The case for locked-in top 10: Hakeem Olajuwon

[K Xerxes]

Now that LeBron seems to have gotten over his mental issues and is finally dominating the league like few players have in history, we can legitimately start putting him into the top 10 conversation. Even the most ardent LeBron hater will have to admit that he will consolidate his place by the time he hangs up his boots (given that he's already 28 and in the mix), so we unfortunately have to bump one player out of the list.

I've seen so many recent lists popping Hakeem off and putting LeBron in his place, and I strongly disagree with that. So, I'm going to show you exactly why Hakeem is locked in top 10, and arguably top 5.

Of course, to anyone that didn't watch him closely enough, looking at his basic resume of 2 rings, 2FMVP and 1MVP puts him at the bottom of the consensus 'all time 11 list'. Kobe has 3 more rings, LeBron has 3 more MVPs etc etc...

But look at his overall game - that's the real judgement. Who had the interior defensive impact he had? Russell, sure. Certainly not Shaq or Wilt. Kareem was a good defender, but not as good as Hakeem, period. Duncan was great, but could he switch onto smaller guards and defend them for a few seconds until the man defender got back to them... and then go back to guard the paint in time for a block?

And who managed to combine that with arguably the greatest footwork and post moves of all time, bamboozling defenders with the infamous 'dream shake'?

Hakeem.

Hakeem is as close to the 'model' center as you can get. Not as offensively dominant as Shaq, Wilt or Kareem, but he had a greater two-way impact IMO. If you asked me to draft a center to build around, I pick Hakeem over all of them in all honesty.

Now, let's address his accomplishments and his many playoff 'failures'. The truth is, he was put in the circumstances that favoured him the least out of all the top 11 players. There's really no question about it.

And I'm not even talking about Jordan's domination specifically.

In his second year (1986): led his team to the finals, beating off the defending champions Magic & Kareem-led Lakers in the WCF, while averaging 31-11. But, he only had the small matter of facing arguably the greatest team ever (with the greatest frontline ever), and he still led his team to am impressive sixth game against the ridiculously stacked Celtics. In his second year in the league, he averaged 27-12 in the playoffs. Hakeem's fault they didn't win?

Third year (1987): 7'4 Ralph Sampson was injured for a lot of the regular season (signalling the end of the 'twin towers' next year... you have to wonder what could have been had he stayed healthy). The Rockets were taken out in 6 in the WCSF, but Hakeem drops one of the greatest performances ever in the elimination game - a 49-25 masterclass in the double OT loss. And I do seem to recall Sampson missing at least one crucial FT. Hakeem's fault?

Same story in 1988. Well, in truth, it was worse. The Rockets lost to the Mavs in the first round 3-1, but Hakeem averaged 38-17. He had 41-26 in game 2 (the only game they won) and 40-15 in the elimination game. Hakeem's fault?

The Rockets stayed in mediocrity for the next few years with a very weak supporting cast (Otis Thorpe, Vernon Maxwell, Sleepy Floyd etc etc). In 1989 first round loss, he still put up 25-13 against the Sonics. In 1990, they were swept by prime Magic's Lakers with James Worthy + Byron Scott etc etc. Again, in 1991 first round vs finalist Lakers, he puts up 22-15. The team was awful in 1992 and they didn't make the playoffs (Hakeem still had 21-12 while missing 12 games).

Remember, this was really before Hakeem's peak (93-95), and this doesn't mention Hakeem's defense... which we know is all time great. Apart from 90 and 92, Hakeem was always amazing and never let his team down. He certainly never threw away series' against underdogs.

Now we get to his peak years, widely accepted as being 1993-1995. In 93, he takes the Sonics to 7 games (a very good and balanced team with Ricky Pierce, Shawn Kemp, Gary Payton, Sam Perkins etc) with Hakeem putting up 23-13-5. Rockets had bad calls going against them throughout the series, particularly game 7. They could have won that, and we might have seen a Rockets vs Bulls final.

Then we get the back-to-back titles. BOTH very underrated, if that's possible. That 1994 team relied on Hakeem like no other team did on their superstar, except perhaps the '03 Spurs and Duncan. Their offense was run ENTIRELY through him... they fed him into the post and he had to make the right play - and pretty much all the time - for them to stand a chance. They beat the prime Barkley-led Suns in 7 games in the WCSF with Hakeem averaging 29-14 (37-17 in the elimination game), beat the Jazz in 5 averaging 28-10. And then the Ewing-led Knicks in 7, limiting Ewing to 18 points on 36% shooting from the field (atrocious for a center of his calliber). Hakeem grabs FMVP.

That 1995 run was arguably the most impressive championship run in history. The Rockets did add Drexler as the second option, but they were only 6th seed. Hakeem was still dominant though and faced incredibly tough competition (at his position) throughout They beat the Jazz 3-2 in the 1st round with Hakeem averaging 35-9-4. Next, beat the Suns in 7 with him at 30-9-4 against Barkley. Next, with arguably the 'best' performance ever by a player in a single series, he put a masterclass against 'MVP' David Robinson (I swear D-Rob was about to fall into tears when Hakeem was pulling dream shakes left, right and center on his sorry ass). Poor D-Rob. And, finally, although the myth that he dominated Shaq in the finals is wrong... he did still outplay Shaq and fully deserved his second FMVP. To put it into context, he took his 45-37 6th seed team and beat 60-22, 59-23, 62-20 and 57-25 teams. Only team to ever beat ALL higher seeded teams I'd imagine.

Then Hakeem started to fall out of his prime. His 1997 team was LOADED with top heavy talent (Hakeem, Drexler, Barkley), but it had no depth and Hakeem was far removed from his prime (34 years old). Look at his numbers, he was still playing well, but the team wasn't constructed well enough to take down the Jazz.

Story of Hakeem's career: carry teams to punch above their weight... and still win a lot against those teams. Virtually ALWAYS perform at the highest level: win or lose. Step it up in crucial games.

And we're talking about a player that's not as good as Kobe? Not as good as Duncan? Not as good as LeBron currently? You kidding me? :lol

I got Hakeem on the tier of Magic, Bird and Shaq, and I don't believe that's overrating him at all.

[kennethgriffin]

i got lebron and hakeem tied at #10


#1 Jordan
#2 Kareem
#3 Russell
#4 Magic
#5 Kobe
#6 Wilt
#7 Bird
#8 Shaq
#9 Duncan
#10 Hakeem/Lebron

[Orlando Magic]

He wasn't better than... Jordan, Chamberlain, Russell, O'Neal, Johnson, Bird... and that's about it. 7 spot... maybe 5... definitely after jordan russ wilt shaq.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

i got lebron and hakeem tied at #10


#1 Jordan
#2 Kareem
#3 Russell
#4 Magic
#5 Kobe
#6 Wilt
#7 Bird
#8 Shaq
#9 Duncan
#10 Hakeem/Lebron

Kobe is NOT a top 5 player. He has NEVER impacted the game like Wilt, Bird, Shaq or Duncan did.

At best..Kobe is #8. I have him at 10 personally. Behind Lebron, Duncan and Shaq.

[Orlando Magic]

Kobe is NOT a top 10 player. He has NEVER impacted the game like Wilt, Bird, Shaq or Duncan did.

At best..Kobe is #8. I have him at 10 personally. Behind Lebron, Duncan and Shaq.

Accomplishments and legacy? Kobe is top 10.

Actual impact and ability? He's between 15 and 20... definitely top 30.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Accomplishments and legacy? Kobe is top 10.

Actual impact and ability? He's between 15 and 20... definitely top 30.

Meant top 5, my bad. :oldlol:

[1Time4YourMind]

hakeem is better or more accomplished than kobe, shaq, interchangeable with lebron and duncan. the guy was a monster on both ends of the court.

it is easier to build around hakeem, than it is to build around magic, bird or jordan. i am not saying he is the better player, but with those 3 players you need a specific type of teammate that can complement their godly skillset.

[Horde of Temujin]

Hakeem> Shaq, Duncan, Wilt, Russell

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Hakeem

[Electric Slide]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m01gwyNpmQ1qhvkubo1_400.gif

[K Xerxes]

Saying that Kobe is better than Hakeem is like judging games based on box scores only... no context whatsoever.

I know I am heavily outnumbered against the many rabid Kobe stans, but I have actually watched the games, and I know the details.

At this point, he's better than LeBron too. Unlike LeBron, he never eggs against underdogs. LeBron will probably surpass him in the future, but I'm very comfortable in saying that Hakeem is better than him all time right now. And Duncan too.

[kennethgriffin]

Kobe is NOT a top 5 player. He has NEVER impacted the game like Wilt, Bird, Shaq or Duncan did.

At best..Kobe is #8. I have him at 10 personally. Behind Lebron, Duncan and Shaq.


kobe impacted the game more than all those guys. hes the 2nd most popular player ever, hes a god in some countries.. hes the closest thing to jordan ( says jordan "only guy who compares" and his career is more accomplished than all those guys.. shaq never carried the nba.. jordan passed the torch to kobe. kobe passed it to lebron


you f*ckin idiot :lol

7 finals ( most of his generation )
5 titles ( most of his generation )
2 fmvps
1 smvp
4 asmvps ( all time record )
11 first team all nba's ( all time record )
9 first team all defense ( all time record )
15 straight allstar starts ( all time record )
81 point career high
2nd most 60+ point games
3rd most 50+ point games
3rd most 40+ point games
12 three pointers in one game ( all time record )
700 points from #3 all time scorer
300 points from #1 all time playoff scorer
25/5/5 career average
27/6/5 career average as starter

[Electric Slide]

Hakeem did not have a better career than Kobe. Hakeem was dominant for 3 years and that was it. Kobe has been dominant for over 10 years.

[KG215]

i got lebron and hakeem tied at #10


#1 Jordan
#2 Kareem
#3 Russell
#4 Magic
#5 Kobe
#6 Wilt
#7 Bird
#8 Shaq
#9 Duncan
#10 Hakeem/Lebron
So, I'm curious....how did Kobe manage to work his way up to #5 on your list in the span of a year? Other than reaching 30,000 points scored, what did he accomplish in that time? Because last summer you started off arguing why he was indisputably ahead of Hakeem, which I think meant you had him at #8. Then you had the infamous "Kobe >>>>>> Shaq and it's not even close" thread, moving him up to #7. And I think you topped it off with a "Kobe > Bird" thread which moved him up to #6.

And now he's #5? I'm guessing by the end of next season you'll have yourself convinced he's #2 or #1 all-time.

[aj1987]

kobe impacted the game more than all those guys. hes the 2nd most popular player ever, hes a god in some countries.. hes the closest thing to jordan ( says jordan "only guy who compares" and his career is more accomplished than all those guys.. shaq never carried the nba.. jordan passed the torch to kobe. kobe passed it to lebron

:facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm :facepalm

[TheCorporation]

LeBron James
2 Finals MVPs
4 Regular Season MVP

Hakeem Olajuwon
2 Finals MVPs
1 Regular Season MVP

Add on the fact that Olajuwon was knocked out of the first round of the playoffs eight, yes, EIGHT times...LeBron James? Zero.

James > Hakeem. C'mon neow.

4 MVPS > 1 MVP
0 1st round KOs > 8 1st round KOs

NEXT

[K Xerxes]

I knew this thread would be hi-jacked by morons who do not understand the concept of 'context', but I leave my OP open for anyone that wishes to discuss it sensibly.

[TheCorporation]

I knew this thread would be hi-jacked by morons who do not understand the concept of 'context', but I leave my OP open for anyone that wishes to discuss it sensibly.

Your man crush has been T-Mac'd or Melo'd 8 times...Eight.

[pauk]

Hakeem was not more dominant, nor impactful, nor more productive/efficient of a overall player than Lebron... nor a more accomplished player.... Lebron has more accolades on top of being the best player/most dominant player in the league for many many years... the latter is something Hakeem was not able to be in the league ever until Jordan was on vacation, infact thats ironically the only reason he was even able to get a championship..... what Lebron is now in the league is what Jordan was in the 90s compared to his foes.... the most dominant/best player in the world and the most successful player in the world in any shape or form spamming MVPs & Championships (and not because a better player is on vacation)....

Hakeem was awesome... but not better than Lebron... i know, i am a 90s child... i watched him 24-7... but so did i watch Lebron aswell...

You cant keep a player of that magnitude out of top 10 forever due to your agenda....

[Trollsmasher]

Yes, I have him 10th, behind Lebron and in front of Kobe.

Easy as that, although you can still switch Hakeem and Lebron as of right now.

Kobe is simply out and it should be an easy decision for everyone who isn't a disillusional Kobetard.

[KG215]

When it comes to absolute peak play, I think Hakem is in the discussion for top 5 all-time. I have a bias towards big men, simply because they can and do have a bigger overall impact on games (may not seem fair, but it is what it is), but I think peak Hakeem is in rarefied air. I'm talking, after peak Shaq, peak Wilt, and MAYBE peak Jordan, he's the next best peak player ever. And, going back to my big man bias, I could actually get on-bard with peak Hakeem over peak Jordan. On top of being able to carry an offense and average around 30 PPG throughout the playoffs, he was one of the best defensive players ever. After Russell, he has a case for #2 in that regard in my opinion.

[secund2nun]

Kobe is NOT a top 5 player. He has NEVER impacted the game like Wilt, Bird, Shaq or Duncan did.

At best..Kobe is #8. I have him at 10 personally. Behind Lebron, Duncan and Shaq.

Kobe is not even top 10. Seeing Kobe ranked above far superior players like Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson, Barkley etc is sickening.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Whatever context you use, the fact of the matter is, Lebron has a case over Hakeem. While his peak may or may not be as good, Lebron's prime is certainly on par AND at 28, he's already accomplished more.

[KG215]

Hakeem was not more dominant, nor impactful, nor more productive/efficient of a overall player than Lebron...
This is bullshit. Hakeem, at his peak, was every bit as dominant and impactful as current LeBron, if not more dominant and impactful.

[fpliii]

This is all just a bunch of bullshit. Hakeem, at his peak, as every bit as dominant and impactful as current LeBron, if not more dominant and impactful.

This. It's very close.

[KG215]

This. It's very close.
In terms of just defensive impact, where do you rank Hakeem? I think he has a very good case for #2 after Russell.

[millwad]

Hakeem did not have a better career than Kobe. Hakeem was dominant for 3 years and that was it. Kobe has been dominant for over 10 years.

The nonsense above is a great proof of the fact that you don't know smack about Olajuwon.

Olajuwon as a 2nd year pro lead his Houston Rockets to the finals and he slaughtered Kareem and the Showtime Lakers in the WCF and he outplayed the Celtics big in the finals.

Hakeem was dominant during the majority of his career but was held back due the fact that he played with terrible players.

[millwad]

This is bullshit. Hakeem, at his peak, was every bit as dominant and impactful as current LeBron, if not more dominant and impactful.

Peak Olajuwon was beyond amazing.

What he did in '94 was crazy, MVP, DPOY and FMVP while winning his first ring. As if that wasn't enough the guy did it while playing with nothing but role players.

The second leading scorer in the playoffs for the Rockets in '94 was Maxwell who averaged 13.8 points on 38% shooting.

And in '95 he slaughtered the league MVP, David Robinson and outplayed Shaq in the finals. In 2 years he outplayed and dominated 3 top 10 centers in league history while winning 1 MVP, 1 DPOY and 2 Finals MVP.

[fpliii]

In terms of just defensive impact, where do you rank Hakeem? I think he has a very good case for #2 after Russell.

Not sure. I think definitely top 5, beyond that I'd have to think about it pretty hard.

[K Xerxes]

Whatever context you use, the fact of the matter is, Lebron has a case over Hakeem. While his peak may or may not be as good, Lebron's prime is certainly on par AND at 28, he's already accomplished more.

Accomplished more against who?

People say LeBron had to carry scrubs in Cleveland, look at the rosters Hakeem worked with in his prime. And the time when he had a healthy Ralph Sampson, they were in the finals after defeating Magic and Kareem's Lakers in 86, with Hakeem dominating.

Hakeem may have worked with marginally better talent than LeBron in his first 7 years, but the level of competition is no comparison.

[The JKidd Kid]

Ive been saying the same thing.

1. Jordan
2. Kareem
3. Wilt
4. Russell
5. Hakeem
6. Bird
7. Magic
8. Shaq
9. Duncan
10. Lebron
11. Erving
12. West
13. Robertson
14. Kobe/ Barkley/ Robinson/ Malone (Honestly its a toss up after Robertson)

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

Accomplished more against who?

Accomplished more in the sense, he has more accolades and honors. Toe to toe, Lebron would and SHOULD be placed higher though, imo.


