Higher on all time list: Jerry West or Hakeem Olajuwon?

[1993Playoffs]

Who’s do you rank higher all time?

[No-more-rings]

Hakeem. Should be a poll though.

[Dutchball97]

I've got Hakeem just sneaking into my top 10 with West in the 11-15 range. In terms of longevity there's really not a lot between them and even for peak I only have Hakeem slightly higher but what Hakeem was able to achieve in 94 with limited support puts him over the top for me.

[1993Playoffs]

I've got Hakeem just sneaking into my top 10 with West in the 11-15 range. In terms of longevity there's really not a lot between them and even for peak I only have Hakeem slightly higher but what Hakeem was able to achieve in 94 with limited support puts him over the top for me.

I know it’s a fruitless question but do you still think you would be saying this ifMJ didn’t retire ? Like imagine Russell retiring in his prime and west winning more titles.

[ceoofkobefans]

I don’t really think this is much of a question Hakeem clears Jerry West

[FuShengTHEGreat]

Both about equal as playoff performers. Could be as high as 2nd best to ever play their position.

[70sFan]

I have Hakeem ahead quite clearly. I disagree that there is not much between them in terms of longevity - West played 14 NBA seasons, but he played far less games during that time than Hakeem in his first 14 seasons:

1961-74 West: 932 games, 36571 minutes
1985-98 Hakeem: 1016 games, 38466 minutes

Hakeem played 84 more games, that's basically one more season. If we exclude their last seasons (because 1974 and 1998 are not relevant for either player), the gap stays the same (68 games). That's even without mentioning that West missed two full postseasons in 1967 and 1971. The gap is quite significant to me.

I'd say that West with better durability would be on the same tier as Hakeem to me. I became much higher on West recently and in terms of average prime level, I see him as top ~9 ever candidate.

[70sFan]

I don’t really think this is much of a question Hakeem clears Jerry West

Why do you think he clears West, but not Kobe?

[Dutchball97]

I have Hakeem ahead quite clearly. I disagree that there is not much between them in terms of longevity - West played 14 NBA seasons, but he played far less games during that time than Hakeem in his first 14 seasons:

1961-74 West: 932 games, 36571 minutes
1985-98 Hakeem: 1016 games, 38466 minutes

Hakeem played 84 more games, that's basically one more season. If we exclude their last seasons (because 1974 and 1998 are not relevant for either player), the gap stays the same (68 games). That's even without mentioning that West missed two full postseasons in 1967 and 1971. The gap is quite significant to me.

I'd say that West with better durability would be on the same tier as Hakeem to me. I became much higher on West recently and in terms of average prime level, I see him as top ~9 ever candidate.

I'm not the game counting type so one season isn't going to do much over a full career. For 15 vs 14 relevant seasons to be a difference maker to me the players would have to be just about identical in every other facet.

For meaningful longevity I usually first look at WS. While I understand that's going to be a trigger to some people here, I prefer it over using raw minutes and games played as that's arguably even more impacted by era (players used to retire earlier but also play more minutes so while it evens out in the end 10k minutes in 1960 isn't the same as in 2010). For regular season and post-season WS combined West is 21st with 189 WS and Hakeem 24th with 185 WS. So I'm not seeing a massive difference.

Although if we're looking at Ben Taylor's CORP then he has Hakeem 6th and West 18th so make of it what you want.

[Owly]

I have Hakeem ahead quite clearly. I disagree that there is not much between them in terms of longevity - West played 14 NBA seasons, but he played far less games during that time than Hakeem in his first 14 seasons:

1961-74 West: 932 games, 36571 minutes
1985-98 Hakeem: 1016 games, 38466 minutes

Hakeem played 84 more games, that's basically one more season. If we exclude their last seasons (because 1974 and 1998 are not relevant for either player), the gap stays the same (68 games). That's even without mentioning that West missed two full postseasons in 1967 and 1971. The gap is quite significant to me.

I'd say that West with better durability would be on the same tier as Hakeem to me. I became much higher on West recently and in terms of average prime level, I see him as top ~9 ever candidate.

I'm not the game counting type so one season isn't going to do much over a full career. For 15 vs 14 relevant seasons to be a difference maker to me the players would have to be just about identical in every other facet.

