RealGM Top 100 List #9

Post #1 » by **penbeast0** » Sat Jul 19, 2014 9:15 pm

Rules: Vote for 1 player. You may change your vote as consensus emerges but if so, go back and EDIT YOUR ORIGINAL POST. Votes without analysis will not be counted. If, after 2 days, there is not a majority consensus, the top; 2 nominees will have a 1 day runoff election to determine the spot on our list. NBA/ABA only, no college, international play, ABL, NBL, BAA or other pre-NBA play considered. Feel free to discuss any player that you think might have a legitimate case for this spot but please don't make posts to introduce players that you think should be considered "soon" or revisiting past decisions. Thank you.

The obvious favorites here are Hakeem Olajuwon and Larry Bird but they are not the only candidates. Kevin Garnett has supporters, so does Kobe Bryant, Karl and Moses Malone have longevity on just about everyone, Julius Erving carried an entire league on his back, for that matter so did George Mikan, Finally, just as Magic Johnson v. Larry Bird was the great debate of the 80s, Oscar Robertson v. Jerry West was the great debate of the 60s made even tighter by more modern statistical evidence that starts to call the accepted wisdom of those days into question.

90sAllDecade · Post #2 » by **90sAllDecade** » Sat Jul 19, 2014 9:17 pm

I'll move this here:

More quotes from Olajuwon's autobiography "Living the Dream":

Hakeem vs Ewing and the 94 NBA Finals

The Knicks’ center Patrick Ewing is an intimidator. On the court in pre-game warm-ups before game three he looked mean, aggressive, and anxious to get things going. He was stalking the game like a wounded tiger.

I felt very calm. Even though it was a big game I was extremely relaxed. I had gotten my rest, eaten my pre game pasta, gotten some sleep, and when I came to the floor I found I had a lot of energy. It’s a mystery; some days you have it and some days you don’t. Some days you look for that spark and you can’t find it; you do everything right but it’s not there. But that day in warm-ups I was active and flexible and loose. I felt the power. I knew it was there. That day I felt so confident, and the confidence gave me calmness. I didn’t show it, I didn't do some super slam through the net, I just jumped happily by myself. Only once I took a layup and went way, way above the rim and let the ball fall straight down through the hoop. I felt so light. The more I warmed up, the more I felt charged, on a higher level.

I saw Patrick and I accepted the challenge. This was going to be a battle and I was not about to wait for his attack. I attacked him.

Someone on my team shot the ball and when Patrick went for the rebound it went over his heard and came right into my hand. He turned around. We had an even start.

I squared up on him and began driving right. The key to blocking that move is to cut me off; Patrick has to cut me off or I am going straight to the basket. But that was a set up. I wanted him to cut me off and think he had shut me down. As soon as he moved to his left I spun around him, a reverse pivot before he could react. That’s when I use my quickness and speed. I was by him in a flash. Anyone coming from the weak side had no chance because by the time they could get there I’d already be coming down. I went in untouched and slammed the ball home.
The crowd, even the Madison Square Garden crowd, went absolutely wild.

It was one of my best dunks ever. A highlight-reel dunk. It was spectacular and I felt so good running down the court. You know the feeling, when you’re out there, when you've done something out of the ordinary. I played it down but I felt good! As I ran past the Rocket bench my teammates were up and shouting, “Major-League! Major-League move!”

Spoiler:

This was the dream match-up I had thought about since I first saw Patrick play in college, when he was at Georgetown and I was at the University of Houston. This was going to be the most difficult task and I wanted to enjoy it and be competitive and respond. Whether we were losing or winning I was going to challenge every one of Patrick’s shots. Always challenging, always a battle.

For my entire career the Rockets played New York only two games each year, one in Houston and one in the Garden. Now that we had time to play each other on a consistent basis, we really got to know one another’s games and feel comfortable on the floor.

Patrick and I became familiar with each other’s moves. Every center has a hook shot that’s his trademark. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar’s hook began in his legs; when he took his giant step he went away from you and when he rose up there was nothing you could do about it. Patrick has a running hook shot. He puts his head down, dribbles to his left, rams his shoulder into you, and shoots. He is so quick and strong that he can go right over or through most centers in the league. It has been effective for him all season long.

But when Patrick takes his hook he takes baby steps, he’s not covering ground. I found Patrick’s move could be taken away if I stayed in his way, stuck my chest out and challenged him. He would bounce off me to one side or the other, and because he was not covering ground I could catch up with him. He could be stopped.

Early in the series I would look for that move. I waited for it, and every time he shot his hook I would challenge it. As the series went on he knew I knew that move and he used it less and less. But when Patrick was frustrated and struggling, when he just wanted a basket, he would go to it.

On Patrick’s turnaround jump shot I played right up in his face. If he jumped low he would get it blocked, so he had to jump high every time and it was a tough shot to make. I didn't mind him taking that because I knew he wouldn't make too many of them.

But Partick is a smart player. He found one weak point in our defense and he milked it. He and Knicks guards John Starks and Derek Harper began really working the pick and roll.

Starks or Harper would bring the ball to the top of the key or slightly to the side. Ewing would come by and pick off their man and then explode to the basket, and I had to make a decision. Either I stayed with Ewing or I went out and helped with the guard. If I went out and helped, Ewing spotted up in the corner for an open jump shot and when the guard passed him the ball I had not time to get there. If I stayed with Ewing, Starks or Harper went directly for a layup. I’d rather give up a jump shot than a lay-up, so Ewing was always open in the corner and hit it. They were very smart; they used that play over and over again. With me challenging Patrick’s inside game, that jump shot was how he got most of his points. Every once in a while he would power inside and make a tough shot, but he was not going to win this series like that. Reporters criticized him for taking outside shots and not working inside, but that was his best shot in the series and he was smart enough to recognize it and maximize it.

Spoiler:

On Starks:

When the game is on the line and the ball is in your hands, you have three choices: You can win it, you can tie it, or you can lose it. John Starks was going to kill us with a three. He had already hit five of eight three pointers that night. He didn't want to tie the series, he was going to end the series. He was going for the most dangerous. He had no conscience.

The biggest mistake the Knicks made was letting Patrick set the pick, trying to free Starks for his jump shot. I was guarding Patrick and that brought me close to the ball. If Knicks power forward Charles Oakley had set the pick, our power forward Otis Thorpe would have been there instead of me. I understood the Knicks’ thinking: they wanted to get Ewing close to the ball for the pick and roll, their most effective play.

We were prepared. In our huddle, Rockets coach Rudy Tomjanovich had said, “Switch everything! Switch everything!” I was going to take the shooter, and the team would rotate to cover Ewing.
But when Ewing started to set the pick I switched only halfway, I didn't go all the way to Starks. If they gave the ball back to Ewing I wanted to be close by.

The distance I gave Starks looked like it was too much for me to make up. The Knicks’ Pat Riley, an excellent coach, had called the right play and they had executed it perfectly. Starks got separation. He looked wide open.

But he wasn't wide open, he was still within my range as a shot blocker. I knew I could recover. I wanted to be close to Ewing – I didn't want Patrick to beat us – but one step and a leap straight up and I had Starks.

Still, Starks is the kind of player who can adjust. If the ball was still in his hands and I leaned and he saw me coming, he would give it to Ewing. I would be out of the picture and Patrick would have the championship on his fingertips. Also, with the amount of space I had given Starks, I couldn't meet the ball in his hand. I had to hit it at an angle after he released it. I had to meet the ball in flight.

I made sure Starks was taking the shot before I leaped, but as I was flying toward him I slipped. I was out of control. He had me stretched out completely.

I deflected the ball! It took everything – luck, experience as a shot blocker, destiny – for me to make that play. The ball never got to the rim. The game was over. The series was tied 3-3. Houston went wild.

Spoiler:

colts18 · Post #3 » by **colts18** » Sat Jul 19, 2014 9:19 pm

I'm voting Hakeem. This graph is a big reason why.

acrossthecourt · Post #4 » by **acrossthecourt** » Sat Jul 19, 2014 9:20 pm

I think we all know about Hakeem in 1994....

So it's mainly Bird versus Hakeem at this point. I just feel like Bird's sustained peak of five years or even like 8 is better than Hakeem's, and I'd need good evidence that it's not. It's hard to beat Bird at a WOWY stat because he appears to have an incredible effect on his team.

(edit: An increase in PER doesn't make you better than a guy with a decrease because they're all starting from different baselines.)

Post #5 » by **penbeast0** » Sat Jul 19, 2014 9:35 pm

But if they are the same tier of player, Hakeem's defensive edge countering Bird's offensive edge, then a differential applied to the playoffs of 4 point of PER is pretty big. It's a strong argument; you basically have to show Bird with a large edge in RS or show that PER didn't accurately measure their playoff performance.

