RealGM Greatest Peaks Project (2022): #7 - 1993-94 Hakeem Olajuwon

[Dr Positivity]

Why would you take Curry and Giannis over Jokic 2020-2021 through 2021-2022 (including the playoffs)?

I think Jokic is level with Curry on offense at best (I'd still go Curry), and defensively I see him a bigger issue than Curry. Maybe in the regular season Jokic had bigger defensive impact than Curry, but I still don't love him in a playoff series against guards trying to take advantage of him on that end.

Giannis and Jokic would otherwise but close I just like that Giannis put together a sample size of 4 rounds of games in his playoff run while Jokic was 1 series and a sweep 2nd round last year, and 5 games this year.

What is the statistical evidence for curry>jokic offensively in 2022?

I don't have 2022 Curry ahead of Jokic necessarily. When I say "any old player" I'm not really counting seasons 5-7 years ago as I don't think it makes that big of a difference at least in this specific time period, there are some jumps where 5-7 years the game changes more like Celtics vs Lakers finals to Warriors first title.

[Djoker]

1. 1994 Hakeem Olajuwon (1988 Hakeem, 1993 Hakeem, 1995 Hakeem)

I will take Hakeem's two-way impact over any remaining player. I considered Bird and Russell but at the end I think Hakeem's iso scoring in the playoffs was too efficient and by the mid-90's he was a capable passer which he wasn't in earlier years. And defensively based on the eye test, metrics etc. he is the elite of the elite defensively with the giants of the game. I could be persuaded to put Hakeem above Wilt as well. 2003 Duncan is probably the most similar to 1994 Hakeem with both having pulling off insane carryjobs but I think Hakeem is just significantly better offensively than Duncan. Inferior passer but much better iso scorer. And defensively both are elite.

Why 1994? 1993 was a similar season but he didn't win the title. In 1995 he lost some defensive motor so even higher offensive numbers (against worse defenses) aren't enough for me to put it over 1994.

2. 1964 Bill Russell (1962 Russell, 1963 Russell, 1965 Russell, 1966 Russell)

The one that I considered most for this spot instead of Russell is Bird but Russell at least relative to his era was the more dominant player. Shutting down the paint in an era where there were no 3pt shots and generally poor spacing even from 2pt range meant that a monster rim protector was by far the biggest asset on the court. It's also the reason why Wilt who was a much less impactful defender than Russell ranks quite high on my greatest peaks list. Because while 1967 wasn't much of a volume scorer he did a lot of damage on defense.

By the way, as an athlete Russell was amazing. Listed at 6'9'', he was actually almost 6'10'' barefoot and was the 6th best high jumper in the world at one point IIRC. And ran the floor like a gazelle. That clip from WCA where he goes coast to coast is breathtaking. By almost any metric, testimonial, team impact assessment etc. he's the greatest defender who ever lived.

I don't think there is any major difference between these version of Russell but given that the 1964 Celtics were the most dominant defensive team of the entire dynasty means a lot and beating the best Royals and Warriors teams led by Oscar and Wilt in 5 games each is impressive. Despite Russell's weak postseason offensively, I'll give this season a nod but it doesn't really matter which season too much.

3. 1986 Larry Bird (1984 Bird, 1987 Bird)

[falcolombardi]

I gave my reasoning on a previous thread.

1. 1994 Hakeem Olajuwon

2. 1964 Bill Russell

3. 1986 Larry Bird

I think you need to paste it here for your vote to be counted

At least that is how it worked in the poy project

[trelos6]

#7. 2017 Steph Curry.

I’d rather 2016 if not for the injury. Curry is the ultimate gravity guy. His presence alone makes life easier for the rest of his teammates.

#8. 1986 Larry Bird.

The legend was a dominant scorer and passer. Defended well and his shooting makes him a threat in any era.

#9. 2004 Kevin Garnett

It was a tossup between KG, and other defensive bigs like Hakeem 94 and Russell 64. Ultimately, KG’s offence gets him over the line. I think his spacing was a little better than Hakeem. Very close though.

[Dr Positivity]

I would rate the most dominant for their leagues (in NBA and post shotclock) as Russell, Bird, and then some combination of Curry, Hakeem, Magic, Walton, Dirk, etc. However Russell is also oldest season followed by Bird. I do not like Giannis as much as players like Bird, Hakeem, Magic but he has the advantage of being one of the most modern.

1. Stephen Curry 2015 (b. 2017 b. 2019) - The best skillset for a PG ever in my opinion over Magic. Not the most perfect playoff performance in 2015, but still very good and deserved Finals MVP in higher level difficulty than having Durant.

