RealGM 2025 Greatest Peaks Project #4 — 1994 Hakeem Olajuwon

[VanWest82]

Guess I'll give my take on the Shaq, Duncan, Hakeem debate seeing as everyone else is doing it. A reasonable position from my pov would be to list their careers as Duncan > Shaq > Hakeem and their peaks as Shaq > Hakeem > Duncan.

My main point of contention is while I do value Hakeem's two-way ceiling as a player, I don't think he was as consistent game to game as people give him credit for even at his peak. It always felt to me like there was a little bit of empty calories in his gaudy stats, which is ironic because it's often Jordan - his main 90s rival - on the receiving end of this critique. I'm so grateful to squared2020 for providing line up data context to the 80s/90s era, and yes, part of that is because it backs up most of my NBA takes from that era. Looking at the broad 85-96 rapm, Hakeem looks comparable to Ewing and DRob which is what I saw. Yes, he was better h2h and his ceiling as a player was something those guys could only Dream about. But over the course of 82 games? About even...and even when we focus just on the 93 and 96 data sets, we see Hakeem looking very solid and easily one of the most impactful players in the league, but he's not on MJ's level and certainly not head and shoulders above the Ewings, Robinsons, and Shaqs of the league. Someone will surely claim faulty sample or too sss or whatever, but it's an interesting trend in those numbers that holds relatively true over a decade of data, and again, it matches what I saw fwiw. If someone wants to argue 94+95 Hakeem >>> 91/93/96 Hakeem, then go ahead, but to me he was for the most part the same player, perhaps a little more refined and with a better supporting cast. Terrific ceiling raising player in a playoff series though (unless he was facing Sonics).

TD's consistency over 15+ years was amazing. He did benefit tremendously getting to play for the GOAT coach in a top organization. One could make a similar case for Jordan, I suppose, but MJ was the verbal leader of Bulls whereas Pop was the verbal leader of the Spurs. Sometimes I think we've swung too far in the other direction discounting leadership in these discussions. In any event, I just think Duncan was a notch below these guys when they were all at their best. Some people are listing 02 as Duncan's peak, for example, but Shaq looked like the more dominant force in 02 playoffs, and he was nowhere near his peak imo.

And just to hammer home the Hakeem/Shaq thing...I find it interesting that Shaq basically played Hakeem to a draw in 95 Finals. Houston won that series drawing fouls and converting at the FT line. Orlando just couldn't guard them. Dream was amazing that entire playoff run and so regardless of whatever peak one has for him, 95 Finals can't be that far off. But 00 Shaq is very clearly a different animal than 95 Shaq. I feel like this fact gets lost in these debates.

Anyways, my top five peaks are: 1. 91MJ; 2. 13LBJ; 3. 00Shaq; 4. 76KAJ; 5. 67Wilt; and then there's a gap. 94 Hakeem is a worthy consideration just because of the ceiling raising aspect in playoffs. I also like 04 KG who I think was more impactful throughout the entire season. I'd be tempted to take 2016 Steph here as well and handwave the playoffs due to injury, but that feels cheap. Seriously though, his RS might be top 5 even without being a plus defender. Unreal. I guess I'll go with Hakeem for now because I value playoffs so much but it doesn't feel good, especially after all the 2013 > 2016-7 LBJ arguments I've made. Edit: I completely forgot about Russell lol. I'm going to go 62 Bill Russell (>60>64) here as my #6 peak and do a different write up why at a later date.

[70sFan]

It is CLEAR of Drob's performance. Even 22-23 Embiid's playoffs is clear of 1994-95 Drob's Zach Edey-ish performance against Rockets and Nuggets.

I've never seen Zach Edey being guarded like peak Shaq in WCF, did I miss something?

You mean the same postseason in which the Sixers were leading 3-2 against the Celtics (with one win without him) and then collapsing in the last two games with Embiid averaging 20 ppg on 47 TS% with -32 ON rating?

And I get that his playoffs isn't top 15 of all-time, but with the combination of RS and PO, offense and defense, I see 22-23 Embiid as a top 15 peak of all time.

I can see the case for top 15 RS performances ever for 2023 Embiid, although I don't think I would have him that high. His postseason run wouldn't reach top 40 though and considering his playoff history I can't just give him a free pass for weak performance.

Also if you're injured in the playoffs and drop, I don't judge harshly. I get that he's always injured, but I see healthy Embiid rising since 23-24 PO was still a translate.