Purch · Post #6 » by **Purch** » Sat Jul 19, 2014 9:42 pm

Karl Malone needs more traction here

Spoiler:

His averages for 16 years between 1986-2003

22/10/2
28/12/2
29/11/3
31/11/3
29/12/3
28/11/3
27/11/4
25/12/4
27/11/4
26/10/4
27/10/4
27/10/5
24/9/4
26/10/4
23/8/5
22/9/4
21/8/5

In the 11 straight bolded seasons from 1989-1999 he was all nba 1st team.

If you want to talk about player durability look no further than Karl Malone.

In 17 out of his 19 seasons he played 80 or more games
For comparison Kevin Garnett has only played 80 games 8 out of the 19 years of his career
Not only that but Malone accomplished this whiles playing 2,624 more playoff minutes than Garnett in his career

He's the oldest player in Nba history to win Mvp at age 35.

His longevity in the playoffs is just as impressive

22/8/1
20/10/1
30/12/2
31/16/1
25/10/2
30/13/3
29/11/3
24/10/2
27/12/3
30/13/4
27/10/4
26/11/3
26/10/3
22/11/5
27/9/3
28/9/3
20/8/5
20/7/4

That's an 18 year span in the post season

So if you guys are criticizing Magic and Bird for their durability and longevity, that same focus should be propelling Malone up in these rankings.

Also for you guys who put great value in the "player efficency stat" or "PER"rating, Malone's consistency in that statistic speaks for itself.

For 13 seasons from 1988-2001 Karl Malone was top 5 in "PER" in a league that included extremely efficient players like ; David Robinson, Shaq, Barkley, Ewing, Hakeem and Jordan all in their prime

1988-1989 - #5 In PER (24.4)
1989-1990- #2 In PER (27.2)
1990-1991- #5 In Per (24.8)
1991-1992- #3 in PER (25.4)
1992-1993- #3 in PER (26.2)
1993-1994- #5 in PER (22.9)
1994-1995- #5 In Per (25.1)
1995-1996- #4 in PER (26.0)
1996-1997- #1 in Per (28.9)
1997-1998- #2 in Per (27.9)
1998-1999- #2 in Per (25.6)
1999-2000- #2 in PER (27.1)
2000-2001- #4 In Per (24.7)

That shows ridiculous efficiency over such a long period of time. That very few can match

Also for you guys who seem to value win shares as a legitimate stat.. Malone was consistently elite in that as well

1988-1989 - #5 in Win Shares (15.2)
1989-1990- #4 in Win Shares (15.9)
1990-1991- #3 in Win Shares (15.5)
1991-1992- #2 in Win Shares (15.1)
1992-1993- #3 in Win Shares (15.4)
1993-1994- #4 In Win Shares (13.4)
1994-1995- #4 in Win Shares (13.8)
1995-1996- #3 in Win Shares (15.1)
1996-1997- #2 in Win Shares (16.7)
1997-1998- #1 in Win Shares (16.4)
1998-1999- #1 in Win Shares (9.6)
1999-2000- #2 in Win Shares (15.3)
2000-2001- #5 in Win Shares (13.1)

That again is 13 straight years of being top 5 in the league in Win Shares.

In Offensive win Shares he's 6th all time trailing only Jordan, Oscar, Kareem, Wilt and Stockton.

In Defensive win shares he's a 6th all time (Ahead of Garnett) only trailing Russell, Duncan,Kareem , Hakeem and Wilt

For his career he only trails Wilt Chamberlin and Kareem in total win shares, he's 3rd all time.

So for a 13 year span from age 24-37 Malone was top 5 in PER and WIN Shares every single year, whiles being top 5 in the league in Points per game every single one of those years

Comparing the longevity of Karl Malone and Garnett

Seasons played

Malone-19
Garnett-21

Seasons played averaging 30+ Minutes

Malone-19
Garnett-15

Seasons averaging 20+ PPG

Malone-17
Garnett-9

Post Seasons averaging 20+ PPG

Malone-18
Garnett-5

All Nba 1st teams

Malone-11
Garnett-4

Seasons shooting 50%TS or more

Malone-19
Garnett-17

Seasons with an offensive rating of 100+ or more

Malone-18
Garnett-20

Seasons playing 80 or more games

Malone- 17
Garnett-8

Seasons missing 20+ games

Garnett-6
Malone-2

Seasons being Top 5 in WIN SHARES

Malone-13
Garnett-4

Seasons being Top 5 in PER

Malone-13
Garnett-5

Seasons being Top 5 in value over replacement player

Malone-10
Garnett-7

Post #7 » by **Texas Chuck** » Sat Jul 19, 2014 9:58 pm

acrossthecourt wrote:

So it's mainly Bird versus Hakeem at this point.

