RealGM Top 100 List #9

[Moonbeam]

Great post highlighting Hakeem's awesome 1995 season, 90sAllDecade. Certainly one of the most incredible playoff runs ever.

[andrewww]

I think it's worth mentioning the next tier of candidates after Bird/Hakeem....

Kobe/KG/Oscar/West/Erving/KMalone/Moses/Dirk/Barkley/Robinson

that Jerry West is often forgotten and deserves more traction.

-He has the highest career scoring average in the NBA Finals (even over MJ) if I'm not mistaken.
-Pace was a factor but it still goes to show you that he was very much an offensive anchor from the guard position
-Pace is balanced out by the lack of a 3-point line which I'm confident West would've been absolutely deadly from
-His career FG% though at a solid 47% for a guard, should actually be mentioned as well above average for his era as efficiency wasn't promoted as much back then in the 60s. Getting more shots up like the Celtics philosophy was needs to be accounted for. In other words, that 47% may be more around 50% in today's era.
-He had the misfortunte of playing in the Bill Russell/Wilt Chamberlain era. Easily the 3rd or 4th best player of his era in the same tier as Oscar Robertson.
-Was one of the best defensive guards in the league.

[Purch]

I think it's worth mentioning the next tier of candidates after Bird/Hakeem....

Kobe/KG/Oscar/West/Erving/KMalone/Moses/Dirk/Barkley/Robinson

that Jerry West is often forgotten and deserves more traction.

-He has the highest career scoring average in the NBA Finals (even over MJ) if I'm not mistaken.
-Pace was a factor but it still goes to show you that he was very much an offensive anchor from the guard position
-Pace is balanced out by the lack of a 3-point line which I'm confident West would've been absolutely deadly from
-His career FG% though at a solid 47% for a guard, should actually be mentioned as well above average for his era as efficiency wasn't promoted as much back then in the 60s. Getting more shots up like the Celtics philosophy was needs to be accounted for. In other words, that 47% may be more around 50% in today's era.
-He had the misfortunte of playing in the Bill Russell/Wilt Chamberlain era. Easily the 3rd or 4th best player of his era in the same tier as Oscar Robertson.

I think the project creator brought this up a while ago but, where do you think Mikan comes into play here?

[An Unbiased Fan]

Competition Bird faced:

Rd 1. Bulls - 30-52, -3.12 SRS, 2nd year Jordan & SF Woolridge (who wasn't known for defense at all)
Rd 2. Hawks - 50-32, 2.59 SRS, SF Wilkins
Rd 3. Bucks - 57-25, 8.69 SRS, Moncrief & SF Pressey (Moncief was badly hurt and that wasn't the same team that series)*
Finals: Rockets - 51-31, 2.11 SRS, 2nd year Olajuwon & Sampson, SF McCray

Competition Hakeem faced:

Rd 1. Jazz - 60-22, 7.75 SRS, Malone & Stockton, C by committee
Rd 2. Suns - 59-23, 3.85 SRS, Barkley & KJ, C by committee
Rd 3. Spurs - 62-20, 5.90 SRS, Center: Robinson, Rodman & Elliott
Finals: Orlando - 57-25, 6.44 SRS, Center: Shaq & 2nd year Penny

Bird faced much less competition to dominate as well. Hakeem had to dominate on both sides of the ball with much less help and greater competition during his peak.

To be fair to Bird, you can only play who the brackets choose. Hakeem's 95 run was done from the 6th seed, so by default he was gonna have a tougher road. Bird shouldn't be penalized for leading Boston to good regular seasons.

Here's BBRef's Top Playoff SRS among Champions(note it doesn't include 2010-2014) http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=4787

2001 Lakers - 17.67
1986 Celtics - 12.65
2009 Lakers - 11.07
1981 Celtics - 9.43
2002 Lakers - 9.05
1995 Rockets - 8.58
1994 Rockets - 6.90
2000 Lakers - 6.60
1984 Celtics - 6.32
^
The 1995 Rockets were #30 out of 60 champions. While they did face some tough teams, many of those series were very close. Bird/Kobe's teams were a bit more dominant during their runs.

[90sAllDecade]

You have a very logical way of thinking and beat me to it. You actually spoke on the very next point that came up in discussion in that same thread back then.

I addressed that here:

You can't blame Bird for the Rockets beating the Lakers in 86, and thus the Celtics playing a 51-31 Rockets team instead of a stacked 62-20 Lakers team (that virtually everybody agrees the Celtics would have also beat pretty easily). By the same token -- ok, Moncrief got hurt, but it's not like anybody thought the Bucks would have won that series if he was healthy going against an all-time great Celtics team.

"You're right, I won't blame or penalize Bird for playing the Rockets instead of the better record or more talented Lakers. But I also can't credit or praise Bird by saying his peak was better or more impressive than Hakeem's.

Keep in mind, Bird's greatest peak coincided when he had the greatest team around him to make his job easier.

It's easier to dominate when you're the favorite, let alone the GOAT team with the greatest HCA in history versus young stars or injured impact players. But if you really want to separate the true best players in the GOAT rankings, check how they perform years when they don't have that same talent around them. With no all star teammates, no HOF coaches, when they're the underdog in the playoffs against a better team. Then you can consider who is underrated or overrated.

For example, Bird never played without an all star his whole career but there is one year he played with only one. 1982-83' with Parish and a young McHale who didn't make the game yet.

In that season with only one all star and poor coaching (it was his 4th year and still in his prime) here's his numbers in the regular season and playoffs vs his peak. It was his only season with one star.

Bird 82'-83' with only one all star Regular Season:



82'-83' playoffs:



83' TS% and eFG%





Dominant yes, but his performance was not as good as Hakeem's best seasons without other stars/good coaching and for his career he got slightly worse in the playoffs while Hakeem got better. Those Celtics as a team also got swept by the Bucks who didn't have HCA.

The very next year when McHale made the all star team, Fitch was fired and Bird had two other all stars again, he had his second best playoff performance and won a championship. Now Bird was unhealthy in game 2 (I think fever I may be wrong) against the Bucks, but was healthy for those regular season performances and other playoff games.

When one compares the greatest performances ever from the elite percent of players all time, things like offensive/defensive anchors, team support and competition matter imo.

In any sport beating bigger challenges is more impressive than beating lesser ones. If a Kobe drops 30 on the Bobcats starting guard, versus dropping 30 on a top ranked Spurs team against peak Bruce Bowen or against peak McGrady, which is more impressive? In Boxing if Muhammad Ali knocks out a mediocre fighter that he dominated like he was supposed to, versus knocking out Frazier, what was the better performance? College basketball players who dominate top ranked competition move up in team rankings and often leap frog others in the draft.

Hakeem knocked out Frazier during those playoff series in his peak, he also won a championship on the road without HCA the whole time. He outplayed argueably the greatest competition of any peak ever and did it with less help than any top 10 player ever had in thier peak seasons. Imo Bird had an all time great peak, but with his peak coinciding with the talent around him, he dominated like he was supposed to imo."