Hakeem may have worked with marginally better talent than LeBron in his first 7 years, but the level of competition is no comparison.

His competition relative to position may not be as deep, but perimeter players as a whole are better today than they were in the 90's.

Nobody is ignoring what Hakeem did w/ those Rockets teams in the mid 90's. His peak was unreal. Common knowledge.

[arifgokcen]

kobe impacted the game more than all those guys. hes the 2nd most popular player ever, hes a god in some countries.. hes the closest thing to jordan ( says jordan "only guy who compares" and his career is more accomplished than all those guys.. shaq never carried the nba.. jordan passed the torch to kobe. kobe passed it to lebron


you f*ckin idiot :lol

7 finals ( most of his generation )
5 titles ( most of his generation )
2 fmvps
1 smvp
4 asmvps ( all time record )
11 first team all nba's ( all time record )
9 first team all defense ( all time record )
15 straight allstar starts ( all time record )
81 point career high
2nd most 60+ point games
3rd most 50+ point games
3rd most 40+ point games
12 three pointers in one game ( all time record )
700 points from #3 all time scorer
300 points from #1 all time playoff scorer
25/5/5 career average
27/6/5 career average as starter

GUYS dont get into arguments with TROLLS like this one.They are just trolls.

You are not gonna win any arguments because they are TROLLS

I am saying this as i lakers fan dont get into arguments with these TROLLS.

[Trentknicks]

Terrific post OP
I love how every fool who has attempted to refute your point clearl.y fails to take context into any part of their argument and copy and pasted career achievements from wikipedia. Those who actually watched Hakeem frequently know the truth. Going up consistently against Robinson, Shaq, Ewing, Mutombo and having to guard offensive talents like Malone and Barkley should not be sneezed at. People will say '8 first round exits' but fail to show the level of competition (as stated above), that Hakeem came up against. Lebron never had a first round exit, but he didn't lead the Cavs to the playoffs for the first 3 years of his career either, which should rightfully be a knock against him. Lebron's never led his team passed a better team either, and infact dropped to worse teams (Celtics, Magic, Mavs). I won't dispute that Lebron is an immense talent and definitely a ring in for top 10 when he retires, but it should not be at the expense of Hakeem.


Hakeem was not more dominant, nor impactful, nor more productive/efficient of a overall player than Lebron... nor a more accomplished player.... Lebron has more accolades on top of being the best player/most dominant player in the league for many many years... the latter is something Hakeem was not able to be in the league ever until Jordan was on vacation, infact thats ironically the only reason he was even able to get a championship..... what Lebron is now in the league is what Jordan was in the 90s compared to his foes.... the most dominant/best player in the world and the most successful player in the world in any shape or form spamming MVPs & Championships (and not because a better player is on vacation)....

Hakeem was awesome... but not better than Lebron... i know, i am a 90s child... i watched him 24-7... but so did i watch Lebron aswell...

You cant keep a player of that magnitude out of top 10 forever due to your agenda....
How acomplished was Lebron before his trip to south beach? I mean he was the MVP and best player in the league, but Hakeem never lost to worse teams and especially not in the way Lebron managed to in 08-11. Should we even begin to bring up the difference in the quality of generations the two played in? Hakeem ALWAYS guarded the best player and managed to switch onto guards, defend them and then switch back and guard his man. Let's be honest, Battier takes most of the tougher defensive assignments so Lebron can conserve his energy and maybe switch onto the best player for the last 5 minutes in important games so that he may take the credit. Lebron's current team (the only real success he's had) is MUCH better than anything Hakeem ever had, while Hakeem faced MUCH better opposition.

Do expect many haters to switch the emphasis out of context and revert off topic too.

[Xsatyr]

I have Hakeem in my top three for his prime but he takes a hit career-wise.

[aburre21]

This is bullshit. Hakeem, at his peak, was every bit as dominant and impactful as current LeBron, if not more dominant and impactful.

I would say they're roughly equal. Hakeem protects the paint but Bron guards 1-4, shit he was swatting Duncan's shot left and right in finals. I would say Bron is roughly on the same tier as all top 10 players besides Jordan. That's the only player in my eyes who clearly separates himself from the rest





The only player I don't think belongs in the top 10 is Kobe. That dude is so god damn overrated it's a ****in joke. How is he gonna be ranked higher than Shaq, a player that he was a sidekick too? A player that has more finals mvps and clearly had the better peak? :lol


I watched Kobe play religiously and I flat out don't think this dude is a legend in any sense of the word.

[aburre21]

Accomplished more against who?

People say LeBron had to carry scrubs in Cleveland, look at the rosters Hakeem worked with in his prime. And the time when he had a healthy Ralph Sampson, they were in the finals after defeating Magic and Kareem's Lakers in 86, with Hakeem dominating.

Hakeem may have worked with marginally better talent than LeBron in his first 7 years, but the level of competition is no comparison.


but he only won when Jordan retired so you have to factor that in as well when you say accomplished more against who? He beat a very young Shaq and a Knicks team that is not better than the Spurs, I wouldn't say they were better than the 2012 OKC Thunder with Harden either

[Xsatyr]

I would say they're roughly equal. Hakeem protects the paint but Bron guards 1-4, shit he was swatting Duncan's shot left and right in finals. I would say Bron is roughly on the same tier as all top 10 players besides Jordan. That's the only player in my eyes who clearly separates himself from the rest

You clearly never seen Hakeem defend.

[bdreason]

Right now I have it:

1. Kareem
2. MJ
3. Russell
4. Wilt
5. Magic
6. Bird
7. Shaq
8. Duncan
9. Hakeem
10. Kobe
11. LeBron



One more title moves him over Kobe. Two more titles moves him over Hakeem, and maybe as high as #5.

[aburre21]

You clearly never seen Hakeem defend.


so he'd guard a PG for a whole half of basketball? C'mon man! You know what I mean :lol

[KG215]

so he'd guard a PG for a whole half of basketball? C'mon man! You know what I mean :lol
The thing is, even as just a paint protector, peak/prime Hakeem was a more impactful defensive player than current LeBron.

[millwad]

but he only won when Jordan retired so you have to factor that in as well when you say accomplished more against who? He beat a very young Shaq and a Knicks team that is not better than the Spurs, I wouldn't say they were better than the 2012 OKC Thunder with Harden either

Jordan was back in '95 and lost to Shaq and the Magic, the same Magic who got swept by the Rockets.

And that "very young" Shaq was crazy dominant, he was 2nd in the MVP voting and only after David Robinson who was the MVP in '95 and both of them got outplayed by Olajuwon.

And Ewing had more talent in '94 compared to what Olajuwon had and he got crushed.

[Xsatyr]

so he'd guard a PG for a whole half of basketball? C'mon man! You know what I mean :lol

Obviously not but his impact on the perimeter is evident. You think all those steals came from the post? Hakeem's defensive presence is far greater than Lebron's.

[aburre21]

The thing is, even as just a paint protector, peak/prime Hakeem was a more impactful defensive player than current LeBron.

Obviously a 7 footer paint protector is very valuable, I mean look what Roy Hibbert just did this post season and that guy moves like he has lead in his shoes...not nearly as athletic as Hakeem :lol





I agree, but it's not that like LeBron is a slouch. Bron definitely contributes on the defensive side of the floor. He's the only superstar I've ever seen who has guarded the best player on every team he played in both post seasons he won a ring in.

[aburre21]

Obviously not but his impact on the perimeter is evident. You think all those steals came from the post? Hakeem's defensive presence is far greater than Lebron's.

I agree that Hakeem had a greater defensive impact, I have to concede that but I hate when people mention steals and things like that. Tony Allen is one of the greatest man to man defenders I've ever seen and that dude doesn't get a lot of steals nor does he block a lot of shots

[Rasheed1]

Saying that Kobe is better than Hakeem is like judging games based on box scores only... no context whatsoever.

I know I am heavily outnumbered against the many rabid Kobe stans, but I have actually watched the games, and I know the details.

At this point, he's better than LeBron too. Unlike LeBron, he never eggs against underdogs. LeBron will probably surpass him in the future, but I'm very comfortable in saying that Hakeem is better than him all time right now. And Duncan too.


I agree with this..

I think Lebron gets there in the future, but today? I pick Hakeem if I have the choice between him or Kobe or Lebron

[Xsatyr]

I agree that Hakeem had a greater defensive impact, I have to concede that but I hate when people mention steals and things like that. Tony Allen is one of the greatest man to man defenders I've ever seen and that dude doesn't get a lot of steals nor does he block a lot of shots

I don't use steals as an indicator for overall defense. I was pointing it out as a reference to Hakeem's ability to disrupt the perimeter. It's not just steals either, he was superb on pnr as well and contesting shots. He had great lateral quickness so it was never really a mismatch when he switched.

[LAZERUSS]

Jordan was back in '95 and lost to Shaq and the Magic, the same Magic who got swept by the Rockets.

And that "very young" Shaq was crazy dominant, he was 2nd in the MVP voting and only after David Robinson who was the MVP in '95 and both of them got outplayed by Olajuwon.

And Ewing had more talent in '94 compared to what Olajuwon had and he got crushed.

Jordan didn't play at all in '94, and his Bulls went 55-27 without him, including losing a close (and controversial) game seven to the Knicks, who lost a close game seven to the Rockets in the Finals.

And, no, Ewing did not have more talent than Hakeem did, and in fact, the Knicks had a worse record.

Hakeem did not outplay a young Shaq in the '95 Finals, either. In fact, his TEAMMATES just shelled Shaq's. They outshot them by a huge margin from both the field and the arc, and also made 50 more FTs (and considering that three of the games were close, it was those FTs which won the series.)

BTW, here was another take on the '95 Finals...from a Colts18 at RealGM, and I happen to agree with nearly all of it...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=296382&page=4


I decided to rewatch the 1995 finals and chart each possession to see to how effective Shaq and Hakeem were on the court. A special shout out to Jordanbulls for providing the video of this series


Total:
Hakeem: 253 touches, 140 doubles (55.3%)
Shaq: 221 touches, 146 doubles (66.1%)

Here are their stats when they were guarded by each other:
Shaq 32-57 (56.1 FG%), 6-8 FT, 67.3 double teamed%, .578 TS%, 17 assists, 1 O-reb allowed to Hakeem
Hakeem: 31-75 (41.3 FG%), 9-13 FT, 60.2 double teamed%, .446 TS%, 8 assists, 3 O-reb allowed to Shaq

Shaq blocked 2 Hakeem shots, Hakeem blocked 0 Shaq shots. Hakeem did make a 3P on Shaq. Hakeem guarded Shaq on 73.3% of the touches he had, while Shaq guarded Hakeem on 69.6% of his touches. Hakeem got a lot more fastbreak touches than Shaq so in the halfcourt, they guarded each other about even.

When they weren't being guarded by each other, Shaq was being guarded by Charles Jones and Hakeem by Horace Grant.

Shaq vs Jones: 7-11 FG (63.6 FG%), 35 doubles in 52 touches (67.3%), 2 assists
Hakeem vs Grant: 13-24 (54.2 FG%), 33 double teams in 58 touches (56.9%), 6 assists

Jump shots:
Hakeem: 27-62 (43.5%)
Shaq: 2-7 (28.6%)

The vast majority of Shaq's shots were close range hooks.

Dunks:
Hakeem: 1 dunk (vs grant)
Shaq: 9 dunks (2 of them were in Hakeem's face)

Fouls drawn on offense:
Shaq: 37 (17 on Hakeem)
Hakeem: 21 (9 on Shaq)

Hakeem did draw 4 Shaq charges.

Shaq was called for 5 travels, Hakeem 2.

Plus/Minus (Houston outscored Orlando by 28 points total):
On court:
Shaq: -12 in 180 minutes
Hakeem: +17 in 179 minutes

Off court:
Shaq: -16 in 16:37 of action (Houston scored 133 points per 48 in the minutes Shaq missed)
Hakeem: +11 in 17:11 of action (134 points per 48 in the minutes he was off the court)

Interestingly enough, in 2 of the games, the Magic outscored the Rockets when Shaq was on the court. The magic were -8 in about 9 minutes of action without Shaq in game (lost by just 2 points). In game 3, they were -4 in the minutes Shaq missed in a game where they lost by 3 points. In game 1, the Rockets outscored the magic by 9 in the minutes Hakeem missed, but they were outscored by a combined 4 points in games 3 and 4 without Hakeem.

Observations:
-Orlando was for some reason really committed to doubling Hakeem in game 1. They were throwing a lot of hard doubles. Hakeem had 5 assists in that game, all of them 3 pointers, 4 came off of doubles (one was a triple team). I'm guessing it was a response to Hakeem's series vs Robinson. For the rest of the series, Orlando didn't double Hakeem as much and they threw softer doubles.

-Hakeem made like 5 or 6 baskets in transition to Shaq's 1 or so. So while Shaq didn't get credit for giving up those buckets since he didn't guard, a few of those times Shaq was slow in transition. Shaq got about 3 or shots

-One of the commentators compared Horry to Scottie Pippen and Walton took the comment seriously. They are vastly different players IMO

-I'm not sure why Penny wasn't more aggressive. Kenny Smith couldn't guard him at all. When Penny did drive to the basket, he made a few shots over Hakeem.

-Drexler was the man in this series. He really wanted to get his first title badly. For some reason, people rarely talk about him despite him getting more WS than Hakeem in that playoff run

-It's fashionable these days to **** on Hakeem's cast in 94, but this cast was much better than that one. The guards outplayed Orlando's guards. Horry played really well. The 3P shooters benefited a lot from the shortened 3P line.

-Contrary to popular belief, handchecking wasn't allowed in 95. The refs called like 2 handchecking fouls in this series

-I'm so thankful the NBA got rid of the illegal defense. The refs called like 5 of them in each game. It destroyed the flow of the game and limited the ways you could double team a player.

Of course, a more prime Shaq, just a couple of years later just slaughtered a helpless Hakeem in the playoffs. The Hakeem fans somehow seem to always fail to mention that. But even in the '95 Finals, Shaq averaged 28 ppg on...get this... .595 shooting (while Hakeem averaged 33 ppg on .483 shooting against him.) So, yes, Hakeem did outscore Shaq by 5 ppg, but he did so while taking 10 more FGAs per game. Oh, and Shaq outrebounded, outassisted, and outblocked him in that series.

And for these delusional Hakeem fans, here are ALL of their 28 h2h games.

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




As for this nonsense that Hakeem massacred the 39 year old Kareem in '86 playoffs...he didn't even guard him. He couldn't. Sampson was put on KAJ (with doubles from Hakeem.) Why? Because Kareem averaged 33 ppg on .630 shooting against Hakeem in their five h2h's that season. And in the year before, it was much the same. Over the course of their first ten straight h2h games, a 38-39 year old Kareem, who could barely jump, averaged 32 ppg on .633 shooting against Hakeem. Included in those beatdowns were games of 40, 43 and 46 points (and on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes.)

True, Hakeem outscored KAJ, 31-27 in the '86 WCF's, and outrebounded him, 11-7 (of course, even KAJ's teammates were routinely outrebounding Kareem at that time in his career.)

Overall, in 23 career h2h's, a 37-41 year old KAJ outscored a 23-26 year old Hakeem by a 23-22 ppg margin, and outshot him by a .610 to .512 margin.

And while I couldn't determine whether Hakeem guarded Artis Gilmore in their '85 and '86 h2h's, one thing was clear, Gilmore just wiped the floor with both Sampson and Hakeem. He averaged 24 ppg on .677 shooting in that 10 straight game span.

Hakeem is the most over-rated player on this forum. Somehow he seems to have grown significantly since he actually played. He was a ONE-TIME MVP (in a season in which MJ took the year off); he came in second ONE time in the MVP balloting; and he came in 4th TWICE in the MVP voting. Hell, he only made the top-10 ten times in his 18 seasons.

How in the hell would anyone in their right mind rank him over Lebron? Lebron has accomplished more in half as many seasons.

[LeBird]

Hakeem is a weird player to judge. He had crazy periods/performances that put him with the GOATs, but then for many years he simply got the results you would expect from his teams (not great results) and his impact wasn't as good, even if his stats were. I think he has a good case for Top 10, but I don't think he belongs in the discussion with the GOATs: Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Bird, Magic and Jordan.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Whether or not Wilt Chamberlain is a locked top 10 player of all-time is a better question. Hakeem, LBJ, and Wilt each have 2 rings. But only two of them can be in the top 10.

[Electric Slide]

Whether or not Wilt Chamberlain is a locked top 10 player of all-time is a better question. Hakeem, LBJ, and Wilt each have 2 rings. But only two of them can be in the top 10.
Horry is above all of them.

