Greatest Peaks series (Thinking Basketball/Ben Taylor)

[Ainosterhaspie]

Why is this thread becoming another LeBron vs Jordan thread...?

Basketball equivalent of Goodwin's law. As a basketball discussion grows longer the probability that it will turn into a comparison between Jordan and LeBron approaches 100%. You may call it Ainosterhaspie's law if you like, if you can't find anyone else who stated it earlier.

[falcolombardi]

to change the topic a bit away from jordan vs lebron

what does everyone else feel about hakeem or shaq placing above kareem?

agree or disagree?

[Jaivl]

to change the topic a bit away from jordan vs lebron

what does everyone else feel about hakeem or shaq placing above kareem?

agree or disagree?

Agree, although I don't have a particularly strong opinion either way.

Despite Shaq's peak usually being considered a one-year tour de force, the constraints of this project (77 and on, multi-year) may hurt Kareem more than Shaq, amazingly.

[Djoker]

to change the topic a bit away from jordan vs lebron

what does everyone else feel about hakeem or shaq placing above kareem?

agree or disagree?

All three are actually quite close in terms of peak impact and very different players as well. I can see a case for each of them as the GOAT big man peak and possibly Wilt as well who wasn't featured in the series.

Kareem has the fewest weaknesses and it's a gut feel but I think he was the most difficult to stop on offense. For example people sometimes forget that Shaq got stymied against the Blazers (very pedestrian in key Game 6 and 7 in 2000; small detail but with such small margins to begin with it feels justified to say that he wasn't great in those two huge games) and also against the Spurs in several years he looked more ordinary. He wasn't always the unstoppable diesel as people claim. Hakeem got stymied by the Sonics a few times and Knicks in 94, his efficiency was generally hit and miss and his passing was always somewhere between somewhat and quite limited. Kareem even if we extend to surrounding years like 1974 and 1980 always gave you super efficient scoring with very good passing and despite his slow decline by the late 70's still really good rebounding. The Per 75 stats also underrate Kareem slightly because he always played more minutes something that I wouldn't penalize him for and is independent of pace. Compared to Shaq, Kareem was also clearly a better defender and the skyhook made him capable of getting baskets on demand.

At the end I can see Shaq over Kareem due to his offensive dominance, physicality (fouling out entire frontcourts shouldn't be underestimated), and offensive rebounding which added a ton of value. His gravity pulling defenders inside was something else which led to really efficient offenses. Both he and Hakeem had plenty of shooters but Shaq's offenses were much better.

With Hakeem his case is a tougher sell IMO. Yes he was the best of the three defensively but offensively I don't even find him in the same ballpark. I think the stats don't tell the whole story. Worst efficiency, worst offensive rebounder, and worst passer of the three by a solid margin. His teams were also never dominant offensively the way some of the teams built around Kareem and Shaq were but conversely the defenses around Kareem and Shaq were almost as good and in the case of Kareem perhaps even better (1971 to 1973 Bucks) than on Hakeem's teams. When it comes down to it, I think a focused Kareem could be in the same ballpark as Hakeem as a defender... getting tons of blocks, intimidating guys from driving in the lane, good man defender but Hakeem couldn't touch Kareem offensively due to passing deficiencies and quite frankly missing a skyhook.

50% of me thinks Kareem is the best, 40% of me thinks Shaq and 10% of me thinks Hakeem.

Playoff Stats Per Game

77-79 Kareem: 31.4 ppg, 15.3 rpg, 4.3 apg, 1.3 spg, 3.8 bpg on 62.6 %TS (+10.8 rTS) with 3.9 topg in 44.0 mpg
00-01 Shaq: 30.6 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 3.1 apg, 0.5 spg, 2.4 bpg on 55.9 %TS (+3.9 rTS) with 2.9 topg in 43.0 mpg
93-95 Hakeem: 29.8 ppg, 11.4 rpg, 4.4 apg, 1.5 spg, 3.7 bpg on 56.4 %TS (+2.8 rTS) with 3.5 topg in 42.7 mpg

Playoff Stats Per 75 Possessions

77-79 Kareem: 25.2 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 3.4 apg, 1.1 spg, 3.0 bpg on 62.6 %TS (+10.8 rTS) with 3.0 topg
00-01 Shaq: 28.2 ppg, 14.3 rpg, 2.9 apg, 0.5 spg, 2.2 bpg on 55.9 %TS (+3.9 rTS) with 2.7 topg
93-95 Hakeem: 27.6 ppg, 10.6 rpg, 4.1 apg, 1.4 spg, 3.4 bpg on 56.4 %TS (+2.8 rTS) with 3.2 topg

[70sFan]

to change the topic a bit away from jordan vs lebron

what does everyone else feel about hakeem or shaq placing above kareem?

agree or disagree?