[*Sidenote, to be fair to Bird, this was his fourth year and Hakeem won a championship without an all star next to him his 9th year. But this was the only year Bird had lesser team support and he played worse in comparison without that help.]

[SactoKingsFan]

For me this vote came down to Hakeem and Bird. IMO, there's not much separating their careers.

An argument could be made for Bird having a more impactful prime than Hakeem, however, I’m not convinced that Bird had a significantly better prime. And after considering prime playoff production I’m more inclined to call their prime years comparable. I prefer Hakeem’s peak over Bird’s due to his immense defensive impact and two-way dominance.

As mentioned throughout the past few threads, Hakeem’s supporting casts were less formidable than Bird’s, who consistently played on stacked teams with All-Stars and HOFers. Therefore, I’ve become more and more impressed with Hakeem’s peak seasons and dominant playoff performances.

Ultimately, I’d rather have Hakeem as a franchise cornerstone due to his two-way peak dominance, significantly more impressive playoff production and superior longevity.

--EDIT--

Hakeem Prime PS (86-95): 28.6 PTS, 11.8 RB, 3.4 AST, 1.7 STL, 3.7 BLK, 3.1 TOV
26.9 PER, .575 TS%, .364 FTr, 30.2 USG%, .204 WS/48

Bird Prime PS (80-88): 24.5 PTS, 10.7 RB, 6.4 AST, 1.9 STL, 0.9 BLK, 3.2 TOV
21.9 PER, .555 TS%, .331 FTr, 25.0 USG%, .183 WS/48

Vote: Hakeem Olajuwon

[Texas Chuck]

Official Vote: Larry Legend

Going by the eye test I still maintain Larry Bird is the best basketball player I've ever seen. Now I don't think he deserves to be ranked the highest, but I've never seen a more complete basketball player than Bird. With the ball, without the ball, on offense, on defense, in transition he could just do it all.

Now guys like Lebron, Mike, Wilt, Shaq have a huge athleticism edge over Bird and thus they are able to make up for his skill advantages. But if we are simply talking about the skills of basketball I'd take Bird ahead of anyone who has ever played.

He's one of the 3 true geniuses of basketball with Russell and Magic. He was clearly just seeing the game the way no one else really could. Kidd probably comes the closest, but he didnt have nearly Bird's ability to take advantage of that vision.

Bird was the best player in the league for half a decade. Shame injuries cost us a few more years, but the ones we got were just flat unbelievable. Such a joy to watch this man play.

[andrewww]

I think the project creator brought this up a while ago but, where do you think Mikan comes into play here?

Mikan is one of the toughest players to guage. I'll admit I don't have a great feel for his impact, and the same goes for most players of his era such as Bob Pettit, Jerry Lucas and Paul Arizin to name a few.

[Basketballefan]

I think it's worth mentioning the next tier of candidates after Bird/Hakeem....

Kobe/KG/Oscar/West/Erving/KMalone/Moses/Dirk/Barkley/Robinson

that Jerry West is often forgotten and deserves more traction.

-He has the highest career scoring average in the NBA Finals (even over MJ) if I'm not mistaken.
-Pace was a factor but it still goes to show you that he was very much an offensive anchor from the guard position
-Pace is balanced out by the lack of a 3-point line which I'm confident West would've been absolutely deadly from
-His career FG% though at a solid 47% for a guard, should actually be mentioned as well above average for his era as efficiency wasn't promoted as much back then in the 60s. Getting more shots up like the Celtics philosophy was needs to be accounted for. In other words, that 47% may be more around 50% in today's era.
-He had the misfortunte of playing in the Bill Russell/Wilt Chamberlain era. Easily the 3rd or 4th best player of his era in the same tier as Oscar Robertson.
-Was one of the best defensive guards in the league.

I agree that West gets underrated however I'm just not sure he is genuine top 10 material...although its certainly not out of the realm of plausibility. His stats are somewhat inflated due to pace, and he did win only 1/8 finals. On top of that his longevity/durability was nothing special either. I will give him some traction when the 13-15 spots roll around.

[ceiling raiser]

I think the project creator brought this up a while ago but, where do you think Mikan comes into play here?

I don't feel comfortable discussing Mikan so when he comes into the conversation I'll probably abstain from those threads. It's just too different a sport IMO comparing a guy who played before the shot clock was implemented, and before the league was integrated. Not saying I'm opposed to him being discussed, but I just don't think it's appropriate for me to participate in that discussion, since I can't reasonably compare his playing days to the NBA even a decade after he retired.

[acrossthecourt]

Vote: Hakeem Olajuwon

As I said, I honestly didn't know what to do with Dream's With/Without numbers in 1991. Fatal's post quelled my uncertainty and contextualized the numbers to indicate there wasn't a bigger problem with Olajuwon's play on the court. As I said, how each of his teammates do when he's out (or in!) is a credit to them.

I'm voting for Olajuwon because he gives me the best chance to win the most titles of anybody else left. His career value is higher. This dude led very good defensive teams throughout his prime. I've talked a lot about his years in the 1980s because I feel that's what most weren't so sure of, but at his peak in 1994, he led a dominant —4.9 defensive team, second only to the legendary (GOAT-level in the A.B.E — After Bill Era) New York Knick defense that he incidentally torched in the finals to the tune of 27 points on 50 percent shooting.

I think the larger problem is that he was replaced in the starting lineup by someone who was roughly the equivalent of Perkins and they didn't get worse.

When people talk about the problems of with/without stats, the backups are largely the problem. Maybe your backup is Dennis Rodman ready for a breakthrough. Not true in this case....

Olajuwon's problems playing *with* his teammates can't just be hand-waved by bad coaching/strategy. We're not going to assume an alternate world where Olajuwon was always playing well with them. We still have to consider what was actually happening.

I'm glad you mentioned Dennis Rodman.

Larry Smith wasn't roughly the equivalent of Kendrick Perkins. On the contrary, he was closer to the Worm than I think you give him credit for. Smith is the 3rd greatest offensive rebounder (going by recorded offensive rebound rate) in NBA history. Mr. Mean's offensive rebound rate of 16.8% led the NBA in 1991.

I invite you to consider the chance that in the 1991 sample of games Olajuwon missed, Smith helped extend possessions with his offensive rebounding, giving his teammates another opportunity to score per possession. As Fatal posted before, other streaky Rocket players like Vernon Maxwell and Sleepy Floyd appeared to go buck wild offensively, something they were prone to do for short stretches, but not with consistency throughout their careers.

More shots for players on unsustainable hot streaks. This is perhaps why Houston's offense didn't collapse with Olajuwon's absence.

I think it's disingenuous to compare Larry Smith to Rodman, no?

