read here that ppl rank kobe higher than olajuwon which i disagree with.
yea i know rings matter but i think when we're talking about all time list, you have to consider the man who was most responsible for it.

Playing alongside the most dominant player sure helped him alot.
So you take the 3 away and all of the sudden you're 2vs2.
In that case i see now way how you could rank him higher than Olajuwon.

I could say the same thing about shaq since he was a ring chaser and had alltime great caliber teammates.
But i can't deny the way he played unlike kobe that takes to much credit for all of his 5 rings.

I don't post often here but im aware that we have alot of kobe fans here so keep in mind that im in noway trying to diss kobe since i like him as a player just like i like all the all time greats. they're all great.

i'am not a native english speaker. pls no grammar police ;)

There's your problem right there. Everyone is always trying to pretend that 3 of Kobe's rings "don't count". As if he was some kind of glorified role player in 2000-2002. If you don't understand how amazing Kobe was at that time and how important he was to those titles, I don't know what to tell you.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

Playing alongside the most dominant player sure helped him alot.
So you take the 3 away and all of the sudden you're 2vs2.

i'am not a native english speaker. pls no grammar police ;)

you CANNOT take the 3 away. It is that simple. No pro nor pundit would take anything away. Its not like Kobe was a role player.
Can you take any away from Magic Johnson? Take one from Shaq? No.

Having said that, I would put Kobe and Hakeem both in the same area...top 8 to 12

[JohnnySic]

Its arguable I guess.

[The Iron Fist]

I often read here that ppl rank kobe higher than olajuwon which i disagree with.
yea i know rings matter but i think when we're talking about all time list, you have to consider the man who was most responsible for it.

Playing alongside the most dominant player sure helped him alot.
So you take the 3 away and all of the sudden you're 2vs2.
In that case i see now way how you could rank him higher than Olajuwon.

I could say the same thing about shaq since he was a ring chaser and had alltime great caliber teammates.
But i can't deny the way he played unlike kobe that takes to much credit for all of his 5 rings.

I don't post often here but im aware that we have alot of kobe fans here so keep in mind that im in noway trying to diss kobe since i like him as a player just like i like all the all time greats. they're all great.

i'am not a native english speaker. pls no grammar police ;)
History and facts dont take away 3 no matter how hard you try.

[rmt]

Kobe had the better career however I wouldn't take Kobe over Olajuwan as a franchise player.

This. The sheer weight of Kobe's career (certainly not his peak) has bumped him past Hakeem on my all-time list but I would pick Hakeem over Kobe to start my franchise.

[Owl]

Look, you can argue supporting rosters all you want. Hakeem didn't win a title both Drexler and Barkley, either.

???

Assuming you mean he didn't win in 97, 98 as though that was any of the three in their primes and injury free.


And whilst you can't "take away" Bryant's titles, you can certainly count titles as the best player. Otherwise you can count Robert Horry, Steve Kerr and John Salley as great players. And yes Kobe was 2nd best player and very good.

The best solution is not doing ring counting at all. But if you are doing so then titles as best player is superior to all titles.

[bdreason]

Hakeem is undoubtedly the superior player, but we should also consider that all-time rankings also encompass a players achievements.



That said, I have Hakeem ranked just ahead of Kobe, despite Kobe's superior accolades.

[KKittles30]

Kobe plays a glamour position is all... but, one could say make Hakeem 6'6" and he would struggle compared if you make Kobe 7'0" and he'd be a Durant/Garnett like Unstoppable force. That's what I'd argue.

[Deuce Bigalow]

3 more NBA Championships
2 more All-Star Selections
2 more All-NBA Selections
4 more All-NBA 1st Team Selections
More points in regular season and playoffs

Hakeem has 2 DPOY on Kobe

Kobe's career is better. In terms as who's better as players? I don't know. But who had the better career? Kobe.

[Fazotronic]

i knew the "take 3 away" would get misunderstood.
i edited it.

i stand by the rest.

[ripthekik]

If we take away those 3 rings because Shaq was dominant,
Lebron wouldn't have any either, he had 2 star teammates:applause:

But yeah, overall, Kobe's career achievements just push him over Hakeem.

[Fazotronic]

Kobe plays a glamour position is all... but, one could say make Hakeem 6'6" and he would struggle compared if you make Kobe 7'0" and he'd be a Durant/Garnett like Unstoppable force. That's what I'd argue.

that makes no sense whatsoever. making a guy bigger would make him less athletic. he wouldn't be the same as he is now.
on the other hand hakeem would become more athletic. maybe he transforms into jordan :D

[Kobe 4 The Win]

???

Assuming you mean he didn't win in 97, 98 as though that was any of the three in their primes and injury free.


And whilst you can't "take away" Bryant's titles, you can certainly count titles as the best player. Otherwise you can count Robert Horry, Steve Kerr and John Salley as great players. And yes Kobe was 2nd best player and very good.

The best solution is not doing ring counting at all. But if you are doing so then titles as best player is superior to all titles.

This best player shit is ridiculous. What does the word "best" mean? In several of LA's 80 titles you could call Kareem the "best" player. But you also have MAGIC JOHNSON who is regarded as a top 2 to 5 player all-time. So Kareem gets credit and Magic doesn't? Well, I guess Magic now has only 2 rings. Sucks for him.

This kind of thinking is nothing more that idiotic, ISH math that is used to diminish players you don't like or that have a better legacy than the player you do like. No-one involved in the NBA as a player, coach, owner thinks like that. It's childish.

Furthermore, I can't believe that you aren't intelligent enough to make a distinction between the contributions of role players and superstars. It's true that rings get a little over-rated when you start ranking the legacys of players but it's a results oriented world we live in. That's just they way it is and no amount of re-writing history is gonna change that.

Stop and think for a minute about how absurd it is to be this pre-occupied with athlete's legacys, who was better, where does so and so rank, who was greater. That in itself should tell us that maybe we are looking at this stuff all wrong. It's all just our opinions and none of them matter to anyone other than ourselves. There is no way to "prove" that Kobe is better than Hakeem or than Hakeem is better than Kobe. Opinions people.

[BEAST Griffin]

He isn't. You'd have to be insane to pick a perimeter scorer with inconsistent defense over an all time great defensive and scoring big man who has significantly more impact on a game than the former.

[KKittles30]

that makes no sense whatsoever. making a guy bigger would make him less athletic. he wouldn't be the same as he is now.
on the other hand hakeem would become more athletic. maybe he transforms into jordan :D


So if it makes no sense...How dominating would a 6'2" Dwight Howard be? Or how much better would a 6'7" Iverson have been? It's all factored in...Being taller doesn't make you less athletic? How do you figure? Your genetics are predetermined so if your 6'8" with a 50" vertical if you were 6'1" you'd still have the same vertical. Hence why Spud Webb was 5'7" with about a 47" vertical....

If Spud Webb was 6'5" he's still have the same 47" vertical Plus you factor in wingspan most peoples arms are like 2'5"-3 to maybe almost 4 feet...If LeBron was 6'4 He'd be the same athlete he is it would just look twice as impressive is all... Being 6'8" jumping thru the roof is not nearly as impressive to look at, as seen when Spud Webb or KryptoNate Dunk.....

Height is just the one thing you can't teach.. So that's why every guy who is 7'0" can dribble a ball and chew gum at the same time usually always gets a tryout or drafted based on the fact he's tall.

[ihoopallday]

Kobe is top 8 all time in my opinion. If anyone disagrees, they probably just like trolling Kobetards. LeBron is #12 on my list. 1 more ring, and he'll be #10.

[Owl]

This best player shit is ridiculous. What does the word "best" mean? In several of LA's 80 titles you could call Kareem the "best" player. But you also have MAGIC JOHNSON who is regarded as a top 2 to 5 player all-time. So Kareem gets credit and Magic doesn't? Well, I guess Magic now has only 2 rings. Sucks for him.

This kind of thinking is nothing more that idiotic, ISH math that is used to diminish players you don't like or that have a better legacy than the player you do like. No-one involved in the NBA as a player, coach, owner thinks like that. It's childish.

Furthermore, I can't believe that you aren't intelligent enough to make a distinction between the contributions of role players and superstars. It's true that rings get a little over-rated when you start ranking the legacys of players but it's a results oriented world we live in. That's just they way it is and no amount of re-writing history is gonna change that.

Stop and think for a minute about how absurd it is to be this pre-occupied with athlete's legacys, who was better, where does so and so rank, who was greater. That in itself should tell us that maybe we are looking at this stuff all wrong. It's all just our opinions and none of them matter to anyone other than ourselves. There is no way to "prove" that Kobe is better than Hakeem or than Hakeem is better than Kobe. Opinions people.
Fine is Bob Dandridge a superstar?
Sam Cassell?
Jo Jo White?
Dennis Rodman?
Chet Walker?
Vern Mikkelsen?
Slater Martin?
Bobby Jones?
Andrew Toney?
Maurice Cheeks?

A players relative importance on a title team is and the difficulty in evaluating who is a contributor in that year (Gary Payton wasn't great in Miami but had been excellent elsewhere) is exactly why you should evaluate players by how they performed over their careers (which is how you'd have to distinguish between "superstars" and non-superstars in the first place) rather than which teams happened to win titles during their playing span. Because a player is only 1/10th of what's going on on the court at one time.
Jordan, Wilt and Kareem are my all time top 3 but they all played on sub .500 teams near their statistical apex. That's why using rings (and team performance) is a poor way of measuring an individual player.

Olajuwon was less dangerous as a scorer but much more of an impact defender, and contributes in more areas (points, rebounds, steals and blocks) than Kobe.

[jlauber]

Fine is Bob Dandridge a superstar?
Sam Cassell?
Jo Jo White?
Dennis Rodman?
Chet Walker?
Vern Mikkelsen?
Slater Martin?
Bobby Jones?
Andrew Toney?
Maurice Cheeks?

A players relative importance on a title team is and the difficulty in evaluating who is a contributor in that year (Gary Payton wasn't great in Miami but had been excellent elsewhere) is exactly why you should evaluate players by how they performed over their careers (which is how you'd have to distinguish between "superstars" and non-superstars in the first place) rather than which teams happened to win titles during their playing span. Because a player is only 1/10th of what's going on on the court at one time.
Jordan, Wilt and Kareem are my all time top 3 but they all played on sub .500 teams near their statistical apex. That's why using rings (and team performance) is a poor way of measuring an individual player.

Olajuwon was less dangerous as a scorer but much more of an impact defender, and contributes in more areas (points, rebounds, steals and blocks) than Kobe.

I generally agree with this. Still, Kobe's CAREER accomplishments, as well as being considered a Top-4 player NINE times compared to Hakeem's FOUR should count, as well.

IMHO, Hakeem's entire career was based on outplaying Ewing (who had even less help than Hakeem had) in the '94 Finals, and crushing Robinson in the '95 playoffs. (And Robinson battled him to a draw in their 42 other H2H games, and went 30-12 against his team in them.) No way did a PRIME Hakeem outplay a YOUNG Shaq in '95 (although his TEAMMATES CLEARLY outplayed Shaq's.) And no else mentions that in their career H2H's, Shaq just murdered Hakeem.

And MJ did not play in '94, either. No one is going to convince me that the Bulls, who went 55-27 without MJ, and lost a close seven game series to the Knicks, who then lost a close seven game series to Hakeem's Rockets in the Finals...would not have repeated yet again in '94 WITH MJ.

I'll give Hakeem his ring in '95, but his '94 ring and even his lone MVP that season, would have been very questionable had MJ played that season.

[Horatio33]

that makes no sense whatsoever. making a guy bigger would make him less athletic. he wouldn't be the same as he is now.
on the other hand hakeem would become more athletic. maybe he transforms into jordan :D

Totally disagree. Hakeem was crazy athletic for any size, so at 6' 6" he would still have been an amazing player. He is top ten all time in steals as a centre, so imagine how he would be as an SG or SF. He was graceful and fast and had violent athleticism at times.

[Horatio33]

I generally agree with this. Still, Kobe's CAREER accomplishments, as well as being considered a Top-4 player NINE times compared to Hakeem's FOUR should count, as well.

IMHO, Hakeem's entire career was based on outplaying Ewing (who had even less help than Hakeem had) in the '94 Finals, and crushing Robinson in the '95 playoffs. (And Robinson battled him to a draw in their 42 other H2H games, and went 30-12 against his team in them.) No way did a PRIME Hakeem outplay a YOUNG Shaq in '95 (although his TEAMMATES CLEARLY outplayed Shaq's.) And no else mentions that in their career H2H's, Shaq just murdered Hakeem.

And MJ did not play in '94, either. No one is going to convince me that the Bulls, who went 55-27 without MJ, and lost a close seven game series to the Knicks, who then lost a close seven game series to Hakeem's Rockets in the Finals...would not have repeated yet again in '94 WITH MJ.

I'll give Hakeem his ring in '95, but his '94 ring and even his lone MVP that season, would have been very questionable had MJ played that season.

You fell threatened by Hakeem, don't you? He achieved his two rings with less help than Wilt ever had. And he wasn't afraid.

[Fiasco]

LMAO

"So you just take away 3 rings"

Well if we're doing that, let's take away 2 from Hakeem.

[AK47DR91]

Both guys have the same 2-1 Finals series record as the main man. Hakeem's Rockets lost to the Celtics in 1986, then Kobe in 2008 lost to the Celtics also. Both are 1-time MVP and two-time Finals MVP.

Hakeem's 2 Finals MVP is much more impressive than Kobe's 2 Finals MVP since Hakeem had to carry one of the least stacked rosters of any championship teams.

So we have established that Hakeem is the better #1 option, main man. Not only did Hakeem matched Kobe's accolades but he also did it better and longer (1984-1997). 13 years as the sole go-to #1 guy.

Now how much does Kobe's 3 rings as a sidekick play as an equalizer to Hakeem's non-championship years(1984-93) during Hakeem's prime/peak?

[Round Mound]

Hakeem was Better. More Dominant, Scary and Efficient than Kobe.

He is the Best Mixture of Offensive and Defensive Player from 86 beyond.

[Fazotronic]

Totally disagree. Hakeem was crazy athletic for any size, so at 6' 6" he would still have been an amazing player. He is top ten all time in steals as a centre, so imagine how he would be as an SG or SF. He was graceful and fast and had violent athleticism at times.

thats what im saying

[get these NETS]

the short answer

kobe is seen by modern day fans as a clear number 2 at his position..shooting guard


olajuwon is generally overshadowed by 3 other centers....Wilt and Kareem....their stats and numbers are at the top of damn near every list while Russell has 11 rings...

I have Dream as greatest modern day center BUT....his stats, numbers, rings..etc don't compare favorably to Wilt,Kareem,Russell or Moses


Kobe's accolades point to him being clear #2 to Jordan...

[BlackVVaves]

I'd pick the Dream over Kobe if we are simply drafting All-Time Greats and both are available.

If we are talking career? Yes, Kobe is ranked higher, and all the reasons have been provided by now. Kobe has been the best shooting guard in the game for nearly all of the last 12 years. Though Shaq was the more dominant player during Kobe's first 3 rings, Kobe was still dominating the perimeter and game in ways that were amazing, especially in 2001 and 2002. He wasn't putting up 18 points per game, like one would assume from the way people speak about his first 3 rings as if he was a role player.

[longtime lurker]

Here's my post from another thread and it pretty much sums up this whole thread:


LOL no it's all just luck. I have a theory that this rings doesn't matter line of thinking was created from the fact that people dislike Kobe. First it was that he needed Shaq to win, then when he proved that wrong the argument became "rings as the man". I can't think of any other player who's rings get diminished despite playing with multiple all star/hall of fame teammates. I have a hard time believing that before all these advanced stats metrics people really believed that rings don't matter.

[BlackJoker23]

kobe>>>>hakeem


but hakeem is a top 2 center and way better than all those 50s and 60s trash

[Smoke117]

He's not better. Hakeem Olajuwon is BY FAR the greatest defensive player of the modern era (lets say 80 to now, so that's 32 seasons) and he was a great scorer and one of the best first options ever. Let's just forget about defense though...disparity in the impact Olajuwon made defensively to Kobe is so monstrous that it's outrageous that Kobe could ever be over Olajuwon. Were not talking about Mutombo, Alonzo Mourning, or Dwight Howard here either. Hakeem Olajuwon is the greatest defensive player from 80 to on and maybe a bit before that and he did that while being a great scorer and all around player at that. Kobe Bryant over Hakeem Olajuwon is a complete ****ing joke.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

Hakeem was a great player and he's really high up on my all-time list. In my opinion he isn't on Kobe's level though. Kobe's got all the hardware and he's played at this level for such a long time. He won mutliple chips with two different teams. Hakeem gets marked down in my eyes because he only won when Jordan retired. It's really hard to compare guys that don't play the same position. Big men and guard's responsabilities are so vastly different that it's really comparing apples and oranges.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

He's not better. Hakeem Olajuwon is BY FAR the greatest defensive player of the modern era (lets say 80 to now, so that's 32 seasons) and he was a great scorer and one of the best first options ever. Let's just forget about scoring though...disparity in the impact Olajuwon made defensively to Kobe is so monstrous that it's outrageous that Kobe could ever be over Olajuwon. Were not talking about Mutombo, Alonzo Mourning, or Dwight Howard here either. Hakeem Olajuwon is the greatest defensive player from 80 to on and maybe a bit before that and he did that while being a great scorer and all around player at that. Kobe Bryant over Hakeem Olajuwon is a complete ****ing joke.

How can a guard have the same defensive impact as a center? If that is such an important factor then Kareem should be ranked over Jordan as the GOAT.

[lbj23clutch]

If we take away those 3 rings because Shaq was dominant,
Lebron wouldn't have any either, he had 2 star teammates:applause:

But yeah, overall, Kobe's career achievements just push him over Hakeem.
LOL @ this guy 99% of his posts are to degrade LeBron even when the thread isn't about LeBron.




Anyways to the answer the OP, you can't just ignore 3 rings like it didn't count. Kobe is simply the more accomplished basketball player. Only thing Hakeem got on Kobe is a better peak, but Kobe got accomplishments and longevity.

[StateOfMind12]

He is usually ranked higher than Olajuwon due to superior accolades and accomplishments. I don't agree with that though which is why Hakeem is higher than Kobe for me.

Kobe has a better argument over Duncan and I flip flop between those two a lot. Hakeem is quite clearly better than both though.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Hakeem was a flat out better player than Kobe. I don't know how anyone could watch them both and come to any other conclusion.

Hakeem was not only arguably one of the 5 best post scorers of all time, but he had an excellent face up game, he became a great passer and he's one of the 5 greatest defensive players ever, imo.

Hakeem was always an unbelievable shot blocker, but when he matured in the 90's, he limited how much he'd bite on fakes, which was his primary weakness, he had phenomenal hands which allowed him to strip the post player or know away the entry pass, and his overall help defense became as good as you could imagine from a defensive anchor.

Hakeem could guard screen/rolls unlike some less mobile centers, and he could switch to a smaller player, stay in front of him, but get back in the paint to help out and block and alter shots. He was all over the court.

And when Rudy T built the offense around him with everything going through Hakeem in the post with their 4 out/1in system spacing the floor with shooters, Hakeem did a remarkable job carrying the offense. No championship team has had an offense centered more around one player. If Hakeem wasn't scoring with his variety of moves, he was drawing double teams and finding the open shooters.

Everything on both ends relied on Hakeem. Even when they made the trade for Drexler in '95, and players like Cassell and Horry became bigger offensive threats, Houston still relied just as much on Hakeem with Houston not having any big men around him. They had to play Horry out of position at the 4.

And Hakeem averaged 33/10/5 during the '95 run while beating teams that won 60, 59, 62 and 57 games without homecourt advantage.

But everyone knows about those years, how about what he was doing in the playoffs before his prime? Just to clear up misconceptions that Hakeem was only great from '93-'95.

In '86, Hakeem carried Houston to the finals as a raw second year player. He upset a Laker team with Kareem, Magic, Worthy and a loaded team overall. Hakeem averaged 31/11 with 4 bpg and 2.2 spg in the Lakers series, and he also took the best team ever, imo, the '86 Celtics to 6 games.

Hakeem's cast fell off even more in '87 with Sampson injured and never approaching his all-star level again. Hakeem put the Rockets on his back in game 6 vs Seattle and had 49/25/6 in a double OT loss, and they should've won that game. Hakeem got robbed on a non-call which should've been goaltending and given him a shot at a 3 point play, instead, he made both free throws. Sampson also missed a key free throw or 2, that would've clinched the game. Hakeem averaged 31/13/4 in that series.

In '88, Hakeem lost in the 1st round to a loaded Mavs team that would take the champion Lakers to 7. Hakeem averaged 38/17 in the series.

Hakeem was one of the players who consistently raised his game in the playoffs. Imagine if he had opportunities to win a title before his 30's. That's why comparing rings is flawed.

Hakeem was as good in '93 as he was when he won titles, his cast just wasn't quite as good. But Hakeem also nearly carried his Rockets past a loaded Sonics team, and probably should've if not for some bad calls. And I rarely use excuses like that, but watch game 7 if you don't believe me. Hakeem was a monster that year, and consider the disparity in talent between Houston and Seattle.

If you're going to rank Kobe over Hakeem, you should just stop pretending you watch basketball. Go to basketball-reference, and call it a day, because you clearly don't need to watch games for your rankings.

[G-train]

Hakeem was a flat out better player than Kobe. I don't know how anyone could watch them both and come to any other conclusion.

Hakeem was not only arguably one of the 5 best post scorers of all time, but he had an excellent face up game, he became a great passer and he's one of the 5 greatest defensive players ever, imo.

Hakeem was always an unbelievable shot blocker, but when he matured in the 90's, he limited how much he'd bite on fakes, which was his primary weakness, he had phenomenal hands which allowed him to strip the post player or know away the entry pass, and his overall help defense became as good as you could imagine from a defensive anchor.

Hakeem could guard screen/rolls unlike some less mobile centers, and he could switch to a smaller player, stay in front of him, but get back in the paint to help out and block and alter shots. He was all over the court.

And when Rudy T built the offense around him with everything going through Hakeem in the post with their 4 out/1in system spacing the floor with shooters, Hakeem did a remarkable job carrying the offense. No championship team has had an offense centered more around one player. If Hakeem wasn't scoring with his variety of moves, he was drawing double teams and finding the open shooters.

Everything on both ends relied on Hakeem. Even when they made the trade for Drexler in '95, and players like Cassell and Horry became bigger offensive threats, Houston still relied just as much on Hakeem with Houston not having any big men around him. They had to play Horry out of position at the 4.

And Hakeem averaged 33/10/5 during the '95 run while beating teams that won 60, 59, 62 and 57 games without homecourt advantage.

But everyone knows about those years, how about what he was doing in the playoffs before his prime? Just to clear up misconceptions that Hakeem was only great from '93-'95.

In '86, Hakeem carried Houston to the finals as a raw second year player. He upset a Laker team with Kareem, Magic, Worthy and a loaded team overall. Hakeem averaged 31/11 with 4 bpg and 2.2 spg in the Lakers series, and he also took the best team ever, imo, the '86 Celtics to 6 games.

Hakeem's cast fell off even more in '87 with Sampson injured and never approaching his all-star level again. Hakeem put the Rockets on his back in game 6 vs Seattle and had 49/25/6 in a double OT loss, and they should've won that game. Hakeem got robbed on a non-call which should've been goaltending and given him a shot at a 3 point play, instead, he made both free throws. Sampson also missed a key free throw or 2, that would've clinched the game. Hakeem averaged 31/13/4 in that series.

In '88, Hakeem lost in the 1st round to a loaded Mavs team that would take the champion Lakers to 7. Hakeem averaged 38/17 in the series.

Hakeem was one of the players who consistently raised his game in the playoffs. Imagine if he had opportunities to win a title before his 30's. That's why comparing rings is flawed.

Hakeem was as good in '93 as he was when he won titles, his cast just wasn't quite as good. But Hakeem also nearly carried his Rockets past a loaded Sonics team, and probably should've if not for some bad calls. And I rarely use excuses like that, but watch game 7 if you don't believe me. Hakeem was a monster that year, and consider the disparity in talent between Houston and Seattle.

If you're going to rank Kobe over Hakeem, you should just stop pretending you watch basketball. Go to basketball-reference, and call it a day, because you clearly don't need to watch games for your rankings.

Agreed.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Good post SA.

[miles berg]

I rarely see people say Kobe is better than The Dream.

Everyone hay understands basketball knows that Hakeem was the superior player.

[RazorBaLade]

better doesnt mean higher on all time list

remember this.

All time list is legacy- achievements+stats+longetivity. No "taking away" things. Just everything the person ever did. And kobes higher on that list, the only list people REALLY care about.

[G-Funk]

U think Kobe shoots a bad FG% for a SG, wait until u see Hakeems compared to the average center

[longtime lurker]

I rarely see people say Kobe is better than The Dream.

Everyone hay understands basketball knows that Hakeem was the superior player.

Actually I rarely see people put dream on the top ten lists outside of message boards. And I'm talking actual NBA players and legends. Usually Oscar or Dr. J round out the top 10 from the interviews I've seen.

:confusedshrug:

[Kobe 4 The Win]

If you're going to rank Kobe over Hakeem, you should just stop pretending you watch basketball. Go to basketball-reference, and call it a day, because you clearly don't need to watch games for your rankings.

If you are such a f**king expert then why aren't you coaching the Knicks or something?

Douchebag

Nobody cares about any of our rankings anyway. Opinions and nothing more.

[ShaqAttack3234]

If you are such a f**king expert then why aren't you coaching the Knicks or something?

Douchebag

Nobody cares about any of our rankings anyway. Opinions and nothing more.

:oldlol: Of course people care about our opinions, the rest of the people on this message board, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing basketball with each other.

I don't claim to be an expert, but I do know bullshit when I see it, and that's people claiming Kobe was a better player than Hakeem.

I'm tired of Hakeem getting overlooked just because he wasted most of his years on teams that couldn't contend until he was 30, and even those Rocket teams aren't winning without an incredible player like Hakeem.

That's why it gets frustrating to me, some claiming Hakeem isn't even top 10? I don't see how such statements come from people who have actually watched him, or if they do, it's people with very short memories.

I'd love to hear an argument for Kobe having a bigger impact on a basketball court than Hakeem. But of course, you don't have one, all you have is insults because you don't like what I have to say.


better doesnt mean higher on all time list

remember this.

All time list is legacy- achievements+stats+longetivity. No "taking away" things. Just everything the person ever did. And kobes higher on that list, the only list people REALLY care about.

Who says higher doesn't mean better? That's your list, everyone has different ways of ranking players.

Personally, I don't see the logic in not ranking players based on who is better. It's seems pretty pointless to me. What are we ranking them on if it's not who is better? And if it's not based on who is better, then what exactly would ranking higher mean? It'd seem pretty meaningless.

But again, there's no set criteria that everyone agrees on so saying "these rankings aren't based on who is better" is asinine.

[Smoke117]

All that bullshit about Hakeem didn't have teams that could contend for a championship and he wasn't as good until the mid 90s is just bullshit. Olajuwon was at his best defensively 87-91. He should have won the DPOY EVERY SINGLE SEASON of those 5 five seasons except maybe 91 because he only played 56 games...but he was by far the most dominant defensive player during those five seasons. He won the DPOY in 93 and 94 and he was great, but I hate how people say this is when Olajuwon finally reached his peak when he was at his best defensively in the late 80s, baby 90s years. He may have become a better scorer in those mid 90s years he won a championship but while still an all time defensive player, he wasn't close to what he was in those late 80s, early couple 90s years defensively.

[The Iron Fist]

:oldlol: Of course people care about our opinions, the rest of the people on this message board, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing basketball with each other.

I don't claim to be an expert, but I do know bullshit when I see it, and that's people claiming Kobe was a better player than Hakeem.

I'm tired of Hakeem getting overlooked just because he wasted most of his years on teams that couldn't contend until he was 30, and even those Rocket teams aren't winning without an incredible player like Hakeem.

That's why it gets frustrating to me, some claiming Hakeem isn't even top 10? I don't see how such statements come from people who have actually watched him, or if they do, it's people with very short memories.

I'd love to hear an argument for Kobe having a bigger impact on a basketball court than Hakeem. But of course, you don't have one, all you have is insults because you don't like what I have to say.



Who says higher doesn't mean better? That's your list, everyone has different ways of ranking players.

Personally, I don't see the logic in not ranking players based on who is better. It's seems pretty pointless to me. What are we ranking them on if it's not who is better? And if it's not based on who is better, then what exactly would ranking higher mean? It'd seem pretty meaningless.

But again, there's no set criteria that everyone agrees on so saying "these rankings aren't based on who is better" is asinine.Kobe is a better player than Dream. You act like its blasphemy to say it. For decades, the consensus was that you couldn't build a title team around a sg. Jordan disproved that notion and then Kobe showed again how silly it is with back to back fmvps when a whole lot of you said he couldn't do it. Building a title team around a center is standard. Kobe matched what he did w the btb, and even won three rings prior to that. Only a ****ing moron would try and say its not at all possible for Kobe to be better.

[RazorBaLade]

:oldlol: Of course people care about our opinions, the rest of the people on this message board, otherwise we wouldn't be discussing basketball with each other.

I don't claim to be an expert, but I do know bullshit when I see it, and that's people claiming Kobe was a better player than Hakeem.

I'm tired of Hakeem getting overlooked just because he wasted most of his years on teams that couldn't contend until he was 30, and even those Rocket teams aren't winning without an incredible player like Hakeem.

That's why it gets frustrating to me, some claiming Hakeem isn't even top 10? I don't see how such statements come from people who have actually watched him, or if they do, it's people with very short memories.

I'd love to hear an argument for Kobe having a bigger impact on a basketball court than Hakeem. But of course, you don't have one, all you have is insults because you don't like what I have to say.



Who says higher doesn't mean better? That's your list, everyone has different ways of ranking players.

Personally, I don't see the logic in not ranking players based on who is better. It's seems pretty pointless to me. What are we ranking them on if it's not who is better? And if it's not based on who is better, then what exactly would ranking higher mean? It'd seem pretty meaningless.

But again, there's no set criteria that everyone agrees on so saying "these rankings aren't based on who is better" is asinine.

The majority of basketball fans agree on the list. Its why jordan is above wilt on most peoples lists. Its why Kobe is above hakeem. Yes there are always people who have different lists but USUALLY the criteria is what I mentioned above and below. Not just "BETTER" but also careers, legacy, etc. sure people have their opinions but the majority of people have criteria that they all agree on.

What we (most people) consider when creating a "all time best players list" we think about: stats+impact | achievements | lasting legacy. Youre not going to find many people who dont make all time lists with that way..

If you dont make a list that way, Wilt was obviously better than jordan, oscar is probably t3, hakeem is over kobe, i mean who has lists that look like that?

[Jacks3]

Kobe is the better scorer and it's not all that close.

He's the better passer/play-maker and I don't think it's all that close simply because Kobe on the perimeter can do more creating than a big.

He has equal efficiency.

He takes better care of the ball.

He has better longevity.

More accolades/accomplishments.

Better peak PER if that's your thing lol

It's not that crazy to have Kobe above. I don't get why people act like Hakeem is some God. He had flaws, too.

[The Iron Fist]

Kobe is the better scorer and it's not all that close.

He's the better passer/play-maker and I don't think it's all that close simply because Kobe on the perimeter can do more creating than a big.

He has equal efficiency.

He takes better care of the ball.

He has better longevity.

More accolades/accomplishments.

Better peak PER if that's your thing lol

It's not that crazy.:rant Kobe had Shaq and pau and can't win without a big man:rant

[AK47DR91]

For those who put Kobe over Hakeem, can you answer this question?

Both guys have the same 2-1 Finals series record as the main man. Hakeem's Rockets lost to the Celtics in 1986, then Kobe in 2008 lost to the Celtics also. Both are 1-time MVP and two-time Finals MVP.

Hakeem's 2 Finals MVP is much more impressive than Kobe's 2 Finals MVP since Hakeem had to carry one of the least stacked rosters of any championship teams.

So we have established that Hakeem is the better #1 option, main man. Not only did Hakeem matched Kobe's accolades but he also did it better and longer (1984-1997). 13 years as the sole go-to #1 guy.

Now how much does Kobe's 3 rings as a sidekick play as an equalizer to Hakeem's non-championship years(1984-93) during Hakeem's prime/peak?

[OldSchoolBBall]

How can a guard have the same defensive impact as a center? If that is such an important factor then Kareem should be ranked over Jordan as the GOAT.

Jordan's defensive impact != Kobe's defensive impact
KAJ's defensive impact !> Hakeem's defensive impact

[General]

Olajuwon is overrated to be honest, I rank Wilt and Russell over him. Even Shaq was better. He was good, but let's not act like its blasphemy to say Kobe was a better player:facepalm

[RazorBaLade]

For those who put Kobe over Hakeem, can you answer this question?

your avatar suits you well

[K.Koscik]

Olajuwon's a great player but people always overrate players from the past. If they made an allstar squad during the 80s or 90s, then they are automatically better than anyone from this era not named shaq, duncan, or kobe.


To be clear, Kobe has 5 titles. Not two and half of three. He has five titles.
If kobe had won his two finals mvps because Lebron suddenly took a two year hiatus from basketball, ISH fans would never ever forget that, but when Hakeem does it in the mid nineties when Jordan left, no one even mentions it (because we have selective goggles when looking at history). thats just ISH logic.

Kobe has better longetivity, more accolodes, more championships, and in general is talked about more highly by the very players he played against.

What else can you compare? Between a shooting guard and a center (two positions we shouldnt really compare at all anyways) there is nothing more.


Oh, and Kobe wasn't a second option. He was 1b. Shaq was super dominant, but Kobe both closed games for a threepeating team and straight carried them at times. He was no second fiddle, just another piece of the puzzle.

[General]

Oh, and Kobe wasn't a second option. He was 1b. Shaq was super dominant, but Kobe both closed games for a threepeating team and straight carried them at times. He was no second fiddle, just another piece of the puzzle.
This. There is no way the Lakers three-peat without Kobe Bryant. Some dude on this forum said they would win 2 with Tracy McGrady:roll: He's a career loser and didn't have the killer instinct that Kobe had to close out games, nor was he as good defensively.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Kobe is a better player than Dream. You act like its blasphemy to say it. For decades, the consensus was that you couldn't build a title team around a sg. Jordan disproved that notion and then Kobe showed again how silly it is with back to back fmvps when a whole lot of you said he couldn't do it. Building a title team around a center is standard. Kobe matched what he did w the btb, and even won three rings prior to that. Only a ****ing moron would try and say its not at all possible for Kobe to be better.

I'm not going to get into a back and forth with you because honestly, I find you annoying, and don't enjoy our discussions.

But the Jordan analogy doesn't work, Kobe isn't Jordan. Jordan was a better player than Kobe, and better than Hakeem as well. I think Jordan and Hakeem were pretty close at their absolute best, but Jordan was still better, imo.

But Jordan has nothing to do with this. I happen to think Hakeem and Kobe are pretty close offensively, and there are advantages to building your offense around either, but at the same time, I think Hakeem's defensive impact as one of the top 3-5 greatest defensive centers ever puts him above a shooting guard who has been elite at times defensively, but not consistently, and certainly not comparable to Hakeem defensively.


The majority of basketball fans agree on the list. Its why jordan is above wilt on most peoples lists. Its why Kobe is above hakeem. Yes there are always people who have different lists but USUALLY the criteria is what I mentioned above and below. Not just "BETTER" but also careers, legacy, etc. sure people have their opinions but the majority of people have criteria that they all agree on.

What we (most people) consider when creating a "all time best players list" we think about: stats+impact | achievements | lasting legacy. Youre not going to find many people who dont make all time lists with that way..

If you dont make a list that way, Wilt was obviously better than jordan, oscar is probably t3, hakeem is over kobe, i mean who has lists that look like that?

There is no set written criteria. You're listing several things that come into play, yet it's still subjective how much to factor into each. It always will be.

I don't agree that Wilt was a better player than Jordan, and I don't agree that Oscar was top 3. But most people haven't watched them anyway, and very little footage exists so their rankings will vary.


Kobe is the better scorer and it's not all that close.

Yes it is close, I'll give Kobe an edge here, but we're talking about a guy who had a 33 ppg title run. Kobe had the more explosive big games, but he shot more, and Hakeem was doubled more.


He's the better passer/play-maker and I don't think it's all that close simply because Kobe on the perimeter can do more creating than a big.

Hakeem had at least as big of an impact on his teammates, he drew more double teams, and Houston's offense relied on Hakeem drawing double teams and finding the shooters.


He has equal efficiency.

No.


He takes better care of the ball.

Not really, both had pretty similar turnover numbers, but Dream never topped 4 TO per game like Kobe did in '05. Not really a difference either way.


He has better longevity.

No, Hakeem became a top 5 player and led his team to the finals in his second season, and remained one through the '97 season when he had his team back in the WCF at 34 years old. That's 12 years as a top 5 player. '91 and '92 are debatable, I'd probably have him just outside the top 5 in '91, unsure about '92.

Kobe became a top 5 player in '01, and was arguably still one last year. That would be 12 years, but he dropped from the top 5 in '05, and probably '11 as well.

Longevity is about equal right now, Kobe will probably edge him out in another year or 2, though.


More accolades/accomplishments.

Both have an MVP, which is a subjective award, Hakeem should have also won in '93, Kobe had a case in '06 as well. Not really a big difference, though. Hakeem has 2 DPOY awards, I'm sure Kobe has more all-nba teams, but those aren't comparable either, there's only 1 spot on each team for centers, there are 2 for guards.

The only accomplishment I consider relevant is rings, and Kobe does have the egde since both have won 2 as the man, Kobe won 2 more as one of the top 3-5 players in the game, and 1 more as an all-star.

That's the only case I can see for Kobe, but lets not act like their situations were comparable. Hakeem is by far the least fortunate of the top 10 players as far as teams.

And rankings clearly don't just involve ranking players by how many rings they won, otherwise MJ wouldn't be 1 on most people's lists, Bird would be no higher than 8th, Wilt wouldn't be as high as he is on most people's lists.


Better peak PER if that's your thing lol

:oldlol: I'll ignore the made up stats.

[jlauber]

I'm not going to get into a back and forth with you because honestly, I find you annoying, and don't enjoy our discussions.

But the Jordan analogy doesn't work, Kobe isn't Jordan. Jordan was a better player than Kobe, and better than Hakeem as well. I think Jordan and Hakeem were pretty close at their absolute best, but Jordan was still better, imo.