Hmmmm. In the past year on the board we've discussed Bird v Dirk and it was actually really divided. So that would bring Dirk in which brings in KG which brings in David Robinson and so on. Not to mention Oscar, West, Kobe, Mailman, Doctor J should all start gaining traction.

I think we should stop attempting to define the debate for everyone. It may well come down to Bird v Dream, but we aren't doing the project a service by rushing to that conclusion without considering more players.

Post #8 » by **penbeast0** » Sat Jul 19, 2014 10:05 pm

Purch wrote:Karl Malone needs more traction here

I don't think you can make the case for KMalone over Hakeem without addressing the playoffs, assuming you are actually making a legit case for the Mailman.

I'd also be ineterested if you directly compare KMalone to Bird and Kobe.

Post #9 » by **penbeast0** » Sat Jul 19, 2014 10:05 pm

Purch wrote:Karl Malone needs more traction here

I don't think you can make the case for KMalone over Hakeem without addressing the playoffs, assuming you are actually making a legit case for the Mailman.

I'd also be interested if you directly compare KMalone to Bird and Kobe.

MacGill · Post #10 » by **MacGill** » Sat Jul 19, 2014 10:06 pm

Chuck Texas wrote:
acrossthecourt wrote:

So it's mainly Bird versus Hakeem at this point.

Hmmmm. In the past year on the board we've discussed Bird v Dirk and it was actually really divided. So that would bring Dirk in which brings in KG which brings in David Robinson and so on. Not to mention Oscar, West, Kobe, Mailman, Doctor J should all start gaining traction.

I think we should stop attempting to define the debate for everyone. It may well come down to Bird v Dream, but we aren't doing the project a service by rushing to that conclusion without considering more players.

Yes I agree. I know we have heard 'can't believe so and so wasn't voted in yet etc' but now we really start opening the flood gates more. Plain and simple, regardless of who you're voting for, if majority isn't seeing it, it doesn't matter how great you believe to be at breaking down a player. Other's are seeing something else.

I certainly hope we start to see new arguments here because we are into a fantastic talent pool of players in IMO.

acrossthecourt · Post #11 » by **acrossthecourt** » Sat Jul 19, 2014 10:08 pm

Chuck Texas wrote:
acrossthecourt wrote:

So it's mainly Bird versus Hakeem at this point.

Hmmmm. In the past year on the board we've discussed Bird v Dirk and it was actually really divided. So that would bring Dirk in which brings in KG which brings in David Robinson and so on. Not to mention Oscar, West, Kobe, Mailman, Doctor J should all start gaining traction.

I think we should stop attempting to define the debate for everyone. It may well come down to Bird v Dream, but we aren't doing the project a service by rushing to that conclusion without considering more players.

Well we all kinda got yelled at for discussing players other than Magic and Hakeem last time. Sorry. They wanted us to forget Garnett even though some people thought he had a case.

For me it's Bird here, and there's a lot of people going for Hakeem now. So that's where I think the arguments center on.

RSCD3_ · Post #12 » by **RSCD3_** » Sat Jul 19, 2014 10:18 pm

Can someone voting for bird help quantify why his offense was so good that it bridged the gap between Hakeem's impact on defense and his above average offensive game as well

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

therealbig3 · Post #13 » by **therealbig3** » Sat Jul 19, 2014 10:28 pm

Vote: Hakeem Olajuwon

I can see why people are down on Hakeem's pre-93 career, if they think he just wasn't close to the same player he was from 93 onwards. That he was an empty stat guy, that was putting up big numbers on mediocre teams.

But I vehemently disagree with that. ronnymac2 and fatal9, along with 90sAllDecade and fpliii, have done extensive breakdowns of Hakeem's early career, and they've convinced me that Hakeem was basically the same player pre-93 as he was from 93 onwards. I mean, I think his best stretch was 93-95, so he wasn't exactly the same player before then, but he wasn't very far off. It's like pre-00 Shaq vs 00-02 Shaq...not quite the same guy, but he was still an excellent player that demonstrated a lot of the same qualities that 00-02 Shaq did.

I'm a little surprised he's going to drop to 9 or 10, tbh. He's been one of the more lauded players on RealGM for a while. I feel like he's getting punished for a crappy team situation in Houston from 85-92 (and even when he did have good teams, they were getting beaten by better teams, and he usually played great...and to completely dismantle the defending champion Lakers in the WCF...a team that was still championship-caliber btw, with the #3 SRS in the league that year...that's one of the ATG playoff performances, and he was a 2nd year player...how can a player show that in 86, but then mysteriously falter until 93, unless it was his team that just wasn't that good?).

therealbig3 · Post #14 » by **therealbig3** » Sat Jul 19, 2014 10:33 pm

RSCD3_ wrote:Can someone voting for bird help quantify why his offense was so good that it bridged the gap between Hakeem's impact on defense and his above average offensive game as well

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

He's basically Dirk with better vision, better instincts, better passing, and a better motor.

Considering Dirk is already one of the ATG offensive anchors...Dirk on steroids is arguably the GOAT offensive player.

Peak vs peak, I'd take Bird by a hair over Hakeem to be totally honest. But since Hakeem played for longer at a high level (85-97 vs 80-88 and 90), without the significant injuries that Bird suffered from (85 and 88), I'd take his career over Bird's.

Post #15 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sat Jul 19, 2014 11:11 pm

Vote: Kevin Garnett

Garnett vs Bird

The argument here is obvious, even if it's by no means obvious that that should be enough to give Garnett the nod.

Through '11-12 Garnett was having huge impact. Superstar impact per minute according to RAPM numbers, but even if that's not your thing, Boston's defense was awesome, it was completely predicated on him and it didn't work without him.

That was Garnett's 17th year in the league.

Larry Bird got injured at the beginning of his 10th year and he was never the same.

Now there's little things you can talk about here or there. You can absolutely say that that distinction 17th vs 10th years overstates the longevity difference, and I'm not saying you're wrong. I'm just saying that indisputably, Garnett has a massive longevity edge on Bird.

So then you have to ask yourself just how much of a peak edge does Bird have. For me it's just not possible to be enough when you're talking about longevity of a guy in Garnett who isn't simply being good deep into his career, he's having night & day impact.

Garnett vs Hakeem

This one's tough because to me comparing Hakeem with anyone else is always tough. I find it hard to make arguments against him, and I find it hard to make arguments for him. He's indisputably great, but in comparisons with other greats he's tricky to pin down.

So up front, this is another way of say I really don't have a problem with people voting Hakeem over Garnett, and I don't have a problem with people voting Bird over Hakeem, even though Garnett over Bird is pretty straight forward to me.

If I were to try to put my finger on my concern of Hakeem, it would be that I'm really not sure he should have been used as a volume scoring anchor for most of his career. This is funny, because at his peak this was absolutely the role for him, and he wouldn't have learned how to do it without being used like this earlier on, but still in general we're talking about a center who was regularly volume scoring at middling efficiency on teams with below average offensive efficacy. Take Hakeem's name off of those situations, and I'd be advocating for the team to take on a more ensemble approach.

And then you have the peak, and then you have after. Have you thought recently about those Rocket teams with Charles Barkley? It's generally accepted on here that Barkley's something of an offensive GOAT candidate. Yet when he goes to Houston, he takes a back seat to Hakeem in terms of offensive primacy. Ego-wise it makes sense, but did it really make for the best team possible?

I was looking forward to RAPM in the '90s to see this team in particular what it looked like. Here's there overall from their 3 years together, about the same age, Hakeem being the alpha:

Code: Select all

Player   1998  1999  2000
Olajuwon 5.28  3.32  2.41
Barkley  5.70  4.45  3.60

So, Barkley looks better each year, and he degrades more gracefully than Hakeem, despite the fact he's taking on a role that doesn't make use of his best attribute (scoring) like it could (granted by the very end, Hakeem's not the lead guy either).

Now let's look just at the offensive numbers:

Code: Select all

Player    1998   1999   2000
Olajuwon -0.36  -1.57  -2.36
Barkley   8.67   7.81   5.93

Holy crap! Houston I think I see the problem.

So if the question is: Were there times that Hakeem was wrongly seen as the one who by default should be the first scoring option? The answer I think is a clear yes. Even while sacrificing for Hakeem, Barkley was far more effective of an offensive player in that time period, and we're not that far removed from Hakeem's peak.

This goes back to something I say from time to time: I think the issue with using centers as volume scorers takes the form that they can go from being effective to counterproductive in the role more rapidly than anyone imagined. The most they aren't clear cut the best option, their dependence on others to get them the ball overwhelms the good they are doing in that role.

From this I say: While Hakeem had a great career, be careful not to give him the nod over Garnett based on a notion of him being a tier up in offensive impact the whole time. I actually think for most of their respective careers, Garnett was used in more appropriate ways on offense. In his peak, he scored at a bit less volume and emphasized playmaking, and when it really didn't make sense to use him as a star any more, he became focused ever more on defense.