Yes, having a guy who crashes the glass as much as anyone is useful, but he was really limited otherwise. A better comparison is Reggie Evans then, right? And this is older Larry Smith.

Yet your leading scorer shouldn't be replaced effectively with an offensive rebounder. Offensive anchor implies your offense relies on him and falls apart without him.

I'm not just going purely off those with/without stats. It's close to what I was thinking based on some footage, his overall stats, the notes about his career progression, team results, etc.

This is like the Nash pre-Suns argument. I don't think we can pretend this is the same '94 Olajuwon just because his situation wasn't great. I still want to go on what happened. It's the same when Wilt was misused and only concentrated on scoring.

Regardless, his defense is amazing and he's legitimately better in the playoffs. He's a lock for top 15 for me and he has a chance at 10 or 11 depending on what I decide on with guys like Garnett.


Larry Bird official vote here.

I'm really impressed with how he hit the ground running as a player. I've been watching some of the 76ers/Celtics '82 series (edit: typo here.) I love how he plays off the ground, how he can out-muscle guys underneath, how he's quick enough to sneak around the bigger guys, and his rebounding is underrated. 15 rebounds versus Moses the previous year! That's incredible. And he goes toe-to-toe with Dr. J, a top 15 guy (maybe), during his best NBA seasons. I'd love to see him in the modern game as a stretch 4 shooting more 3's. I wish we had some time of possession stats for him like we do now with SportVU. He's gotta have some high assist to time of possession ratios.

His teams were stacked, but they were stacked because of him. McHale wasn't a star right away, and Parish wasn't a superstar himself. Not all stacked teams work, however. It's not easy, but Bird can make it work.

[Doctor MJ]

Spoiler:

In the past, I was a bit fuzzy on Robertson and West. It was the WOWY data for the time that really threw me. West does things that I think are better, while Robertson has that on-ball OG floor general thing going on. These two guys, to me, were really the two best offensive players in the history of the sport until Bird and Magic came along. Oscar won out for me in the past based on West's injuries. BUT, I've got new information.

When you control for West's teammates, however, he looks even better while Robertson doesn't. Frankly, I've done a lot of double-takes looking at Wests results, which have caused me to re-examine the Lakers teams of the 60's. It's just hard for me to wrap my head around how Oscar could be better peak-to-peak, when you factor in West's (apparent) defensive advantage. I think that's what we see in this absolutely crazy results:



First, I've incorporated error-rates in WOWY now so we can see that Oscar's 61 season, where he misses 9 games, makes it actually unlikely that the Royals were a 9-win team without him. This is not to say they couldn't have been an outlier on the bad-side of things like the Celtics were on the good side, but it's also plenty likely they would have been a 20-win team.

Jumping forward to 65-66, he misses 9 more games and the Royals this time show up at a 33-win pace. From 67-68, if we control for Happy Hairston Oscar misses 13 games at the Royals play at a 20-win pace. From 69-70, 16 more games at a 21-win pace. I have little doubt that the Royals without Oscar Robertson were terrible. And that suggests good, but non-precise things about Oscar Robertson. My opinion of him doesn't really change...



Now look at Jerry West, WOWY HOF member. It's not just the degree of change with West that we see with Oscar on the Royals...it's the consistent height of the change. Now, I think the Lakers teams were clearly better than the Royals, and that's not to be overlooked, but think of some of Wilt Chamberlain's teams of the period. Now look at Jerry West's Lakers.

In 1961-62, WITHOUT Elgin Baylor, West's Lakers were a 35-win team. But then West got better. From 63-64 they were a 33-win team without West and a 50-win team with him (and Baylor). The 66 team played 54 games without Elgin Baylor...at a 54-win pace. 67-68, the heart of West's prime, see LA as a 54-win team, peaking at a comparable level to Wilt's 76ers (!) in 1968 with West. The 69 Lakers, with Wilt and Baylor play 21-games at a 43-win pace...add West and it jumps to 57. (Keep in mind, the league had more parity in the 60's which means it was hard to generate high SRS numbers.)

Perhaps the most telling of them all is the 70-71 stretch. In 1970, the Lakers played 26 games without Baylor or Wilt but with West in the lineup...again they were a 50-win team. Really, I'm not anti-Clark, LaRusso, Barnett or whomever was there (Mel Counts and Keith Erickson in 70), but at what point do you throw your hands up and say holy $^%* can this guy cover up anything? Because in 1971, without West, the Lakers then play like a 36-win team. Even in the twilight, removing Hairston from the team, the Lakers still play at obscene levels with West and look completely pedestrian without him.

And that period covers peak Baylor, post-injury Baylor, VBK's "Princeton" sets with Clark involved as a guard-heavy offense, Wilt coming, and then late-Wilt + Goodrich, Hairston, etc. To wrap, I'd say this echoes what we've just talked about with Bird and portability. When you are an incredible shooter, an excellent passer (high offensive IQ) and can defend...you bring a super high ceiling to teams. That West seemed to have video-game type efficiency also reinforces some kind of savant-like impact on the game throughout pretty much his entire career.

[spoiler]So I now have West above Oscar despite West missing 2 playoffs in his prime

So this is extremely useful information to have. Do people realize how painstaking this process is for ElGee? Were we granting PhD's in basketball analysis, this type of stuff would be worth the degree right there.

A brief history of my thoughts on Oscar & West:

Before I came to RealGM, I rated Oscar higher. He had the gaudiest stats.

After some time at RealGM, I realize that the biggest difference in gaudiness comes from the fact that Oscar had primacy during the most inflated statistical time period in history. There's no reasonable way to look at it and say Oscar's numbers aren't incredibly impressive, but once you adjust for that aspect of things, statistically the players seem very close. As you focus more on the playoffs West looks even better, and if you give West a serious nod for defense, it's hard not for him to come out on top. So West surpassed Oscar in my view.

Additionally I'll note that while I never doubted that Oscar was great, I was a bit skeptical about his lacking team results in Cincy, particularly when considering Jerry Lucas. For those who don't know, Lucas was an absolute giant of a prospect. Between the 1960 draft with Oscar and the 1969 draft with Kareem, Lucas was arguably the top prospect to come out in all of basketball from my understanding (if folks want to correct me, please do). For Cincy to be able to add Lucas to Oscar, was like Houston adding Olajuwon to Sampson. Just huge.

Yet, Cincy spent much of the decade continuing to be mediocre, Lucas never seemed to bloom on his talent, and there are plenty of stories of Oscar & Lucas not getting along, of Oscar seeming to see Lucas as a threat to him. I never blamed it all on Oscar, but to me there was blame to go around and Oscar got part of it.

In the RPOY and 2011 Top 100 projects we started getting deeper into historical analysis and what we at the time called in/out studies, but now get called WOWY (which by the way, is just an awesome name so I wholeheartedly agree on switching over to it). What we saw then was that Cincy truly did have the best offense of the era most of the time, and that the team seemed to live/die with Oscar's presence. Add in Oscar's transformative impact in Milwaukee taking on a very different role (transitioning from unipolar threat to truly a pass-first floor general with far great ease than I've ever seen anyone else do it - and no Wilt is not a reasonable counter example), and the fact that no matter where Lucas was he seemed to have okay but not superstar worthy impact, and I just reached the conclusion that it didn't make sense to put any kind of negative on Oscar's work. He was lacking in defense, but his sterling offensive reputation was warranted.

On the other side of this comparison, the impression I got of West was of someone with seemingly limitless potential, stifled. While my opinions relating to Oscar vs West have been predominantly glowing and have just gently rocked back in forth preferring one to the other, my opinion of West's teammate Elgin Baylor just sank more and more the more I looked at him. Put most simply: He was far less efficient than West once West got past his initial growing pain, and yet for basically his entire career he kept being the first scoring option for the team. This despite the fact West was so much more effective that he typically outscored Baylor and the fact West was a guard who didn't require Baylor or anyone else to give him the ball. The Lakers seemed to run an offense where the ball started with the alpha, and then forced it to the beta as much as possible. I'd say it's bizarre, but it's actually exactly the type of thing you fear would happen in an era before people had ready access to good stats. The visually impressive Baylor just seemed more effective than he truly was.

Strengthening this feeling was the fact that West seemed to be able to step up with ease whenever Baylor went down, and the matter that before Wilt came over and got in the way, the Princeton offense the Lakers implemented in '68-69 seemed to show West being able to shift something like Oscar in Milwaukee and take the offense into the next generation.

However, with such small sample size, I wasn't willing to go too far praising West as your Princetonian standard bearer, and through it all my impression was that when the team lost West it wasn't actually in that bad of a shape as long as they had Baylor. Baylor may have earned my ire for playing as a 1st option when he should have deferred to West, but sans West, Baylor was still a good first option. It all gave me the impression that West was a great player, but that he and Baylor had a lot of redundancy and while you can shake your fist at Baylor and the coaches involved, if you're focused on what a player actually accomplished lifting his team, West seemed to be considerably below Oscar.

So now, enter ElGee here with this data. It's my first time looking at it, and maybe people will talk me down, but it sure seems like all of those concerns for West are moot:

His WOWY impact seems at least comparable to Oscar's, and on the face of it more impressive.
He was doing it on a better team, with a player in Baylor that surely didn't help his WOWY (and probably deflated it).
And realistically, we're talking about a guy who was a very effective scorer who showed no signs he was incapable of being a floor general, while at the same time being a bit of a legend on defense. I wouldn't take it on face value when people talk up West to assume he was a defensive superstar, but what's certainly the case is that people say he got stocks like crazy, and the lone bit of official evidence we have late in his career seems to back this up. That doesn't make him a DPOY, but I'd say there's every reason to look at the perception of him as an All-D level guard all through his career as legit, and Oscar was nothing like this.

Put it all together, and I'm leaning to going back to West > Oscar now, and to be clear, all through this project I never saw Bird > Oscar career-wise as a given. Someone championing West as a candidate right now makes a lot of sense to me.

Also, just interesting tidbit, I haven't sat down and done the comparison this iteration, but my cursory analysis to start had me thinking I may very well rank Oscar ahead of Wilt. If that holds true, then West would surpass Wilt as well.

EDIT: For the record, in terms of what players actually accomplished, which is how I tend to look at GOAT lists, I still see no reason to rank West ahead of Oscar on offense. There's a case to argue that West could have done more if better used (first option, Princeton, etc), but basic stats would give Oscar at least the longevity edge, and just comparing offensive team results cumulative over their careers, Oscar's the one with the offensive dynasty. When I see numbers indicating West may have had more overall impact, what that makes me think is that the most likely scenario is where is offensive impact was quite large, but so was his defensive impact at least to some degree, and it's the two-way nature of his game that really gives him the edge.

[penbeast0]

Mikan . . . I don't kill him for his longevity the way I do Walton. Why not? (a) some of the short prime is just our cutoff; he was great before that too. (b) Walton's failure to play seriously hurt his teams in Portland and San Diego; the contract that he commanded left them cash short and his injuries tended to be partway through each season after starting with high hopes. (c) One year of making it to the playoffs as a starter means that your team has only 1 season to catch magic in a jar; 4 or 5 years can be built around.

Without the longevity issue, Mikan is the single most dominant player left, more than Bird or Hakeem, but the era issues hurt him more than Pettit or any of the others because he showed trouble adapting to rule changes (the 24 second rule) -- correct me if I'm wrong. Pettit played through probably the greatest transition in the game other than the 24 second rule and was the best forward in the game throughout his career (until his retirement, he was slightly better than Baylor, both defensively, and in terms of team buildling around him).

Moses has longevity over even most all-time greats but not sure he's either the best center left (I think you win more titles with Robinson even with his shortened career given a reasonable distribution of talent around them) or the best Malone left (I'd rate Karl Malone's longevity over Moses's as he kept his level of play at a higher level until the end).

Oscar v. West has always been a close one for me; I've tended to favor West a little despite opinions from most contemporary observers because I think it's easier to build a title team around a great outside shooter/slasher/very good defender than around a great post up/playmaking/inconsistently defensive guard especially when you add in the personality issues around Oscar. It's like Magic v. Kobe but with their personalities switched -- I'd be voting Kobe over Magic if that were true.

Hakeem v. Bird -- I tend to favor centers because for most of NBA history, they've been the dominant core of every champion except for the Barry Warriors up until the Bad Boy Pistons. That's about 1/2 of NBA history where you couldn't win without a dominant center -- period. Rule and coaching changes have made the center position only slightly more valuable than any other since (and of course it's much harder to find that peak talent when you restrict your talent pool by height so severely so it's not a huge surprise that the best players since 1990 have not been dominated by centers as much). Hakeem has only about 3 years as a true top 10 GOAT candidate; Bird has more so Bird's championship window is longer but not as intense. I don't see Bird winning titles with talent levels of excellent role players that weren't stars around him; being great and winning playoff serieses sure, but not the two titles Hakeem managed. I do see Hakeem winning 3 or more titles with talent around him of the level Bird had. So, despite being more impressed by Larry Legend with the eye test and liking him a lot more when they were playing, I will vote for Hakeem here . . . subject to change if more great posts convince me otherwise.

Vote Olajuwon

[90sAllDecade]

I found an outstanding post about Bird vs Julius Erving and had to post it here. Dr. J got a piece of Bird and out played him different times while Bird was in his prime in the playoffs. In comparsion Hakeem never got outplayed by a HOF center in his prime in the post season.

