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

[dhsilv2]

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.

I'm well aware there was a video on Wilt's fade away jumpers. I know wilt talked about it as well. I've not seen any evidence he was actually good from there. And given his overall field goal percentages, one would be left asking if was poor at the rim or on those jumpers. Because I don't see how he can be elite at both and not have much better shooting numbers overall. Given that I'd guess he was sub 40% on those fade away shots.

[tsherkin]

I'm well aware there was a video on Wilt's fade away jumpers. I know wilt talked about it as well. I've not seen any evidence he was actually good from there. And given his overall field goal percentages, one would be left asking if was poor at the rim or on those jumpers. Because I don't see how he can be elite at both and not have much better shooting numbers overall. Given that I'd guess he was sub 40% on those fade away shots.

I think 70sFan has some tracking on it, and I remember it not being awful. He had the range. He was no MJ or anything, but it was a semi-viable thing which he overshot a little because he didn't want to be perceived as Goliath. But he had some 12- to 14-foot touch on those. Kind of like Orlando Shaq had more of a left hand and a little fadeaway of his own.

[dhsilv2]

The arguments about 3PA and such as "holes" in his game dont hold water to me. there were guards in the 90s who didn't shoot 3's with any regularity, and the handful of centers with stretch range at that time were anomalies..

Being an "all around player" is an anomaly. That's why at the youth level they start breaking people out into "positions" so you can focus on a few skills vs an all around set of skills.

[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?

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?

Of course it's logical and a very good way to judge a player you obviously don't value defense and Hakeem had the best carry job to win a championship you have to be complete All-Around player to win with no high talent help.

[dhsilv2]

I'm well aware there was a video on Wilt's fade away jumpers. I know wilt talked about it as well. I've not seen any evidence he was actually good from there. And given his overall field goal percentages, one would be left asking if was poor at the rim or on those jumpers. Because I don't see how he can be elite at both and not have much better shooting numbers overall. Given that I'd guess he was sub 40% on those fade away shots.

I think 70sFan has some tracking on it, and I remember it not being awful. He had the range. He was no MJ or anything, but it was a semi-viable thing which he overshot a little because he didn't want to be perceived as Goliath. But he had some 12- to 14-foot touch on those. Kind of like Orlando Shaq had more of a left hand and a little fadeaway of his own.

38-39% isn't too bad. Like it's respectable enough. But we if we're talking a legit 43-45% shooting which would make him a legit "impact" shooter. At 38-39 you put a hand up but you're not worried.

But 70's fan is still limited to the same data we all have which is late career biased and big game biased. In short I'd guess our stats in the video we have would skew from that.

[tsherkin]

38-39% isn't too bad. Like it's respectable enough. But we if we're talking a legit 43-45% shooting which would make him a legit "impact" shooter. At 38-39 you put a hand up but you're not worried.

But 70's fan is still limited to the same data we all have which is late career biased and big game biased. In short I'd guess our stats in the video we have would skew from that.

Sure, that's all quite valid. I was just trying to point out that he tracked enough games to suggest that it wasn't a single-season fluke or anything. He took the shot, and it wasn't the worst thing ever. It was probably a win for the D every time he took it, because it meant he wasn't abusing his size even in the ways more permissible in his own time as a result of his insecurities, but still. I'm with you that I don't think it really counts for much when we're discussing breadth/completion of game compared, though. Even in his own era, you had other guys who were far better shooters at the same position.

[dhsilv2]

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?

Of course it's logical and a very good way to judge a player you obviously don't value defense and Hakeem had the best carry job to win a championship you have to be complete All-Around player to win with no high talent help.

Which of those stats tells us about his ball handling? How about his screen setting? How about shooting range? Gravity?

And steals and blocks don't tell us much about defense. PJ Tucker was a great man defender. His steals and blocks aren't anything special. Bruce Bowen same thing. Using those two metrics as proxy for defense is at best misguided. Similarly we can't just say "good defender". There are numerous types of defense. Rim defense, post defense, pick and roll defense, on ball defense, iso perimeter defense. While dream is a rare big man who might actually be good in all those. Your metrics don't show that.

So please stop. It's a terrible argument.

[RHODEY]

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

Hakeem>Lebron overall, I have no doubt about that.

[tsherkin]

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

Hakeem>Lebron overall, I have no doubt about that.

Whether or not that's true, it doesn't really address the subject of discussion. Lebron's game is definitely more diverse and complete than Olajuwon's.

[dhsilv2]

38-39% isn't too bad. Like it's respectable enough. But we if we're talking a legit 43-45% shooting which would make him a legit "impact" shooter. At 38-39 you put a hand up but you're not worried.

But 70's fan is still limited to the same data we all have which is late career biased and big game biased. In short I'd guess our stats in the video we have would skew from that.

Sure, that's all quite valid. I was just trying to point out that he tracked enough games to suggest that it wasn't a single-season fluke or anything. He took the shot, and it wasn't the worst thing ever. It was probably a win for the D every time he took it, because it meant he wasn't abusing his size even in the ways more permissible in his own time as a result of his insecurities, but still. I'm with you that I don't think it really counts for much when we're discussing breadth/completion of game compared, though. Even in his own era, you had other guys who were far better shooters at the same position.

The point is more it wasn't a weapon in the bag. It was a thing he did to little value. I'm still a bit skeptical on how he shot it though. Again, I'm sure in some 70 point game he shot it well. But we just have such a poor sample of Wilt in terms of full games.

[UcanUwill]

Would you even call Hakeem a versatile player? Most complete playet ever is a huge reach. If you mean two way player, ok, but I rhink those are different things.

[Common Sensei]

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?

Of course it's logical and a very good way to judge a player you obviously don't value defense and Hakeem had the best carry job to win a championship you have to be complete All-Around player to win with no high talent help.

Which of those stats tells us about his ball handling? How about his screen setting? How about shooting range? Gravity?

And steals and blocks don't tell us much about defense. PJ Tucker was a great man defender. His steals and blocks aren't anything special. Bruce Bowen same thing. Using those two metrics as proxy for defense is at best misguided. Similarly we can't just say "good defender". There are numerous types of defense. Rim defense, post defense, pick and roll defense, on ball defense, iso perimeter defense. While dream is a rare big man who might actually be good in all those. Your metrics don't show that.

So please stop. It's a terrible argument.

your just pointing out things stats don't really show so it's basically pointless to assume then you're saying stats that do show are pointless? the stats I posted appear in the box score of any game and in players overall careers what you're talking about are other people's opinions.

[dhsilv2]

Of course it's logical and a very good way to judge a player you obviously don't value defense and Hakeem had the best carry job to win a championship you have to be complete All-Around player to win with no high talent help.

Which of those stats tells us about his ball handling? How about his screen setting? How about shooting range? Gravity?

And steals and blocks don't tell us much about defense. PJ Tucker was a great man defender. His steals and blocks aren't anything special. Bruce Bowen same thing. Using those two metrics as proxy for defense is at best misguided. Similarly we can't just say "good defender". There are numerous types of defense. Rim defense, post defense, pick and roll defense, on ball defense, iso perimeter defense. While dream is a rare big man who might actually be good in all those. Your metrics don't show that.

So please stop. It's a terrible argument.

your just pointing out things stats don't really show so it's basically pointless to assume then you're saying stats that do show are pointless? the stats I posted appear in the box score of any game and in players overall careers what you're talking about are other people's opinions.

It's pretty common sense that you can't just post box score stats to figure out who's the most complete player. If someone could just answer a question like this by posting box score stats, there'd be no reason for a thread about it. Just use some common sense.

[LarsV8]

The name that comes to mind for me is Chris Paul.

Outside of maybe rebounding, he comes across as great or elite in basically every category.

[RHODEY]

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

Hakeem>Lebron overall, I have no doubt about that.

Whether or not that's true, it doesn't really address the subject of discussion. Lebron's game is definitely more diverse and complete than Olajuwon's.

I mean Lebron could fill a statline across the board ...but so could Hakeem

Hakeem Olajuwon's career averages were 21.8 points, 11.1 rebounds, 2.5 assists, and 3.1 blocks per game

LeBron James's career regular season averages are 27.0 points, 7.5 rebounds, and 7.4 assists per game

From a defensive standpoint Hakeem was a more diverse and complete player. And certainly more impactful overall.

[prime1time]

Wemby when it’s all said and done will be.

[dhsilv2]

The name that comes to mind for me is Chris Paul.

Outside of maybe rebounding, he comes across as great or elite in basically every category.

Shot blocking. Rim protection. Not really a lob threat off ball. To me he's in the discussion for most skilled. Not complete. As he lacks the height which is part of being complete but not a skill.

[Common Sensei]

Which of those stats tells us about his ball handling? How about his screen setting? How about shooting range? Gravity?

And steals and blocks don't tell us much about defense. PJ Tucker was a great man defender. His steals and blocks aren't anything special. Bruce Bowen same thing. Using those two metrics as proxy for defense is at best misguided. Similarly we can't just say "good defender". There are numerous types of defense. Rim defense, post defense, pick and roll defense, on ball defense, iso perimeter defense. While dream is a rare big man who might actually be good in all those. Your metrics don't show that.

So please stop. It's a terrible argument.

your just pointing out things stats don't really show so it's basically pointless to assume then you're saying stats that do show are pointless? the stats I posted appear in the box score of any game and in players overall careers what you're talking about are other people's opinions.

It's pretty common sense that you can't just post box score stats to figure out who's the most complete player. If someone could just answer a question like this by posting box score stats, there'd be no reason for a thread about it. Just use some common sense.

Common sense still says other than counting overall stats these threads are basically just opinions only. Overall stats vs opinions.

[dhsilv2]

your just pointing out things stats don't really show so it's basically pointless to assume then you're saying stats that do show are pointless? the stats I posted appear in the box score of any game and in players overall careers what you're talking about are other people's opinions.

It's pretty common sense that you can't just post box score stats to figure out who's the most complete player. If someone could just answer a question like this by posting box score stats, there'd be no reason for a thread about it. Just use some common sense.

Common sense still says other than counting overall stats these threads are basically just opinions only. Overall stats vs opinions.

Yes, of course a discussion forum was created to share opinions. What does that have to do with how dumb listing just 5 stats from the box score is for this topic?

I wouldn't post someone's free throw percentage to answer if someone is a good defender. I also wouldn't post their blocks and steals alone as that doesn't tell me much either.

[tsherkin]

I mean Lebron could fill a statline across the board ...but so could Hakeem

Sure, but we aren't talking about the box score. We're talking about actual in-game versatility, and there, no one sane would suggest Hakeem is more complete.