I think that overall, Garnett was used more wisely in his career, and that the nature of his early entry into the NBA gives him a clear longevity edge even aside from that. So even though I give Hakeem the peak nod, I think Garnett accomplished more for his teams when you add it all up.

Last note: What of those who are viewing this and thinking "Yeah, but in an ideal situation, Hakeem would have done more?". (Hopefully there are still people thinking like this given that y'all voted Wilt in over both these guys, and both were more consistently productive for their teams than Wilt was.)

I can definitely see an argument for Hakeem along those lines, just make sure you're consistent with your approach on that and you're careful with your assumptions. Don't be assuming Hakeem could be the playmaker or defensive floor general Garnett was just because he had the body & coordination for it.

Post #16 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sat Jul 19, 2014 11:28 pm

RSCD3_ wrote:Can someone voting for bird help quantify why his offense was so good that it bridged the gap between Hakeem's impact on defense and his above average offensive game as well

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

realbig3 cuts to the quick, but I'll reiterate something I said last thread that never really got discussed by others:

What makes Bird virtually unique is that he's an off-ball savant. And really especially when he's young and his motor is crazy, this means I think he not only spent a time as the best offensive player in the game, I think his defensive impact was major and immediate.

What I mean with my catch phrase there ("off-ball savant"), is that typically when we talk about the highest of the high BBIQ guys on offense we're talking about on-ball players. You watch Magic for example, and it reminds me of playing with my dog and a tennis ball. With the ball, Magic can perform magic tricks that just always seem to get the better of human beings. He makes people just look stupid.

(Incidentally, it's worth pausing to contrast Magic to Pete Maravich here. It's definitely not the FACT that Magic did these tricks that makes him great, because we've seen with Maravich and others that you can very easily overwhelm any impact of your creativity by trying for a pretty move when something else will suffice. Nevertheless, as Magic used his tricks, it worked with remarkably little slack.)

Larry Bird by contrast his signature is that he just pops up right where he needs to be. He knows where the rebound is going before anyone else. The other team thinks they have a break, but boom there's Larry stripping the ball away. His teammate drives and gets stuck and the moment he thinks "I'm screwed, he realizes he has an open pass to Larry as if Larry just apparated there because Jesus told him that was where he needed to be at that moment.

And then of course, there's the quick decision afterward. While Magic's the one known for a run & gun offense, when you watch Magic operate he has a slowhand a la Eric Clapton. Bird by contrast seems frantic. Like he's playing hot potato. His now relieved teammate may have just seen him and passed him the ball, but Bird already knew what he was going to do before his teammate passed it. A quick shot, a rapid pass to the next guy, etc.

Is this enough of an offensive edge to surpass Hakeem's defensive edge? I really don't know. What I do understand though is why no one while the two guys played during Bird's prime had much doubt that Bird was the better player.

Post #17 » by **Texas Chuck** » Sat Jul 19, 2014 11:38 pm

Doctor MJ wrote:I think that overall, Garnett was used more wisely in his career,

nevermind.

colts18 · Post #18 » by **colts18** » Sat Jul 19, 2014 11:42 pm

From Fatal9:

Case for Hakeem from previous thread. Hasn't got the respect he deserves so far imo. Better all-around player than both Shaq/Duncan (Shaq/Duncan without their flaws = Hakeem), peaked higher than Duncan and arguably in the same tier as Shaq, better playoff performer individually than both of them to me. Didn't have the advantage of having great coaches like them (when he did, he delivered), didn't have half the talent Shaq played with (W-L record of their teams without them is very telling, much less the roster personnel), faced stiffer competition than them at not only his position but in the teams he beat/faced (that's one area where I lose respect for Duncan).

Re: Hakeem

His 80s career is a bit underrated. He didn't have the team game down like he did in the 90s, possibly because of how late he learned the game, but still, he was a monster.

'85 - improves lottery team to the playoffs, Rockets go from one of the worst defenses in the league to 4th best (though he was a lousy post defender early on in his career imo).

'86 - improves Rockets to 51 wins (would have been more if he didn't miss 14 games). The only time anyone took down the 80s Lakers in a 7 game series before they got to the finals. Averaged 31 ppg on 52 FG%, 58 TS% in that series, and lots of blocks and rebounds (missing some boxscores). Played well against what was probably the greatest team ever in the '86 Celtics while most of his team shrank particularly Sampson. The guy showed by just his second year he could take down all-time great teams, lead his team to the finals when given a proper cast.

'87 - The promising team around him begins to fall apart. Mitchell Wiggins and Lewis Lloyd got suspended for doing coke, Sampson played only half the season and was limited even when he was on the court. Sampson and him played for the first time in almost 3 months when the playoffs started. What he did in these playoffs was very underrated IMO, 29/11/3/4 on 66 TS% (!) over 10 games (in under 39 mpg). Upset the Blazers in the first round, only game they lost in that series was the one where he got in foul trouble and the Rockets got outscored 27-12 in the quarter. Then came the Sonics (who came off beating the 55 win Mavs team), he played/shot well in every game. His ONLY bad game was game 4 where he was limited to 27 minutes due to foul trouble. Ellis was on fire and then Chambers came on late, Rockets were outgunned. In the elimination game he had 49/26/5/6 on 19/33 shooting, including scoring 17 of the last 25 points for the Rockets.

'88 - He put up the highest PER ever in the playoffs albeit only over 4 games. I've only seen two games from the series, and can't begin to comment on how poorly the guards shot (Sleepy played well in game 2, that's it, his other three games were horrific). Hakeem put up 34/14, 41/26, 35/12 and in the elimination game 40/15 @ 57 FG% (64 TS%) for the series. These numbers are nuts. Lost to the same team that took LA to 7 games in the next round.

His career did hit bit of lull under Don Chaney, which IMO is the biggest reason his career didn't turn out even greater than it was. The chuckers on the team got too much control of the offense, ball ran through Hakeem way less until Rudy T came in and then we saw Hakeem's talent truly shine from '93-'97. His prime stretch from '93-'95 is one of the five greatest primes for me, comparable to just about anyone. Any time the playoffs rolled around, he almost always brought his A game.

In his prime he was literally the perfect player to build around. Monster defender who guaranteed you a top defense in the league, 30 points a night, great decision making and passing ability that the ENTIRE offense was built around (no one on Houston was good at creating their own shot, they depended so much Hakeem's presence), unstoppable one on one scoring against any one (most double teamed big I've seen after Shaq), high bball IQ and quick decision making (this is what made him go to the next level in '93, his decision making became amazing, most centers don't act quick enough), not a liability in crunch time like many other centers, ability to outplay anyone put in front of him and an absolute ASSASSIN in big games (MJ like nerves and killer instinct, the man would just not go away).

The reason why many people think so highly of him because at his peak, he left you nothing to criticize because he did everything, won every big game, performed HUGE on the biggest stage, faced stiff competition and outplayed everyone. Did it like MJ did from ’91-’93, played in a way that left no doubt in anyone's mind. Now people are acting like putting Hakeem in the highest of highest leagues is revisionist history or overrating him, but take a closer look, the man played THAT well.

- '93, is when he took his game to another level. Improves his passing game and decision making tremendously as the ball begins to run through him more and more (new coach). Averaged 26/13/4/4 on 53% in regular season. In the playoffs, after killing the Clippers (check out what he did against them in the do or die game 5, he was EVERYWHERE, put up 31/21/7/3/3). Averaged an amazing 26/14/5/5 in the playoffs. Was on course of taking down the much more talented Sonics team in game 7 (made many crucial clutch plays) before his team kind of got screwed at the end of the game (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ax9n6JJgq-E) with bad calls. He was second in MVP, above MJ, should have been MVP. Here's Hubie Brown talking about how MJ and Hakeem were playing above everyone else that season: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x9-Y1fo-jJs (this is for people who think Hakeem wasn’t in the conversation as the best player in the league before ’94).

- '94 Hakeem averaged 27/12/4/4 on 53%, won MVP, DPOY, Finals MVP and led a pretty average (though built well around him) roster to 58 wins and a ring. Team was down 0-2 to the Suns, and the Rockets needed to win the next two on the road against them to even stay in the series, Hakeem goes out and averaged 27/14/7/6 on 60+% in those games. Ended his playoff run by outplaying Ewing by a large margin and willing Rockets to win the title with a great finals series (after they were down 3-2 as well).

- '95 Hakeem had the most impressive playoff run ever to me, yes, even more impressive than any of Jordan's runs because I don't know if even MJ could have pulled off what Hakeem did. He saved the Rockets over and over again (with assist from the role players of course). His team slipped in the seeding because they dropped a lot of games when he was injured which only made his competition in the playoffs that much tougher.

- First round, they had to beat a 60 win Malone/Stockton Jazz team (FIRST round). Hakeem averaged 35 ppg on 57% in that series, had a 40 point game to save the team from elimination, then in the do or die game he went on the road, began hitting impossible baseline fadeaways and willed them past the Jazz.

