Put prime Hakeem in Bill Russell's era

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hakeem the GOAT. :bowdown:

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=jlauber]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.[/QUOTE]

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

[QUOTE=Mr Know It All]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]

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I can show you with this analogy:

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

[QUOTE=lakers_forever]What a dumb and stupid thing to say. It just does not work like that.

I can show you with this analogy:

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

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

@millwad he has my compassion ;)

[QUOTE=lakers_forever]What a dumb and stupid thing to say. It just does not work like that.

I can show you with this analogy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[QUOTE=lakers_forever]Talk to me when you learn how to speak and write in at least 3 different languages.[/QUOTE]

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

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

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

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

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

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

I agree totally.

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

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

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

[QUOTE=millwad]I agree totally.

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

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

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

:rockon: