Without accolades, does AD have arguments over Olajuwon?

[Egg Nog]

Virtually everyone incensed at the OP is exactly what was deserved here.

AD is great but no. Terrible terrible take.

[IgorK]

I suspect I watched Hakeem from '91-'97 as much as nearly anyone on the boards. Anthony Davis is the most similar player to Olajuwon that I have seen since Olajuwon in terms of skill and ability on both ends. It's obviously difficult to compare across eras, but the one thing that can be compared across eras is attitude and mindset. Olajuwon had a far higher motor - even past 30, even during Ramadan. Olajuwon thirsted for blocks and steals. He was insatiable on both ends. He demanded the ball down the stretch of games. Not asking him to carry you in a close game simply wasn't an option. It was never considered, because Olajuwon refused to allow that. Olajuwon was as competitive as a player can be. AD has no argument over Olajuwon, in my opinion. Olajuwon (past 30) was a better passer than AD, among the other things listed here. He also, obviously, had far more moves and counter moves with the ball in his hands.

Also, one of the things people forget when they compare young bigs to Olajuwon is that he made the NBA Finals in his second season, beating Magic Johnson, James Worthy, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in the WCF. That's how impactful he was.

Fake news. You're making up history now

Huh? The '86 Finals was his 2nd season. The Rockets beat the Lakers to get there. Do you not know that?

.

Math-related brainfart on my end.

[scrabbarista]

Side note height wise A.Davis is now listed at 6.9 3/4.

If that's accurate, then he's the same height as Olajuwon. AD looks taller to me, but I can accept that they might be the same height.

AD looks taller for the same reason why people were confused about Kevin Durant and DeAndre Jordan's height (and people kept arguing the combine measurements were too long ago and they must have grown, until the NBA did barefoot measurements last year). All three of these guys are under 6'10 but have tall shoulders, which gives the visual effect of looking as tall as Marc Gasol on the floor even though the the top of Gasol's head is above everyone else's.

On the other hand since standing reach is an important metric, even though all three of those guys are in the 6'9 range they effectively play as if they were as tall a typical 7 footer.

Tall shoulders, aka short necks.

[Jkam31]

**** is this on page 5 should’ve been locked after the first post

[Warspite]

Without accolades Hakeem has a GOAT argument.

[DonaldSanders]

Olajuwon might be the only got to ever win a ring without another all star. Olajuwon is miles better than AD.

Tim Duncan 2003.

I'm confused on this one -- I assume you guys mean an all-star that year? Cuz Sam Cassell was an all-star in 2004 and obv the 2003 Spurs have other All-Stars (Manu/Parker).

If you're just talking that year, the 2011 Mavs also only had 1 all-star. I bet there are others as well. I don't think it's quite as much of an accomplishment as if the team didn't have a player with *zero* all-star appearances for their career, which I don't think has ever happened?

[mixerball]

i think as a logical punishment for this incredibly nonsensical thread, OP should have to study olajuwon for his homework and write an essay "making the case for goat center: hakeem". 500 words should be enough.

[OriginalRed]

Hakeem actually led his team and probably carried one of the worst supporting cast in NBA history to b2b titles.

AD quit on his team before his contract even expired and ran off to become Lebron's robin, where he will constantly be thought of as an after thought as Lebron continues to win championships and soaks in all the glory.

[mixerball]

Olajuwon might be the only got to ever win a ring without another all star. Olajuwon is miles better than AD.

Tim Duncan 2003.

I'm confused on this one -- I assume you guys mean an all-star that year? Cuz Sam Cassell was an all-star in 2004 and obv the 2003 Spurs have other All-Stars (Manu/Parker).

If you're just talking that year, the 2011 Mavs also only had 1 all-star. I bet there are others as well. I don't think it's quite as much of an accomplishment as if the team didn't have a player with *zero* all-star appearances for their career, which I don't think has ever happened?

what a silly logic if i understand you correctly....
...so olajuwon won his titles with an all star sam casell who was a rookie and second year then and became all star 10 years later

[MintFresh]

I can't believe we're sleeping on the Dream Shake

[DonaldSanders]

Tim Duncan 2003.

I'm confused on this one -- I assume you guys mean an all-star that year? Cuz Sam Cassell was an all-star in 2004 and obv the 2003 Spurs have other All-Stars (Manu/Parker).

If you're just talking that year, the 2011 Mavs also only had 1 all-star. I bet there are others as well. I don't think it's quite as much of an accomplishment as if the team didn't have a player with *zero* all-star appearances for their career, which I don't think has ever happened?

what a silly logic if i understand you correctly....
...so olajuwon won his titles with an all star sam casell who was a rookie and second year then and became all star 10 years later

I'm saying there probably should be some clarification whether the player won without a current all-star from that year or if the player won without anyone that ever was an all-star. They are obviously different things, and having players that never made it to an all star game would obviously be harder. Pretty simple logic, nothing silly about that.

Perhaps 3 categories -- zero all-star appearances for the career, all star after the chip, and all-star before the chip.

I mean the 2011 Mavs have Jason Kidd, ya it's not all-star Jason Kidd but it's really not the same thing as say someone who was never an all-star, or as you point out, a rookie like Cassell or Manu who weren't yet at full potential but still better than "not an all star" sounds.

[Duke4life831]

Ill give the OP the benefit of the doubt and say they just havent seen much of Hakeem. AD more athletic than Hakeem, on the same level defensively as Hakeem, more versatile than Hakeem. I see those things and just think to myself, this is either a troll or someone that knows very little about Hakeem. Ill give them the benefit of the doubt and say just a lack of knowledge on Hakeem.

[DonaldSanders]

Hakeem win the chips being the alfa, call me when AD do that.

AD is a great second option, like Curry.

But they are vassals of Bron and KD respectively.

