Is Hakeem Olajuwon the most Complete all-around player All Time?

[Kiss of Death]

Yes.

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=Czvoq_OfH0ZSMgHqWBWrFA

Only 4 NBA players have had quadruple doubles: Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, Nate Thurmond & Alvin Robertson.

[TMac Culloch]

How about Andrei Kirilenko

[kcktiny]

Is Hakeem Olajuwon the most Complete all-around player All Time?

No - but he is certainly in the conversation as one of the most complete all-around players in NBA history.

Wilt was probably averaging double the amount of blocks as Hakeem but they didn't keep track of those stats back then.

This is true.

Nobody will ever be a better defender than Wilt.

This may very well be true. He is clearly one of the absolute best defenders ever, and the fact that he played a career 46 min/g, and played such great defense while rarely fouling, certainly puts him in the highest echelon of greatest defenders.

The NBA has official records for 112 of Wilt's 1045 games played and in those (he was older btw) he averaged 8.8 blocks per game.

I've seen this spreadsheet, and many of the logs have been verified by newspaper records and reporter accounts.

There is also this:

Watch on YouTube

Which shows that in the 1966-67 playoffs Wilt blocked 149 shots in 15 games, or 9.9 bs/g.

No matter how you slice it, Wilt trounces any other defender the game has ever and will likely ever see.

Again - debatable. But having seen him play, I have no doubt he was one of the very best ever, and arguably was the best ever defender.

Wilt of course was the most dominant offensive player in history as well so he's undoubtedly the best two-way player ever.

I agree with this.

It's possible but as you said they didn't keep track so these are all stories not achievements.

Wrong. Just because you didn't see it happen doesn't mean it didn't happen. Others saw it, charted it, verified it.

Personally I do not believe it.

Is the earth round? Did astronauts walk on the moon?

My reasoning is that if you're that good a defender and scorer, it makes no sense that his impact on winning was so mediocre

Mediocre? Learn some NBA history.

Chamberlain played from 1959-60 to 1972-73. Those 14 seasons in the 1045 regular season games he played in the W-L record was 673-372 for a .644 winning percentage across 4 teams - the Philadelphia Warriors, San Francisco Warriors, Philadelphia 76ers, and Los Angeles Lakers.

Over those 14 seasons 10 teams played 500+ games, and among those 10 teams only one had a better winning record, the Boston Celtics (W-L 773-354 for .686 winning percentage).

Also over those 14 seasons Wilt partook in 77 playoff game wins. Only one team had more playoff wins during that time that he did not play for - Boston.

There are no players in NBA history who are DPOY candidates capable of putting up 30 efficient points who aren't in the historically elite when it comes to wins.

Here is some more NBA history - Wilt is in the historically elite.

Chamberlain's first decade in the league (1959-60 to 1968-69) he played 787 games, 47 min/g, scored 34.4 pts/g, and shot a 53.0% FG%, highest/best in the league among all 233 players that played 1000+ minutes over that decade.

Over his 14 seasons 1045 games (47859 min), 46 min/g, 30.1 pts/g, 54.0% FG%, highest FG% among thr 69 players with 15,000+ minutes played.

Something has to be off.

Correct. Your knowledge of NBA history.

He wasn't remotely Shaq offensively.

Well this is patently false.

Shaq's first decade in the league he played 675 games, 38 min/g, scored 27.6 pts/g, shot a league best 57.8% 2pt FG% (among players with 3000+ FGAs).

Their per minute scoring rates are virtually identical (29.5 vs. 29.2 pts/40min) but the fact that Chamberlain played 9 more min/g over an entire decade and scored 20% more points per game clearly shows who was more valuable on offense.

Also while wilt didn't win a lot of titles, he was consistently contending against the Celtics. He absolutely was having huge impact on winning.

673-372 for a .644 winning percentage in the regular season.

Even if it's not as great as some people would have you believe.

No?

How many teams average a .644 or better winning percentage over 14 seasons? Not many. The 1959-60 to 1972-73 Celtics (.686), the 2000-01 to 2013-14 Spurs (.710), the 1997-98 to 2010-11 Lakers (.659), the 1976-77 to 1989-90 76ers (.645), perhaps a couple more.

[mojomarc]

This biases for wing players to an extent, though not fully, and this biases against guys who can't shoot (eg someone like Wilt, because his shooting skill is poor).

It is worth pointing out Wilt only led the entire league in shooting percentage in nine out of his 13 seasons, and in two more he was second and another he was third.

[tsherkin]

This biases for wing players to an extent, though not fully, and this biases against guys who can't shoot (eg someone like Wilt, because his shooting skill is poor).

It is worth pointing out Wilt only led the entire league in shooting percentage in nine out of his 13 seasons, and in two more he was second and another he was third.

Respectfully, I think that misses the point. Shaq led the league in FG% 10x as well, but no one mistakes him as someone whose shooting skill was strong. He had no range and blew at the line, just like Wilt. They were high-efficiency finishers inside, which is a little different than what that post seems to intend. It was definitely a weakness in their all-around game, because neither was effective much past 10 feet. Wilt a little more so, but still.

[LarsV8]

I don't think so.

Lacked offensive efficiency.

[mojomarc]

This biases for wing players to an extent, though not fully, and this biases against guys who can't shoot (eg someone like Wilt, because his shooting skill is poor).

It is worth pointing out Wilt only led the entire league in shooting percentage in nine out of his 13 seasons, and in two more he was second and another he was third.

Respectfully, I think that misses the point. Shaq led the league in FG% 10x as well, but no one mistakes him as someone whose shooting skill was strong. He had no range and blew at the line, just like Wilt. They were high-efficiency finishers inside, which is a little different than what that post seems to intend. It was definitely a weakness in their all-around game, because neither was effective much past 10 feet. Wilt a little more so, but still.

Respectfully, Wilt was much more than just a rim finisher as well. His mid-range game was pretty well known, particularly his fall-away. Whether he should have played this way or not, he had a lot of Dirk-style to his offensive game.

None of this says he's going to compete with Jokic three point shooting, and it is well known that his free throw stationary shooting had epic levels of yips. But I also don't think it's fair to categorize him as a Moses Malone or Shaq wrt mid-range.

[Common Sensei]

No, its Lebron easily.

PTS ~ 1st
REB ~ 26th
AST ~ 4th
STL ~ 6th
BLK ~ 74th

Did Lebron James have a quadruple-double? Lebron played in 324 more games give Hakeem Olajuwon 324 mores games and see how much higher on that list he would be.

[tsherkin]

Respectfully, Wilt was much more than just a rim finisher as well.

Sure, that's why was talking about out to 10 feet and a little more. He wasn't a good shooter at all. He had his fallaway and that was the extent of his range. Otherwise, he had his finger roll and some post moves he could finish standing a little further from the basket, but no one would confuse him for a good shooter.

I did acknowledge this.

But I also don't think it's fair to categorize him as a Moses Malone or Shaq wrt mid-range.

Moses had a better jumper than either of those guys, honestly. He's a dude who gets unfairly characterized as doing nothing but bruising in close and getting ORBs, but he had more than just that.

Wilt had like 3-5 extra feet of range compared to Shaq. In the expanse of the NBA, that doesn't really say to me that he counts as having good shooting proficiency. He didn't even have good shooting for his position in his own career.

[Ol Roy]

James, then Garnett.

[Common Sensei]

No and it's frankly dumb to ask. We can start with he's not a top 500 all time level passer. It's a glaring weakness and to be an "all-around" player you need to at least not have a weakness at possibly the most important offensive skill. We can go further that in general a center isn't going to qualify because they can't handle the ball well enough which is just a fundamental core aspect of being an all around great player. Now if you want to change it to qualify it as "among centers" then maybe we can talk there as centers general lack in both those areas.

But no, as the question is laid out. There's no reasonable, logical, or grounded argument for Hakeem.

Hakeem Olajuwon is the Only player in the top 20 of 4 out of the 5 major categories All Time, so how would there be no logical argument?

[Common Sensei]

A lot of people here are dissing Hakeem's passing, but by the standards of a 90s center, he was a very good passer. He could take most guys one on one down low but when he got doubled he was very good and very quick at getting it out to the outside shooters. In fact those Rockets provided the modern template for a center-based NBA team. Get a C who dominates in the post, and surround him with outside shooters and let him pass it out when doubled. The Shaq-Kobe Lakers followed the same formula. This formula only works if the C is quick enough with reads and is a solid enough passer though, and Hakeem was definitely that. It's only in the last 15 or so years where we started to see more Divac like 5+ apg passing centers in the NBA

The pace was a lot slower in the 90s too, so those 3 apg he averaged in the 90s probably would be about 5apg today, which puts him in the upper half of today's traditional centers in terms of passing ability.

Exactly and it was Hakeem's passing that helped win those championships and he led his team in assists in the 1993=94 playoffs.

[D.Brasco]

Yes.

Read on Twitter

?s=46&t=Czvoq_OfH0ZSMgHqWBWrFA

Only 4 NBA players have had quadruple doubles: Hakeem Olajuwon, David Robinson, Nate Thurmond & Alvin Robertson.

Kids stuff

[tsherkin]

Exactly and it was Hakeem's passing that helped win those championships and he led his team in assists in the 1993=94 playoffs.

They had 4 guys with 90+ assists and no one with more than 4.3 apg. It's not THAT surprising. Also, Rudy T did an excellent job arranging things so that Olajuwon could work more simply inside that offense, for sure, and he fit well into it. But it took a while and he didn't really show the same native faculty for it that we saw out of other posters. It's also worth mentioning how WELL Houston was shooting in order to produce that specific level of assist production from him.

[HotelVitale]

No, I think the answer to this question is Lebron James for the forseeable future (longer if Wemby never fully gets there).

Lebron James is only in 3 of the 5 major categories All Time and he's played 324 more games than Hakeem Olajuwon.

Right, but Lebron was an All-D level defender and Olajuwon was nothing like Lebron in terms of passing or range, so in terms of actual completeness of game instead of just box score stats, it's Lebron by a country mile. Positional versatility favors Lebron as well; you could never play Olajuwon at either guard spot (and certainly not as a primary ball-handler) but Lebron has played all 5 positions, regularly.

Hakeem was also only a truly elite scorer for like 4 seasons, just his peak from 92-96 that he was in the top 4-5 of scorers. Before and after that he was like the 10-20th highest scorer in his 10-year peak (and significantly below the league leaders), and with a big dropoff for his last like 6 seasons. Those top years also don't align with his league-leading block or steal or rebound years, he fell off some in those when he was a top scorer.

Lebron's been a top 5 scorer (and often top 2-3) for literally 20 years. It's really cool that Hakeem could volume score and also record super high rebound and block stats, but overall he's more unusual as a stat stuffer than totally overwhelming. (Not to make this this simple, but Lebron was a top-5 MVP finisher 14 times, while Hakeem was 6 times.)

[og15]

This biases for wing players to an extent, though not fully, and this biases against guys who can't shoot (eg someone like Wilt, because his shooting skill is poor).

It is worth pointing out Wilt only led the entire league in shooting percentage in nine out of his 13 seasons, and in two more he was second and another he was third.

I was actually thinking more that a guy who hits as low as 38% from the FT line in his career simply isn't going to qualify as best all round player because he's way too poor in an important area like simple FT shooting.

When I don't even want the ball in your hands if the game is on the line because of your FT shooting

[tsherkin]

Hakeem was also only a truly elite scorer for like 4 seasons, just his peak from like 92-96 was he in the top 4-5 of scorers. Before and after that he was like the 10-20th highest scorer in his 10-year peak (and significantly below the league leaders), and with a big dropoff for his last like 6 seasons. Those top years also don't align with his league-leading block or steal or rebound years, he fell off some in those when he was a top scorer.

I don't know. He was still a high-end scorer, he just wasn't dropping insane volume each year. He was about 21-24 ppg for like 7 seasons straight prior to his peak, so it all depends on exactly how you define "elite."

Was he elite when he averaged 26.9 ppg on 56.6% TS (+2.3% rTS relative to league playoff average) in the 86 playoffs? Was he elite when he put up 31 ppg on 58.4% TS against the defending-champion Lakers in the 86 WCFs? He was doing pretty impressive things from fairly early on.

Lebron's been a top 5 scorer (and often top 2-3) for literally 20 years.

Right, but he also has unmatched longevity in NBA history. We're theoretically speaking of completion of game, where Lebron also destroys Olajuwon, but his longevity isn't really the focus here.

I wouldn't call Olajuwon a "stat stuffer," and I agree with you that he isn't the most complete guy. OP is adding blocks and steals together and calling those different categories instead of acknowledging that we're speaking of help defense here. Olajuwon was amazing, but he had his role and he filled it. A guy like Scottie Pippen was a more "complete" player, strictly speaking, let alone Lebron.

[MavsDirk41]

No, its Lebron easily.

PTS ~ 1st
REB ~ 26th
AST ~ 4th
STL ~ 6th
BLK ~ 74th

That is just stat accumulating though

[dhsilv2]

No and it's frankly dumb to ask. We can start with he's not a top 500 all time level passer. It's a glaring weakness and to be an "all-around" player you need to at least not have a weakness at possibly the most important offensive skill. We can go further that in general a center isn't going to qualify because they can't handle the ball well enough which is just a fundamental core aspect of being an all around great player. Now if you want to change it to qualify it as "among centers" then maybe we can talk there as centers general lack in both those areas.

But no, as the question is laid out. There's no reasonable, logical, or grounded argument for Hakeem.

Hakeem Olajuwon is the Only player in the top 20 of 4 out of the 5 major categories All Time, so how would there be no logical argument?

I mean that's not a logical way to judge all around which others have already correctly corrected you on. Why are you repeating this after you've been corrected already?

[MavsDirk41]

Larry Bird needs a mention