2023/24 postseason was one round against 2nd round exit team. I get that it's nice to finally see Embiid doing something noteworthy in the playoffs, but this is not the standard for top 15 peak.

[70sFan]

Some people are listing 02 as Duncan's peak, for example, but Shaq looked like the more dominant force in 02 playoffs, and he was nowhere near his peak imo.

Certainly not in the H2H matchup.

[VanWest82]

Some people are listing 02 as Duncan's peak, for example, but Shaq looked like the more dominant force in 02 playoffs, and he was nowhere near his peak imo.

Certainly not in the H2H matchup.

You mean when Kobe hijacked the offense?

I think their match ups were always a little tilted with Robinson being a key factor. Like, what were Duncan's stats in games DRob played vs. without? Didn't he shoot 9/30 in one of them and have 10 turnovers in another?

Anyway, the point was more it's a discussion imo, and also that 00 Shaq >> 02 Shaq. Same point I made with Hakeem.

[One_and_Done]

Some people are listing 02 as Duncan's peak, for example, but Shaq looked like the more dominant force in 02 playoffs, and he was nowhere near his peak imo.

Certainly not in the H2H matchup.

You mean when Kobe hijacked the offense?

I think their match ups were always a little tilted with Robinson being a key factor. Like, what were Duncan's stats in games DRob played vs. without? Didn't he shoot 9/30 in one of them and have 10 turnovers in another?

Anyway, the point was more it's a discussion imo, and also that 00 Shaq >> 02 Shaq. Same point I made with Hakeem.

Robinson was injured in 02, and was washed. In 03 he was even more washed, and the Spurs went 15-3 in games he missed. After he retired the team's D massively improved, despite the fact that his minutes were taken by 3 pretty poor to meh defensive players.

[VanWest82]

Certainly not in the H2H matchup.

You mean when Kobe hijacked the offense?

I think their match ups were always a little tilted with Robinson being a key factor. Like, what were Duncan's stats in games DRob played vs. without? Didn't he shoot 9/30 in one of them and have 10 turnovers in another?

Anyway, the point was more it's a discussion imo, and also that 00 Shaq >> 02 Shaq. Same point I made with Hakeem.

Robinson was injured in 02, and was washed. In 03 he was even more washed, and the Spurs went 15-3 in games he missed. After he retired the team's D massively improved, despite the fact that his minutes were taken by 3 pretty poor to meh defensive players.

This feels very revisionist history to me. Robinson, although older and not the two way player of the 90s, was still a heck of an interior defender who took on the majority of the difficult post assignments in that period, including Shaq. This allowed Duncan to stay fresh on the other end. He was at worst an important role player for those early 00s Spurs teams.

[AEnigma]

I wonder why Kobe specifically liked “hijacking” the Lakers’ offence against the Spurs, as opposed to against the Nets or 76ers where he was strangely much more deferential.

[70sFan]

You mean when Kobe hijacked the offense?

I mean when Kobe led the 4th quarter comebacks.

I think their match ups were always a little tilted with Robinson being a key factor. Like, what were Duncan's stats in games DRob played vs. without? Didn't he shoot 9/30 in one of them and have 10 turnovers in another?

It's true, that is why Shaq had by far the worst postseason series against SAS when Robinson was injured and Duncan was forced to guard him most of the time.
That's also why Shaq had his most productive games when Robinson came back and played relevant minutes (games 3 and 4).

Of course, Duncan posting 34/25 performance in game 5 was caused by 18 minutes from washed, injured Robinson.

Anyway, the point was more it's a discussion imo, and also that 00 Shaq >> 02 Shaq. Same point I made with Hakeem.

Having rewatching the series only a few years ago, I don't see any discussion here. Duncan definitely outplayed Shaq throughout the series and he played without his best teammate and with significantly less talented roster around him.

[One_and_Done]

You mean when Kobe hijacked the offense?

I think their match ups were always a little tilted with Robinson being a key factor. Like, what were Duncan's stats in games DRob played vs. without? Didn't he shoot 9/30 in one of them and have 10 turnovers in another?

Anyway, the point was more it's a discussion imo, and also that 00 Shaq >> 02 Shaq. Same point I made with Hakeem.

Robinson was injured in 02, and was washed. In 03 he was even more washed, and the Spurs went 15-3 in games he missed. After he retired the team's D massively improved, despite the fact that his minutes were taken by 3 pretty poor to meh defensive players.

This feels very revisionist history to me. Robinson, although older and not the two way player of the 90s, was still a heck of an interior defender who took on the majority of the difficult post assignments in that period, including Shaq. This allowed Duncan to stay fresh on the other end. He was at worst an important role player for those early 00s Spurs teams.

Except almost none of that is true, and I just noted some evidence to that effect. It was widely understood at the time too, but with the rise of advanced stats those have been used to create revisionist arguments that D.Rob was still awesome when he really was not.

[VanWest82]

I wonder why Kobe specifically liked “hijacking” the Lakers’ offence against the Spurs, as opposed to against the Nets or 76ers where he was strangely much more deferential.

Because Spurs had poor perimeter defenders pre-Bowen. That changed in 02.

[AEnigma]

I wonder why Kobe specifically liked “hijacking” the Lakers’ offence against the Spurs, as opposed to against the Nets or 76ers where he was strangely much more deferential.

Because Spurs had poor perimeter defenders pre-Bowen. That changed in 02.

No, that is not a response to what I am claiming. You are making this about some flaw in Kobe’s mentality when it was really about that Spurs matchup (regardless of Bowen). Kobe demonstrably did not “hijack” the offence against the 2002 Nets or against the 2001 76ers, so it was certainly not some guaranteed approach he took. To whatever extent you can claim he “hijacked” the offence against their western conference opponents (maybe the eastern conference just bored Kobe?), he did so to a significantly lesser degree than he did against the Spurs.

This is revisionism. Here are Shaq’s average scoring outputs by series in these two years:

25.7 against the Blazers
21.4 against the Spurs (Robinson out two games)
30.3 against the Kings
36.3 against the Nets
28.7 against the Timberwolves
25.3 against the Spurs

The two lowest outputs on that list are not because of some “hijacking” by Kobe.

[VanWest82]

You mean when Kobe hijacked the offense?

I mean when Kobe led the 4th quarter comebacks.

After first shooting them out of games.

I think their match ups were always a little tilted with Robinson being a key factor. Like, what were Duncan's stats in games DRob played vs. without? Didn't he shoot 9/30 in one of them and have 10 turnovers in another?

It's true, that is why Shaq had by far the worst postseason series against SAS when Robinson was injured and Duncan was forced to guard him most of the time.
That's also why Shaq had his most productive games when Robinson came back and played relevant minutes (games 3 and 4).

Of course, Duncan posting 34/25 performance in game 5 was caused by 18 minutes from washed, injured Robinson.

Wait, wasn’t Malik Rose Shaq’s primary defender? Did I just dream that part? Edit: also wasn’t Samaki Walker prominently involved guarding Duncan?

Anyway, the point was more it's a discussion imo, and also that 00 Shaq >> 02 Shaq. Same point I made with Hakeem.

Having rewatching the series only a few years ago, I don't see any discussion here. Duncan definitely outplayed Shaq throughout the series and he played without his best teammate and with significantly less talented roster around him.

[/quote]
Robinson goes from awful/injured/washed to Tim’s best teammate. Interesting.

Look, I might even give you this one, especially given I Believe Shaq was also playing banged up. Duncan did play well, particularly in the close out game, and Spurs were overmatched that year.

But even then it’s 00 Shaq >> 02 Duncan > 02 Shaq

[VanWest82]

I wonder why Kobe specifically liked “hijacking” the Lakers’ offence against the Spurs, as opposed to against the Nets or 76ers where he was strangely much more deferential.

Because Spurs had poor perimeter defenders pre-Bowen. That changed in 02.

No, that is not a response to what I am claiming. You are making this about some flaw in Kobe’s mentality when it was really about that Spurs matchup (regardless of Bowen). Kobe demonstrably did not “hijack” the offence against the 2002 Nets or against the 2001 76ers, so it was certainly not some guaranteed approach he took. To whatever extent you can claim he “hijacked” the offence against their western conference opponents (maybe the eastern conference just bored Kobe?), he did so to a significantly lesser degree than he did against the Spurs.

This is revisionism. Here are Shaq’s average scoring outputs by series in these two years:

25.7 against the Blazers
21.4 against the Spurs (Robinson out two games)
30.3 against the Kings
36.3 against the Nets
28.7 against the Timberwolves
25.3 against the Spurs

The two lowest outputs on that list are not because of some “hijacking” by Kobe.

