RealGM Top 100 List #4

ThaRegul8r · Post #101 » by **ThaRegul8r** » Sun Jul 6, 2014 4:26 am

fpliii wrote:The next two years in Philly, Hannum ran a primitive triple-post offense. From Wayne Lynch's Season of the 76ers

In fact, Dr. Jack Ramsay— now a popular ESPN TV and Radio NBA basketball analyst —says the 76ers’ offense was very similar to the triangle style perfected by the Bulls.

“It was basically a low post offense, had a lot of ball movement , not unlike what the Bulls did,” explained Dr. Jack.

“Set up the triangle with your post player high or low,” Ramsay explained. “So you have a post player, a wing player, and a perimeter player in the triangle on one side and the other two players on the weak side.

“The ball gets moved to the reverse side, and a new triangle is set over there. Ball goes to the post, gets action as the two perimeter players work off the post man.

“Larry Costello used it in Milwaukee with Alcindor and Oscar.”

Additionally, from Phil Jackson, who actually played against Wilt, beginning his NBA career while Wilt was in Philly (Sixers), after he was hired to coach the Lakers in '99:

Q — How long does it take for a team to learn the triangle offense, and why would it take longer for that than other systems?

A — It’s an offense that requires a knowledgeable sense of where you are on the court at all times. It’s very easy in most NBA offenses to designate a screen and roll, an isolation, a post-up, a two-man type game, possibly three-man type game that are generic to the game of NBA basketball that players are familiar with. But this game provides that all five players have to participate in the offense all the time. There’s never a down period in this offense. And it just takes one person not functioning to really create a bit of havoc on the court.

Q — So would you say it will take half a season or a full season for them to really learn it?

A — There’s a lot of learning that goes on. The players play in this learning mode, which means that they’re thinking and playing instead of reacting. That’s the critical mass there, to really play inside the system. The familiarity takes perhaps a month or two, and then you begin to see the nuances and subtleties of it. By January this team should be functioning really well.

Q — Is there a risk in trying to recreate the same style that the Bulls played in, because the Lakers are center-oriented more than guard- and forward-oriented like the Bulls?

A — The offense takes on the personality of the players that are in it, like any offense will. The offense really is a system that is designated for a post-up player. A guy like Shaq really helps this kind of an offense. His ability to pass is going to be very good. It’s going to be exciting to see this offense with a different look.

This offense works best with a post-up player on the court. In talking with Shaq about it, I told him the premier player in this offense was Wilt Chamberlain with the ’66-’67 Philadelphia 76ers when he averaged close to nine assists a game and led the league in assists [actually, Jackson has mixed up the ’66-67 and ’67-68 seasons]. That’s what this offense did for that team, which won 68 games that year. It really benefits the whole team being able to place the ball into the enemy’s territory, which is the post in the heart of the defense.

90sAllDecade · Post #102 » by **90sAllDecade** » Sun Jul 6, 2014 4:49 am

microfib4thewin wrote:He called 03 Parker and Manu HOF talent based on their career. Personally I take his supporting cast argument with a grain of salt.

Here's a point addressing Duncan vs Hakeem's supporting casts:

Spoiler:

1. The HOF centers that he defeated head on was 1986 Kareem, 1986 Parish, 1994 Ewing, and 1995 Drob. He was not slaughtering HOF centers left and right like 90sAlldecade claimed. As for context, 1986 Kareem was 38, Parish was never considered a guy in the top 30 who made the hall only because he was on a good team, Ewing and Drob had struggles with playoff scoring for their whole career, so how much does it mean to have Hakeem outplay them?

True about Kareem's age. But keep in mind Kareem also arguably got outplayed by HOF centers during his prime in the past. During his prime this didn't happen to Hakeem (23-33). Kareem, a GOAT level center, also struggled without great coaching and team support.( I urge you to fully read Fatal9's excellent post earlier about this.)

Parish played 20 years, made several all star teams and the HOF. If you don't respect Parish for reaching that level as a player than that's your right to your own opinion. He's a HOF center who Hakeem dominated.

Ewing is a HOF two way center and linchpin of arguably the greatest modern defensive year of all time (1993 cast). The 94' Knicks had a prime HOF center, three all stars (Oakley, Ewing and Starks) with a GOAT top 4 coach all time in Pat Riley. They were also the #1 defense in the league in Drtg and Opp ppg.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/NYK/1994.html

2. His team was not always defeated by juggernauts. They have lost to the 1987 Sonics(0.08 SRS), 1988 Mavs(3.59 SRS), and 1989 Sonics(2.44 SRS). The 1987 Sonics had the strength of a non-playoff team, while the 1988 Mavs and 1989 Sonics were decent they are not some impossible wall that some have made it out to be. There were no top 50 players on those teams and they were coached by John Macleod, who retired three years later, and Bernie Bickerstaff, who just started out as an NBA head coach and he hasn't had much success since.

3. Yes, there was the cocaine incident, but the Rockets remained irrelevant for the following six years. Did the incident hit the team so hard that the great Hakeem was not able to remedy the situation that it took him seven years to dig the Rockets out of the hole?

Hakeem's roster was almost entirely blown up the next year after 86' and following seasons:

Lucas played in the NBA for fourteen years and was a member of the 1986 Houston Rockets team that made it to the NBA Finals, where they lost to the Boston Celtics.

However, the following off-season, Lucas's basketball career took a turn for the worse when longstanding problems with illegal drugs became public. Several of his teammates with the Rockets, including Mitchell Wiggins and Lewis Lloyd, were banished from the NBA due to positive tests for cocaine usage. Lucas, who was also a cocaine user (and an alcoholic), submitted voluntarily to anti-drug and anti-alcohol treatment in order to stay in the league.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lucas_II

From Rudy T's book, "A Rocket at Heart" pg. 150:

(after reaching the finals in 86') We were blown out in the finale but the future seemed bright indeed - until, that is, the impact of drugs tore a hole in the franchise that we wouldn't recover from for several years.
We survived the Lucas episode, but early in the 1986-87 season, the jarring announcement came that both Lloyd and Wiggins would be leaving us because of drug violations.

Think about the impact: We had our top three guards leave in an eight month span. And we got nothing in return. No draft picks. No players via trade. Nothing. How do you recover from that?

Despite it all, we came back in '86-87 and did a good job of battling to reach the conference semifinals. We were 42-40 but what really hurt was that Ralph injured his knee and played only 43 games, which cast a shadow over the rest of his career.

...With a patchwork guard rotation, an injured Sampson, and limited options in the draft, the ship was on rocky waters.

So the Rockets with backup guards starting and a team not used to playing together and an injured Sampson still got to the second round, took Seattle to six games and lost in double overtime.

Guess who lit the Rockets up? Dale Ellis (an guard, the 87' NBA's most improved player winner who was an all star two year later) destroyed that terrible patchwork guard rotation. Alton Lister and Clemon Johnson split center duties and got destroyed. Scoring 5.6 and 2.3 ppg on .333% and .278 FG% respectively.

Hakeem for the series posted: 30.5 ppg, 12.7 rebs, 3.8 blks on .602 FG% with .638 TS% Including this Monster:

NBA Playoffs Top 25 performances Ever

http://espn.go.com/nba/playoffs/2012/st ... ances-ever

Considering that, one of the greatest NBA playoff performances ever with his depleted roster and his defense, is that individually all time great quality pre 93?

More from Rudy T:

When we got off to a lukewarm start in 87'-88, management figured it was time for a major move. Watching Ralph on film, it had become apparent that the knee injury was taking it's toll. When he tried to get his body to do what once came naturally, it was just too much.

It hurt him most at the defensive end; he couldn't change directions quickly or stop on a dime. He could still play, but not with balance. Ralph needed a strong base, and it just wasn't there.

They trade Ralph for Sleepy Floyd and J.B. Carroll mid-season in December. While those two were still trying to fit in the system and they won 46 games but lost to a 53 win stacked Dallas team with an all star that year in Mark Aguirre, Ron Harper, Donaldson (made the all star game at center that year, but looks iffy) and Rolando Blackman.

Hakeem posted a GOAT level averages despite it only being 4 games: 37.5 pts, 16.9 rebs, 2.3 stls, 2.8 blks on .571 FG% with .641 TS%.

All time great level?

After that year, Bill Fitch is fired the next year for Don Chaney who as a bad coach over the full course of his career, he never had a winning record without Hakeem and had a losing record every other year in his NBA career. In 89, despite trading McCray for Thorpe and Hakeem playing well (25 ppg, 13 rebs, 3 ast, 2.5 stls, 2.8 blks on 52% FG) the Rockets still had no answers at guard, as Sedale Threat and Dale Ellis torch the Rockets. They also had Don Chaney making coaching adjustments.

Don Chaney's career coaching record:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/coa ... do01c.html

4. The 1991 Rockets were 16-10(.615) without Hakeem and 36-20(.642) with him. That's a mere difference of a 50 win and 52 win pace. The Rockets had 3.92 MOV with Hakeem and 2.34 MOV without him, so that favored Hakeem slightly.

They were 2-10 without him the next year and 40-30 with him, with the same cast. Chaney is fired mid season and Rudy T steps in with a few role players and everything changes.

5. Some Hakeem supporters have talked about the lack of coaching that Hakeem had, but Fitch was a coach that won a title with Boston and he was also a part of the 86 Finals run. The Rockets faded to irrelevance at his watch before Chaney took over.

See the quote above about those years answering that in question 3.

6. I do not believe Hakeem's offensive peak and defensive peak has ever coincided in the same year. Similar to Kobe I think some people are combining his peaks at both ends of the floor and stretched it out for several years and proclaim he was both an ATG offensive and defensive player for an extended period. Hakeem was a raw offensive player and no evidence has suggested that he was an ATG offensive player before 1993. By the time he did reach that offensive peak he no longer had the same rebounding and defensive numbers, or to be more precise, it was in 1995 when Hakeem had an obvious dropoff in both rebounding and defensive numbers. Hakeem's career arc to me seem to be one where he was a great defensive player for the early part of his career with an all-star level but not ATG offense and he turned into an ATG offensive player but with average-good defense to finish his prime.

Hakeem's athletic peak was in the 80's and he lead the league in Drtg 5 consecutive years, is top 10 in steals, #1 in Blocks tracked and considered the greatest modern defensive player ever (all time great level) without the same level of help Duncan had. Shaq never won a ring without Phil Jackson or Pat Riley in addition to his top SG and star PG help.

His offense opened up when he finally was given a little talent to work with and space the floor along with a competent coach in Rudy to build the offense around him. Duncan always had Pops and his better talent around him to enhance his passing, team accomplishments etc. Duncan always had a better team or lesser competition, like in his peak.

He was always the clear #1 offensive and defensive anchor. Duncan can't say the same due to Robinson, Bowen, Parker, Manu and now Leonard along with a top 4 coach in Pops.

Fatal9 posted an excellent post hitting all of these questions as well, if you want more answers.

MisterWestside · Post #103 » by **MisterWestside** » Sun Jul 6, 2014 4:49 am

fpliii wrote:I'm likely going with Wilt here. I'm looking to learn a few things about him in this thread:

1) How big a deal was the poor spacing when he played? In particular, prior to the trade to the Sixers, which of his Warriors teammates were good enough shooters to draw defenders away from the paint?

Fired up actual game footage of prime Chamberlain vs. Russell, courtesy of Dipper13. And I'll say that it's the main issue with posting-up anyone from the era in the low block. When Chamberlain posted up, double-teams and help defenders were readily available, since the other Celtics weren't pulled far enough away from the paint. This caused the lane to be clogged for cutters to the basket. Chamberlain was more than willing to find his open teammates when doubled in the low-post, but I wouldn't call anyone snipers from that era. Indeed, when they got the ball from a Chamberlain double-team, they always looked to drive to the basket; the issue, however, was that the rim protector and help defenders guarding Chamberlain were usually there to alter the shot, deflect the pass or dribble, etc. Hannum shifting Chamberlain to the high-post was the key; Chamberlain naturally couldn't shoot as much being further away from the rim (he wasn't a jumpshooter by trade), but he pulled away defenders and rim protectors a few feet away from the basket. That can make a difference for teammates scoring underneath.

I don't usually agree with mooncheese's posts regarding LeBron James, but he makes a valid point with regards to floor spacing. It's such a fundamental part of the game; check out flpiii's floorspacing thread for more info.

Courtesy of mooncheese:

Which one of these is harder to score in the paint?

3-pt shooters spacing the floor + defensive 3 seconds = an open paint and no at-rim protection.

ThaRegul8r · Post #104 » by **ThaRegul8r** » Sun Jul 6, 2014 4:59 am

fpliii wrote:69 isn't an issue for me. There's the stuff at the end of the series, but I do think it was the result of a pissing contest between Wilt and VBK. Wilt wasn't a good match for a high-post offensive role, and the two didn't get along. I would blame him more, but they were terrific defensively during this run.

Both were at fault, as in the case with Shaq and Kobe, but the bolded point puzzles me. From my notes on Wilt:

As far as Chamberlain not wanting to play high post, Hannum said,

Alex Hannum wrote:In one of our conversations, Wilt said, “You know, I can pass the ball as well as anyone in basketball.”

I said, “Fine, let’s see it.”

This led to a decision made by both Wilt and myself to play him at the high post. Early in his career, Wilt was always near the basket so he could catch the ball in position to score. But he also clogged the middle so that it was hard for his teammates to drive. With all the talent we had, I wanted to give the other guys room to go to the basket. And Wilt wanted to get them the ball so they could score. That was our game plan, and we stuck to it.

So, if Chamberlain had no problem playing high post on the team he’d just left, why was he suddenly unwilling to do it for his new team?