But Jordan has nothing to do with this. I happen to think Hakeem and Kobe are pretty close offensively, and there are advantages to building your offense around either, but at the same time, I think Hakeem's defensive impact as one of the top 3-5 greatest defensive centers ever puts him above a shooting guard who has been elite at times defensively, but not consistently, and certainly not comparable to Hakeem defensively.



There is no set written criteria. You're listing several things that come into play, yet it's still subjective how much to factor into each. It always will be.

I don't agree that Wilt was a better player than Jordan, and I don't agree that Oscar was top 3. But most people haven't watched them anyway, and very little footage exists so their rankings will vary.



Yes it is close, I'll give Kobe an edge here, but we're talking about a guy who had a 33 ppg title run. Kobe had the more explosive big games, but he shot more, and Hakeem was doubled more.



Hakeem had at least as big of an impact on his teammates, he drew more double teams, and Houston's offense relied on Hakeem drawing double teams and finding the shooters.



No.



Not really, both had pretty similar turnover numbers, but Dream never topped 4 TO per game like Kobe did in '05. Not really a difference either way.



No, Hakeem became a top 5 player and led his team to the finals in his second season, and remained one through the '97 season when he had his team back in the WCF at 34 years old. That's 12 years as a top 5 player. '91 and '92 are debatable, I'd probably have him just outside the top 5 in '91, unsure about '92.

Kobe became a top 5 player in '01, and was arguably still one last year. That would be 12 years, but he dropped from the top 5 in '05, and probably '11 as well.

Longevity is about equal right now, Kobe will probably edge him out in another year or 2, though.



Both have an MVP, which is a subjective award, Hakeem should have also won in '93, Kobe had a case in '06 as well. Not really a big difference, though. Hakeem has 2 DPOY awards, I'm sure Kobe has more all-nba teams, but those aren't comparable either, there's only 1 spot on each team for centers, there are 2 for guards.

The only accomplishment I consider relevant is rings, and Kobe does have the egde since both have won 2 as the man, Kobe won 2 more as one of the top 3-5 players in the game, and 1 more as an all-star.

That's the only case I can see for Kobe, but lets not act like their situations were comparable. Hakeem is by far the least fortunate of the top 10 players as far as teams.

And rankings clearly don't just involve ranking players by how many rings they won, otherwise MJ wouldn't be 1 on most people's lists, Bird would be no higher than 8th, Wilt wouldn't be as high as he is on most people's lists.



:oldlol: I'll ignore the made up stats.

I don't agree with some of this, but I respect all of it.

Look, we all have our opinions, and there is very little chance that most of them will change.

I personally believe that Kobe is slightly under-rated, and Hakeem is slightly over-rated, but I can live with either above the other.

And, I have mentioned it many times, but there is simply no realistic way of measuring greatness based on TEAM success. IF every "great" were given an identical roster, that was healthy for an entire season, and with the same coach, you could then make some kind of an argument based on team success. BUT, even that would not be clear-cut. How are rosters going to be identical for Kobe and Hakeem, when neither play the same position?

In any case, most all Top-10 lists have the same players, but in different order (although I have Moses at #10 instead of Hakeem...but I wouldn't spend a great deal of time arguing against Hakeem, either.)

MJ, Magic, Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, Bird, and Hakeem are nearly the consensus Top-10's. MJ is almost universally accepted as the GOAT, although, somehow Russell has dropped dramatically in the last few years. Up until MJ rode into town, Russell was considered by most "experts" as the GOAT. Now, in the last 10-15 years, he is often at the bottom of Top-10's, and in some cases, not on them at all.

As for the rest...hell, I have seen most all of them listed in every spot in the Top-10. All I ask, though, is that those that want to discuss these rankings, at least do so with consistent criteria and research.

ShaqAttack certainly does that as well as anyone here. And hopefully we can all learn at least a little from him. Whether you choose to agree with him, or not, I think most all us respect him. And he certainly backs up his arguments as well as anyone on this forum.

[Jacks3]

Yes it is close, I'll give Kobe an edge here, but we're talking about a guy who had a 33 ppg title run. Kobe had the more explosive big games, but he shot more, and Hakeem was doubled more.

No, it's not really close at all.
Kobe has 2 scoring titles. Hakeem has zero.
Kobe's peak was 35.4 PPG/56% TS. Hakeem doesn't have a season remotely close to that. His second best season was 32 PPG/58% TS, which also is easily better/far better than anything Hakeem ever did. His career average is 25.4 to Hakeem's 21.8.
Hakeem's peak was 27.8 PPG. Kobe has 6 different seasons higher than that.

40+ pt games
Kobe--112
Hakeem---31

50+ pt games
Hakeem--2
Kobe---25

60+ pt games
Hakeem--0
Kobe--5



Hakeem had at least as big of an impact on his teammates, he drew more double teams, and Houston's offense relied on Hakeem drawing double teams and finding the shooters.

Kobe drew a ton of doubles, too. The Lakers offense relied on Kobe finding shooters,too. His APG are very easily better than Hakeem's. He could play-make for his teammates as a guard in ways Hakeem couldn't. Driving and slashing. Running the P/R.


No.
Actually,yes. Kobe in his prime was just as efficient. His peak TS% numbers are actually higher.




Not really, both had pretty similar turnover numbers, but Dream never topped 4 TO per game like Kobe did in '05. Not really a difference either way.
Kobe's has lower TO rates. Hakeem had several seasons with really mediocre TO rates. Kobe also has a couple of seasons where he put up ridiculously low TOV rates, among the best in the league, which Hakeem never even came close to doing.




No, Hakeem became a top 5 player and led his team to the finals in his second season, and remained one through the '97 season when he had his team back in the WCF at 34 years old. That's 12 years as a top 5 player. '91 and '92 are debatable, I'd probably have him just outside the top 5 in '91, unsure about '92.

Kobe became a top 5 player in '01, and was arguably still one last year. That would be 12 years, but he dropped from the top 5 in '05, and probably '11 as well.

Longevity is about equal right now, Kobe will probably edge him out in another year or 2, though.
Well, Kobe has more top 5 seasons, more All-NBA seasons. I'd give Kobe the edge.




Both have an MVP, which is a subjective award, Hakeem should have also won in '93, Kobe had a case in '06 as well. Not really a big difference, though. Hakeem has 2 DPOY awards, I'm sure Kobe has more all-nba teams, but those aren't comparable either, there's only 1 spot on each team for centers, there are 2 for guards.

The only accomplishment I consider relevant is rings, and Kobe does have the egde since both have won 2 as the man, Kobe won 2 more as one of the top 3-5 players in the game, and 1 more as an all-star.

That's the only case I can see for Kobe, but lets not act like their situations were comparable. Hakeem is by far the least fortunate of the top 10 players as far as teams.

And rankings clearly don't just involve ranking players by how many rings they won, otherwise MJ wouldn't be 1 on most people's lists, Bird would be no higher than 8th, Wilt wouldn't be as high as he is on most people's lists.



Kobe also has 10 All-NBA First Team to Hakeem's 7 too. Higher MVP shares. 2 scoring titles's to Hakeem's 0. 5 rings to Hakeem's 2. 14 All-Star Teams to Hakeem's 12.

:oldlol: I'll ignore the made up stats.
Also the higher WS numbers, better PER, better ORTG...

[jlauber]

No, it's not really close at all.
Kobe has 2 scoring titles. Hakeem has zero.
Kobe's peak was 35.4 PPG/56% TS. Hakeem doesn't have a season remotely close to that. His second best season was 32 PPG/58% TS, which also is easily better/far better than anything Hakeem ever did. His career average is 25.4 to Hakeem's 21.8.
Hakeem's peak was 27.8 PPG. Kobe has 6 different seasons higher than that.

40+ pt games
Kobe--112
Hakeem---31

50+ pt games
Hakeem--2
Kobe---25

60+ pt games
Hakeem--0
Kobe--5




Kobe drew a ton of doubles, too. The Lakers offense relied on Kobe finding shooters,too. His APG are very easily better than Hakeem's. He could play-make for his teammates as a guard in ways Hakeem couldn't. Driving and slashing. Running the P/R.


Actually,yes. Kobe in his prime was just as efficient. His peak TS% numbers are actually higher.




Kobe's has lower TO rates. Hakeem had several seasons with really mediocre TO rates. Kobe also has a couple of seasons where he put up ridiculously low TOV rates, among the best in the league, which Hakeem never even came close to doing.




Well, Kobe has more top 5 seasons, more All-NBA seasons. I'd give Kobe the edge.




Kobe also has 10 All-NBA First Team to Hakeem's 7 too. Higher MVP shares. 2 scoring titles's to Hakeem's 0. 5 rings to Hakeem's 2. 14 All-Star Teams to Hakeem's 12.

Also the higher WS numbers, better PER, better ORTG...

Excellent post on Kobe's behalf.

[ShaqAttack3234]

No, it's not really close at all.
Kobe has 2 scoring titles. Hakeem has zero.
Kobe's peak was 35.4 PPG/56% TS. Hakeem doesn't have a season remotely close to that. His second best season was 32 PPG/58% TS, which also is easily better/far better than anything Hakeem ever did. His career average is 25.4 to Hakeem's 21.8.
Hakeem's peak was 27.8 PPG. Kobe has 6 different seasons higher than that.

40+ pt games
Kobe--112
Hakeem---31

50+ pt games
Hakeem--2
Kobe---25

60+ pt games
Hakeem--0
Kobe--5

I never denied that Kobe was the better volume scorer. He's arguably the best volume scorer/streak scorer of all time. But I'll give Hakeem the edge with consistency.

Hakeem's post game made him the more consistent option. His baseline fadeaway from 10 feet was more consistent than any of Kobe's shots. And he based his game around that with some devastating counters. He'd go to the quick baseline spin and go right by his man, with the other player expecting the fadeaway, or he could go up quick with the fadeaway, but also set it up with the dream shake if he had to. All of those gave him an option vs double teams, and he could also go to the middle with the jump hook.

Numbers don't sum up everything, they are greatly affected by situations, era and other things. Players at Kobe and Hakeem's levels can basically put up whatever numbers they want. But there's a limit on a winning team.

I would probably give Kobe the edge as a scorer, and perhaps as an offensive player. But it wouldn't be a big edge for me, and not enough to make up for Hakeem's defensive impact, as well as his rebounding.


Kobe drew a ton of doubles, too. The Lakers offense relied on Kobe finding shooters,too. His APG are very easily better than Hakeem's. He could play-make for his teammates as a guard in ways Hakeem couldn't. Driving and slashing. Running the P/R.

Obviously his assists are higher, guards almost always have higher assists than big men. Assists don't sum up playmaking.

As for the rest of it, you're simply listing things perimeter players do that big men don't. Who is going to use running screen/rolls against a dominant center like Hakeem?

Houston's offense clearly revolved around Hakeem finding shooters more than LA's. Houston built their offense to revolve around Hakeem, while the Lakers ran the triangle. That's why Houston pretty much surrounded him with spot up shooters.


Actually,yes. Kobe in his prime was just as efficient. His peak TS% numbers are actually higher.

TS% numbers are very close, but Hakeem's FG% is significantly higher. I'd use that as the tiebreaker. Looking at only TS% penalizes more consistent players.

We won't agree on this, but I'm not conceding that Kobe was the more efficient player.


Kobe's has lower TO rates. Hakeem had several seasons with really mediocre TO rates. Kobe also has a couple of seasons where he put up ridiculously low TOV rates, among the best in the league, which Hakeem never even came close to doing.

I'm not exactly sure what "turnover rates" are, but I do know that from '86-'97, Hakeem averaged 3.3 turnovers, while Kobe averaged 3.2 from '01-'12. Not much of a difference.


Well, Kobe has more top 5 seasons, more All-NBA seasons. I'd give Kobe the edge.

Again, 1 spot for centers, 2 spots for guard,s not exactly comparable, and there were only 2 all-nba teams period when Hakeem was young.


Kobe also has 10 All-NBA First Team to Hakeem's 7 too. Higher MVP shares. 2 scoring titles's to Hakeem's 0. 5 rings to Hakeem's 2. 14 All-Star Teams to Hakeem's 12.

Again, there's 1 spot on the all-nba team for centers, making the second team as a center is the equivalent of making the 1st team as a guard. So that's absolutely an unfair comparison.

All-star teams? Not too meaningful, see Kobe's selection by the fans in '98 for proof. Not many actually thought he was deserving that year when he was still a bench player.

I'll certainly take Hakeem's 2 DPOY awards, and he should at least have a 3rd in '90.


Also the higher WS numbers, better PER, better ORTG...

:oldlol: As bad as PER is, offensive rating for individuals is just terrible. And win shares? I question anyone who values that shit.

I'm losing interest in this debate if you're not going to make a point that doesn't revolve entirely around numbers. Stats have their place(except for made up stats like win shares), but they're not everything. They don't cover so many essential things, especially in a sport like basketball.

[RazorBaLade]

Damn. The first time I see Shaqattack letting personal bias get in the way of rational thought. Making up crazy shit to hold on. Tsk. You better than this son.

[jlauber]

I never denied that Kobe was the better volume scorer. He's arguably the best volume scorer/streak scorer of all time. But I'll give Hakeem the edge with consistency.

Hakeem's post game made him the more consistent option. His baseline fadeaway from 10 feet was more consistent than any of Kobe's shots. And he based his game around that with some devastating counters. He'd go to the quick baseline spin and go right by his man, with the other player expecting the fadeaway, or he could go up quick with the fadeaway, but also set it up with the dream shake if he had to. All of those gave him an option vs double teams, and he could also go to the middle with the jump hook.

Numbers don't sum up everything, they are greatly affected by situations, era and other things. Players at Kobe and Hakeem's levels can basically put up whatever numbers they want. But there's a limit on a winning team.

I would probably give Kobe the edge as a scorer, and perhaps as an offensive player. But it wouldn't be a big edge for me, and not enough to make up for Hakeem's defensive impact, as well as his rebounding.



Obviously his assists are higher, guards almost always have higher assists than big men. Assists don't sum up playmaking.

As for the rest of it, you're simply listing things perimeter players do that big men don't. Who is going to use running screen/rolls against a dominant center like Hakeem?

Houston's offense clearly revolved around Hakeem finding shooters more than LA's. Houston built their offense to revolve around Hakeem, while the Lakers ran the triangle. That's why Houston pretty much surrounded him with spot up shooters.



TS% numbers are very close, but Hakeem's FG% is significantly higher. I'd use that as the tiebreaker. Looking at only TS% penalizes more consistent players.

We won't agree on this, but I'm not conceding that Kobe was the more efficient player.



I'm not exactly sure what "turnover rates" are, but I do know that from '86-'97, Hakeem averaged 3.3 turnovers, while Kobe averaged 3.2 from '01-'12. Not much of a difference.



Again, 1 spot for centers, 2 spots for guard,s not exactly comparable, and there were only 2 all-nba teams period when Hakeem was young.



Again, there's 1 spot on the all-nba team for centers, making the second team as a center is the equivalent of making the 1st team as a guard. So that's absolutely an unfair comparison.

All-star teams? Not too meaningful, see Kobe's selection by the fans in '98 for proof. Not many actually thought he was deserving that year when he was still a bench player.

I'll certainly take Hakeem's 2 DPOY awards, and he should at least have a 3rd in '90.



:oldlol: As bad as PER is, offensive rating for individuals is just terrible. And win shares? I question anyone who values that shit.

I'm losing interest in this debate if you're not going to make a point that doesn't revolve entirely around numbers. Stats have their place(except for made up stats like win shares), but they're not everything. They don't cover so many essential things, especially in a sport like basketball.

I feel like I am playing poker with nothing but bad hands here. I'm out, but I do enjoy some of these other exchanges.

There are good arguments for both.

BTW, I have lumped Kobe, Hakeem, and Bird together in the last year, or so. Hakeem was generally the better post-season player. Bird was generally the best regular season performer. And Kobe has had the best combination of both.

And, while I am in the very small minority on this, the more I have researched Moses' career, the more I have come to appreciate it. IMHO, you throw a blanket over all four of them.

[WockaVodka]

TS% numbers are very close, but Hakeem's FG% is significantly higher. I'd use that as the tiebreaker. Looking at only TS% penalizes more consistent players.

We won't agree on this, but I'm not conceding that Kobe was the more efficient player.

What about their eFG%? And why exactly was FG% the tiebreaker? It seems kind of biased on your part to do that.

I'm not really disagreeing with saying Hakeem is better than Kobe because I agree but I do think Kobe wins in terms of efficiency and scoring.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

ShaqAttack just got owned. Embarassing son.

[rmt]

Kobe drew a ton of doubles, too. The Lakers offense relied on Kobe finding shooters,too.

Some Kobe fans seem to forget that Kobe's spent half of his career playing with MDE who was the one drawing the double teams. Hakeem wasn't so lucky or the beneficiary of having a team mate who could draw a double team and leave him wide open to do his thing.

We won't even mention the defensive monster that Hakeem was and the impact he had defensively in comparison to Kobe who inconsistently plays good defense but somehow manages to live on past reputation garnering undeserved 1st all-defensive honors. The past few years are just a JOKE.

[ShaqAttack3234]

What about their eFG%? And why exactly was FG% the tiebreaker? It seems kind of biased on your part to do that.

I'm not really disagreeing with saying Hakeem is better than Kobe because I agree but I do think Kobe wins in terms of efficiency and scoring.

Hakeem's eFG% is quite a bit better too, but again, it's still part of the streak scoring vs consistency. FG% is simply how many shots you make out of how many you attempt. it's a valid statistic. I agree that it shouldn't sum up everything, but it shouldn't be disregarded either.


ShaqAttack just got owned. Embarassing son.

:oldlol: How did I get "owned"? Do you have any idea who Hakeem is, or how he plays?


Damn. The first time I see Shaqattack letting personal bias get in the way of rational thought. Making up crazy shit to hold on. Tsk. You better than this son.

:roll: I'm devastated that I don't have the kiddies approval. Personal bias? I'm arguing with a half dozen Kobe fanatics, and I'm the biased one? Crazy shit? Right, Hakeem being a comparable offensive player, but blowing Kobe away defensively is crazy? Beating 60, 59, 62 and 57 teams without homecourt in a playoff run didn't happen. Uh-huh.

[PistolPete44]

****ing kobe stans

[RazorBaLade]

Hakeem's eFG% is quite a bit better too, but again, it's still part of the streak scoring vs consistency. FG% is simply how many shots you make out of how many you attempt. it's a valid statistic. I agree that it shouldn't sum up everything, but it shouldn't be disregarded either.



:oldlol: How did I get "owned"? Do you have any idea who Hakeem is, or how he plays?



:roll: I'm devastated that I don't have the kiddies approval. Personal bias? I'm arguing with a half dozen Kobe fanatics, and I'm the biased one? Crazy shit? Right, Hakeem being a comparable offensive player, but blowing Kobe away defensively is crazy? Beating 60, 59, 62 and 57 teams without homecourt in a playoff run didn't happen. Uh-huh.

First of all that should tell you how accurate your viewpoint is if its 6 on 1. But i digress, you threw ts out of the window and said FG is great even though it doesnt account for 3's being worth more which is a HUGE disadvantage to a perimeter player when compared to a center... Then you throw away assists and playmaking because kobe is a guard... but you credit hakeem for defense which is obviously much easier to play as a big and most bigs >>>>> the impact of smaller players on defense.. You disregard everything kobe is better just because you want hakeem to be considered better.. just pure and utter bias and garbage, I dont know why you like hakeem so much but yeah. You do not have my approval, I know you dont need it, but I'm sure you werent against having it in just about every other argument youve been in on here. But in this one, you're toast.