Big Yikes. You're overrating KD and underrating Curry. KD only succeeded on the Team That Curry Built that is 100% built around his unique strengths. Curry is the one with a chip without KD, not the other way around.

Both are viable 1st options on championship teams though, and both are obviously below LeBron as I've said for a long time.

[NO-KG-AI]

AD is more athletic

What? Hakeem is one of the best athletes of all-time. I know most people saw him after 1994 when he wasn't nearly as fast or as physical, but 1980s Olajuwon has an argument for the best athlete in NBA history. He's faster, quicker, stronger and jumped higher and quicker than Davis.

I’m not sure he’s faster or jumps higher, but I’d take Hakeem as an athlete because he’s absolutely worlds stronger. He’s basically like trying to move a statue.

[OdomFan]

I'm confused on this one -- I assume you guys mean an all-star that year? Cuz Sam Cassell was an all-star in 2004 and obv the 2003 Spurs have other All-Stars (Manu/Parker).

If you're just talking that year, the 2011 Mavs also only had 1 all-star. I bet there are others as well. I don't think it's quite as much of an accomplishment as if the team didn't have a player with *zero* all-star appearances for their career, which I don't think has ever happened?

what a silly logic if i understand you correctly....
...so olajuwon won his titles with an all star sam casell who was a rookie and second year then and became all star 10 years later

I'm saying there probably should be some clarification whether the player won without a current all-star from that year or if the player won without anyone that ever was an all-star. They are obviously different things, and having players that never made it to an all star game would obviously be harder. Pretty simple logic, nothing silly about that.

Perhaps 3 categories -- zero all-star appearances for the career, all star after the chip, and all-star before the chip.

I mean the 2011 Mavs have Jason Kidd, ya it's not all-star Jason Kidd but it's really not the same thing as say someone who was never an all-star, or as you point out, a rookie like Cassell or Manu who weren't yet at full potential but still better than "not an all star" sounds.

We're talking about players who won the championship in that moment with no fellow all star next to them. Hakeem didn't have one in 94, and neither did Duncan in 2003.

[bballgod07]

Please stop this....AD took the pels to the playoffs once in 6 years or some crap. This guy is pretty a role player himself.

[Doug33]

The most disrespectful post I ever read on realgm. Hakeem is 10 million times better than AD.

[Dnt hate]

Olajuwon might be the only got to ever win a ring without another all star. Olajuwon is miles better than AD.

Tim Duncan 2003.

I'm confused on this one -- I assume you guys mean an all-star that year? Cuz Sam Cassell was an all-star in 2004 and obv the 2003 Spurs have other All-Stars (Manu/Parker).

If you're just talking that year, the 2011 Mavs also only had 1 all-star. I bet there are others as well. I don't think it's quite as much of an accomplishment as if the team didn't have a player with *zero* all-star appearances for their career, which I don't think has ever happened?

In 94 Cassell was a rookie and averaging 6 pts in regular season and 9 in playoffs so ya he counts as an obvious non allstar

[DonaldSanders]

what a silly logic if i understand you correctly....
...so olajuwon won his titles with an all star sam casell who was a rookie and second year then and became all star 10 years later

I'm saying there probably should be some clarification whether the player won without a current all-star from that year or if the player won without anyone that ever was an all-star. They are obviously different things, and having players that never made it to an all star game would obviously be harder. Pretty simple logic, nothing silly about that.

Perhaps 3 categories -- zero all-star appearances for the career, all star after the chip, and all-star before the chip.

I mean the 2011 Mavs have Jason Kidd, ya it's not all-star Jason Kidd but it's really not the same thing as say someone who was never an all-star, or as you point out, a rookie like Cassell or Manu who weren't yet at full potential but still better than "not an all star" sounds.

We're talking about players who won the championship in that moment with no fellow all star next to them. Hakeem didn't have one in 94, and neither did Duncan in 2003.

Gotcha. Neither did Dirk in 2011.

In 94 Cassell was a rookie and averaging 6 pts in regular season and 9 in playoffs so ya he counts as an obvious non allstar

I think it's clearly fair to say that Cassell was nowhere near all-star quality, I mean you can also make the argument Cassell should never have been an all-star lol. I was more trying to clarify if they were talking AS at any point and pointing out Manu/Parker on the 2003 Spurs in terms of actual advantages the players provided. Neither Parker or Ginobili were in their primes but "zero all stars besides Duncan" doesn't quite tell the story correctly like it does when you mention Olajuwon on the Rockets. I typed pretty fast in the other posts and definitely could have done a better job clarifying what I was trying to say.

[mixerball]

I'm confused on this one -- I assume you guys mean an all-star that year? Cuz Sam Cassell was an all-star in 2004 and obv the 2003 Spurs have other All-Stars (Manu/Parker).

If you're just talking that year, the 2011 Mavs also only had 1 all-star. I bet there are others as well. I don't think it's quite as much of an accomplishment as if the team didn't have a player with *zero* all-star appearances for their career, which I don't think has ever happened?

what a silly logic if i understand you correctly....
...so olajuwon won his titles with an all star sam casell who was a rookie and second year then and became all star 10 years later

I'm saying there probably should be some clarification whether the player won without a current all-star from that year or if the player won without anyone that ever was an all-star. They are obviously different things, and having players that never made it to an all star game would obviously be harder. Pretty simple logic, nothing silly about that.

Perhaps 3 categories -- zero all-star appearances for the career, all star after the chip, and all-star before the chip.

I mean the 2011 Mavs have Jason Kidd, ya it's not all-star Jason Kidd but it's really not the same thing as say someone who was never an all-star, or as you point out, a rookie like Cassell or Manu who weren't yet at full potential but still better than "not an all star" sounds.

there is also a clear difference between manu and cassell when comparing those years.