Moderators: ken6199, Dirk, bisme37, KingDavid, bwgood77, zimpy27, cupcakesnake, Domejandro, infinite11285, Harry Garris
CodeBreaker wrote:Mickey8 wrote:How is AD more athletic and versatile than Olajuwon , explain that to me, prime Olajuwon would abuse AD on both ends.
AD is faster, has higher vertical, can guard opposing team's best player 1-5
OdomFan wrote:jamaalstar21 wrote:DonaldSanders wrote:
Gotcha. Neither did Dirk in 2011.
I think it's clearly fair to say that Cassell was nowhere near all-star quality, I mean you can also make the argument Cassell should never have been an all-star lol. I was more trying to clarify if they were talking AS at any point and pointing out Manu/Parker on the 2003 Spurs in terms of actual advantages the players provided. Neither Parker or Ginobili were in their primes but "zero all stars besides Duncan" doesn't quite tell the story correctly like it does when you mention Olajuwon on the Rockets. I typed pretty fast in the other posts and definitely could have done a better job clarifying what I was trying to say.
Hakeem's first title had Otis Thorpe, 2 years removed from a lone all-star appearance, and slightly reduced in terms of volume scoring, but still considered the Rockets 2nd best player. The next year they traded him for Drexler, who didn't make an all-star team the year of the trade, but made it every other year.
2011 Dirk had 4 former all-stars: Kidd 1 year removed, Marion 4 years removed, Caron Butler (injured) 4 years removed, Peja 7 years removed, + a future all-star in Tyson Chandler 2 years away. Jason Terry never made an all-star team.
2003 Duncan had David Robinson 2 years removed from his final all-star, Steve Smith 5 years removed, Kevin Willis 11 years!! Parker made his first all-star team 4 years later, and Ginobili did it 2 years later. Stephen Jackson never made an all-star team.
I'm not really sure if "all-star in the current year" is a useful metric, but these are the 3 guys who have done it most recently, I think. I think it's fair to note than Hakeem's first championship probably had the least "all-star equity" or something like that.
2 years is a long time ago when you're an aging vet though because for one. Robinson wasn't the same player in 2003 that he was 2 years ago. It was literally his very last season.
Both him and Otis were still serviceable for their teams in the respective years we're talking about here (03 and 94) but it's not exactly a missed opportunity that someone else was selected over them for those All Star games. So I stand by saying Duncan and Hakeem are the 2 guys that won a championship with no fellow all star.
2011 Dirk has an argument as well, but I wouldn't agree that he was among them because of Tyson Chandlers monstrous efforts on the defensive end, and Jason Terry going off the way he did throughout those playoffs. Especially against my Lakers. He was pretty underrated throughout his entire career due to him spending majority of it on bad Atlanta Hawks teams.
jamaalstar21 wrote:OdomFan wrote:jamaalstar21 wrote:
Hakeem's first title had Otis Thorpe, 2 years removed from a lone all-star appearance, and slightly reduced in terms of volume scoring, but still considered the Rockets 2nd best player. The next year they traded him for Drexler, who didn't make an all-star team the year of the trade, but made it every other year.
2011 Dirk had 4 former all-stars: Kidd 1 year removed, Marion 4 years removed, Caron Butler (injured) 4 years removed, Peja 7 years removed, + a future all-star in Tyson Chandler 2 years away. Jason Terry never made an all-star team.
2003 Duncan had David Robinson 2 years removed from his final all-star, Steve Smith 5 years removed, Kevin Willis 11 years!! Parker made his first all-star team 4 years later, and Ginobili did it 2 years later. Stephen Jackson never made an all-star team.
I'm not really sure if "all-star in the current year" is a useful metric, but these are the 3 guys who have done it most recently, I think. I think it's fair to note than Hakeem's first championship probably had the least "all-star equity" or something like that.
2 years is a long time ago when you're an aging vet though because for one. Robinson wasn't the same player in 2003 that he was 2 years ago. It was literally his very last season.
Both him and Otis were still serviceable for their teams in the respective years we're talking about here (03 and 94) but it's not exactly a missed opportunity that someone else was selected over them for those All Star games. So I stand by saying Duncan and Hakeem are the 2 guys that won a championship with no fellow all star.
2011 Dirk has an argument as well, but I wouldn't agree that he was among them because of Tyson Chandlers monstrous efforts on the defensive end, and Jason Terry going off the way he did throughout those playoffs. Especially against my Lakers. He was pretty underrated throughout his entire career due to him spending majority of it on bad Atlanta Hawks teams.
How about we just don't use all-star here as a useful measuring stick of talent. We can't just move the needle and name all-star level performances in the playoffs. None of these 3 guys had current all-stars, or past/future all-stars anywhere near their prime, so why not throw out all-stars and talk about their supporting casts in terms of talent or fit? All 3 of these teams were really well built on both ends and complimented their HOF players perfectly.
Pat Riley wrote:There are only two options regarding commitment. You're either IN or you're OUT. There is no such thing as life in-between.
James Johnson wrote:The culture is REAL.
CodeBreaker wrote:Both are very skilled big men. AD is more athletic and versatile. An elite defensive player as well like Hakeem.
As a big man, is AD on the level of Olajuwon without looking at the accolades?
Edrees wrote:JRoy wrote:Monta Ellis have it all
I was hoping and expecting this to be one of the first replies. You did not disappoint. Jroy have it all.
zimpy27 wrote:Nope. Jordan was taken after Hakeem in the draft and no one was ever even mad about it.
DonaldSanders wrote:mixerball wrote:DonaldSanders wrote:
I'm saying there probably should be some clarification whether the player won without a current all-star from that year or if the player won without anyone that ever was an all-star. They are obviously different things, and having players that never made it to an all star game would obviously be harder. Pretty simple logic, nothing silly about that.
Perhaps 3 categories -- zero all-star appearances for the career, all star after the chip, and all-star before the chip.
I mean the 2011 Mavs have Jason Kidd, ya it's not all-star Jason Kidd but it's really not the same thing as say someone who was never an all-star, or as you point out, a rookie like Cassell or Manu who weren't yet at full potential but still better than "not an all star" sounds.
there is also a clear difference between manu and cassell when comparing those years.
That's what I said later more clearly but I guess you didn't finish reading the thread before responding.
dhsilv2 wrote:DonaldSanders wrote:OdomFan wrote:
We're talking about players who won the championship in that moment with no fellow all star next to them. Hakeem didn't have one in 94, and neither did Duncan in 2003.
Gotcha. Neither did Dirk in 2011.Dnt hate wrote:In 94 Cassell was a rookie and averaging 6 pts in regular season and 9 in playoffs so ya he counts as an obvious non allstar
I think it's clearly fair to say that Cassell was nowhere near all-star quality, I mean you can also make the argument Cassell should never have been an all-star lol. I was more trying to clarify if they were talking AS at any point and pointing out Manu/Parker on the 2003 Spurs in terms of actual advantages the players provided. Neither Parker or Ginobili were in their primes but "zero all stars besides Duncan" doesn't quite tell the story correctly like it does when you mention Olajuwon on the Rockets. I typed pretty fast in the other posts and definitely could have done a better job clarifying what I was trying to say.
Wait, WHAT? Cassell has a far better case to argue he was snubbed from more allstar games than shouldn't have been one. The guy was 2nd team all nba that year!
Kilroy wrote:CodeBreaker wrote:vxmike wrote:There’s no a single thing AD can do better than Hakeem except perhaps a better 3pt shot.
His face up game and arguably midrange shot
He can also guard the best player 1-5 on the other team... Hakeem couldn't do that. Especially not in the no-touch modern era.
Club Shai Shai 
Floody100 wrote:Prisoner of the moment syndrome by OP. The gap between both players is ridiculously large right now.
Steelo Green wrote:People are expecting way too much from Barnes out of the get go. He is a project player who will need 2-3 years before he makes a major impact.
scrabbarista wrote:I suspect I watched Hakeem from '91-'97 as much as nearly anyone on the boards. Anthony Davis is the most similar player to Olajuwon that I have seen since Olajuwon in terms of skill and ability on both ends. It's obviously difficult to compare across eras, but the one thing that can be compared across eras is attitude and mindset. Olajuwon had a far higher motor - even past 30, even during Ramadan. Olajuwon thirsted for blocks and steals. He was insatiable on both ends. He demanded the ball down the stretch of games. Not asking him to carry you in a close game simply wasn't an option. It was never considered, because Olajuwon refused to allow that. Olajuwon was as competitive as a player can be. AD has no argument over Olajuwon, in my opinion. Olajuwon (past 30) was a better passer than AD, among the other things listed here. He also, obviously, had far more moves and counter moves with the ball in his hands.
Also, one of the things people forget when they compare young bigs to Olajuwon is that he made the NBA Finals in his second season, beating Magic Johnson, James Worthy, and Kareem Abdul-Jabbar in the WCF. That's how impactful he was.