[ShaqAttack3234]

First of all that should tell you how accurate your viewpoint is if its 6 on 1. But i digress, you threw ts out of the window and said FG is great even though it doesnt account for 3's being worth more which is a HUGE disadvantage to a perimeter player when compared to a center... Then you throw away assists and playmaking because kobe is a guard... but you credit hakeem for defense which is obviously much easier to play as a big and most bigs >>>>> the impact of smaller players on defense.. You disregard everything kobe is better just because you want hakeem to be considered better.. just pure and utter bias and garbage, I dont know why you like hakeem so much but yeah. You do not have my approval, I know you dont need it, but I'm sure you werent against having it in just about every other argument youve been in on here. But in this one, you're toast.

It's not 6 to 1 against Hakeem, there are other posters in this thread who have taken Hakeem just for the record. And what kind of logic is it that being outnumbered by KOBE FANS in an argument where I'm choosing the other player makes me wrong purely because I'm not in the majority?

I never disregarded TS%. I said that they were roughly equal in it, but Hakeem has a big edge in FG%, and also a significant edge in eFG%, if we're talking about 3s. I take into account all 3 when looking at efficiency.

I've never been someone who judges playmaking by assists. See my posts in Nash vs Stockton threads. Assists rely on systems and teammates. This is nothing new for me.

And yes, big men rarely have high assists, even great passing big men. This is because they're doubled more, and the defense can usually rotate and recover to get to the initial player who receives the pass, which is why the term "hockey assist" is used.

I gave an example to back up my belief that Hakeem had at least as big of an impact on his teammates by discussing how Houston's offense functioned. I find that to be a more convincing point than just assist numbers, but that's just me.

The biggest difference here is that i'm not basing my opinion on stats. Though I'm not convinced Kobe had better numbers either. I mean did Kobe ever have all around numbers like Hakeem's '90 season when he averaged 24/14/3 with 4.6 bpg and 2.1 spg on 50%? Or 25/14/2 with 3.4 bpg and 2.6 spg on 51% in '89?

And to show why stats only tell you so much. Hakeem was a much better player in the mid 90's, even though he never truly topped those numbers.

But again if we're talking stats, Hakeem's '93 is pretty tough to beat..... 26/13/4, 4.2 bpg, 1.8 spg, 53 FG%.

But the game goes far beyond that.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

:oldlol: How did I get "owned"? Do you have any idea who Hakeem is, or how he plays?





How did you get owned? You must not have read post #65 or #68. All the dismissive laughing emoticons in the world isn't gonna change that.

I don't feel obligated to answer to you what I know or how long I long I've been watching the game. Nor do I have the time or interest to write a mile long post explaining my position like some of you. I'm a huge Hakeem fan, he's one of the greatest of all time. I think Kobe is "better" or "greater" or how ever you want to word it. A lot of people here have done a good job backing up that opinion with stats and such so I don't need to.

I've also said many times that I don't like comparing guys that play different positions because their roles are so vastly different. Hakeem has a case to be above Kobe. But Kobe has a great case to be above Hakeem as well. It's not absurd to suggest that. When you mock people and act like they are retarded for picking Kobe, you look like a self important douche that's in love with his own opinion. Take it down a notch and show a little class.

[RazorBaLade]

It's not 6 to 1 against Hakeem, there are other posters in this thread who have taken Hakeem just for the record. And what kind of logic is it that being outnumbered by KOBE FANS in an argument where I'm choosing the other player makes me wrong purely because I'm not in the majority?

I never disregarded TS%. I said that they were roughly equal in it, but Hakeem has a big edge in FG%, and also a significant edge in eFG%, if we're talking about 3s. I take into account all 3 when looking at efficiency.

I've never been someone who judges playmaking by assists. See my posts in Nash vs Stockton threads. Assists rely on systems and teammates. This is nothing new for me.

And yes, big men rarely have high assists, even great passing big men. This is because they're doubled more, and the defense can usually rotate and recover to get to the initial player who receives the pass, which is why the term "hockey assist" is used.

I gave an example to back up my belief that Hakeem had at least as big of an impact on his teammates by discussing how Houston's offense functioned. I find that to be a more convincing point than just assist numbers, but that's just me.

The biggest difference here is that i'm not basing my opinion on stats. Though I'm not convinced Kobe had better numbers either. I mean did Kobe ever have all around numbers like Hakeem's '90 season when he averaged 24/14/3 with 4.6 bpg and 2.1 spg on 50%? Or 25/14/2 with 3.4 bpg and 2.6 spg on 51% in '89?

And to show why stats only tell you so much. Hakeem was a much better player in the mid 90's, even though he never truly topped those numbers.

But again if we're talking stats, Hakeem's '93 is pretty tough to beat..... 26/13/4, 4.2 bpg, 1.8 spg, 53 FG%.

But the game goes far beyond that.

shameless downplay of all stats that show kobes superior

But the convo about efficiency should end after TS%. To do anything else is stone cold retarded. Its like saying okay: I make 5/10 layups and 9/10 jumpers. 14/20 shots. You make 10/10 layups and 3/10 jumpers. 13/20. 14/20 is about the same as 13/20 BUT 10/10 LAYUPS > 5/10 LAYUPS so who cares about it being equal overall look at the part where my guy is better!! I disgregard the jumpers part!! HURR! Thats you in this FG% nonsense. TS is the end of the conversation with efficiency.

Kobe's 3 pointers need to be factored. FG is a flawed stat. Remove kobes 3 pointers if you want to discuss FG, I'd love to hear how their FGs compare without any 3s. But if a player includes 3s, lets not hurt him for taking more efficient shots just because the center doesnt take em.

Guards rarely have high rebounds because they are going to run the fast break. So you ignore kobes ast adv and you dont ignore hakeems rebounding? What a load of shit.

35 5 5 on 58% ts is also pretty tough to beat...

[G-Funk]

If a draft was gonna begin u would always take a center over a guard. but as far as who was the better player at his position, it has to be Kobe. Top 2, Hakeem top 5? He shot a career 51% FOR A FREAKING CENTER!!!!!! that's like 6-7 below all the great enters like Wilt, Shaq, Kareem & so on

[YAWN]

Playing alongside the most dominant player sure helped him alot.
So you take the 3 away and all of the sudden you're 2vs2. (EDIT: by that i mean as the man. of course you can't take away anyones rings ;).)
In that case i see now way how you could rank him higher than Olajuwon.
[/SIZE]

Im gonna give you a pass because I'm going to assume you're a youngin' from another country who wasn't watching basketball back then. But you need to understand that the fact that Kobe was the #3 player in the league doesn't change just because the #1 player in the league was on his team...

If you looked at these numbers without a name, you'd assume they're from a #1 option franchise player of a team... But you want to throw all of that out?

23/6/5 Regular Season
21/5/4 Playoffs

29/6/5 Regular Season
29/7/6 Playoffs

25/6/6 Regular Season
27/6/5 Playoffs

30/7/6 Regular Season
32/5/5 Playoffs

So now that we established that..

you take a look at this:
2 rings, 2 finals mvps, 1 mvp, 12x all star, 12x all nba, 9x all d, 2x DPOY

and compare it to this:
5 rings, 2 finals mvps, 1 mvp, 14x all star, 14x all nba, 12x all d, 2x scoring champ (and the guy is still Top 5 in the NBA putting up 27/5/5 and steady adding to the resume...)

Its really is a no brainer. Kobe over Bird, Duncan or Shaq is more of a close argument.

[G-Funk]

Im gonna give you a pass because I'm going to assume you're a youngin' from another country who wasn't watching basketball back then. But you need to understand that the fact that Kobe was the #3 player in the league doesn't change just because the #1 player in the league was on his team...

If you looked at these numbers without a name, you'd assume they're from a #1 option franchise player of a team... But you want to throw all of that out?

23/6/5 Regular Season
21/5/4 Playoffs

29/6/5 Regular Season
29/7/6 Playoffs

25/6/6 Regular Season
27/6/5 Playoffs

30/7/6 Regular Season
32/5/5 Playoffs

So now that we established that..

you take a look at this:
2 rings, 2 finals mvps, 1 mvp, 12x all star, 12x all nba, 9x all d, 2x DPOY

and compare it to this:
5 rings, 2 finals mvps, 1 mvp, 14x all star, 14x all nba, 12x all d, 2x scoring champ (and the guy is still Top 5 in the NBA putting up 27/5/5 and steady adding to the resume...)

Its really is a no brainer. Kobe over Bird, Duncan or Shaq is more of a close argument.

/Thread

[Nevaeh]

shameless downplay of all stats that show kobes superior

But the convo about efficiency should end after TS%. To do anything else is stone cold retarded. Its like saying okay: I make 5/10 layups and 9/10 jumpers. 14/20 shots. You make 10/10 layups and 3/10 jumpers. 13/20. 14/20 is about the same as 13/20 BUT 10/10 LAYUPS > 5/10 LAYUPS so who cares about it being equal overall look at the part where my guy is better!! I disgregard the jumpers part!! HURR! Thats you in this FG% nonsense. TS is the end of the conversation with efficiency.

Kobe's 3 pointers need to be factored. FG is a flawed stat. Remove kobes 3 pointers if you want to discuss FG, I'd love to hear how their FGs compare without any 3s. But if a player includes 3s, lets not hurt him for taking more efficient shots just because the center doesnt take em.

Guards rarely have high rebounds because they are going to run the fast break. So you ignore kobes ast adv and you dont ignore hakeems rebounding? What a load of shit.

35 5 5 on 58% ts is also pretty tough to beat...

Funny how Kobe Stans are the only group who say this. Let me guess; the next one is "Stats don't tell the whole story", followed closely by "You have to watch the games".
:rolleyes:

FG% simply determines how efficient you are at making, or not making shots from the field, during the flow of the game. There's nothing complicated about it at all.

[ShaqAttack3234]

shameless downplay of all stats that show kobes superior

Not really, because I'm not basing my case on stats.


But the convo about efficiency should end after TS%. To do anything else is stone cold retarded. Its like saying okay: I make 5/10 layups and 9/10 jumpers. 14/20 shots. You make 10/10 layups and 3/10 jumpers. 13/20. 14/20 is about the same as 13/20 BUT 10/10 LAYUPS > 5/10 LAYUPS so who cares about it being equal overall look at the part where my guy is better!! I disgregard the jumpers part!! HURR! Thats you in this FG% nonsense. TS is the end of the conversation with efficiency.

That's your opinion, and I don't agree with it. A missed shot is a missed shot. I don't think it's fair to completely disregard 3s and free throws because they're a part of the game, but I value consistency. If your FG% is much lower, and your TS% is equal, it usually means you're more prone to off games, as well as bigger games. Which is the case with Kobe and Hakeem. Kobe is more likely to go off for 50, but also more likely to go cold and have a 7/21 game.


Kobe's 3 pointers need to be factored. FG is a flawed stat. Remove kobes 3 pointers if you want to discuss FG, I'd love to hear how their FGs compare without any 3s. But if a player includes 3s, lets not hurt him for taking more efficient shots just because the center doesnt take em.

See above where I say that I don't think 3s and FTs should be ignored.

But Phil Jackson himself has valued FG%, in fact, earlier in the '05-'06 season, he said that he wanted Kobe to get his percentage up to around 47%. So I don't see what's wrong with considering FG% as well when talking about efficiency.


"He's got the best scoring season he's ever had," Jackson said. "(But) the shooting percentage has varied at times. We'd like to see it get up there above 47 percent."

http://www.recordnet.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060116/SPORTS/601160311/1004


Guards rarely have high rebounds because they are going to run the fast break. So you ignore kobes ast adv and you dont ignore hakeems rebounding? What a load of shit.

Rebounding is a part of the game where Hakeem impacted the game a great deal. Passing is a part of the game where both Kobe and Hakeem impacted the game a great deal.

Kobe has the edge with passing/playmaking throughout their careers. Kobe started making a pretty big impact as a playmaker in '00, but more the '01 playoffs. While Hakeem didn't really start until '93 in Rudy T's first full season.

But I don't think it's crazy at all to suggest Hakeem in Rudy T's system was making just as big of an impact with his passing and double teams as Kobe did.

Are you familiar with how Houston's offense operated under Rudy T? I don't think assists by themselves judge how good passers are. Just like I think Nash and Stockton were about equal passers/playmakers, and I think Bird was a better passer than Lebron. I think Webber was a better passer than Garnett, and Sabonis was a better passer than Shaq to name a few examples.


35 5 5 on 58% ts is also pretty tough to beat...

Actually 35/5/5 on 56 TS%. A remarkable season without question, but I don't think it's better than what Hakeem was doing from '93-'95, or even necessarily better than Kobe's own 28/6/5 on 46 FG%/58 TS% in '08, which Kobe called his own best season at the time(he had previously called '06 his best).

Which is why stats don't tell you everything. I'm not going to argue with how remarkable '06 Kobe was, I've praised his play that season many times.

[RazorBaLade]

Funny how Kobe Stans are the only group who say this. Let me guess; the next one is "Stats don't tell the whole story", followed closely by "You have to watch the games".
:rolleyes:

FG% simply determines how efficient you are at making, or not making shots from the field, during the flow of the game. There's nothing complicated about it at all.

It has nothing to do with kobe or not, if you think not giving more credit to 3 pointers because you actually get more points for it is wrong then you're just a ****ing idiot. Theres no way around it.

Its blasphemy.

[RazorBaLade]

"That's your opinion, and I don't agree with it. A missed shot is a missed shot. I don't think it's fair to completely disregard 3s and free throws because they're a part of the game, but I value consistency. If your FG% is much lower, and your TS% is equal, it usually means you're more prone to off games, as well as bigger games. Which is the case with Kobe and Hakeem. Kobe is more likely to go off for 50, but also more likely to go cold and have a 7/21 game."

Kobe still scores more though, he is less consistent EFFICIENCY wise which I agree with but scoring? his 7/21 games are still usually 25-30 points. Thats why his average is higher and thats why hes clearly and undoubtedly the better scorer. It doesnt matter if you like to see your player shoot 50% from the field often. Kobe scores more, on basically equal real efficiency which factors in him taking 3 pters, and he also has the benefit of being able to explode. Its a landslide.

"But Phil Jackson himself has valued FG%, in fact, earlier in the '05-'06 season, he said that he wanted Kobe to get his percentage up to around 47%. So I don't see what's wrong with considering FG% as well when talking about efficiency."

People haven't really figured out that 3s are blatantly more efficient, its not surprising to me at all that PJ especially 6 years ago was unaware of the TS/FG difference. People don't really think about how 3's affect FG even though you get more points from them. Old school guys are gonna be old school, but I still bet he cares a little more about 3s after 2011 dallas series.

"But I don't think it's crazy at all to suggest Hakeem in Rudy T's system was making just as big of an impact with his passing and double teams as Kobe did."

I think its crazy. This part is up for personal opinion, we will ignore the hard stats on this and that means its personal opinion only. Because hard stats obviously favor kobe in this.

"Actually 35/5/5 on 56 TS%. A remarkable season without question, but I don't think it's better than what Hakeem was doing from '93-'95, or even necessarily better than Kobe's own 28/6/5 on 46 FG%/58 TS% in '08, which Kobe called his own best season at the time(he had previously called '06 his best).

Which is why stats don't tell you everything. I'm not going to argue with how remarkable '06 Kobe was, I've praised his play that season many times."

I think it is considering kobe had to create that for himself where as a center needs to get the ball in position and size and he is very limited in the areas he is effective where as kobe in his best years was a threat from anywhere. It makes it very close, and again peak play isnt the only factor. I'd rather have greatness for 10 years then perfection for 2 and good for 8.

[Nevaeh]

It has nothing to do with kobe or not, if you think not giving more credit to 3 pointers because you actually get more points for it is wrong then you're just a ****ing idiot. Theres no way around it.

Its blasphemy.

If you're missing more 3 pointers than 2 pointers percentage wise anyway, by and large, how exactly are you "Getting More Points" from 3s? If anything, you're wasting potential points on a low percentage shot that could have been achieved on a more efficient shot instead.

What was Kobe shooting from 3 this past season again?

[RazorBaLade]

If you're missing more 3 pointers than 2 pointers percentage wise anyway, by and large, how exactly are you "Getting More Points" from 3s? If anything, you're wasting potential points on a low percentage shot that could have been achieved on a more efficient shot instead.

What was Kobe shooting from 3 this past season again?

With math!

30/100 from 2 = 60 points on 100 shots
25/100 from 3 = 75 points on 100 shots

Missed more shots, got more points. Crude example but it holds up if you just understand the simple idea that 3 pointers = 3 points, 2 pointers = 2 points. For every 2 threes you need THREE fgs to match points.

We are talking about primes so I don't think this season matters for kobe in this discussion. Kobe completely outlasted hakeem anyways. And yes he was completely terrible from 3 this year besides like 4 games. Ridiculous.

[Nevaeh]

With math!

30/100 from 2 = 60 points on 100 shots
25/100 from 3 = 75 points on 100 shots

Missed more shots, got more points. Crude example but it holds up if you just understand the simple idea that 3 pointers = 3 points, 2 pointers = 2 points. For every 2 threes you need THREE fgs to match points.

We are talking about primes so I don't think this season matters for kobe in this discussion. Kobe completely outlasted hakeem anyways. And yes he was completely terrible from 3 this year besides like 4 games. Ridiculous.

In "Happy Fun Ideal World", then yeah maybe, But come on dude, you talking about Kobe here.
http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif

Ok cool, I see you still in the real world.
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/images/smilies/cheers.gif

[RazorBaLade]

Just felt like doing this, an example of how crazy 3pters are even for kobe whos really been up and down with 3's. Career average of 34% so no cherrypicking best years here.

1505/4472 total. Thats 4515 points. In order to score around that many with 2's on 4472 shot attempts he'd need to go 2257/4472 which is 50% from the field.

34% turns into 50% over a career. Crazy.

And yes I am. Its a dark place these days.

[Nevaeh]

Just felt like doing this, an example of how crazy 3pters are even for kobe whos really been up and down with 3's. Career average of 34% so no cherrypicking best years here.

1505/4472 total. Thats 4515 points. In order to score around that many with 2's on 4472 shot attempts he'd need to go 2257/4472 which is 50% from the field.

34% turns into 50% over a career. Crazy.

And yes I am. Its a dark place these days.

So 34% is the new 50%. Might be bedtime for you Ole Razor my pal.
http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif

[RazorBaLade]

So 34% is the new 50%. Might be bedtime for you Ole Razor my pal.
http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/laugh.gif

34% from 3 on that amount is the same thing as 50% from 2. Just another reason why FG not taking 3's into account is moronic =)

x__x not yet

[Kobe 4 The Win]

34% from 3 on that amount is the same thing as 50% from 2. Just another reason why FG not taking 3's into account is moronic =)

x__x not yet


The math is too much for them.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Kobe still scores more though, he is less consistent EFFICIENCY wise which I agree with but scoring? his 7/21 games are still usually 25-30 points. Thats why his average is higher and thats why hes clearly and undoubtedly the better scorer. It doesnt matter if you like to see your player shoot 50% from the field often. Kobe scores more, on basically equal real efficiency which factors in him taking 3 pters, and he also has the benefit of being able to explode. Its a landslide.

