Kobe Bryant vs. Hakeem Olajuwon

[Rysio]

Better scorer? Not in the finals. Not in the playoffs. Not in game 7s or elimination games. He had almost as many 40 point playoff games despite playing in 60 fewer games.

Better playmaker? Sure, but he was a center. And Hakeem's passing was elite for centers during his time. He was a better passer than Shaq, Zo, Dikembe, Laimbeer, Moses, Ewing, Eaton, Parish, etc.

Kobe played with better talent so he didn't have to score as much as his potential was if kobe played on so many mediocre teams as hakeem his scoring stats would be different. When kobe had no scoring talent he was a 40-50 point threat.

[John8204]

They both simply had better careers. Although I think peak Hakeem was better than peak Duncan and comparable to peak Shaq, his resume comes up short. During Hakeem's prime he lost in the 1st round four years in a row, including missing the playoffs altogether in '92, yes you can say his team wasn't that good during that time, but there was a stretch in the early 90's where Hakeem's overall performance wasn't that great. By '92, both D-Rob & Ewing were considered better players. No doubt he greatly improved his legacy the next 3 years by having an all-time great peak and winning 2 championships, but that stretch from '88-'92 is hard for me to ignore and drops him some spots for me. If he was able to perform like he did in '93-'95 in a consistent basis throughout his career, you can make a great case for top 5.

I feel like when Hakeem played against Shaq that was peak Shaq who played offense and defense and was young and healthy. Duncan never really had a "peak" he was just rock solid for 20 seasons. Shaq was able to get most of his acclaim during the weakest period of the NBA in my lifetime, while Olajuwon played during the toughest era. so for me it's

1. Duncan
2. Hakeem
3. Shaq

[SouBeachTalents]

I feel like when Hakeem played against Shaq that was peak Shaq who played offense and defense and was young and healthy. Duncan never really had a "peak" he was just rock solid for 20 seasons. Shaq was able to get most of his acclaim during the weakest period of the NBA in my lifetime, while Olajuwon played during the toughest era. so for me it's

1. Duncan
2. Hakeem
3. Shaq

Nobody on earth would ever, EVER consider 1995 to be Shaq's peak over 2000, or any of the 3peat years. And Duncan clearly peaked around '01-'03, with '03 unanimously considered his peak season.

[John8204]

Nobody on earth would ever, EVER consider 1995 to be Shaq's peak over 2000, or any of the 3peat years. And Duncan clearly peaked around '01-'03, with '03 unanimously considered his peak season.

Shaq was 325 in Orlando and almost 400 in LA. He basically sat under the rim and was fed by Fisher and Kobe during his run. Which is fine it won titles he was able to succeed because of his weight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj60RlGlkqc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igsb2tOqDJ8&t=212s

Shaq's physical prime was in Orlando he was a 300lber(Zion's size) that could actually move

[HoopsNY]

They both simply had better careers. Although I think peak Hakeem was better than peak Duncan and comparable to peak Shaq, his resume comes up short. During Hakeem's prime he lost in the 1st round four years in a row, including missing the playoffs altogether in '92, yes you can say his team wasn't that good during that time, but there was a stretch in the early 90's where Hakeem's overall performance wasn't that great. By '92, both D-Rob & Ewing were considered better players. No doubt he greatly improved his legacy the next 3 years by having an all-time great peak and winning 2 championships, but that stretch from '88-'92 is hard for me to ignore and drops him some spots for me. If he was able to perform like he did in '93-'95 in a consistent basis throughout his career, you can make a great case for top 5.

The '92 season he missed 12 games where the team was only 2-10 in that stretch. If Hakeem doesn't miss those games, the Rockets absolutely make the playoffs as they had a 47 win pace with him.

I get why you can't ignore his 1st round exits but consider the team, their record, and subsequent seeding.

1988: 46 wins (Ralph Sampson played in just 19 games and missed the playoffs), 6th seed
1989: 45 wins, 5th seed
1990: 41 wins, 8th seed
1991: 52 wins, 6th seed

Hakeem's numbers in those games: 26/14/2/2/4 on 53%

It's important to mention they lost to LA in both 1990 and 1991. But none of their seeds were higher than 5th, and they were even the 8th seed in 1990. But how about Duncan? He had three 1st round exits; take a look:

2009: 54 wins, 3rd seed (gentlemen's sweep)
2011: 61 wins, 1st seed
2015: 55 wins, 6th seed (The Clippers were the 3rd seed with 56 wins)

It's important to mention Duncan was injured in 2011, injuring his ankle in March. He averaged almost 16 PPG on 59% the remainder of the season, but played worse in the playoffs, putting up 13 PPG on 48%.

This isn't to say that the two situations are equivalent, but they are somewhat similar. SA would lose with more wins and being a higher seed, with a better supporting cast, and something you like to mention....a better coach.

But if you're basing things on careers, then yea, Hakeem has no argument.

[Round Mound]

Kobe = Better Career
Hakeem = Better Player

Same with Malone = Better Career
Barkley = Better Player

[Cali Syndicate]

Comfortably taking olajuwan over kobe to start a team. But kobe did have a better career and due to that would be ranked higher all time.

[John_Connor]

Kobe = Better Career
Hakeem = Better Player

Same with Malone = Better Career
Barkley = Better Player

https://youtu.be/jc49qu_p0Ec?t=264

[John_Connor]

Comfortably taking olajuwan over kobe to start a team. But kobe did have a better career and due to that would be ranked higher all time.

i got len bias over both yo

f*ck outcomes bruh

[Cali Syndicate]

We never saw what len bias was capable of, so why even bring that up. Hakeem was a top tier 2 way center and won a ship with little help. Kobe's ships never came with little help. Overall career success has alot to do with circumstance. Imagine Kobe starting his career on a lottery team like Hakeem did, and Hakeem started his career with Magic. Obviously their career trajectory changes. Impact vs impact, Hakeem over kobe isn't some crazy unpopular opinion. Id also comfortably take Shaq over kobe .Or does that trigger you too?

[1987_Lakers]

We never saw what len bias was capable of, so why even bring that up. Hakeem was a top tier 2 way center and won a ship with little help. Kobe's ships never came with little help. Overall career success has alot to do with circumstance. Imagine Kobe starting his career on a lottery team like Hakeem did, and Hakeem started his career with Magic. Obviously their career trajectory changes. Impact vs impact, Hakeem over kobe isn't some crazy unpopular opinion. Id also comfortably take Shaq over kobe .Or does that trigger you too?

True, Hakeem was beating Shaq and Penny in the Finals, both of them were better than anything Hakeem had in '95, including past prime Drexler. Kobe either had the benefit of playing with Shaq, or Gasol who was the best 2nd option in the NBA.

[John_Connor]

True, Hakeem was beating Shaq and Penny in the Finals, both of them were better than anything Hakeem had in '95, including past prime Drexler. Kobe either had the benefit of playing with Shaq, or Gasol who was the best 2nd option in the NBA.

why are you still crying

[1987_Lakers]

[John_Connor]

We never saw what len bias was capable of, so why even bring that up. Hakeem was a top tier 2 way center and won a ship with little help. Kobe's ships never came with little help. Overall career success has alot to do with circumstance. Imagine Kobe starting his career on a lottery team like Hakeem did, and Hakeem started his career with Magic. Obviously their career trajectory changes. Impact vs impact, Hakeem over kobe isn't some crazy unpopular opinion. Id also comfortably take Shaq over kobe .Or does that trigger you too?

len bias > Michelle Jordone

[90sgoat]

both higher than bran

This