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

[tsherkin]

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.

We lack a bunch of information, but even at 39%, that's a semi-valid shot as an outlet within some bracket of usage... which I think he often exceeded, to be fair. But at times, it was a thing which worked out well for him, especially in his quest not to foul out.

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.

I think your fundamental failure is equating box score production with completion of game. That's the core issue we have to address, because they are very much not the same thing.

[Common Sensei]

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.

What would you replace in an NBA game box score after a game where it shows points, assists, rebounds, blocks and steals if you feel they don't matter or tell the whole picture then?

[tsherkin]

What would you replace in an NBA game box score after a game where it shows points, assists, rebounds, blocks and steals if you feel they don't matter or tell the whole picture then?

A whole pile of stuff, but that's not really the point of a common box score. It's to give a quick snap shot of the action. You'd need to get full play-by-play data, with extra stuff like deflections and time of possession and all the fun stuff they track on NBA.com and other websites (including the plus-minus stuff) to get a better feel for what happened in the aftermath.

This is known. It's almost 2026; none of this is terribly new in concept. The box score isn't meant to be the final arbiter of anything; it's just an overview.

[Common Sensei]

What would you replace in an NBA game box score after a game where it shows points, assists, rebounds, blocks and steals if you feel they don't matter or tell the whole picture then?

A whole pile of stuff, but that's not really the point of a common box score. It's to give a quick snap shot of the action. You'd need to get full play-by-play data, with extra stuff like deflections and time of possession and all the fun stuff they track on NBA.com and other websites (including the plus-minus stuff) to get a better feel for what happened in the aftermath.

This is known. It's almost 2026; none of this is terribly new in concept. The box score isn't meant to be the final arbiter of anything; it's just an overview.

Those box scores still have a major influence and impact on awards like MVP's and DPOY and other awards.

[tsherkin]

Those box scores still have a major influence and impact on awards like MVP's and DPOY and other awards.

You aren't wrong, it just isn't relevant to the concept of "complete all-around player."

[Daddy 801]

The answer is no. I don't care where he ranks on anything all time. The game has evolved and the three point shot is so integral to being successful that a player that can't shoot threes well is not considered the best all around player. it is what it is. I love Hakeem by the way.

[Common Sensei]

Those box scores still have a major influence and impact on awards like MVP's and DPOY and other awards.

You aren't wrong, it just isn't relevant to the concept of "complete all-around player."

The NBA uses those numbers as the most important and to be the only player to be in top 20 in 4 of 5 categories that The NBA considers the top factors in determining awards has to be complete all-around by their standards.

[og15]

Those box scores still have a major influence and impact on awards like MVP's and DPOY and other awards.

You aren't wrong, it just isn't relevant to the concept of "complete all-around player."

The NBA uses those numbers as the most important and to be the only player to be in top 20 in 4 of 5 categories that The NBA considers the top factors in determining awards has to be complete all-around by their standards.

The NBA isn't making any statement on all round play, through that.

You're just injecting conclusions into the use of those standard stats that aren't being implied by that usage

[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.

Kids stuff

0 players have ever officially recorded a quintuple double in NBA history.
Nice try, though.

[Common Sensei]

The answer is no. I don't care where he ranks on anything all time. The game has evolved and the three point shot is so integral to being successful that a player that can't shoot threes well is not considered the best all around player. it is what it is. I love Hakeem by the way.

Hakeem could hit 3's all day just ask his teammate Kenny Smith he said Hakeem at practice would hit 3's and win contests with other teammates when Kenny asked Hakeem why you don't shoot more 3's Hakeem answered why should I. Three pointers are included in overall points total and Hakeem is still in top 20 so he why should he hit threes? The game is completely different than it was then if Hakeem played today, he would be hitting threes.

[Daddy 801]

The answer is no. I don't care where he ranks on anything all time. The game has evolved and the three point shot is so integral to being successful that a player that can't shoot threes well is not considered the best all around player. it is what it is. I love Hakeem by the way.

Hakeem could hit 3's all day just ask his teammate Kenny Smith he said Hakeem at practice would hit 3's and win contests with other teammates when Kenny asked Hakeem why you don't shoot more 3's Hakeem answered why should I. Three pointers are included in overall points total and Hakeem is still in top 20 so he why should he hit threes? The game is completely different than it was then if Hakeem played today, he would be hitting threes.

Hakeem shot 124 three point shots in his career. He made 25 of them for an effective field goal percentage of 20.2%. I will use the data that is available instead of what players do in practice.

[Common Sensei]

You aren't wrong, it just isn't relevant to the concept of "complete all-around player."

The NBA uses those numbers as the most important and to be the only player to be in top 20 in 4 of 5 categories that The NBA considers the top factors in determining awards has to be complete all-around by their standards.

The NBA isn't making any statement on all round play, through that.

You're just injecting conclusions into the use of those standard stats that aren't being implied by that usage

The NBA uses those 5 stats as standards when determining awards. How am I injecting conclusions when most every player who won an award was at the top in at least 1 of those 5 categories that influenced their decision.

[Common Sensei]

The answer is no. I don't care where he ranks on anything all time. The game has evolved and the three point shot is so integral to being successful that a player that can't shoot threes well is not considered the best all around player. it is what it is. I love Hakeem by the way.

Hakeem could hit 3's all day just ask his teammate Kenny Smith he said Hakeem at practice would hit 3's and win contests with other teammates when Kenny asked Hakeem why you don't shoot more 3's Hakeem answered why should I. Three pointers are included in overall points total and Hakeem is still in top 20 so he why should he hit threes? The game is completely different than it was then if Hakeem played today, he would be hitting threes.

The game was different than now it's easy to hit threes with all the spacing and no physicality you can't play defense without being called a foul and centers played different then give those older players more spacing their 3-point numbers would go up too.

[Daddy 801]

Hakeem could hit 3's all day just ask his teammate Kenny Smith he said Hakeem at practice would hit 3's and win contests with other teammates when Kenny asked Hakeem why you don't shoot more 3's Hakeem answered why should I. Three pointers are included in overall points total and Hakeem is still in top 20 so he why should he hit threes? The game is completely different than it was then if Hakeem played today, he would be hitting threes.

Hakeem shot 124 three point shots in his career. He made 25 of them for an effective field goal percentage of 20.2%. I will use the data that is available instead of what players do in practice.[/quote
The game was different than now it's easy to hit threes with all the spacing and no physicality you can't play defense without being called a foul and centers played different then give those older players more spacing their 3-point numbers would go up too.

I am an old head. I love Hakeen. He is one of the greatest all around players at his position. I watched Hakeem win those chips in real time. I realize the game has evolved. I realize that if he was drafted now he might be a better three point shooter. I am willing to give older players pre three point shooting era like a 4-5% bump in their percentages if they played now and practiced (we saw similar jumps in some players who played through the three point era) and yes some players would make an even larger jump than 4-5%. I am willing to give all of that as a possibility.

But the reality is we have the data we have. And he wasn't a good in game three point shooter. And the three point shot is so important that I don't think any bigman can be considered the best all around player unless they have that as part of their skillset.

You can disagree. But that's my take.

[FarBeyondDriven]

as others have said, "all around" isn't the same thing as two-way. Hakeem, Wilt and Hakeem are elite two-way players. All around takes into account everything involved skill wise in the game of basketball i.e. dribble, shooting (deep, mid-range, rim), passing, running the floor, rebounding and defense. Larry Bird, Magic and Lebron are elite all around players but shouldn't be considered the best because none of them was an elite defender. Michael Jordan on the other hand had it all at a higher level than anyone else. He's the best all-around player and is in the discussion for two-way player as well.

[tsherkin]

The NBA uses those numbers as the most important and to be the only player to be in top 20 in 4 of 5 categories that The NBA considers the top factors in determining awards has to be complete all-around by their standards.

So, again, you're saying nothing of value here.

The box score doesn't measure completeness of game. It records discrete events which can be tracked, and not even close to all of the relevant information. None of what you just wrote is in any way an address of that notion, so there's no sense repeating the same slop endlessly.

[Common Sensei]

Hakeem shot 124 three point shots in his career. He made 25 of them for an effective field goal percentage of 20.2%. I will use the data that is available instead of what players do in practice.[/quote
The game was different than now it's easy to hit threes with all the spacing and no physicality you can't play defense without being called a foul and centers played different then give those older players more spacing their 3-point numbers would go up too.

I am an old head. I love Hakeen. He is one of the greatest all around players at his position. I watched Hakeem win those chips in real time. I realize the game has evolved. I realize that if he was drafted now he might be a better three point shooter. I am willing to give older players pre three point shooting era like a 4-5% bump in their percentages if they played now and practiced (we saw similar jumps in some players who played through the three point era) and yes some players would make an even larger jump than 4-5%. I am willing to give all of that as a possibility.

But the reality is we have the data we have. And he wasn't a good in game three point shooter. And the three point shot is so important that I don't think any bigman can be considered the best all around player unless they have that as part of their skillset.

You can disagree. But that's my take.

I'm an old head too. I remember how different the game was, but I believe if Hakeem as great as he was would have focused more on 3 pointers and it was a big deal then like today, I believe he would have been very good because look at how he improved his post moves on his own and came up with The Dream Shake that was him being more focused wanting to improve.

[Common Sensei]

The NBA uses those numbers as the most important and to be the only player to be in top 20 in 4 of 5 categories that The NBA considers the top factors in determining awards has to be complete all-around by their standards.

So, again, you're saying nothing of value here.

The box score doesn't measure completeness of game. It records discrete events which can be tracked, and not even close to all of the relevant information. None of what you just wrote is in any way an address of that notion, so there's no sense repeating the same slop endlessly.

You're just thinking outside the box score. It's okay to disagree

[tsherkin]

You're just thinking outside the box score. It's okay to disagree

No, you're just wrong.

Breadth of game isn't described by only the box score, there is a lot more to it. That is well-established.

[MrBigShot]

A requisite for this has to be being able to be a team's primary ball handler & playmaker. Hakeem is not that.

He is certainly ONE OF the most complete. But no way is he as complete an all around player as someone like LeBron for example.