Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor)

[70sFan]

In the '94-95 Playoffs, Hakeem scored 30 or more 16 times and 40 or more 5 times while leading an extremely successful team offense. Duncan didn't do anything like this.

Duncan played in slower era though, besides 1995 is quite an exception for Hakeem, not a rule.

[Odinn21]

There is very little evidence to believe that Hakeem is clearly better scorer than Duncan.

I wouldn't say that. I think you can make an argument that Hakeem doesn't warrant being seen as the clearly better scorer than Duncan, but it's not hard to come up with some data that promotes Hakeem.

In the '94-95 Playoffs, Hakeem scored 30 or more 16 times and 40 or more 5 times while leading an extremely successful team offense. Duncan didn't do anything like this.

Of course as I say this, I don't think this playoff stretch is what he's looking at here so maybe that's your point, but Hakeem's always been a super-intriguing peak candidate because how things spiked under Rudy T.

1995 playoffs was the season Olajuwon led an extremely successful team offense. It's hard to agree with 1994 Rockets being extremely successful on offense and Duncan did anything like 1995 playoffs of Olajuwon fwiw.

Duncan averaged 25.8 pts per game on a 100.8 ppg team, 37.1 pts per 100 on +9.9 rts and the Spurs had +9.6 rORtg in 2006 playoffs.
This is not far from Olajuwon scoring 33.0 pts per game on a 107.0 ppg team, 40.7 pts per 100 on +2.0 rts and the Rockets having +8.1 rORtg in 1995 playoffs.

And we already know that Duncan's offensive performances and impact in 2002&2003 playoffs are on par with Olajuwon's 1994 playoffs. Even if we look at team rORtg the Spurs had +3.8 rORtg in 2002 playoffs (+5.5 if we account for the game he missed against the Sonics in the 1st round) and +2.6 rORtg in 2003 playoffs. 2002 and 2003 are not too far off of 1994 Rockets' +4.7 rORtg. Especially considering the spacing and the shooting around Olajuwon were definitely better.

[Jaivl]

I’m sorry I can’t remember where exactly but I’ll say that I do vividly remember Taylor calling Hakeem the best defender of the 3-pt era somewhere. Now whether or not he still holds that opinion, I don’t think it was that long ago though, and how much he thinks Hakeem is better than Garnett on that end are both still up in the air I think.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

He did say Hakeem was the best defender of the 3-pt era, despite Garnett having the highest IQ.

I mean, I don't see the problem, I also think Bird's instincts are second to none, but still have Magic as a better offensive player than him.

Do you think that Bird’s defense from 85 to 86 is enough to make up for whatever edge you give to Magic offensively from 87 to 89?


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

I do think Bird peaked slightly higher than Magic, yes.

[Owly]

There is very little evidence to believe that Hakeem is clearly better scorer than Duncan.

I wouldn't say that. I think you can make an argument that Hakeem doesn't warrant being seen as the clearly better scorer than Duncan, but it's not hard to come up with some data that promotes Hakeem.

In the '94-95 Playoffs, Hakeem scored 30 or more 16 times and 40 or more 5 times while leading an extremely successful team offense. Duncan didn't do anything like this.

Of course as I say this, I don't think this playoff stretch is what he's looking at here so maybe that's your point, but Hakeem's always been a super-intriguing peak candidate because how things spiked under Rudy T.

He's the biggest part in an offense that is successful. The question is whether he's driving it's success.

Arguments against might include:
He's the least efficient core rotation player in that rotation in that run.
The Houston on-off was better with him off in the finals.
Not only the point guards but also Drexler to is higher assists per 100. He's closer to Horry and Elie than to Drexler.
Drexler and Horry contribute as much (actually very slightly higher offensive rebound %) on the offensive glass (as with the last point not directly scoring related but relevant in terms of explaining Houston's overall offensive goodness, possibly seen as part of the cost of a post scoring repertoire that sometimes saw him fading away from the basket).
It's other players rotation players keeping their FT/FGA passable by better foul drawing (FTr) and better free throw shooting.