2. Bill Russell 1965 (b. 1962 c. 1963) - Russell for some unique reasons seems to have had as big an impact in the 60s as any shotclock player in history, plus he performed well in the playoffs. I believe the competition in 1960s does not compare that badly to twenty years later candidates like Bird when the league is still in a low spacing time period.

3. Giannis Antetokounmpo 2022 (b. 2021 c. 2020) - I don't feel great about it and might change my vote next time, but ultimately I value the recency in the 35 years since Bird, Dirk is worth considering as a hedge as only 11 years ago but some things have still changed and Giannis has more defensive impact to make up for the offense deficit. I'm actually voting for 2022 since I like his regular season more and while his advanced stats are a bit lower, he was in a tough situation efficiency wise going against elite Celtics D without Middleton and still dropped 34/15/7 on them.

[falcolombardi]

My temptarive votes are 1-hakeem, 2-russel

Then 3rd i could go witg magic, bird, curry and the intriguing casws of garnett, kobe, walton and dr J

I think i will put mikan ahead of all the othee guys who were never the best player in the world or at that level of dominance

Seems like the fairer balance between rewarsing his dominance and handicapping him for era

[Dr Positivity]

My temptarive votes are 1-hakeem, 2-russel

Then 3rd i could go witg magic, bird, curry and the intriguing casws of garnett, kobe, walton and dr J

I think i will put mikan ahead of all the othee guys who were never the best player in the world or at that level of dominance

Seems like the fairer balance between rewarsing his dominance and handicapping him for era

My problem with Mikan is the time period where he was GOAT for his era wasn't just the shotclock, it was the worse part of the shotclock era (up to 51). From 52-54 he is more like Duncan/Hakeem impact for his league to me.

[f4p]

1. 1994 Hakeem Olajuwon

Otis Thorpe made a single all-star game in 1992. Sam Cassell made a single all-star game 10 years later in 2004. As far as I can tell, that is the entire all-star history of the Rockets roster from 2-15. Without looking it up, I can't imagine any other champion matches this. Probably not even if you threw out 40 year old 12th men who made 10 all stars but shouldn't count. If I could get all the data off basketball-reference, I would love to do a calculation weighting playoff minutes, all-star appearances and distance from the all-star appearances to see if any team even comes close. And they did it facing the 8th best combined opponents SRS for a playoff run, with even 1st round Portland being an abnormally good +2.6 for a 7th seed.

Hakeem was an SRS underdog already in the 2nd round against the defending conference champs Phoenix and put up 37/17 in game 7. Was equal in SRS to prime Malone/Stockton with Hornacek and made easy work of them. Was almost a -3 SRS underdog in the Finals and won while massacring another Top 50 player.

The '95 Playoff run and his demolition of David Robinson is what gets talked about a lot, and rightly so, but I think what Hakeem did to Ewing on both ends in the '94 Finals is one of the most underrated big stage performances ever. He averaged 27/9/4 with 4 bpg on 56% TS while holding Ewing to 19/12/2 on 39% TS. That's -16 from his RS TS%. That may even be more impressive than the '95 matchup with Robinson who at least managed to score against 'Keem at a decent rate.

This. Every game in those Finals was decided by single digits, including a 2 point game 6 where Hakeem held Ewing to 6/20 shooting (and blocked Starks potential game-winner). Even the slightest lack of domination by Hakeem and his team doesn't win those Finals, even down to shooting 86% from the line. 26.9 ppg on 50% shooting against an all-time defense and frontline is impressive.

**If you want to feel worse for Ewing, in the 2 regular season matchups, he shot 9/35 from the field while averaging 12/8 to Hakeem's 33/17. One of the most complete dominations of an ATG by another ATG over the course of a year.

2. 1964 Bill Russell

I don't know as much about individual Russell seasons as I would like to, but it seems a Bill Russell season should show up at some point. They dominated 4-1/4-1 in the playoffs and this is the all-time rDRtg season I believe, so it might as well be this season for the most dominant defender ever.

3. 1987 Magic

Bounced back from 1986 playoff failure and won 65 games. Huge scoring increase. 27.0 PER as a high assist point guard is pretty crazy. Kept up the stats in the playoffs and comfortably won the title while going 15-3.

[70sFan]

I will post my votes later, but I think it's the time to consider George Mikan. Which year would you pick for him? I've been thinking about 1950 as his best overall year, but I'm not very knowledgeable about pre shotclock era.

[ty 4191]

Why is your team winning a championship automatically a prerequisite for being a top 7 peak of all time?

[Dutchball97]

Why is your team winning a championship automatically a prerequisite for being a top 7 peak of all time?