I gave Kobe volume scoring. I've called him the best streak scorer of all time.

And I gave Kobe the overall edge as a scorer, but I also don't think it's a big gap because of Hakeem's consistency, all the doubles he drew and how much he scored in the playoffs. 33 ppg in a title run is the most I can remember by anyone except for MJ. And he also averaged 29 for the '94 title run.

In fact, Hakeem averaged 27.5 ppg, 11.5 rpg, 3.5 apg, 3.5 bpg, 1.8 spg 53.7 FG%, 57.8 TS% in 126 playoff games from '86-'97.

The scoring itself is remarkable, and particularly with the all around play.


People haven't really figured out that 3s are blatantly more efficient, its not surprising to me at all that PJ especially 6 years ago was unaware of the TS/FG difference. People don't really think about how 3's affect FG even though you get more points from them. Old school guys are gonna be old school, but I still bet he cares a little more about 3s after 2011 dallas series.

It is something that's talked about more recently. I didn't know about TS% or eFG% until 2 1/2 or 3 years ago, so you may have a point. But I don't think Phil necessarily values FG% out of ignorance. I think it's a legit stat that's self-explanatory.

I don't see what's wrong with looking at FG%, eFG% and TS%.


I think its crazy. This part is up for personal opinion, we will ignore the hard stats on this and that means its personal opinion only. Because hard stats obviously favor kobe in this.

So what you're saying is agree to disagree on this?


I think it is considering kobe had to create that for himself where as a center needs to get the ball in position and size and he is very limited in the areas he is effective where as kobe in his best years was a threat from anywhere. It makes it very close, and again peak play isnt the only factor. I'd rather have greatness for 10 years then perfection for 2 and good for 8.

I don't think it's a negative playing out of the post, Hakeem still had to create for himself, he routinely did so out of the post with his great moves, and it wasn't like he was benefiting from an all-time great PG and getting spoonfed or anything. All it takes is a commitment to follow the gameplan, make the fundamental entry pass and deliver the ball to Hakeem in the post, which Houston's players did almost every time down the floor under Rudy T. Prior to the Rudy T years, Houston did a poor job getting Hakeem in the post, particularly in the run and gun 80's with players like Sleepy Floyd. Which is probably why Hakeem's scoring always increased so much during the playoffs when the game slowed down.

Hakeem was great for at least 10 years, imo.

The "perfection" in '94 and '95, applies equally to '93, which could be argued as his best season. He took a Rockets team nobody expected to contend, and got them to 55 wins. They had a 15 game winning streak in the second half, and then started an 11 game winning streak exactly 2 weeks later. In fact, Houston finished the season 28-6, and had actually started out 14-16 before going 41-11 the rest of the way.

Hakeem did this with a cast of Otis Thorpe, who was a very good finisher, ran the floor very well for a 4, was a solid passer, good rebounder, but didn't have much of a mid-range game unlike most 4s, and was pretty much a borderline all-star.

After that, he had Vernon Maxwell who was a very good defender, a pretty good playmaker, but an extremely streaky chucker who could shoot you in a game or out of one.

Kenny Smith was a pretty good scoring point guard, but more or less a spot up shooter in Rudy T's system.

Robert Horry was a talented and athletic all around forward, but he lacked aggressiveness at times, which almost got him traded before the trade was rescinded in '94, and he was a rookie in '93.

After those players, they had some decent role players like Carl Herrera who was a guy who played hard and was a fan favorite, but not a great player or anything.

The '93 Rockets had some pretty good depth, and I'm not going to make them out to be scrubs, because they weren't, but they greatly exceeded expectations, and a big reason why is because Hakeem took his game to the next level and separated himself from the Ewings and Robinsons of the NBA.

The '93 Rockets ended up top 6 offensively and top 3 defensively. The biggest reason was Hakeem carrying them at both ends. He went down to a Seattle team with arguably the most talent in the league in OT of game 7, but with 23/17/9 and his usual tremendous all around effort. And as I mentioned, got robbed with some bad calls. But you can watch the game and be the judge for yourself.

That's one thing that separates Hakeem from others, imo, even when he went down, he was almost always going down with an excellent game to a superior opponent. See game 6 vs Seattle in the '87 WCSF, 49/25/6 in double OT of the elimination game. Even as a young player, he just seemed to have the ability to rise to the occasion like few others.

And I'd still say that Hakeem was the second best player in '96 behind MJ. Houston still didn't really have big men around Hakeem, much like the '95 team after the Thorpe trade, but they started off 17-6 before Clyde's injuries. Hakeem was keeping them competitive even when Clyde was out. Houston was still 14-8 when Hakeem played and Clyde didn't. Hakeem stepped up his game and carried the load averaging 30.5 ppg, 12 rpg, 4.7 apg, 2.4 bpg, 1.6 spg and 53 FG% in 22 games without Drexler. But Houston failed to win 50 games because Hakeem also went down and Houston was just 1-9 without Hakeem, partially due to Drexler only playing 3 of those games, and also because Houston had no big men to fill in for Hakeem.

In the playoffs, Hakeem came up big in the clutch and led Houston past the Lakers who were favored and had homecourt advantage after finishing strong with Magic Johnson returning. Unfortunately, Hakeem had a rare poor series for him vs Seattle. This may have been due to Hakeem having to carry such a big load due to Houston's injuries. Hakeem missed 10 games, Drexler missed 30 games, Cassell missed 21 games, Horry missed 11 games, Elie missed 37 games and Kenny Smith missed 14 games.

And also, Seattle was a loaded team with a tremendous team defense that excelled in double teaming and trapping.

Again, I think he was more than "good" for 10 years. I think he was great and a top 5 player for 12. He had down years in '91 and '92, but even '92 shows his impact. Houston was 40-30 with him and 2-10 without him. And Kobe himself had down years himself, particularly '04 and '05.

I'm not just taking Hakeem because I think his peak was better. The primary thing I judge players on is their true prime. It's tough to determine Hakeem's prime beyond '93-'95 or '96, because that's really when he took his game to the next level, though he lost a little quickness and explosiveness in '96, imo.

I guess I'd say '89 or '90-'96 for Hakeem's true prime, and '03-'09 for Kobe. '01-'10 would be his extended prime and are also factored in to how I rank Kobe.

But even though I don't consider '86-'88 to be Hakeem's prime, I don't think it should be forgotten how good he was those years. Beating the Lakers in '86 was no small feat.

[WockaVodka]

Hakeem's eFG% is quite a bit better too, but again, it's still part of the streak scoring vs consistency. FG% is simply how many shots you make out of how many you attempt. it's a valid statistic. I agree that it shouldn't sum up everything, but it shouldn't be disregarded either.

What are the numbers of their eFG% during their peaks? Would you mind getting it then? Cause I don't know when you consider Kobe's peak and Hakeem's.

[Nevaeh]

34% from 3 on that amount is the same thing as 50% from 2. Just another reason why FG not taking 3's into account is moronic =)

x__x not yet

But that 34% from 3 is not what counts as your overall FG% Razor. And even if it did, that 34% would be one of the sh!ttiest FG%s from a Star Player of all time. 3s AND 2s count towards your overall FG%. Yes, that sucks, I know.
:rolleyes:

[Kobe 4 The Win]

A couple things.

All the doubles Hakeem drew? When has Kobe been single covered with any regularity since he was a teenager. When Kobe has the ball in his hands he demands a lot of attention Shaq or no Shaq.

I don't know what an "extended prime" is but in 1999-2000 he was about 23/6/5, All NBA second team and first team All Defense. In 2011-12 he was 28/5/5 All NBA first team and second team All-Defense. Production wise Kobe has been in his "prime" for most of his adult life.

[RazorBaLade]

"And I gave Kobe the overall edge as a scorer, but I also don't think it's a big gap because of Hakeem's consistency, all the doubles he drew and how much he scored in the playoffs. 33 ppg in a title run is the most I can remember by anyone except for MJ. And he also averaged 29 for the '94 title run."

Except hakeem is only more consistent in your imaginary world where FG% is the tie breaker due to TS being equal. I wish I lived in that world. I have a 10 inch dick in that world. Sadly we live in the world where the following is true:

Hakeem averages 22 points a game with his best going up to 28 ppg.
Kobe averages 25 a game with his best going up to 35 ppg.
Hakeem reached at least 27 ppg a total of 3 times.
Kobe reached at least 27 ppg a total of 9 times.

But let me guess, since hakeem consistently scored less kobe it makes him more consistent. Is that your logic? Because if we account for 3s which we've already agreed is ludicrous not to (since its penalizing kobe for taking more efficient shots) kobes TS% is higher than hakeems AND he scores more every year. I dont understand. The doubles? Hakeem is a better scorer because he was double teamed? What? Kobe is a better scorer because he takes tougher shots. **** you thats why.

In playoffs hakeem had the bigger max but he got over 25 a total of 7 times compared to Kobe's 10 times and still counting. Bbbut what? He was double teamed a lot so **** everything I just said? What does big gap mean? Does he need to be more efficient than him and score more than him? I thought that'd be a big gap, but I guess not. Does he need to double his points? Show me an example of a big gap offensively.

You want to make a team where your star player can offensively put up the most points on the best possible efficiency of the two or the next 10 years. Who do you take. Kobe or hakeem? Do you even need to think for a second?


But that 34% from 3 is not what counts as your overall FG% Razor. And even if it did, that 34% would be one of the sh!ttiest FG%s from a Star Player of all time. 3s AND 2s count towards your overall FG%. Yes, that sucks, I know.
:rolleyes:

Did you just say 50% from the field is shitty? 34% from 3 is a 50% FG. Considering Kobe's TS is 55% and MJ's is 57% kobe doesn't seem to be TOO shitty. FG% however Kobe is 45% to MJ's 50, and that is because kobe is penalized by faulty FG system for taking and making more efficient shots. Do you seriously not get it? Its truly basic math. 3's and 2's count towards your FG except they are both calculated as the same points, which makes no sense.. 3's give you more points and thus shooting slightly worse on them should not matter! I think you get this basic math principle and are just trolling.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

"And I gave Kobe the overall edge as a scorer, but I also don't think it's a big gap because of Hakeem's consistency, all the doubles he drew and how much he scored in the playoffs. 33 ppg in a title run is the most I can remember by anyone except for MJ. And he also averaged 29 for the '94 title run."

Except hakeem is only more consistent in your imaginary world where FG% is the tie breaker due to TS being equal. I wish I lived in that world. I have a 10 inch dick in that world. Sadly we live in the world where the following is true:

Hakeem averages 22 points a game with his best going up to 28 ppg.
Kobe averages 25 a game with his best going up to 35 ppg.
Hakeem reached at least 27 ppg a total of 3 times.
Kobe reached at least 27 ppg a total of 9 times.

But let me guess, since hakeem consistently scored less kobe it makes him more consistent. Is that your logic? Because if we account for 3s which we've already agreed is ludicrous not to (since its penalizing kobe for taking more efficient shots) kobes TS% is higher than hakeems AND he scores more every year. I dont understand. The doubles? Hakeem is a better scorer because he was double teamed? What? Kobe is a better scorer because he takes tougher shots. **** you thats why.

In playoffs hakeem had the bigger max but he got over 25 a total of 7 times compared to Kobe's 10 times and still counting. Bbbut what? He was double teamed a lot so **** everything I just said? What does big gap mean? Does he need to be more efficient than him and score more than him? I thought that'd be a big gap, but I guess not. Does he need to double his points? Show me an example of a big gap offensively.

You want to make a team where your star player can offensively put up the most points on the best possible efficiency of the two or the next 10 years. Who do you take. Kobe or hakeem? Do you even need to think for a second?



Did you just say 50% from the field is shitty? 34% from 3 is a 50% FG. Considering Kobe's TS is 55% and MJ's is 57% kobe doesn't seem to be TOO shitty. FG% however Kobe is 45% to MJ's 50, and that is because kobe is penalized by faulty FG system for taking and making more efficient shots. Do you seriously not get it? Its truly basic math. 3's and 2's count towards your FG except they are both calculated as the same points, which makes no sense.. 3's give you more points and thus shooting slightly worse on them should not matter! I think you get this basic math principle and are just trolling.

This is why I don't take the time to write long posts. You spell it out for them and they still won't conceed a point.

[ShaqAttack3234]

What are the numbers of their eFG% during their peaks? Would you mind getting it then? Cause I don't know when you consider Kobe's peak and Hakeem's.

Kobe's peak would either be '06 or '08, imo. His eFG% was

Hakeem's peak would be any year from '93-'95, imo, probably '94.

Hakeem's eFG% was basically his FG%. 52.9% in '93, 53% in '94, 51.7% in '95. Hakeem's highest eFG% period was 53.8% as a rookie.

Kobe's eFG% was 49.1% in '06, and 50.3% in '08, which was much his highest. He also had seasons of 50.2% in '07 and '09.


A couple things.

All the doubles Hakeem drew? When has Kobe been single covered with any regularity since he was a teenager. When Kobe has the ball in his hands he demands a lot of attention Shaq or no Shaq

Kobe was guarded 1 on 1 quite often when Shaq was on the team. perimeter players are typically doubled less than big men. Kobe however has been double teamed more than any other Laker since Shaq left, even with big men like Pau and Bynum, Kobe remains the primary focus of opposing defenses most nights.


I don't know what an "extended prime" is but in 1999-2000 he was about 23/6/5, All NBA second team and first team All Defense. In 2011-12 he was 28/5/5 All NBA first team and second team All-Defense. Production wise Kobe has been in his "prime" for most of his adult life.

'00 definitely wasn't Kobe's prime, he was arguably the best 2 guard already, and around a top 10 player, could be argued slightly higher or lower depending on your preference.

But I don't know anyone who thinks Kobe was in his prime by 2000.

Prime to me is an exclusive period of a player's career when they still have most of their physical ability, but their skills have improved and they've learned how to play smarter due to experience.

I called '01-'10 Kobe's extended prime because he was a top 3 player as early as '01, imo, and top 2 as late as '10. But at the same time, he hadn't yet added some of his skills like a reliable 3 point shot in '01, or become as crafty and skilled with fakes and footwork, more of that, and ultimately his legendary streak scoring ability and the added strength came in the '03 season.

And after '09, he lost a very noticeable amount of athleticism, and his game was also affected quite a bit by injuries, which has clearly taken him from a very dangerous 3 point shooter from '03-'09 to a pretty mediocre 3 point shooter the last 3 seasons.



Except hakeem is only more consistent in your imaginary world where FG% is the tie breaker due to TS being equal. I wish I lived in that world. I have a 10 inch dick in that world. Sadly we live in the world where the following is true:

No, Hakeem is flat out more consistent. Kobe is more streaky, I don't see how that's even up for debate.

You have trouble dealing with the fact that I simply don't agree that TS% is all you should look at, it has flaws too. First of all, missed free throws don't hurt as much as missed FGs, particularly missed 3s. Because your defense is set even if you miss FTs and you get the other team closer to the penalty, while missed FGs, particularly long jumpers often lead to transition opportunities.

Also, again, you can go out and shoot 7/21, 8/24 or whatever one night, have a monster game the next night and be rewarded with a high TS%. There's something to be said for a guy who is more consistently going to shoot well.

And TS% itself is still an estimate, hence the .44 FT thing, and in reality players who regularly finish more with contact and get opportunities for 3 point plays will be more efficient than those who don't, but TS% doesn't tell you that.

So TS% is not a perfect stat either, but I'm not saying it's worthless. I think you're just disregarding FG% because it hurts your favorite player in this argument.


But let me guess, since hakeem consistently scored less kobe it makes him more consistent. Is that your logic? Because if we account for 3s which we've already agreed is ludicrous not to (since its penalizing kobe for taking more efficient shots) kobes TS% is higher than hakeems AND he scores more every year. I dont understand. The doubles? Hakeem is a better scorer because he was double teamed? What? Kobe is a better scorer because he takes tougher shots. **** you thats why.

How is Kobe's TS% higher? Hakeem as an elite player from '86-'97puts up 55.8 TS% and 51.5 eFG%(that accounts for 3s too, you know). Kobe as an elite player from '01-'12 has a TS% of 55.6% and an eFG% of 48.6%.

So TS% doesn't even favor Kobe.

And yes, double teams matter. It's part of how a team deals with a dominant scorer, and also part of the way a player impacts a game if he's learned how to pass out of them, which Hakeem certainly did from '93-'97.

The analogy with Kobe taking tougher shots is laughable. Double teams are a strategy other teams put in to take the ball out of a scorer's hand and limit how much they can score, while Kobe taking tough shots mostly just brings his basketball IQ into question.


In playoffs hakeem had the bigger max but he got over 25 a total of 7 times compared to Kobe's 10 times and still counting. Bbbut what? He was double teamed a lot so **** everything I just said? What does big gap mean? Does he need to be more efficient than him and score more than him? I thought that'd be a big gap, but I guess not. Does he need to double his points? Show me an example of a big gap offensively.

'86-'97 Hakeem scored 27.5 ppg on 53.7 FG%/53.8 eFG%/57.8 TS% in 126 games, '01-'12 Kobe has scored 28.5 ppg on 45.1 FG%/48.4 eFG%/54.6 TS% in 170 games

Granted Kobe score 1 more ppg and played more games/a higher percentage of his games in later rounds. But the scoring gap wasn't that large and Hakeem's efficiency was much better anyway you slice it....FG%, TS% and eFG%.


You want to make a team where your star player can offensively put up the most points on the best possible efficiency of the two or the next 10 years. Who do you take. Kobe or hakeem? Do you even need to think for a second?

Put up more points? Kobe. Efficiency? Hakeem.

[RazorBaLade]

You have trouble dealing with the fact that I simply don't agree that TS% is all you should look at, it has flaws too. First of all, missed free throws don't hurt as much as missed FGs, particularly missed 3s. Because your defense is set even if you miss FTs and you get the other team closer to the penalty, while missed FGs, particularly long jumpers often lead to transition opportunities.

Also, again, you can go out and shoot 7/21, 8/24 or whatever one night, have a monster game the next night and be rewarded with a high TS%. There's something to be said for a guy who is more consistently going to shoot well.

And TS% itself is still an estimate, hence the .44 FT thing, and in reality players who regularly finish more with contact and get opportunities for 3 point plays will be more efficient than those who don't, but TS% doesn't tell you that.

So TS% is not a perfect stat either, but I'm not saying it's worthless. I think you're just disregarding FG% because it hurts your favorite player in this argument.

How is Kobe's TS% higher? Hakeem as an elite player from '86-'97puts up 55.8 TS% and 51.5 eFG%(that accounts for 3s too, you know). Kobe as an elite player from '01-'12 has a TS% of 55.6% and an eFG% of 48.6%.

So TS% doesn't even favor Kobe.

And yes, double teams matter. It's part of how a team deals with a dominant scorer, and also part of the way a player impacts a game if he's learned how to pass out of them, which Hakeem certainly did from '93-'97.

The analogy with Kobe taking tougher shots is laughable. Double teams are a strategy other teams put in to take the ball out of a scorer's hand and limit how much they can score, while Kobe taking tough shots mostly just brings his basketball IQ into question.

'86-'97 Hakeem scored 27.5 ppg on 53.7 FG%/53.8 eFG%/57.8 TS% in 126 games, '01-'12 Kobe has scored 28.5 ppg on 45.1 FG%/48.4 eFG%/54.6 TS% in 170 games

Granted Kobe score 1 more ppg and played more games/a higher percentage of his games in later rounds. But the scoring gap wasn't that large and Hakeem's efficiency was much better anyway you slice it....FG%, TS% and eFG%.

