Was Hakeem Olajuwon's post-up game a little overrated?

[tsherkin]

Guess what else the selective stats say?

Dwight Howard is also better than Hakeem as a post player, the stats back it up and it isn't close. And a whole other number of bigs as well. I wonder why OP didn't include them. What's the agenda here?

That's not really true, though.

What they say is that Dwight was a more efficient overall scorer on lower volume, floated by transition, putbacks, cuts and PnR action... Dwight was a turnover factory and a poor passer who actually struggled in half-court post isolation. That was... his major weakness as a scorer, unless he got a mismatch. Dude was like a 0.8, 0.82 PPP post scorer, which isn't good at all.

You pretty much couldn't be more wrong here.

[Optms]

Guess what else the selective stats say?

Dwight Howard is also better than Hakeem as a post player, the stats back it up and it isn't close. And a whole other number of bigs as well. I wonder why OP didn't include them. What's the agenda here?

That's not really true, though.

What they say is that Dwight was a more efficient overall scorer on lower volume, floated by transition, putbacks, cuts and PnR action... Dwight was a turnover factory and a poor passer who actually struggled in half-court post isolation. That was... his major weakness as a scorer, unless he got a mismatch. Dude was like a 0.8, 0.82 PPP post scorer, which isn't good at all.

You pretty much couldn't be more wrong here.

I'm not saying it though. Just that Based on the selective stats OP used, Dwight is better.

It is clear as day to anyone who bothered watching Hakeem that this entire premise is a joke. Its borderline Onion material.

[dhsilv2]

Yes, with most things Hakeem. He was overrated offensively.

But the wording is a bit challenging. Hakeem had in terms of skills about as complete a post game as you can "dream" of. But he himself lacked elite decision making. Both in shot selection and of course his passing. He was known as a black hole and was not a willing passer most of his career. So obviously this lead to bad shots and just down right difficult ones.

With modern or frankly just adult lenses on, we can clearly see his post game wasn't as strong as it was visually amazing to watch. So if your version of overrated is that it wasn't as efficient and frankly conducive to winning/high output offense. Yes it's overrated. If you look at it from your ability and number of skills you have...well it's about as good as it gets.

Now that said, he's nowhere near as overrated as wilt in terms of his offense. Hakeem's an elite offensive player, just not a top 20 offensive guy or even top 30 likely. Still among the best.

[ballzboyee]

I think you have to chalk some of Hakeem's slightly lower efficiency numbers to the fact that he was truly a dominant and consistently active two-way player and defensive stopper. He played all out on both ends. In the playoffs when it mattered, he still put up great offensive numbers. His head-to-head seven game series against Barkley in the playoffs likely was the de facto championship series both years and he went 29/13/5 on 58 TS% in 1994 and 30/9/4 on 52 TS%. In the Finals against Shaq he put up 33/12/6 on 51 TS%. Against, Ewing he put up similar numbers. So, basically, in those championship deciders he was right around a 30ppg scorer on average, which is incredible. Defensive energy impacts offensive production, so him being a guy carrying a defense you might get some slightly lower efficiency but it was made up for on the other end.

[tsherkin]

I'm not saying it though. Just that Based on the selective stats OP used, Dwight is better.

Yeah, without context, TS% and raw FG% are only so valuable. It's not like DeAndre Jordan was a better post scorer than Olajuwon.

It is clear as day to anyone who bothered watching Hakeem that this entire premise is a joke. Its borderline Onion material.

I mean, no, that's wrong. There's a lot to the idea that Olajuwon wasn't as good a post scorer as any of the guys mentioned in the OP. It's a valid conversation.

[MarcusBrody]

His offense was a bit overrated by aesthetic bias. He didn’t have a super reliable way to finish at the rim, often settling for jumpers and hooks, his reading of the game offensively was just a tad slow at times, and while he could pass, it wasn’t a big part of his game until his later career.

However I think he didn’t get used as a roller anywhere near enough either, and I also think he deserves some grace for his overall hardship in situation.

He (like KG, who shares similar issues) developed and played many years of his prime in such a dysfunctional environment where he had to do everything defensively and then paper over the cracks offensively too. So I’m willing to give him grace compared to a lot of the other guys.

I've shared similar thoughts before. Hakeem was a very good offensive player in that he consistently provided high volume scoring on slightly above average efficiency. But he is behind almost every all time great center in almost every individual season normalized points added measure and in offensive team success measures. You can blame his teammates for the latter, but a lot of his peers had bad teams at times and almost all consistently led their teams to more offensive success.

[dhsilv2]

Guess what else the selective stats say?

Dwight Howard is also better than Hakeem as a post player, the stats back it up and it isn't close. And a whole other number of bigs as well. I wonder why OP didn't include them. What's the agenda here?

That's not really true, though.

What they say is that Dwight was a more efficient overall scorer on lower volume, floated by transition, putbacks, cuts and PnR action... Dwight was a turnover factory and a poor passer who actually struggled in half-court post isolation. That was... his major weakness as a scorer, unless he got a mismatch. Dude was like a 0.8, 0.82 PPP post scorer, which isn't good at all.

You pretty much couldn't be more wrong here.

I'm not saying it though. Just that Based on the selective stats OP used, Dwight is better.

It is clear as day to anyone who bothered watching Hakeem that this entire premise is a joke. Its borderline Onion material.

Kinda miss leading given Howard peaked at 13 field goal attempts a game to Hakeem at over 21. Volume still matters.

[tsherkin]

That's not really true, though.

What they say is that Dwight was a more efficient overall scorer on lower volume, floated by transition, putbacks, cuts and PnR action... Dwight was a turnover factory and a poor passer who actually struggled in half-court post isolation. That was... his major weakness as a scorer, unless he got a mismatch. Dude was like a 0.8, 0.82 PPP post scorer, which isn't good at all.

You pretty much couldn't be more wrong here.

I'm not saying it though. Just that Based on the selective stats OP used, Dwight is better.

It is clear as day to anyone who bothered watching Hakeem that this entire premise is a joke. Its borderline Onion material.

Kinda miss leading given Howard peaked at 13 field goal attempts a game to Hakeem at over 21. Volume still matters.

Indeed. Though do consider the difference in FTA / TS attempts. It's not THAT far off. But the stylistic approach was considerably different, for sure.

[dhsilv2]

I think you have to chalk some of Hakeem's slightly lower efficiency numbers to the fact that he was truly a dominant and consistently active two-way player and defensive stopper. He played all out on both ends. In the playoffs when it mattered, he still put up great offensive numbers. His head-to-head seven game series against Barkley in the playoffs likely was the de facto championship series both years and he went 29/13/5 on 58 TS% in 1994 and 30/9/4 on 52 TS%. In the Finals against Shaq he put up 33/12/6 on 51 TS%. Against, Ewing he put up similar numbers. So, basically, in those championship deciders he was right around a 30ppg scorer on average, which is incredible. Defensive energy impacts offensive production, so him being a guy carrying a defense you might get some slightly lower efficiency but it was made up for on the other end.

You're also bringing up Hakeem's absolute apex. OP's pointing to perhaps over the course of his career he was overrated. While you're drawing us back to Hakeem at his absolute best which I think is unquestionably one of the better all time peaks. The question might lead us to ask if Hakeem among the say top 25 all time greats. Did he have perhaps the greatest peak relative to his average? That would be a fun explorations (obviously we ignore like Kobe and KG's first 2 years and we always ignore those last years when guys are over or pushing 40 as that's noise).

[dhsilv2]

I'm not saying it though. Just that Based on the selective stats OP used, Dwight is better.

It is clear as day to anyone who bothered watching Hakeem that this entire premise is a joke. Its borderline Onion material.

Kinda miss leading given Howard peaked at 13 field goal attempts a game to Hakeem at over 21. Volume still matters.

Indeed. Though do consider the difference in FTA / TS attempts. It's not THAT far off. But the stylistic approach was considerably different, for sure.

Sure Howard got about 4 more free throw attempts at his peak so that would be 15 vs 21 just to avoid me doing more math. Still it illustrates that Hakeem was taking a far bigger role in terms of volume. And yes pace and all. I think we still come to a pretty clear distinction that Howard's volume would indicate he's perhaps not the volume scorer of the comps the OP used.

[tsherkin]

Did he have perhaps the greatest peak relative to his average? That would be a fun explorations (obviously we ignore like Kobe and KG's first 2 years and we always ignore those last years when guys are over or pushing 40 as that's noise).

Did he? He averaged 23.5 ppg on 52.6% FG and 56.0% TS in his second season. And he averaged 24+ ppg twice (including 24.8) prior to hitting his peak... which was 26.1, 27.3, 27.8 and 26.9 ppg.

That separation isn't anything special compared to the other guys, even if we constrain ourselves to post players after 79.

[Kiss of Death]

Ask David Robinson.

[FrodoBaggins]

I used 2PT% and TS% as a proxy for post-up efficiency because the majority of the guys listed played prior to play-type stats (2004-05). And Synergy play-type stats don't fully encompass the offensive value of a player's post-up game, anyway. Dwight's one of the best examples of that; Shaq, too. But I didn't include Howard in the OP because I don't consider him one of the all-time greatest post players. I thought that much was obvious.

[dhsilv2]

Did he have perhaps the greatest peak relative to his average? That would be a fun explorations (obviously we ignore like Kobe and KG's first 2 years and we always ignore those last years when guys are over or pushing 40 as that's noise).

Did he? He averaged 23.5 ppg on 52.6% FG and 56.0% TS in his second season. And he averaged 24+ ppg twice (including 24.8) prior to hitting his peak... which was 26.1, 27.3, 27.8 and 26.9 ppg.

That separation isn't anything special compared to the other guys, even if we constrain ourselves to post players after 79.

With 2.6 assists per 100 in his second year vs a peak of 4.7 per 100 to address pace differences and he did that while increasing his volume to a league leading 27.5 shots per 100 vs 22.5 in 85.

And then of course his playoffs were better in that 3 year run as well.

[The Master]

In his last prime season (95/96) - Hakeem was shooting ~40% of his shots from <10-23ft (and he was low-40% shooter in the regular season and below 40% in the playoffs that year) - I guess that's the explanation of his lower efficiency if you wanna compare him to Shaq, Kareem or McHale.

That being said, there are arguments to be made about Hakeem being overall overrated (offensively):

1) 2nd-championship year for Houston wouldn't be possible if not for the shorter 3pt line (Houston was playing inside-outside basketball with the highest number of 3s in the whole league) - it would be hard to find one rule change in the history of the NBA that instantly helped one championship team as much as shorter line helped Rockets in 94/95 season. The overall volume of 3 pointers increased vastly that year and obviously Rockets with ~the best shooting in the league heavily benefited.

2) his passing improved only after Tomjanovich arrived in Houston, and he was in his late 20s already - you can argue that he finally played for a decent coach, but it still puts in question how much value his offensive output had prior to ~1992.

[tsherkin]

Sure Howard got about 4 more free throw attempts at his peak so that would be 15 vs 21 just to avoid me doing more math. Still it illustrates that Hakeem was taking a far bigger role in terms of volume. And yes pace and all. I think we still come to a pretty clear distinction that Howard's volume would indicate he's perhaps not the volume scorer of the comps the OP used.

He certainly shot a lot more, the willingness to bomb shots from 12-17 feet helping to open that door. His offensive rebounding backslid as he started to do that more, of course.

But yeah, 4 or 5 extra FTs does change the tone of things enough that it isn't a HUGE deal. Olajuwon averaged something like 17.5 to 18 FGA/g prior to his peak, so that gap isn't nearly as large as it might initially seem, particularly since Dwight (at least when he was listening to SVG) was impacting offense in other ways. He was heavily involved in PnR, and even when he didn't get a shot, that was a relevant thing. Olajuwon ever ran that, but it wasn't the first thing they went to it in volume in Houston.

[tsherkin]

Did he have perhaps the greatest peak relative to his average? That would be a fun explorations (obviously we ignore like Kobe and KG's first 2 years and we always ignore those last years when guys are over or pushing 40 as that's noise).

Did he? He averaged 23.5 ppg on 52.6% FG and 56.0% TS in his second season. And he averaged 24+ ppg twice (including 24.8) prior to hitting his peak... which was 26.1, 27.3, 27.8 and 26.9 ppg.

That separation isn't anything special compared to the other guys, even if we constrain ourselves to post players after 79.

With 2.6 assists per 100 in his second year vs a peak of 4.7 per 100 to address pace differences and he did that while increasing his volume to a league leading 27.5 shots per 100 vs 22.5 in 85.

And then of course his playoffs were better in that 3 year run as well.

I'm just pointing out that his scoring volume didn't increase at his peak nearly as much as many like to suggest. It's not that atypical for that level of player. And then you have to start factoring in roster quality differences, coaching style, etc.

[og15]

Guess what else the selective stats say?

Dwight Howard is also better than Hakeem as a post player, the stats back it up and it isn't close. And a whole other number of bigs as well. I wonder why OP didn't include them. What's the agenda here?

To be fair, I did assume that the OP was only including high volume big men due to the guys who were chosen as comparison. All those guys had at least one 25+ ppg season and multiple 21-22+ ppg seasons.

[Onlytimewilltel]

There is a reason all the superstars go to Hakeem to train during the summer.

This topic is disrespectful. Hakeem has the best post game of all-time.

This. Low key disrespectful topic

It’s kinda like starting a thread saying is Curry’s shooting a little overrated

[DCasey91]

No. Ewing and DROB had more efficient years that did not matter in the end.

Considering what he had to work with. And no Ralph wouldn't have been the a saving grace early it was clunky and he was timid. Not Keem though he had zero fear and was a nightmare from the statt. If anyone knows it wasn't his offence that came along it was his defence.

He'd be the best small ball center and best player today considering he was the first absolute under Rudy T. Now with bigger more equipped players on ball it'd be scary.

In fact Rockets offense got better in the playoffs and alot of that is playing 4 out.. whose the common denominator to allow this? Himself.

Inelastic high volume scoring combined with complimentary parts equals success. SGA just won a Finals MVP. Giannis's best basketball, bud fukn finally bit the bullet and played him as close to the rim as possible guess what winner winning chicken dinner. AD in 2020 and Dream clears easy.
Peak Hakeem with Bron or Giannis team is fukn disgusting.

There's a reason Keem has the most underdog playoff wins its staggering. In regards to facilitating he wasn't Shaq level to me he wasn't far from older Duncan or Garnett (Both are the ones that is truly overrated on offence) especially once the system was in place.