I'm personally first looking at seasons as complete as possible, meaning MVP level regular seasons followed up by title runs. There's some wiggle room of course but the deeper a play-off run, the more convincing it tends to be for me. It's just my personal criteria though and as you can see by Kareem's 1977 season being voted in at #4, it's not the same for everyone.

Since cross era statistical comparisons are flawed in their own right (different averages per year, less stats available the further you go back, adjustments for pace etc) what are the arguments for someone like Jokic, who unceremoniously lost in the first round, compared to similar MVP level players that had much deeper and more succesful post-season showings?

I don't want to go on a tangent but it's a bit disappointing how we'll always get these veiled passive aggressive comments in pretty much every project the moment someone notices the majority is heading a different direction than themselves.

[ty 4191]

Why is your team winning a championship automatically a prerequisite for being a top 7 peak of all time?

I'm personally first looking at seasons as complete as possible, meaning MVP level regular seasons followed up by title runs. There's some wiggle room of course but the deeper a play-off run, the more convincing it tends to be for me. It's just my personal criteria though and as you can see by Kareem's 1977 season being voted in at #4, it's not the same for everyone.

Since cross era statistical comparisons are flawed in their own right (different averages per year, less stats available the further you go back, adjustments for pace etc) what are the arguments for someone like Jokic, who unceremoniously lost in the first round, compared to similar MVP level players that had much deeper and more succesful post-season showings?

I don't want to go on a tangent but it's a bit disappointing how we'll always get these veiled passive aggressive comments in pretty much every project the moment someone notices the majority is heading a different direction than themselves.

It's not passive-aggressive at all. I was honestly wondering.

Jokic was missing his two best teammates the entire year, including the playoffs, and ran into what was ostensibly a healthy Golden State world championship team. That's not his fault, but, I knew people here would hold it totally against him.

Can you name the players that went deep in the playoffs without their team's 2nd and 3rd best players for the entire season? I'd bet it's never happened.

[Dutchball97]

Why is your team winning a championship automatically a prerequisite for being a top 7 peak of all time?

I'm personally first looking at seasons as complete as possible, meaning MVP level regular seasons followed up by title runs. There's some wiggle room of course but the deeper a play-off run, the more convincing it tends to be for me. It's just my personal criteria though and as you can see by Kareem's 1977 season being voted in at #4, it's not the same for everyone.

Since cross era statistical comparisons are flawed in their own right (different averages per year, less stats available the further you go back, adjustments for pace etc) what are the arguments for someone like Jokic, who unceremoniously lost in the first round, compared to similar MVP level players that had much deeper and more succesful post-season showings?

I don't want to go on a tangent but it's a bit disappointing how we'll always get these veiled passive aggressive comments in pretty much every project the moment someone notices the majority is heading a different direction than themselves.

It's not passive-aggressive at all. I was honestly wondering.

Jokic was missing his two best teammates the entire year, including the playoffs, and ran into what was ostensibly a healthy Golden State world championship team. That's not his fault, but, I knew people here would hold it totally against him.

Can you name the players that went deep in the playoffs without their team's 2nd and 3rd best players for the entire season? I'd bet it's never happened.

There is always a need for context. It's not like Jokic only lost in the first round because he wasn't good enough. I doubt anyone could've beaten the Warriors in place of Jokic.

That said, it isn't certain that Jokic would've been able to lead a supporting cast like 94 Hakeem's or 03 Duncan's to a title either. I think it is pretty likely he could've and it's at least not unthinkable but the likes of Duncan and Hakeem have actually 100% without a doubt proven they can do this, whereas we're just speculating with Jokic for now.

I'm not disqualifying someone for not carrying a gutted team to a ring but I'm not going to give credit for something we don't know for sure he could do either.

[ty 4191]

That said, it isn't certain that Jokic would've been able to lead a supporting cast like 94 Hakeem's or 03 Duncan's to a title either.

Duncan and Hakeem's teams weren't missing their 2nd and 3rd best players for the entire season, and the playoffs. The "Rings" Bias here is paranormal sometimes.

The fact remains that the NBA was far easier to dominate in 1977 or 1991 than it was in 2022. The talent pool was tiny compared to what it is today.

And, apparently, nobody here cares about league depth and league strength, and will just continue ranking players blindly, on prima facie numbers, as if the NBA in 1977 or 1991 could hold a candle to today's league comprised (25%) of all the best players from around the entire world:





It's extremely aggravating. From such an erudite group of fans and analysts, too.

[Dutchball97]

That said, it isn't certain that Jokic would've been able to lead a supporting cast like 94 Hakeem's or 03 Duncan's to a title either.

Duncan and Hakeem's teams weren't missing their 2nd and 3rd best players for the entire season, and the playoffs. The "Rings" Bias here is paranormal sometimes.