You're reading too much into the term hijacking. As you said and I alluded to, Spurs were a match up that made sense for Kobe to take the reins. Lakers had lots of success in 01 with this strategy. But it didn't work as well in 02 (or 03 for that matter) because Spurs had better perimeter defenders. Shaq had better match ups in the other series you listed. As it turns out, he arguably had better match ups vs. 02 Spurs as well, but Kobe shot poorly early in a bunch of those games and put Lakers in some tough spots. That was the hijacking. Feel free to call it something else if you wish.

[70sFan]

Wait, wasn’t Malik Rose Shaq’s primary defender? Did I just dream that part?

I don't know if you did, I provided the numbers for the series. You are free to debunk them. You have never tried that, even though we had this discussion before.

Robinson goes from awful/injured/washed to Tim’s best teammate. Interesting.

1. I never called him "awful".
2. He was injured in that series.
3. He was the best teammate for the season, but was washed because of injury.

I know you wanted to sound funny, but it is a very weak rebuttal. You can be the best teammate of the star player while being injured in the key series, there is nothing that would logically prevent you from that.

Look, I might even give you this one, especially given I Believe Shaq was also playing banged up. Duncan did play well, particularly in the close out game, and Spurs were overmatched that year.

But even then it’s 00 Shaq >> 02 Duncan > 02 Shaq

So you firstly gave the hint that since Shaq was better than Duncan in 2002 and he's better in 2000 than in 2002, he must be better overall. Now you are willing to reject the first premise, but you insist on the conclusion. Interesting...

[VanWest82]

Wait, wasn’t Malik Rose Shaq’s primary defender? Did I just dream that part?

I don't know if you did, I provided the numbers for the series. You are free to debunk them. You have never tried that, even though we had this discussion before.

The direct match up numbers you provided itt seem to show Shaq getting the better of Duncan, contrary to your main point.

Look, I might even give you this one, especially given I Believe Shaq was also playing banged up. Duncan did play well, particularly in the close out game, and Spurs were overmatched that year.

But even then it’s 00 Shaq >> 02 Duncan > 02 Shaq

So you firstly gave the hint that since Shaq was better than Duncan in 2002 and he's better in 2000 than in 2002, he must be better overall. Now you are willing to reject the first premise, but you insist on the conclusion. Interesting...

I said Shaq "looked like the more dominant force in 02 playoffs." You decided to hyper-focus on their h2h which still doesn't scream Duncan won as much as he was his team's focal point and Shaq wasn't, and he did pretty well vs. Samaki Walker. Shaq was also the best player in the conference finals and finals fwiw. Seems like a reasonable starting point to hint that he "looked like" the best player in the playoffs. And yes, given the huge difference between 00 and 02 Shaq, I'd say that there's pretty reasonable grounds to say that 00 Shaq was better than 02 Duncan.

[Top10alltime]

It is CLEAR of Drob's performance. Even 22-23 Embiid's playoffs is clear of 1994-95 Drob's Zach Edey-ish performance against Rockets and Nuggets.

I've never seen Zach Edey being guarded like peak Shaq in WCF, did I miss something?

You mean the same postseason in which the Sixers were leading 3-2 against the Celtics (with one win without him) and then collapsing in the last two games with Embiid averaging 20 ppg on 47 TS% with -32 ON rating?

And I get that his playoffs isn't top 15 of all-time, but with the combination of RS and PO, offense and defense, I see 22-23 Embiid as a top 15 peak of all time.

I can see the case for top 15 RS performances ever for 2023 Embiid, although I don't think I would have him that high. His postseason run wouldn't reach top 40 though and considering his playoff history I can't just give him a free pass for weak performance.

Also if you're injured in the playoffs and drop, I don't judge harshly. I get that he's always injured, but I see healthy Embiid rising since 23-24 PO was still a translate.

2023/24 postseason was one round against 2nd round exit team. I get that it's nice to finally see Embiid doing something noteworthy in the playoffs, but this is not the standard for top 15 peak.

He played just like Zach Edey, and if we are going to use noisy samples, Embiid's on/off is absolutely ridiculous in 2023-24 playoff.

And I think overall, he is still top 15 peaks in 2023, but the injury makes me not hold it against him for the playoffs drop.

His ability as a basketball player and his lift clears Drob, and it's not his fault. Embiid just seems to be better.

[Djoker]

VOTING POST

1. 2000 Shaquille O'Neal
2. 1967 Wilt Chamberlain
3. 1994 Hakeem Olajuwon

Peak Shaq vs. peak Wilt is a tough choice. Shaq has stronger offensive impact signals than Wilt generally speaking and the gap in scoring is quite noticeable. Wilt could definitely score but his relatively low volume against both Russell and Thurmond in the playoffs is what hurts him here. Both guys are also poor free throw shooters but Wilt is still considerably worse (!). On the other hand, I give Wilt a pretty large edge on defense. And just about every aspect too: better shotblocker, much better lateral movement, better post defender, better instincts, better stamina. It's tough but I go with Shaq by a hair typically just because I see his weaknesses as less pronounced than Wilt's. Take away Wilt's easy baskets and put him on the foul line every time he has a deep catch and you might neutralize him. Peak Shaq was significantly more difficult to neutralize and I think Wilt's defensive edge almost overcomes that but not quite. Push comes to shove, I just think 2000 Shaq is a bigger problem to deal with for the opposing team than 1967 Wilt. And some of it is just Shaq's aggression. It may also be a stylistic difference but for peaks, I prefer players who are #1 options on offense. Wilt was actually #2 to Hal Greer and unfair or not he never led a team to a title as the #1 option. I was thinking of 1964 Wilt over 1967 Wilt but again, his play against Russell was underwhelming and the Warriors were actually a rather poor team that only made the Finals due to being in a weak conference especially with Lakers derailed by West's injury. That year 1964 was just not successful from a team perspective which I don't really fault Wilt for but I also can't give him credit for it.

Hakeem and Wilt are pretty much neck and neck. I struggle with the order of those two even more than with Shaq and Wilt. When it comes down to it, I think they are even in the playoffs (no problem even saying Hakeem a bit better) but Wilt is the much better regular season player and when it's that close, regular season can still put Wilt over the edge.

Nominate: Bill Russell - Though I believe Bill is the GOAT (he and MJ in their own GOAT tier) I don't think he had any singular season as his peak. 1964 just too poor offensively in the playoffs. 1962 team defense too poor. I feel like he's a guy who had like 10 straight all-time seasons but not a single GOAT-level season. For example I'd comfortably take 1967 (and 1964) Wilt over any version of Russell but Russ probably has 10 of their top 15 seasons.

[Special_Puppy]

I think I'm most comfortable with Duncan>Hakeem=Shaq in terms of peak.

[AEnigma]

Because Spurs had poor perimeter defenders pre-Bowen. That changed in 02.

No, that is not a response to what I am claiming. You are making this about some flaw in Kobe’s mentality when it was really about that Spurs matchup (regardless of Bowen). Kobe demonstrably did not “hijack” the offence against the 2002 Nets or against the 2001 76ers, so it was certainly not some guaranteed approach he took. To whatever extent you can claim he “hijacked” the offence against their western conference opponents (maybe the eastern conference just bored Kobe?), he did so to a significantly lesser degree than he did against the Spurs.

This is revisionism. Here are Shaq’s average scoring outputs by series in these two years:

25.7 against the Blazers
21.4 against the Spurs (Robinson out two games)
30.3 against the Kings
36.3 against the Nets
28.7 against the Timberwolves
25.3 against the Spurs

The two lowest outputs on that list are not because of some “hijacking” by Kobe.

You're reading too much into the term hijacking. As you said and I alluded to, Spurs were a match up that made sense for Kobe to take the reins. Lakers had lots of success in 01 with this strategy. But it didn't work as well in 02 (or 03 for that matter) because Spurs had better perimeter defenders. Shaq had better match ups in the other series you listed. As it turns out, he arguably had better match ups vs. 02 Spurs as well, but Kobe shot poorly early in a bunch of those games and put Lakers in some tough spots. That was the hijacking. Feel free to call it something else if you wish.

We can replace it with another term, but Kobe is not the reason Shaq struggled to score, and the implication that Kobe made the unilateral decision to freeze out Shaq every time he encountered the Spurs is untenable.

[Ol Roy]

Alright...I get to vote for the three members of my all-time frontcourt at the same time, pretty cool.

1. David Robinson: 1994 (1995>1996)

He led his team in assists, led the league in points, and was arguably the best defender in the league. Rodman swallowed up some of his rebounds, otherwise he probably would have led that too.

2. Kevin Garnett: 2004 (2003>2005)

MVP. Similarly dominant in all facets of the game. Led the league in points and rebounds. Over 5 APG.

Further explanations on these two from the last thread:

Spoiler:

In the last thread, I decided to introduce David Robinson to the discussion. I'm going to expand a little on my thinking at this point of the voting process.

First, while my occasional posts on this forum usually involve defending an older player from hyperbolic diminishment of their abilities, I actually do have a bit of a preference for post-merger players.

Second, I also have a preference for bigs who dominate both offensively and defensively. In my view, Jordan and James are the only wings who have been able to break out of that value ceiling dominated by the two-way big men, and that's largely due to their own outlier athletic traits.

In narrowing down the best two-way bigs of the post-merger NBA (minus Kareem, who was just selected), we're left with a high tier of greats (in sequential order of debut): Olajuwon, Robinson, Garnett, and Duncan. I believe the differences between them are marginal, so I take no umbrage with how they are ranked.

When I'm evaluating them, I look at how they performed, and I also look at their situation and whether they were optimized. It's subjective, but I attempt to balance their attributes with the context. To lay it on the table, I don't believe Robinson was ever properly utilized in his prime. I don't believe Olajuwon was properly utilized until after he was 30. Ditto Garnett. I believe Duncan, while not perfectly utilized, had by far the best situation of the quartet.

So, I tend to pair Robinson and Garnett together. I view them as the best combinations of athleticism and BBIQ. I don't view their playoff exits as personal failings, but the final exhaustion of the extent that they could make their poorly constructed teams overachieve. They did a tremendous amount of carrying. Both were good passers, though Garnett was better. Both were good shooters, though Garnett was better.

Two areas that put the Admiral a bit ahead for me. One, his rim pressure. Robinson was fouled on 58% of his shot attempts. He was no flopper. That's the same frequency as Shaq (I'll use him for comparison here), and much, much higher than KG, Tim, and Hakeem. From the data we have, roughly 94% of Shaq's recorded shots came within 10 feet of the rim, while 62% of Robinson's recorded shots came within 10 feet.

Let's assume 90% of Robinson's shooting fouls came within 10 feet. I think that's fair. That means 85% of his shot attempts within 10 feet resulted in fouls. Using the same formula, we'd find that Shaq was fouled on 61% of his shot attempts within 10 feet. And while Shaq was a 53% FT shooter, Robinson knocked them down 74% of the time.

I think this tells us that Robinson was a generational finisher, and teams were helpless if he got free. Which is why teams had no choice but to double team him. Because the Spurs didn't have a great facilitator, Robinson's finishing ability was underutilized. Because the Spurs didn't have another scoring threat or particularly good outside shooting, that made those doubles unpunishable. Despite that, look at what he did. This is some of that context I mentioned.

OK, the other differentiator between Robinson and Garnett is their style of defense. Both were mobile, and both protected the rim. But while Garnett was a better perimeter defender, Robinson was a better rim protector and that is more valuable. He also had tremendous hands. Only Hakeem is the better stocks compiler; he and David stand above the rest.

Others are going to go into more detail with KG, his skills and team deficiencies, and I look forward to it!

2. David Robinson: 1994 (1995>1996)

He led his team in assists, led the league in points, and was arguably the best defender in the league. Rodman swallowed up some of his rebounds, otherwise he probably would have led that too.

3. Kevin Garnett: 2004 (2003>2005)

MVP. Similarly dominant in all facets of the game. Led the league in points and rebounds. Over 5 APG.

Coming up next: Olajuwon, then Duncan.

Why did I rank those two lower? No slams here. Again, I'm trying to distinguish on the margins. I have Hakeem a little bit lower on the BBIQ scale and Tim a little lower on the ability scale.

3. Hakeem Olajuwon: 1993 (1994>1990)

Another two-way monster. 1993 is when his elite defense and elite offense were at their most balanced.

Hakeem was, perhaps other than Bill Russell, the best combination of horizontal and vertical defense we've seen. As Michael Jordan was quoted as saying, he really did move like a small forward. He was great at running the floor and crashing the boards. High revving motor. Excellent post footwork as everyone knows, as well as a good midrange shooter. There is a bit of Kobe Bryant in his shot selection. He did take some tougher shots than he needed to (well, sometimes he really did need to), and that tough shot making ability also served him well in the playoffs...and he did legitimately up his game in the postseason and had the ability to just take over games through his strength of will.

Still, I think he is just a notch lower than KG and the Admiral in terms of flowing with "team offense" (and frankly, team defense) and just a decent passer in my estimation. That may have something to do with his impact numbers not being in the same rarified air as some others. Still, those are minor demerits. Team construction was an issue until his thirties, unfortunately, so he has another thing in common with the other freaky-athletic big men I've listed.