Shaq: Hakeem was better than MJ

[sportjames23]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFOFeUym5GI

Shaq, Shaq, Shaq...:facepalm

[G0ATbe]

:applause: :applause: :applause:Agreed.

[SpaceJam]

MJ looking kinda funny in the light



“If you ask Michael Jordan what one guy he ever feared, it was Hakeem Olajuwon. He used to say ‘I’m scared of the big African‘, because he’s from Nigeria.”

Horry.

[LAmbruh]

:applause:

[Duncan21formvp]

He said Hakeem was the GOAT in the post and that MJ was the GOAT overall. People really lack comprehension

[100grandman]

I keep saying Hakeem was the best center I've ever seen. He is in my top 3 most talented. No weaknesses in his game.

[TheCorporation]

I keep saying Hakeem was the best center I've ever seen. He is in my top 3 most talented. No weaknesses in his game.

8x 1st round exits, only MJ with 3x is close among top 10 players

[Duncan21formvp]

Only Lebron has more bronze medals for the USA and missed playoffs

[jongib369]

MJ looking kinda funny in the light




Horry.
This is ****ing hilarious :lol

[Soundwave]

Shaq's reasoning was basically a center is more valuable than any wing player, though I think he undercut the point he was trying to make in the first place, lol.

[Uncle Drew]

This comes to no surprise, as he ducked Hakeem twice, the coward.

[DaHeezy]

It seems to me that Shaq agrees Jordan is GOAT, because of accomplishments. But Hakeem is the better basketball player

[kennethgriffen]

damn... another one


#1 Kareem
#2 Russell
#3 Hakeem

:biggums:


wheres 3ball at

[3ball]

It seems to me that Shaq agrees Jordan is GOAT, because of accomplishments. But Hakeem is the better basketball player
If Hakeem was a better basketball player than MJ, he'd have better accomplishments, not far worse ones and nowhere near MJ's

And shaq specifies that he's talking specifically about post play, and that MJ is the goat.. he basically walked back his initial attempt after he realized how ridiculous it was.. Shaq himself has a better case than hakeem

[kennethgriffen]

If Hakeem was a better basketball player than MJ, he'd have better accomplishments, not far worse ones and nowhere near MJ's

And shaq specifies that he's talking specifically about post play, and that MJ is the goat.. he basically walked back his initial attempt after he realized how ridiculous it was.. Shaq himself has a better case than hakeem


if hakeem faced the guys that guarded MJ in the post. he'd have 13-15 championships


i can sorta agree that a big like hakeem would demolish MJ 1 on 1


so in that sense hes better. but he can't dominate other bigs the way MJ dominated other guards


luckily for MJ its a 5 on 5 league


kareem embarrassed dr J 1 on 1 in a real game. it was silly

[kennethgriffen]

shaq vs MJ 1 on 1


:roll:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1NwgNLW9ASQ




you gotta be able to shoot 3's at a near perfect clip wide open to beat a guy like shaq... you can't start where mj started and expect to get anywhere or get a clean look


shaq legit beat mj in a 1 on 1

[3ball]

luckily for MJ its a 5 on 5 league


Lucky for MJ or Kareem?.. :kobe:

Kareem needed more help than anyone in history.. :facepalm

Whereas MJ needed the least supporting talent of any top 10 player





if hakeem faced the guys that guarded MJ in the post. he'd have 13-15 championships


If bigs came away from the rim and were the primary defenders for MJ on the perimeter, MJ would have 13 rings

[kennethgriffen]

Lucky for MJ or Kareem?.. :kobe:

Kareem needed more help than anyone in history.. :facepalm

Whereas MJ needed the least supporting talent of any top 10 player



If bigs came away from the rim and were the primary defenders for MJ on the perimeter, MJ would have 13 rings

i'm talking about 1 on 1's and you bring up help


:roll:

kareem would bust jordans ass if they guarded each other


you can get the biggest longest running start you want. kareem wouldn't pick him up till he got inside the 3 point line... he might squeak by for a few layups. he might have a slightly easier look from 3... but even then he's coming nowhere close to kareem since he would shoot close to 100% backing down a guy like mj... dude would foul out in less than a quarter



and thats if they allowed a full court 1 on 1... since actual 1 on 1 tournaments have the out of bounds at the half court line

and they check the ball at the 3 point line.


kareem would immediately begin backing down mj like he did with erving


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3DWaKXaAYA

[Kblaze8855]

If Hakeem was a better basketball player than MJ, he'd have better accomplishments

That really isnt how it works....

Not for this matchup or most other comparisons.

[DaHeezy]

Is 3ball really arguing MJ would beat Kareem, Hakeem, Shaq at one on one?

:lol

This guy has absolutely no boundaries when overblowing Jordan myths

[ImKobe]

Take out 94 and 95, what is Hakeem worth?`Most of his defenses were trash with him anchoring them.

Hakeem was the one drafted to the better team, how come he only made the Finals 3 times in his career? And it's not like he didn't have Barkley, Kevin Willis and Drexler in '98, yet I didn't see the Rockets in the Finals.

91-93 MJ is a better all-around player than 94-95 Hakeem and it's not close.

[kennethgriffen]

That really isnt how it works....

Not for this matchup or most other comparisons.


for 5 on 5 nba legacies of course rings matter. you're delusional if you think otherwise. one guy could lead a team of average guys with a good sidekick to a title for most of the sports history. and one guy can make or break a team thats top heavy or balanced


but for hypothetical 1 on 1 matchups of course rings aren't part of it unless the 2 guys are comparable positions

if its an agile center vs a guard of course rings don't matter

[warriorfan]

8x 1st round exits, only MJ with 3x is close among top 10 players

not enough help

for real though hakeem is underrated, he had a goatish type run

[OldSchoolBBall]

Not even Hakeem himself believes he was as good as (never mind better than) Jordan. He talks about Jordan with reverence. Wish I could find that Hakeem excerpt about Jordan where he basically deifies him.

[nayte]

Its funny how many didn't even fully watch the clip or understand. Including op who is a Jordan Stan. Lol

[kennethgriffen]

Not even Hakeem himself believes he was as good as (never mind better than) Jordan. He talks about Jordan with reverence. Wish I could find that Hakeem excerpt about Jordan where he basically deifies him.


at the end they all say jordans the goat


they're talking about 1 on 1/ player vs player individually. not legacies

[Kblaze8855]

for 5 on 5 nba legacies of course rings matter. you're delusional if you think otherwise. one guy could lead a team of average guys with a good sidekick to a title for most of the sports history. and one guy can make or break a team thats top heavy or balanced

Like 40 people led a team to a ring. There are quite a few more players than that in history....many of them being compared with eachother quite easily.

When asked who is better between Grant Hill and Chris Mullin im not googling accolades. Im talking about basketball. The two are rarely the same thing.

And really everyone know it they just pick and choose when to apply it. Some of the same people that say Lebron factually surpassed Bird due to accomplishments will turn around and say hes also better than Russell....because now accomplishments require context.

Its always just bending logic to suit the current argument. Few people keep it straight.

Go back and forth between "Its about BASKETBALL....who is better?" and "Look at the stats! The finals MVPS! Skills are subjective." Id say a little bit of both is needed on the greatness issue. But greatness and "goodness" for lack of a better word arent the same thing. If they were Bob Cousy would be better at basketball than Steve Nash...and we both know who you pick to run a team you needed to win no matter what era it is.

Theres a common sense part that has to factor in.

[nayte]

Like 40 people led a team to a ring. There are quite a few more players than that in history....many of them being compared with eachother quite easily.

When asked who is better between Grant Hill and Chris Mullin im not googling accolades. Im talking about basketball. The two are rarely the same thing.

And really everyone know it they just pick and choose when to apply it. Some of the same people that say Lebron factually surpassed Bird due to accomplishments will turn around and say hes also better than Russell....because now accomplishments require context.

Its always just bending logic to suit the current argument. Few people keep it straight.

Go back and forth between "Its about BASKETBALL....who is better?" and "Look at the stats! The finals MVPS! Skills are subjective." Id say a little bit of both is needed on the greatness issue. But greatness and "goodness" for lack of a better word arent the same thing. If they were Bob Cousy would be better at basketball than Steve Nash...and we both know who you pick to run a team you needed to win no matter what era it is.

Theres a common sense part that has to factor in.

I know u are not suprised but u still try. I like your posts blaze

[kennethgriffen]

Like 40 people led a team to a ring. There are quite a few more players than that in history....many of them being compared with eachother quite easily.

When asked who is better between Grant Hill and Chris Mullin im not googling accolades. Im talking about basketball. The two are rarely the same thing.

And really everyone know it they just pick and choose when to apply it. Some of the same people that say Lebron factually surpassed Bird due to accomplishments will turn around and say hes also better than Russell....because now accomplishments require context.

Its always just bending logic to suit the current argument. Few people keep it straight.

Go back and forth between "Its about BASKETBALL....who is better?" and "Look at the stats! The finals MVPS! Skills are subjective." Id say a little bit of both is needed on the greatness issue. But greatness and "goodness" for lack of a better word arent the same thing. If they were Bob Cousy would be better at basketball than Steve Nash...and we both know who you pick to run a team you needed to win no matter what era it is.

Theres a common sense part that has to factor in.

you're always assuming the worst of everything

if someone says rings matter then you'll assume they're all that matters to them

stop putting words in other peoples mouth. its your worst trait by far

i think its possible to be in the top 20 all time without a ring but top 10? no chance

[Odinn]

As his career, I think people overrate Hakeem.

As much as he had some crazy games and statlines (I mean look at what he did in '87 playoffs against the Sonics game 6; 49/25/2/6/2 on .633 ts), it was Rudy T who got the right idea about utilizing Hakeem's strong suites. Till Rudy T came along, Hakeem was 'arguably' the best center in a league with Robinson and Ewing. He wasn't the guy to beat. He didn't own the league. There were some points one of the other 2 names was better than Hakeem. If you look at 1989-90 statlines, Ewing had a better season. With Rudy T, Hakeem owned his position and the league.
I feel like Rudy T's impact on Hakeem's career usually gets overlooked. Rudy T let Hakeem dictate the tempo of the team. But it was a bit unorthodox for the league back then. Hakeem became like LeBron in a manner. Ball-dominant player despite of his position. It was that really enabled Hakeem. (Also the reason why I wouldn't take Hakeem over Kareem and Shaq but that's a personal preference.)

From 1985-86 to 1991-92, Hakeem never averages more than 25.0 ppg and had a 23.2/12.6/2.3/3.7/2.1 average.
1992-93 is the first full season with Rudy T coaching. Starting with that, in the next 5 seasons Hakeem averaged 26.2/11.2/3.5/3.3/1.7.
Before Rudy T he never averaged 25 ppg for a season and had 23.2 ppg. With Rudy T, Hakeem averaged 26.2 in the next 5 seasons. 4 seasons with 25+ ppg, and the lowest was 23.2.

If Tomjanovich didn't become the Rockets coach, Hakeem wouldn't be this ahead of David Robinson and Patrick Ewing in terms of legacy. There's not a single player in the top 10 or 15 which his career defined by only 3 seasons. When people think of Hakeem, they tend to assume that he was always 1992-93/1994-95 span good.

[kennethgriffen]

in the end its about common sense. not all accolades are weighted equally. you have to give context to everything


i'd give kobe half a ring for his 2000 run

75% of a ring for his 2001 and 2002 runs

and 100% of a ring for his 2009 and 2010 runs


this is based on the shaq asterisks

in the end he probly has 4.0 total rings worth of prestige



as for lebron i'd give him 0% of a ring for all 3. too many asterisks.

he loses half his ring in 2012 and 2013 for colluding

then he loses the other half of both for lockouts and bail outs


for 2016 you'd almost have to give him negative points because half the ring is gone from colluding. another half from a bail out shot. then ANOTHER half from calling adam silver and getting draymond suspended

lebron legit has -0.5 rings

[Kblaze8855]

you're always assuming the worst of everything

if someone says rings matter then you'll assume they're all that matters to them

stop putting words in other peoples mouth. its your worst trait by far

i think its possible to be in the top 20 all time without a ring but top 10? no chance


You should read over your posts and see how often you put something in quotation marks that you made up to represent what you think someone is saying. Really. Do that and get back to me. Wont be hard to find. You have done it this morning.

And this


in the end its about common sense. not all accolades are weighted equally. you have to give context to everything


i'd give kobe half a ring for his 2000 run

75% of a ring for his 2001 and 2002 runs

and 100% of a ring for his 2009 and 2010 runs


this is based on the shaq asterisks

in the end he probly has 4.0 total rings worth of prestige



as for lebron i'd give him 0% of a ring for all 3. too many asterisks.

he loses half his ring in 2012 and 2013 for colluding

then he loses the other half of both for lockouts and bail outs


for 2016 you'd almost have to give him negative points because half the ring is gone from colluding. another half from a bail out shot. then ANOTHER half from calling adam silver and getting draymond suspended

lebron legit has -0.5 rings

Is a solid example of the rest of my point.

People just come to a conclusion then work on a way for logic to back it up. They dont form an opinion based on logic...they form an opinion then build the argument for it to be right...which is why people cant keep their stories straight.

It isnt about anything but the side they choose to take at the moment.

[Kblaze8855]

As his career, I think people overrate Hakeem.

As much as he had some crazy games and statlines (I mean look at what he did in '87 playoffs against the Sonics game 6; 49/25/2/6/2 on .633 ts), it was Rudy T who got the right idea about utilizing Hakeem's strong suites. Till Rudy T came along, Hakeem was 'arguably' the best center in a league with Robinson and Ewing. He wasn't the guy to beat. He didn't own the league. There were some points one of the other 2 names was better than Hakeem. If you look at 1989-90 statlines, Ewing had a better season. With Rudy T, Hakeem owned his position and the league.
I feel like Rudy T's impact on Hakeem's career usually gets overlooked. Rudy T let Hakeem dictate the tempo of the team. But it was a bit unorthodox for the league back then. Hakeem became like LeBron in a manner. Ball-dominant player despite of his position. It was that really enabled Hakeem. (Also the reason why I wouldn't take Hakeem over Kareem and Shaq but that's a personal preference.)

From 1985-86 to 1991-92, Hakeem never averages more than 25.0 ppg and had a 23.2/12.6/2.3/3.7/2.1 average.
1992-93 is the first full season with Rudy T coaching. Starting with that, in the next 5 seasons Hakeem averaged 26.2/11.2/3.5/3.3/1.7.
Before Rudy T he never averaged 25 ppg for a season and had 23.2 ppg. With Rudy T, Hakeem averaged 26.2 in the next 5 seasons. 4 seasons with 25+ ppg, and the lowest was 23.2.

If Tomjanovich didn't become the Rockets coach, Hakeem wouldn't be this ahead of David Robinson and Patrick Ewing in terms of legacy. There's not a single player in the top 10 or 15 which his career defined by only 3 seasons. When people think of Hakeem, they tend to assume that he was always 1992-93/1994-95 span good.


I think its pretty telling that you called out pre 93 Hakeem and specifically cited a 24/14 5 blocks, 2 steals, 3 assists a game season as an example of his lesser early years. He goes and puts up 26/15 6 blocks a game for a 16 game month. His two worst scoring games that month? He had 17/22/8/4 in one...in the other?

18/16/11/10. Which was one of the TWO quadruple doubles he had just in March. The second isnt well known but he recorded an official 29/18/11 blocks 9 assists and 5 steals and the NBA admitted there was an error and he should have been given the 10th assist.

This from a season you call out specifically.

When the years you are supposedly less impressive are that great...youre probably pretty insane.

[kennethgriffen]

You should read over your posts and see how often you put something in quotation marks that you made up to represent what you think someone is saying. Really. Do that and get back to me. Wont be hard to find. You have done it this morning.

And this



Is a solid example of the rest of my point.

People just come to a conclusion then work on a way for logic to back it up. They dont form an opinion based on logic...they form an opinion then build the argument for it to be right...which is why people cant keep their stories straight.

It isnt about anything but the side they choose to take at the moment.


you're right. it was my agenda all along for lebron to collude/ring chase/cheat/use roids/call silver/get guys suspended/choke and need a teammate to bail him out


its really not that hard to win a clean ring

kawhi did it
dirk did it
kobe did it
duncan did it
shaq did it
jordan did it
hakeem did it
isiah did it
bird did it
magic did it
kareem did it



notice a trend? see how the best of the best stand out?


if this isn't a logical method of judgement i dunno what is


when it separates guys like this from the likes of lebron and durant. 2 complete and utter snakes/quitters/cheaters

then you know it has some validity


and if you think i have an agenda to hold down durant then you obviously haven't paid attention to most of my posts over the last half year

[lilteapot]

if hakeem faced the guys that guarded MJ in the post. he'd have 13-15 championships


i can sorta agree that a big like hakeem would demolish MJ 1 on 1


so in that sense hes better. but he can't dominate other bigs the way MJ dominated other guards


luckily for MJ its a 5 on 5 league


kareem embarrassed dr J 1 on 1 in a real game. it was silly

What are you talking about? He dominated Shaq and David Robinson. What other centers couldnt he dominate?

[Odinn]

I think its pretty telling that you called out pre 93 Hakeem and specifically cited a 24/14 5 blocks, 2 steals, 3 assists a game season as an example of his lesser early years. He goes and puts up 26/15 6 blocks a game for a 16 game month. His two worst scoring games that month? He had 17/22/8/4 in one...in the other?

18/16/11/10. Which was one of the TWO quadruple doubles he had just in March. The second isnt well known but he recorded an official 29/18/11 blocks 9 assists and 5 steals and the NBA admitted there was an error and he should have been given the 10th assist.

This from a season you call out specifically.

When the years you are supposedly less impressive are that great...youre probably pretty insane.
I think I couldn't put it properly. I was talking about 2 versions of Hakeem.
1; before 1992-93 season. Pretty great but not top 10-15 material great. He was on par with Robinson and Ewing. As for 1989-90 season, I didn't say Hakeem wasn't in the contention for the best C in those days. I said he wasn't the guy to beat. I mean why not acknowledge Ewing was also great and arguably better than him in 1989-90? Ewing had 2 consecutive months with 31/11. 31.5/12.0/2.1/4.3 in those 2 months. He had a 51/18 game. Ewing was pretty great, too you know...
2; 1992-93 and afterwards.

My point was, if Hakeem continued his career like he did before Rudy T, he wouldn't have been getting this kind of praises and wouldn't be considered among Kareem, Michael, Wilt, Shaq, Bird, LeBron, Duncan, etc.

[3ball]

not enough help

for real though hakeem is underrated, he had a goatish type run


For only 2 years and only because MJ retired

you guys overrate hakeem severely

He gets 0 rings if MJ's dad doesn't get killed (or if he doesn't get banned, whichever you believe)

Regardless of what anyone says, the underlined is the most likely scenario



]

That's isn't how it works (better accomplishments don't necessarily equal better)


That is how it works

There's a huge correlation between accomplishments and how good someone is.. it's a primary way to rank players.. the very purpose of an award is to bestow goodness upon someone

And anyone with only 2 Finals appearances and wins, could never be better than MJ.... even without considering that these runs occurred the 2 years MJ retired.. and without considering MJ's other singular advantages (http://insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=460609).. it's not close
.

[Bronbron23]

i'm talking about 1 on 1's and you bring up help


:roll:

kareem would bust jordans ass if they guarded each other


you can get the biggest longest running start you want. kareem wouldn't pick him up till he got inside the 3 point line... he might squeak by for a few layups. he might have a slightly easier look from 3... but even then he's coming nowhere close to kareem since he would shoot close to 100% backing down a guy like mj... dude would foul out in less than a quarter



and thats if they allowed a full court 1 on 1... since actual 1 on 1 tournaments have the out of bounds at the half court line

and they check the ball at the 3 point line.


kareem would immediately begin backing down mj like he did with erving


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u3DWaKXaAYA
I agree that Hakeem would probably bust Jordan 1 on 1 that only proves he's better at 1 on 1 basketball not that he's a better basketball player. There's a huge difference

[INDI]

There are only two teams that have centers the size that Hakeem faced in His day (thunder and Celtics). Imagine Hakeem in today’s nba were centers are 6’10 and not use to banging. He’d average

35 ppg
20 reb
5 asts
5 blks
3 stls

[Kblaze8855]

I think I couldn't put it properly. I was talking about 2 versions of Hakeem.
1; before 1992-93 season. Pretty great but not top 10-15 material great. He was on par with Robinson and Ewing. As for 1989-90 season, I didn't say Hakeem wasn't in the contention for the best C in those days. I said he wasn't the guy to beat. I mean why not acknowledge Ewing was also great and arguably better than him in 1989-90? Ewing had 2 consecutive months with 31/11. 31.5/12.0/2.1/4.3 in those 2 months. He had a 51/18 game. Ewing was pretty great, too you know...
2; 1992-93 and afterwards.

My point was, if Hakeem continued his career like he did before Rudy T, he wouldn't have been getting this kind of praises and wouldn't be considered among Kareem, Michael, Wilt, Shaq, Bird, LeBron, Duncan, etc.

Theres really nothing to that argument though. You are talking about him being more featured as a scorer as if he wasnt having totally epic seasons before that. If a player didnt have the years they had their most success and highest scoring they would be less highly regarded? What is that even saying? Shaq wasnt an MVP, scoring leader, or champ before phil....doesnt mean we need to consider what hed be if he had Hill, Rambis, or Del Harris his entire career. We really need to go down the list of guys whos numbers and/or wins peaked with a certain coach?

The years you called out as those someone else was better....were still arguably among the all time best seasons of bigman basketball. Scoring 2 points less but blocking 5 shots a night with 2 steals a game...that an off season due to PPG? 25/14/3/3 the year before....

These off seasons?

[Kblaze8855]

That is how it works

There's a huge correlation between accomplishments and how good someone is.. it's a primary way to rank players.. the very purpose of an award is to bestow goodness upon someone

First let me say....


Bestow goodness?

Now...

4 MVPS for Lebron. 3 for Bird. 3 rings for each. 2 finals MVPs for Bird. 3 for Lebron. Lebron has more all nba first teams than Bird has all nba teams period. Lebron has 3 times the all D teams.

You and I agree Bird is better at basketball.

Im comfortable with that position because I dont need their accomplishments to come to it. You...im sure...have some gymnastics to do to explain why accomplishments now require context enough to justify your opinion.

As I said...people dont use the same logic to reach conclusions. They fit the logic around their existing opinions.

And I dont mean you alone. Nearly everyone does it. But just be real about it. There is no standard really. Its whatever you need it to be at the moment. And im....sorta ok with it.

Players can be better than someone else without it being for the same reason they are better than a different player. If people werent so adamant about their positions and why they have them id be ok with it. But people will straight up tell you its accolades one minute then straight eye test the next like they dont remember the other conversation.

Just weird to me.

[Odinn]

Theres really nothing to that argument though. You are talking about him being more featured as a scorer as if he wasnt having totally epic seasons before that. If a player didnt have the years they had their most success and highest scoring they would be less highly regarded? What is that even saying? Shaq wasnt an MVP, scoring leader, or champ before phil....doesnt mean we need to consider what hed be if he had Hill, Rambis, or Del Harris his entire career. We really need to go down the list of guys whos numbers and/or wins peaked with a certain coach?

The years you called out as those someone else was better....were still arguably among the all time best seasons of bigman basketball. Scoring 2 points less but blocking 5 shots a night with 2 steals a game...that an off season due to PPG? 25/14/3/3 the year before....

These off seasons?
Sometimes I don't like having a conversation with you TBH. Because you just go ahead with what's on your mind and don't care about reading.

Bolded part; I didn't say that. I said;

Till Rudy T came along, Hakeem was 'arguably' the best center in a league with Robinson and Ewing. He wasn't the guy to beat.
Even though it's not a clear sign all the time, Ewing made it All-NBA 1st team over Hakeem in 1989-90 season. There were people thinking like me and they valued Pat over Hakeem. His stature got here because of his play under Rudy T.
BTW, I wasn't diminishing Hakeem or his quality. I was praising Rudy T. You got that wrong.

And the whole point of my very first post and respond to you was;

There's not a single player in the top 10 or 15 which his career defined by only 3 seasons.
That's my main issue with Hakeem's level of play and legacy.

[3ball]

First let me say....


Bestow goodness?

Now...

4 MVPS for Lebron. 3 for Bird. 3 rings for each. 2 finals MVPs for Bird. 3 for Lebron. Lebron has more all nba first teams than Bird has all nba teams period. Lebron has 3 times the all D teams.

You and I agree Bird is better at basketball.


I agree with all that, but Bird and lebron are close in accomplishments and stats

Anytime there's a massive gap in accomplishments and stats, it's never a question who is better - and I think it's clear to anyone smart that that's what I meant - obviously, 1 extra award or ring isn't making a difference. But 4 extra rings, fmvp's and massive statistical gaps mean MJ was better

Hakeem is nowhere near MJ in accomplishments and stats. There's zero chance he's on MJ's level

And sorry, but hakeem would NOT have 2 rings if MJ hadn't retired, which makes the debate moot

[Phoenix]

Hakeem in terms of career/playing level IIRC wasn't really considered better than Ewing or the Admiral until he went through them in the playoffs. Hakeem was always individually great but his legacy got a huge boost from those 94 and 95 seasons. In the same frame, the Admiral's legacy took a hit after Hakeem worked him in the 95 WCFs. You barely hear people talk about him now but at one point, around 91 or 92, there were some people saying he was a more valuable overall force than MJ( and that would be peak MJ, to be clear). Basically an offensively gifted Bill Russell.....

[Kblaze8855]

Forgive me for taking:


There were some points one of the other 2 names was better than Hakeem. If you look at 1989-90 statlines, Ewing had a better season.



To mean Ewing was better in 90. What should I take your words to mean exactly?

I dont quote posts line for line like I did 10 years ago because I dont feel like 4,000 word posts 12 times a topic...I take the general meaning. When you say someone had a better year....I take it to mean they had a better year. Which is why I pointed out what Hakeem did that year....and how funny it is that you pick that year as an example.


For the record this is me on 1990 Ewing...about 7 years ago:



That was before Ewing slowed down/got banged up and became mostly a jump shooter. Ewing was having a 29/11 season shooting 55% and blocking 4 shots a game. And it was taken in april? In the previous two months he had averaged 32/12 and 31/12 on 58 and 59% shooting. In April and march he had games of:

40/15
37/19/9 blocks
37/17 the game before that
37/21/6/5 two games before that

Which was 2 games after he had 51/18 and 41/12 in back to back games. He was having games of 44/22. And 44/24.

He was straight rampaging through the NBA. And really so was Karl Malone. Karl put up 34/10, 29/9, and 33/13 in the months leading up to this survey.

So both of them got a little more love than they likely would at an average point of their careers.

But you can see why. They were on top of their games. 1990 was before I even decided Karl Malone was a bitch. He had not started the soft ass fadeaways 19 times a game. He rebounded more. He wasnt as good a passer back then but he was going pretty hard for a while there.



I have long been aware of pre injury Ewing.



As for your point about 3 years making a players career....

Take out 84, 85, and 86....

A lot of people would rank Bird somewhere in the top 20-25. They would be wrong...but thats how it is.

[3ball]

Hakeem in terms of career/playing level IIRC wasn't really considered better than Ewing or the Admiral until he went through them in the playoffs. Hakeem was always individually great but his legacy got a huge boost from those 94 and 95 seasons. In the same frame, the Admiral's legacy took a hit after Hakeem worked in the 95 WCFs. You barely hear people talk about him now when at one point, around 91 or 92, there were some people saying he was a more valuable overall force than MJ( and that would be peak MJ, to be clear).
Exactly, and everyone eventually proved inferior, like DR in 95', and Hakeem before and after 95'

Hakeem lost as the favorite, has vastly inferior stats, and was Magic's bitch in the 90' and 91' playoffs (post Kareem).. he also missed the playoffs smack-dab in the middle of his prime and lost to another team that MJ beat (98' jazz).. and on and on.

There's a million argument for mj over Hakeem, but I haven't heard a single one for hakeem over mj... The guy only won when mj retired.. who doesn't think the peak bulls don't win at least ONE ring if MJ doesn't retire? They obviously do, which would eliminate this debate

[jayfan]

He was better than Shaq. (which is why Shaq would say this in the first place). But not better than MJ.

[kennethgriffen]

What are you talking about? He dominated Shaq and David Robinson. What other centers couldnt he dominate?


is this a peak 1-2 seasons discussion... a 1 on 1 discussion or a careers discussion

[kennethgriffen]

Exactly, and everyone eventually proved inferior, like DR in 95', and Hakeem before and after 95'

Hakeem lost as the favorite, has vastly inferior stats, and was Magic's bitch in the 90' and 91' playoffs (post Kareem).. he also missed the playoffs smack-dab in the middle of his prime and lost to another team that MJ beat (98' jazz).. and on and on.

There's a million argument for mj over Hakeem, but I haven't heard a single one for hakeem over mj... The guy only won when mj retired.. who doesn't think the peak bulls don't win at least ONE ring if MJ doesn't retire? They obviously do, which would eliminate this debate


dude. nobodies saying hakeem had the better career or was a better 5 on 5 player in the nba


this is a hypothetical 1 on 1 matchup

[Phoenix]

He was better than Shaq. (which is why Shaq would say this in the first place). But not better than MJ.

Shaq actually played Hakeem the best compared to all the other great centers at the time, at least in the highest stakes. Hakeem clearly and definitely outplayed Ewing and Admiral in 94 and 95 playoffs. Third year Shaq gave him 29/13 and I think if his teammates weren't so clearly outplayed by the Rockets( starting with Nick Anderson's game one free throw meltdown which I don't think either he or the team mentally overcame), and it could have been anyone series or at least more competitive than a sweep. I don't think the Magic got swept or beaten due to any major distinction between Shaq and Hakeem in their encounter. I'd lean peak Shaq 2000-2002 with a matchup with Hakeem.

[Kblaze8855]

Exactly, and everyone eventually proved inferior, like DR in 95', and Hakeem before and after 95'

Hakeem lost as the favorite, has vastly inferior stats, and was Magic's bitch in the 90' and 91' playoffs (post Kareem).. he also missed the playoffs smack-dab in the middle of his prime and lost to another team that MJ beat (98' jazz).. and on and on.

There's a million argument for mj over Hakeem, but I haven't heard a single one for hakeem over mj... The guy only won when mj retired.. who doesn't think the peak bulls don't win at least ONE ring if MJ doesn't retire? They obviously do, which would eliminate this debate


Michael Jordan perhaps?




After a loss on his home floor at Chicago Stadium in 1993, Jordan said, "We have no answer for the big guy. It's a good thing they won't ever make it to the (NBA) Finals, because I don't think we could beat them."

"The last couple of times, when I was playing against them . . . they were one of the teams we faced in our three championship years that we really feared. They have so much versatility to the game with (Hakeem) Olajuwon. If we had met them in the playoffs, they would have been a tough challenge. Now I'm looking forward to seeing how well we stack up to a champion."

Paper: HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Date: TUE 03/26/1991
CHICAGO - It's official. The Rockets are legitimate.
So legitimate, in fact, they did what 26 teams before them couldn't - win at Chicago Stadium.

The Rockets overwhelmed the Bulls 100-90 Monday night, extending their winning streak to 12 games and handing the Bulls their first home loss since Dec. 8, when Portland won here.

Paper: HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Date: FRI 02/02/1990
"I don't think we showed up," Jordan said. "I don't call that a game. There wasn't any ball played on our part.' Considering the Rockets plowed through the Bulls' defense to a 41-21 first-quarter lead and widened the gap to 34 by the fourth quarter, Jordan was right.

The Rockets established season highs with 41 first-quarter points, 77 first-half points and 139 points for the game.
Otis Thorpe had 30 points and 13 rebounds, playing his best overall game of the season. It was his best point production since he had 33 in the fourth game of the season.

He had loads of help. All five Rockets scored at least 16 points. Akeem Olajuwon had 23 points. Sleepy Floyd had 20 points, hitting all three of his three-point shots in the process.

Sometimes, the Rockets can look pretty good when they play five-on-five basketball.

Playing five-on-one, they can look downright invincible.

They ganged up on Jordan.

The Rockets breezed by the Bulls like they were nothing but Air. And, on this night, Chicago was nothing but Air.

Paper: HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Date: FRI 01/31/1992
For one night, not everybody wanted to be like Mike.

And while there's no truth to the rumor that Gatorade is going to change its marketing theme to "Be Like Vernon," the Rockets were thrilled with their answer to Michael Jordan.

Vernon Maxwell had 23 points and did an admirable job of controlling Chicago's superstar. Maxwell also did a great job of controlling his emotions as the Rockets whipped the Bulls 105-102 Thursday night at The Summit.

Paper: HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Date: SAT 12/12/1992
Hakeem Olajuwon had 28 points, 13 rebounds and seven assists as all five Rockets starters hit for 17 points or more. Otis Thorpe had 19 points and rookie Robert Horry had 18 points. Kenny Smith had 17 points and seven assists, hitting all three of his 3-point attempts. Vernon Maxwell had 19 points and did a respectable job of making Michael Jordan work for his 26 points.

Defense? After giving up 34 first-quarter points, the Rockets held Chicago to 62 in the final three periods. In the second half, the Bulls were 11-for-40 from the field until they hit their final three attempts in junk time.

"They just isolate Hakeem," Jordan said. "He's an All-Star player. He got hot and the way to stop him when he gets like that is simple -- you don't let him get the ball.

"Because when he does get it, you can't stop him. We have no one who can match up with him. No one."

Paper: HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Date: FRI 01/29/1993
Rudy Tomjanovich was ecstatic after what might become one of the most important victories of the season. Michael Jordan was slumped in disappointment.
"We were very focused and very intense," said the Rockets' coach. "I just wish we could be that way against some of the sub-.500 teams. If we could, we'd be sitting up there with a great record right now."

Countered Jordan, "Maybe if they played us every night, they would have a better record."

Dec 12, 1992
Chicago Tribune: Chicago breaking news, sports, business, entertainment, weather and traffic - chicagotribune.com
Coach Phil Jackson chose to paraphrase cartoon character Pogo. "We faced our opponents and our opponents were oursleves," he said. "We were our own worst enemy, although Houston did play terrific basketball. Their speed and size dominated us, and it's the most unselfish we've ever seen them play."

Jan 29, 1993
Chicago Tribune: Chicago breaking news, sports, business, entertainment, weather and traffic - chicagotribune.com
The Rockets (23-18), as erratic as a highly talented team can possibly be, continued their remarkable streak of success against the Bulls. They have won five straight over the Bulls at the Summit and six of the teams' last eight meetings overall. They have the best record of any Bulls opponent over the last three seasons.

Paper: HOUSTON CHRONICLE
Date: FRI 02/02/1990
after another loss
"I have only one thing to say," Chicago Coach Phil Jackson said. "This was one of the longest nights I've ever spent in the NBA. And I've been in the league 18 years.





Chicago shot just 42 percent from the field, had its second-lowest point total of the season and gave up 51 percent shooting to the Rockets.

Vernon Maxwell led some of the best defense the Rockets have played by clamping down on Jordan. With Hakeem Olajuwon playing goalie under the basket, Maxwell was able to confront and, at times, agitate Jordan into 12-for-27 shooting. Jordan's 26 points were six less than his season average, and none of the other Bulls had their shooting lenses on.
As a result, the Rockets humiliated the Bulls for much of the game. And they did it without Olajuwon scoring a basket in the second half. But he was ever the force with his shot blocking, intimidation and rebounding.
"It was frustrating when Houston had a terrible quarter and we had even a worse quarter," Jordan said. "They've got our number right now and Houston is playing extremely well.

[kennethgriffen]

First let me say....


Bestow goodness?

Now...

4 MVPS for Lebron. 3 for Bird. 3 rings for each. 2 finals MVPs for Bird. 3 for Lebron. Lebron has more all nba first teams than Bird has all nba teams period. Lebron has 3 times the all D teams.

You and I agree Bird is better at basketball.

Im comfortable with that position because I dont need their accomplishments to come to it. You...im sure...have some gymnastics to do to explain why accomplishments now require context enough to justify your opinion.

As I said...people dont use the same logic to reach conclusions. They fit the logic around their existing opinions.

And I dont mean you alone. Nearly everyone does it. But just be real about it. There is no standard really. Its whatever you need it to be at the moment. And im....sorta ok with it.

Players can be better than someone else without it being for the same reason they are better than a different player. If people werent so adamant about their positions and why they have them id be ok with it. But people will straight up tell you its accolades one minute then straight eye test the next like they dont remember the other conversation.

Just weird to me.



you truly are incapable of context and giving a value to accomplishments


for a guy who boasts all the time about being a genius and knowing everything you can't grasp even the simplest form of evaluation/eye test/common sense


you throw out all accomplishments/awards because you don't agree with player A having more accomplishments than player B ... but you don't have to do that. just give each guys accomplishments a bit of your brain power and take time to assess each individuals resume


its really not that hard.

[kennethgriffen]

example:


1 hakeem title in 94 is worth more than just 1... he's given a good 2-3 titles worth of prestige for being able to do what he did


and then theres durants 2017 and 2018 rings


they're worth basically nothing


so 2 guys with a title and finals mvp and with a bit of context you can evaluate the 2 guys as competitors


but kblaze doesn't even wanna acknowledge titles... you can't just throw away hakeems alpha dog ultimate title just because other people won them with a total team effort

[Kblaze8855]

I realize you have a degree in hater mathematics but it

[3ball]

Michael Jordan perhaps?
The peak bulls would've been massive favorites in 94'... So everyone else would be thinking the bulls win, but the goat wouldn't??

Flattering comments in the regular season mean nothing when the bulls would've been massive favorites in 94' playoffs and going at the rockets hard.. there's no way MJ thinks he'd lose a playoff series to him as the massive favorites

The actual game play would be simple - the goat defensive team would figure out the right rotations pretty quick, and easily solve the rockets' rudimentary post pass-kickout offense

The rockets weren't dominant and the bulls would've smoked them as massive favorites

Heck, they only won when mj retired.. you can't make this shit up... and we saw Hakeem fail with healthy pippen a year after mj won with injured pip

[bigkingsfan]

Flattering comments in the regular season mean nothing when the bulls would've been massive favorites in 94' playoffs and going at the rockets hard.. there's no way MJ thinks he'd lose a playoff series to him as the massive favorites

This is the same person that ignored Bulls being massive favorites in 1991, heading into the series. Instead citing Detroit because they were the preason favorites. :roll:

[SouBeachTalents]

This is the same person that ignored Bulls being massive favorites in 1991, heading into the series. Instead citing Detroit because they were the preason favorites. :roll:
Let's see the mental gymnastics on display for this one :oldlol:

[kennethgriffen]

I realize you have a degree in hater mathematics but it’s never been a field I was interested in.


except i love durant, he was my favorite player for the past 2 years before kawhi joined toronto


i call durant one of the top 3 skilled players ever with kobe/mj


but even i can use context to evaluate his rings. they're even more worthless than lebrons..


why are you brain dead in that department. why are you incapable of common sense


and i can't just go based on skills to rank guys because then i might have tmac/iverson in my top 10... so you need to factor in accomplishments and give them a proper amount of context

[Kblaze8855]

As I said I have no interest in your hater mathematics that Somehow leave a player with less than zero rings.

It

[3ball]

This is the same person that ignored Bulls being massive favorites in 1991, heading into the series. Instead citing Detroit because they were the preason favorites. :roll:
That was a different comparison

Obviously, it's easier to win a ring by starting as the preseason favorite in year 1 (lebron in 11' and 15'), than building a team up from lottery (MJ in 85')

surely it's an easier path to land on the Finals favorite heading into the 2011 and 2015 seasons (year 1), than to elevate the bulls from 8-seed doormats in 86' and win as underdogs heading into the 91' season.. (pre-season favorite for 91' season here (http://articles.latimes.com/1990-10-28/sports/sp-4734_1_detroit-pistons)... and 2015 here (https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2241463-nba-championship-odds-2014-15-every-teams-chances-of-winning-the-nba-title#slide0))

[kennethgriffen]

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]As I said I have no interest in your hater mathematics that Somehow leave a player with less than zero rings.

It

[ArbitraryWater]

he ducked keem like cray

^i know this is retarded but lol

[Kblaze8855]

You nor anybody else has ever heard me say that rings are worthless. That you could tell me that a few posts after telling me that I make up things people say would be amazing if I weren

[kennethgriffen]

You nor anybody else has ever heard me say that rings are worthless. That you could tell me that a few posts after telling me that I make up things people say would be amazing if I weren’t too used to you being ridiculous to be amazed by anything you say.

You take me not letting it decide my final opinion to be...me saying it’s worthless.

I don’t believe you could find evidence of me saying any aspect of the eternal debate is completely worthless other than some advanced stats.

It’s all very simple. I watched Michael Jordan in person before he had a ring and I have never seen anybody better at basketball. Michael Jordan by 1990 was as good as or better than anybody ever to dribble a basketball. How do I logically reconcile that belief with the idea that ring count is how good you are?

It’s always funny to me that some people take that stance to be anti MJ when I first realized it BECAUSE of Michael Jordan Being better than everybody but stupid people not seeming to realize it.

I’ve been at this too long. I made the same argument in favor of Jordan that people now take to be anti Jordan. The guy who is still on the closet door of my old room at my grandmas house.

Lived long enough to see myself become the villain i guess. I’m fine with it.


heres what i think... youre a hypocrite that is just as much of a troll as anyone but in the sense that youl argue against people just for the sake of arguing. you dont even know how you truly feel about anything because it changes on a daily basis. youl say rings count. but not a lot. then argue with people about them being the reason a guy is ranked over a similar player as if they dont matter at all. but you wont admit this to yourself or anyone else


i think at the end of the day you have your own personal method of evaluating players. its the "im right about everything regardless of facts" and youl choose the facts depending on whether or not you can make it an argument. so if a guy says rings dont matter one day youl back a guy who has rings like russell... then if the next day someone says rings matter youl back a guy like malone. its all about your agenda to annoy people and show your "brain power" and awesomeness that youve convinced yourself youve attained

even you admitted this to me when you said you know more than most people and are almost always right about basketball and football


youre just a batshit crazy hipster fan in denial of his own trolling instincts

[BigShotBob]

I hated MJ perhaps more than anyone. He was great don't get me wrong, and his talent and skill was undeniable, but he was an athletic freak as well.

Hakeem wasn't even that tall compared to most centers, or as big as his contemporaries. But skill wise he's among the top 3 ever (Bird, Hakeem, Kobe) in that order.

From a pure basketball perspective he just might be the greatest. At worst I'd say he's tied with MJ in terms of pure basketball acumen.

With that said if the Bulls ever met the Rockets in the Finals then the Rockets would have won 1 out of the 2 match ups more than likely. But it's no coincidence that as soon as MJ left that Hakeem steamrolled everybody in the manner that MJ did everyone else.

[Odinn]

As for your point about 3 years making a players career....

Take out 84, 85, and 86....
Yeah. Bird is the only comparable one. But that's due to his career smacking injury. But even Bird has more than 3 seasons.

Quick look;
Bird besides 84-85-86; he was in the MVP race before those seasons. Came 2nd 3 times. He was on the verge of winning an MVP award as a sophomore. He led his team to the title. He had 4 All-NBA 1st team selections. After 3 straight MVP awards, he was still in MVP contention.

Bird had 4 All-NBA 1st team selections before his straight MVP awards, in 4 seasons. Hakeem from his rookie season to the last season before Tomjanovich's first full season; 3 All-NBA 1st team selections in 8 seasons. He didn't even make to All-NBA teams at all twice in that span.

And Bird is the most comparable one to Hakeem in this regard. Even Moses win 3 MVP awards in 5 seasons. Besides his '93-'95 span, Hakeem went to the NBA Finals in 1986 and had a good series against 39 year old Kareem (which owned Hakeem 3 times in their 5 regular season matchups though). What's there to put him in that level?

You take away 3 consecutive seasons of their career and all other top 10-15 players have more than that. Duncan? Take away 2001-03, he still was in MVP contention as a sophomore and in 2004, he was winning and leading. Shaq? He made it to the NBA Finals as a sophomore like Hakeem and he was still in MVP race 3 years after his last FMVP in 2002. Kareem? Jordan? Magic? Kobe? LeBron? I already talked about Duncan, Bird and Shaq. Can't exactly talk about Russell but Wilt averaged 50+ in '62 and his legendary chip winning run was in '67. That's already 6 season span.

Anyone besides Hakeem has much, much more than 3 consecutive seasons.

[Kblaze8855]

Of course I know more than most people about basketball and football. Absolutely every single person who ever talked to me about either one would readily admit that. People know more about the things they care about than people who care less. This is not shocking news.

I

[Kblaze8855]

Yeah. Bird is the only comparable one. But that's due to his career smacking injury. But even Bird has more than 3 seasons.

Quick look;
Bird besides 84-85-86; he was in the MVP race before those seasons. Came 2nd 3 times. He was on the verge of winning an MVP award as a sophomore. He led his team to the title. He had 4 All-NBA 1st team selections. After 3 straight MVP awards, he was still in MVP contention.

Bird had 4 All-NBA 1st team selections before his straight MVP awards, in 4 seasons. Hakeem from his rookie season to the last season before Tomjanovich's first full season; 3 All-NBA 1st team selections in 8 seasons. He didn't even make to All-NBA teams at all twice in that span.

And Bird is the most comparable one to Hakeem in this regard. Even Moses win 3 MVP awards in 5 seasons. Besides his '93-'95 span, Hakeem went to the NBA Finals in 1986 and had a good series against 39 year old Kareem (which owned Hakeem 3 times in their 5 regular season matchups though). What's there to put him in that level?

You take away 3 consecutive seasons of their career and all other top 10-15 players have more than that. Duncan? Take away 2001-03, he still was in MVP contention as a sophomore and in 2004, he was winning and leading. Shaq? He made it to the NBA Finals as a sophomore like Hakeem and he was still in MVP race 3 years after his last FMVP in 2002. Kareem? Jordan? Magic? Kobe? LeBron? I already talked about Duncan, Bird and Shaq. Can't exactly talk about Russell but Wilt averaged 50+ in '62 and his legendary chip winning run was in '67. That's already 6 season span.

Anyone besides Hakeem has much, much more than 3 consecutive seasons.



I quoted this whole thing because I

[kennethgriffen]

Of course I know more than most people about basketball and football. Absolutely every single person who ever talked to me about either one would readily admit that. People know more about the things they care about than people who care less. This is not shocking news.

I’m sure there is something you know a great deal about but in 10 years I’ve never heard you talk about a subject you seemed especially informed on.

You are an at least seven at the most several dozen account troll who had to make so many as ban protection. The kind of person so out of his mind as to require such things to even be allowed to have discussions with normal people? I’m not looking for his seal of approval.

People like you are why normal people have such a problem with this place. They have to take a while and learn to pretend not to see you and other obsessive types who can’t have a real conversation.

You....3ball...dray and Klay...some of the Nazi types that don’t understand why jeff band then for racist hate speech? You’ve always hated me.

That’s how I know I’m on the right track. When the people who have normal fans constantly how they aren’t banned don’t hate me anymore I’ll know I’m slipping.

Till then if I can bother you in any way all it does is reassure me.

Who wants to have people they don’t respect like them? I don’t need you to like me. I don’t need paper cuts, taxes, or pubic lice to like me either.

My sponsors are not interested in your demographic.

simon knows more about basketball than most people. that doesnt mean hes smart nor does it mean hes not a blatant troll


at a certain point you need to look in the mirror and realize youre just like him and me. the only difference is hes a mockery of a fan and knows it. i'm a truthful troll that doesn't pull punches and is at the very least consistent with my opinion.. while youre a shit disturber in denial of his own existance that will flip flop in any way shape or form in order to give your controversial 2 cents

you know only about specific moments in history. you however lack basic knowledge thats needed to process the information you have and make a calculated opinion because you need to make it an argument. like i said before. you would make a perfect reporter/interviewer tor cnn

its never about the story itself. its about making someone lose their composier and ultimately give up. but i'm too smart and see right through you because i invented that method of trolling on other forums 20 years ago

[Phoenix]

The Sonics knocked the Rockets out of the playoffs twice with Sam Perkins(93) and Ervin Johnson(96) manning the middle. Utah took them out in 97 with Greg Ostertag at center. I'm curious as to why MJ felt that Hakeem presented such a unique challenge of 'we have no counter for him. Understating of course that teams match up differently, but outside of Hakeem the Bulls had positional advantages that should have negated that. Bulls should have been able to take out the Rockets in 94 with a still prime MJ, Scottie, Horace and BJ coming into their peaks, Kukoc off the bench and other roster upgrades in guys like Kerr and Longley replacing or supplementing the likes of Paxson and Cartwright. Chicago was too thin upfront to beat them in 95 assuming we got an alternate history where the Bulls beat the Magic.

[Odinn]

[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]I quoted this whole thing because I

[Kblaze8855]

English isn't my native language. Maybe I'm not as clear as I think I am.

Your written english at least is as good as or better than mine. More as issue of the point being made which ill get to now than im home...


My thought train is like this; if Hakeem didn't have those 3 seasons, he wouldn't be much different than David Robinson. And as far as capabilities and individual skills go, DRob wasn't far off from Hakeem. Sure they had different qualities but you get the gist. This thought is not there to act like those 3 seasons didn't happen. This thought is there to put Hakeem's career in some perspective. None of the other top 10 players rely on 3 seasons for their legacies.

Here...is where we can meet in the middle a bit.

What ive believed for some time is that all greats are closer than we seem to believe....from a basketball perspective. Someone like Chris Webber may be top...50-75? Someone like KG, Barkley, or Dirk top...15-25 generally?

Put them on the court....not THAT big a difference. This is where you have to accept that legacy and basketball playing arent the same and have two distinct conversations.

That Hakeems career is way worse without his rings is unquestionable.

Where there is room for discussion? How good is he at basketball if those years never happened? Is the difference between 28 year old Hakeem and 32 year old Hakeem winning a ring more than just the circumstances...and if so...how much different are they?

I dont believe it is as drastic a difference as the results. You mentioned Rudy T and his role. Does Rudy make Hakeem something he isnt....or merely unleash who he already was?

Thats a basketball talk. Id be happy to have it. I have no problem with any of your thoughts on that subject.



When you take away 91-93 from Jordan, he's still 3x MVP / 3x FMVP / 1x DPoY. Still a lock for All-NBA 1st and All-D 1st teams.
Kareem won 6 MVP awards in 10 seasons. Whichever 3 seasons you exclude, he's still multiple times MVP winner. And after his MVP in '80, he was still in MVP race in '81, he was still in contention for the best player in the league title.

Hakeem's reputation got this big thanks to only 3 seasons.

I don't know if me writing these made any difference than before.

Its fine. I see you meant career/legacy...while also making it clear that you know legacy/how good someone is at basketball arent the same thing. Which is essentially all I was talking about to begin with. That Hakeems legacy takes a beating minus 94 and 95. But the player he was? Pretty much established.

[Odinn]

Your written english at least is as good as or better than mine. More as issue of the point being made which ill get to now than im home...



Here...is where we can meet in the middle a bit.

What ive believed for some time is that all greats are closer than we seem to believe....from a basketball perspective. Someone like Chris Webber may be top...50-75? Someone like KG, Barkley, or Dirk top...15-25 generally?

Put them on the court....not THAT big a difference. This is where you have to accept that legacy and basketball playing arent the same and have two distinct conversations.

That Hakeems career is way worse without his rings is unquestionable.

Where there is room for discussion? How good is he at basketball if those years never happened? Is the difference between 28 year old Hakeem and 32 year old Hakeem winning a ring more than just the circumstances...and if so...how much different are they?

I dont believe it is as drastic a difference as the results. You mentioned Rudy T and his role. Does Rudy make Hakeem something he isnt....or merely unleash who he already was?

Thats a basketball talk. Id be happy to have it. I have no problem with any of your thoughts on that subject.




Its fine. I see you meant career/legacy...while also making it clear that you know legacy/how good someone is at basketball arent the same thing. Which is essentially all I was talking about to begin with. That Hakeems legacy takes a beating minus 94 and 95. But the player he was? Pretty much established.
Oh. There's nothing here that I'd disagree strongly. Without his rings, Hakeem was still top 30. At worst. I'd probably argue for him being top 15 or 20.

I didn't try to diminish what a player he was. Getting back to thread title; if those 3 seasons would not there, he wouldn't be popping in people's mind like this. He does because of his legacy and his legacy is mostly based on those 3 seasons. When people think of Hakeem, they only imagine the MVP, the DPoY, the title winning Hakeem.

[Duncan21formvp]

example:


1 hakeem title in 94 is worth more than just 1... he's given a good 2-3 titles worth of prestige for being able to do what he did


and then theres durants 2017 and 2018 rings


they're worth basically nothing


so 2 guys with a title and finals mvp and with a bit of context you can evaluate the 2 guys as competitors


but kblaze doesn't even wanna acknowledge titles... you can't just throw away hakeems alpha dog ultimate title just because other people won them with a total team effort

Hakeem would have lost to Seattle that year

[Round Mound]

Hakeem had more impact in the game than MJ but MJ was the better player regarding position. Its true Hakeem had to go against tougher competition (Ewing, Robinson, Shaq, Kareem, Parish, Daugherty etc) than Jordan (Drexler, Mitch Richmond? thats it) but Jordan had more impact relative to position because was physically and technically alot better than the rest of his competition (thats why i was never impressed with Jordan). Hakeem made it to the finals in 86 before Jordan when he had Sampson though.

[bigkingsfan]

Hakeem would have lost to Seattle that year
Seattle lost to an 8th seed like Duncan

[OldSchoolBBall]

at the end they all say jordans the goat


they're talking about 1 on 1/ player vs player individually. not legacies

Hakeem wasn't talking about legacies in his book when he was talking about Jordan. He was analyzing his game and basically said that Jordan is the best player he's ever seen. He spoke about him reverentially.

[eliteballer]

Jordan said if he couldn't pick himself he'd pick Hakeem over any other player, ever.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRvNz2TdAPM

4 minutes 53 seconds.