How much do we discount Mikan? If he has, say, four MVPs, does that mean you discount him and say it's more like 1 MVP? Just want a rough guess to see what people think.
RSCD3_ wrote:therealbig3 wrote:
I'm more impressed by Garnett's defense from just the sheer intelligence he displays, combined with his incredible physical gifts. ElGee made a pretty great post about this, how even Hakeem isn't his equal in terms of "horizontal" defense (lateral quickness, mobility, timing, rotations, diagnosing plays, recovery, angles, etc). As a result, I think Garnett is a slightly better defender, and imo, the best defensive player since Russell...I understand if people don't agree, however.
Also, I think Hakeem was the better player, prime vs prime. Even if Garnett was the better defender (not a given), Hakeem is better offensively, and that's a bigger difference.
I give Garnett an edge with regards to longevity though, but not really a big one. I'm probably going to pick Hakeem. Better player, close enough longevity.
I personally have Hakeem at #4...if it wasn't for Shaq not being off the board for the last few threads, I would have voted for him a while
ago.
Their passing skills appear to be close but I think Hakeem had more of an impact as a passer because he frequented the low post more.
There's no way they're close. Hakeem took a while until he was a great passer.
fatal9 wrote:ronnymac2 wrote:acrossthecourt wrote:And remember, the Sonics beat them in '93, which is probably his best season, yet they lost in the first round in '94. With Jordan's retirement and that loss, the Rockets were lucky.
What does this have to do with Hakeem Olajuwon?
I wonder the same thing. In '93, the Rockets opened their season in Japan in B2B games vs. the Sonics. The team still hadn't come together yet and played a couple of listless, forgettable games. Until the flight to Japan, the team and organization weren't even sure if Hakeem was going to be there for the season. Then the two teams faced off mid-season twice and split those games. Then they played a tight playoff series that came down to the last possessions of a game 7 and the difference may have been Seattle getting a few favorable calls in crunch time (literally one possession goes differently and this narrative falls apart). Hakeem by any reasonable account, had an incredible all around series despite facing an enormous amount of defensive attention. In 1994, both teams split the season series 2-2 (with Hakeem averaging 28 ppg on 69 FG% and 70 TS% in these games...no, that's not a mistake). The '95 and '96 Rocket teams were different in many ways (not just with roster changes, but how healthy they were in the regular season, in '96 basically every key player missed at least 10 games) and lost every game they faced Seattle in. Then the '97 team was even more different and the Rockets beat them in 7 (as long as we're mentioning results multiple seasons down the line to project what would happen earlier). Seattle did have certain matchup advantages against the Rockets depending on the year, but what here makes people so confident that the Sonics were this sure bet to beat the Rockets in '94? In '93 and '94, the teams kept battling each other to a draw and basically maintained home court. This also ignores the fact that Seattle was perhaps the most unreliable top seeded team ever, constantly losing to teams they were favored against throughout the 90s (them struggling or losing to lower seed teams was not an anomaly, it was a routine).
Secondly, who cares? What does this have to with the inherent qualities of Hakeem's game?
Because without those titles there would be no traction for Hakeem above guys like Magic and Shaq. That's the storyline people love to trot out for Hakeem, but he easily could have lost those titles.
Let's talk about Hakeem's game outside of those two years. His offense post '94? Why were his late 90's RAPM scores so low? He was still a good passer and post player. What about pre, say, '92 Hakeem?
DannyNoonan1221 wrote:While I understand per100, per36 stats, I am not a big supporter of them. Why should we look at a player's per100 stats? We are talking about how these players rank based on what they did on the court during a 48 minute game. I do not agree with the per 100 mindset- a players impact and role is based on what they actually do in 48 minutes. If a coach could give these guys 100 possessions every game and they would actually produce what their per100 stats did that would be nothing short of miraculous. Resting on the bench plays a big part in a players production, both positive (keeping them fresh) and negative (less chances to produce). If people do not agree with this or have questions I can go into more detail but won't for right now.
That's not the point of per minute/possession stats.
It's to more accurately gauge value by seeing what a player produces. If a player who averages 20 points retires, those 20 points don't disappear. They're distributed to the rest of the team. Hence, you need to judge how replaceable those stats were. Per possessions stats let you do this.
ronnymac2 wrote:Vote: Hakeem Olajuwon
Not sure how much time I'll have, so I'll place my vote now.
I'm voting for Hakeem because I believe he gives me the best chance to win more titles than any other player. His years from 1986-1990 to me show he was a legitimate championship piece on his teams. His 1990 season in my opinion is the greatest defensive season in NBA history not including Bill Russell, and he still gives you strong offense (more valuable offense if he were on a better offensive teams). I am convinced these years are the prime — not peak, but prime — years of a GOAT candidate. 1996 and 1997 are on par with 1986-1990. 1991-1992 are only slightly below that. And 1993-1995 are GOAT level peak years.
LeBron James from 2008-2014 gives me 7 years on par with Olajuwon's best (1989-1990, 1993-1997), MAYBE even better, but Hakeem gives me extra value in his other 5 years that LBJ's 2005-2007 can't overcome. I do believe LeBron James will end up surpassing Hakeem and Shaq within the next 2-3 seasons and perhaps even Michael Jordan and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar at some point thereafter. Right now, I can't put him the King over the Dream.
I have read some tremendous arguments for LeBron though. I actually thought about voting for James over O'Neal in the last thread and Olajuwon here.
See, where I differ is that I don't think Hakeem's seven best years are on par with him at all. Like 1997. I just never see anyone regard that season highly, while LeBron has some of the best ever. There's no metric saying Olajuwon was an MVP-level player in 1997, even RAPM, and watching him and looking back at contemporary accounts I think that's true.
I think that people are overrating him a little because they assume elite defender + fancy post player, hence you get the best defense with one of the best offensive players ever. And that's not true. We've seen other post guys like Duncan put up disappointing impact offensive numbers. The post is overrated, even in the 90's, The exception is Shaq, but he destroyed other teams, warped the court, and was more efficient. I think he was a much better passer too. I don't think Olajuwon is an "elite" offensive anchor/focal point based on what I've seen the stats available. He doesn't pass like Shaq, and certainly doesn't help his teammates like Magic/LeBron/Bird, and his efficiency is nothing spectacular. He wasn't a pure post up guy. There were a lot of face-up plays and midrange jumpers. After LeBron/Bird/Magic, all of whom clearly "owned" the league for a while, he's probably up next though. I'll have to think about him versus Garnett.
His 4 MVPs are most definitely impressive and deserved, but level of competition does factor in to this. In the 2000s, you had Shaq, Duncan, Kobe, and KG dualing it out for MVPs. The only competition close to his level now is Durant. Much much easier to stack up on the allocades.
Um LeBron competed against those guys too. His 2009 MVP was one of the most impressive ever given the competition from Wade, Chris Paul, and Kobe. That Wade season was crazy. Garnett was in contention for MVP in 2009 as well.
LeBron going up against Durant is not slander. He beat him in 2013 when everyone was salivating over his 50/40/90 stats.
I mean, Iverson won an MVP. LeBron could have won an MVP over him. edit: You're also using like ten years of players to try to make LeBron look bad. Shaq peaked in 2000 and Kobe was competing for MVPs in the late 00's. Garnett and Duncan peaked a little after Shaq. Yet your'e comparing all those guys to LeBron's second period of MVP titles when he goes up against Durant.