Put up more points? Kobe. Efficiency? Hakeem.

A missed ft is a missed attempt at a point, which is all efficiency and scoring is about. We're not talking about how maybe 12 footers lead to set defenses and 15 footers lead to more transition so thus 12 footers > 15. We're talking about scoring ability and scoring efficiency. No one knows the game well enough to go that indepth about it and talk about how hey kobe misses his shots on the front of the rim which are easier to rebound compared to hakeems soft bounces which go to the side and give more time for the defense to set. nobody cares.

You can also go shoot 7/21 and have a monster game the next night and have a high FG. Here you go. 7-21 then 18-24. High FG. Thats how an average works. Same for TS. Whats your point?

Hakeem doesn't get more 3 pt plays than kobe so thank you for improving my argument further.

No kobe is defended better because its the future and tendencies and such can be studied as mark cuban alluded to in his skip bayless talk. Defenses are more advanced and know what other players will do.

Arbitrary sample size. Over career kobes is better.

[SuperPippen]

This is why I don't take the time to write long posts. You spell it out for them and they still won't conceed a point.

Quit acting like you and RazorBLade aren't extremely biased.

[RazorBaLade]

Quit acting like you and RazorBLade aren't extremely biased.

Ya its a shame we're biased to the idea of using math to determine that 3 points is worth more than 2 points and thus should be counted as such. Thankfully we have level headed posters like shaqattack to drop gems like Kobe has a higher TS% but since Hakeem has a higher FG% he wins the tiebreaker.

[Jacks3]

This is why I usually don't even bother reading/responding to Kobe threads. People are so biased either way... they end losing their minds and saying the most ridiculous things, or coming up with newer and more creative ways to essentially dismiss or discredit any advantage Kobe has.

It's crazy.

[PickernRoller]

This is why I usually don't even bother reading/responding to Kobe threads. People are so biased either way... they end losing their minds and saying the most ridiculous things, or coming up with newer and more creative ways to essentially dismiss or discredit any advantage Kobe has.

It's crazy.

Reminds me of that "Duncan > Shaq thread"...

At the end of the day Duncan fans felt strongly about their case when the debate was all said and done and so were Shaq fans with their own arguments. To sum it up, Duncan > Shaq and Shaq > Duncan.

It's too easy for me. Kobe > Ducan, Shaq and Hakeem. Too easy...:roll: :roll: :cheers:

[Smoke117]

Kobe fans or anyone who would take Bryant Over Hakeem Olajuwon is a god damn moron. Hakeem Olajuwon was the greatest defensive player we've seen from the 1980 season and on and probably going into the late 70s because of Walton's injury issues considering he was the best defensive player in their championship season in 77 and even better in 78 before injuries cut his season short. Even only played only 58 games they still awarded him the MVP and if they were going to do that they should have given him the DPOY since Walton was a monster defensively. I don't even see how Kobe has longevity over Olajuwon considering as far as star years they are even at about 13 seasons and in everyone one of those seasons Hakeem shits all over Kobe Bryant defensively. Hakeem Olajuwon is the greatest modern anchor defensively in the game. Whether you find Kobe overrated or actually respect his defense he is absolutely nowhere close to making the impact that Olajuwon had on the defensive end. Only David Robinson comes close in his best years. There is absolutely nothing that put's Kobe over Olajuwon, period.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Ya its a shame we're biased to the idea of using math to determine that 3 points is worth more than 2 points and thus should be counted as such. Thankfully we have level headed posters like shaqattack to drop gems like Kobe has a higher TS% but since Hakeem has a higher FG% he wins the tiebreaker.

Actually, Kobe didn't have the higher TS%. Hakeem had a 55.8 TS% over his elite years('86-'97), and Kobe's was slightly lower at 55.6% over his elite years and an equal stretch('01-'12).

So I said that Hakeem having a much higher FG% and a significantly higher eFG% for that matter should be the tiebreaker.

I know you clowns think TS% is the only measure of efficiency that matters for biased reasons, but it's an absolute joke to act like it's unreasonable to give Hakeem the efficiency edge when he leads in 2 of the three efficiency categories when they're equal in the 1 you like best.

A complete joke. But i know exactly why you're doing it.

[Nevaeh]

Actually, Kobe didn't have the higher TS%. Hakeem had a 55.8 TS% over his elite years('86-'97), and Kobe's was slightly lower at 55.6% over his elite years and an equal stretch('01-'12).

So I said that Hakeem having a much higher FG% and a significantly higher eFG% for that matter should be the tiebreaker.

I know you clowns think TS% is the only measure of efficiency that matters for biased reasons, but it's an absolute joke to act like it's unreasonable to give Hakeem the efficiency edge when he leads in 2 of the three efficiency categories when they're equal in the 1 you like best.

A complete joke. But i know exactly why you're doing it.

Get ready to now hear that "TS% doesn't really matter", and that it's "how much you really love the game" that should be the determining stat for who's better.
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gif

[Smoke117]

Actually, Kobe didn't have the higher TS%. Hakeem had a 55.8 TS% over his elite years('86-'97), and Kobe's was slightly lower at 55.6% over his elite years and an equal stretch('01-'12).

So I said that Hakeem having a much higher FG% and a significantly higher eFG% for that matter should be the tiebreaker.

I know you clowns think TS% is the only measure of efficiency that matters for biased reasons, but it's an absolute joke to act like it's unreasonable to give Hakeem the efficiency edge when he leads in 2 of the three efficiency categories when they're equal in the 1 you like best.

A complete joke. But i know exactly why you're doing it.


Who cares who the efficiency edge goes to. (and it's even anyway and Kobe has it it much easier 2006 on with the rule changes) Besides the fact that Kobe has played in an easier era as far as scoring for perimeter scorers, the main thing that matters is the fact that Hakeem Olajuwon is the greatest defensive player by a good margin over the last 30 or so years, period. He was the absolute anchor and what ever you think of Kobe defensively (overrated or rated correctly) he has absolutely NOTHING on Hakeem Olajuwon. The Dream could anchor and carry a top 10 defense practically by himself. There is no way in hell Kobe is is carrying a defense the way Hakeem Olajuwon did. You can say it's unfair as one guy is a big man and one guy is a guard, but The Dream is literally considered the greatest defensive player over the last 30 years or so as I've said. If Kobe Bryant had some Scottie Pippen level of defense maybe you could try and make a case for him, but he doesn't and there is absolutely no case at all to put Bryant over Olajuwon, period.

[RazorBaLade]

Actually, Kobe didn't have the higher TS%. Hakeem had a 55.8 TS% over his elite years('86-'97), and Kobe's was slightly lower at 55.6% over his elite years and an equal stretch('01-'12).

So I said that Hakeem having a much higher FG% and a significantly higher eFG% for that matter should be the tiebreaker.

I know you clowns think TS% is the only measure of efficiency that matters for biased reasons, but it's an absolute joke to act like it's unreasonable to give Hakeem the efficiency edge when he leads in 2 of the three efficiency categories when they're equal in the 1 you like best.

A complete joke. But i know exactly why you're doing it.

Except you only picked that many years because you know kobes 3 pt % has taken a major hit the last 2 years. Completely arbitrary. Kobe had one of his worst years in 2011, why is that year an elite one for him? What pisses me off is that you only selected that many years because Kobe's 3 point percentage this year hurts him. Its not like hakeem was that good in 97, he dropped to 23 ppg. You only added in that year because his efficiency stayed the same while his ppg dropped where as kobes dropped in efficiency the last year severely due to injuries and perhaps age.

Also, lmao. 2 out of 3 efficiency categories. Thats like saying who cares if a player A goes 30/50 from the field, lets break it down to 15 ft 10 ft and 5 ft shots only. So player A is 10/20, 10/20, 10/10... But Player B is 25/50 from the field. He's 12/20, 12/10, 1/10. Player B wins in 2 categories so he wins the tiebreaker and thus 25/50>30/50 because I've broken the stat that covers everything into minor stats and did it this way.

From the bottom of my heart, you are a ******.

[RazorBaLade]

Who cares who the efficiency edge goes to. Besides the fact that Kobe has played in an easier era as far as scoring for perimeter scorers, the main thing that matters is the fact that Hakeem Olajuwon is the greatest defensive player by a good margin over the last 30 or so years, period. He was the absolute anchor and what ever you think of Kobe defensively (overrated or rated correctly) he has absolutely NOTHING on Hakeem Olajuwon. The Dream could anchor and carry a top 10 defense practically by himself. There is no way in hell Kobe is is carrying a defense the way Hakeem Olajuwon did. You can say it's unfair as one guy is a big man and one guy is a guard, but The Dream is literally considered the greatest defensive player over the last 30 years or so as I've said. If Kobe Bryant had some Scottie Pippen level of defense maybe you could try and make a case for him, but he doesn't and there is absolutely no case at all to put Bryant over Olajuwon, period.

This is a totally different argument. Its perfectly fine in my eyes to go at it from a defense vs offense standpoint.. and Hakeem wins that over kobe, as he does over nearly every other player. The problem is when someone starts trying to make it different than it is and weasel their way into making the offense seem closer than it is. How mad (hypothetically, no ones mad obv) would you be if I just read your post and did this:

Wait, hakeems a better defensive player than kobe? Uh, lets break it down:

Shot blocking- Hakeem
Perimeter defense- Kobe
Steals from 02-04: 2.0
Steals from 95-97 by Hakeem: 1.6
So steals, - Kobe

Kobe wins the tiebreaker 2-1. The gap is tiny as my genius has shown to you. I'm going to go suck a bag of ***** now that I have created this infallible argumentative strategy.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Except you only picked that many years because you know kobes 3 pt % has taken a major hit the last 2 years. Completely arbitrary. Kobe had one of his worst years in 2011, why is that year an elite one for him? What pisses me off is that you only selected that many years because Kobe's 3 point percentage this year hurts him. Its not like hakeem was that good in 97, he dropped to 23 ppg. You only added in that year because his efficiency stayed the same while his ppg dropped where as kobes dropped in efficiency the last year severely due to injuries and perhaps age.

Also, lmao. 2 out of 3 efficiency categories. Thats like saying who cares if a player A goes 30/50 from the field, lets break it down to 15 ft 10 ft and 5 ft shots only. So player A is 10/20, 10/20, 10/10... But Player B is 25/50 from the field. He's 12/20, 12/10, 1/10. Player B wins in 2 categories so he wins the tiebreaker and thus 25/50>30/50 because I've broken the stat that covers everything into minor stats and did it this way.

From the bottom of my heart, you are a ******.

No, I picked those years because they came up when talking about longevity before. So I suggest you stop trying to claim you know my thought process, because you're not that smart.

You clowns want to claim Kobe has had better longevity and then whine when I use the 11 year stretch.

Hakeem wasn't that good in '97? Not prime Hakeem, but better than Kobe was this year, or in '11 for that matter.

Ok, I'll use Kobe's true prime '03-'09, and what's likely Hakeem's best 6 year stretch.

Kobe's TS% ends up 56.3% compared to Hakeem's 55.9%. Slight advantage, but pretty much even as in the case of 11 year stretch, and like that stretch, Hakeem holds big advantages in eFG%(51.6 vs 49.1) and FG%(51.3 vs 45.3)

So the results are pretty much the same whether we use more of a prime stretch or the extended stretch, since of course, you Kobe fans love to talk about longevity until it backfires.

The results are the same for best 3 year stretch as well, TS% is about even while Hakeem has significant advantages in eFG% and FG%.

[RazorBaLade]

No, I picked those years because they came up when talking about longevity before. So I suggest you stop trying to claim you know my thought process, because you're not that smart.

You clowns want to claim Kobe has had better longevity and then whine when I use the 11 year stretch.

Hakeem wasn't that good in '97? Not prime Hakeem, but better than Kobe was this year, or in '11 for that matter.

Ok, I'll use Kobe's true prime '03-'09, and what's likely Hakeem's best 6 year stretch.

Kobe's TS% ends up 56.3% compared to Hakeem's 55.9%. Slight advantage, but pretty much even as in the case of 11 year stretch, and like that stretch, Hakeem holds big advantages in eFG%(51.6 vs 49.1) and FG%(51.3 vs 45.3)

So the results are pretty much the same whether we use more of a prime stretch or the extended stretch, since of course, you Kobe fans love to talk about longevity until it backfires.

The results are the same for best 3 year stretch as well, TS% is about even while Hakeem has significant advantages in eFG% and FG%.

You're breaking down a stat that covers everything into smaller parts. Read this "Thats like saying who cares if a player A goes 30/50 from the field, lets break it down to 15 ft 10 ft and 5 ft shots only. So player A is 10/20, 10/20, 10/10... But Player B is 25/50 from the field. He's 12/20, 12/10, 1/10. Player B wins in 2 categories so he wins the tiebreaker and thus 25/50>30/50 because I've broken the stat that covers everything into minor stats and did it this way."

Do you think thats impressive? Do you think thats the right way to go about it?

Whoa I barely was able to find the part where you admitted kobe is more efficient than him in his prime. Its like you felt as soon as you wrote that you had to cover it with 2 pieces of bullshit on each side.

He's more efficient in his prime and overall in his career, hes just not more efficient when you take some arbitrary end points. I wonder how long it took to get the years just right to squeak hakeem in by a few hundreds of a percent, I salute you.


oh youre a fan of tiebreakers right? absolute prime - kobe, career - kobe, arbitrary stats of when they were "elite" - hakeem. 2-1 buddy.

You lose in every possible way. I might as well be your daddy.

[Smoke117]

This is a totally different argument. Its perfectly fine in my eyes to go at it from a defense vs offense standpoint.. and Hakeem wins that over kobe, as he does over nearly every other player. The problem is when someone starts trying to make it different than it is and weasel their way into making the offense seem closer than it is. How mad (hypothetically, no ones mad obv) would you be if I just read your post and did this:

Wait, hakeems a better defensive player than kobe? Uh, lets break it down:

Shot blocking- Hakeem
Perimeter defense- Kobe
Steals from 02-04: 2.0
Steals from 95-97 by Hakeem: 1.6
So steals, - Kobe

Kobe wins the tiebreaker 2-1. The gap is tiny as my genius has shown to you. I'm going to go suck a bag of ***** now that I have created this infallible argumentative strategy.


You don't need to manufacture anything offensively to make it "closer than it seems". Hakeem Olajuwon was one of the best offensive centers of all time. He was a legit first option and in his two championship runs he completely shit over everyone. When you are the greatest defensive player of the modern era and one of the greatest scoring centers I don't see how any sane Person could put Kobe over the Dream. I'm pretty sure you are being sarcasatic as far as steals considering that Hakeem has a 1.7spg to Kobe's 1.5spg average. Even as a Center he was a better thief.

[ShaqAttack3234]

You're breaking down a stat that covers everything into smaller parts. Read this "Thats like saying who cares if a player A goes 30/50 from the field, lets break it down to 15 ft 10 ft and 5 ft shots only. So player A is 10/20, 10/20, 10/10... But Player B is 25/50 from the field. He's 12/20, 12/10, 1/10. Player B wins in 2 categories so he wins the tiebreaker and thus 25/50>30/50 because I've broken the stat that covers everything into minor stats and did it this way."

Do you think thats impressive? Do you think thats the right way to go about it?

Whoa I barely was able to find the part where you admitted kobe is more efficient than him in his prime. Its like you felt as soon as you wrote that you had to cover it with 2 pieces of bullshit on each side.

He's more efficient in his prime and overall in his career, hes just not more efficient when you take some arbitrary end points. I wonder how long it took to get the years just right to squeak hakeem in by a few hundreds of a percent, I salute you.

You're such a worthless human being, who can't even come close to backing up an argument.

I actually never said Kobe was more efficient in his prime, not once, because I don't believe he was.

This is getting really pointless, we've ended up debating the correct way to measure efficiency. I think your point of view is completely asinine so you're not convincing me.

Of course this has only come down to debating statistics(and only one part of statistics at that) because you have NO IDEA how Hakeem played. You have not watched him, I doubt you've even seen 1 complete game from his year on the Raptors.

Your NBA knowledge seems to center on 1 player. Kobe Bryant, and even with him, you seem to lack the mental capacity and objectivity to analyze his game.

Congratulations for wasting my time. I'm done with you, and I'll remember threads like this before even considering trying to have a discussion with a piece of trash like yourself.

[RazorBaLade]

You don't need to manufacture anything offensively to make it "closer than it seems". Hakeem Olajuwon was one of the best offensive centers of all time. He was a legit first option and in his two championship runs he completely shit over everyone. When you are the greatest defensive player of the modern era and one of the greatest scoring centers I don't see how any sane Person could put Kobe over the Dream. I'm pretty sure you are being sarcasatic as far as steals considering that Hakeem has a 1.7spg to Kobe's 1.5spg average. Even as a Center he was a better thief.

Thats fine, theres just no reason to say kobes less efficient when he has a higher TS. It just mkaes no sense. I have nothing against hakeem. And yes I'm just using shaqattacks strategy with the steals dude.


You're such a worthless human being, who can't even come close to backing up an argument.

I actually never said Kobe was more efficient in his prime, not once, because I don't believe he was.

This is getting really pointless, we've ended up debating the correct way to measure efficiency. I think your point of view is completely asinine so you're not convincing me.

Of course this has only come down to debating statistics(and only one part of statistics at that) because you have NO IDEA how Hakeem played. You have not watched him, I doubt you've even seen 1 complete game from his year on the Raptors.

Your NBA knowledge seems to center on 1 player. Kobe Bryant, and even with him, you seem to lack the mental capacity and objectivity to analyze his game.

Congratulations for wasting my time. I'm done with you, and I'll remember threads like this before even considering trying to have a discussion with a piece of trash like yourself.

So you read the example of what youre doing with the TS EFG FG, processed it, realized you are completely wrong in every possible way and have decided to high tail it out of here? Don't let the door hit you, sonny.

[atljonesbro]

LOL @ this thread. You old men are QUICK to to pull out the championship argument or 80s 90s players vs a current player, but when the current player has more championships than the 80s 90s player "80s 90s player is JUST THE BETTER PLAYER"

[Bosnian Sajo]

:roll:

Big Laker and Kobe fan, but no way in hell is he better than Hakeem. I honstly wouldn't even put Shaq over the dream.

[Rnbizzle]

LOL @ this thread. You old men are QUICK to to pull out the championship argument or 80s 90s players vs a current player, but when the current player has more championships than the 80s 90s player "80s 90s player is JUST THE BETTER PLAYER"
:applause:

[madmax]

who are even ranking him above The Dream anyway? His delusional obsessed stans you mean? Because this chucker is barely a TOP 25 player of all time if we discount that silly ring talk, where he was carried by elite big men season after season...

[Kobe 4 The Win]

You're such a worthless human being, who can't even come close to backing up an argument.

I actually never said Kobe was more efficient in his prime, not once, because I don't believe he was.

This is getting really pointless, we've ended up debating the correct way to measure efficiency. I think your point of view is completely asinine so you're not convincing me.

Of course this has only come down to debating statistics(and only one part of statistics at that) because you have NO IDEA how Hakeem played. You have not watched him, I doubt you've even seen 1 complete game from his year on the Raptors.

Your NBA knowledge seems to center on 1 player. Kobe Bryant, and even with him, you seem to lack the mental capacity and objectivity to analyze his game.