Yes he volume scored on a good (playoff ... small sample - though yes peaks are inevitably so) offense ... it's less clear to me that he caused it. He keeps a lid on turnovers, and this is more important in a larger role. He's got some hockey assists that won't be in the boxscore ... but then it's not the 3s that are really driving the offensive efficiency either (maybe he's indirectly creating good look long twos).

I'm not saying it's not him but I'd want a few more dots connecting between he scored a lot and good offense to say that the scoring is special or notably effective in this context.

[Doctor MJ]

In the '94-95 Playoffs, Hakeem scored 30 or more 16 times and 40 or more 5 times while leading an extremely successful team offense. Duncan didn't do anything like this.

Duncan played in slower era though, besides 1995 is quite an exception for Hakeem, not a rule.

Sure, it's evidence tho.

[Doctor MJ]

There is very little evidence to believe that Hakeem is clearly better scorer than Duncan.

I wouldn't say that. I think you can make an argument that Hakeem doesn't warrant being seen as the clearly better scorer than Duncan, but it's not hard to come up with some data that promotes Hakeem.

In the '94-95 Playoffs, Hakeem scored 30 or more 16 times and 40 or more 5 times while leading an extremely successful team offense. Duncan didn't do anything like this.

Of course as I say this, I don't think this playoff stretch is what he's looking at here so maybe that's your point, but Hakeem's always been a super-intriguing peak candidate because how things spiked under Rudy T.

He's the biggest part in an offense that is successful. The question is whether he's driving it's success.

Arguments against might include:
He's the least efficient core rotation player in that rotation in that run.
The Houston on-off was better with him off in the finals.
Not only the point guards but also Drexler to is higher assists per 100. He's closer to Horry and Elie than to Drexler.
Drexler and Horry contribute as much (actually very slightly higher offensive rebound %) on the offensive glass (as with the last point not directly scoring related but relevant in terms of explaining Houston's overall offensive goodness, possibly seen as part of the cost of a post scoring repertoire that sometimes saw him fading away from the basket).
It's other players rotation players keeping their FT/FGA passable by better foul drawing (FTr) and better free throw shooting.

Yes he volume scored on a good (playoff ... small sample - though yes peaks are inevitably so) offense ... it's less clear to me that he caused it. He keeps a lid on turnovers, and this is more important in a larger role. He's got some hockey assists that won't be in the boxscore ... but then it's not the 3s that are really driving the offensive efficiency either (maybe he's indirectly creating good look long twos).

I'm not saying it's not him but I'd want a few more dots connecting between he scored a lot and good offense to say that the scoring is special or notably effective in this context.

Well to be clear, I'm not saying he caused it all by himself. It's not a coincidence that the Rockets did what they while taking tons of 3's. This was basically the beginning of strategic competence in the NBA regarding the whole 3>2 thing.

Nevertheless, he was the focal point of the offense and it has to be emphasized that when we talking about "stretching the defense", it only works if you've got threats "on both ends of the string" - that is exterior and interior.

[Odinn21]

Well to be clear, I'm not saying he caused it all by himself. It's not a coincidence that the Rockets did what they while taking tons of 3's. This was basically the beginning of strategic competence in the NBA regarding the whole 3>2 thing.

Nevertheless, he was the focal point of the offense and it has to be emphasized that when we talking about "stretching the defense", it only works if you've got threats "on both ends of the string" - that is exterior and interior.

Both points are certainly true for both players.

The Spurs also focused on potential of 3 point shooting hard. Their utilization of corner threes was just magnificent. It just doesn't grab much attention because it was not revolutionary and their pace led to low attempt numbers. However if we look at their attempt and rate numbers;
2001 Spurs; 27th in fga, 15th in 3pa, 13th in 3pa rate, 1st in 3p%, 6th in efg%
2002 Spurs; 28th in fga, 12th in 3pa, 11th in 3pa rate, 10th in 3p%, 8th in efg%
2003 Spurs; 27th in fga, 11th in 3pa, 7th in 3pa rate, 11th in 3p%, 4th in efg%
2004 Spurs; 20th in fga, 18th in 3pa, 17th in 3pa rate, 6th in 3p%, 14th in efg%
2005 Spurs; 21th in fga, 13th in 3pa, 11th in 3pa rate, 8th in 3p%, 6th in efg%
2006 Spurs; 20th in fga, 16th in 3pa, 15th in 3pa rate, 2nd in 3p%, 3rd in efg%
2007 Spurs; 27th in fga, 7th in 3pa, 6th in 3pa rate, 3rd in 3p%, 2nd in efg%
2008 Spurs; 28th in fga, 10th in 3pa, 8th in 3pa rate, 11th in 3p%, 10th in efg%

They empathized importance of threes big time when Duncan was their centrepiece on offense. The only season they were below average in terms of 3pt utilization was 2004. And as you can see that Duncan's pull in the paint and high utilization of three pointers (especially corner threes) translated into very very good shooting efficiency for the team. They were in the top 6 5 times from 2001 to 2007, with another 8th rank and 2004 being the only bad egg.

Also I think it's worth mentioning that Drexler and Horry were helped by the shorter line significantly and that translated into bigger outlying numbers for the Rockets. They were ahead of the curve but not that much.

Your closing statement is also true for Duncan, that's why I chimed in. What can be said for Olajuwon also can be said for Duncan. 1995 playoffs was a huge offensive performance from Olajuwon and as you discussed with 70sFan, it's not the rule but it's also there. Then again, Duncan had 2006 playoffs in the very similar manner, the trade off being between efficiency and some scoring volume.
I mean we can go further down the road and talk about Hakeem having more range, being more fluid, Duncan being the better passer and creator, being able to go through contacts better, or the offensive quality and structure around them, etc. But their overall offensive quality will stay on the same level. At least to me.

[colts18]

There is very little evidence to believe that Hakeem is clearly better scorer than Duncan.

I wouldn't say that. I think you can make an argument that Hakeem doesn't warrant being seen as the clearly better scorer than Duncan, but it's not hard to come up with some data that promotes Hakeem.

In the '94-95 Playoffs, Hakeem scored 30 or more 16 times and 40 or more 5 times while leading an extremely successful team offense. Duncan didn't do anything like this.

Of course as I say this, I don't think this playoff stretch is what he's looking at here so maybe that's your point, but Hakeem's always been a super-intriguing peak candidate because how things spiked under Rudy T.

1995 playoffs was the season Olajuwon led an extremely successful team offense. It's hard to agree with 1994 Rockets being extremely successful on offense and Duncan did anything like 1995 playoffs of Olajuwon fwiw.

Duncan averaged 25.8 pts per game on a 100.8 ppg team, 37.1 pts per 100 on +9.9 rts and the Spurs had +9.6 rORtg in 2006 playoffs.
This is not far from Olajuwon scoring 33.0 pts per game on a 107.0 ppg team, 40.7 pts per 100 on +2.0 rts and the Rockets having +8.1 rORtg in 1995 playoffs.

And we already know that Duncan's offensive performances and impact in 2002&2003 playoffs are on par with Olajuwon's 1994 playoffs. Even if we look at team rORtg the Spurs had +3.8 rORtg in 2002 playoffs (+5.5 if we account for the game he missed against the Sonics in the 1st round) and +2.6 rORtg in 2003 playoffs. 2002 and 2003 are not too far off of 1994 Rockets' +4.7 rORtg. Especially considering the spacing and the shooting around Olajuwon were definitely better.

1995 was more impressive than 2006. For one, Hakeem did it in 4 series vs Duncan's 2 series. The opposing competition has to be mentioned also. Hakeem faced Malone, Barkley, Robinson, and Shaq. That's tough competition that forced him to play both ways. Duncan played the Brad Miller Kings and Dampier/Diop Mavericks.

[70sFan]

I also find it quite strange that people defend Hakeem for his teams offense during 1994-97 postseason runs, but almost nobody does the same for Wilt, even though he had quite a few really good playoff runs:

1964 Warriors: +4.3 rORtg
1965 Sixers: +5.8 rORtg
1967 Sixers: +3.3 rORtg
1970 Lakers: +5.1 rORtg

(Source: backpicks.com)

All against top-tier defensive competition (Celtics, 1967 Warriors, 1970 Knicks) when Wilt was either a clear offensive anchor or co-anchor (1970) of offense.

[70sFan]

Just to be clear - I view Hakeem as a great offensive player and I don't want to downgrade him on that level. I just find some of used arguments against Duncan (and Wilt by the way) inconsistent in this case. Maybe Hakeem is a bit better scorer than Duncan, the gap isn't huge by any means. I simply question why Hakeem is that much higher than Garnett then, because passing gap is quite large.

[70sFan]

I wouldn't say that. I think you can make an argument that Hakeem doesn't warrant being seen as the clearly better scorer than Duncan, but it's not hard to come up with some data that promotes Hakeem.

In the '94-95 Playoffs, Hakeem scored 30 or more 16 times and 40 or more 5 times while leading an extremely successful team offense. Duncan didn't do anything like this.

Of course as I say this, I don't think this playoff stretch is what he's looking at here so maybe that's your point, but Hakeem's always been a super-intriguing peak candidate because how things spiked under Rudy T.

1995 playoffs was the season Olajuwon led an extremely successful team offense. It's hard to agree with 1994 Rockets being extremely successful on offense and Duncan did anything like 1995 playoffs of Olajuwon fwiw.

Duncan averaged 25.8 pts per game on a 100.8 ppg team, 37.1 pts per 100 on +9.9 rts and the Spurs had +9.6 rORtg in 2006 playoffs.
This is not far from Olajuwon scoring 33.0 pts per game on a 107.0 ppg team, 40.7 pts per 100 on +2.0 rts and the Rockets having +8.1 rORtg in 1995 playoffs.

And we already know that Duncan's offensive performances and impact in 2002&2003 playoffs are on par with Olajuwon's 1994 playoffs. Even if we look at team rORtg the Spurs had +3.8 rORtg in 2002 playoffs (+5.5 if we account for the game he missed against the Sonics in the 1st round) and +2.6 rORtg in 2003 playoffs. 2002 and 2003 are not too far off of 1994 Rockets' +4.7 rORtg. Especially considering the spacing and the shooting around Olajuwon were definitely better.

1995 was more impressive than 2006. For one, Hakeem did it in 4 series vs Duncan's 2 series. The opposing competition has to be mentioned also. Hakeem faced Malone, Barkley, Robinson, and Shaq. That's tough competition that forced him to play both ways. Duncan played the Brad Miller Kings and Dampier/Diop Mavericks.

Why do you use Malone and Barkley in your argument but not Dirk? Hakeem didn't guard Malone or Barkley and wasn't guarded by them either.

I recently rewatched 1994 Rockets vs Suns series and Barkley actually defended Hakeem more than vice versa. I'm in between 1994 Rockets vs Jazz series right now, but so far Hakeem didn't defend Malone either.

[frica]

Could it be that Ben actually rates Hakeem as the more impactful defender by a margin then?

I also have a feeling Ben's 3-10 are probably quite interchangable in his mind.

[BenoUdrihFTL]

1994 NBA playoffs vs a 98.2 DRTG Knicks:

Watch on YouTube

If you can watch that entire clip and claim with a straight face that Hakeem isn't a top 5 prime then I question what you think basketball actually is

4:25 to 5:10 is especially absurd. Olajuwon does things that just shouldn't happen

Note the defenders Hakeem is facing at 5 mins. A literal quadruple team of Ewing, Oakley, Mason and Starks. And Hakeem scores

That's a level of playoff resiliency as a center that's been met by Olajuwon and who else?

[Jaivl]

4:25 to 5:10 is especially absurd. Olajuwon does things that just shouldn't happen

Note the defenders Hakeem is facing at 5 mins. A literal quadruple team of Ewing, Oakley, Mason and Starks. And Hakeem scores

That's a level of playoff resiliency as a center that's been met by Olajuwon and who else?

I mean, I can show you a near identical sequence from Gasol in G7 of the 2010 Finals. Highlights are never a good argument.

[Owly]

I wouldn't say that. I think you can make an argument that Hakeem doesn't warrant being seen as the clearly better scorer than Duncan, but it's not hard to come up with some data that promotes Hakeem.

In the '94-95 Playoffs, Hakeem scored 30 or more 16 times and 40 or more 5 times while leading an extremely successful team offense. Duncan didn't do anything like this.

Of course as I say this, I don't think this playoff stretch is what he's looking at here so maybe that's your point, but Hakeem's always been a super-intriguing peak candidate because how things spiked under Rudy T.

He's the biggest part in an offense that is successful. The question is whether he's driving it's success.

Arguments against might include:
He's the least efficient core rotation player in that rotation in that run.
The Houston on-off was better with him off in the finals.
Not only the point guards but also Drexler to is higher assists per 100. He's closer to Horry and Elie than to Drexler.
Drexler and Horry contribute as much (actually very slightly higher offensive rebound %) on the offensive glass (as with the last point not directly scoring related but relevant in terms of explaining Houston's overall offensive goodness, possibly seen as part of the cost of a post scoring repertoire that sometimes saw him fading away from the basket).
It's other players rotation players keeping their FT/FGA passable by better foul drawing (FTr) and better free throw shooting.

Yes he volume scored on a good (playoff ... small sample - though yes peaks are inevitably so) offense ... it's less clear to me that he caused it. He keeps a lid on turnovers, and this is more important in a larger role. He's got some hockey assists that won't be in the boxscore ... but then it's not the 3s that are really driving the offensive efficiency either (maybe he's indirectly creating good look long twos).

I'm not saying it's not him but I'd want a few more dots connecting between he scored a lot and good offense to say that the scoring is special or notably effective in this context.

Well to be clear, I'm not saying he caused it all by himself. It's not a coincidence that the Rockets did what they while taking tons of 3's. This was basically the beginning of strategic competence in the NBA regarding the whole 3>2 thing.

Nevertheless, he was the focal point of the offense and it has to be emphasized that when we talking about "stretching the defense", it only works if you've got threats "on both ends of the string" - that is exterior and interior.

What you say is largely true but the problem is whilst plausibly beneficial neither end of the string was that strong for team offense. The threes were at a passable but unexceptional %. The Olajuwon post game was at a an above average TS% versus RS norms (again on good volume and turnover economy - and again the former amplifies the latter) that year. But each the rest of the core rotation is shooting at or north of .587 TS%. In 1995. In the playoffs. Personally (without searching in greater detail and) without with more established connections between Olajuwon and that offensive effectiveness, my gut inclination is to parse credit/cause out firstly into unsustainable shooting luck, secondarily to those making the shots and then thirdly to Olajuwon's indirect playmaking. I'd be open to seeing otherwise.

A difference may come down to this - insofar as I do evaluations they tend to be macro/big picture rather than tiny detail. ground up. I like larger more even schedule samples. My impression of Olajuwon overall is that he did not tend to lead good/great offenses and some of those I consider bullish on him tend to suggest they regard him as an offensive floor rather than ceiling raiser (e.g. Ben Taylor, Bill Simmons). I think it would be hard to flip my perception, even of him at peak where he's more of passer etc (though as noted previously less assists than Drexler per possession in this run), based on a single run and honestly this run - on the surface at least - isn't the one to persuade me. He does some other stuff well but the main thing is volume scoring and whilst that amplifies some other stuff it isn't enough to suggest his scoring is a big value add when comparing players of this tier.

[Owly]

1994 NBA playoffs vs a 98.2 DRTG Knicks:

Watch on YouTube

If you can watch that entire clip and claim with a straight face that Hakeem isn't a top 5 prime then I question what you think basketball actually is

4:25 to 5:10 is especially absurd. Olajuwon does things that just shouldn't happen

Note the defenders Hakeem is facing at 5 mins. A literal quadruple team of Ewing, Oakley, Mason and Starks. And Hakeem scores

Leaving aside the value of one play, or a highlight package in general.

He's being fronted by Ewing. Once a solid lob and catch are completed he'd be out of the play. The weakside help (Starks, an SG) makes a good effort to get between Olajuwon and the basket and goes further, and disrupts the catch, buying Ewing time to re-establish position but ultimately not taking control of the ball. From this point he can be considered part of a double team. Oak and Mason on the other hand collapse when it seems like there's going to be a layup and then for the loose ball, but then so too are Houston's men, by the time Olajuwon is shooting they are bodying up their men. Maybe one could argue after re-establishing possession Oakley tries to cut him going middle, though it's unclear at this resolution from this angle whether it's as much to with getting his body back on his man. Has he got their attention, yes, he just got the ball in the post off a loose ball. Do two members of that "quadruple team" get that close to him. Not really (and as noted above they are soon bodying their own men).

It's a single play. A broken play with a scramble. Starks comes, as an inevitable part of a fronting strategy. Hakeem makes a tough shot.

I question your process if you believe a 5 minute clip is of one player is sufficient to rate them with certainty (relative to all other players).

[BenoUdrihFTL]

4:25 to 5:10 is especially absurd. Olajuwon does things that just shouldn't happen

Note the defenders Hakeem is facing at 5 mins. A literal quadruple team of Ewing, Oakley, Mason and Starks. And Hakeem scores

That's a level of playoff resiliency as a center that's been met by Olajuwon and who else?

I mean, I can show you a near identical sequence from Gasol in G7 of the 2010 Finals.

Nah. I'm sorry but Kendrick Perkins and Glen Davis just aren't comparable to the '94 Knicks

Highlights are never a good argument.

The 2008 Celtics aren't the 1994 Knicks and we aren't comparing Pau Gasol to Hakeem Olajuwon, So a "near identical sequence" isn't possible

And highlights can serve as evidence, that's the point

[BenoUdrihFTL]

1994 NBA playoffs vs a 98.2 DRTG Knicks:

Watch on YouTube

If you can watch that entire clip and claim with a straight face that Hakeem isn't a top 5 prime then I question what you think basketball actually is

4:25 to 5:10 is especially absurd. Olajuwon does things that just shouldn't happen

Note the defenders Hakeem is facing at 5 mins. A literal quadruple team of Ewing, Oakley, Mason and Starks. And Hakeem scores

Leaving aside the value of one play, or a highlight package in general.

He's being fronted by Ewing. Once a solid lob and catch are completed he'd be out of the play. The weakside help (Starks, an SG) makes a good effort to get between Olajuwon and the basket and goes further, and disrupts the catch, buying Ewing time to re-establish position but ultimately not taking control of the ball. From this point he can be considered part of a double team. Oak and Mason on the other hand collapse when it seems like there's going to be a layup and then for the loose ball, but then so too are Houston's men, by the time Olajuwon is shooting they are bodying up their men. Maybe one could argue after re-establishing possession Oakley tries to cut him going middle, though it's unclear at this resolution from this angle whether it's as much to with getting his body back on his man. Has he got their attention, yes, he just got the ball in the post off a loose ball. Do two members of that "quadruple team" get that close to him. Not really (and as noted above they are soon bodying their own men).

It's a single play. A broken play with a scramble. Starks comes, as an inevitable part of a fronting strategy. Hakeem makes a tough shot.

I question your process if you believe a 5 minute clip is of one player is sufficient to rate them with certainty (relative to all other players).

There's some great depth here into what you "Owly" would've done with the superpower of hindsight, but none of that actually matters in relation to the argument

[Owly]

1994 NBA playoffs vs a 98.2 DRTG Knicks:

Watch on YouTube

If you can watch that entire clip and claim with a straight face that Hakeem isn't a top 5 prime then I question what you think basketball actually is

4:25 to 5:10 is especially absurd. Olajuwon does things that just shouldn't happen

Note the defenders Hakeem is facing at 5 mins. A literal quadruple team of Ewing, Oakley, Mason and Starks. And Hakeem scores

Leaving aside the value of one play, or a highlight package in general.

He's being fronted by Ewing. Once a solid lob and catch are completed he'd be out of the play. The weakside help (Starks, an SG) makes a good effort to get between Olajuwon and the basket and goes further, and disrupts the catch, buying Ewing time to re-establish position but ultimately not taking control of the ball. From this point he can be considered part of a double team. Oak and Mason on the other hand collapse when it seems like there's going to be a layup and then for the loose ball, but then so too are Houston's men, by the time Olajuwon is shooting they are bodying up their men. Maybe one could argue after re-establishing possession Oakley tries to cut him going middle, though it's unclear at this resolution from this angle whether it's as much to with getting his body back on his man. Has he got their attention, yes, he just got the ball in the post off a loose ball. Do two members of that "quadruple team" get that close to him. Not really (and as noted above they are soon bodying their own men).

It's a single play. A broken play with a scramble. Starks comes, as an inevitable part of a fronting strategy. Hakeem makes a tough shot.

I question your process if you believe a 5 minute clip is of one player is sufficient to rate them with certainty (relative to all other players).

There's some great depth here into what you "Owly" would've done with the superpower of hindsight, but none of that actually matters in relation to the argument

For the sake of clarity, there is nothing in the post about what I would have done. You have misread/misunderstood it.

[homecourtloss]

1994 NBA playoffs vs a 98.2 DRTG Knicks:

Watch on YouTube

If you can watch that entire clip and claim with a straight face that Hakeem isn't a top 5 prime then I question what you think basketball actually is

4:25 to 5:10 is especially absurd. Olajuwon does things that just shouldn't happen

Note the defenders Hakeem is facing at 5 mins. A literal quadruple team of Ewing, Oakley, Mason and Starks. And Hakeem scores

That's a level of playoff resiliency as a center that's been met by Olajuwon and who else?

Growing up, Hakeem was my favorite player. The aesthetics, the level of difficulty, the seeming ease of throwing into the post, clearing lanes and letting him operate. But an aesthetic argument can’t be the basis for “goodness” ranking though in subjective terms, I suppose it can be for “greatness” rankings.

Hakeem at his peak when more skilled, less rawly athletic than in his youth, didn’t get foul calls. He was getting fouled, but the smoothness of his game wound up, I think, having refs swallow their whistles.
From 1993 to 1997 in the playoffs, his FTr was a meager .313 and in 1994 and 1995, .297. Duncan, meanwhile, from 1999 to 2014 had a FTr of .451 and a career .448 to .363 edge on Hakeem. Maybe Ben looks at this and sees a more innate scorer who can score despite anything and circumstances. I don’t know.

But Duncan did get these fouls called and in most circumstances, deserved them as he was in a quick score position a great deal of the time, but that also was the result of better offensive players around him. But Duncan was a better decision maker than Hakeem, a better passer. And even though subjectively far less aesthetic, could score nearly at the same rate as Hakeem in playoff environments.

4:25 to 5:10 is especially absurd. Olajuwon does things that just shouldn't happen

Note the defenders Hakeem is facing at 5 mins. A literal quadruple team of Ewing, Oakley, Mason and Starks. And Hakeem scores

That's a level of playoff resiliency as a center that's been met by Olajuwon and who else?

I mean, I can show you a near identical sequence from Gasol in G7 of the 2010 Finals.

Nah. I'm sorry but Kendrick Perkins and Glen Davis just aren't comparable to the '94 Knicks

Highlights are never a good argument.

The 2008 Celtics aren't the 1994 Knicks and we aren't comparing Pau Gasol to Hakeem Olajuwon, So a "near identical sequence" isn't possible

And highlights can serve as evidence, that's the point

2008 Celtics and 1994 Knicks were both on the same tier of all time defenses.

Highlights shouldn’t serve as a prima facie argument, i.e., “Look at this...how is this not top 5?”