For meaningful longevity I usually first look at WS. While I understand that's going to be a trigger to some people here, I prefer it over using raw minutes and games played as that's arguably even more impacted by era (players used to retire earlier but also play more minutes so while it evens out in the end 10k minutes in 1960 isn't the same as in 2010). For regular season and post-season WS combined West is 21st with 189 WS and Hakeem 24th with 185 WS. So I'm not seeing a massive difference.

Although if we're looking at Ben Taylor's CORP then he has Hakeem 6th and West 18th so make of it what you want.

One factor in the difference will be Ben busting West for being essentially absent in the '67 playoffs (and from what I can tell this was the same injury keeping him out of the start of the next season so it wouldn't be like he could have made it back if LA went further. Then also a ligament injury in '71 when someone seemingly landed on him (at the time of injury people saying season was over, - not checking the detail right now). But my understanding is that that will likely nerf 2 prime West seasons, one can argue the rights and wrongs of this.

I will also say WS with it's focus on efficiency will (RS) be lower on Olajuwon than I think most are (though to be fair BPM gives him only 2 top 5 RS seasons - a third and a fourth place).

[AEnigma]

I've got Hakeem just sneaking into my top 10 with West in the 11-15 range. In terms of longevity there's really not a lot between them and even for peak I only have Hakeem slightly higher but what Hakeem was able to achieve in 94 with limited support puts him over the top for me.

I know it’s a fruitless question but do you still think you would be saying this ifMJ didn’t retire ? Like imagine Russell retiring in his prime and west winning more titles.

And what if Russell stuck around, or what if Oscar was healthy for the 1972 conference finals? What if league officiating did not screw the 1993 Rockets (a better team than 1994) out of a win and gave them homecourt against the Sonics? And if we are just blindly counting ringzzzz and hypothetical ringzzzz, why would we care about Jerry West and his one ring in this comparison anyway.

This must be how some people felt with the Giannis/Nash question… except if Giannis also had comfortably better longevity.

You need to have massive, massive scoring blindness and basically pretend defence does not exist for there to be any sort of case to take West here.

[Dutchball97]

I've got Hakeem just sneaking into my top 10 with West in the 11-15 range. In terms of longevity there's really not a lot between them and even for peak I only have Hakeem slightly higher but what Hakeem was able to achieve in 94 with limited support puts him over the top for me.

I know it’s a fruitless question but do you still think you would be saying this ifMJ didn’t retire ? Like imagine Russell retiring in his prime and west winning more titles.

I doubt it'd make too much of a difference. Assuming the Bulls are still the clear top team with MJ in 94, then Hakeem would've still at least carried his team to an impressive finals appearance.

Then how does the final go? If the Rockets lose but Hakeem outplays Jordan or at least matches him, then he might even look better. If MJ clearly outplays Hakeem that'd hurt Hakeem's case somewhat because the what if of a Jordan vs Hakeem play-off showdown is now firmly answered in favor of Jordan. If the Rockets somehow win that'd rocket Hakeem up the rankings.

Also MJ's level of play would in reality be a pretty big question mark here. It's possible MJ really needed his retirement to get his motivation back and could have seen his performance decline if he went on in 94. It's also possible MJ is still mad at the 93 MVP snub and goes nuclear to try and prove the media wrong again. Kinda hard to say.

Besides that I don't think a 2 or 3 year Russell hiatus would have given the Lakers that many titles. In 61 West was a rookie and the Lakers had a losing record. 65-68 he would've run into the 76ers in the finals and very likely still lost. In 69 Wilt is on the team so it'd be the opposite of a Hakeem 94 like carryjob and not hold nearly the same weight. 62 and 64 they would've lost to the Warriors. 63 is a year he'd probably win but even then he had Baylor still being the main guy at that point.

[tsherkin]

And what if Russell stuck around, or what if Oscar was healthy for the 1972 conference finals? What if league officiating did not screw the 1993 Rockets (a better team than 1994) out of a win and gave them homecourt against the Sonics? And if we are just blindly counting ringzzzz and hypothetical ringzzzz, why would we care about Jerry West and his one ring in this comparison anyway.

Or that super illegal Malone bearhu- I mean, screen, in 97?

You need to have massive, massive scoring blindness and basically pretend defence does not exist for there to be any sort of case to take West here.

I think that's perhaps overstating things. West's offense is noticeably superior to Olajuwon's. Like, that's not a small margin. Olajuwon was not a stunning scorer, he was a good one who upped his game in the playoffs. Well, West was comparably efficient 55% TS career to Olajuwon's 55.3%, his career average PPG is comparable to Olajuwon's peak seasons, was at +2 PPG in the playoffs at less than -1% TS AND he was an actual playmaker.

Defense is an equalizing element, without a doubt, but let's not pretend that the offensive side of things doesn't dramatically favor West here. It's a legitimate comparison.

[1993Playoffs]

I've got Hakeem just sneaking into my top 10 with West in the 11-15 range. In terms of longevity there's really not a lot between them and even for peak I only have Hakeem slightly higher but what Hakeem was able to achieve in 94 with limited support puts him over the top for me.

I know it’s a fruitless question but do you still think you would be saying this ifMJ didn’t retire ? Like imagine Russell retiring in his prime and west winning more titles.

And what if Russell stuck around, or what if Oscar was healthy for the 1972 conference finals? What if league officiating did not screw the 1993 Rockets (a better team than 1994) out of a win and gave them homecourt against the Sonics? And if we are just blindly counting ringzzzz and hypothetical ringzzzz, why would we care about Jerry West and his one ring in this comparison anyway.

This must be how some people felt with the Giannis/Nash question… except if Giannis also had comfortably better longevity.

You need to have massive, massive scoring blindness and basically pretend defence does not exist for there to be any sort of case to take West here.

I’d disagree. From watching some film. I’d say west was a lot better offensively, actually pretty clearly until Hakeem cleaned up his passing in early 90s. You’re right about defense though. Though west was obviously great on that end as well.

[70sFan]

I also disagree with AEnigma. I have Hakeem clearly ahead, but it's not that hard to create a case for West. He has basically the same case Jordan has, except that he didn't win rings, was less durable and was overall a bit worse player.

[AEnigma]

You need to have massive, massive scoring blindness and basically pretend defence does not exist for there to be any sort of case to take West here.

I think that's perhaps overstating things. West's offense is noticeably superior to Olajuwon's. Like, that's not a small margin. Olajuwon was not a stunning scorer, he was a good one who upped his game in the playoffs. Well, West was comparably efficient 55% TS career to Olajuwon's 55.3%, his career average PPG is comparable to Olajuwon's peak seasons, was at +2 PPG in the playoffs at less than -1% TS AND he was an actual playmaker.

Defense is an equalizing element, without a doubt, but let's not pretend that the offensive side of things doesn't dramatically favor West here. It's a legitimate comparison.

The offence favours West by a distance. But we are talking a top three defender ever versus a good defensive guard. If we are taking West at that point, may as well take him over Bill Russell too.

[AEnigma]

I also disagree with AEnigma. I have Hakeem clearly ahead, but it's not that hard to create a case for West. He has basically the same case Jordan has, except that he didn't win rings, was less durable and was overall a bit worse player.

So not that similar a case.

[70sFan]

I've got Hakeem just sneaking into my top 10 with West in the 11-15 range. In terms of longevity there's really not a lot between them and even for peak I only have Hakeem slightly higher but what Hakeem was able to achieve in 94 with limited support puts him over the top for me.

I know it’s a fruitless question but do you still think you would be saying this ifMJ didn’t retire ? Like imagine Russell retiring in his prime and west winning more titles.

I doubt it'd make too much of a difference. Assuming the Bulls are still the clear top team with MJ in 94, then Hakeem would've still at least carried his team to an impressive finals appearance.

Then how does the final go? If the Rockets lose but Hakeem outplays Jordan or at least matches him, then he might even look better. If MJ clearly outplays Hakeem that'd hurt Hakeem's case somewhat because the what if of a Jordan vs Hakeem play-off showdown is now firmly answered in favor of Jordan. If the Rockets somehow win that'd rocket Hakeem up the rankings.

Also MJ's level of play would in reality be a pretty big question mark here. It's possible MJ really needed his retirement to get his motivation back and could have seen his performance decline if he went on in 94. It's also possible MJ is still mad at the 93 MVP snub and goes nuclear to try and prove the media wrong again. Kinda hard to say.

Besides that I don't think a 2 or 3 year Russell hiatus would have given the Lakers that many titles. In 61 West was a rookie and the Lakers had a losing record. 65-68 he would've run into the 76ers in the finals and very likely still lost. In 69 Wilt is on the team so it'd be the opposite of a Hakeem 94 like carryjob and not hold nearly the same weight. 62 and 64 they would've lost to the Warriors. 63 is a year he'd probably win but even then he had Baylor still being the main guy at that point.

West best opportunities for the title without Russell are 1962, 1963 and 1966, though 1968 would be also interesting. I think Lakers would have won the title in 1963 quite easily and I'd have them as favorites in 1962 as well. 1966 would be tough, I favor Sixers based on RS matchups and 1968 is only a fair chance assuming Wilt playing injured like he did in real life, otherwise Sixers would have been clear favorites.

[70sFan]

I also disagree with AEnigma. I have Hakeem clearly ahead, but it's not that hard to create a case for West. He has basically the same case Jordan has, except that he didn't win rings, was less durable and was overall a bit worse player.

So not that similar a case.

I know you don't value rings at all, so you basically say that West was so much worse than Jordan that he can't be compared to Hakeem, but you also have Jordan higher than Hakeem (as far as I know). I don't agree with that, the gap between West and Jordan isn't that huge.

[Owly]

I've got Hakeem just sneaking into my top 10 with West in the 11-15 range. In terms of longevity there's really not a lot between them and even for peak I only have Hakeem slightly higher but what Hakeem was able to achieve in 94 with limited support puts him over the top for me.

I know it’s a fruitless question but do you still think you would be saying this ifMJ didn’t retire ? Like imagine Russell retiring in his prime and west winning more titles.

I doubt it'd make too much of a difference. Assuming the Bulls are still the clear top team with MJ in 94, then Hakeem would've still at least carried his team to an impressive finals appearance.

Then how does the final go? If the Rockets lose but Hakeem outplays Jordan or at least matches him, then he might even look better. If MJ clearly outplays Hakeem that'd hurt Hakeem's case somewhat because the what if of a Jordan vs Hakeem play-off showdown is now firmly answered in favor of Jordan. If the Rockets somehow win that'd rocket Hakeem up the rankings.

Also MJ's level of play would in reality be a pretty big question mark here. It's possible MJ really needed his retirement to get his motivation back and could have seen his performance decline if he went on in 94. It's also possible MJ is still mad at the 93 MVP snub and goes nuclear to try and prove the media wrong again. Kinda hard to say.

Besides that I don't think a 2 or 3 year Russell hiatus would have given the Lakers that many titles. In 61 West was a rookie and the Lakers had a losing record. 65-68 he would've run into the 76ers in the finals and very likely still lost. In 69 Wilt is on the team so it'd be the opposite of a Hakeem 94 like carryjob and not hold nearly the same weight. 62 and 64 they would've lost to the Warriors. 63 is a year he'd probably win but even then he had Baylor still being the main guy at that point.

Whilst I am inclined to think without the pause on the specific physical and mental toll means we can't necessarily just project MJ to keep on as he did IRL with the gaps ...

I think the '94 team might project as his best cast otoh,
it's got Grant and Kukoc
it's got at or near apex Grant and Pippen (who had down years in '93)
They replace King with Longley in season
Scott Williams is still around as another solid production energy big (and though missing some time, available for playoffs)
Kerr has arrived (and with BJ that means two elite sharpshooters without one being as limited as old Hodges [and while Paxson had other strengths he wasn't this tier of shooter]).

I can see a fair bit of upside with a proper first option (one with low turnovers and ability to get to the line, problems Chicago faced) and not starting 2 decidedly lacking in shooting or scoring punch.

And it would only have been MJ's Reference age 30 season (though he has had long sometimes physical postseasons).

Of course that doesn't make a title anything like a given, but I do like those pieces.