I don't agree, even though ranking them is basically the matter of preference. I think that 1977 Kareem is the GOAT peak with his unmatched scoring resiliance, elite creation and still outstanding defense and rebounding. He played with trash teammates that year, we've never seen Shaq playing with such roster.

I have Shaq last because of his defensive struggles. I'm very high on defensive players, so I don't think Shaq was good enough offensively to be ranked ahead of Hakeem - I don't have Magic (my offensive GOAT) over Hakeem either.

[HeartBreakKid]

I have Kareem and Shaq as close. I give the edge to Kareem for more consistency over the years and he was a much better defender.

Olajuwon isn't in Kareem's league on offense, so I typically rate him lower.

[Odinn21]

Between Kareem, Shaq and Hakeem;
(Instead of comparing offense to offense and defense to defense, I go by stronger suit vs. stronger suit and weaker suit vs. weaker suit.)

- Kareem vs. Shaq; they were on the same level offensively (might take Shaq slightly for offense alone) but Kareem was better defensively and way more consistent.
- Kareem vs. Hakeem; Kareem's offense and Hakeem's defense, both are goat level values. The thing though, Kareem's defense was more valuable than Hakeem's offense. Kareem had his limitations with motor issues on defense but Hakeem was quite tough to build around with his facilitating abilities. When I mentioned this earlier in the thread, I got a bizarre response for it. I mean if you watch those title winning runs of Hakeem, you'd see that if shooters were forced out of their positions, Hakeem usually did not know what to do and forced himself to take bad shots. He needed the players around him to be in exact positions so he could facilitate. However Kareem was not that limited on defense in such manner.
- Shaq vs. Hakeem; Shaq led offenses had better postseason resilience than Hakeem led defenses, though Shaq always had insanely good G partners in his prime. That should be accounted for. I guess I'm still inclined towards Shaq's offense. I already explained my thoughts on Hakeem's offense and Shaq was quite inconsistent on defense but his sheer presence turned into some value despite that.

This is what I have between the 3; Kareem > Shaq >= Hakeem

I know that what I'm about to say will be about an incredibly small sample size but; take Shaq or Hakeem at their very best, replace Kareem with them in '77 and the Lakers would fall to the Warriors before making it to the Blazers and Walton.
I can see '74 or '77 Kareem being that productive and impactful. Even on 1994 Rockets or 2000 Lakers. But I just can not see the Lakers winning against the Warriors in '77 with Shaq or Hakeem instead of Kareem because Kareem was more complete and better player on overall.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Between Kareem, Shaq and Hakeem;
(Instead of comparing offense to offense and defense to defense, I go by stronger suit vs. stronger suit and weaker suit vs. weaker suit.)

- Kareem vs. Shaq; they were on the same level offensively (might take Shaq slightly for offense alone) but Kareem was better defensively and way more consistent.
- Kareem vs. Hakeem; Kareem's offense and Hakeem's defense, both are goat level values. The thing though, Kareem's defense was more valuable than Hakeem's offense. Kareem had his limitations with motor issues on defense but Hakeem was quite tough to build around with his facilitating abilities. When I mentioned this earlier in the thread, I got a bizarre response for it. I mean if you watch those title winning runs of Hakeem, you'd see that if shooters were forced out of their positions, Hakeem usually did not know what to do and forced himself to take bad shots. He needed the players around him to be in exact positions so he could facilitate. However Kareem was not that limited on defense in such manner.
- Shaq vs. Hakeem; Shaq led offenses had better postseason resilience than Hakeem led defenses, though Shaq always had insanely good G partners in his prime. That should be accounted for. I guess I'm still inclined towards Shaq's offense. I already explained my thoughts on Hakeem's offense and Shaq was quite inconsistent on defense but his sheer presence turned into some value despite that.

This is what I have between the 3; Kareem > Shaq >= Hakeem

I know that what I'm about to say will be about an incredibly small sample size but; take Shaq or Hakeem at their very best, replace Kareem with them in '77 and the Lakers would fall to the Warriors before making it to the Blazers and Walton.
I can see '74 or '77 Kareem being that productive and impactful. Even on 1994 Rockets or 2000 Lakers. But I just can not see the Lakers winning against the Warriors in '77 with Shaq or Hakeem instead of Kareem because Kareem was more complete and better player on overall.

I think this patreon post by Ben might be for you regarding KG https://backpicks.com/

[Max123]

Why is this thread becoming another LeBron vs Jordan thread...?

Basketball equivalent of Goodwin's law. As a basketball discussion grows longer the probability that it will turn into a comparison between Jordan and LeBron approaches 100%. You may call it Ainosterhaspie's law if you like, if you can't find anyone else who stated it earlier.

There was a timespan where it seemed to me that wherever I looked discussions were turning into Garnett vs Duncan; might also have something to do with my personal fascination with those two players.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[Max123]

Between Kareem, Shaq and Hakeem;
(Instead of comparing offense to offense and defense to defense, I go by stronger suit vs. stronger suit and weaker suit vs. weaker suit.)

- Kareem vs. Shaq; they were on the same level offensively (might take Shaq slightly for offense alone) but Kareem was better defensively and way more consistent.
- Kareem vs. Hakeem; Kareem's offense and Hakeem's defense, both are goat level values. The thing though, Kareem's defense was more valuable than Hakeem's offense. Kareem had his limitations with motor issues on defense but Hakeem was quite tough to build around with his facilitating abilities. When I mentioned this earlier in the thread, I got a bizarre response for it. I mean if you watch those title winning runs of Hakeem, you'd see that if shooters were forced out of their positions, Hakeem usually did not know what to do and forced himself to take bad shots. He needed the players around him to be in exact positions so he could facilitate. However Kareem was not that limited on defense in such manner.
- Shaq vs. Hakeem; Shaq led offenses had better postseason resilience than Hakeem led defenses, though Shaq always had insanely good G partners in his prime. That should be accounted for. I guess I'm still inclined towards Shaq's offense. I already explained my thoughts on Hakeem's offense and Shaq was quite inconsistent on defense but his sheer presence turned into some value despite that.

This is what I have between the 3; Kareem > Shaq >= Hakeem

I know that what I'm about to say will be about an incredibly small sample size but; take Shaq or Hakeem at their very best, replace Kareem with them in '77 and the Lakers would fall to the Warriors before making it to the Blazers and Walton.
I can see '74 or '77 Kareem being that productive and impactful. Even on 1994 Rockets or 2000 Lakers. But I just can not see the Lakers winning against the Warriors in '77 with Shaq or Hakeem instead of Kareem because Kareem was more complete and better player on overall.

I think this patreon post by Ben might be for you regarding KG https://backpicks.com/

Not a Patreon, although I am thinking of perhaps becoming one in the near future, so could you perhaps very briefly summarize what's the thesis of that post as it seems interesting?

[Ryoga Hibiki]

to change the topic a bit away from jordan vs lebron

what does everyone else feel about hakeem or shaq placing above kareem?

agree or disagree?

The issue I have with Shaq (and Kareem, to a certain extent) is that they have been offensive centers who always had all time great level help form the perimeter, when successful.
We know that's the biggest knock on offensive big men retaining their impact, and they got in the best possible situation.

Guys like Hajeem, or Timmeh, managed to get it done without that level of support, and to me that makes their case so much stronger.

Sent from my Nokia 3210 using RealGM mobile app

[70sFan]

to change the topic a bit away from jordan vs lebron

what does everyone else feel about hakeem or shaq placing above kareem?

agree or disagree?

The issue I have with Shaq (and Kareem, to a certain extent) is that they have been offensive centers who always had all time great level help form the perimeter, when successful.
We know that's the biggest knock on offensive big men retaining their impact, and they got in the best possible situation.

Guys like Hajeem or Timmeh, managed to get it done without that level of support, and to me that makes their case so much stronger.

Sent from my Nokia 3210 using RealGM mobile app

Kareem didn't have all-time great help from perimeter in 1974. Of course, it depends on whether you view 1977 as success or not but Duncan never played with as bad team as 1977 Lakers - Kareem still carried them to 50+wins and a win over strong Warriors team with injured roster.

You can even look at his rookie season - he didn't have terrible team but it wasn't that talented either and he led them to ECF.

This criticism is fair against Shaq, but Kareem played with weak supporting cast for most of his prime.

[Statlanta]

For a single year I'd have Shaq ahead.
For two years I'd probably have Shaq ahead depending on the two picked.
For multiple years I'd have Kareem ahead.
For a random year I'd probably have Kareem ahead depending on the year in prime picked.

I think Kareem surpasses Hakeem. Hakeem's a defensive player and the years picked did not help him there like it did conversely for Kareem.

I think Tim and Hakeem were the most random placements when it came to the final video.

[LukaTheGOAT]

Between Kareem, Shaq and Hakeem;
(Instead of comparing offense to offense and defense to defense, I go by stronger suit vs. stronger suit and weaker suit vs. weaker suit.)

- Kareem vs. Shaq; they were on the same level offensively (might take Shaq slightly for offense alone) but Kareem was better defensively and way more consistent.
- Kareem vs. Hakeem; Kareem's offense and Hakeem's defense, both are goat level values. The thing though, Kareem's defense was more valuable than Hakeem's offense. Kareem had his limitations with motor issues on defense but Hakeem was quite tough to build around with his facilitating abilities. When I mentioned this earlier in the thread, I got a bizarre response for it. I mean if you watch those title winning runs of Hakeem, you'd see that if shooters were forced out of their positions, Hakeem usually did not know what to do and forced himself to take bad shots. He needed the players around him to be in exact positions so he could facilitate. However Kareem was not that limited on defense in such manner.
- Shaq vs. Hakeem; Shaq led offenses had better postseason resilience than Hakeem led defenses, though Shaq always had insanely good G partners in his prime. That should be accounted for. I guess I'm still inclined towards Shaq's offense. I already explained my thoughts on Hakeem's offense and Shaq was quite inconsistent on defense but his sheer presence turned into some value despite that.

This is what I have between the 3; Kareem > Shaq >= Hakeem

I know that what I'm about to say will be about an incredibly small sample size but; take Shaq or Hakeem at their very best, replace Kareem with them in '77 and the Lakers would fall to the Warriors before making it to the Blazers and Walton.
I can see '74 or '77 Kareem being that productive and impactful. Even on 1994 Rockets or 2000 Lakers. But I just can not see the Lakers winning against the Warriors in '77 with Shaq or Hakeem instead of Kareem because Kareem was more complete and better player on overall.

I think this patreon post by Ben might be for you regarding KG https://backpicks.com/

Not a Patreon, although I am thinking of perhaps becoming one in the near future, so could you perhaps very briefly summarize what's the thesis of that post as it seems interesting?

I wasn't certain with how to summarize this, so I'll just share it with you, and strongly encourage you to become a patreon of his content.

*Edited-I've been advised that I should not post Ben's work, so I decided to just give you a preview, without any of the hard facts. I hope that this is a bit more acceptable and I apologize to all parties.

"I’ve thought about argumentation a lot over the years. The business of reasoning for a position or against it. Presenting evidence. Using rhetoric. And so on. There’s a ton to say on this topic, especially in the landscape of sports and social media, but there’s something I thought of after a Kevin Garnett question was sent my way recently. It’s called the “Gish Gallop.”

For those unfamiliar, the Gish Gallop is an argumentative technique where your interlocutor reels off one false claim after another, but to debunk each of those claims takes way longer than coming up with each new false claim. Firing off overly simplified conclusions is cheap, but refuting these statements is costly.

For instance, it’s easy to make up statements like “Kevin Garnett isn’t a dribbler,” but to “debunk” a statement like this requires supporting evidence about dribbling, comparisons to how other players dribble, and so on. Gish Gallop arguments shift the burden of proof to the responder, which is why the technique is so effective.

Garnett himself has been a whack-a-mole industry for these kinds of arguments over the years, starting with:

“Why can’t he get out of the first round if he’s so good!?”

This is just a Ringz! argument dressed up in different clothes and assumes that the best player must advance his team past the first round. But of course he eventually moved past the first round, so those arguments morphed into:"

[Odinn21]

…

I'll give it a proper read and response in the next week but I'd suggest you to delete that post because I don't think we should be publishing his work as if it's ESPN paywall.

[Jaivl]

…

The arguments at the last part of the post do not strike me as the best ones. Covering a fallacy with another fallacy - maybe Duncan has those same problems. It needed much more exploration.

And I know that's part of the point, that you need much more effort to debunk a false claim than to do the claim itself, but such is the higher standard we should adhere to.

[LukaTheGOAT]

I think this patreon post by Ben might be for you regarding KG https://backpicks.com/

Not a Patreon, although I am thinking of perhaps becoming one in the near future, so could you perhaps very briefly summarize what's the thesis of that post as it seems interesting?

I wasn't certain with how to summarize this, so I'll just share it with you, and strongly encourage you to become a patreon of his content.

*Edited-I've been told shouldn't be posting his content as if it is akin to being behind an ESPN paywall, so I am taking it down. I will post the beginning, to give you an idea. It is regarding KG and how he potentially gets unfair treatment in comparison to someone like Duncan, and it all comes back to winning bias (just in a different flavor). Sorry.

"I’ve thought about argumentation a lot over the years. The business of reasoning for a position or against it. Presenting evidence. Using rhetoric. And so on. There’s a ton to say on this topic, especially in the landscape of sports and social media, but there’s something I thought of after a Kevin Garnett question was sent my way recently. It’s called the “Gish Gallop.”

For those unfamiliar, the Gish Gallop is an argumentative technique where your interlocutor reels off one false claim after another, but to debunk each of those claims takes way longer than coming up with each new false claim. Firing off overly simplified conclusions is cheap, but refuting these statements is costly.

[migya]

to change the topic a bit away from jordan vs lebron

what does everyone else feel about hakeem or shaq placing above kareem?

agree or disagree?

The issue I have with Shaq (and Kareem, to a certain extent) is that they have been offensive centers who always had all time great level help form the perimeter, when successful.
We know that's the biggest knock on offensive big men retaining their impact, and they got in the best possible situation.

Guys like Hajeem, or Timmeh, managed to get it done without that level of support, and to me that makes their case so much stronger.

Sent from my Nokia 3210 using RealGM mobile app

Olajuwon and Duncan to me are better than both Shaq and Kareem because they had far less talent on their teams and still performed great, caring their teams to success for many years. Put either with either Magic or Love and imagine the results.

[migya]

to change the topic a bit away from jordan vs lebron

what does everyone else feel about hakeem or shaq placing above kareem?

agree or disagree?

The issue I have with Shaq (and Kareem, to a certain extent) is that they have been offensive centers who always had all time great level help form the perimeter, when successful.
We know that's the biggest knock on offensive big men retaining their impact, and they got in the best possible situation.

Guys like Hajeem or Timmeh, managed to get it done without that level of support, and to me that makes their case so much stronger.

Sent from my Nokia 3210 using RealGM mobile app

Kareem didn't have all-time great help from perimeter in 1974. Of course, it depends on whether you view 1977 as success or not but Duncan never played with as bad team as 1977 Lakers - Kareem still carried them to 50+wins and a win over strong Warriors team with injured roster.

You can even look at his rookie season - he didn't have terrible team but it wasn't that talented either and he led them to ECF.

This criticism is fair against Shaq, but Kareem played with weak supporting cast for most of his prime.

Kareem's career before Magic arrived is pretty ordinary, besides winning it all in 1971. He had Goodrich and some other good players in the 70s on the Lakers and they didn't achieve anything, losing more than half their games two straight years even. Think about it, no Magic and probably no Lakers championships and Kareem looks much different.

Olajuwon won back to back with role players and oone of those with an over the hill Drexler. Unlikely Kareem or Shaq could've done that.

[migya]

to change the topic a bit away from jordan vs lebron

what does everyone else feel about hakeem or shaq placing above kareem?

agree or disagree?

All three are actually quite close in terms of peak impact and very different players as well. I can see a case for each of them as the GOAT big man peak and possibly Wilt as well who wasn't featured in the series.

Kareem has the fewest weaknesses and it's a gut feel but I think he was the most difficult to stop on offense. For example people sometimes forget that Shaq got stymied against the Blazers (very pedestrian in key Game 6 and 7 in 2000; small detail but with such small margins to begin with it feels justified to say that he wasn't great in those two huge games) and also against the Spurs in several years he looked more ordinary. He wasn't always the unstoppable diesel as people claim. Hakeem got stymied by the Sonics a few times and Knicks in 94, his efficiency was generally hit and miss and his passing was always somewhere between somewhat and quite limited. Kareem even if we extend to surrounding years like 1974 and 1980 always gave you super efficient scoring with very good passing and despite his slow decline by the late 70's still really good rebounding. The Per 75 stats also underrate Kareem slightly because he always played more minutes something that I wouldn't penalize him for and is independent of pace. Compared to Shaq, Kareem was also clearly a better defender and the skyhook made him capable of getting baskets on demand.

At the end I can see Shaq over Kareem due to his offensive dominance, physicality (fouling out entire frontcourts shouldn't be underestimated), and offensive rebounding which added a ton of value. His gravity pulling defenders inside was something else which led to really efficient offenses. Both he and Hakeem had plenty of shooters but Shaq's offenses were much better.

With Hakeem his case is a tougher sell IMO. Yes he was the best of the three defensively but offensively I don't even find him in the same ballpark. I think the stats don't tell the whole story. Worst efficiency, worst offensive rebounder, and worst passer of the three by a solid margin. His teams were also never dominant offensively the way some of the teams built around Kareem and Shaq were but conversely the defenses around Kareem and Shaq were almost as good and in the case of Kareem perhaps even better (1971 to 1973 Bucks) than on Hakeem's teams. When it comes down to it, I think a focused Kareem could be in the same ballpark as Hakeem as a defender... getting tons of blocks, intimidating guys from driving in the lane, good man defender but Hakeem couldn't touch Kareem offensively due to passing deficiencies and quite frankly missing a skyhook.

50% of me thinks Kareem is the best, 40% of me thinks Shaq and 10% of me thinks Hakeem.

Playoff Stats Per Game

77-79 Kareem: 31.4 ppg, 15.3 rpg, 4.3 apg, 1.3 spg, 3.8 bpg on 62.6 %TS (+10.8 rTS) with 3.9 topg in 44.0 mpg
00-01 Shaq: 30.6 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 3.1 apg, 0.5 spg, 2.4 bpg on 55.9 %TS (+3.9 rTS) with 2.9 topg in 43.0 mpg
93-95 Hakeem: 29.8 ppg, 11.4 rpg, 4.4 apg, 1.5 spg, 3.7 bpg on 56.4 %TS (+2.8 rTS) with 3.5 topg in 42.7 mpg

Playoff Stats Per 75 Possessions

77-79 Kareem: 25.2 ppg, 12.3 rpg, 3.4 apg, 1.1 spg, 3.0 bpg on 62.6 %TS (+10.8 rTS) with 3.0 topg
00-01 Shaq: 28.2 ppg, 14.3 rpg, 2.9 apg, 0.5 spg, 2.2 bpg on 55.9 %TS (+3.9 rTS) with 2.7 topg
93-95 Hakeem: 27.6 ppg, 10.6 rpg, 4.1 apg, 1.4 spg, 3.4 bpg on 56.4 %TS (+2.8 rTS) with 3.2 topg

Firstly, Olajuwon was a great passer hence why the Rockets made those threes and won two straight championships.

Look at the stars, Olajuwon got more assists out of the there of them.

Most importantly, Olajuwon had far less talent than the other two did, making his assists number and team success far more significant.

Olajuwon was far more skilled offensively and defensively than both Kareem and Shaq. He scored in many ways and in his peak he was unguardable. His jumpshot was efficient, he had a nice hook and he scored from all angles.