[daily]

Jordan didn't play at all in '94, and his Bulls went 55-27 without him, including losing a close (and controversial) game seven to the Knicks, who lost a close game seven to the Rockets in the Finals.

And, no, Ewing did not have more talent than Hakeem did, and in fact, the Knicks had a worse record.

Hakeem did not outplay a young Shaq in the '95 Finals, either. In fact, his TEAMMATES just shelled Shaq's. They outshot them by a huge margin from both the field and the arc, and also made 50 more FTs (and considering that three of the games were close, it was those FTs which won the series.)

BTW, here was another take on the '95 Finals...from a Colts18 at RealGM, and I happen to agree with nearly all of it...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=296382&page=4



Of course, a more prime Shaq, just a couple of years later just slaughtered a helpless Hakeem in the playoffs. The Hakeem fans somehow seem to always fail to mention that. But even in the '95 Finals, Shaq averaged 28 ppg on...get this... .595 shooting (while Hakeem averaged 33 ppg on .483 shooting against him.) So, yes, Hakeem did outscore Shaq by 5 ppg, but he did so while taking 10 more FGAs per game. Oh, and Shaq outrebounded, outassisted, and outblocked him in that series.

And for these delusional Hakeem fans, here are ALL of their 28 h2h games.

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




As for this nonsense that Hakeem massacred the 39 year old Kareem in '86 playoffs...he didn't even guard him. He couldn't. Sampson was put on KAJ (with doubles from Hakeem.) Why? Because Kareem averaged 33 ppg on .630 shooting against Hakeem in their five h2h's that season. And in the year before, it was much the same. Over the course of their first ten straight h2h games, a 38-39 year old Kareem, who could barely jump, averaged 32 ppg on .633 shooting against Hakeem. Included in those beatdowns were games of 40, 43 and 46 points (and on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes.)

True, Hakeem outscored KAJ, 31-27 in the '86 WCF's, and outrebounded him, 11-7 (of course, even KAJ's teammates were routinely outrebounding Kareem at that time in his career.)

Overall, in 23 career h2h's, a 37-41 year old KAJ outscored a 23-26 year old Hakeem by a 23-22 ppg margin, and outshot him by a .610 to .512 margin.

And while I couldn't determine whether Hakeem guarded Artis Gilmore in their '85 and '86 h2h's, one thing was clear, Gilmore just wiped the floor with both Sampson and Hakeem. He averaged 24 ppg on .677 shooting in that 10 straight game span.

Hakeem is the most over-rated player on this forum. Somehow he seems to have grown significantly since he actually played. He was a ONE-TIME MVP (in a season in which MJ took the year off); he came in second ONE time in the MVP balloting; and he came in 4th TWICE in the MVP voting. Hell, he only made the top-10 ten times in his 18 seasons.

How in the hell would anyone in their right mind rank him over Lebron? Lebron has accomplished more in half as many seasons.

End thread/ethered/Stuck the landing and got a 10 from the Russian judge

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

End thread/ethered/Stuck the landing and got a 10 from the Russian judge

:oldlol:

[DMAVS41]

Hakeem is a weird player to judge. He had crazy periods/performances that put him with the GOATs, but then for many years he simply got the results you would expect from his teams (not great results) and his impact wasn't as good, even if his stats were. I think he has a good case for Top 10, but I don't think he belongs in the discussion with the GOATs: Russell, Wilt, Kareem, Bird, Magic and Jordan.

I agree with this about Hakeem. He's tough to rank and I think he's pretty much in the right spot between 8 and 11.

I think the 11 best players of all time are pretty clearly;

MJ
Russell
Magic
Wilt
Kareem
Duncan
Shaq
Bird
Hakeem
Kobe
Lebron

I personally think the top 6 are pretty locked in (not worried about order);

MJ/Russell/Magic/Wilt/Kareem/Duncan

After that it gets tough for me.

[mugiwara]

When it comes to absolute peak play, I think Hakem is in the discussion for top 5 all-time. I have a bias towards big men, simply because they can and do have a bigger overall impact on games (may not seem fair, but it is what it is), but I think peak Hakeem is in rarefied air. I'm talking, after peak Shaq, peak Wilt, and MAYBE peak Jordan, he's the next best peak player ever. And, going back to my big man bias, I could actually get on-bard with peak Hakeem over peak Jordan. On top of being able to carry an offense and average around 30 PPG throughout the playoffs, he was one of the best defensive players ever. After Russell, he has a case for #2 in that regard in my opinion.

Agree with all of this, along with his impressive stats he was a master of the subtleties of the game particularly on the defensive end.

[Wavy Crockett]

Didn't Hakeem lose 6 times in the first round?

[millwad]

Jordan didn't play at all in '94, and his Bulls went 55-27 without him, including losing a close (and controversial) game seven to the Knicks, who lost a close game seven to the Rockets in the Finals.

And, no, Ewing did not have more talent than Hakeem did, and in fact, the Knicks had a worse record.


This is pure nonsense but considering that it's from you, I'm not surprised. I didn't say that Jordan played in '94 and the fact that Bulls had that record without Jordan only shows how good they really were.

And basketball is about match-ups, you should know that. When Jordan came back in '95 he and the Bulls lost to the Magic in 6 games, Olajuwon and the Rockets swept the Magic in the finals.




Hakeem did not outplay a young Shaq in the '95 Finals, either. In fact, his TEAMMATES just shelled Shaq's. They outshot them by a huge margin from both the field and the arc, and also made 50 more FTs (and considering that three of the games were close, it was those FTs which won the series.)



Again pure lies, we have already had this discussion before and you clearly showed that you only had checked out the boxscore. You even gave the edge to Shaq based on stats in game 2, when Shaq was terrible in the first half while Olajuwon killed him in the first half and gave the Rockets a huge lead the Magic and Shaq couldn't do anything about.

Shaq's points in that game came when the game was completely over and you didn't know that so you gave the edge to Shaq based on stats. Just showcasing how stupid you are.



BTW, here was another take on the '95 Finals...from a Colts18 at RealGM, and I happen to agree with nearly all of it...

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=296382&page=4


So, you agree with someone pointing out stats? Watch the god damn series, you retarded fool. You still haven't even been able to break the games down yourself, you're just copying and pasting.




Of course, a more prime Shaq, just a couple of years later just slaughtered a helpless Hakeem in the playoffs. The Hakeem fans somehow seem to always fail to mention that. But even in the '95 Finals, Shaq averaged 28 ppg on...get this... .595 shooting (while Hakeem averaged 33 ppg on .483 shooting against him.) So, yes, Hakeem did outscore Shaq by 5 ppg, but he did so while taking 10 more FGAs per game. Oh, and Shaq outrebounded, outassisted, and outblocked him in that series.

And for these delusional Hakeem fans, here are ALL of their 28 h2h games.

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



It's not relevant that a prime Shaq dominated a 36 year old busted up Olajuwon. That's like spamming about how Kareem averaged 40 points on 50% shooting on Wilt while outscoring him in the playoffs with 23 points... per game.



As for this nonsense that Hakeem massacred the 39 year old Kareem in '86 playoffs...he didn't even guard him. He couldn't. Sampson was put on KAJ (with doubles from Hakeem.) Why? Because Kareem averaged 33 ppg on .630 shooting against Hakeem in their five h2h's that season. And in the year before, it was much the same. Over the course of their first ten straight h2h games, a 38-39 year old Kareem, who could barely jump, averaged 32 ppg on .633 shooting against Hakeem. Included in those beatdowns were games of 40, 43 and 46 points (and on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes.)


Watch the '86 playoffs and that series. I like how you always spam about that Kareem got the best of 2nd year pro Olajuwon in the regular season but forget how Olajuwon absolutely destroyed him and the Lakers in the playoffs. He destroyed them.



True, Hakeem outscored KAJ, 31-27 in the '86 WCF's, and outrebounded him, 11-7 (of course, even KAJ's teammates were routinely outrebounding Kareem at that time in his career.)



Overall, in 23 career h2h's, a 37-41 year old KAJ outscored a 23-26 year old Hakeem by a 23-22 ppg margin, and outshot him by a .610 to .512 margin.


Olajuwon destroyed Kareem in the playoffs, as a second year pro and still you can't give him credit for it and you cherry pick stats for the regular season just because you're butthurt.

[millwad]

And Lazeruss (Jlauber's new puppet account) is trying to discredit Hakeem for everything.

He even claimed that the Knicks from '94 weren't more talented because they won one game less in the regular season.

In the finals of '94 Olajuwon outplayed Ewing easily, over 7 games they averaged;

Olajuwon: 26.9 points (50% shooting), 9.1 rebounds, 3.6 assists, 3.9 blocks and 1.6 steals.

Ewing: 18.9 points (36% shooting), 12.4 rebounds, 1.7 assists, 1.3 steals and 4.3 blocks.

Ewing's offensive struggles was fatal, he shot 10 more shots over the series and made 8 less points per game.


And regarding the claim that the Knicks weren't more talented, Ewing's cast outplayed Olajuwon's.

Olajuwon's highest scoring teammate in the finals was Maxwell, who had no chance against Starks, and he averaged 13 points on 36% shooting over 7 games.

Ewing two best scoring teammates were Starks who averaged 17 points and Harper who averaged 16 points per game.

[millwad]

End thread/ethered/Stuck the landing and got a 10 from the Russian judge

So copying and pasting, writing revisionist history and cherry picking stats is what you ask for when you want threads closed?

[K Xerxes]

Since a lot is made of Hakeem's first rounds:

1985 (rookie): L vs Jazz 3-2 (averaged 21-13)
1986: W vs Kings 3-0 (20-11)
1987: W vs Blazers 3-1 (27-9)
1988: L vs Mavs 3-1 (38-17)
1989: L vs Sonics 3-1 (25-13)
1990: L vs Lakers 3-1 (19-12 + 6 blocks)
1991: L vs Lakers 3-0 (22-15)
1992: Did not make playoffs
1993: W vs Clippers 3-2 (29-15-5 + 6 blocks)
1994: W vs Blazers 3-1 (34-11-5 + 4 blocks)
1995: W vs Jazz 3-2 (35-9-4)
1996: W vs Lakers 3-1 (27-9-4)
1997: W vs Wolves 3-0 (18-11-4)
1998: L vs Jazz 3-2 (20-11)
1999: L vs Lakers 3-1 (13-7)
2000: Did not make playoffs
2001: Did not make playoffs
2002 (with Toronto): L vs Pistons 3-2 (6-4)

Wow, he lost as a rookie while still putting up great numbers. LeBron didn't make the playoffs as a rookie. Hakeem's fault?

Lost with mediocre rosters in 88-92 to MUCH better constructed rosters. Sampson was gone by that point, and Otis Thorpe and Vernon Maxwell were supposed to be the 'help' to Hakeem. Could you say any of those losses were his fault? One of the best individual series ever vs the Mavs (highest PER in history actually for all you LeBron lovers)? Against the finalist Lakers? Fairly stacked Sonics still putting up 25-13?

By the time it was 1998, he was already 35 years old and FAR removed from his prime. He still put up great numbers vs the Jazz, but by the time he faced the Lakers, he had nothing left and was going up against what was pretty much peak Shaq (best player in the league at the time).

His fault they lost in Toronto as a 39 year old?

Fact is, Hakeem played with mostly weaker rosters and pretty much all of those 8 first round losses can't be attributed to him.

But of course James gets a pass for missing the first 3 playoffs and then beating the world beaters Washington Wizards (x3), broken up Detroit, young + inexperienced Chicago, young + inexperienced Indiana, mentally weak NY Knicks, and then arguably the worst playoff team ever Milwaukee.

Once again: context.

[Psileas]

Whether or not Wilt Chamberlain is a locked top 10 player of all-time is a better question. Hakeem, LBJ, and Wilt each have 2 rings. But only two of them can be in the top 10.

Only 2 of them have 4 MVP's, the other has 1.
And only 1 of them is the all-time "most records" record holder.

So, yes, Wilt is a lock. Sorry.

Well, I'm lying a bit here: Actually, not sorry.

[LAZERUSS]

Only 2 of them have 4 MVP's, the other has 1.
And only 1 of them is the all-time "most records" record holder.

So, yes, Wilt is a lock. Sorry.

Well, I'm lying a bit here: Actually, not sorry.

I didn't bother responding to his nonsense.

It's not a question about Wilt being in the Top-10 all-time, but rather his case for GOAT. Given the fact that a prime Chamberlain thoroughly dominated all of his peers beyond what any other player in the history of the game has, he has a solid case.

In fact, even an old Wilt, playing on a surgically repaired knee was still a top-4 player in the league. Here was a player who not only finished fourth in the MVP voting in his last season, but how about this list of accomplishments in doing so.

1. Led the league in rebounding at 18.6 rpg. Thrumond was second at 17.1 rpg. The two would meet in the WCF's, and Wilt not only outrebounded Nate, 23.6 rpg to 17.2 rpg, he outshot him from the field, .550 to .398. BTW, and as you know but other's may not, Thurmond held KAJ to .428 in the previous round, and led his 47-35 Warriors to a shocking upset of KAJ's 60-22 Bucks. Wilt then dominated Thurmond in the WCF's, en route to a 4-1 romp over his Warriors. Included was a 126-70 pasting of the Warriors in Oakland.

2. With regards to his rebounding, Chamberlain averaged 22.5 rpg in his 17 post-season games in that last season, and in a post-season NBA that averaged 50.6 rpg. The best mark since? KAJ's 17.3 rpg in 11 playoff games in the 76-77 season.

3. Wilt was voted first-team all-defense in that last season. In a league that had players like Thurmond, Cowens, Hayes, Unseld, Lanier, and KAJ. It was his second straight season with that distinction.

4. With regards to his defense that year, he faced a prime KAJ in six regular season games, and held KAJ to .450 shooting over those six games. In fact, going back to the last four games of the '72 WCF's, in which he held KAJ, in his greatest statistical season, to .414 shooting...in their last ten straight games, Kareem shot just .434 against a 35-36 year old Wilt. Oh, and btw, in that last season Chamberlain outshot KAJ in their six h2h's by a .737 to that .450 margin. Included was even one game in which Wilt outscored KAJ, 24-21, while outshooting him from the field, 10-14 to 10-27.

5. Speaking of his play against KAJ, how about his play against prime 6-11 HOFer Bob Lanier in six h2h's that year? 19.8 ppg on, get this... .836 shooting from the field. And over the course of his last 11 h2h's with Lanier, all Wilt did was average 23.9 ppg on an eye-popping .784 FG%. This from a Wilt who was light years behind the Chamberlain who just shredded the NBA in the 60's.

6. As ThaRegul8r pointed out (and as you pretty much confirmed), Chamberlain averaged 5.42 bpg in his very last season. Which was likely his career low. Even the year before, the research that is out there indicates that Wilt was probably blocking over six per game, and in his post-season in '72, he was at around 7+ (which included blocking 15 of KAJ's shots in the '72 WCF's.) This is an NBA that averaged 97 FGAs per team, and scored 107.6 ppg. A prime Mark eaton holds the "official" NBA record of 5.56 bpg, in the 84-85 season, in an NBA that averaged 89 FGAs per team, and scored 110.8 ppg.

7. Wilt led his Lakers to a 60-22 record that season, and a trip to the Finals (his 4th in his five years in LA.) And while LA lost that series, 4-1, all four of the losses came in the last minute (margins of 4, 4, 5, and 9 points), and against a Knick team that had six HOFers. And in his very last game of his career, he scored 23 points, on 9-16 shooting, with 21 rebounds.

All from a 36 year old Wilt, three years removed from major knee surgery, and in his very last season.

[K Xerxes]

^Stop ****ing hijackimg threads with your Wilt essays. There are numerous other more pertinent threads for you to do so than this one, which is about Hakeem.

[LAZERUSS]

^Stop ****ing hijackimg threads with your Wilt essays. There are numerous other more pertinent threads for you to do so than this one, which is about Hakeem.

I didn't bring Wilt into this conversation, nor is it strictly related to Chamberlain. If you want to fault anyone, bash Millwad, who tried to take a shot at an old Wilt, who certainly defended a prime KAJ much better than a young Hakeem could defend an old KAJ (in fact, his coach had to pull him from that assignment because KAJ just murdered him.)

In any case, Hakeem has NO CASE over Chamberlain. They should not even be mentioned in the same conversation. Hakeem was a borderline Top-10 player, AT BEST, and given the fact that he was seldom even a Top-4 player in his own era, I don't see how anyone could question that.

And once again, the Lebron-bashers can give up on the Hakeem-Lebron comparisions. Lebron has already surpassed him, and it will just be a question where he winds up when he finally retires.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Only 2 of them have 4 MVP's, the other has 1.
And only 1 of them is the all-time "most records" record holder.

So, yes, Wilt is a lock. Sorry.

Well, I'm lying a bit here: Actually, not sorry.
Only one of them has 4 Finals losses, the others 1 and 2.
And only one of them has the worst record with HCA in the top 10-15.

[Deuce Bigalow]

I didn't bring Wilt into this conversation, nor is it strictly related to Chamberlain. If you want to fault anyone, bash Millwad, who tried to take a shot at an old Wilt, who certainly defended a prime KAJ much better than a young Hakeem could defend an old KAJ (in fact, his coach had to pull him from that assignment because KAJ just murdered him.)

In any case, Hakeem has NO CASE over Chamberlain. They should not even be mentioned in the same conversation. Hakeem was a borderline Top-10 player, AT BEST, and given the fact that he was seldom even a Top-4 player in his own era, I don't see how anyone could question that.

And once again, the Lebron-bashers can give up on the Hakeem-Lebron comparisions. Lebron has already surpassed him, and it will just be a question where he winds up when he finally retires.
Wilt - 2 rings
Hakeem - 2 rings

Wilt's best teammate - Jerry West in his prime
Hakeem's best teammate - past his prime Clyde Drexler

:oldlol:

How many rings would Hakeem win if he had a Jerry West caliber player with him for 5 years? More than the one Wilt won that's for sure.

[LAZERUSS]

Wilt - 2 rings
Hakeem - 2 rings

Wilt's best teammate - Jerry West in his prime
Hakeem's best teammate - past his prime Clyde Drexler

:oldlol:

How many rings would Hakeem win if he had a Jerry West caliber player with him for 5 years? More than the one Wilt won that's for sure.

Well let's at last put it into it's proper context shall we?

Wilt played with West in four post-seasons, not five. Secondly, West was simply awful in the last two post-seasons with Chamberlain, and in fact, it could be argued that Wilt led his team to a title DESPITE West that one year. And finally, West was horrible in a game seven of another. So, basically he had a prime, and healthy, West for one year, and in a year in which his team lost a game seven to a Celtic team with five HOFers.

Furthermore, Hakeem seldom faced more than two HOFers in a series in a title run (the exception being the '95 Spurs, with an old Mose backing up Robinson, to go along with Rodman.) And in his two Finals in those two years, he faced one HOF player in each.

How about Wilt in his title runs? In the '67 run he faced Oscar and Lucas, then Russell and his four other HOFers, and then Barry and Thurmond in the Finals. And in his '72 run, he knocked off Kareem and Oscar, and then the Knciks and their five HOFers (and these were accomplished in six and five games, too.)

Of course, how come Hakeem couldn't get past the first round with Drexler and Barkley? And a year after that they get blown out in the first round with Barkley and Pippen.

[longtime lurker]

I've never seen Hakeem consistently in top 10 lists outside of message boards. This leads me to believe that the dude is slightly overrated on basketball forums.

[LAZERUSS]

I've never seen Hakeem consistently in top 10 lists outside of message boards. This leads me to believe that the dude is slightly overrated on basketball forums.

The reality was, he won ONE MVP, and came in second ONE other time, in his 18 seasons. And even that one MVP is interesting, since MJ took the year off. Furthermore, he came in 4th on TWO more occasions. And overall, in those 18 seasons, he finished in the top-10 in the MVP voting in 10 of them, or roughly half of his career.

And yet some here are trying to place him as high as Top-5??? The man was seldom even a Top-5 player when he played, and wasn't a Top-10 player in half of his career.

Using any consistent criteria, such as MVPs, rings, FMVPs, awards, statistical titles; as well as team achievements such as titles, 60+ win seasons, Finals, Conference Finals, and then the ugly "first round exits" (of which he had eight in his 15 post-seasons), and he is a borderline Top-10 player at best.

It comes down to, did he have a better overall career, using all the criteria listed above, than Bird, Kobe, Lebron, and even Moses Malone? Because that is what he is up against. And really, Lebron's resume blows his away...so I'm sorry, but Hakeem is anywhere from a Top-9 to Top-12 player all-time...which is nothing to be ashamed of, but clearly, nothing more than that.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Well let's at last put it into it's proper context shall we?

Wilt played with West in four post-seasons, not five. Secondly, West was simply awful in the last two post-seasons with Chamberlain, and in fact, it could be argued that Wilt led his team to a title DESPITE West that one year. And finally, West was horrible in a game seven of another. So, basically he had a prime, and healthy, West for one year, and in a year in which his team lost a game seven to a Celtic team with five HOFers.

Furthermore, Hakeem seldom faced more than two HOFers in a series in a title run (the exception being the '95 Spurs, with an old Mose backing up Robinson, to go along with Rodman.) And in his two Finals in those two years, he faced one HOF player in each.

How about Wilt in his title runs? In the '67 run he faced Oscar and Lucas, then Russell and his four other HOFers, and then Barry and Thurmond in the Finals. And in his '72 run, he knocked off Kareem and Oscar, and then the Knciks and their five HOFers (and these were accomplished in six and five games, too.)

Of course, how come Hakeem couldn't get past the first round with Drexler and Barkley? And a year after that they get blown out in the first round with Barkley and Pippen.
Jerry West was the best player in the NBA in 1969 and 1970, two years Wilt played with him while Wilt himself was still in his prime. And that game 7 you're speaking if Wilt shot 1-11 FT. But were both just repeating ourselves here. Bottomline is that Hakeem won the same amount of rings as Wilt with much less help than Wilt. That can't be argued. Hakeem never played with the best player in the world. Wilt did, for two seasons and failed to win the title both times.

[Xsatyr]

I've never seen Hakeem consistently in top 10 lists outside of message boards. This leads me to believe that the dude is slightly overrated on basketball forums.

So you think the opinion of casual fans is more valuable?

[LAZERUSS]

Jerry West was the best player in the NBA in 1969 and 1970, two years Wilt played with him while Wilt himself was still in his prime. And that game 7 you're speaking if Wilt shot 1-11 FT. But were both just repeating ourselves here. Bottomline is that Hakeem won the same amount of rings as Wilt with much less help than Wilt. That can't be argued. Hakeem never played with the best player in the world. Wilt did, for two seasons and failed to win the title both times.

West was never considered the best player in the league. How many MVPs did he win?

Secondly, Chamberlain was certainly NOT in his prime in the 69-70 season. He was playing in the playoffs only four months removed from major knee surgery, and clearly, as the footage depicts between Wilt in game seven of the '70 Finals, and then again Wilt in game five of the '72 Finals...a HUGE difference. Still, a one-legged Chamberlain was the Lakers best player in game seven of the '70 Finals, and by far their best in the clinching game five of the '72 Finals. Oh, and the one-legged Wilt still put up a 23 ppg, 24 rpg, .625 Finals in '70, which included a 45-27 game in a must-win game six...again, basically on one leg.

And if any all-time great has a "teammate" excuse, it's certainly Chamberlain. In the first half of his career he was carrying what were essentially last-place rosters, and even more remarkably, he carried them despite their even worse post-season play. Find me another all-time great, at least since the Wilt-era, that had post-season rosters that shot .412, .382, .354, .352, .352, and .332. And he took two of those to game seven's against the greatest dynasty in pro sports history, and with losses by two and one point.

Players like Moses, Dirk, KG, and even Lebron, could make an argument for poor rosters in their primes, too.

[Deuce Bigalow]

The reality was, he won ONE MVP, and came in second ONE other time, in his 18 seasons. And even that one MVP is interesting, since MJ took the year off. Furthermore, he came in 4th on TWO more occasions. And overall, in those 18 seasons, he finished in the top-10 in the MVP voting in 10 of them, or roughly half of his career.

And yet some here are trying to place him as high as Top-5??? The man was seldom even a Top-5 player when he played, and wasn't a Top-10 player in half of his career.

Using any consistent criteria, such as MVPs, rings, FMVPs, awards, statistical titles; as well as team achievements such as titles, 60+ win seasons, Finals, Conference Finals, and then the ugly "first round exits" (of which he had eight in his 15 post-seasons), and he is a borderline Top-10 player at best.

It comes down to, did he have a better overall career, using all the criteria listed above, than Bird, Kobe, Lebron, and even Moses Malone? Because that is what he is up against. And really, Lebron's resume blows his away...so I'm sorry, but Hakeem is anywhere from a Top-9 to Top-12 player all-time...which is nothing to be ashamed of, but clearly, nothing more than that.
Shaq and Kobe have ONE MVP each. Was Steve Nash better than Kobe in 05-06? Was Dirk better than Kobe in 06-07? Was Iverson better than Shaq in 00-01?

[Odinn]

I guess this thread was about Hakeem vs. LeBron. Not Hakeem vs. Wilt.

Competition is the main reason why LeBron hasn't surpassed Hakeem clearly. It's still debatable.
Yes, LeBron has 3 more MVPs but winning MVPs against late-prime Kobe, CP3 and Durant is easier to winning against peak MJ, prime Magic, peak Chuck, prime DRob and prime Drexler. Also when you compare their title runs, Hakeem won against tougher competition with less help.

Other than 2011-12 season, I wouldn't call LeBron had a dominating season as a Miami Heat player when you include playoffs. His 2013 playoffs performance wasn't close to the term of dominating.

[longtime lurker]

So you think the opinion of casual fans is more valuable?

No I'm actually talking about top ten lists from sources other than fans. I've never consistently heard former players, legends or basketball people put Hakeem Olajuwon in their top 10. A fan list is possibly the worst possible source because for the most part fans are fvcking idiots.

[tazb]

i got lebron and hakeem tied at #10


#1 Jordan
#2 Kareem
#3 Russell
#4 Magic
#5 Kobe
#6 Wilt
#7 Bird
#8 Shaq
#9 Duncan
#10 Hakeem/Lebron

Two weeks ago you had Kobe at 7, last week you had him at 6, and now he's top 5? :roll: :facepalm

He's #10 at best.

[Deuce Bigalow]

West was never considered the best player in the league. How many MVPs did he win?

Secondly, Chamberlain was certainly NOT in his prime in the 69-70 season. He was playing in the playoffs only four months removed from major knee surgery, and clearly, as the footage depicts between Wilt in game seven of the '70 Finals, and then again Wilt in game five of the '72 Finals...a HUGE difference. Still, a one-legged Chamberlain was the Lakers best player in game seven of the '70 Finals, and by far their best in the clinching game five of the '72 Finals. Oh, and the one-legged Wilt still put up a 23 ppg, 24 rpg, .625 Finals in '70, which included a 45-27 game in a must-win game six...again, basically on one leg.
WTF? What does the MVP award have to do with who's the best player? (West won FMVP in 69 btw) Shaq was known as the best player in 01 and 02, didnt win MVP those years. Kobe is regarded as the best in 06 and 07, didnt win MVP. Hakeem didnt win MVP in 95, but who was better than him? And if West was not the best player in 69 and 70, then who was genius?

[LAZERUSS]

Shaq and Kobe have ONE MVP each. Was Steve Nash better than Kobe in 05-06? Was Dirk better than Kobe in 06-07? Was Iverson better than Shaq in 00-01?

Good point. And how about Chamberlain, who "only" has four, and should have won in '64, and was completely robbed in '62? BTW, while Russell won four MVPs in the ten years he and Wilt were in the league together, Chamberlain held a 7-2 edge in all-NBA first team selections.

A case could be made that Wilt was probably the best player in the league in the entire decade of the 60's, and at least by the mid-60's to the late 60's, he was an overwhelming choice.

[Deuce Bigalow]

Good point. And how about Chamberlain, who "only" has four, and should have won in '64, and was completely robbed in '62? BTW, while Russell won four MVPs in the ten years he and Wilt were in the league together, Chamberlain held a 7-2 edge in all-NBA first team selections.

A case could be made that Wilt was probably the best player in the league in the entire decade of the 60's, and at least by the mid-60's he was an overwhelming choice.
Yeah in the regular season he was easily the best in the 60s decade. That is not even a question. MVPs and All-NBA teams are based off the regular season.

[LAZERUSS]

Yeah in the regular season he was easily the best in the 60s decade. That is not even a question. MVPs and All-NBA teams are based of the regular season.

And he dominated in the post-season as well. He certainly outplayed his opposing centers the entire decade of the 60's, and usually by huge margins.

I will agree that West was their best performer in the '69 post-season, but clearly Chamberlain was shackled by an incompetent coach who basically ruined his own career by his puzzling use of Wilt.

Once again, though, your "Mr. Clutch" was shredded by Frazier in game seven of the '70 Finals, and was just awful in the '72 and '73 post-seasons (particularly the Finals.)

[Xsatyr]

No I'm actually talking about top ten lists from sources other than fans. I've never consistently heard former players, legends or basketball people put Hakeem Olajuwon in their top 10. A fan list is possibly the worst possible source because for the most part fans are fvcking idiots.

Shaq and Horry say otherwise.

"If I had to pick a center [for an all-time best team], I would take Olajuwon. That leaves out Shaq, Patrick Ewing. It leaves out Wilt Chamberlain. It leaves out a lot of people. And the reason I would take Olajuwon is very simple: he is so versatile because of what he can give you from that position. It's not just his scoring, not just his rebounding or not just his blocked shots. People don't realize he was in the top seven in steals. He always made great decisions on the court. For all facets of the game, I have to give it to him." -Jordan

[Deuce Bigalow]

And he dominated in the post-season as well. He certainly outplayed his opposing centers the entire decade of the 60's, and usually by huge margins.

I will agree that West was their best performer in the '69 post-season, but clearly Chamberlain was shackled by an incompetent coach who basically ruined his own career by his puzzling use of Wilt.

Once again, though, your "Mr. Clutch" was shredded by Frazier in game seven of the '70 Finals, and was just awful in the '72 and '73 post-seasons (particularly the Finals.)
Once again, your Wilt "The Stilt" shot 1-11 FT in that same game 7, and 4-13 FT the game 7 a year before. One for ****ing eleven! And you have the nerve to blame West, the man that carried the Lakers the entire year.

[Deuce Bigalow]

I want to hear who the best player in 69 and 70 was Lauber. Lets hear it.

:oldlol: Doesn't want to admit that Wilt the "Stilt" lost with the best player in the league, twice.

[LAZERUSS]

Once again, your Wilt "The Stilt" shot 1-11 FT in that same game 7, and 4-13 FT the game 7 a year before. One for ****ing eleven! And you have the nerve to blame West, the man that carried the Lakers the entire year.

C'mon, we have been thru this before.

Chamberlain shot 1-11 in game seven of the '70 Finals...and was 1-8 in the first half, when the Knicks were leading by 27 points and the game was already over.

And West had his share of flaws in the '69 Finals, too. For instance, he missed four FTs in that game seven loss, and missed 15 shots from the field (Wilt was 7-8 from the field by the way.) And in game three, West and Baylor combined to shoot 1-14 from the floor in the fourth quarter in a six point loss (BTW, Baylor was 2-12 in that game, and 2-14 in the game four, two point loss.) And, one more time, Chamberlain shot .875 from the floor in game seven of the '69 Finals, while his teammates collectively shot .360...all in a two point loss (and with Wilt being benched by his coach in the last five minutes.)

[LAZERUSS]

I want to hear who the best player in 69 and 70 was Lauber. Lets hear it.

:oldlol: Doesn't want to admit that Wilt the "Stilt" lost with the best player in the league, twice.

I would argue that Chamberlain was the better player in '69, when you factor in defense, rebounding, and FG% efficiency, ..and had he not been injured in '70, he probably would have been then, too. You seem to forget that Wilt's new coach in the 69-70 season immediately came to Wilt, and asked HIM to become the focal point of the offense. How did Wilt respond? He was leading the league in scoring at 32.2 ppg (and on a .579 FG%) in the first nine games, when he went down with that horrfic knee injury. Even a one-legged and rusty Chamberlain had a huge impact in the playoffs. He was brilliant in the last three games of the first round of the playoffs, in leading LA back from a 3-1 series deficit. And you could hardly blame him in the Finals, when he carried LA in a must-win game six, and then was clearly their best player in game seven. All at way less than 100%.

[LAZERUSS]

BTW, I am done with the West-Wilt arguments Duece. Move on.

[Deuce Bigalow]

C'mon, we have been thru this before.

Chamberlain shot 1-11 in game seven of the '70 Finals...and was 1-8 in the first half, when the Knicks were leading by 27 points and the game was already over.

And West had his share of flaws in the '69 Finals, too. For instance, he missed four FTs in that game seven loss, and missed 15 shots from the field (Wilt was 7-8 from the field by the way.) And in game three, West and Baylor combined to shoot 1-14 from the floor in the fourth quarter in a six point loss (BTW, Baylor was 2-12 in that game, and 2-14 in the game four, two point loss.) And, one more time, Chamberlain shot .875 from the floor in game seven of the '69 Finals, while his teammates collectively shot .360...all in a two point loss (and with Wilt being benched by his coach in the last five minutes.)
Am I missing something or is this the same West that had 42-13-12 and made 14 shots? Yes it is and you're blaming him, while Wilt missed 9 FTs in a 2 point loss :sleeping

[TonyMontana]

I would rather build around Hakeem than LeBron. Jordan/Kobe? I wouldn't even think twice. Dream all day

When you look at it, Hakeem is probably the most complete player in NBA History. He is known as having the best post moves, he was one of if not the best defensive center ever, he could hit free throws. This is probably the one guy you can't nitpick anything about.

I think he's one of the 5 best players ever. He never had a consistant 2nd option on his team which is why he only got 2 rings. If you give the Rockets Scottie Pippen IN HIS PRIME(not that old fukn shit)for 10 years, you'd see Dream with many more rings.

[SamuraiSWISH]

I would rather build around Hakeem than LeBron. Jordan/Kobe? I wouldn't even think twice. Dream all day
Pippen wouldn't have been the player he became without Jordan's influence. Obvious is obvious.

Hakeem had well built rosters around him, even if his number 2 guy wasn't on the level of Magic, McHale, Pippen, Kevin Johnson, Terry Porter, James Worthy etc and still didn't always get it done.

There is no excuse for the Rockets not being much better in '97 than they were. They should've beat that Jazz team. Guy had Drexler, and Barkley. Even if slightly past their prime, the Bulls had two guys past their prime by that season in MJ and Scottie who were getting things done.

If you re-do the '84 draft, no one is drafting Hakeem over Jordan. Absolutely no one.

[Psileas]

Only one of them has 4 Finals losses, the others 1 and 2.
And only one of them has the worst record with HCA in the top 10-15.

And only one of them failed to at least reach the Division Finals only twice.
And only one of them lost every single time but once to the eventual champion.
And only one of them is the only player who averaged 30/20 in do or die games.
And only one of them posted back to back to back to back official triple-doubles in the playoffs.
And only one of them grabbed 10+ rebounds in every single game of his playoff career.

And, guess what: Your first "argument" goes against Hakeem and LeBron as well. Since the Finals are the last level of competition and getting there is better than losing before them, 2/6 > 2/4 > 2/3, not vice versa.

[LAZERUSS]

Pippen wouldn't have been the player he became without Jordan's influence. Obvious is obvious.

Hakeem had well built rosters around him, even if his number 2 guy wasn't on the level of Magic, McHale, Pippen, Kevin Johnson, Terry Porter, James Worthy etc and still didn't always get it done.

There is no excuse for the Rockets not being much better in '97 than they were. They should've beat that Jazz team. Guy had Drexler, and Barkley. Even if slightly past their prime, the Bulls had two guys past their prime by that season in MJ and Scottie who were getting things done.

If you re-do the '84 draft, no one is drafting Hakeem over Jordan. Absolutely no one.

You bring up some good points.

Hakeem had a TON of help in his title runs. Otis Thorpe was their leading rebounder in the Finals in '94 (BTW, Hakeem was only the 4th best rebounder in that series.) In the '95 Finals, Hakeem's teammates wiped the floor with Shaq's. He also had teammates who were shooting over 60% in that Finals, as well as over 50% from the arc. And Drexler was huge in the playoffs that year.

Deuce brought up Jerry West a few posts ago. His argument being that West played brilliantly (in ONE Finals at least), but think about this. If you could somehow transport Hakeem back to '69, what does Hakeem say when his coach tells him that, not only will West be the #1 option in the offense, but Baylor will b the #2 option (and of course, as we know, Baylor couldn't hit the ocean from an a lifeboat in that Finals.) So Hakeem will go from 25-30 shots in his Finals, down to ten, or less. And BTW, Chamberlain shot 71% from the floor in his two game seven's in the Finals, while Hakeem shot 40% in his one. So, those that suggest that Hakem would shoot better from the line, had better be willing to live with Olajuwon probably shooting much worse from the floor, too.

In any case, many players could claim the "what if's" in their careers. I have done it many times with Chamberlain, myself. He not only had putrid rosters for half of his career, and going against HOF-laden rosters in the process, he also had to endure his teammates puking all over the floor in the majority of his post-season career...even when he had some quality rosters.

Lebron was saddled with average to mediocre rosters up until his last three seasons. And even in this last title run, you could hardly claim that Wade and Bosh were anywhere close to the players that they were just a few years ago.

Much like Lebron, Dirk carried average rosters to 60+ wins, and he finally got some help in his title run. Same with KG. He went from hopeless rosters to a 66-16 title team.

What does all of that mean? Hakeem MIGHT have won more titles had everything else fallen into place. But what we do know, is that in one title run, the best player in the league took the year off. So, the Bulls dropped to a 55-27 team, and lost a close game seven to a Knick team, that would go on to lose a close game seven to Hakeem's Rockets in the Finals. In fact, that Knick team had no more talent than hakeem had, either. Put two-and-two together. Had MJ played, does anyone in their right mind honestly believe that Hakeem wins a ring that year?

And in his second title run, Hakeem's TEAMMATES elevated their play, particularly in the Finals, where they completely trashed Shaq's teammates, and Hakeem won ring #2. Of course, Shaq could make the argument that had the two swapped rosters in that Final series, that he likely would have won his first ring.

The bottom line is that Hakeem's overall career is just borderline Top-10, at best. He was never close to being the best scorer in the league. He was nowhere near the most efficient shooter in the league, despite being a center and playing in leagues with near 50% eFG%'s. He won two rebounding titles, but no one would put in him in the class of Rodman. In fact, he had teammates that were outrebounding him by four per game at one point in his career. He won a couple of shot-blocking titles, but no one would put him the class of "Cement Shoes" Eaton, who was the best shot-blocker of the Hakeem-era.

Here again, being anywhere from Top-9 to Top-12 all-time is nothing to be ashamed of. But it is pure folly to rank him any higher.

[LAZERUSS]

And only one of them failed to at least reach the Division Finals only twice.
And only one of them lost every single time but once to the eventual champion.
And only one of them is the only player who averaged 30/20 in do or die games.
And only one of them posted back to back to back to back official triple-doubles in the playoffs.
And only one of them grabbed 10+ rebounds in every single game of his playoff career.

And, guess what: Your first "argument" goes against Hakeem and LeBron as well. Since the Finals are the last level of competition and getting there is better than losing before them, 2/6 > 2/4 > 2/3, not vice versa.

I couldn't have said it better myself. And the fact was, Wilt came within an eyelash of beating Russell's Celtics FOUR times in four game seven's, and in doing so, probably adding another four rings to his resume. He also lost a game seven, against a heavy favorite, and on one leg.

Furthermore, and as I have said many times, he was either outplaying, or downright destroying his opposing centers in 29 post-season series. Even in the Kareem series', his defensive impact was such that those that watched those series claimed that Wilt "won" them. And this was from an old Wilt, and nowhere near his peak, and going up against perhaps the most dominant center, aside from a prime Chamberlain, who has ever played the game.

[millwad]

I couldn't have said it better myself. And the fact was, Wilt came within an eyelash of beating Russell's Celtics FOUR times in four game seven's, and in doing so, probably adding another four rings to his resume. He also lost a game seven, against a heavy favorite, and on one leg.



CHOKER.

Wilt lost so many game 7's that it's not even funny, choker is the right word. He is the same guy who lost a ring due the fact that he was the biggest choker from the FT-line in NBA history.


I
Furthermore, and as I have said many times, he was either outplaying, or downright destroying his opposing centers in 29 post-season series. Even in the Kareem series', his defensive impact was such that those that watched those series claimed that Wilt "won" them. And this was from an old Wilt, and nowhere near his peak, and going up against perhaps the most dominant center, aside from a prime Chamberlain, who has ever played the game.

Why do you use stats against everyone when it fits your agenda but when it comes to Wilt you don't use the same logic. In the series you're talking about, Kareem outscored Wilt by 23 points per game and he shot with a higher FG% while also outassisting Wilt.

In the '95 finals between Olajuwon and Shaq you claim that Shaq outplayed Olajuwon based on stats and because his teammates played better than Shaq's, meanwhile everyone says the opposite, including Shaq. But when it comes to the series between Wilt and Kareem in '72 when Kareem absolutely murdered Wilt based on stats you don't mention the fact that Wilt had the better teammates next to him, you don't even use stats at all in that comparison

You're a clown and a hypocrite.

[millwad]

You bring up some good points.

Hakeem had a TON of help in his title runs. Otis Thorpe was their leading rebounder in the Finals in '94 (BTW, Hakeem was only the 4th best rebounder in that series.) In the '95 Finals, Hakeem's teammates wiped the floor with Shaq's. He also had teammates who were shooting over 60% in that Finals, as well as over 50% from the arc. And Drexler was huge in the playoffs that year.

Wow, really?

Did Hakeem have a "TON OF HELP"?
You always spam and whine about how horrible Wilt's teammates were when Wilt in '67 played with prime HOF:ers Hal Greer, Billy Cunningham, Chet Walker, and All-stars Luke Jackson, Larry Costello and in 72 played with HOF:er Jerry West, Gail Goodrich and All-star Flynn Robinson.

So you undermine those guys but you're making a big deal out of Otis Thorpe? In '94 Olajuwon won while having Maxwell as his second best scorer in the playoffs and he averaged 13.8 points on 38% shooting that year. Don't be a clown.



Deuce brought up Jerry West a few posts ago. His argument being that West played brilliantly (in ONE Finals at least), but think about this. If you could somehow transport Hakeem back to '69, what does Hakeem say when his coach tells him that, not only will West be the #1 option in the offense, but Baylor will b the #2 option (and of course, as we know, Baylor couldn't hit the ocean from an a lifeboat in that Finals.) So Hakeem will go from 25-30 shots in his Finals, down to ten, or less. And BTW, Chamberlain shot 71% from the floor in his two game seven's in the Finals, while Hakeem shot 40% in his one. So, those that suggest that Hakem would shoot better from the line, had better be willing to live with Olajuwon probably shooting much worse from the floor, too.


What a load of BS and nonsense.
So you want to mention Wilt's FG% in game 7's in the NBA finals but you don't want to mention how much he blew it and choked from the FT-line, classic Jlauber, cherrypicking at it's finest.

And regarding Olajuwon's FG% in game 7 in 1994, that was a game he was brilliant in and his team actually won unlike Wilt's teams when Wilt choked from the FT-line and gave away the title.

Olajuwon in game 7 of the '94 NBA finals put up 25 points, 10 rebounds, 7 assists, 3 blocks, 1 steal and only 2 turnovers. You are really making a fool out of yourself..




In any case, many players could claim the "what if's" in their careers. I have done it many times with Chamberlain, myself. He not only had putrid rosters for half of his career, and going against HOF-laden rosters in the process, he also had to endure his teammates puking all over the floor in the majority of his post-season career...even when he had some quality rosters.


Oh, here you go again. You just made the biggest deal over how you think that Olajuwon had a ton of help during his career but you want to belittle Wilt's all-star and HOF-teammates. Such a clown.




What does all of that mean? Hakeem MIGHT have won more titles had everything else fallen into place. But what we do know, is that in one title run, the best player in the league took the year off. So, the Bulls dropped to a 55-27 team, and lost a close game seven to a Knick team, that would go on to lose a close game seven to Hakeem's Rockets in the Finals. In fact, that Knick team had no more talent than hakeem had, either. Put two-and-two together. Had MJ played, does anyone in their right mind honestly believe that Hakeem wins a ring that year?


Again a bunch of ludacris. Olajuwon was the MVP, DPOY and finals MVP in '94. And that Knick team almost won against the Rockets due the play of Srarks and especially Harper who abused Kenny Smith and Maxwell. The Knicks almost won although Ewing got his ass whooped by Olajuwon..

And basketball is about match ups, the year MJ came back he lost against Shaq in the playoffs, the same Shaq and Orlando got swept by Olajuwon and the Rockets. Your way of thinking makes zero sense.




And in his second title run, Hakeem's TEAMMATES elevated their play, particularly in the Finals, where they completely trashed Shaq's teammates, and Hakeem won ring #2. Of course, Shaq could make the argument that had the two swapped rosters in that Final series, that he likely would have won his first ring.


Yadi yadi yadi, Olajuwon outplayed Shaq in '95 and Shaq is the first one to say it. And if you wanna play that game, Kareem would have won in '72 if he and Wilt would have swapped teams. Kareem outscored Wilt by 23 points by game, outassisted Wilt and also shot the ball with a higher FG% than Wilt and that would make Wilt a one time winner... Such a worthless argument.



The bottom line is that Hakeem's overall career is just borderline Top-10, at best. He was never close to being the best scorer in the league. He was nowhere near the most efficient shooter in the league, despite being a center and playing in leagues with near 50% eFG%'s. He won two rebounding titles, but no one would put in him in the class of Rodman. In fact, he had teammates that were outrebounding him by four per game at one point in his career. He won a couple of shot-blocking titles, but no one would put him the class of "Cement Shoes" Eaton, who was the best shot-blocker of the Hakeem-era.

Here again, being anywhere from Top-9 to Top-12 all-time is nothing to be ashamed of. But it is pure folly to rank him any higher.

His prime was way more impressive than Wilt's who only statpadded and who only managed to win while getting carried in the playoffs by fellow HOF:ers. You are just butthurt because Olajuwon was the man and a GOAT type of prime.

[LAZERUSS]

CHOKER.

Wilt lost so many game 7's that it's not even funny, choker is the right word. He is the same guy who lost a ring due the fact that he was the biggest choker from the FT-line in NBA history.



Why do you use stats against everyone when it fits your agenda but when it comes to Wilt you don't use the same logic. In the series you're talking about, Kareem outscored Wilt by 23 points per game and he shot with a higher FG% while also outassisting Wilt.

In the '95 finals between Olajuwon and Shaq you claim that Shaq outplayed Olajuwon based on stats and because his teammates played better than Shaq's, meanwhile everyone says the opposite, including Shaq. But when it comes to the series between Wilt and Kareem in '72 when Kareem absolutely murdered Wilt based on stats you don't mention the fact that Wilt had the better teammates next to him, you don't even use stats at all in that comparison

You're a clown and a hypocrite.

I'm not going to waste too much time on this trash.

Those that actually witnessed the '72 WCF's, including the MILWAUKEE PRESS and even their COACH, agreed that Wilt's play was the difference. Time Magazine went so far as to declare Chamberlain with a DECISIVE win in that SERIES. Of course, an old Wilt, at nowhre near his prime, holding KAJ, in his greatest statistical season, to .414 shooting over the course of the last four pivotal games of that series, including launching 15+ of KAJ's shots into the seats, probably had a lot to do with it. Especially when he badly outplayed Kareem down the stretch in the clinching game six win on the road.

Speaking of being a hypocrite...you excuse a 36 year old Hakeem for getting carpet-bombed by a 26 year old Shaq, because he was too old. Yet, a 36 year old Chamberlain reduced a 26 year old KAJ to .450 shooting in their six regular season h2h's, while outshooting him by a .737 - .450 margin, and even outscoring him in one game.

Of course, over the course of their four years in the league together, a prime KAJ, pitted against an old Wilt, shot a combined.464 over the course of their 28 h2h's.

A 38-39 year old KAJ, barely able to jump, averaged 33 ppg on .630 shooting against a 22-23 year old Hakeem, over the course of ten straight games. Hell, a 37-41 year old KAJ outscored Hakeem in their 23 h2h's, and outshot him by a .610 to .512 margin. But then, you excuse Hakeem because he was still young.

Then again, a 22 year old Shaq, at well before his peak, pounds Hakeem with a 28 ppg, .595 series, while easily ourebounding, out-assisting, and even outblocking him.

Here are the real questions... we already know that a young Shaq, at worst, battled a prime Hakeem to a draw. And we know that a near-prime Shaq just destroyed him. Question #1...based on that, who would pick a prime Hakeem over a prime Shaq?

We also know that an old 38-39 year old KAJ just wiped the floor with a 22-23 year old Hakeem. It was perhaps the most brutal pounding any all-time great has ever handed another all-time great over th course of ten straight games. We also know that a near-prime Shaq could "only" reach 37 points against a 36 year old Hakeem. And we know that 38-39 year old KAJ was putting up 40, 43, and even 46 point games (in only 37 minutes, and on 70% shooting) against a young Hakeem.

Question #2. based on the fact that a KAJ on his last legs, was just shelling a young Hakeem, far more than even a prime Shaq did (albeit, it was akin to the bombing of Hiroshima, though), and that a young Shaq was able to hold his own with a prime Hakeem (and that is being kind), just how unfathomable would the destruction have been had a 23-26 year old KAJ faced off against a prime Hakeem? 60-70 point games???

Question #3. Based on the fact that in their only h2h before Wilt shredded his knee, he easily outplayed a young KAJ...and this by a Chambelain who was past his overwhelming prime...

and based on the FACTS, that a prime Chamberlain was much more dominant against many of the same centers that a prime KAJ would face...and I mean MUCH more dominant...

well, you can pretty much see where this is all going. How does a prime Chamberlain fare against a prime Hakeem?

[jzek]

I've lost all praises for Hakeem when I found out he lost 8 or 10x in the FIRST ROUND! :facepalm

[millwad]

I've lost all praises for Hakeem when I found out he lost 8 or 10x in the FIRST ROUND! :facepalm

Since you lost all your praise for him, which of those seasons do you believe he should have made it out of the first round based on his teammates abilities and skillset.

[LAZERUSS]

I've lost all praises for Hakeem when I found out he lost 8 or 10x in the FIRST ROUND! :facepalm

Yep...if Millwad claims Wilt was choker losing game seven's that he dominated in the Finals...just how much of losing choker was a Hakeem who lost in the First Round of the playoffs in over half of his post-season career, and, oh btw, none of those series were even close?

[LAZERUSS]

Shaq vs Hakeem...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zehfeZyNB8s

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

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8Nphmersok

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7tmS1UaTo4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcAIrJfI7EM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WirznrXxFz0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M46dV41CnvE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tA79Jte9veM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TJDdHxRXLU

[millwad]

I'm not going to waste too much time on this trash.


Your mother is trash.

Those that actually witnessed the '72 WCF's, including the MILWAUKEE PRESS and even their COACH, agreed that Wilt's play was the difference. Time Magazine went so far as to declare Chamberlain with a DECISIVE win in that SERIES. Of course, an old Wilt, at nowhre near his prime, holding KAJ, in his greatest statistical season, to .414 shooting over the course of the last four pivotal games of that series, including launching 15+ of KAJ's shots into the seats, probably had a lot to do with it. Especially when he badly outplayed Kareem down the stretch in the clinching game six win on the road.

You still don't know the meaning of decisive and you still haven't proved that he blocked 15+ of KAJ's shots, you even claimed that he blocked 15 of Kareem's skyhooks, you clown.

Wilt got outscored by 23 points per game and Kareem shot a better FG5 than Wilt and he outassisted Wilt. You don't want to give the edge to Hakeem in the '95 finals based on stats but you have no problem to give the edfge to Wilt in a series he got raped in terms of stats. Such a hypocrite and a biased clown.



Speaking of being a hypocrite...you excuse a 36 year old Hakeem for getting carpet-bombed by a 26 year old Shaq, because he was too old. Yet, a 36 year old Chamberlain reduced a 26 year old KAJ to .450 shooting in their six regular season h2h's, while outshooting him by a .737 - .450 margin, and even outscoring him in one game.


Haha, you're funny. Why do you always cherry pick stats when it comes to Wilt. Kareem averaged 40 points on 50% shooting on prime defensive Wilt in '72. 40 freaking points on 50% shooting, that is beyond crazy and he outscored Wilt by 23 points per game in the playoffs on better FG%.




Of course, over the course of their four years in the league together, a prime KAJ, pitted against an old Wilt, shot a combined.464 over the course of their 28 h2h's.


And he averaged 40 points on 50% shooting in the regular season of '72 and he averaged 23 points more per game on better FG% when they faced in the playoffs of '72.



A 38-39 year old KAJ, barely able to jump, averaged 33 ppg on .630 shooting against a 22-23 year old Hakeem, over the course of ten straight games. Hell, a 37-41 year old KAJ outscored Hakeem in their 23 h2h's, and outshot him by a .610 to .512 margin. But then, you excuse Hakeem because he was still young.


And now you cherry pick again, you're such a clown. Olajuwon destroyed Kareem in the playoffs of '86, he destroyed all the Laker bigs and still you don't want to mention it because it ruins your argument.

[/QUOTE]
Then again, a 22 year old Shaq, at well before his peak, pounds Hakeem with a 28 ppg, .595 series, while easily ourebounding, out-assisting, and even outblocking him.
[/QUOTE]

Shaq was 2nd in the MVP voting in '95, he wasn't far from his prime and if you want to call a series where Olajuwon swept and outplayed Shaq, even according to Shaq himself a pounding. I would like to call it a slaughter of Wilt by Kareem when he averaged 40 points on 50% shooting on Wilt in the regular season of '72 while also outscoring Wilt by 23 points per game on better FG% in the playoffs.



Here are the real questions... we already know that a young Shaq, at worst, battled a prime Hakeem to a draw. And we know that a near-prime Shaq just destroyed him. Question #1...based on that, who would pick a prime Hakeem over a prime Shaq?


it wasn't a draw, tell me one historian that calls that series a draw. You are the only person ever to call that series a draw. Not even Shaq himself calls that series a draw.


You're asking a question while giving false info.



We also know that an old 38-39 year old KAJ just wiped the floor with a 22-23 year old Hakeem. It was perhaps the most brutal pounding any all-time great has ever handed another all-time great over th course of ten straight games. We also know that a near-prime Shaq could "only" reach 37 points against a 36 year old Hakeem. And we know that 38-39 year old KAJ was putting up 40, 43, and even 46 point games (in only 37 minutes, and on 70% shooting) against a young Hakeem.


Oh, again you go on a rant about how Kareem wiped the floor with Olajuwon in '86 but you don't mention that Kareem absolutely destroyed Kareem in the playoffs of that year.

I mean, it's so pointless to discuss with you because you cherry pick like crazy. You mention what you like to mention as long as it fits your agenda. How can you even make a statement like that while leaving out that Olajuwon absolutely destroyed Kareem in the playoffs in that same year.



Question #2. based on the fact that a KAJ on his last legs, was just shelling a young Hakeem, far more than even a prime Shaq did (albeit, it was akin to the bombing of Hiroshima, though), and that a young Shaq was able to hold his own with a prime Hakeem (and that is being kind), just how unfathomable would the destruction have been had a 23-26 year old KAJ faced off against a prime Hakeem? 60-70 point games???

1. Olajuwon slaughtered Kareem in the playoffs which you never mention because it ruins your terrible argument.

2. It's not being kind, even Shaq himself said that Olajuwon owned him but since it fits your agenda you wanna keep going on a BS lie about how Olajuwon didn't get the best of Shaq.

But at the same time you claimed that Kareem got slaughtered by Wilt in '72, in a series where Kareem outscored Wilt with 23 points per game on better FG%. How am I supposed to take you seriously?



Question #3. Based on the fact that in their only h2h before Wilt shredded his knee, he easily outplayed a young KAJ...and this by a Chambelain who was past his overwhelming prime...


Stop whining about Wilt's injuries. You act like he couldn't walk and that he was all busted up meanwhile alot of historians say that he was in his defensive prime in '72 when he got slaughtered by Kareem.

Wilt played 42+ minutes per game in his last 4 seasons and a player who's busted up has no chance of doing so.



and based on the FACTS, that a prime Chamberlain was much more dominant against many of the same centers that a prime KAJ would face...and I mean MUCH more dominant...

well, you can pretty much see where this is all going. How does a prime Chamberlain fare against a prime Hakeem?

A prime Wilt couldn't win crap, Wilt had to team up with HOF:ers and all-stars to win and he became a 3rd and 4th option on offense and had to ride others offensive skillset to became a champion. Olajuwon did it himself while putting up one of the most dominant playoff performances in '94 and '95 when he outplayed 3 top 10 centers in league history.

No one takes Wilt's title years over Olajuwon's.

[millwad]

Shaq vs Hakeem...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zehfeZyNB8s

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

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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8Nphmersok

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7tmS1UaTo4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CcAIrJfI7EM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WirznrXxFz0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M46dV41CnvE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tA79Jte9veM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8TJDdHxRXLU

Too butthurt to show Olajuwon sweeping and outplaying Shaq in '95, such a clown.

[millwad]

Yep...if Millwad claims Wilt was choker losing game seven's that he dominated in the Finals...just how much of losing choker was a Hakeem who lost in the First Round of the playoffs in over half of his post-season career, and, oh btw, none of those series were even close?

Probably one of your many alts but I'll give you a chance to actually explain yourself.

Last time I asked which years Hakeem should have made it further you wrote "all of them" which is just you showcasing your stupidity and ignorance. Now I ask you again, based on what kind of players he played with, what years should Hakeem have made it further in those first round exits.

[LAZERUSS]

Probably one of your many alts but I'll give you a chance to actually explain yourself.

Last time I asked which years Hakeem should have made it further you wrote "all of them" which is just you showcasing your stupidity and ignorance. Now I ask you again, based on what kind of players he played with, what years should Hakeem have made it further in those first round exits.

I'll play..

how about his very first one?

A 48-34 team losing to a 41-41 team...with Mark Eaton as their center. Sampson and Hakeem against Eaton.

[LAZERUSS]

Probably one of your many alts but I'll give you a chance to actually explain yourself.

Last time I asked which years Hakeem should have made it further you wrote "all of them" which is just you showcasing your stupidity and ignorance. Now I ask you again, based on what kind of players he played with, what years should Hakeem have made it further in those first round exits.

And you haven't given me a list of rosters that Hakeem that in which teammates collectively shot .412, .382, .354, .352, .352, and even .332, like Chamberlain had in his first six post-seasons, and in two of which he took crappy teams as far as to game seven losses by two and one point to HOF-laden 60-20 and 62-18 Celtic teams. Go ahead...I'm still waiting.

[millwad]

I'll play..

how about his very first one?

A 48-34 team losing to a 41-41 team...with Mark Eaton as their center. Sampson and Hakeem against Eaton.


You can't be for real.

So it was rookie Olajuwon's, who averaged 21 points, 13 rebounds, 2.6 blocks, 1.4 assists and 1.4 steals in that series.

And especially not when rookie Olajuwon in a the decisive game 5 put up;

32 points (63% shooting), 14 rebounds and 6 blocks...

[millwad]

And you haven't given me a list of rosters that Hakeem that in which teammates collectively shot .412, .382, .354, .352, .352, and even .332, like Chamberlain had in his first six post-seasons, and in two of which he took crappy teams as far as to game seven losses by two and one point to HOF-laden 60-20 and 62-18 Celtic teams. Go ahead...I'm still waiting.

Please, you retard, Olajuwon won his first ring while having Maxwell as his best scoring teammate in the playoffs. That same Maxwell averaged 13.8 points on 38% shooting.

Don't even try to blame Wilt's teammates when you're making a comparison to Olajuwon..

[Bigsmoke]

Hakeem did not have a better career than Kobe. Hakeem was dominant for 3 years and that was it. Kobe has been dominant for over 10 years.

Hakeem didn't lead his team to the Finals as a 23 year old? :rolleyes:

[Deuce Bigalow]

And only one of them failed to at least reach the Division Finals only twice.
And only one of them lost every single time but once to the eventual champion.
And only one of them is the only player who averaged 30/20 in do or die games.
And only one of them posted back to back to back to back official triple-doubles in the playoffs.
And only one of them grabbed 10+ rebounds in every single game of his playoff career.

And, guess what: Your first "argument" goes against Hakeem and LeBron as well. Since the Finals are the last level of competition and getting there is better than losing before them, 2/6 > 2/4 > 2/3, not vice versa.
While I agree with your last point, that only is true when you don't choke in the Finals lets say like in Jerry West's career when he made the Finals 7 times in his prime and was great in basically all of them but still lost them all. Wilt missed too many freethrows in too many close games in his finals losses. Wilt also has had MUCH better teammates than Hakeem, and a little better than Lebron's teammates, so losing more times in the Finals than them is not exactly a plus.

[jstern]

So, I'm curious....how did Kobe manage to work his way up to #5 on your list in the span of a year? Other than reaching 30,000 points scored, what did he accomplish in that time? Because last summer you started off arguing why he was indisputably ahead of Hakeem, which I think meant you had him at #8. Then you had the infamous "Kobe >>>>>> Shaq and it's not even close" thread, moving him up to #7. And I think you topped it off with a "Kobe > Bird" thread which moved him up to #6.

And now he's #5? I'm guessing by the end of next season you'll have yourself convinced he's #2 or #1 all-time.
The guy is pathetic.

[LAZERUSS]

You can't be for real.

So it was rookie Olajuwon's, who averaged 21 points, 13 rebounds, 2.6 blocks, 1.4 assists and 1.4 steals in that series.

And especially not when rookie Olajuwon in a the decisive game 5 put up;

32 points (63% shooting), 14 rebounds and 6 blocks...

Hmmm, what about his pathetic performances in games one, two, and four? BTW, he shot .477 from the floor in that series, in a post-season NBA that shot .491, and had a .497 eFG%.


Of course, ROOKIE Chamberlain had a 30-26 EDF's series, which included a must-win 50-35 game five, against non other than Russell. Oh, and that 59-16 Boston team that his team barely lost a game six to...seven HOFers. And this was after single-handedly carrying his team past Syracuse in the first round, which included a clinching 53-22 game.

Or Wilt taking that same last place roster, only older and worse, past Syracuse in the first round of the '62 playoffs, which included a 56-35 clinching game five performance. Then he hung a 33-26 series on Russell and his 60-20 Celtics in the EDF's, losing a game seven by two points. Oh, and BTW, Chamberlain did not have ONE player on his entire roster in that post-season, that shot better than .397, and in fact, they collectively shot .354. ONE man single-handedly came within an eyelash of beating the greatest dynasty in professional sports.

Of course, Chamberlain was taking a lousy 40-40 team to a game seven, one point loss against another HOF-laden Celtic team that had their best record in the Russell years, of 62-18. In a series in which Wilt outscored Russell, per game, 30.1 to 15.6 ppg, outrebounded Russell, per game, 31.4 to 25.2, and outshot Russell by a .555 to .447 margin (and outshot Russell from the line, as well, .583 to .472. And all of that game after Wilt led that rag-tag group to a rout of Oscar's 48-32 Royals in the first round.

I could go on, but Hakeem never carried rosters that were anything close to that pathetic, nor did he EVER face a dominant team with as many as EIGHT HOFers.


Please, you retard, Olajuwon won his first ring while having Maxwell as his best scoring teammate in the playoffs. That same Maxwell averaged 13.8 points on 38% shooting.

Don't even try to blame Wilt's teammates when you're making a comparison to Olajuwon..

I am so tired of that same old nonsense. Ewing's best teammate, John Starks, was no better. He averaged 17.7 ppg, on .368 shooting.

Otis Thorpe was Houston's leading rebounder (Hakeem was only the fourth best rebounder in that series), and the only key player in the entire series to shoot better than .500.

Once again, Ewing's Knicks were no more talented than Hakeem's Rockets. They had a worse record for a reason...they were a worse team.

Of course, had Jordan not missed the entire season, and played with his 55-27 Bulls (who had Horace Grant that year, but not in 94-95), and I doubt the Rockets would have won a game.

And then in the '95 Finals, while Shaq was abusing Hakeem, and holding him to .483 shooting (and shooting 595 himself), Hakeem's teammates were just slaughtering Shaq's in EVERY area. They outshot them by a huge margin from the field, the line, and outscored them by a whopping 50 points from the line, in a series in which Houston outscored Orlando by a total of 28 points. He had a Drexler scoring 22 ppg, and Mario Elie averaging 16 ppg, on get this... 648 shooting. Poor teammates. STFU!!!


And speaking of FG%'s.

In Chamberlain's 13 post-seasons, he had exactly TWO starting teammates, to have ever shot over 50%in a single post-season. Happy Hairston and .506 in the '71 playoffs, and the great Dick Garrett, and his .510 in the '70 playoffs (and his 128 ppg.) TWO. Yes TWO.

The great Jerry West played in four post-seasons with Chamberlain. He shot .469, .463, .445, and .376 in them.

Baylor shot .385 in one of his two.

Greer and his 3 1/2 post-seasons with Chamberlain? .455, .432, 429, and yes, .352.

Wilt's two best teammates in the '61 and '62 post-seasons? Arizin at .375 and .328, and Gola at .271 and .206.

So, please, find me these years in which Hakeem's teammates, even on his bad rosters, were collectively shooting .360 or worse.

[TheCorporation]

Didn't Hakeem lose 6 times in the first round?

No. He lost 8. :lol

[LAZERUSS]

No. He lost 8. :lol

And once again, he lost them badly. None of them were close. He obviously couldn't carry average rosters to even 50 wins. He won one title in a year in which MJ took the year off (and his Bulls went 55-27 without him, losing a close game seven to the Knicks, who would lose a close game seven to Hakeem's favored Rockets.) He won another title when his teammates wiped the floor with Shaq's...and in a series in which three of the games came down to the wire. And in the one solid win, Hakeem shot .467 from the field, and his teammates collectively shot .555. Yep, his "poor" teammates.

The man couldn't get past the first round with players like Drexler and Barkley, and then again with Barkley and Pippen. BTW, Barkley was, by far-and-away, Houston'e best rebounder when he played there.

But, yes, poor Hakeem played with so many bad teams. One thing is for sure, hecouldn't get them past the first round, and lost several times in later rounds with HCA.

[Graviton]

And once again, he lost them badly. None of them were close. He obviously couldn't carry average rosters to even 50 wins. He won one title in a year in which MJ took the year off (and his Bulls went 55-27 without him, losing a close game seven to the Knicks, who would lose a close game seven to Hakeem's favored Rockets.) He won another title when his teammates wiped the floor with Shaq's...and in a series in which three of the games came down to the wire. And in the one solid win, Hakeem shot .467 from the field, and his teammates collectively shot .555. Yep, his "poor" teammates.

The man couldn't get past the first round with players like Drexler and Barkley, and then again with Barkley and Pippen. BTW, Barkley was, by far-and-away, Houston'e best rebounder when he played there.

But, yes, poor Hakeem played with so many bad teams. One thing is for sure, hecouldn't get them past the first round, and lost several times in later rounds with HCA.

http://www.mooregroup.ie/newsite/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/ether.jpg

[millwad]

And once again, he lost them badly. None of them were close. He obviously couldn't carry average rosters to even 50 wins. He won one title in a year in which MJ took the year off (and his Bulls went 55-27 without him, losing a close game seven to the Knicks, who would lose a close game seven to Hakeem's favored Rockets.) He won another title when his teammates wiped the floor with Shaq's...and in a series in which three of the games came down to the wire. And in the one solid win, Hakeem shot .467 from the field, and his teammates collectively shot .555. Yep, his "poor" teammates.


Again a lie.
Hell, even the series we just discussed was a close game 5 series so yet again you lie. You're so full of shit.

And stop using the "Bulls without Jordan almost won against the Knicks", it's a terrible argument. The year after when Jordan was back he and the Bulls lost to Magic who got swept by Hakeem and the Rockets. Your logic is horrible.



The man couldn't get past the first round with players like Drexler and Barkley, and then again with Barkley and Pippen. BTW, Barkley was, by far-and-away, Houston'e best rebounder when he played there.

The man won a ring with Drexler and made it to the WCF with Barkley and stop being a bitch and whine about rebounding. When Wilt he gave up the scoring totally, he had to be carried offensively, you bitch.



But, yes, poor Hakeem played with so many bad teams. One thing is for sure, hecouldn't get them past the first round, and lost several times in later rounds with HCA.

And still he won 2 rings, the same amount as Wilt while playing much better than Wilt and while outplaying 3 top 10 centers. Wilt had to gie up the scoring to others, like a bitch to be able to win. In his statistical prime he was a sucker.

[Psileas]

While I agree with your last point, that only is true when you don't choke in the Finals lets say like in Jerry West's career when he made the Finals 7 times in his prime and was great in basically all of them but still lost them all.

It's not that simple. Apart from the fact that "choking" is a subjective matter (for you, he choked in Game 7 of the 1969 Finals, for me, not really - for example, his missed FT's did cost, but he made up for it by only missing 1 of his 8 FG's), what if he performed great in the previous rounds? What if the player we're comparing him to underperformed before the Finals or at least didn't perform better than him up to the Conf.Finals, but Wilt made it to the Finals and the other player didn't?
You also mention West performing well in the Finals 7 times in his prime - correct, he didn't perform all that well in either 1972 or 1973. Now, Wilt made 3 of his 6 Finals after his prime as well (we can signify his prime not only by his age, but also his 1969-70 devastating injury that significantly slowed him down), but I see no excuses made about him. Neither do I see West getting blamed for his own eggs, like getting owned by Frazier in Game 7 of the 1970 Finals. This means that either you hold Wilt in a different, higher regard, even as a playoff performer, or that you are a hypocrite.



Wilt missed too many freethrows in too many close games in his finals losses.

True, but let's see in which games he didn't make up for his missed FT's by doing other things. Not to mention, in which games this didn't even matter, like that 1970 Game 7 that you constantly mention (due to him hitting 1-11).


Wilt also has had MUCH better teammates than Hakeem, and a little better than Lebron's teammates, so losing more times in the Finals than them is not exactly a plus.

It's only fair that Wilt had per average better teammates than Hakeem, since he also had per average better opponents. As for LeBron...he really had a mediocre cast early on and what he did was at times impressive, but Wilt didn't get to play with the equivalent of Wade-Bosh when he was 26. When he joined West-Baylor, he was 32 and neither of his great teammates were young either. So, that would be the equivalent of Wilt joining the Lakers in 1963, in which case, I would assure you he'd win more than 1 title.

(Late edit: Typo)

[LAZERUSS]

Again a lie.
Hell, even the series we just discussed was a close game 5 series so yet again you lie. You're so full of shit.

And stop using the "Bulls without Jordan almost won against the Knicks", it's a terrible argument. The year after when Jordan was back he and the Bulls lost to Magic who got swept by Hakeem and the Rockets. Your logic is horrible.



The man won a ring with Drexler and made it to the WCF with Barkley and stop being a bitch and whine about rebounding. When Wilt he gave up the scoring totally, he had to be carried offensively, you bitch.



And still he won 2 rings, the same amount as Wilt while playing much better than Wilt and while outplaying 3 top 10 centers. Wilt had to gie up the scoring to others, like a bitch to be able to win. In his statistical prime he was a sucker.

Hakeem's teams lost in the first round, eight times, and by margins of 3-2, -1, 3-1, 3-1, 3-0, 3-2, 3-1, and 3-2. So, I guess I was a liar. He was only blown out in five of the eight. Once again, all first round games.

Speaking of 1st round series. Had Wilt had the "good fortune" to get whacked in the first round in eight of his playoff series, I wonder what his post-season numbers would look like:

38.7 ppg, 23.0 rpg

37.0 ppg, 23.0 rpg

37.0 ppg, 26.2 rpg

38.6 ppg (and on .559 shooting...in a post-season NBA that aveaged 105.8 ppg on .420 shooting), 23.0 rpg.

27.8 ppg, 20 rpg (of course, he was "lucky" enough to face Russell in the next round, and all he did was put up a 30.1 ppg, 31.4 rpg, .555 F% series), in a post-season that shot .429 .

28.0 ppg, 30.2 rpg, .509 (and oh, btw, against Russell.)

28.0 ppg, 26.5 rpg, 11.0 apg, and on a .612 FG% (in a post-season that shot .424)

25.5 ppg, 24.1 rpg, 6.3 apg, and .584 FG%. BTW, this was against HOFer Bellamy, who had shot .541 during the regular season, but was held to .421 shooting by Chamberlain. Oh, and btw, Wilt led both teams in scoring, rebounding, assists, and FG%.

23.7 ppg, 20.3 rpg, .549, and three known games of 10, 11, and 10 blocks. Oh, and all only a four months after major knee surgery.

14.5 ppg, 21.0 rpg, .629 FG%





The 93-94 Bulls went 55-27 without MJ. They lost a close game seven to the 57-25 Knicks, who lost a close game seven to your 58-24 Rockets. The 94-95 Bulls team that ou say were swept by the Magic were NOT the same team. Where was Horace Grant in 94-95? Of course, the uneducated would not have known that.

The '93-94 Bulls with MJ, who probably would have won yet another MVP that year, would have stomped the Rockets. Why? You are adding one of the top-5 greatest players off all-time, to a team that had gone 55-27 without him. And, after all as you have claimed, Hakeem didn't have a second best player, right?


When Wilt gave up scoring totally? You mean the '67 Chamberlain who outscored, outrebounded, outassisted, outblocked, and outshot all three of his opposing centers, two of which are generally recognized, along with Wilt, as the greatest defensive centers to have ever played the game.

All Chamberlain did in the '67 playoffs was average 21.7 ppg, 29.2 rpg, 9.2 apg, and shoot .579 from the floor...and BW, he collectively shot .558 against Russell and Thurmond, while collectively holding those two to a combined .350 shooting. In fact, Chamberlain outshot outshot his three opposing centers by a .579 to about a .376 margin...in a post-season NBA that shot .424. Incidently, Russell shot .454 from the field in the regular season, and Thurmond shot .437. So, Wilt not only easily outscored those three, he outshot them by an unfathomable .200+ margin...yes .200+.

Included were games of 41, on 19-30 shooting; and 37 points, on 16-24 shooting, against Dierking. The 41 point game was a Sixer high in thepost-season BTW. Then, in game three, Chamberlain hung a 16-30-19 game on Dierking (yes, a 19 assist game, in a league that averaged about the same apg, as the current NBA.)

Then, in the EDF's, Chamberlain had a 24-32-13-12 game against Russell; as well as a 20-41 game against him...with the 41 rebounds being an all-time record. Then, in the clinching game five win, Wilt put up a 29 point, 10-16 shooting, 13 assist, 7 block, 36 rebound game. And, this Wilt who "had to be carried offensively" scored 22 points on Russell in the first half, when the game was still in doubt.

Then in the Finals, and against Thurmond, in Nate's greatest season (it was his best statistically, and he finished second in the MVP balloting), Chamberlain outscored Thurmond in five of the six games; outrebounded him in five of the six games; outassisted him in five of the six games; and outshot him from the field in all six. And in the clinching game six win, and with Wilt's "best scoring" teammate Hal Greer scoring 15 points, on 5-16 shooting (he would only shoot .429 from the floor in the entire playoffs BTW), Chamberlain outscored Thurmond, 24-12, while outshooting him by an 8-13 to 4-13 margin.

Of course, those that have not done any research, like yourself, should also know that Chamberlain was certainly capable of scoring much more. In his very last game, just the year before, he hung a 46-34 game on Russell. And in that same 65-66 season, he averaged29 ppg against Thurmond, which included four games of 30+, and one in which he outscored Nate by a 45-13 margin.

Continued...

[LAZERUSS]

Continuing...

Think about this. This prime Chamberlain, in 11 straight games against Thurmond, put up six of 30+, including games of 34, 34, 38, and that 45 carpet-bombing. Then, in the '67 Finals, he shot .560 from the field against Thurmond.

Why are those numbers important, you ask? Because a prime Kareem faced Thurmond in 40 h2h games, and he only had a total of seven 30+ point game against him, with a high of 34. Furthermore, KAJ shot about .440 against Thurmond in those 40 career h2h's, and in his three playoff h2h's against Nate, he shot .486, .428, and .405. BTW, in that .405 series, Thurmond outscored an outshot him. And yet a prime Chamberlain, going against a prime Thurmond, could just annihilate him.

Yep, the "non-scoring" Wilt.

As a sidenote, Chamberlain's career playoff FG% of .522 is very deceptive. He played in post-seasons in which the league shot .402, .403, .411, .420, .429, .440, .424, .446, .431, .455, .445, .446, and .451. He was routinely outshooting the league average by around 100 points, and never shot close to the average. He also faced a HOF starting center in 105 post-season games, and a multiple all-star in another 26. Or, 131 of his 160 post-season games, he was facing a good-to-great center. Included were 10 games against Bellamy, 11 against Reed (and 17 overall), 11 against a prime KAJ, 17 against Thurmond, and get this... 49 against Russell and "the Dynasty." He faced the two greatest defensive centers of his era, and probably of all-time (excluding himself), in 66 of his 160 post-season games, or nearly half.

BTW, let's take a closer look at the "quality" centers that Hakeem faced in his two title runs, shall we? Let's start with his first one, in 93-94.

First round. I'm not even sure the Blazers had a true center in that series. I guess Cliff Robinson was it, with the great Chris Dudley backing him up for a few minutes.

Second round. It gets even better in this round against the Suns. Mostly PF AC Green, with a breather from Oliver Miller and Joe Kleine.

WCF's. This is really hilarious. The unstoppable Felton Spencer, he of the career 5 ppg, played over 30 mpg in that series. On top of that, the Jazz didn't use another true center in that series.

Of course, we know that Hakeem did outplay Ewing, albeit, he was badly outrebounded. In fact, Hakeem wasn't even the best rebounder on his own team (Otis Thorpe was, and BTW, Thorpe has SEVERAL outstanding post-seasons alongside Hakeem.) In fact, Hakeem was only the 4th best rebounder in the series. He did average 26.9 ppg on .500 shooting against Ewing, but let's be real here. The only time in his three Finals in which he shot better than .483.

So, this "playoff run which was clearly better than Wilt's", was in fact, not even close to the domination that Chamberlain shelled his opposing centers with in '67. And one can only shake their head at the thought of a prime Wilt, deciding to score, and facing the likes of Cliff Robinson, Spencer, Kleine, and AC Green. And considering that a 39 year old KAJ could only only routinely drop 40+ on Hakeem, he also did it to Ewing...and considering that a prime KAJ was light years behind a prime Wilt when comparing their play against the same centers that each faced in their careers. Well, the implication is pretty obvious, even for the uneducated. Chamberlain would have feasted on the chumps, and to a far greater extent, that Hakeem faced in his '94 run. Not even close.

How about Hakeem's '95 run? No doubt he slaughtered David Robinson. Of course, a prime Chamberlain was shelling Russell by similar margins several times in his post-season career.

But how about his first round opponent, and against the Jazz. Once again, no true center to be found. The almighty Antoine Carr, a 6-9 PF played the bulk of the minutes.

Second round, and against the Suns? More of AC Green again. Green was a serviceable backup PF his career, and yet he was the Suns center against Hakeem.

We know that Hakeem murdered D-Rob in the WCF's. BTW, in their 42 other career h2h's, Robinson was every bit his equal, only considerabl more efficient (he outshot Hakeem by a .488 to .441 margin in those 42 h2h's)...and oh, btw, his Spurs went 30-12 against Hakeem's Rockets.

That brings us to the Finals. True, a shot-jacking Hakeem, taking 30 FGA per game, outscored a 22 year old Shaq by a 33-28 ppg margin. Of course, Shaq only averaged 19 FGAs in that series, and outshot this prime Hakeem by a staggering .595 to .483 margin. Not only that, he outrebounded him, outassisted him, and even outblocked him.

BTW, has there ever been a center who was considered a great defender like Hakeem, who was allowing a 38-39 year old KAJ to average 33 ppg on .630 shooting in 10 straight h2's. This from a KAJ who played considerably worse against the rest of the NBA in those seasons.

Or a so-called prime Hakeem surrendering 28 ppg on .595 shooting to a young Shaq.

Hell, a Artis Gilmore in ten straight h2h's with Hakeems Rockets in this '85 and '86 seasons, and at ages 35 and 36, just abused the Rockets, and presumably Hakeem, who was their center. He badly outscored and outshot Hakeem, and btw, averaged 24 ppg on .677 shooting in those ten straight games. And again, this was nowhere near prime Artis. As a sidenote, Robert Parish faced both Gilmore, and later Shaq, and from what I understand, claimed that Artis was the stronger of the two.

Anyway...as you can plainly see, Hakeem's two title runs were not nearly as impressive as some would have you believe.

[riseagainst]

No. He lost 8. :lol

did someone say 8? isn't that lebron's ppg in a finals game?

[TheTenth]

It's not that simple. Apart from the fact that "choking" is a subjective matter (for you, he choked in Game 7 of the 1969 Finals, for me, not really - for example, his missed FT's did cost, but he made up for it by only missing 1 of his 8 FG's), what if he performed great in the previous rounds? What if the player we're comparing him to underperformed before the Finals or at least didn't perform better than him up to the Conf.Finals, but Wilt made it to the Finals and the other player didn't?
You also mention West performing well in the Finals 7 times in his prime - correct, he didn't perform all that well in either 1972 or 1973. Now, Wilt made 3 of his 6 Finals after his prime as well (we can signify his prime not only by his age, but also his 1969-70 devastating injury that significantly slowed him down), but I see no excuses made about him. Neither do I see West getting blamed for his own eggs, like getting owned by Frazier in Game 7 of the 1970 Finals. This means that either you hold Wilt in a different, higher regard, even as a playoff performer, or that you are a hypocrite.




True, but let's see in which games he didn't make up for his missed FT's by doing other things. Not to mention, in which games this didn't even matter, like that 1970 Game 7 that you constantly mention (due to him hitting 1-11).



It's only fair that Wilt had per average better teammates than Hakeem, since he also had per average better opponents. As for LeBron...he really had a mediocre cast early on and what he did was at times impressive, but Wilt didn't get to play with the equivalent of Wade-Bosh when he was 26. When he joined West-Baylor, he was 32 and neither of his great teammates were young either. So, that would be the equivalent of Wilt joining the Lakers in 1963, in which case, I would assure you he'd win more than 1 title.

(Late edit: Typo)
It's sad that well thought out posts like this will just be ignored by people who disagree... I for one agree with the thesis of your post but with every post I try and see what might be wrong with my arguments rather than just trying to back myself up with all my beliefs. At least that is what I strive for...

[MiseryCityTexas]

Hakeem was dominant for 3 years and that was it. Kobe has been dominant for over 10 years.



Hakeem didn't lead his team to the Finals as a 23 year old? :rolleyes:


That idot probably didn't start watching basketball until Jordan won his first championship SMH.

[mehyaM24]

And once again, he lost them badly. None of them were close. He obviously couldn't carry average rosters to even 50 wins. He won one title in a year in which MJ took the year off (and his Bulls went 55-27 without him, losing a close game seven to the Knicks, who would lose a close game seven to Hakeem's favored Rockets.) He won another title when his teammates wiped the floor with Shaq's...and in a series in which three of the games came down to the wire. And in the one solid win, Hakeem shot .467 from the field, and his teammates collectively shot .555. Yep, his "poor" teammates.

The man couldn't get past the first round with players like Drexler and Barkley, and then again with Barkley and Pippen. BTW, Barkley was, by far-and-away, Houston'e best rebounder when he played there.

But, yes, poor Hakeem played with so many bad teams. One thing is for sure, hecouldn't get them past the first round, and lost several times in later rounds with HCA.

I do feel bad for scottie pippen.....99' was a chance to get out from under mikes shadow....to win a 4th straight title(7th overall) and show the world how great he really was..........too bad he spent the series watching shaq dominate hakeem's candy ass,as usual.......2 members of dream team, one just couldn't keep shaq from treating hakeem like the 3rd tier center he is.....

[K Xerxes]

I was going to give this up because it had basically become a Wilt argument for some reason, and I have no interest in pursuing one. I'll admit that I don't know nearly enough about him (or that era) to debate one with a straight face, and I will not resort to just quoting statistics blindly and expect that to hold as a reasonable argument. Now that I'm not busy with work, I'll try to clear up misconceptions spewed out by our resident stats whore LAZERUSS:


Jordan didn't play at all in '94, and his Bulls went 55-27 without him, including losing a close (and controversial) game seven to the Knicks, who lost a close game seven to the Rockets in the Finals.

Who denies that? I think the Bulls would win it all that year with Jordan, but to deny what Hakeem did with that roster is ridiculous and quite disingenious.


And, no, Ewing did not have more talent than Hakeem did, and in fact, the Knicks had a worse record.

Ha! You are moving the goal posts based on your argument. You say that Hakeem had more talent around him than Ewing did and use the fact that they had a worse team record as justification, and then you turn around and say that Shaq did not have more talent in '95, even though Orlando had a superior team record (57-25 vs 47-35)! Which one is it?

Ewing, Oakley and Starks all made the all star game that season. Only Hakeem did for Houston. Tell me who had more talent.

Rudy T constructed the entire team system around Hakeem. It was actually quite remarkable how dependent on him it was. He was their go to scorer, their defensive anchor and their outlet passer.

Go watch the '94 finals, Hakeem was the best player on the floor and outplayed Ewing by a significant margin. I won't quote the stats for you, but Ewing shot horrifically in that series. Maxwell was the second leading scorer with something like 13 points. Of course, that screams like it was a very talented roster around Hakeem, right? :rolleyes:

To his credit, Ewing outrebounded Hakeem, but this is one of the greatest centers of all time we're talking about. But Hakeem dominated that matchup and was by far the biggest reason the Rockets won.


Hakeem did not outplay a young Shaq in the '95 Finals, either. In fact, his TEAMMATES just shelled Shaq's. They outshot them by a huge margin from both the field and the arc, and also made 50 more FTs (and considering that three of the games were close, it was those FTs which won the series.)

BTW, here was another take on the '95 Finals...from a Colts18 at RealGM, and I happen to agree with nearly all of it...

Of course you agree with all of it; it spits out stats indiscriminately. It attaches no context and doesn't differentiate between moments.

It was a sweep and Shaq himself will tell you that Hakeem whooped his ass. And you're going to let blind stats dictate your opinion of it?

I'll give you Shaq outplaying Hakeem in game 1, he was incredible in this game. Orlando really should have won that game, and it was very unfortunate that Anderson choked that game away. But Hakeem did have the game winning tip.

The flaw in your stats based argument comes to light in game 2: Shaq had better all round stats than Hakeem (33-12-7 vs 34-11-2), but it doesn't say anything about CONTEXT. The Rockets slaughtered Orlando in the first half where Hakeem did most of his damage, and while I hate to throw the term 'stat padding' around, Shaq did his in the second half when Orlando never came all that close to Houston. Hakeem dominated Shaq in this one, and Shaq couldn't live with Hakeem one on one (watch the game).

In game 3... pretty similar performances. Horry really made the difference in this game and Hakeem & Shaq both played well.

Hakeem completely dominated Shaq in game 4 to seal the victory. Even your stats will point to this.

Don't get me wrong, by that stage, Shaq was already 'unguardable' and he was already amazing. But Hakeem outplayed him in that series. This is what watching games tells you. I agree that Hakeem's team mates outplayed Shaq's, but it's ironic because Orlando actually went into that game seen as the team with a better supporting cast.

The reason they won was that Hakeem's team mates stepped up, but to suggest that Hakeem didn't have a say in that or that Hakeem didn't orchestrate the offense (he did) to a ridiculous level is ludicrous.

Please go watch the actual games.


Of course, a more prime Shaq, just a couple of years later just slaughtered a helpless Hakeem in the playoffs.

:oldlol:

Come on. A couple of years later = 4 years later when Shaq was 27 and Hakeem was 36? You think that's a fair matchup to consider? Tell me what Shaq was doing when he was 36, and tell me what he'd do playing against himself approaching his peak years.


The Hakeem fans somehow seem to always fail to mention that. But even in the '95 Finals, Shaq averaged 28 ppg on...get this... .595 shooting (while Hakeem averaged 33 ppg on .483 shooting against him.) So, yes, Hakeem did outscore Shaq by 5 ppg, but he did so while taking 10 more FGAs per game. Oh, and Shaq outrebounded, outassisted, and outblocked him in that series.

Shaq was also a turnover machine. But, regardless, the Rockets swept Orlando, and you can ask Shaq himself what he thought of Hakeem's peformance in that series. :rolleyes:


As for this nonsense that Hakeem massacred the 39 year old Kareem in '86 playoffs...he didn't even guard him. He couldn't. Sampson was put on KAJ (with doubles from Hakeem.) Why? Because Kareem averaged 33 ppg on .630 shooting against Hakeem in their five h2h's that season. And in the year before, it was much the same. Over the course of their first ten straight h2h games, a 38-39 year old Kareem, who could barely jump, averaged 32 ppg on .633 shooting against Hakeem. Included in those beatdowns were games of 40, 43 and 46 points (and on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes.)

True, Hakeem outscored KAJ, 31-27 in the '86 WCF's, and outrebounded him, 11-7 (of course, even KAJ's teammates were routinely outrebounding Kareem at that time in his career.)

This is detracting from the point that Hakeem dominated in the '86 WCF against the Laker bigs. What does it actually say about Hakeem's offense in that series as a second year pro that he could LEAD his team to the finals, dominating against the defending champs and ultimately losing in 6 to arguably the greatest team of all time with the greatest front court of all time?

Anyway, no one that watched early Hakeem will say that Hakeem was a great man defender early in his days - he was still young and undiscplined in this regard. That ability grew when he became more experienced, and it showed in his later years.

Kareem was still a great player in '86, still averaging in the mid 20s in both the regular season and playoffs, so it's hardly a shame.

But, of course, you will ignore what Hakeem did against Ewing in '94 and Robinson in '95 when he was certainly at his defensive prime, and became a great individual defender.

Besides, individual matchups don't reveal why Hakeem was such a great player. Along with his dominant and complete offensive game, he was a defensive anchor and leader. His quickness allowed him to defend PnR so well, it allowed him to switch on to guards in time for his own guard to recover (even Kenny said Hakeem told him to just get back in a few seconds while he takes the guard), or his ability to recover to the rim and hold down the paint, still altering and blocking shots. That's Hakeem's true defensive mastery, and is only shown by watching games, not mindlessly cherry picking stats to suit your biased agenda.


Hakeem is the most over-rated player on this forum. Somehow he seems to have grown significantly since he actually played. He was a ONE-TIME MVP (in a season in which MJ took the year off); he came in second ONE time in the MVP balloting; and he came in 4th TWICE in the MVP voting. Hell, he only made the top-10 ten times in his 18 seasons.

MVP? Are you serious? If MVP was about being the best player, Hakeem would have won it twice (in '94 and '95 - if there was any doubt about '95 between Robinson, the WCF should put it to bed), and he would have been second behind Jordan in 93 and 96, top 3 in the early 90s and top 5 for the late 80s. It's unfortunate that he had to play with Jordan in the 90s, as well as peak + prime Magic in the late 80s when he was still yet to reach his prime.

To use MVP as an arbiter of player level is a joke because:

- it only takes into account regular season, not playoffs (where Hakeem routinely raised his game)
- it is a subjective award
- it does not take into account strength of era and competition

Unless you're willing to admit that Rose was better than LeBron in 2011, or Nash was better than Kobe in 2006, or Nash was better than Duncan in 2005, or Iverson was better than Shaq in 2001... etc etc.

[millwad]

Xerxes, don't bother LAZERUSS.

He is Jlauber, an old poster who started to hate on Olajuwon because I owned him in every Wilt thread there was because he was lying, cherry picking, making stuff up and hi-jacking threads just so he'd be able to spam some about Wilt. He's obsessed.

He knew that Olajuwon was my favourite player and therefor he started to belittle his achievements.

Whenever Olajuwon is discussed he writes bogus lies and he cherry picks just so people will call him out for it and what a hypocrite he is when he is doing the direct opposite with Wilt, his mancrush. And as soon Wilt gets a mention he hi-jacks the threads with essays about Wilt that no one asked for.

Don't bother.

[miles berg]

The top 10 is locked for awhile: Jordan, Jabbar, Wilt, Russell, Magic, Larry, Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan, & LeBron. No one else on the horizon to join that group.

[LAZERUSS]

I was going to give this up because it had basically become a Wilt argument for some reason, and I have no interest in pursuing one. I'll admit that I don't know nearly enough about him (or that era) to debate one with a straight face, and I will not resort to just quoting statistics blindly and expect that to hold as a reasonable argument. Now that I'm not busy with work, I'll try to clear up misconceptions spewed out by our resident stats whore LAZERUSS:



Who denies that? I think the Bulls would win it all that year with Jordan, but to deny what Hakeem did with that roster is ridiculous and quite disingenious.



Ha! You are moving the goal posts based on your argument. You say that Hakeem had more talent around him than Ewing did and use the fact that they had a worse team record as justification, and then you turn around and say that Shaq did not have more talent in '95, even though Orlando had a superior team record (57-25 vs 47-35)! Which one is it?

Ewing, Oakley and Starks all made the all star game that season. Only Hakeem did for Houston. Tell me who had more talent.

Rudy T constructed the entire team system around Hakeem. It was actually quite remarkable how dependent on him it was. He was their go to scorer, their defensive anchor and their outlet passer.

Go watch the '94 finals, Hakeem was the best player on the floor and outplayed Ewing by a significant margin. I won't quote the stats for you, but Ewing shot horrifically in that series. Maxwell was the second leading scorer with something like 13 points. Of course, that screams like it was a very talented roster around Hakeem, right? :rolleyes:

To his credit, Ewing outrebounded Hakeem, but this is one of the greatest centers of all time we're talking about. But Hakeem dominated that matchup and was by far the biggest reason the Rockets won.



Of course you agree with all of it; it spits out stats indiscriminately. It attaches no context and doesn't differentiate between moments.

It was a sweep and Shaq himself will tell you that Hakeem whooped his ass. And you're going to let blind stats dictate your opinion of it?

I'll give you Shaq outplaying Hakeem in game 1, he was incredible in this game. Orlando really should have won that game, and it was very unfortunate that Anderson choked that game away. But Hakeem did have the game winning tip.

The flaw in your stats based argument comes to light in game 2: Shaq had better all round stats than Hakeem (33-12-7 vs 34-11-2), but it doesn't say anything about CONTEXT. The Rockets slaughtered Orlando in the first half where Hakeem did most of his damage, and while I hate to throw the term 'stat padding' around, Shaq did his in the second half when Orlando never came all that close to Houston. Hakeem dominated Shaq in this one, and Shaq couldn't live with Hakeem one on one (watch the game).

In game 3... pretty similar performances. Horry really made the difference in this game and Hakeem & Shaq both played well.

Hakeem completely dominated Shaq in game 4 to seal the victory. Even your stats will point to this.

Don't get me wrong, by that stage, Shaq was already 'unguardable' and he was already amazing. But Hakeem outplayed him in that series. This is what watching games tells you. I agree that Hakeem's team mates outplayed Shaq's, but it's ironic because Orlando actually went into that game seen as the team with a better supporting cast.

The reason they won was that Hakeem's team mates stepped up, but to suggest that Hakeem didn't have a say in that or that Hakeem didn't orchestrate the offense (he did) to a ridiculous level is ludicrous.

Please go watch the actual games.



:oldlol:

Come on. A couple of years later = 4 years later when Shaq was 27 and Hakeem was 36? You think that's a fair matchup to consider? Tell me what Shaq was doing when he was 36, and tell me what he'd do playing against himself approaching his peak years.



Shaq was also a turnover machine. But, regardless, the Rockets swept Orlando, and you can ask Shaq himself what he thought of Hakeem's peformance in that series. :rolleyes:



This is detracting from the point that Hakeem dominated in the '86 WCF against the Laker bigs. What does it actually say about Hakeem's offense in that series as a second year pro that he could LEAD his team to the finals, dominating against the defending champs and ultimately losing in 6 to arguably the greatest team of all time with the greatest front court of all time?

Anyway, no one that watched early Hakeem will say that Hakeem was a great man defender early in his days - he was still young and undiscplined in this regard. That ability grew when he became more experienced, and it showed in his later years.

Kareem was still a great player in '86, still averaging in the mid 20s in both the regular season and playoffs, so it's hardly a shame.

But, of course, you will ignore what Hakeem did against Ewing in '94 and Robinson in '95 when he was certainly at his defensive prime, and became a great individual defender.

Besides, individual matchups don't reveal why Hakeem was such a great player. Along with his dominant and complete offensive game, he was a defensive anchor and leader. His quickness allowed him to defend PnR so well, it allowed him to switch on to guards in time for his own guard to recover (even Kenny said Hakeem told him to just get back in a few seconds while he takes the guard), or his ability to recover to the rim and hold down the paint, still altering and blocking shots. That's Hakeem's true defensive mastery, and is only shown by watching games, not mindlessly cherry picking stats to suit your biased agenda.



MVP? Are you serious? If MVP was about being the best player, Hakeem would have won it twice (in '94 and '95 - if there was any doubt about '95 between Robinson, the WCF should put it to bed), and he would have been second behind Jordan in 93 and 96, top 3 in the early 90s and top 5 for the late 80s. It's unfortunate that he had to play with Jordan in the 90s, as well as peak + prime Magic in the late 80s when he was still yet to reach his prime.

To use MVP as an arbiter of player level is a joke because:

- it only takes into account regular season, not playoffs (where Hakeem routinely raised his game)
- it is a subjective award
- it does not take into account strength of era and competition

Unless you're willing to admit that Rose was better than LeBron in 2011, or Nash was better than Kobe in 2006, or Nash was better than Duncan in 2005, or Iverson was better than Shaq in 2001... etc etc.

:applause:

A well-thought post. I don't agree with much of it, and I won't bother rehashing what I already presented earlier in this topic, but I can acknowledge the fact that you do have very valid arguments.