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

[70sFan]

A few things to add:

1. Hakeem is often overrated as an offensive player for reasons already mentioned: relatively weak game managing, ball-dominance, reliance on tough shot making, mediocre floor vision etc. He was a very good offensive player, clearly an offensive star, but he never approached the best offensive player in the league category.

2. If people want to argue that Hakeem is a little overrated as a offensive post-up player (because he's definitely not overrated defensively in that regard), then it's fine when you focus on his passing and playmaking limitations, along with the relatively static off-ball approach compared to guys like Shaq or Kareem, who were way more involved in the possession when they didn't have the ball.

3. All of that absolutely doesn't mean he's overrated post-up SCORER. I have tracked around 40 Hakeem games from 1992/93 and 1993/94 seasons and his post-up scoring are truly remarkable. I am out of my country right now, so I won't be able to provide them but he was extremely efficient for a post up isolation scorer, especially at such a huge volume. The thing is that isolations are not very efficient in general and Hakeem relied heavily on it for his scoring game, which made his raw efficiency not spectacular, but it is spectacular in the context of his shot selection. Hakeem was remarkably efficient and effective post scorer, people might be shocked at the fact that he's more efficient ISO scorer than Shaq (and comparable to Kareem) - though on lower volume overall.

4. At the same time, Hakeem's post game is a bit misunderstood. People view him as the most versatile post scorer with million moves and counters, but when you go beyond highlight reels and start breaking down his scoring game, it's actually remarkably simple. First of all, Hakeem did over 70% of his post work on one side - right block. That's extremely one-dimensional, players like Kareem and Shaq had the 55/45 proportions. In that aspect, Hakeem was more similar to Wilt Chamberlain who also preferred the right block (though, not to that degree from my tracking data). Wilt's comparison is adept in another way - Hakeem relied heavily on his baseline fadeaway jumper. It was his go-to move and he used it extensively. Again, I don't have the data in front of me, but if I remember correctly it's like 7 fadeaways per game (almost 40% of his total shots and over half of total post-up attempts). It's also not true (which was suggested in previous posts) that Hakeem didn't rely on that shot in postseason, he took them on ridiculous volume. Of course, Hakeem had plenty of counter moves. He had a nice jumphook to the middle and he used fakes, spins, dropsteps etc. to blow by slower defenders. On the left block, his go-to move was a fadeaway to the middle. He attacked baseline when players overplayed the middle. Interestingly, he didn't seem to use fadeaway shot from the left shoulder much, although he could take such shots.

I wouldn't say Hakeem's post game is overrated outside of 1990s cultists, but it's a bit misunderstood. The same thing can be said about any great post player - Shaq, Kareem, Wilt etc. because people don't pay attention to details and don't track games.

I wouldn't call Hakeem the best offensive post player because of his playmaking limitations and off-ball tendencies, but when you want to pick the best isolation scorer in the post, it would be hard to find a better option. I think that only Kareem is overall better in that regard.

[msmoore66]

No.

[FrodoBaggins]

A few things to add:

1. Hakeem is often overrated as an offensive player for reasons already mentioned: relatively weak game managing, ball-dominance, reliance on tough shot making, mediocre floor vision etc. He was a very good offensive player, clearly an offensive star, but he never approached the best offensive player in the league category.

2. If people want to argue that Hakeem is a little overrated as a offensive post-up player (because he's definitely not overrated defensively in that regard), then it's fine when you focus on his passing and playmaking limitations, along with the relatively static off-ball approach compared to guys like Shaq or Kareem, who were way more involved in the possession when they didn't have the ball.

3. All of that absolutely doesn't mean he's overrated post-up SCORER. I have tracked around 40 Hakeem games from 1992/93 and 1993/94 seasons and his post-up scoring are truly remarkable. I am out of my country right now, so I won't be able to provide them but he was extremely efficient for a post up isolation scorer, especially at such a huge volume. The thing is that isolations are not very efficient in general and Hakeem relied heavily on it for his scoring game, which made his raw efficiency not spectacular, but it is spectacular in the context of his shot selection. Hakeem was remarkably efficient and effective post scorer, people might be shocked at the fact that he's more efficient ISO scorer than Shaq (and comparable to Kareem) - though on lower volume overall.

4. At the same time, Hakeem's post game is a bit misunderstood. People view him as the most versatile post scorer with million moves and counters, but when you go beyond highlight reels and start breaking down his scoring game, it's actually remarkably simple. First of all, Hakeem did over 70% of his post work on one side - right block. That's extremely one-dimensional, players like Kareem and Shaq had the 55/45 proportions. In that aspect, Hakeem was more similar to Wilt Chamberlain who also preferred the right block (though, not to that degree from my tracking data). Wilt's comparison is adept in another way - Hakeem relied heavily on his baseline fadeaway jumper. It was his go-to move and he used it extensively. Again, I don't have the data in front of me, but if I remember correctly it's like 7 fadeaways per game (almost 40% of his total shots and over half of total post-up attempts). It's also not true (which was suggested in previous posts) that Hakeem didn't rely on that shot in postseason, he took them on ridiculous volume. Of course, Hakeem had plenty of counter moves. He had a nice jumphook to the middle and he used fakes, spins, dropsteps etc. to blow by slower defenders. On the left block, his go-to move was a fadeaway to the middle. He attacked baseline when players overplayed the middle. Interestingly, he didn't seem to use fadeaway shot from the left shoulder much, although he could take such shots.

I wouldn't say Hakeem's post game is overrated outside of 1990s cultists, but it's a bit misunderstood. The same thing can be said about any great post player - Shaq, Kareem, Wilt etc. because people don't pay attention to details and don't track games.

I wouldn't call Hakeem the best offensive post player because of his playmaking limitations and off-ball tendencies, but when you want to pick the best isolation scorer in the post, it would be hard to find a better option. I think that only Kareem is overall better in that regard.

Beautiful breakdown. I was waiting for your input, seeing as how you've tracked a lot of these post-up greats.

IIRC, Dipper's tracking had 93-95 Hakeem's post-up scoring at 1.12 ppp on 16.5-17.0 poss/g & 69-80 Kareem's at 1.09 ppp on similar volume. 98, 00, 01 playoff Shaq at 0.98 ppp on 17.6 poss/g. 64-72 Wilt's was 1.18 ppp. Incredibly small samples for Chamberlain and Abdul-Jabbar. 88-96 Barkley was 1.64 ppp on like 4.5 poss/g. Absolutely insane efficiency on lower volume. 90-93 MJ around 1.2 ppp on similar volume, I think.

Based on Dipper's numbers, I'd say Kareem's is the most impressive. 1.09 ppp in arguably the most defensive era in NBA history, with no Illegal Defense Guidelines or three-point line. A simple comparison of league average ORtg ÷ (post-up ppp x 100) x poss/g would show this.

That being said, Synergy-style post-up play-type stats can't account for post positioning and how it segues into other play types, like rolls, cuts, lobs, and putbacks. Even z-bounds/rebounding one's own missed FGAs. Shaq and, to a lesser extent, Dwight are the best examples of this. Edey at Purdue, too. I guess this is the off-ball component of post play.

[Statlanta]

a lot of the truly advanced statistics weren't out yet at his peak. Even then comparing him to Dantley or Barkley is somewhat disingenous given the defensive matchups. As you would typically put your best defender(your tallest person on Olajuwon) vs. those forward players.

[dhsilv2]

Based on Dipper's numbers, I'd say Kareem's is the most impressive. 1.09 ppp in arguably the most defensive era in NBA history, with no Illegal Defense Guidelines or three-point line. A simple comparison of league average ORtg ÷ (post-up ppp x 100) x poss/g would show this.

I'm only on my second cup of coffee but could you walk me through this one? Kareem came up in a really high scoring era, though with minimal spacing and obviously the scoring was more driven via pace than efficiency. But calling that the most defensive era isn't really tracking. Especially given we had the late 90's and early 00's where defenses forced teams into half court slug fests. But I have a feeling you've got a bit different angle here related to just half court offense perhaps.

[FrodoBaggins]

Based on Dipper's numbers, I'd say Kareem's is the most impressive. 1.09 ppp in arguably the most defensive era in NBA history, with no Illegal Defense Guidelines or three-point line. A simple comparison of league average ORtg ÷ (post-up ppp x 100) x poss/g would show this.

I'm only on my second cup of coffee but could you walk me through this one? Kareem came up in a really high scoring era, though with minimal spacing and obviously the scoring was more driven via pace than efficiency. But calling that the most defensive era isn't really tracking. Especially given we had the late 90's and early 00's where defenses forced teams into half court slug fests. But I have a feeling you've got a bit different angle here related to just half court offense perhaps.

I'm operating off memory, which is why I said arguably. IIRC, the '70s were a very physical, jump-shooting league with clogged paints. The NBA introduced one of the first hand-checking bans (1979) in a bid to curtail physical defensive contact. Additionally, the Illegal Defense Guidelines (80-81) were introduced with the specific intent of opening up the paint to boost scoring. Six of the ten lowest league average ORtgs occurred in the 1970s.

[dhsilv2]

Based on Dipper's numbers, I'd say Kareem's is the most impressive. 1.09 ppp in arguably the most defensive era in NBA history, with no Illegal Defense Guidelines or three-point line. A simple comparison of league average ORtg ÷ (post-up ppp x 100) x poss/g would show this.

I'm only on my second cup of coffee but could you walk me through this one? Kareem came up in a really high scoring era, though with minimal spacing and obviously the scoring was more driven via pace than efficiency. But calling that the most defensive era isn't really tracking. Especially given we had the late 90's and early 00's where defenses forced teams into half court slug fests. But I have a feeling you've got a bit different angle here related to just half court offense perhaps.

I'm operating off memory, which is why I said arguably. IIRC, the '70s were a very physical, jump-shooting league with clogged paints. The NBA introduced one of the first hand-checking bans (1979) in a bid to curtail physical defensive contact. Additionally, the Illegal Defense Guidelines (80-81) were introduced with the specific intent of opening up the paint to boost scoring. Six of the ten lowest league average ORtgs occurred in the 1970s.

You're certainly right about the rules changes. But the game was at a breakneck pace. With guys mostly running straight up and down the court. I'm not sure about being very physical, at least how I look at it. It didn't have the physical half court movement we have today...with illegal screens everywhere and guys tearing their joints running out the 3's. But it also didn't really allow any physicality on ball in the post for the offensive OR defensive player. Watching those old games, I feel like every other play there's a foul I can't even grasp being called on the post players, essentially touch fouls.

Now you put all that together and it makes perfect sense you'd see lower offensive ratings. Teams were just running up and down the court taking the fastest shots possible. But I'm not sure I follow the conclusion that it was better defense or more defensive oriented vs just a stylistic pace concept. Now to counter myself, they were rushing down the court to avoid set defense...so I could be off.

[Mr B]

Stats don’t account for how many times Dream shook a guy right out of his shoes with the Dream Shake. The stats only show he made the bucket. It’s how he does it that matters, not necessarily how many times he does it.

Right. But did Hakeem get more points for shaking opponents out of their shoes than Shaq for his dominance near the basket or Kareem for his unstoppable sky hook?
I get that Hakeem's game was (even) more spectacular and eye-pleasing. But that is actually the problem with the "Actually watch him play!" take: In the end one tends to overrate style over substance.
That said: I find the accusation annoying that users allegedly never saw Hakeem play. I for my part did of course miss his peak and prime as I haven't started watching the NBA before 1998 (due to lack of games shown in my country and due to the lack of internet before. But I've seen the 1992 Olympics. Didn't help me with rating Olajuwon as he was no member of the Dream Team 1. As I wasn't a teen anymore it made me quite immune to the stan hype around many players), but thanks to the internet I could catch up by seeing a lot of recorded games and whole series. So I can confirm: Yes, I have seen Hakeem play. A lot of games actually, and not only highlight reels. Nevertheless I think (as already said) that there are players who were a tad better as post up scorers. Not necessarily more eye-pleasing, but more effective and efficient, even in the playoffs. Now what? Still the argument that somehow versatility and skills are superior to unstoppable albeit simpler moves even when stats show that there were players who scored a bit better than Olajuwon?

And again: That's what it's about. The overrating is putting Hakeem on a pedestal and claiming that he is undoubtedly the very best of all. And how is it disrespectful to just point out that he is still one of the best, but just not alone at the very top of all? Noone here is saying that Olajuwon was bad. Noone is comparing him to players who can't hold a candle to him.

This is the NBA, and like it or not style matters. It’s not all just about numbers. Almost everyone in the NBA can dunk a basketball. It counts as 2 points no matter who doesn’t or how they do it. But you can’t tell me that a dunk from a guy like Dwight Powell is the same as Michael Jordan taking off from the free throw line. They’re just not the same.

A box score can’t give you same feeling of the energy shift in the whole building when a guy like Shaq is destroying defenders in the paint or when Vince Carter jumps over a guy 7’3” in a live game and dunks on him.

It’s art and the greatest artists are celebrated.

Look at a guy like Robert Parish. Played for year and is higher in the All Time Scoring list than Kevin Garnett. Would you say that Parish was a greater player than Garnett? I wouldn’t.

[Mr B]

This is exactly why you can't just stat-watching. And the recent narrative of devaluing ring culture really take away from separating the good with the great. When you bring up Adrian Dantley in a Hakeem low-post game success conversation, something is wrong with that conversation. It's also about the level of success Hakeem was able to achieve with his low-post game. This is like T-Mac and Kobe conversation... Kobe said it that T-Mac is one of the most difficult player he had to guard mainly because T-Mac can do many things Kobe can but he's 6'9". But the level of success that Kobe was able to achieve with his offensive game is what sets him apart from his peers.

The only guy from that list who I feel is very underrated in terms of low-post game is Kevin McHale. But I would still put Hakeem above McHale. I think there's very few centers who wins 1-on-1 low post battle vs. Hakeem.

Stats don’t account for how many times Dream shook a guy right out of his shoes with the Dream Shake. The stats only show he made the bucket. It’s how he does it that matters, not necessarily how many times he does it.

In a dunk contest yes. In an nba game, 2 points is 2 points.

Yes, 2 points is 2 points. What about momentum swings though? Are you saying that you’ve never seen a team break another team’s spirit with a big dunk or a big 3? Where in the box score would I look for that momentum swing? Where in the box score can I see where a team’s spirit was broken? You can’t see that in a box score. You can only see that by watching the actual game and not just looking at numbers on a screen.

[Masigond]

It’s art and the greatest artists are celebrated.

Look at a guy like Robert Parish. Played for year and is higher in the All Time Scoring list than Kevin Garnett. Would you say that Parish was a greater player than Garnett? I wouldn’t.

I'd say that this take would be way too simple. There's more to basketball than just scoring (and more than just amassing points from day 1 of a career to the last day of a career), and thus it's quite nonsensical just to say that Parish was greater because he scored more than Garnett over the course of his very long career.

Quite a strawman argument.

[dhsilv2]

Stats don’t account for how many times Dream shook a guy right out of his shoes with the Dream Shake. The stats only show he made the bucket. It’s how he does it that matters, not necessarily how many times he does it.

In a dunk contest yes. In an nba game, 2 points is 2 points.

Yes, 2 points is 2 points. What about momentum swings though? Are you saying that you’ve never seen a team break another team’s spirit with a big dunk or a big 3? Where in the box score would I look for that momentum swing? Where in the box score can I see where a team’s spirit was broken? You can’t see that in a box score. You can only see that by watching the actual game and not just looking at numbers on a screen.

While I certainly understand there's a value in the big swings in a game. They're not exactly normal or even common. And over the long haul, misses can have just as big a negative swing. If we're looking at a guy's shooting over a long time line the guys who shoot better percentages will create just as many swings as those who don't. So the idea Hakeem was somehow driving this more than other mega stars that he's being compared to seems a bit odd.

[dhsilv2]

It’s art and the greatest artists are celebrated.

Look at a guy like Robert Parish. Played for year and is higher in the All Time Scoring list than Kevin Garnett. Would you say that Parish was a greater player than Garnett? I wouldn’t.

I'd say that this take would be way too simple. There's more to basketball than just scoring, and thus it's quite nonsensical just to say that Parish was greater because he scored more than Garnett over the course of his very long career.

Quite a strawman argument.

I mean it's also a down right lie.

KG has 26,071 points and Parish has 23,334. So not only did he pick a player who played in a faster paced era. He just bold face lied for no reason...

[Masigond]

I mean it's also a down right lie.

KG has 26,071 points and Parish has 23,334. So not only did he pick a player who played in a faster paced era. He just bold face lied for no reason...

Thanks for pointing that out. I knew that Garnett scored more in some seasons (many seasons actually, as he was the focal point of the Wolves' offense for so many years) while Parish never had been the go-to-guy for his teams' offenses (with the Warriors he wasn't a full-time starter for his first years and never stood out as a volume scorer when I remember correctly, and with the Celtics he was second to third fiddle in a balanced team offense), but Parish's career was so long and Garnett's quite injury-ridden for the last couple of years, that I thought Parish could actually have scored more overall.

Still I don't know anyone who would rate Parish over Garnett due to that (non-)fact, so I didn't put much effort in my response to that strawman argument either.

[Mr B]

It’s art and the greatest artists are celebrated.

Look at a guy like Robert Parish. Played for year and is higher in the All Time Scoring list than Kevin Garnett. Would you say that Parish was a greater player than Garnett? I wouldn’t.

I'd say that this take would be way too simple. There's more to basketball than just scoring (and more than just amassing points from day 1 of a career to the last day of a career), and thus it's quite nonsensical just to say that Parish was greater because he scored more than Garnett over the course of his very long career.

Quite a strawman argument.

That’s my point, there is more to it than just numbers in a box score. Style matters, impact matters and you can’t really get that from a box score. That’s why no one in their right mind would ever put Robert Parish over Kevin Garnett.

[dhsilv2]

It’s art and the greatest artists are celebrated.

Look at a guy like Robert Parish. Played for year and is higher in the All Time Scoring list than Kevin Garnett. Would you say that Parish was a greater player than Garnett? I wouldn’t.

I'd say that this take would be way too simple. There's more to basketball than just scoring (and more than just amassing points from day 1 of a career to the last day of a career), and thus it's quite nonsensical just to say that Parish was greater because he scored more than Garnett over the course of his very long career.

Quite a strawman argument.

That’s my point, there is more to it than just numbers in a box score. Style matters, impact matters and you can’t really get that from a box score. That’s why no one in their right mind would ever put Robert Parish over Kevin Garnett.

Style doesn't matter dude. Impact does. But you picked two guys who's box score stats tell you all you really need. They aren't remotely comparable from their box score stats. There are some guys who's box scores don't tell the picture. Mostly defensive specialists but even some stars who were more defensive oriented. And you might find a few early elite passers who didn't get the assists you'd expect.

[Mr B]

It’s art and the greatest artists are celebrated.

Look at a guy like Robert Parish. Played for year and is higher in the All Time Scoring list than Kevin Garnett. Would you say that Parish was a greater player than Garnett? I wouldn’t.

I'd say that this take would be way too simple. There's more to basketball than just scoring, and thus it's quite nonsensical just to say that Parish was greater because he scored more than Garnett over the course of his very long career.

Quite a strawman argument.

I mean it's also a down right lie.

KG has 26,071 points and Parish has 23,334. So not only did he pick a player who played in a faster paced era. He just bold face lied for no reason...

You can also flip Karl Malone for Robert Parish. Statistically Malone was far superior to KG yet almost no one would put Malone over KG as a player.

[Masigond]

That’s my point, there is more to it than just numbers in a box score. Style matters, impact matters and you can’t really get that from a box score. That’s why no one in their right mind would ever put Robert Parish over Kevin Garnett.

So you seem to think that users here are rating just by numbers instead of watching games and adding box scores to analyze the impact of players? Come on!

The way you say it I get the impression that there are users who just watch highlight tapes. With all the fallacies to overrate style over substance (as said before). Do you really understand team sports? In the end it's all about outscoring the opponent as a team. A highlight dunk or a variety of moves might have some effect on your opponent as he might be impressed or even grows desperate in not knowing how to stop a player, but a shot will still only give you two or three points.
As I always compared Hakeem only to Shaq and Abdul-Jabbar: It's not that these two players' styles weren't impressive themselves, right? Do Hakeem's moves make him the more feared player than Shaq with his physical dominance? We've seen teams add bigs just to have more players to clog the paint and foul Shaq. That's as much impact as you can get, and Hakeem didn't really score more than Shaq or Kareem. When players are somewhat comparable box scores and (advanced) stats can help you quite a lot more than just thinking: Wow, that player's moves really look great.

I guess most of us users here aren't able to really grasp the impact of a player by just watching a game (normally one is too focused on watching the ball and thus is missing the off-ball movements, for example, or gravity), especially without scene replays and slow-motion. I for myself noticed that when I was watching a Celtics game in TD Banknorth Garden (before the Big Three). Really was impressed by friggin' Delonte West who had some highlights like blocking his opponent twice. And totally missed that Ricky Davis (!!!) had a quiet but efficient scoring game (20 points on 6/12 FGs and 8/10 FTs). In the end the Celtics were +/- 0 in the 33 minutes of Delonte on the court and +21 in the 40 minutes of Davis on the court. Gave me something to think about the fallacy of spectacle. This still doesn't mean that Davis had a better game than West. But in terms of impact one can get the impression that West's game wasn't as impactful as I thought when I was very impressed by some of his actions.

[dhsilv2]

I'd say that this take would be way too simple. There's more to basketball than just scoring, and thus it's quite nonsensical just to say that Parish was greater because he scored more than Garnett over the course of his very long career.

Quite a strawman argument.

I mean it's also a down right lie.

KG has 26,071 points and Parish has 23,334. So not only did he pick a player who played in a faster paced era. He just bold face lied for no reason...

You can also flip Karl Malone for Robert Parish. Statistically Malone was far superior to KG yet almost no one would put Malone over KG as a player.

At least that's a somewhat honest take.

That said a career VORP of 96.9 vs 99.0 hardly reads as "vastly" better. And I think a lot of people would argue the two aren't that far apart. I'd disagree with that. And I'd likely argue for KG for a lot of the reason's you've made here. He was more impactful. He did more than the box score allowed. But we're talking two guys ranked from about 6th to maybe 25th at worst. In all sane senses two guys pretty close all time. And the box scores show them fairly comparable.

[tsherkin]

I guess most of us users here aren't able to really grasp the impact of a player by just watching a game (normally one is too focused on watching the ball and thus is missing the off-ball movements, for example, or gravity), especially without scene replays and slow-motion. I for myself noticed that when I was watching a Celtics game in TD Banknorth Garden (before the Big Three). Really was impressed by friggin' Delonte West who had some highlights like blocking his opponent twice. And totally missed that Ricky Davis (!!!) had a quiet but efficient scoring game (20 points on 5/10 FGs and 8/10 FTs). In the end the Celtics were +/- 0 in the 33 minutes of Delonte on the court and +21 in the 40 minutes of Davis on the court. Gave me something to think about the fallacy of spectacle. This still doesn't mean that Davis had a better game than West. But in terms of impact one can get the impression that West's game wasn't as impactful as I thought when I was very impressed by some of his actions.

There is also something to be said about watching for entertainment versus actually breaking down video. It's quite a different experience, and you learn/observe much more, approaching the game from a whole different angle.

Most people only watch for entertainment. Only a few actually do film breakdown.

[BarbaGrizz]

DeAndre Jordan has a career FG% of 67%, he must be GOAT!