Chamberlain wrote in his autobiography:

Wilt Chamberlain wrote:The first thing he did with me was tell me to play the high post on offense—out around the free-throw line, instead of under the basket. He said that would enable Elgin to drive. I was a higher scorer and better rebounder than Elgin, though; I didn’t see why I should sacrifice my position for him. Even though I’d already abandoned my role as a big scorer, I was still averaging more than 20 points a game, and my rebounding was critical to any team I played for. How could I rebound if I was playing at the free-throw line? Besides, I’d already changed my entire style of play just two years earlier—going from scorer to feeder in Philadelphia—and I didn’t like the idea of van Breda Kolff arbitrarily deciding I’d have to change again, and leave the position I’d played for my entire college and NBA career.

Again, why did he have a problem playing high post when that was what was asked of him on the team he just left?

Alex Hannum wrote:Early in his career, Wilt was always near the basket so he could catch the ball in position to score. But he also clogged the middle so that it was hard for his teammates to drive. With all the talent we had, I wanted to give the other guys room to go to the basket.

Wilt Chamberlain wrote:The first thing he did with me was tell me to play the high post on offense—out around the free-throw line, instead of under the basket. He said that would enable Elgin to drive. I was a higher scorer and better rebounder than Elgin, though; I didn’t see why I should sacrifice my position for him. Even though I’d already abandoned my role as a big scorer, I was still averaging more than 20 points a game, and my rebounding was critical to any team I played for. How could I rebound if I was playing at the free-throw line? Besides, I’d already changed my entire style of play just two years earlier—going from scorer to feeder in Philadelphia—and I didn’t like the idea of van Breda Kolff arbitrarily deciding I’d have to change again, and leave the position I’d played for my entire college and NBA career.

I don't understand the problem with the exact same thing Hannum asked him to do—which he agreed with, to play high post to give his teammates room to drive. Then you look at the season:

Spoiler:

Wilt would rather stay inside and get his 50

For years the Los Angeles Lakers have been going with make-do people at center, winning division titles, but fading ingloriously in pro basketball’s World Series.

Perhaps it isn’t entirely fair to single out their ex-pivotmen as the primary reason for this failure. Some had occasionally strong, if not unforgettable, moments with the Lakers. But none of them will ever get into basketball’s Hall of Fame without a ticket.

Last summer Jack Kent Cooke, who owns the Los Angeles franchise, went out and got someone who could. For money and three players, Cooke was able to pry Wilt Chamberlain from the Philadelphia 76ers.

All of a sudden people were saying this was the first time a National Basketball Association title had been won in July. Marrying Chamberlain’s talents to those of Elgin Baylor and Jerry West would make Coach Bill van Breda Kolff as fireproof as the boss’s son.

The Lakers are formidable all right. They will win in the West and they will win big. But the perfect pro basketball team they are not. Van Breda Kolff, whose emotional fires never go out, is not completely happy with his ball club.

‘Creatures of habit’

“We are all creatures of habit and Chamberlain still plays in too close to the basket to suit me,” Bill said. “When Wilt stays inside too much he isn’t able to set picks, his teammates aren’t able to cut off him, and the whole club loses some of its movement.

“I don’t want him to stop scoring,” Van Breda Kolff continued. “I want Chamberlain to get the ball and to be able to do things with it. But mostly I want him to play a high post. This is what most of my other players [particularly Baylor and West] are used to and what I think is best for the team.”

Asked how Wilt felt about this, Bill suggested: “Why don’t you ask him? Chamberlain’s statement was not only frank, but explosive.

“Instead of playing the high post, I’d prefer to stay inside and try to score 50 points a game,” Wilt said. “It’s something Van Breda Kolff and I have talked about, but so far I haven’t been able to convince him that my way is the best way.

McGuire had formula

“If a man can score the way I can, I don’t see why anybody would want to change him,” Chamberlain continued. “Suppose somebody in Boston wanted Bill Russell to suddenly put all his concentration on offense. People would say Russell was crazy to change because defense in the thing that made him. Am I any different because offense is the thing that made me? I don’t think so.

“Just because it’s been a few years [1961-62] since I averaged 50 points a game for Philadelphia, don’t think I couldn’t do it again. If anything, with all the young and inexperienced centers in the league right now, it would be easier.

“The only time you have to guard against is that sometimes, when you’re feeding one man a lot, the other players get into the habit of not taking the shot when it’s there.

“Now that’s a mistake,” Wilt said. “Anybody will tell you that. But you didn’t know something, Frank McGuire didn’t let that happen the year he coached Philadelphia and I got my 50 every game. We had four players in double figures that year, including Paul Arizin, Tom Meschery, