would he be the most dominant player of all time?
Printable View
would he be the most dominant player of all time?
kareem used to get the better of hakeem even in his late 30's, and wilt used to outplay kareem. so no. he'd be worse than chamberlain.
What about prime Hakim?
[QUOTE=SunsCaptain]What about prime Hakim?[/QUOTE]
Prime Hakim Warrick? Dayuummm now that's a good question :D
Prime Hakeem would abuse them all, Russell had no offense so Hakeem would neutralize him easily. Wilt couldn't even beat Russell, Hakeem would have destroyed Wilt.
[QUOTE=SunsCaptain]What about prime Hakim?[/QUOTE]
warrick would phucking rape those garbage scrubs. queers like bill russell and that phagg0t nate thurmond would get dunked on every possession.phucking garbage scrubs played in the 60s
[QUOTE=donald_trump]kareem used to get the better of hakeem even in his late 30's, and wilt used to outplay kareem. so no. he'd be worse than chamberlain.[/QUOTE]
No, he didn't use to be better than Hakeem late in his 30's, he got Hakeem in his rookie season and then in Hakeem's 2nd pro season he absolutely toy'd Kareem and the showtime Lakers in the playoffs and led his Rocket team to an easy 4-1 win in the WCF..:facepalm
100/100/100 would not be out of the question.
[QUOTE=donald_trump]kareem used to get the better of hakeem even in his late 30's, and wilt used to outplay kareem. so no. he'd be worse than chamberlain.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://www.allmystery.de/dateien/vo65665,1283892466,godzilla-facepalm-godzilla-facepalm-face-palm-epic-fail-demotivational-poster-1245384435.jpg[/IMG]
what the hell kind of logic is that?
hakeem didn't even grow up playing basketball. he started playing bball later than 99% of the nba players would.
Now ppl are using his rookie year against KAJ (one of the greatest of all time) to judge how good he would be in the weak ass era of the 50s/60s? GTFO
hakeem >> wilt/russell
There's no time machines so it doesn't work that way.
The real question is:
"What if Hakeem was born in 1934 (the year Russell was born) ? Would he still be the same player ?"
Obviously not. Doesn't mean he wouldn't be great, but he wouldn't be the same player, at all.
If I say Hakeem would be a scrub and constantly get abused, no one could prove me wrong.
If I say Hakeem would dominate, no one could prove me wrong. Or right, for that matter.
This threads and fun and all, but sometimes I feel some of you really believe you are making actual statements or proving anything within this hypothetical scenarios. Hope I'm wrong.
[QUOTE=Fazotronic][IMG]http://www.allmystery.de/dateien/vo65665,1283892466,godzilla-facepalm-godzilla-facepalm-face-palm-epic-fail-demotivational-poster-1245384435.jpg[/IMG]
what the hell kind of logic is that?
hakeem didn't even grow up playing basketball. he started playing bball later than 99% of the nba players would.
Now ppl are using his rookie year against KAJ (one of the greatest of all time) to judge how good he would be in the weak ass era of the 50s/60s? GTFO
hakeem >> wilt/russell[/QUOTE]
Good point, and also no one mentions how he in his 2nd year toy'd Kareem and the Lakers in the playoffs. Guys like Jlauber spam's about regular season games without any importance at all but he always forgets to tell that the Lakers in '86 had no answer for Hakeem in the playoffs.
And even though Hakeem wasn't close his prime he led the Rockets to an easy 4-1 in the series and he was unstoppable. In game 5 in that series, the game that came to be the last in that series, he just abused the Lakers putting up 17 freaking points just in the 3rd quarter of that game.
[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]There's no time machines so it doesn't work that way.
The real question is:
"What if Hakeem was born in 1934 (the year Russell was born) ? Would he still be the same player ?"
Obviously not. Doesn't mean he wouldn't be great, but he wouldn't be the same player, at all.[/QUOTE]
That should be the real discussion, obviously the game and the player has gotten better over time but idiots like Jlauber claims that the guys in the 60's would be just as good or even better than the players of the modern era.
Instead of praising the oldschool ballers for being pioneers people are now laughing at them because of stupid wankers like Jlauber who spams 24/7 while "MY GOD":ing people all the time over how amazing the guys in the 60's used to be and how crappy the modern era ballers are..
[QUOTE=Legends66NBA7]There's no time machines so it doesn't work that way.
The real question is:
"What if Hakeem was born in 1934 (the year Russell was born) ? Would he still be the same player ?"
Obviously not. Doesn't mean he wouldn't be great, but he wouldn't be the same player, at all.[/QUOTE]
your correct. olajuwon wouldn't evolve to the player he was in 95 if he would play in the 60s. russell would evolve to a much better player today than he was in the 60s.
Cold fact is that russell would never stand out from the masses as much as he did in the 60s today.
its just logic to say that a phenom like hakeem that actually was better than almost everyone in the NBA (a worldwide popular NBA) would be more successful than a guy like russell.
I mean ther is no footage of wilts 100 points game. Way much smaller and unathletic competition in a sport that depends so much on size.
can you imagine how many super athletes didn't even knew about basketball?
how can anyone with a straight face say that russel would dominate the league today? [B]I found it to be much easier to say todays players would have a better chance at being succsessful in the 60s just beacause of the fact that they are tested against the whole world.[/B]
Top 3 center.
[QUOTE=Fazotronic][IMG]http://www.allmystery.de/dateien/vo65665,1283892466,godzilla-facepalm-godzilla-facepalm-face-palm-epic-fail-demotivational-poster-1245384435.jpg[/IMG]
what the hell kind of logic is that?
hakeem didn't even grow up playing basketball. he started playing bball later than 99% of the nba players would.
Now ppl are using his rookie year against KAJ (one of the greatest of all time) to judge how good he would be in the weak ass era of the 50s/60s? GTFO
hakeem >> wilt/russell[/QUOTE]
Logic??? You do realize that a [B]38 year old [/B] Kareem (yes 38 years old) absolutely MURDERED a [B] [/B]a [B]23 year old [/B] Hakeem that season (his SECOND season BTW)??? 33 ppg on .634 shooting, with TWO 40+ point games??? This was a an OLD Kareem who could barely get off the floor to get 6 rpg. Just what would a [B]23 year old [/B] Kareem (who LED the NBA in scoring at 32 ppg on .580 shooting, and won the MVP and FMVP) have wrought on a [B]38 year old [/B] Hakeem, who was just a SHELL????
And while Dickwad brings up that Hakeem outplayed that Kareem in the post-season, my god, Kareem STILL had TWO games of 33 and 31 in that series, and averaged 27 ppg. And I haven't seen the FG%'s, either, but I wouldn't be surprised if Kareem outshot him by a large margin. Once again, though...downright embarrassing that a 23 year old Hakeem couldn't OVERWHELM a 38 year old Kareem. And once again...how bad would a 23 year old Kareem have battered a 38 year old Hakeem?
BTW, that OLD Kareem also annihilated Ewing in that same season with a game in which he outscored him, 40-9, and outshot him, 15-22 to 3-17.)
Weak ass era of the 60's??? Kareem had TWO post-seasons, in his PRIME, and against an aging Thurmond, who held Kareem to 22.8 ppg in both, and on .405 and .428 shooting.
Against a Wilt in the twilight of his career? Kareem shot .429 against Wilt in their one H2H game in '69. He shot .437 against Wilt in the '71 regular season (a PRIME Kareem), and then only .481 against him the playoffs. Dickwad brings up Kareem's 40 ppg season on 50% shooting in the REGULAR season of '72 against Wilt. Well, for one, Kareem had a 50 point "stat-padded" and "shot-jacked" game against a Laker team that BLEW OUT his Bucks (and BTW, Wilt outrebounded Kareem in that game, 25-8.) In fact, Wilt led his Lakers to a 4-1 record against Kareem's 63-19 Bucks in that regular season. THEN, in the post-season, Kareem shot .457, including .414 over the last FOUR games of that series...all while Wilt was knocking his skyhook into the seats. And, how about Wilt in his LAST season against Kareem. He held Kareem to .450 shooting in SIX games, all while shooting .737 himself.
One can only wonder just how bad Kareem would have shot against Russell and his Celtics in the 60's.
Juding by just how much a PRIME Kareem struggled against the best centers of the 60's, and how much an OLD Kareem just SHELLED the best centers of the 80's (and 90's)...well, I think you know exactly where this is going.
At age 38(coming up on 39) Kareem put up:
25/8/6 on 62% vs Mark Eaton
25/5/4 on 59% vs Eaton
35/7/3 vs Hakeem/Ralph
20/4/4 on 5-19 vs Eaton(only bad game vs these guys)
26/8 on 59% vs Ewing
38/5 on 63% vs laimbeer
40/4/6 blocks on 68% vs Ewing
46/11 on 70% vs Hakeem/Ralph
43/7 on 67% vs Hakeem/Ralph again
Does kinda make you wonder how Thurmond and Wilt types help him in check in his prime.
[QUOTE=Kblaze8855]At age 38(coming up on 39) Kareem put up:
25/8/6 on 62% vs Mark Eaton
25/5/4 on 59% vs Eaton
35/7/3 vs Hakeem/Ralph
20/4/4 on 5-19 vs Eaton(only bad game vs these guys)
26/8 on 59% vs Ewing
38/5 on 63% vs laimbeer
40/4/6 blocks on 68% vs Ewing
46/11 on 70% vs Hakeem/Ralph
43/7 on 67% vs Hakeem/Ralph again
Does kinda make you wonder how Thurmond and Wilt types help him in check in his prime.[/QUOTE]
Thurmond was truly a marvel. He and Kareem went H2H in some 50+ games, many of which were near the end of Nate's career, and yet Kareem's high game against him was only 34 points. In fact, he had quite a few games of under 20 against Thurmond. Not only that, but he seldom shot 50% against Thurmond, and in fact, had two straight playoff runs of .405 and .428 against him.
I have said it before, but FG%'s went thru the roof in the 80's. And the centers were among the biggest beneficiaries. Kareem had EIGHT seasons of .564 or better, and his FOUR highest season's, including one of .604, and another of .599 at age 37. Yet, in the 70's, he had seasons of .539, .529, .518, and even .513.
Gilmore went from from seasons of .522, .559, and .575, and in his prime in the 70's, to SIX straight seasons of .670, .652, .626, .631, .623, and .618. Think about this...in his 76-77 season, at age 27, he averaged 18.6 ppg on .522 shooting. In his 81-82 season, at age 31, he averaged 18.5 ppg on .652 shooting. And then, at age 35, he averaged 19.1 ppg on .623 shooting.
And it went the other way too. Players that came into the NBA in the 80's, generally declined in FG% into the 90's. Here again, centers were also affected.
It's no coincidence that Hakeem's highest FG% came in his ROOKIE season, when he shot .534. Why? Because it occurred in the 84-85 season, or the absolute zenith of NBA efficiency (.492.)
Ewing had his three highest seasons from 87-88 thru 89-90 (.555, .567, and .551), after that he had a dramatic drop. He even had seasons in the 90's of under 50%.
David Robinson came into the league in the late 80's, and in his first three seasons, he shot .531, 552, and .551. From 92-93 on...a steady decline.
Why?
Meanwhile, in the early 60's, in was just the opposite. Even GREAT players were shooting relatively poorly. Baylor had a season of .401. Havlicek had one of .399. West, with the picture perfect jump shot, had two straight seasons of .419 and .445. Even Wilt, who would go on to blow away the league in terms's of efficiency, had a rookie season of .461.
I could give many more examples of both. The league averages don't lie. The NBA in the early 60's was very poor in terms of FG%'s, and it was never higher than in the 80's.
I bring that up only because there are those that just assume that you could take any modern player who shoots 50% and drop him into the early 60's, and that he would dominate. However, that player would have to deal with a ball that was not uniform (I believe G.O.A.T dug up the fact that it was not uniform until 1970), and there is footage of players playing with near bald basketballs. Some were lighter, and some were heavier. I remember playing in city leagues with lopsided ones.
And PHILA has posted another important drawback that those players had to endure. COLD and BREEZY arenas. Some were downright FRIGID. Most all of us have played outside, and the cold affects the ball dramatically. And, of course, the wind affects it dramatically. PHILA even pointed out that there were floors with dead-spots and some with nails popping out.
Then there was what I believe to be the major reason why players shot so poorly...the BRUTAL schedule. For example, in Wilt's '62 season (and in a season in which he missed a TOTAL of EIGHT minutes), he had a TON of B2B games. Not only that, but he played in six separate runs of "three-in-a-row." But it gets even worse. He had another THREE separate runs of "four-in-a-row." AND, he even had another separate string of FIVE-IN-A-ROW, and NONE of them included any home B2B's.
And, the lanes were PACKED in that era, too. There was no 3pt shot, and opposing defenses collapsed on the better centers. There was a reason that, aside from Wilt, there was only ONE season, in the entire decade of the 60's, in which a center averaged 20+ FGAs, and it was Bellamy's 61-62 season (23 FGAs.)
Factor all of the above with much worse traveling conditions and accomodations, along with players being asked to play more minutes (and at a higher pace), AND, being asked to play with INJURIES, with poorer medical technology...and there is just no way that Hakeem, taken from his prime, would be shooting anywhere near what he shot in the 80's and 90's. Given the fact that he was generally around 30-40 points higher than the league average in the 80's and 90's...and given the fact that the NBA was shooting from between ,410 thru .446 in the decade of the 60's (and obviously worse early on), I suspect that he would have been around a 44% to 48% shooter in that decade. So, yes, he would have scored more (slightly higher pace and being asked to play more minutes), but his numbers probably would not have been much better than 30-33 ppg at his peak.
I suspect a PEAK Hakeem would have averaged around 33-20 .475 in his best seasons in that decade. And with Russell, Wilt, and Thurmond, he would have only been about the 4th best defensive center in the league.
they were all whining to themselves that old bald ass sky hooking muthafugga...
[QUOTE=jlauber]Logic??? You do realize that a [B]38 year old [/B] Kareem (yes 38 years old) absolutely MURDERED a [B] [/B]a [B]23 year old [/B] Hakeem that season (his SECOND season BTW)??? 33 ppg on .634 shooting, with TWO 40+ point games??? This was a an OLD Kareem who could barely get off the floor to get 6 rpg. Just what would a [B]23 year old [/B] Kareem (who LED the NBA in scoring at 32 ppg on .580 shooting, and won the MVP and FMVP) have wrought on a [B]38 year old [/B] Hakeem, who was just a SHELL????
And while Dickwad brings up that Hakeem outplayed that Kareem in the post-season, my god, Kareem STILL had TWO games of 33 and 31 in that series, and averaged 27 ppg. And I haven't seen the FG%'s, either, but I wouldn't be surprised if Kareem outshot him by a large margin. Once again, though...downright embarrassing that a 23 year old Hakeem couldn't OVERWHELM a 38 year old Kareem. And once again...how bad would a 23 year old Kareem have battered a 38 year old Hakeem?
[/QUOTE]
Pure bullshit again.
It's funny, I bet you even haven't seen the series and we are talking about rookie Hakeem and 2nd year Hakeem and by the end of his 2nd year he absolutely trashed Kareem and the Lakers.
Like in final game of the series where 2nd year pro Olajuwon who was no where close his prime put up 17 points in the 3rd quarter, it was pure domination and the Lakers and Kareem could do nothing about it.
And it's funny, Hakeem toying Kareem for real is not outplaying but Wilt getting outscored by 23 points per game while getting outshot and outassisted is Wilt "schooling" and "crushing" Kareem. Get real, you old fart.
And have you realized that you always talk about stats? You haven't seen the series AT ALL, you can't even point out anything in this series Olajuwon did good or anything about the defense they tried to put up on Olajuwon and still he just went around them and trashed them.
And again, this was 2nd year pro Olajuwon. Hakeem in his prime was better in every part of the game.
And Jlauber always spams about how close it was between Kareem and Akeem in '86 playoffs, just to make it clear, "close" was the last thing that should be used to define Akeem's pure dominance.
[QUOTE]They've come in waves, a gold and purple Pacific of defenders—Kurt Rambis, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Maurice Lucas, Mitch Kupchak. [B]All have tried to stop the Houston Rockets' Akeem Olajuwon, and all have failed. They've fronted him and backed him, elbowed him out of position, yanked him to the floor, sent him to the free-throw line and moved their quick-handed guards, Magic Johnson and Byron Scott, down low to double-and triple-team him. Better they should have tried to tie his shoelaces together
Nothing has worked against Olajuwon, a mixture of brute and ballet dancer, a center so swift and so strong he can kill you softly or violently.
Defend the NBA title? Puh-leese. The next words out of Los Angeles might well be no mas. "I know Kareem won't give up," said Olajuwon, "but I don't think they can win three in a row."
[B]
Not if Akeem were to continue at his latest implausible pace, anyway. He scored 40 and 35 points last weekend at the Summit in Houston as the young Rockets, having suddenly changed from diapers to combat fatigues, beat the Lakers twice to take a 3-1 lead in the Western Conference finals. [/B]Next up was a game in the Forum on Wednesday, but even there the Lakers were not safe. Houston beat L.A. 112-102 in Game 2 on Tuesday of last week in that very arena, a result that heralded the changing of the guard in the West that the Rockets obviously had in mind - SI[/QUOTE]
Here you can read the rest of the article and I can give you many more just to shut you up..: [url]http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1064854/1/index.htm[/url]
That's from SI and this was before game 5 where Hakeem just trashed Kareem and the Lakers again and in the third quarter in that game which also came to be the last of the series, Hakeem put up 17 points. 17 points by a 2nd year pro against the reigning worldchamps... IN ONE QUARTER.
So much for "Akeem getting trashed" in his 2nd year as a pro when the kid absolutely toy'd the worldchamps and Kareem. Don't be butthurt now, after all, you can bring up the regular season games of Olajuwon's rookie season if that makes you feel better? We all know that you're all about regular season stats since that's when Wilt always killed his competition while gently regressing in the playoffs, the sucker even got a lower PPG average than Olajuwon while shooting on worse FG%, haha..
Olajuwon killed the Lakers in '86, deal with it.
He'd have been a terrific player. His skills will translate everywhere well, but would be less physically gifted IMO.
[QUOTE=millwad]And Jlauber always spams about how close it was between Kareem and Akeem in '86 playoffs, just to make it clear, "close" was the last thing that should be used to define Akeem's pure dominance.
Here you can read the rest of the article and I can give you many more just to shut you up..: [url]http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1064854/1/index.htm[/url]
That's from SI and this was before game 5 where Hakeem just trashed Kareem and the Lakers again and in the third quarter in that game which also came to be the last of the series, Hakeem put up 17 points. 17 points by a 2nd year pro against the reigning worldchamps... IN ONE QUARTER.
So much for "Akeem getting trashed" in his 2nd year as a pro when the kid absolutely toy'd the worldchamps and Kareem. Don't be butthurt now, after all, you can bring up the regular season games of Olajuwon's rookie season if that makes you feel better? We all know that you're all about regular season stats since that's when Wilt always killed his competition while gently regressing in the playoffs, the sucker even got a lower PPG average than Olajuwon while shooting on worse FG%, haha..
Olajuwon killed the Lakers in '86, deal with it.[/QUOTE]
Great post. Although it was close, i agree that Hakeem was having his way with the LA defense
[QUOTE=PTB Fan]Great post. Although it was close, i agree that Hakeem was having his way with the LA defense[/QUOTE]
It wasn't close, my friend.
Watch the games, they are all on youtube and Hakeem demolished the Laker big men. No one thinks that series was close, at least none of us who saw it.
[QUOTE=jlauber]Logic??? You do realize that a [B]38 year old [/B] Kareem (yes 38 years old) absolutely MURDERED a [B] [/B]a [B]23 year old [/B] Hakeem that season (his SECOND season BTW)??? 33 ppg on .634 shooting, with TWO 40+ point games??? This was a an OLD Kareem who could barely get off the floor to get 6 rpg. [B]Just what would a [B]23 year old [/B] Kareem (who LED the NBA in scoring at 32 ppg on .580 shooting, and won the MVP and FMVP) have wrought on a [B]38 year old [/B] Hakeem, who was just a SHELL????[/B]
And while Dickwad brings up that Hakeem outplayed that Kareem in the post-season, my god, Kareem STILL had TWO games of 33 and 31 in that series, and averaged 27 ppg. And I haven't seen the FG%'s, either, but I wouldn't be surprised if Kareem outshot him by a large margin. Once again, though...downright embarrassing that a 23 year old Hakeem couldn't OVERWHELM a 38 year old Kareem. And once again...how bad would a 23 year old Kareem have battered a 38 year old Hakeem?
BTW, that OLD Kareem also annihilated Ewing in that same season with a game in which he outscored him, 40-9, and outshot him, 15-22 to 3-17.)
Weak ass era of the 60's??? Kareem had TWO post-seasons, in his PRIME, and against an aging Thurmond, who held Kareem to 22.8 ppg in both, and on .405 and .428 shooting.
Against a Wilt in the twilight of his career? Kareem shot .429 against Wilt in their one H2H game in '69. He shot .437 against Wilt in the '71 regular season (a PRIME Kareem), and then only .481 against him the playoffs. Dickwad brings up Kareem's 40 ppg season on 50% shooting in the REGULAR season of '72 against Wilt. Well, for one, Kareem had a 50 point "stat-padded" and "shot-jacked" game against a Laker team that BLEW OUT his Bucks (and BTW, Wilt outrebounded Kareem in that game, 25-8.) In fact, Wilt led his Lakers to a 4-1 record against Kareem's 63-19 Bucks in that regular season. THEN, in the post-season, Kareem shot .457, including .414 over the last FOUR games of that series...all while Wilt was knocking his skyhook into the seats. And, how about Wilt in his LAST season against Kareem. He held Kareem to .450 shooting in SIX games, all while shooting .737 himself.
One can only wonder just how bad Kareem would have shot against Russell and his Celtics in the 60's.
Juding by just how much a PRIME Kareem struggled against the best centers of the 60's, and how much an OLD Kareem just SHELLED the best centers of the 80's (and 90's)...well, I think you know exactly where this is going.[/QUOTE]
:facepalm jesus, you don't even try to think about it. You just read stats and make conclusions.
Thats why i can't take you seriously.
Hakeem faced experienced, big and skilled competition. First he had to Learn the game befor becoming a force.
Kareem entering the league in 1969 being a athletic GIANT dude, was an instant dominant force in the Basketball world.
This fact alone destroyes your conclusion of "wilt > rookie Kareem = wilt > olajuwon beacause kareem > rookie olajuwon".
WTF is that? Do you read this shit yourself? That makes no sense at all.
You jerking off all night watching those stats on nba reference never made you think why kareem, who made significant improvements over his whole career, put up those kind of numbers in his first years and than just stays the same or even get worse?
And what has a 23 year old Kareem being the better player against a 38 year old Hakeem to do with anything? Its a fact that Olajuwon declined faster. So what? I said Hakeem > Wilt and what you do is showing me how much better Kareem was. Did i say that i think Kareem > wilt?
I bet if a big extreme rare athletic hakeem would have played in the 40s, and dominate wilt in his rookie year without any footage and only watched live, you would make the same retarded conclusion and call Hakeem the best center ever.
At first I wasn't quite sure how Hakeem Olajuwon would fare against Bill Russell and his teammates. But then I found this video and it's pretty much indisputable evidence:
[url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OeTTM7nE6mQ[/url]
he would've murdered those 60s ****
it was like prototype basketball back then
[QUOTE=PTB Fan]He'd have been a terrific player. His skills will translate everywhere well, but would be less physically gifted IMO.[/QUOTE]
Oh, I missed this one. Hakeem's physic was amazing, dude, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.
And less physically gifted than who? Chamberlain and Russell or in general?
[QUOTE=Fazotronic]:facepalm jesus, you don't even try to think about it. You just read stats and make conclusions.
Thats why i can't take you seriously.
Hakeem faced experienced, big and skilled competition. First he had to Learn the game befor becoming a force.
Kareem entering the league in 1969 being a athletic GIANT dude, was an instant dominant force in the Basketball world.
This fact alone destroyes your conclusion of "wilt > rookie Kareem = wilt > olajuwon beacause kareem > rookie olajuwon".
WTF is that? Do you read this shit yourself? That makes no sense at all.
You jerking off all night watching those stats on nba reference never made you think why kareem, who made significant improvements over his whole career, put up those kind of numbers in his first years and than just stays the same or even get worse?
And what has a 23 year old Kareem being the better player against a 38 year old Hakeem to do with anything? Its a fact that Olajuwon declined faster. So what? I said Hakeem > Wilt and what you do is showing me how much better Kareem was. Did i say that i think Kareem > wilt?
I bet if a big extreme rare athletic hakeem would have played in the 40s, and dominate wilt in his rookie year without any footage and only watched live, you would make the same retarded conclusion and call Hakeem the best center ever.[/QUOTE]
Let's make this as simple as we can for the mentally challenged here...
First of all, give me a list of all of the NBA players who played to age 38, and compare it to ALL of those that have played in the NBA. Maybe 1-2%?
Then, let's take that list of those NBA players who managed to make it to age 38, and let's it break it down to those that were better players, at age 38, than they were at age 23.
As great as Kareem was at 38, and he was a better player than Hakeem was at 23, he was nowhere near as quick, fast, nor as athletic as he was at age 23. Nor was he anywhere near as dominant, either. Granted, he wasn't as strong at 23, but strength was never one of his attributes. Powerful centers gave him trouble his entire career. Thurmond and a considerably past his prime Wilt. Gilmore battled him as well as anyone in the 70's. And a prime Moses physically pounded Kareem.
Even Wilt, who many considered would have been great into his 40's, was nowhere near as quick, athletic, nor as skilled at age 36, as he was at 23.
Again...give me a list of those that were better NBA players at age 38, than at 23.
...and Moses Malone gave Kareem the business in the 83 Finals. No one thinks Moses was quite as good as Hakeem.
...and Kareems Bucks DID beat Wilts Lakers in the playoffs.
See how those comparisons DONT work.
[QUOTE=eliteballer]...and Moses Malone gave Kareem the business in the 83 Finals. No one thinks Moses was quite as good as Hakeem.
...and Kareems Bucks DID beat Wilts Lakers in the playoffs.
See how those comparisons DONT work.[/QUOTE]
First of all, Moses has a case over Hakeem. More MVP's, and more dominant single seasons. Furthermore, Moses was 27 in '83, while Kareem was 35.
Secondly, what does TEAM play have to do with INDIVDUAL play? BTW, in that series in which Kareem's BUCKs beat Wilt's LAKERs, Chamberlain was without BOTH West and Baylor. The 23 year old Kareem, was in arguably his greatest statistical season (including post-season play), ... while the 34 year old Wilt, who was a year removed from major knee surgery, was way his past prime, and was in arguably his WORST season. How did their H2H go? Kareem outscored Wilt in that playoff series, per game 25-22; while Wilt ourebounded Kareem, per game, 19-17; and Chamberlain outshot Kareem in that series, .489 to .481.
And only a complete fool would claim that THAT Wilt was anywhere NEAR his prime.
Nigerian basketball player in America in the mid 1950s'. :no:
[QUOTE=L.Kizzle]Nigerian basketball player in America in the mid 1950s'. :no:[/QUOTE]
LOL...I was actually going to post something similar to this.
[QUOTE=eliteballer]...and Moses Malone gave Kareem the business in the 83 Finals. No one thinks Moses was quite as good as Hakeem.
...and Kareems Bucks DID beat Wilts Lakers in the playoffs.
See how those comparisons DONT work.[/QUOTE]
Maybe you can answer my previous post, then...
Give me a list of all of the NBA players who were better at age 38, than at age 23.
BTW, for every ONE that you MIGHT find (and it won't be much more than that), I can find HUNDREDS of NBA players that did not even make it to age 38.
Setting aside the fact that Kareem is the exception to just about any age related rule....
Anything can happen in a regular season game.
Scrubs have had good games against Kobe and Jordan. It happens. You cant make a translation across a 20 year timespan. Especially when the game changed THAT much.
He got owned by Hakeem and Sampson in the 86 playoffs.
A seasoned vet is going to be able to get his vs Rookies. You're talking years of experience and skill sharpening. [B]That sky hook is going in whether he's 25 or 45.
[/B]
I think Wilt would be able to play now. He'd be a star too. There just arent tha many 6-10+ players capable of playing the game at a decent level(now or ever) for him not to. He's not averaging 50 and 25 though. Or better numbers than Shaq did. No tall tales are going to change that
You want to explain to me how Wilt lost in 61 with homecourt advantage to a 38 win team starting a 6-9 center while shooting below 50%?
You want to explain to me why he only averaged over 24 a game twice after they widened the lane?
[QUOTE=eliteballer]Setting aside the fact that Kareem is the exception to just about any age related rule....
Anything can happen in a regular season game.
Scrubs have had good games against Kobe and Jordan. It happens. You cant make a translation across a 20 year timespan. Especially when the game changed THAT much.
He got owned by Hakeem and Sampson in the 86 playoffs.
A seasoned vet is going to be able to get his vs Rookies. You're talking years of experience and skill sharpening. [B]That sky hook is going in whether he's 25 or 45.
[/B]
I think Wilt would be able to play now. He'd be a star too. There just arent tha many 6-10+ players capable of playing the game at a decent level(now or ever) for him not to. He's not averaging 50 and 25 though. Or better numbers than Shaq did. No tall tales are going to change that
You want to explain to me how Wilt lost in 61 with homecourt advantage to a 38 win team starting a 6-9 center while shooting below 50%?
You want to explain to me why he only averaged over 24 a game twice after they widened the lane?[/QUOTE]
Kareem's overwhelming obliteration of Hakeem in the '86 regular season occurred over FIVE straight H2H games. Not only that, but he had a known 40 point game against Hakeem in the '85 season, as well.
And no, Kareem was NOT the exception to the rule. He was NOWHERE near the player that he was in '71, and at age 23. He played 40 mpg in '71... 33 in '86. He LED the NBA in scoring at age 23, at 31.7 ppg...while he was at 23.4 ppg in '86. . He shot .577 in '71, in a league that shot .449 (by contrast, even with far fewer attempts in '86, he shot .564 in a league that shot .487.) He grabbed 16 rpg in '71... 6 in '86. BTW, he WON the MVP award in '71, and then capped it off with a FMVP.
Kareem got OWNED in the '86 WCF's? Hmmm... 27 ppg and games of 33 and 31 points. Here again...the man was [B]38 years old[/B]! AND, given the fact that this 38 year old could hang 40 and 46 point (on 21-30 shooting and in only 37 minutes) games on HAKEEM...just what would a 23 year old Kareem have bombed him with? 60-70 point games?
As for Wilt in '61...he only averaged 37 ppg, with 23 rpg and shooting .469 in a league that shot .415...or WAY over the league average. How did his opposing center, multiple all-star Red Kerr fare? I really don't have his numbers from that series, but in his 8 playoff games, he averaged 9.5 ppg, 12.4 rpg, and shot .341. Oh, and BTW, we do KNOW how Kerr fared against Wilt in the '60 and '62 playoffs. In '60, he averaged 13.7 ppg, 8.3 rpg...and shot, get this... .294 from the floor. In the '62 playoffs against Wilt, he 17.6, 16.0 rpg, and shot .376 (while Wilt was hanging a 37 ppg 24 rpg .466 series against him....including a 56 point, 35 rebound clinching game five performance.)
Oh, and how did Wilt's TEAMMATES shoot in that '61 series? .380.
BTW, how about a 27 year old Hakeem in the '89-90 playoffs? 18.5 ppg on .443 shooting in...yet ANOTHER FIRST ROUND EXIT. So, while you can find ONE playoff series in which Wilt did not make it past the first round (and in which he hung a 37-23 series), I can find EIGHT in Hakeem's career.
Weren't there only like 4 players over 6'8 in the days of Russel and Wilt?
[QUOTE=UltimaFX]Weren't there only like 4 players over 6'8 in the days of Russel and Wilt?[/QUOTE]
Nope. None. Not even Russell and Wilt were over 6-8. The league was filled with six-footers who were released on weekends from their local rest homes to play half-court games on eight-foot peach-baskets, where they stood around shooting set-shots, and rebounds were pulled up from the floor.
[QUOTE=Fazotronic]:facepalm jesus, you don't even try to think about it. You just read stats and make conclusions.
Thats why i can't take you seriously.
Hakeem faced experienced, big and skilled competition. First he had to Learn the game befor becoming a force.
Kareem entering the league in 1969 being a athletic GIANT dude, was an instant dominant force in the Basketball world.
This fact alone destroyes your conclusion of "wilt > rookie Kareem = wilt > olajuwon beacause kareem > rookie olajuwon".
WTF is that? Do you read this shit yourself? That makes no sense at all.
You jerking off all night watching those stats on nba reference never made you think why kareem, who made significant improvements over his whole career, put up those kind of numbers in his first years and than just stays the same or even get worse?
And what has a 23 year old Kareem being the better player against a 38 year old Hakeem to do with anything? Its a fact that Olajuwon declined faster. So what? I said Hakeem > Wilt and what you do is showing me how much better Kareem was. Did i say that i think Kareem > wilt?
I bet if a big extreme rare athletic hakeem would have played in the 40s, and dominate wilt in his rookie year without any footage and only watched live, you would make the same retarded conclusion and call Hakeem the best center ever.[/QUOTE]
I have nothing to add to this discussion, just like to point out how moronic this post is, it's really hilarious. I love how people berate jlauber around here but all the guy does is come up with hard stats and data to support his claims (something very few people here are able to do), and if you actually read them they are thought out and make a hell of a lot of sense.
People like you just cannot accept that the era of Wilt and Russell deserve respect, and stats like the ones jlauber brings forth prove that. The ONLY way we can argue about how these guys would play against each other is by analyzing the transitioning into each era. I was converted into a firm Wilt supporter (That is, that he is the greatest and most dominant player of all time), when I became aware of his play against Kareem in the twilight of Wilt's career.
I'll continue to smile at these arguments though. Jlauber will keep destroying morons like you with hard facts, and you will come back with weak trash like "I bet if so and so played then he would dominate", which proves nothing and only puts forth your own bullshit opinion. If you want to participate in an argument like this, you need facts and not reckless speculation, you sound like a child. I'd hate to see some of these people write an essay.:facepalm
[QUOTE=UltimaFX]Weren't there only like 4 players over 6'8 in the days of Russel and Wilt?[/QUOTE]
There were a couple of players who are 6'10 I think and Wilt was the only 7 footer.