Congratulations for wasting my time. I'm done with you, and I'll remember threads like this before even considering trying to have a discussion with a piece of trash like yourself.


This is what you have said for the last 8 pages.

You are the only one that understands basketball. Everyone who disagrees with you is stupid or just a biased Kobe Stan. Putting Kobe ahead of Hakeem is asinine. No one has seen Hakeem play but you, and if they did they aren't smart enough to understand what they saw. Rings don't matter, stats don't matter. Only the things that you deem important matter. Someone else esplaining their point of view is a waste of your time.

Keep telling yourself this as you scuttle away to another thread to find someone that won't contradict you and will let you get away with your dicketry.

[ShaqAttack3234]

This is what you have said for the last 8 pages.

You are the only one that understands basketball. Everyone who disagrees with you is stupid or just a biased Kobe Stan. Putting Kobe ahead of Hakeem is asinine. No one has seen Hakeem play but you, and if they did they aren't smart enough to understand what they saw. Rings don't matter, stats don't matter. Only the things that you deem important matter. Someone else esplaining their point of view is a waste of your time.

Keep telling yourself this as you scuttle away to another thread to find someone that won't contradict you and will let you get away with your dicketry.

Right, like any of the Kobe homers have brought something new to the table? You're one to talk, you haven't even tried arguing, you've just taken shots at me.

I respect people who disagree with me if they back up their points, display knowledge about basketball, and actually attempt to have debates.

I could name quite a few posters who I disagree with a fair amount, but respect and enjoy debating with, and sometimes come away looking at things a different way, or even change my opinion. If you find it necessary, I'd be more than happy to name the posters I have in mind.

I do find it puzzling to consider Kobe better than Hakeem. Hakeem was regularly making his teams elite defensively while carrying them offensively, and when Rudy took over, he wasn't just doing it with scoring, their offense revolved around his passing just as much. That's just incredible impact that I don't see from any perimeter player other than '89-'93 MJ, and '84-'88 Bird and '87-'90 Magic are the only others I find close.

Forgive me for not respecting someone who thinks playmaking is summed up with assists, or doesn't find the playmaking of a player who excelled at 3 point shooting and built their offense with spot up shooters who typically relied on Hakeem getting doubled and making excellent passes out to them wide open on the perimeter as comparable to Kobe.

Or for not respecting someone who calls Kobe's longevity superior and then complains when I use a 12 year stretch to compare them. Then ignores that the 3 year stretches and 7 year stretches used show basically the same thing, or their high season for that matter.

I know both of their games well, and wouldn't hesitate to choose Hakeem, so of course I'm going to find it puzzling when people choose Kobe. it's like we're not even watching the same players.

But again, this is falling on deaf ears because you have not even made an attempt to make a case for Kobe.

[G.O.A.T]

Edit- As someone stated in this thread already, its funny how Kobe's 2001 and 2002 rings(i willl leave out 2000) somehow don't count but nobody ever gives Kareem and Magic any probs for playing with each other.

I don't find this to be true. Most people usually acknowledge that Magic and Kareem have between 2-4 rings as the man with 1982 and 1985 being debatable for most. Kobe has two as the man, I don't think that's debatable at all.

[tpols]

Hakeem is getting overrated because of the whole defense/offense argument. If Hakeem's defense was the best in the last 30 years and he was dropping 30 on 50%+FG you could say he was better than anybody. He was scoring the same amount of points as Shaq and Kareem while providing much more active/effective defense. Why didnt this superirority translate into much more success like it did for Shaq and Kareem then?

[Fazotronic]

Hakeem is getting overrated because of the whole defense/offense argument. If Hakeem's defense was the best in the last 30 years and he was dropping 30 on 50%+FG you could say he was better than anybody. He was scoring the same amount of points as Shaq and Kareem while providing much more active/effective defense. Why didnt this superirority translate into much more success like it did for Shaq and Kareem then?

yea shaq was so much more successful in orlando. OOPS!

[D.J.]

Kobe has had the better career(mostly due to longevity), but Kobe's peak was not better than Hakeem's. And if you're starting a franchise, you're clearly going to take Hakeem over Kobe.

[D.J.]

Why didnt this superirority translate into much more success like it did for Shaq and Kareem then?


Hakeem didn't exactly have a Kobe Bryant as a second option. He did have Ralph Sampson for 2 healthy seasons and they were 2 wins from a title in '86. But look who his best teammates were for the next 6 years: Sleepy Floyd, Rodney McCray, Purvis Short, Otis Thorpe. Outside of Thorpe, these guys were nothing more than slightly above average role players. But even if they were putting up a respectable amount of points, they didn't understand their roles. They weren't winning consistently until Kenny Smith and Vernon Maxwell developed. Then they brought in Sam Cassell and Robert Horry and they had 2 titles.

[bleedinpurpleTwo]

Hakeem didn't exactly have a Kobe Bryant as a second option. He did have Ralph Sampson for 2 healthy seasons and they were 2 wins from a title in '86. But look who his best teammates were for the next 6 years: Sleepy Floyd, Rodney McCray, Purvis Short, Otis Thorpe. Outside of Thorpe, these guys were nothing more than slightly above average role players. But even if they were putting up a respectable amount of points, they didn't understand their roles. They weren't winning consistently until Kenny Smith and Vernon Maxwell developed. Then they brought in Sam Cassell and Robert Horry and they had 2 titles.
Some damn good players that you just listed. Damn good.

[RRR3]

Some damn good players that you just listed. Damn good.
Damn good role players maybe

[ThaRegul8r]

Hakeem didn't exactly have a Kobe Bryant as a second option. He did have Ralph Sampson for 2 healthy seasons and they were 2 wins from a title in '86. But look who his best teammates were for the next 6 years: Sleepy Floyd, Rodney McCray, Purvis Short, Otis Thorpe. Outside of Thorpe, these guys were nothing more than slightly above average role players. But even if they were putting up a respectable amount of points, they didn't understand their roles. They weren't winning consistently until Kenny Smith and Vernon Maxwell developed. Then they brought in Sam Cassell and Robert Horry and they had 2 titles.

You neglected to mention Hakeem needing to get his mind right, which came with resdicovering Islam. I'll post more on this later when I get back to where my files are.

[D.J.]

Some damn good players that you just listed. Damn good.


They weren't that good in Houston. Putting up 12-14 PPG(especially when the pace of games were faster) isn't at all impressive. Smith and Maxwell were both putting up around 17 a game and they started winning more consistently. But it's not just about the points. It's also about knowing your role on the team. Smith, Maxwell, Cassell, and Horry all knew their roles and what they needed to do.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

Right, like any of the Kobe homers have brought something new to the table? You're one to talk, you haven't even tried arguing, you've just taken shots at me.

I respect people who disagree with me if they back up their points, display knowledge about basketball, and actually attempt to have debates.

I could name quite a few posters who I disagree with a fair amount, but respect and enjoy debating with, and sometimes come away looking at things a different way, or even change my opinion. If you find it necessary, I'd be more than happy to name the posters I have in mind.

I do find it puzzling to consider Kobe better than Hakeem. Hakeem was regularly making his teams elite defensively while carrying them offensively, and when Rudy took over, he wasn't just doing it with scoring, their offense revolved around his passing just as much. That's just incredible impact that I don't see from any perimeter player other than '89-'93 MJ, and '84-'88 Bird and '87-'90 Magic are the only others I find close.

Forgive me for not respecting someone who thinks playmaking is summed up with assists, or doesn't find the playmaking of a player who excelled at 3 point shooting and built their offense with spot up shooters who typically relied on Hakeem getting doubled and making excellent passes out to them wide open on the perimeter as comparable to Kobe.

Or for not respecting someone who calls Kobe's longevity superior and then complains when I use a 12 year stretch to compare them. Then ignores that the 3 year stretches and 7 year stretches used show basically the same thing, or their high season for that matter.

I know both of their games well, and wouldn't hesitate to choose Hakeem, so of course I'm going to find it puzzling when people choose Kobe. it's like we're not even watching the same players.

But again, this is falling on deaf ears because you have not even made an attempt to make a case for Kobe.

Just make your arguemant man. Why do you have to act like everyone who disagrees is stupid or a "Kobe homer". You say I'm taking stots at you, every one of your posts is loaded with sarcasm and condescension. "Forgive me...", "I find it puzzling", "Falling on deaf ears", "It's like we're not watching the same player". with You know who uses phrases like this? A d**k.

I don't need to "make my case". Several people have already run off many reasons why Kobe has a case to be above Hakeem. I did give a very brief explaination of some of the reasons I prefer Kobe. I'm not one to type a 5000 word essay on a forum like this. If you disagree with me, fine. It's all just opinion man. Seriously, what is your problem? Nevermind, I already know. You are a d**k.

[BlueandGold]

A lot of ppl try to downplay Kobe's impact on the 00-02 championship teams but look up how many teams in the history of the NBA have three-peated and get back to me. Also post his stats in the WCF, regular season and finals/playoffs during that time and look at the load he carried as the 1b of that team.

And then also consider that it's not like Kobe wanted to be in the sidekick role, in fact that's exactly why him and Shaq couldn't co-exist.. their personalities were too strong to co-exist together. He was also 19-23 years of age during that first run.

[dajadeed]

-both has 1 MVP
-Kobe has 5 rings 2 FMVP(2 of those non-fmvp rings are still very valuable) compared to Hakeems 2 rings and 2 FMVP


While Kobe's peak was not better than Hakeem's, he has managed to find a way to be in the argument for top 1-3 player for the past decade.

Edit- As someone stated in this thread already, its funny how Kobe's 2001 and 2002 rings(i willl leave out 2000) somehow don't count but nobody ever gives Kareem and Magic any probs for playing with each other.

Kobe in 99-00 was no slouch. He wasn't just a role player. He led the team in assists, rebounds, and points in game 7 against Portland. Carried the team in overtime without Shaq AT Indiana. Dude was just a budding superstar, blossoming into a dominant player.

It's hilarious that people act like Kobe was someone just riding Shaq's coattails. He wasn't, he was a badass.

And I say that while still acknowledging that Shaq was the baddest bigman I have ever seen. Shaq in 2000 was the most dominant player I have ever seen, including MJ. It's just he couldn't close. He was actually on the bench in some tight situations because of his low ft%.


Basically, only ignorant people discredit Kobe's 5 rings. He earned every 1 of those.

[Vertical-24]

Ahhh...this thread....so entertaining :oldlol: :applause:

[BlueandGold]

Kobe in 99-00 was no slouch. He wasn't just a role player. He led the team in assists, rebounds, and points in game 7 against Portland. Carried the team in overtime without Shaq AT Indiana. Dude was just a budding superstar, blossoming into a dominant player.

It's hilarious that people act like Kobe was someone just riding Shaq's coattails. He wasn't, he was a badass.

And I say that while still acknowledging that Shaq was the baddest bigman I have ever seen. Shaq in 2000 was the most dominant player I have ever seen, including MJ. It's just he couldn't close. He was actually on the bench in some tight situations because of his low ft%.


Basically, only ignorant people discredit Kobe's 5 rings. He earned every 1 of those.

What I find funny is that while many of Kobe's detractors/Shaq homers love to talk about how Kobe wouldn't have won anything during that time without Shaq while totally disregarding the fact that Shaq wouldn't have won without Kobe either. There were just certain things a big man like Shaq just couldn't do, such as make free-throws and jump-shots (especially down the stretch) and also dominant the wing like Kobe can, something that is essential to the success of the triangle. In fact if you look at all PJ coached teams they all had a dominant wing player to run the triangle but not all of their teams had dominant big men. Hell even during the 09-10 run PJ used Odom much more than Bynum, and that was even when Bynum was healthy.

[DFish]

Prime Kobe is better than Prime Olajuwon (the offensive abilities of prime Kobe push him ahead), but it's close enough that it shouldn't ruffle anybody's feathers if someone puts Hakeem before Kobe on their rankings.

[D.J.]

Prime Kobe is better than Prime Olajuwon (the offensive abilities of prime Kobe push him ahead)


No. Kobe's advantage on offense isn't as significant as Hakeem's advantage on defense. Kobe at his best was clearly the better scorer, but let's not act like Olajuwon couldn't score. Olajuwon was consistently putting up around 22-23 PPG. He even had a 4 year stretch('93-'96) where he never averaged less than 26 PPG(26.1, 27.3, 27.8, 26.9). Hakeem was significantly better on D. He anchored his team's D, was an intimidating force in the paint, blocked over 4 shots a game on multiple occasions, could come out and guard on the perimeter as well, and had a very fast pair of hands for a guy his size.

[RazorBaLade]

Just make your arguemant man. Why do you have to act like everyone who disagrees is stupid or a "Kobe homer". You say I'm taking stots at you, every one of your posts is loaded with sarcasm and condescension. "Forgive me...", "I find it puzzling", "Falling on deaf ears", "It's like we're not watching the same player". with You know who uses phrases like this? A d**k.

I don't need to "make my case". Several people have already run off many reasons why Kobe has a case to be above Hakeem. I did give a very brief explaination of some of the reasons I prefer Kobe. I'm not one to type a 5000 word essay on a forum like this. If you disagree with me, fine. It's all just opinion man. Seriously, what is your problem? Nevermind, I already know. You are a d**k.

Every argument he did try to make was torn apart. Now hes back and STILL not justifying his breaking down TS which covers everything to 3 stats so hakeem can win the ****ing tiebreaker.

I really might be his dad.

also guys who have hakeem over kober, is he over magic and bird too? more efficient and way better on d..

[Owl]

What I find funny is that while many of Kobe's detractors/Shaq homers love to talk about how Kobe wouldn't have won anything during that time without Shaq while totally disregarding the fact that Shaq wouldn't have won without Kobe either. There were just certain things a big man like Shaq just couldn't do, such as make free-throws and jump-shots (especially down the stretch) and also dominant the wing like Kobe can, something that is essential to the success of the triangle. In fact if you look at all PJ coached teams they all had a dominant wing player to run the triangle but not all of their teams had dominant big men. Hell even during the 09-10 run PJ used Odom much more than Bynum, and that was even when Bynum was healthy.
It's not a with/without thing. It's entirely possible/plausible that Hakeem doesn't win titles without Robert Horry (a stretch combo forward, good defender and at that time a good athlete) but that doesn't make their roles comparable. Hakeems performances were more valuable (making say a 20 win difference if his roster spot was given to a replacement player, whereas Horry might only be worth about 4 wins). On such a basis is "best player on a championship team argued.

The idea of using rings is flawed because it really depends on what teammates and indeed coaches you have, but if you must count them (and I'd prefer not to if evaluating individuals) then titles as best player is probably preferable.

[ThaRegul8r]

It's entirely possible/plausible that Hakeem doesn't win titles without Robert Horry (a stretch combo forward, good defender and at that time a good athlete)

And it's unequivocal that Horry wins nothing and never has any opportunity for clutch moments if he didn't play with the three greatest big men of his generation (Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan). All of whom are All-Time Top 10 players.

[D.J.]

also guys who have hakeem over kober, is he over magic and bird too? more efficient and way better on d..


You can argue he was more efficient than Jordan as well.

[RazorBaLade]

You can argue he was more efficient than Jordan as well.

Hell yes, if we break major stats into 3 and then have stuff decided by tie breakers then Hakeem could be made the goat!

[eliteballer]

If Hakeem had more rings you could argue him against almost anyone. His prime was THAT good.

[Smoke117]

Prime Kobe is better than Prime Olajuwon (the offensive abilities of prime Kobe push him ahead), but it's close enough that it shouldn't ruffle anybody's feathers if someone puts Hakeem before Kobe on their rankings.


You have to be joking. The disparity as far as offense goes isn't even close to the disparity in defense. I'm one of the people that believe Kobe is massively overrated defensively, but let's for a moment say he isn't...not even somebody like Scottie Pippen who is commonly regarded as the greatest perimeter defensive player of all time comes close to having the impact Hakeem Olajuwon did. No one over the last 30 years or so comes close to being as dominant as Olajuwon defensively except maybe David Robinson.

[DFish]

You have to be joking. The disparity as far as offense goes isn't even close to the disparity in defense. I'm one of the people that believe Kobe is massively overrated defensively, but let's for a moment say he isn't...not even somebody like Scottie Pippen who is commonly regarded as the greatest perimeter defensive player of all time comes close to having the impact Hakeem Olajuwon did. No one over the last 30 years or so comes close to being as dominant as Olajuwon defensively except maybe David Robinson.

Offensive abilities generally hold more weight than defensive skills when it comes to ranking playes individually, and rightfully so. Defense is much more of a team effort than offense. I'm not arguing against Hakeem being a better solo defender, but Kobe in his prime was an unbelievable scorer. Even in the years that skirt his prime years, Kobe would routinely put up amazing volume and go on pretty ridiculous scoring streaks.

But like I said, the two players are close enough in all-around basketball talent that nobody should be this upset if they get swapped back and forth on GOAT rankings. For me personally, Kobe's scoring ability and career accomplishments put him ahead of Olajuwon on my list. It's also important to remember that his career isn't yet finished. But either way, Kobe and Hakeem should fall pretty close together on the rankings. As long as one isn't at #6 and the other at #15 or something, I don't see the fuss.

[Big#50]

He is not.

[Anaximandro1]

Prime Kobe is better than Prime Olajuwon (the offensive abilities of prime Kobe push him ahead)
That's funny because Olajuwon is a better offensive player than Kobe.


While Kobe struggles to score against elite defenses...


Kobe against elite defenses in the playoffs (*)

NBA Finals Statistics

24.7 pts (41.1%)


1999 Western Conference Semifinals/ Spurs 4-0 over Lakers

21.2 pts (FG 44.7%)

2003 Western Conference Semifinals/ Spurs 4-2 over Lakers

32.2 pts (FG 43.4% Kobe missed 90 of 159 shots)


2004 NBA Finals / Pistons 4-1 over Lakers

22.6 pts (FG 38%)


2008 NBA Finals / Celtics 4-2 over Lakers

25.7 pt (FG 40.5%)


2010 NBA Finals / Lakers 4-3 over Celtics

28.6 pts (FG 40.5%)


(*) 2001 -Spurs' backcourt: 38-year old Terry Porter,36-year old Avery Johnson and Antonio Daniels.

2008 -At 37 years old,Bruce Bowen was almost done and Manu was injured;both were useless on both ends in the Lakers series.



at his peak The Dream was completely unguardable.


Olajuwon against elite defenses in the playoffs

NBA Finals Statistics

27.5 pts (48.8%)


1986 NBA Finals (23-year old vs Parish,McHale)

24.7 pts (48.8%)



1994 NBA Finals (vs Ewing,Oakley)

26.9 pts (50%)

1995 WCF (vs Robinson,Rodman)

35.3 pts (56.0%)

1995 NBA Finals (vs Shaq,Horace Grant)

32.8 pts (48.8%)

Playoff Career

Olajuwon 25.9 pt (52.8%)

Kobe 25.6 pts (44.8%)

Olajuwon is by far a better basketball player than Bryant.There's no point in comparing.

Kobe is a fantastic player,but he has lived in the Duncan-Shaq era (1999-2007) and now he is living in the LeBron era.His fans should get over it.

[RRR3]

Hell yes, if we break major stats into 3 and then have stuff decided by tie breakers then Hakeem could be made the goat!
:biggums: Shaqattack decimated you, and you still have the arrogance to continue acting like you "won". Kobetards:facepalm

[PickernRoller]

:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

http://www.reactionface.info/sites/default/files/images/1310566609761.jpg

[BlackVVaves]

Where is the retard that said without Kobe's rings he isn't even Top 25 in this thread?

You are so right. Let's just all start saying dumb ass shit guys. Hey, Hakeem > Magic. The Jazz were the real champions in
98. Zeke is the greatest point guard of all time.

Anyone can say dumb shit. Doesn't mean you should do it. Players work night in and night out to reach the promise land just ONCE. Let alone to repeat or three-peat. All so 45 year old men and 13 year old boys alike can discredit them, just "take them away."

MJ
Bill
Magic
Kareem
Bird
Wilt
Duncan
Kobe
Shaq

All had better careers than Hakeem. More accolades, accomplishments, and longevity that wad rich with regular season and, more importantly, playoff success. Yes, as a defensive center with footwork unmatched, he is more valuable to a hypothetical team than a guard. Newsflash: that goes for any dominant center in NBA history. Look at all the top 10 lists from the Top 100 All Time List thread. Literally, the only guards on the majority of people's lists were Kobe, Magic, and Jordan.

But if we are to use the logic that, ignore personal accolades or championships, let's just look at the uniqueness of a player's dominance, then Wilt would be the undisputed GOAT, and Duncan wouldn't even be in the Top 10 All Time list.

Thankfully, there's still some of us with rationale. Dream floats between #10 and #11 for me All Time. And, even if someone has him over Kobe, Shaq, or even Duncan, that's fine. Your opinion, I honestly don't care, it's a message board for ****'s sake. But, when some of you start making claims just to utterly downplay another player to simultaneously hoist another player up, it's not only annoying, but disgusting. And, you only do it with Kobe, Shaq, and Duncan consistently.

Get real. Bird, Kareem, Magic, even Wilt with Goodrich and West, won titles with multiple Hall of Famers. Yet, their greatness is never questioned for it, particularly Magic and Kareem, who played with each other, as the best point guard and center in the game, similiar to how Kobe and Shaq were a tandem made up of the best shooting guard and center in the game. Yet, Shaq, Kobe, and Duncan, who played with only ONE clear cut Hall of Famer (Kobe with Shaq, Shaq with Kobe, Shaq with Wade [Gary and Zo were both clearly pass their prime], Duncan with David, and Duncan with Parker) catch flack for playing on "stacked" teams on various forums, blogs, and radio talk shows.

Role player. Glorified role player. In the 5 years the Lakers "dynasty" reigned supreme, Kobe - the glorified role player - averaged 26 PPG in the regular season and 27 PPG in the playoffs. He dominated series, such as the WCF in 2001, and sometimes a whole stretch of regular season games when Shaq was either too hurt or too overweight.

Role player. How young are you fools? Let me take you back to 2003. The Lakers were 3 time defending champs. As a NBA fan hopeful that SOMEONE, ANYONE, could de-throne the dynasty Lakers, I was marginally satisfied that they started at a 11-19 record, and headed into February with a 23-23 record. There were hardly king-like, and looked rather vulnerable.

And then, Kobe, the glorified role player, dropped 46, 42, 51, 44, 40, 52, 40, 40, and 41 points. 9 straight games of 40 or more points. Going 7-2 in the stretch, and single handedly jump starting the Lakers to another 50 win season. Do you think a "role player" could achieve a feat that Wilt and Jordan have ever completed before? Do you think a role player could step up to shoulder even Shaq and help guarantee at least another shot at 4 peating?

At 24 YEARS OLD?!!!

What's wrong with you people? I don't particularly like the man, but how can you really sit there and type the nonsense you do? If that's not bad enough, the man went on to dominate in 2006 and 2007, and soonthereafter bring 2 more banners to the Lakers franchise.

But, he's just a role player :oldlol:

Kobe doesn't get 5 rings without Shaq. The same way Shaq doesn't get 4 rings without Kobe, MJ doesn't get 6 rings without Pippen, Kareem doesn't get 6 rings with Big O or Magic, Magic doesn't get 5 rings without Kareem. That's literally how it is. And how it's always going to be, because you can't alter the truth. Should that diminish their greatness? No. Especially when those players on a plethora of occasions showed why they are all easily the greatest the NBA has EVER seen. So keep your kindergarden logic to yourself; that shits for the birds.

The Dream is one of the greatest, arguably Top 10 greatest players ever. But please, stop with the bullshit. Career wise, he's not "clearly" better than Kobe. Is it debatable? Yes. Which is why there's actually rhetoric worth reading in this thread. But if you're reasoning is purely that Kobe was a sidekick, a role player, that rode Shaq's coat tails to 3 rings, slap yourself a couple times and go watch an actual NBA game before 2005. Because clearly you were watching something else. There's a difference between being a "sidekick" that's just along for the ride, and a young great player next a prime great player.


If you can't see that, you must not see much.

[Kobr]

Olajuwon is a better offensive player than Kobe.

:roll:

[NugzHeat3]

How is Kobe better than Olajuwon in the all time list?
He's not. I have Hakeem over Kobe pretty comfortably.

[RazorBaLade]

:biggums: Shaqattack decimated you, and you still have the arrogance to continue acting like you "won". Kobetards:facepalm

Wow you seriously think I didn't destroy his breaking down a major stat and winning tiebreaks argument? Seriously? You read all those posts and thought he was right?

Thats embarrassing.

Well actually I know you like to randomly troll me so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here. You've earned one benefit of the doubt.

[onhcetum]

Single-handedly carrying rosters like he did in '06.

Being the best player on the team in two titles, and a valuable contributor in three more (including carrying the Shaq-led teams in the WCF's in two of them.)

Going to SEVEN Finals, and winning in FIVE of them.

Being the most prolific scorer since MJ.

I love Duncan, and I rank him over both Kobe and Hakeem, but in his playoff H2H's, Kobe has been the best player on the floor in the majority of them.

Look, you can argue supporting rosters all you want. Hakeem didn't win a title both Drexler and Barkley, either.

And Kobe has been regarded as the best player of the entire decade of the 00's. No one in their right mind would have selected Hakeem in either the 80's or 90's.

And think about this...Kobe has been voted in the Top-4 in MVP balloting NINE times. Hakeem...FOUR.

So Kobe is the only player to be on a bad team? Everytime anyone brings up 2005-2007... Kobe fans all whine about "smush parker, luke walton, kwame brown" blah blah blah.. they act like Kobe is the ONLY PLAYER IN HISTORY TO HAVE PLAYED ON A BAD TEAM. How about Duncan 1999 and 2003?

btw comparing head to head kobe vs. duncan is retarded... didnt know they guarded each other and played the same position. btw, if all ur looking at is ppg of each guy... please just stop posting because duncan has been the defensive anchor of that joke of a spurs team who hasnt had a legitimate center since 2003

[ShaqAttack3234]

They weren't that good in Houston. Putting up 12-14 PPG(especially when the pace of games were faster) isn't at all impressive. Smith and Maxwell were both putting up around 17 a game and they started winning more consistently. But it's not just about the points. It's also about knowing your role on the team. Smith, Maxwell, Cassell, and Horry all knew their roles and what they needed to do.

Well, if you have a handful of quality players, you can compete with that. If he had just Mad Max or Thorpe and borderline starters after that then that'd be bad.

The '91 team had success with Hakeem out going 16-12 without him, and then started winning a lot when Hakeem returned in a reduced offensive role. They went 20-7 after Hakeem returned, and Hakeem only averaged 18 ppg, though he did average 13+ rpg, 4 bpg and 2.1 spg and shot 51%. Kenny Smith actually led them in scoring at 19 ppg, averaged 7 apg and shot 53%.

They were succeeding by playing a more up tempo style, shooting more perimeter shots and running a lot of screen/rolls rather than throwing the ball into Hakeem in the post a lot. They didn't really keep this up in the playoffs, they were sort of between styles and Hakeem raised his scoring, though they weren't fully committed to feeding him in the post to the extent they did in other years and they were swept by a very deep and talented Laker team.

But this also didn't keep up, as I mentioned, the '92 Rockets only went 2-10 without him, despite being a solid 40-30 with Hakeem in the lineup. The '86 Rockets that got to the finals were only 7-7 without Hakeem, and 44-34 with him. the '95 Rockets were just 3-7 without him(44-28 with him) and the '96 Rockets were just 1-9 without him and 47-25 with him.

So the '91 team is kind of anomaly because every other time Hakeem has missed 10+ games, his teams have really struggled. The '95 and '96 teams are kind of deceptive because they had quite a few other injuries, and the '95 team was still adjusting to the trade, but their record was also due to their lack of big men to support Hakeem and lack of depth.

The '93 team since that was the turning point.

He had Otis Thorpe, who was an excellent finisher, ran the floor very well for a 4, was a solid passer and a solid defender, but he was not great at getting his own offense. He didn't really have a mid-range jumper like most 4s, and was more of a finisher.

Mad Max was a very good defender, a capable playmaker, and a guy who could get red hot and really spark his team. But he was also a streaky chucker who was inconsistent and could shoot you out of a game.

Kenny Smith was a solid offensive point guard. Not a standout playmaker, but capable, and he didn't have to be since Rudy T's system had him as a spot up shooter.

Robert Horry was a rookie that year, and a long and athletic small forward who was very versatile. People forget, but Horry was not only a very good defender, but an excellent finisher and open court player. A pretty good shooter too, though he benefited greatly when they shortened the 3 point line in '95.

Then on their bench they had Carl Herrera, who was one of those crowd favorites and hustle type players. Not a great player, but a decent role player who would hit some mid-range shots now and then, iirc and get some rebounds. Scott Brooks who was a decent back up PG and shooter. Matt Bullard who was exclusively a shooter, and Sleepy Floyd who had been a dangerous scoring point guard, who had a tendency of chucking, but could light it up. However, Floyd was older and at the end of his career.

So that's good depth, and they specialized in 3 point shooting, they finished 2nd in 3s made and 4th in 3P%. Of course, they relied on Hakeem to get them open 3s, but you need players to knock them down.

But Hakeem was the primary reason they were the 3rd best defensive team and 6th best offensive team. And Hakeem was the reason they went 55-27, and finished 41-11 after starting out just 14-16 including 15 and 11 game winning streaks. Hakeem deserved the '93 MVP, I don't have any problem with Charles getting the most votes, and Hakeem receiving the second most votes showed him respect, but he'd be my choice.

The '94 team was a similar, albeit slightly improved version of the '93 team. They still had Thorpe, Mad Max and Smith in or near their primes. Horry improved in his second year, particularly after he was nearly traded for not being aggressive enough, after the trade was rescinded, he played much better. They also added a key role player in Mario Elie, who regularly made those 3 point set shots and defended well, and Sam Cassell as a rookie who gave them a nice tandem at PG.

They won a franchise record 58 games, Hakeem was voted MVP, and rightfully so, while also getting a much-deserved 2nd consecutive DPOY, and they had another 15 game winning streak, this time starting the season 15-0. They improved to the second best defensive team behind only the legendary '94 Knicks defense, which may be the best ever, but dropped to the 15th best offensive team, largely because they weren't nearly as proficient of a 3 point shooting team. They were 1st in 3s made and attempted, but dropped to 15th in 3P%.

The '95 team was much different. They traded Otis Thorpe for Clyde Drexler. Drexler gave Hakeem an all-nba teammate and the best shooting guard in the league that year if you exclude MJ who only played 17 rusty regular season games, though he was playing like the 2nd best player in the playoffs.

Drexler was rejuvenated for Houston, he was healthier than he had been his last few years in Portland, and seemed more motivated returning to his home where he had played college ball with Hakeem. He remained one of the league's premier open court players, and a terrific finisher who was very smooth. He was also one of the best passing non-PG, perhaps the best rebounding guard and his size made him one of the best guards in the post. Halfcourt scoring was never Drexler's strength, but he was capable of making mid-range shots, and he had added a 3 point shot in the early 90's, but had become a more prolific shooter with the shortened line. And he did have his trademark spin move. And Clyde was having some big games, while Horry and Cassell also showed significant improvements.

Houston's offense improved with the shortened line and the addition of Drexler, but their depth took a major hit because beyond their top 6, they only had Charles Jones, Chucky Brown and Pete Chilcutt. And they lacked big men around Hakeem forcing Horry to play out of position at the 4. And that caused them to fall from the elite defensive teams and also made them even more vulnerable on the boards. Their 4 out/1 in system had always cost them offensive rebounding opportunities, but it got worse after they lost Thorpe.


Just make your arguemant man. Why do you have to act like everyone who disagrees is stupid or a "Kobe homer". You say I'm taking stots at you, every one of your posts is loaded with sarcasm and condescension. "Forgive me...", "I find it puzzling", "Falling on deaf ears", "It's like we're not watching the same player". with You know who uses phrases like this? A d**k.

I don't need to "make my case". Several people have already run off many reasons why Kobe has a case to be above Hakeem. I did give a very brief explaination of some of the reasons I prefer Kobe. I'm not one to type a 5000 word essay on a forum like this. If you disagree with me, fine. It's all just opinion man. Seriously, what is your problem? Nevermind, I already know. You are a d**k.

:oldlol: This is why I think you're a clown you're going to criticize my posts and called me a douchebag (which was before I insulted anyone, btw), and then just piggyback on kids like RazorBaLade for arguments supporting Kobe? Seriously, relying on someone like that to make a case for Kobe is pretty sad.

I'm not going to pretend I respect the posters I'm arguing with because I don't. I think they've done a lousy job in this thread, and I'm familiar with some of their posts. If it pisses off people like you, I guess that's just a bonus.


:biggums: Shaqattack decimated you, and you still have the arrogance to continue acting like you "won". Kobetards:facepalm

He's living in his own fantasy world. He's pretending that I didn't explain my stance on FG% and TS% to try to distract from how poor his argument was. I did in fact explain that, he's acting like everyone should agree with him that TS% is the only form of efficiency that matters. I think I'm more than fair in taking both into consideration. I like FG% because it's simply how many shots a player makes out of how many they take. I like to know how frequently a player is going to score when I give them the ball, and apparently, so does Phil Jackson. I value consistency. I can appreciate volume scorers, but when their TS% is literally about even over peak seasons, 3 year stretches, 7 year stretches and 11 year stretches, I'll take the guy with significant edges in FG% and eFG% as the tiebreaker. I don't see what's difficult to understand about that at all.

That's why I'm just done responding with him in this thread, it's really not worth my time, I don't think he's done any sort of credible job debating, and I haven't found it to be a stimulating discussion. So why would I continue? Out of pure ego? I've made the mistake in the past of letting my ego get the better of me and wasting time arguing with posters I just don't think are worth it.

[Kobr]

Olajuwon is a better offensive player than Kobe.

:roll:

Still :roll:ing at that.

[The Iron Fist]

Where is the retard that said without Kobe's rings he isn't even Top 25 in this thread?

You are so right. Let's just all start saying dumb ass shit guys. Hey, Hakeem > Magic. The Jazz were the real champions in
98. Zeke is the greatest point guard of all time.

Anyone can say dumb shit. Doesn't mean you should do it. Players work night in and night out to reach the promise land just ONCE. Let alone to repeat or three-peat. All so 45 year old men and 13 year old boys alike can discredit them, just "take them away."

MJ
Bill
Magic
Kareem
Bird
Wilt
Duncan
Kobe
Shaq

All had better careers than Hakeem. More accolades, accomplishments, and longevity that wad rich with regular season and, more importantly, playoff success. Yes, as a defensive center with footwork unmatched, he is more valuable to a hypothetical team than a guard. Newsflash: that goes for any dominant center in NBA history. Look at all the top 10 lists from the Top 100 All Time List thread. Literally, the only guards on the majority of people's lists were Kobe, Magic, and Jordan.

But if we are to use the logic that, ignore personal accolades or championships, let's just look at the uniqueness of a player's dominance, then Wilt would be the undisputed GOAT, and Duncan wouldn't even be in the Top 10 All Time list.

Thankfully, there's still some of us with rationale. Dream floats between #10 and #11 for me All Time. And, even if someone has him over Kobe, Shaq, or even Duncan, that's fine. Your opinion, I honestly don't care, it's a message board for ****'s sake. But, when some of you start making claims just to utterly downplay another player to simultaneously hoist another player up, it's not only annoying, but disgusting. And, you only do it with Kobe, Shaq, and Duncan consistently.

Get real. Bird, Kareem, Magic, even Wilt with Goodrich and West, won titles with multiple Hall of Famers. Yet, their greatness is never questioned for it, particularly Magic and Kareem, who played with each other, as the best point guard and center in the game, similiar to how Kobe and Shaq were a tandem made up of the best shooting guard and center in the game. Yet, Shaq, Kobe, and Duncan, who played with only ONE clear cut Hall of Famer (Kobe with Shaq, Shaq with Kobe, Shaq with Wade [Gary and Zo were both clearly pass their prime], Duncan with David, and Duncan with Parker) catch flack for playing on "stacked" teams on various forums, blogs, and radio talk shows.

Role player. Glorified role player. In the 5 years the Lakers "dynasty" reigned supreme, Kobe - the glorified role player - averaged 26 PPG in the regular season and 27 PPG in the playoffs. He dominated series, such as the WCF in 2001, and sometimes a whole stretch of regular season games when Shaq was either too hurt or too overweight.

Role player. How young are you fools? Let me take you back to 2003. The Lakers were 3 time defending champs. As a NBA fan hopeful that SOMEONE, ANYONE, could de-throne the dynasty Lakers, I was marginally satisfied that they started at a 11-19 record, and headed into February with a 23-23 record. There were hardly king-like, and looked rather vulnerable.

And then, Kobe, the glorified role player, dropped 46, 42, 51, 44, 40, 52, 40, 40, and 41 points. 9 straight games of 40 or more points. Going 7-2 in the stretch, and single handedly jump starting the Lakers to another 50 win season. Do you think a "role player" could achieve a feat that Wilt and Jordan have ever completed before? Do you think a role player could step up to shoulder even Shaq and help guarantee at least another shot at 4 peating?

At 24 YEARS OLD?!!!

What's wrong with you people? I don't particularly like the man, but how can you really sit there and type the nonsense you do? If that's not bad enough, the man went on to dominate in 2006 and 2007, and soonthereafter bring 2 more banners to the Lakers franchise.

But, he's just a role player :oldlol:

Kobe doesn't get 5 rings without Shaq. The same way Shaq doesn't get 4 rings without Kobe, MJ doesn't get 6 rings without Pippen, Kareem doesn't get 6 rings with Big O or Magic, Magic doesn't get 5 rings without Kareem. That's literally how it is. And how it's always going to be, because you can't alter the truth. Should that diminish their greatness? No. Especially when those players on a plethora of occasions showed why they are all easily the greatest the NBA has EVER seen. So keep your kindergarden logic to yourself; that shits for the birds.

The Dream is one of the greatest, arguably Top 10 greatest players ever. But please, stop with the bullshit. Career wise, he's not "clearly" better than Kobe. Is it debatable? Yes. Which is why there's actually rhetoric worth reading in this thread. But if you're reasoning is purely that Kobe was a sidekick, a role player, that rode Shaq's coat tails to 3 rings, slap yourself a couple times and go watch an actual NBA game before 2005. Because clearly you were watching something else. There's a difference between being a "sidekick" that's just along for the ride, and a young great player next a prime great player.


If you can't see that, you must not see much.
:applause: