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

[dhsilv2]

Sure, but Hakeem went up against DRob, Ewing, and Shaq and beat them all. McHale had Bird setting him up, Kareem had Oscar/Magic, Malone had Stockton, ect.

I’d still take Hakeem over anyone else in a 1 vs. 1 post game.

I like how we all keep moving the topic a bit and doing so imo mostly fairly.

1 v 1 in the post I do like Hakeem, but how do we get into the post? So they have someone doing an entry pass and do they get to body for position? Cause I love Shaq in that example. Set starting point? I'm thinking Kareem and Hakeem are up there. McHale would be great too.

2 on 2 where our big man can ONLY post up? Well now I'm taking Jokic because post passing is just as important imo to this topic. But clearly you don't see that as even part of it. Again, just how we read and answer the question without more of a prompt.

After watching playoffs since 1980 the answer isn't so simple because of Hakeems personal tree. Heck ì didn't find Drexler as beneficial as could have been but that's neither here nor there. Rewind it back I'm very much in favour of Horry getting more of the pill over Elle/Maxwell/Smith dude was the best passer but also the best shooter and because shooting was of the utmost importance it got divy upped. But now today there isn't a problem

Also it's harder to gauge Jokic vs the rest. Because Hakeems outstanding (frankly GOAT) post man defence, Ewing, DROB and Shaq himself (who showed excellent results routinely). That's a gauntlet of post defenders that matchup perfectly. It's obviously going be harder in 1vs 1 stakes because he cannot just exert physical pressure.

But if answering by this. Jokic from half court in, Shaq in close, Mchale in close Hakeem in between elbow and in. But once again whoever has the ball the majority of time is going to play a huge factor here.

But I'll say it again it isn't as clear with Hakeem due to circumstance. Under Rudy's system he came on leaps and bounds from beginning to his prime. The scoring was already there but the logjam of a system was arse until he took over.

Frankly if you want a hot take it's a stark contrast to Duncan. Because he was so fundementally perfect he didn't go any further up imo. I'll always say if anything older (closer to a person's prime age) is definitely overrated offensively.

At his apex Hakeem was an absolutely awesome. But there are other awesome guys who had physical tools that made the game easier. Shaq's weight. Kareems height and long arms.

I'm not following the Duncan comments or the age thing? I must be reading it wrong or something. What did you mean there?

[Daddy 801]

The answer is no.

[Optimus_Steel]

This is just a terrible take. Looking a shooting percentages with no context of the comparisons.

[cupcakesnake]

This is one of those examples where I just can't get behind these stats.

Even Shaq tells people that Hakeem had his number in that series, and the eye test certainly confirmed.

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

I've heard him say this much more emphatically before, but this popped up.

Lol yes, if Shaq said something, end of discussion. He's the bastion of truth and analysis.

lol yes. When it comes to his own ego and admitting someone dominated him, then chances are, yes, they actually dominated him.

But you know, realgm on and off stats must prevail over that and actually witnessing it all, right?

Shaq is a storyteller, man. I enjoy his stories. I read his autobiography and highly recommend.

I do not take him seriously when he talks about basketball. Even when it's about his own career. Even if he's doing his humble schtick. I also do not take anyone seriously when using Shaq anecdotes as evidence to prove their point.

If that's good enough for you, then good for you.

[Masigond]

Lol yes, if Shaq said something, end of discussion. He's the bastion of truth and analysis.

lol yes. When it comes to his own ego and admitting someone dominated him, then chances are, yes, they actually dominated him.

But you know, realgm on and off stats must prevail over that and actually witnessing it all, right?

Concerning Shaq's memories: He also claimed that he hated playing against Bryant Reeves because he could not stop him. So far, so good. There's some truth to it. But he also claimed that he looked at the stats at halftime with himself having scored 15 points and Reeves having scored 26 points.
Reeves never had such a game.

So what do we have to deal with? A player who doesn't really remember the games and the true outcome but who is putting emphasis on his own feelings he had playing against other players. He might have feeled dominated by Hakeem. Totally legit, as his team was swept by the Rockets, and Hakeem did have a great series. But feeling dominated and getting dominated objectively might not be the same. The numbers that have already been shown here in this thread (and they have been brought up several times over the years, if I remember correctly) show that Shaq did hold his own against Olajuwon in the 1995 Finals. Yes, he could not overpower Hakeem and somewhat played him to par (mostly due to his bad free-throw shooting. If he were able to hit those better, he would have been better than Hakeem without any doubt). But the true reason his Magic lost were that his teammates were worse than the Rockets in the Finals, with Nick Anderson's free-throw shooting as the most memorable fail.

It's a nice narrative that Hakeem dominated all great contemporary centers in those two years, but the greater truth is that he was better than Ewing and Robinson while beating Shaq thanks to his team. And as it is often the case: Narratives persist, and many users have problems when they are contested. Even if there are better proofs than the iffy memory of a player who is known to be much more of a showman than an analyst.

[Optms]

6 pages. This thread is overrated.

[tsherkin]

You keep changing the goalposts where is it incomplete Mr. Perfect?

I haven't changed any goalposts. If you're going to be this ridiculous and disingenuous, then I'll leave you to it instead of wasting my time.

That's just when talking stats. The reality is Hakeem's play making was a huge step up...all be it from brain dead Moses Malone level to quality. Still it was a huge leap. It wasn't addressing scoring alone in that comment.

But it wasn't, really. Rudy T made that happen by simplifying the offense. He didn't improve much at reading an offense, he improved at producing assists and was somewhat better at trusting his teammates instead of taking bad shots. That's not really a tectonic shift in playmaking ability.

You’re right about that, but in that case, field goal percentage has little to do with his post scoring, which is second to none.

I agree that a pure FG% argument doesn't really have a ton to do with his post scoring, because it was affected by all the other stuff he did.

But his post scoring isn't second to none. There are a BUNCH of guys who did as well or better in the post. There's a difference between utility and variety, and they do not always overlap.

But that's my point: people do a very poor job of isolating post scoring versus other scoring, and Olajuwon often scored more like a SF than he did a big man. And he wasn't better at, scoring in the post, than a bunch of players.

What set him apart with his non-Shaq peers as a scorer was his versatility and resilience in the postseason, which were related. What made him competitive with Shaq was more his defense. The Rockets were not stunning offensive teams even when his supporting cast got better. They were, however, strong defensive teams, so even when Olajuwon was gunning at not hitting well, the D kept things together. Which is generally how you want to design things in the absent of high-end supporting talent, and the major strength of most big men we think of as ATGs to begin with.

[JM00n69]

Hakeem didn't have the physical tools Shaq or Wilt did, and he wasn't 7-foot a billion like Kareem. He was quite quick and very strong, and extremely adept at drawing fouls (particularly as a younger guy).

It's worth remembering that he hit the league shooting like 61% from the FT line and had limited range. Then, like Karl Malone, he developed his jumper. He developed his handle to enable his face-up attack, and he had a wonderful array of countermoves. His footwork was fantastic.

I think the mistake people are making here is correlating "post game" with "scoring efficiency."

Shaq had very good footwork, timing and off-ball movement (which a lot people don't like acknowledging), but he was always a 7'1, 300-pound (or more) physical monster with explosive leaping and quickness. You can be quite deft in the post and (shy of being Jokic), you're not going to match his scoring efficiency at volume, right? Same same with Wilt. Same same with the 7'3 guy wheeling to deal a skyhook you can't block. Kareem's post game was relatively simplistic... but it was quite effective.

Olajuwon didn't have the same kind of mass advantage as Shaq or mid/late Wilt, nor did he have Kareem's height. But he had quickness, balance and handles, so he could attack and create for himself. And he had a good array of spins, drop steps, up-and-unders and the like. But as others have mentioned, he gamed a lot for contested shots. He wasn't a great passer, and partly that led to him GOING for the shot regardless. So he grew accustomed to dealing those wheeling fadeaways into the lane, and the baseline fades and such.

But if you actually watch his footwork and action in the mid and low post, it's fantastic. He had a great set of sequences he could go to. Very... I'll borrow from the John Danaher and say "Enter the System." He had you on his back and you were giving up a spin, a fadeaway in one direction or the other, a hook in the lane or some kind of lean-in or up-and-under situation. That's just what it was. Unless you were able to hard double, he was getting something he was comfortable taking.

So the actual proficiency of his game was there in terms of the variety. Was it the most effective? No, of course not. Variety is often overstated. Hakeem did well, and he was quite resilient into the playoffs, but the other guys mentioned here are all monsters of a greater magnitude. And winning bias/nostalgia has changed the perception of how people approach Hakeem's game.

Dantley was a much better scorer. His run from 80-85 is insane, especially since he was 6'5. Insane deep seals, great up fakes, lots of face-up drives and short jumpers, but mostly off-ball action ahead of a simple fake and/or hook. And he shot Shaq-like FG% while drawing tons and tons of fouls and shooting well at the line. Kareem was obviously a better scorer. Shaq, Wilt. Chuck, though Barkley did a lot more than just attack in the post. Jokic is a much better scorer. McHale was a better scorer largely because he was a better shooter (and he had a shot diet not dissimilar to Olajuwon). You can talk some about how the Celtics roster had such talent around him that it was challenging to guard him effectively and that's fine, but he was still north of 60% TS in 89 and 90, and Bird played 6 games in 89.

So yeah, I think Hakeem's a BIT overrated. He had a lot of moving parts to put together, developing his shot, developing the handle, being more than just a mobile athlete with a motor like he was when he first hit the league (although some of the rudiments were there). And even at his peak, he wasn't quite as effective as some of his positional peers across the eras. He won a lot with defense and roleplayer contribution, which people don't like to discuss as much as his whirling dervish style. But it WAS effective, and he WAS something like a +2% rTS guy for a dozen years or so, with a peak at 108 and 107 TS+ when he started to have some better spacing and a better offensive system to work with. Carrying that kind of volume, attacking effectively out of the face-up with range and live-dribble dynamism more like a small forward or shooting guard, that was pretty big for what it enabled him to do.

But yeah, strictly from the POV of who was the best post scorer, it's not him.

This guy right here. I was ready to get a few paragraps in but you've nailed it in detail. If there's a move named after you you clearly did something right. His offence in todays game would still be very great, only Jok has better low post control of any active pure centers. And he was defensively elite during the most stacked era of bigs.

Also the game was very very different to todays game, league wide. Each team had two bigs, the PFs couldn't shoot and weren't allowed to really. paint was packed with no spacing or outside shooting. Hakeem was a finess center and he won a ring during the era of the best paint defenders we've had.

[tsherkin]

This guy right here. I was ready to get a few paragraps in but you've nailed it in detail. If there's a move named after you you clearly did something right. His offence in todays game would still be very great, only Jok has better low post control of any active pure centers. And he was defensively elite during the most stacked era of bigs.

Hakeem would probably crush it as a scorer today. Wouldn't be like a +6% rTS guy or whatever, but he'd thrive with the space in the middle. And he was athletic as hell. Once he got his routine and his shot down, tightened up his handle, he was insanely dangerous. Hell, he was nasty enough in 86, when he was still raw as hell in his second season.

He wasn't a brilliant passer, but he proved he was coachable if the team was winning and the coach understood him, which is a positive. And we certainly saw what happened with Horry helping to open things up. With 80s-like pace and spacing better than his mid-90s teams, he'd be laughing, for sure. And of course, he had the lateral mobility to be a terror on defense in today's game. So I don't think there's really any question that he'd be fine in the contemporary environment.

[Handlez]

Yes it is overrated. Very similar to how Kobe’s offensive game is very overrated. Just because a guy has deep bag doesn’t mean he has the brain to know how to properly use it.

Kobe and Hakeem, back to back title leads, had the least amount of help in NBA history, when comparing them to any other back to back title winners.

I'd say they properly used their brains.

And everyone should know by now that Kobe used his poor teams, with zero chance of going far in the playoffs, as an opportunity to entertain and show off his bag and take hard shots all the time.

[Onlytimewilltel]

Anyone who uses the word overrated in the same sentence with the name Hakeem Olajuwon.

Obviously never seen Hakeem Olajuwon play.

This

[Onlytimewilltel]

In the playoffs Hakeem’s percentage jumps to 53%.

People remember stuff when the lights are the brightest, in the playoffs, when narratives are built.

1995: David Robinson wins MVP, is 4th in DPOTY voting, has home court advantage as the 1st seed against a 6th seed. Hakeem drops 35 ppg on him on 56% shooting as the Rockets win in 6.

I think it’s really the highlights of Hakeem lighting up David Robinson that show how great he was. The average person doesn’t care if another player shot better during regular season games.

But even then...that narrative ignored the actual game where Hakeem was getting single covered while Robinson was getting doubled. The joys of having Rodman on your team...

Sure, but Hakeem went up against DRob, Ewing, and Shaq and beat them all. McHale had Bird setting him up, Kareem had Oscar/Magic, Malone had Stockton, ect.

I’d still take Hakeem over anyone else in a 1 vs. 1 post game.

Yup, and “it’s not even close”

[Onlytimewilltel]

This thread further proves there's an almost fanatical-like mythology surrounding Olajuwon's post-up game. The idea that it's beyond reproach is ludicrous. I simply suggested that he may not be the undisputed greatest post player, which many do believe, but merely one of the best. I think that's a fairly reasonable stance given the data, game footage, and scouting reports.

You cited Kevin McHale as a better post player for crying out loud.

Which is a perfectly reasonable stance, given the data and game footage.

So this isn't even about some mythology like suggested. Then you cited Jokic. Just a pointing it out that you are free to discuss it all day long. Just like I am free to think Curry is better than Kobe, Duncan, Shaq based on the criteria and data that I present. It doesn't mean the consensus will ever agree or that it will catch traction.

This seems a tad immature. No player is beyond reproach.

He literally told you that you are free to discuss it. So he’s not saying Hakeem is beyond reproach he’s saying you can discuss it but he has his opinions and doesn’t agree with yours. How is that immature? seems mature and that you’re the one getting upset here

[Hoop Hunter]

The Dream had some of the best feet work ever. I call it feet work, cause they use both of them.

As a pure low post scorer, I've not seen anyone better that McHale.

[DCasey91]

You keep changing the goalposts where is it incomplete Mr. Perfect?

I haven't changed any goalposts. If you're going to be this ridiculous and disingenuous, then I'll leave you to it instead of wasting my time.

That's just when talking stats. The reality is Hakeem's play making was a huge step up...all be it from brain dead Moses Malone level to quality. Still it was a huge leap. It wasn't addressing scoring alone in that comment.

But it wasn't, really. Rudy T made that happen by simplifying the offense. He didn't improve much at reading an offense, he improved at producing assists and was somewhat better at trusting his teammates instead of taking bad shots. That's not really a tectonic shift in playmaking ability.

You’re right about that, but in that case, field goal percentage has little to do with his post scoring, which is second to none.

I agree that a pure FG% argument doesn't really have a ton to do with his post scoring, because it was affected by all the other stuff he did.

But his post scoring isn't second to none. There are a BUNCH of guys who did as well or better in the post. There's a difference between utility and variety, and they do not always overlap.

But that's my point: people do a very poor job of isolating post scoring versus other scoring, and Olajuwon often scored more like a SF than he did a big man. And he wasn't better at, scoring in the post, than a bunch of players.

What set him apart with his non-Shaq peers as a scorer was his versatility and resilience in the postseason, which were related. What made him competitive with Shaq was more his defense. The Rockets were not stunning offensive teams even when his supporting cast got better. They were, however, strong defensive teams, so even when Olajuwon was gunning at not hitting well, the D kept things together. Which is generally how you want to design things in the absent of high-end supporting talent, and the major strength of most big men we think of as ATGs to begin with.

Dude don't quote my anymore if your refuse to name names I did and I strictly gave reasons for that. I'm not the one having Dantley as a name you did.

Bunch meaning alot. There wasn't with his repertoire. I bet you didn't even look at the time stamp and how his scoring comes out favourably to Malone, Ewing, Robinson, Barkley stop this nonsense

And say his reading didn't improve as time went on is a flat out lie. Stop that

You literally just started lack of talent which I already included so imo we don't really know compared to today.

I legit just wrote out verbatim how Jokic would far tougher in the 90's with ATG post defenders including himself

You still haven't compared the overrating to something you are not specific in judgement

Once again don't quote me again thanks

[DCasey91]

I like how we all keep moving the topic a bit and doing so imo mostly fairly.

1 v 1 in the post I do like Hakeem, but how do we get into the post? So they have someone doing an entry pass and do they get to body for position? Cause I love Shaq in that example. Set starting point? I'm thinking Kareem and Hakeem are up there. McHale would be great too.

2 on 2 where our big man can ONLY post up? Well now I'm taking Jokic because post passing is just as important imo to this topic. But clearly you don't see that as even part of it. Again, just how we read and answer the question without more of a prompt.

After watching playoffs since 1980 the answer isn't so simple because of Hakeems personal tree. Heck ì didn't find Drexler as beneficial as could have been but that's neither here nor there. Rewind it back I'm very much in favour of Horry getting more of the pill over Elle/Maxwell/Smith dude was the best passer but also the best shooter and because shooting was of the utmost importance it got divy upped. But now today there isn't a problem

Also it's harder to gauge Jokic vs the rest. Because Hakeems outstanding (frankly GOAT) post man defence, Ewing, DROB and Shaq himself (who showed excellent results routinely). That's a gauntlet of post defenders that matchup perfectly. It's obviously going be harder in 1vs 1 stakes because he cannot just exert physical pressure.

But if answering by this. Jokic from half court in, Shaq in close, Mchale in close Hakeem in between elbow and in. But once again whoever has the ball the majority of time is going to play a huge factor here.

But I'll say it again it isn't as clear with Hakeem due to circumstance. Under Rudy's system he came on leaps and bounds from beginning to his prime. The scoring was already there but the logjam of a system was arse until he took over.

Frankly if you want a hot take it's a stark contrast to Duncan. Because he was so fundementally perfect he didn't go any further up imo. I'll always say if anything older (closer to a person's prime age) is definitely overrated offensively.

At his apex Hakeem was an absolutely awesome. But there are other awesome guys who had physical tools that made the game easier. Shaq's weight. Kareems height and long arms.

I'm not following the Duncan comments or the age thing? I must be reading it wrong or something. What did you mean there?

Oh for Duncan because he started of pretty much at an ATG in his second year he really didn't get better, some post seasons years in more towards his prime years wasn't as great as I expected. Now everyone has has down years/runs but I find Shaq, Hakeem specifically having a more noticeable improvement incline.

[SHAQ32]

Hakeem was a ballhog. And yes, he's overrated by casuals. Just like KG, but for different reasons.

[Onlytimewilltel]

Hakeem was a ballhog. And yes, he's overrated by casuals. Just like KG, but for different reasons.

LOL your idol is not threatened nearly as much as you are.

[Onlytimewilltel]

You keep changing the goalposts where is it incomplete Mr. Perfect?

I haven't changed any goalposts. If you're going to be this ridiculous and disingenuous, then I'll leave you to it instead of wasting my time.

That's just when talking stats. The reality is Hakeem's play making was a huge step up...all be it from brain dead Moses Malone level to quality. Still it was a huge leap. It wasn't addressing scoring alone in that comment.

But it wasn't, really. Rudy T made that happen by simplifying the offense. He didn't improve much at reading an offense, he improved at producing assists and was somewhat better at trusting his teammates instead of taking bad shots. That's not really a tectonic shift in playmaking ability.

You’re right about that, but in that case, field goal percentage has little to do with his post scoring, which is second to none.

I agree that a pure FG% argument doesn't really have a ton to do with his post scoring, because it was affected by all the other stuff he did.

But his post scoring isn't second to none. There are a BUNCH of guys who did as well or better in the post. There's a difference between utility and variety, and they do not always overlap.

But that's my point: people do a very poor job of isolating post scoring versus other scoring, and Olajuwon often scored more like a SF than he did a big man. And he wasn't better at, scoring in the post, than a bunch of players.

What set him apart with his non-Shaq peers as a scorer was his versatility and resilience in the postseason, which were related. What made him competitive with Shaq was more his defense. The Rockets were not stunning offensive teams even when his supporting cast got better. They were, however, strong defensive teams, so even when Olajuwon was gunning at not hitting well, the D kept things together. Which is generally how you want to design things in the absent of high-end supporting talent, and the major strength of most big men we think of as ATGs to begin with.

Dude don't quote my anymore if your refuse to name names I did and I strictly gave reasons for that. I'm not the one having Dantley as a name you did.

Bunch meaning alot. There wasn't with his repertoire. I bet you didn't even look at the time stamp and how his scoring comes out favourably to Malone, Ewing, Robinson, Barkley stop this nonsense

And say his reading didn't improve as time went on is a flat out lie. Stop that

You literally just started lack of talent which I already included so imo we don't really know compared to today.

I legit just wrote out verbatim how Jokic would far tougher in the 90's with ATG post defenders including himself

You still haven't compared the overrating to something you are not specific in judgement

Once again don't quote me again thanks

[Ol Roy]

I've always thought it's a major waste if you don't have a talented facilitator to set up your great big man, or at least a scoring wing to draw defensive attention away from them.

In their athletic primes, Olajuwon, Robinson, and Garnett were pretty much on their own in terms of leading the offense. And they had to anchor the defense.

Karl Malone having John Stockton and Shaq having Penny and Kobe had to be a huge advantage. Duncan getting Manu and TP was a big deal.

I'm a big McHale fan. But imagine if Hakeem had played with Larry Bird. He'd get the advantage of Bird's passing and the attention he draws as a scorer. DJ wasn't bad as a facilitator, either.