Larry Bird vs. Julius Erving - Complete Career Head-to-Head Stats

Spoiler:

Larry Bird vs. Julius Erving - Complete Career Head-to-Head Stats:

PTS/REB/AST/BLK/STL (FG/FGA, FT/FTA)

79-80 Season

11/10/1979

Erving: 37/10/8 (14/32, 9/12)
Bird: 22/7/3 (10/17, 1/2)

Sixers win 95-92. Erving hit a big shot in the last minute.

12/19/1979

Erving: 20/3/4 (9/15, 2/2)
Bird: 24/9/4 (10/18, 3/3)

Celtics win 112-89 in a blowout.

12/22/1979

Erving: 37/5/7 (17/25, 3/5)
Bird: 23/12/6 (10/17, 2/2)

Sixers win 126-113. Erving had 6 points in a crucial 4th quarter run.

2/6/1980

Erving: 36/10/5 (13/23, 10/14)
Bird: 32/11/4 (12/27, 8/8)

Celtics win 129-110. Bird had 22 points in the second half as the Celtics took control.

3/7/1980

Erving: 36/13/5 (16/28, 4/4)
Bird: 27/8/4 (11/21, 5/7)

Boston won 11-92. Erving had 26 points in the second half but to no avail. He also had a game-high 13 rebounds in the loss.

3/30/1980

Erving: DNP
Bird: 10/10/5 (4/15, 2/3)

Sixers won 116-110. Erving sat this one out and Bird played 32 minutes. Boston had already clinched the #1 seed. Not counting this one…

Cumulative Stats

Erving: 33.2 ppg, 8.2 rpg, 5.8 apg on 56.1 %FG/59.6 %TS
Bird: 25.6 ppg, 9.4 rpg, 4.2 apg on 53.0 %FG/58.4 %TS

Celtics beat the Sixers 3-2 in games where both guys played but Julius got the better of rookie Bird by a pretty much unanimous decision and had several huge games.

'80 Playoffs

Game 1

Erving: 29/7/3 (12/22, 5/6)
Bird: 27/9/5 (13/24, 1/1)

Sixers win 96-93.

Game 2

Erving: 24/5/4 (9/17, 6/6)
Bird: 31/12/2 (15/30, 1/1)

Celtics win 96-90. Bird was the man in this game although Archibald helped put the Sixers away late after Celtics blew a big lead.

Game 3

Erving: 28/11/7/5 (13/22, 2/3)
Bird: 22/21/4 (9/21, 1/2)

Sixers win 99-97. Julius had 22 points in the second half.

Game 4

Erving: 30/10/3 (9/22, 11/15)
Bird: 19/13/3 (6/15, 7/8)

Sixers win 102-90.

Game 5

Erving: 14/9/4 (4/10, 6/9)
Bird: 12/14/2 (5/19, 2/2)

Sixers win 105-94. Hollins had a game-high 24 points for Philly.

Cumulative Stats

Erving: 25.0 ppg, 8.4 rpg, 4.2 apg on 50.5 %FG/56.7 %TS
Bird: 22.2 ppg, 13.8 rpg, 3.6 apg on 44.0 %FG/48.2 %TS

Sixers upset the favored Celtics 4-1 and Erving outplayed Bird for the most part.

80-81 Season

11/1/1980

Erving: 45/9/4 (16/32, 13/17)
Bird: 36/21/4 (14/29, 7/8)

Sixers win 117-113 in overtime.

1/28/1981

Erving: 35/10/6 (15/26, 5/7)
Bird: 24/8/6 (11/22, 2/2)

Boston wins 104-101. Archibald had an 18/10 game and made some crucial plays.

2/4/1981

Erving: 33/9/1 (14/28, 5/6)
Bird: 11/12/4 (4/16, 3/3)

Sixers win 107-104.

3/1/1981

Erving: 19/7/5 (6/16, 7/8)
Bird: 24/15/5 (10/18, 4/7)

Boston wins 114-107.

3/22/1981

Erving: 24/4/5 (11/15, 2/2)
Bird: 19/7/6 (8/21, 3/4)

Sixers win 126-94 in a blowout.

3/29/1981

Erving: 19/9/4 (9/19, 1/1)
Bird: 24/10/7 (11/23, 2/2)

Celtics win 98-94 and finish the season 62-20 tied for best record with Philly but they get the tiebreaker because of division record.

Cumulative Stats

Erving: 29.2 ppg, 8.0 rpg, 4.2 apg on 52.2 %FG/56.8 %TS
Bird: 23.0 ppg, 12.2 rpg, 5.3 apg on 45.0 %FG/49.1 %TS

The team record is 3-3 and Erving got the better of Bird individually yet again.

'81 Playoffs

Game 1

Erving: 25/9/1 (8/20, 9/9)
Bird: 33/10/3 (14/29, 5/5)

Sixers win 105-104. Philly reserves outscored Boston’s second unit 44-16.

Game 2

Erving: 12/2/2 (5/14, 2/3)
Bird: 34/16/5 (14/21, 6/7)

Celtics win 118-99. Bird lit it up with his outside shooting.

Game 3

Erving: 22/7/7 (9/21, 4/4)
Bird: 22/13/4 (8/16, 6/7)

Sixers win 110-100. Erving did a good job containing Bird in this game.

Game 4

Erving: 20/7/5/5 (8/16, 4/6)
Bird: 18/17/6 (7/19, 4/5)

Sixers win 107-105 and take a 3-1 lead. Sixers had a 29-13 edge in made free throws and Erving again put the clamps on Bird for a second straight game.

Game 5

Erving: 21/2/5 (9/18, 3/4)
Bird: 32/11/5 (11/24, 10/10)

Celtics won 111-109 to stay alive. Sixers were up 6 with 1:51 left but Celtics wouldn’t let Erving get off a shot and Bird and Archibald made huge plays late and Sixers made mistakes.

Game 6

Erving: 16/6/4 (5/17, 6/7)
Bird: 25/16/4 (10/22, 5/6)

Celtics won another nail-biter 100-98 in Philly and forced a Game 7 in Boston. Parish had a 21/10 game after struggling in the series.

Game 7

Erving: 23/8/5 (11/21, 1/2)
Bird: 23/11/5/4/3 (8/17, 6/7)

Celtics win 91-90 in an intensely physical game even by the standards back then. Erving had 6 turnovers and 5 fouls in this one.

Cumulative Stats

Erving: 19.9 ppg, 5.9 rpg, 4.1 apg on 43.3 %FG/48.8 %TS
Bird: 26.7 ppg, 13.4 rpg, 4.6 apg on 48.6 %FG/55.4 %TS

Celtics came back from 3-1 down to win Game 7 and Bird was a huge reason why. Bird definitely got the better of the Doctor in this series and made clutch plays in games that went to the final seconds.

81-82 Season

12/4/1981

Erving: 18/5/3/?/3 (7/17, 4/4)
Bird: 24/10/2 (9/19, 5/7)

Celtics win 111-103. Sixers had 31 turnovers to 21 for Boston.

12/19/1981

Erving: 36/13/3/?/2 (15/25, 6/9)
Bird: 28/15/5 (12/24, 4/4)

Sixers win 123-118.

1/8/1982

Erving: 20/5/4/?/2 (9/18, 1/1)
Bird: 12/13/6 (6/22, 0/0)

Celtics win 96-90.

3/21/1982

Erving: 28/7/3/?/2 (12/25, 4/5)
Bird: 29/9/8 (12/14, 5/5)

Sixers win 123-111.

3/28/1982

Erving: 21/7/4/?/2 (9/18, 3/4)
Bird: 12/9/2 (5/16, 2/2)

Sixers win 116-98.

4/11/1982

Erving: 31/11/3/?/1 (9/19, 13/16)
Bird: 20/15/7 (7/22, 6/6)

Celtics win 110-109.

Cumulative Stats

Erving: 25.7 ppg, 8.0 rpg, 3.3 apg, 1.8 bpg on 50.0 %FG/55.3 %TS
Bird: 20.8 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 5.0 apg on 43.6 %FG/49.0 %TS

The teams went 3-3 and Erving may have gotten a slight edge statistically.

'82 Playoffs

Game 1

Erving: 12/6/1/?/2 (5/9, 2/2)
Bird: 24/15/10 (10/23, 4/4)

Celtics win in a huge blowout 121-81. Erving is scoreless in the second half.

Game 2

Erving: 20/5/8/?/2 (8/21, 4/4)
Bird: 18/14/4 (9/20, 0/1)

Sixers win 121-113. Boston had 23 turnovers.

Game 3

Erving: 19/7/3/?/3 (7/15, 4/6)
Bird: 15/13/11 (6/16, 3/7)

Sixers won 99-97. Bird missed a couple of shots in the final seconds. Tiny Archibald left the game 2 min in with a dislocated left shoulder and wouldn’t be back in the series.

Game 4

Erving: 17/9/3/?/3 (6/11, 5/11)
Bird: 17/9/5 (8/16, 0/0)

Sixers won in a blowout 119-94 to take a 3-1 series lead. Andrew Toney had 39 points.

Game 5

Erving: 12/5/2/?/2 (4/9, 4/7)
Bird: 20/20/8 (8/19, 4/4)

Celtics won in a huge blowout 114-85. Sixers shot 33% from the field and were outrebounded 64-49. Bird was huge on the boards.

Game 6

Erving: 24/11/4/?/3 (8/20, 8/9)
Bird: 14/17/4 (6/19, 2/2)

Celtics won 88-75. Sixers shot 35% from the field including 20% for a record-low 27 points in the second half. Toney was totally stymied scored 3 points on 1/11 shooting.

Game 7

Erving: 29/4/5/?/3 (10/21, 9/9)
Bird: 20/11/9 (7/18, 6/8)

Sixers win 120-106 in Boston to avoid a second straight disaster in the playoffs. Erving had a great game and took over the game in key stretches in the 3rd but a major hero for Philly was again Andrew Toney “the Boston straggler” who had 34/3/6 on 61% shooting. Boston had 24 turnovers that led to 29 points.

Cumulative Stats

Erving: 19.0 ppg, 6.7 rpg, 3.7 apg, 2.6 bpg on 45.3 %FG/52.3 %TS
Bird: 18.3 ppg, 14.1 rpg, 7.3 apg, 1.1 bpg on 41.2 %FG/44.9 %TS

Although Bird may have a slight cumulative edge Erving was better in Game 7. This was a tie individually and Toney’s spectacular play in key games really gave Philly this series.



82-83 Season

11/6/82

Erving: 28/7/4/3 (12/21, 4/7)
Bird: 21/19/7/0 (10/23, 0/0)

Sixers win 119-115 in double OT.

12/10/82

Erving: 22/5/2/2 (7/15, 8/10)
Bird: 33/14/2/0 (13/21, 7/8)

Celtics win 123-97.

12/21/82

Erving: 19/10/3/1 (7/16, 4/5)
Bird: 13/12/5/1 (4/11, 5/6)

Sixers win 122-106. Moses dominates with 33 points and 19 rebounds.

3/4/83

Erving: 23/4/3/0 (11/17, 1/2)
Bird: 32/11/9/0 (13/25, 6/7)

Celtics win 115-110.

3/16/83

Erving: DNP
Bird: 30/11/8 (15/25, 0/0)

Sixers win 105-100. Toney has 33 points, Moses 28 points and 15 rebounds.

4/17/83

Erving: 20/8/2/4 (8/14, 4/4)
Bird: 13/12/7/2 (6/19, 1/2)

Celtics win 114-101.

Cumulative Stats

Erving: 22.4 ppg, 6.8 rpg, 2.8 apg, 2.0 bpg on 54.2 %FG/58.7 %TS
Bird: 22.4 ppg, 13.6 rpg, 6.0 apg on 46.5 %FG/51.3 %TS


83-84 Season

11/19/83

Erving: 18/5/3/1 (7/25, 4/7)
Bird: 18/8/5/1 (7/18, 4/4)

Sixers win 92-91.

12/4/83

Erving: 20/4/6/2 (6/15, 8/12)
Bird: 22/11/13/2 (10/25, 2/3)

Sixers win 121-114 in OT.

1/13/84

Erving: 22/6/2/3 (7/16, 8/12)
Bird: 29/19/8/0 (13/25, 3/5)

Celtics win 105-104.

1/25/84

Erving: 20/5/6/1 (7/15, 6/12)
Bird: 15/6/7/2 (5/18, 5/5)

Celtics win 102-98. Moses misses game with injury.

2/12/84

Erving: 30/9/4/0/2 (13/19, 4/5)
Bird: 25/10/2/0/0 (7/22, 11/14)

Sixers win 109-91. Moses misses game with injury.

3/25/84

Erving: 29/6/6/2 (12/22, 4/6)
Bird: 33/17/6/1 (12/28, 9/12)

Sixers win 119-114 in double OT. Moses has 32 points and 27 rebounds.

Cumulative Stats

Erving: 23.2 ppg, 5.8 rpg, 4.5 apg, 1.5 bpg on 46.4 %FG/51.2 %TS
Bird: 23.7 ppg, 11.8 rpg, 6.8 apg, 1.0 bpg on 39.7 %FG/45.8 %TS


84-85 Season

11/9/84

Erving: 6/3/5/0 (3/13, 0/1)
Bird: 42/7/3/2 (17/23, 7/7)

Celtics win 130-119. The famous Bird-Erving brawk takes place after Bird taunts Erving by reciting their points.

12/12/84

Erving: 16/4/3/0 (7/18, 2/2)
Bird: 34/9/5/0 (16/28, 2/2)

Sixers win 110-107 in OT. Moses has 33 points and 13 boards.

1/20/85

Erving: 17/7/2/2 (8/12, 1/4)
Bird: 38/9/4/3 (15/26, 6/6)

Celtics win 113-97.

1/30/85

Erving: 15/2/6/1 (4/13, 7/8)
Bird: 16/7/8/1 (8/15, 0/0)

Sixers win 122-104. Moses has 38 points and 24 rebounds in a dominant effort.

3/29/85

Erving: DNP
Bird: 24/7/5/0 (10/15, 4/5)

Celtics win 112-108.

4/9/85

Erving: 18/4/2/3 (8/15, 2/2)
Bird: 18/7/9/1 (7/15, 4/5)

Sixers win 113-104.

Cumulative Stats

Erving: 14.4 ppg, 4.0 rpg, 3.6 apg, 1.2 bpg on 42.3 %FG/45.9 %TS
Bird: 29.6 ppg, 7.8 rpg, 5.8 apg, 1.4 bpg on 58.9 %FG/63.9 %TS


'85 Playoffs

Game 1

Erving: 12/6/2/1/1 (5/18, 2/2)
Bird: 23/9/7/1/4 (10/18, 3/3)

Celtics win in a blowout 108-93.

Game 2

Erving: 22/6/7/1/6 (8/13, 6/6)
Bird: 24/8/7/3/2 (8/23, 8/9)

Celtics win 106-98.

Game 3

Erving: 5/6/4/1/0 (1/10, 3/4)
Bird: 26/7/5/1/4 (11/19, 2/2)

Celtics win 105-94.

Game 4

Erving: 15/6/6/4/3 (4/21, 7/9)
Bird: 14/7/6/1/0 (4/15, 6/6) + 8 turnovers

Sixers win 115-104 to avoid getting swept.

Game 5

Erving: 16/2/3/1/0 (6/12, 4/4)
Bird: 17/5/5/1/3 (6/18, 5/7)

Celtics win 102-100.

Cumulative Stats

Erving: 14.0 ppg, 5.2 rpg, 4.4 apg, 1.6 bpg, 2.0 spg on 32.4 %FG/41.2 %TS
Bird: 20.8 ppg, 7.2 rpg, 6.0 apg, 1.4 bpg, 2.6 spg on 41.9 %FG/49.6 %TS



85-86 Season

11/22/85

Erving: 21/8/1/0/2 (9/20, 2/2)
Bird: 11/9/6/2/0 (5/16, 1/2)

Celtics win 110-103.

11/26/85

Erving: 17/3/5/0/2 (7/16, 2/5)
Bird: 16/9/1/0/2 (6/17, 4/4)

Celtics win 98-91.

12/21/85

Erving: 14/6/2/1/0 (5/14, 4/4)
Bird: 29/8/6/1/2 (14/30, 1/1)

Sixers win 108-102.

1/26/86

Erving: 13/3/4/0/1 (6/13, 1/1)
Bird: 28/14/6/0/4 (9/25, 7/7)

Celtics win 105-103. McHale misses the game.

3/16/86

Erving: 13/5/4/0/0 (4/12, 5/5)
Bird: 36/14/6/0/3 (16/25, 1/2)

Celtics win 118-101.

4/6/86

Erving: 23/5/4/0/4 (8/14, 5/7)
Bird: 18/10/10/0/1 (8/17, 0/2)

Sixers win 95-94.

Cumulative Stats

Erving: 16.8 ppg, 5.0 rpg, 3.3 apg, 0.2 bpg, 1.5 spg on 43.8 %FG/50.7 %TS
Bird: 23.0 ppg, 10.7 rpg, 5.8 apg, 0.5 bpg, 2.0 spg on 44.6 %FG/50.0 %TS



86-87 Season

11/25/86

Erving: 16/5/3/0/0 (7/14, 2/2)
Bird: 22/7/6/0/0 (10/23, 2/3)

Sixers win 102-100.

12/5/86

Erving: 18/3/5/1/2 (7/13, 3/6)
Bird: DNP

Celtics win 108-106 despite Bird sitting out with a strained Achilles.

12/19/86

Erving: 24/7/5/2/1 (7/12, 10/12)
Bird: 20/7/9/0/1 (9/16, 2/2)

Sixers win in a blowout 122-100.

1/25/87

Erving: 6/5/2/2/1 (6/13, 1/1)
Bird: 17/4/5/0/4 (6/14, 4/5)

Celtics win 111-96.

3/29/87

Erving: 28/3/4/1/3 (11/26, 5/5)
Bird: 17/13/12/0/1 (7/16, 2/2)

Celtics win 118-100. McHale missed the game.

4/5/87

Erving: 11/5/5/0/0 (5/10, 1/1)
Bird: 39/10/12/0/1 (16/32, 5/5)

Sixers win 106-104 in OT.

Cumulative Stats

Erving: 17.0 ppg, 5.0 rpg, 3.8 apg, 1.0 bpg, 1.0 spg on 48.0 %FG/50.5 %TS
Bird: 23.0 ppg, 8.2 rpg, 8.8 apg, 0.0 bpg, 1.4 spg on 47.5 %FG/53.0 %TS



Overall H2H record from 79-87

Regular season: 23-21 Celtics
Postseason: 12-12 tie (2-2 series tie)

Overall Career H2H Numbers

Regular Season

Erving: 22.8 ppg, 6.2 rpg, 3.9 apg on 49.7 %FG/75.5 %FT/54.2 %TS
Bird: 23.8 ppg, 10.8 rpg, 6.0 apg on 46.9 %FG/84.5 %FT/52.1 %TS

Playoffs

Erving: 19.5 ppg, 6.5 rpg, 4.1 apg on 43.5 %FG/79.6 %FT/50.2 %TS
Bird: 22.1 ppg, 12.4 rpg, 5.9 apg on 44.3 %FG/85.1 %FT/49.9 %TS

Looking at the numbers Erving often got the better of Bird while he was still in his prime. Even beyond that from 82-83 to 86-87 an aging Erving was able to play peak Bird surprisingly close.

[Doctor MJ]

ftr also, I'd say I might think similar to beast on longevity.

Mikan's career is short enough that longevity isn't something I'll outright ignore, but I can't look at him as having an extremely short career because of how different things were at the time. You might recall that Mikan in his later years was not a wealthy man, and of course that's because of how meager the salaries were at the time. Players who keep playing for 16, 18, 20 years do so in no small part because they went in to the profession with the presumption that they'd play until their bodies dropped, because that's what they were, and what made them special: They would play basketball and make their families rich with it and make themselves into heroes. It is the identity they worked for, and they don't really expect to ever have anything take that place.

And of course that doesn't even get into how poor the conditions were back then, and how primitive the medical treatment.

So yeah, I don't intend to vote for Mikan any time soon because I just don't think he was that talented of a basketball player by modern standards, but the longevity issue isn't a big deal to me.

[acrossthecourt]

Looking at the numbers Erving often got the better of Bird while he was still in his prime. Even beyond that from 82-83 to 86-87 an aging Erving was able to play peak Bird surprisingly close.

Bird averaged 50% more assists and rebounds each, they were close to even in points, and Dr. J only had a small advantage in TS%. Bird played against an aging Erving, but young Bird (not at his peak) played against the best of NBA Erving.

In comparsion Hakeem never got outplayed by a HOF center in his prime in the post season.

I also want to address this. It reminds me of when people argued Deron > Chris Paul.

It's not about beating the opposing guy at your position; it's about beating the team. And it's not like you spend the entire game guarding the other star center.

Hakeem may have gotten the best of Ewing and Robinson (though Shaq stood his ground very well), but he had problems with Seattle. Seattle beat him in 1993, arguably his best year ever, and again in 1997. If they didn't go down in the first round two years in a row, it's conceivable they beat Houston in the playoffs at least once more.

[Texas Chuck]

Looking at the numbers Erving often got the better of Bird while he was still in his prime. Even beyond that from 82-83 to 86-87 an aging Erving was able to play peak Bird surprisingly close.

Bird averaged 50% more assists and rebounds each, they were close to even in points, and Dr. J only had a small advantage in TS%. Bird played against an aging Erving, but young Bird (not at his peak) played against the best of NBA Erving.

Yeah that post didnt show any kind of edge to DR J to begin with and it was hurt by the editorializing as well that seemed slanted.

[90sAllDecade]

The Sonics matchups are overblown imo, when you look at the team support Hakeem had, especially at the guard postion and later coaching with Don Chaney. Later those Sonics became a stacked, dominant force with Payton, Kemp, Detlef and George Karl.

Here's Hakeem's individual numbers in those Sonic playoff matchups:

1987 (age 24):

30.5 pts 12.7 rebs 1.3 ast 0.5 stl 3.8 blks .602 FG%

The Rockets faced a below average Sonics team but had their roster decimated by losing their top three guards in an eight month span to drugs. They received no draft picks or trades and had to start backup guards, while everyone had to adapt to playing together against other team’s starters on the fly. Sampson also injured his knee which would cast a shadow on his entire career after that. It greatly affected his defense.

Hakeem put up monster numbers this series including this all-time great playoff performance:

ESPN's Top 25 NBA Playoff Performances Ever

http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2012/st ... ances-ever

1989 (age 26):

25.3 pts 13 rebs 3.0 ast 2.5 stl 2.8 blks .519 FG%

The Rockets had acquired Otis Thorpe but still had no answer at guard as Seattle’s Dale Ellis and Sedale Threatt torched the Rockets backcourt. The Rockets also had a terrible coach in Don Chaney making playoff adjustments. Don Chaney’s career coaching record:

Spoiler:

Hakeem still posted superstar numbers regardless of his team support.

1993 (age 30):

23.1 pts 13.1 rebs 4.7 ast 1.7 stl 4.3 blks .519 FG%

The Rockets faced an equal record 55 win Seattle team (but with a higher 59 wins expected) with a higher 6.66 SRS, All star Shawn Kemp, 24 year old Gary Payton, the #2 ranked defense and a HOF coach in George Karl. The series went seven games and the Sonics won in overtime with bad calls from the refs costing them the game. Hakeem was dominant numbers wise, but that doesn’t do his defense and motor justice. He was an end to end hurricane absolutely giving a heroic effort on both ends of the court.

Watch this video, especially his defense and effort on every play:
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pEGvKVNoJ8E[/youtube]

1996 (age 33):

18.3 pts 9.8 rebs 4.3 ast 1.3 stls 2.0 blks .475 FG%

The Rockets face a 64 win Sonics team (61 expected) with a higher 7.39 SRS, DPOY & All star Gary Payton, All star Kemp, Detlef Schrempf, the #2 Drtg and a HOF coach in George Karl.

This Sonics team went to the finals and lost to only Michael Jordan’s 72 win Bulls. Having already peaked and won two championships and nearing age 34 Hakeem’s prime was ending soon, but this was the one team he put up pedestrian numbers against. In comparison at age 33-34, Tim Duncan and Shaq put up similar numbers at this age in the playoffs, if you adjust for pace Kareem did as well.

1997 (age 34):

21.7 pts 12.3 rebs 2.9 ast 2.0 stl 1.8 blks .575 FG%

With the addition of 33 year old Barkley, the Rockets finally had enough talent, and coaching to beat a 57 win Sonics team (62 expected), with higher 6.91 SRS, triple all stars in Payton, Kemp, Detlef, #3 Ortg, #6 Drtg and HOF coach Karl.

Hakeem was 34, past his prime and played great in consideration of his age; beating a dominant Sonics team when he had enough talent around him. He put up outstanding numbers for his age and a terrific .575 FG% as the best player on the team.

[acrossthecourt]

It's more like Seattle had no problems dispatching the Rockets as others did (again, it's not about individual stats....)

Rockets had the second best record in the west, but when the Sonics went down (the one seed by a good margin) the west was open. And since the Sonics were immune to the Rockets unlike other giants, it's good to note them. Seattle outscored them in their four games in the regular season in 1994 by like three points. Split the series, but in 1995 Seattle won all four games and beat them by an average of 7 points. They were again beaten by 7 points a game in 1993, and Seattle won the series 3-1.

So yes, it's not crazy to say Seattle had a handle on Houston. Seattle was actually the lower seed in 1993 and still won.

it's too bad there was no rematch the next season.

[ceiling raiser]

[So this is extremely useful information to have. Do people realize how painstaking this process is for ElGee? Were we granting PhD's in basketball analysis, this type of stuff would be worth the degree right there.

Agree 100%, it's incredibly, incredibly valuable, and in no small part due to the fact that it's orthogonal to box score data (one of the strengths of RAPM, as yourself and others have suggested). I really dig the fact that ElGee reported confidence intervals with his results. Really helps get an idea of a guy's impact insofar as affecting scoring margin is concerned. I really love what he's doing, and hope a team doesn't snatch him up too soon (as well as acrossthecourt, and some of the other brilliant analysts we have here).

Just wondering Doc, when comparing players, when do you believe the present "era" started? Would you go with 01-02, with the elimination of illegal defense? Or maybe something more recent (Thibs/KG changing how defense is played, Nash/D'Antoni bringing spacing+pacing into the league along with some of what the Spurs/Mavs/Heat have been doing, etc.)?

I ask because with regards to Hakeem/Garnett (for the record, even though the voting results aren't terribly important to me, I can't imagine there are 8 better players better than both guys), is the shotblocking really an advantage? With some of what yourself/drza/ElGee (and others) have posted, I've really been forced to reconsider the value of the vertical game defensively in the present era.

Has there been a study comparing shotblocking defensive anchors in the present era to non-shotblocking defensive anchors? Perhaps not only has KG's not the exception, but KG-"like" defenders (I use "like" very loosely here based on how unique he is) are far more valuable in today's league than shotblockers.