The fact remains that the NBA was far easier to dominate in 1977 or 1991 than it was in 2022. The talent pool was tiny compared to what it is today.

And, apparently, nobody here cares about league depth and league strength, and will just continue ranking players blindly, on prima facie numbers, as if the NBA in 1977 or 1991 could hold a candle to today's league comprised (25%) of all the best players from around the entire world:





It's extremely aggravating. From such an erudite group of fans and analysts, too.

Cross era comparisons are nearly always relative to competition so this crusade of only wanting to respect current players seems completely out of place to me.

You're also still skidding around the main point. You cannot say for certain Jokic would've won a ring with a better supporting cast. Maybe he just needed one extra above average player to go all the way or maybe he needed an all-time team around him. Either way it is all speculation and based on nothing but wishful thinking. I'll just stick to what actually happened instead of what maybe, possibly could've happened if everything was different.

[70sFan]

Why is your team winning a championship automatically a prerequisite for being a top 7 peak of all time?

Kareem got voted 4th without a ring in chosen season. I will vote for 1993 Hakeem who didn't win a ring either. I fail to see your point...

[ty 4191]

Kareem got voted 4th without a ring in chosen season. I will vote for 1993 Hakeem who didn't win a ring either. I fail to see your point...

That was quite refreshing. Thank you!!

The overarching point is that it is very unlikely anyone who didn't get a ring who make the finals (aside from Kareem) will be in the top 10 or top 15.

That's Winning Bias at work.

Championships and Finals are predicated on ownership, management, coaches, and great teammates. Jokic, arguably, had one of the top 5 or top 10 seasons in NBA history this year, in (by far) the deepest and strongest NBA in history.

But, his season will probably not make the top 25 here. He hasn't even been mentioned yet by anyone but me, and won't be, for weeks or months.

Really, nobody cares.

[Colbinii]

Kareem got voted 4th without a ring in chosen season. I will vote for 1993 Hakeem who didn't win a ring either. I fail to see your point...

That was quite refreshing. Thank you!!

The overarching point is that it is very unlikely anyone who didn't get a ring who make the finals (aside from Kareem) will be in the top 10 or top 15.

That's Winning Bias at work.

Championships and Finals are predicated on ownership, management, coaches, and great teammates. Jokic, arguably, had one of the top 5 or top 10 seasons in NBA history this year, in (by far) the deepest and strongest NBA in history.

But, his season will probably not make the top 25 here. He hasn't even been mentioned yet by anyone but me, and won't be, for weeks or months.

Really, nobody cares.

I have KG in my top 6-7 peaks [2004 season].

I would bet 2022 Jokic makes the Top 25.

[ty 4191]

Cross era comparisons are nearly always relative to competition so this crusade of only wanting to respect current players seems completely out of place to me.

It's about respecting current players since globalization significantly more, as they should be. Not "only" respecting current players. That isn't the point.

I voted for Wilt 1967 as my GOAT peak season, for example.

We run into this at www.baseball-fever.com all the time. Nostalgia, and, the fact that players from long bygone eras had better numbers (a facet of shallowed, weaker leagues) is predominant when people rank players.

You're also still skidding around the main point. You cannot say for certain Jokic would've won a ring with a better supporting cast. Maybe he just needed one extra above average player to go all the way or maybe he needed an all-time team around him. Either way it is all speculation and based on nothing but wishful thinking. I'll just stick to what actually happened instead of what maybe, possibly could've happened if everything was different.

Of course we can't say for certain, but he set the all time records for BPM and PER this season, and led all players in PER in the playoffs. Put him on a fully healthy, stacked team, and it's very likely he makes the Finals, and fairly likely he wins a ring.

However, I get your point. It is hypothetical.

[Proxy]

That was quite refreshing. Thank you!!

The overarching point is that it is very unlikely anyone who didn't get a ring who make the finals (aside from Kareem) will be in the top 10 or top 15.

That's Winning Bias at work.

Championships and Finals are predicated on ownership, management, coaches, and great teammates. Jokic, arguably, had one of the top 5 or top 10 seasons in NBA history this year, in (by far) the deepest and strongest NBA in history.

But, his season will probably not make the top 25 here. He hasn't even been mentioned yet by anyone but me, and won't be, for weeks or months.

Really, nobody cares.

He might still make top 25 and I expect him to seeing that Giannis is getting votes right now but I responded to you and expressed my concerns with his defense in a playoff setting a few threads ago, and unless I missed it I did not get a convincing argument to value it much more and until then I probably won't place him on my ballot for a few threads either(I apologize if I missed it i've been having trouble balancing stuff lately). Top 10 regular season peak though sure I could maybe buy that yeah but it's been the third season in a row where he hasn't looked like that type of player in the playofds.