- Second round, he had to beat the 59 win KJ/Barkley Suns. Rockets went down 3-1, didn’t have HCA but Hakeem comes back and drops 30/12/6 in the final three games (two of them on the road), to lead them to the next round. And with the season on the line in game 5, it was him who made the clutch shot to send the game to OT.

- Next up, 62 win Spur team, with the MVP and Hakeem’s position rival, D-Rob. Needless to say, we all know what he did to D-Rob in that series, "bamboozled him", dropped three 40+ point games against the league MVP and DPOY, and a 39/17/5 game to eliminate the Spurs.

- In the finals, it was Shaq/Penny’s Magic team. Came up big when the games were on the line, I thought he outplayed Shaq in the crucial stretches of the games and led the sweep of the Magic.

That’s the highest combined W-L record any player has had to face on route to a championship and Hakeem took them down one after the other. He beat the four best teams in the league in the same playoff run. The margin of error was so low, he HAD to deliver in every series, could absolutely not have a bad game and he came through...every...single...time. Factoring in competition, the fact he put up 33/10/4.5/3/2 on 53%, clutchness, stepping up in key games, outplaying opponents, this to me is the greatest individual playoff run by a player ever. Not MJ, not KAJ, not Shaq, not Bird no one had to deliver like that to win a championship.

Those three years he faced elimination 10 times, and led the Rockets to a 9-1 record (Russell-esque) in those games and here is a sample of what he did in those games:

31/21/7/3/3
23/17/7/3
37/17/5/3
25/10/7/3
40/8/3
33/10/4
31/16/3
30/8/10/5
29/11/4

If you value primes and playoff performance highly (two most important things for me personally), he has a very good case for top 5. You need to watch him play, need to see the situations he confronted, how he played on a game by game basis, how immensely valuable he was to his teams (from '92-'96, Rockets were 7-27 without Hakeem, lottery status without him and perennial contenders with him...Shaq's teams were never this bad without him).

rico381 · Post #19 » by **rico381** » Sat Jul 19, 2014 11:59 pm

colts18 wrote:I'm voting Hakeem. This graph is a big reason why.

Just want to comment on this graph, because it exemplifies a common argument for Hakeem, and I think people are getting some weird conclusions from it. The bottom right is the best part of that graph to be. That's the "awesome in the playoffs and in the regular season" part of the graph. Hakeem is in the "awesome in the playoffs, significantly less impressive in the regular season" part of the graph. I see this used as an argument for Hakeem because he's "increasing his level of production" but he's starting from a much lower level, too. You'd have to have some pretty weird thought processes to say you'd rather have a guy who's awesome in the playoffs and not in the regular season over someone who is great in both areas.

Also, note that Hakeem had nearly half his playoff minutes in his three-year prime, while he played less than a quarter of his RS minutes in that span. That'll explain a good portion of the difference.

ThunderDan9 · Post #20 » by **ThunderDan9** » Sun Jul 20, 2014 12:00 am

Realgm-RPOY
1. Bill Russell 10.956
2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 10.221
3. Michael Jordan 9.578
4. Wilt Chamberlain 7.818
5. Magic Johnson 7.114
6. LeBron James 6.652
7. Tim Duncan 6.248
8. Larry Bird 6.147
9. Shaquille O'Neal 5.910
10. Julius Erving 5.046
11. Karl Malone 4.649
12. Bob Pettit 4.466
13. Oscar Robertson 4.413
14. Kobe Bryant 4.380
15. Hakeem Olajuwon 4.380
16. Jerry West 3.795
17. Kevin Garnett 3.571
18. Moses Malone 3.478
19. Dwyane Wade 2.601
20. David Robinson 2.431
21. Dirk Nowitzki 2.373

This has to count for something. The result roughly speaking tells the same story as MVP-shares do. In basically "only" 9 seasons, Bird collected this amount of "shares", which puts him comfortably in the Top10, and onto the tier of Magic, Lebron, Duncan, Shaq. A top3 player from 80 to 88, placed at #1 (!!) 4 times.
And in this case - unlike the MVP awards - RPOY contains the evaluation of playoffs (!) as well, and was made in retrospect, using all kinds of data and viewpoints (including the evaluation of defensive impact as well).

It clearly shows Bird as the much more dominant player of his era than Garnett (and even Olajuwon).

With this vast distance, the burden of proof should be on the backers of the #17 and #15 ranked players: was the competition of top players between 80-92 SO MUCH MORE shallow than between 85-97 (there is even some overlap, right there!) or between 97-12?
I'm not convinced yet.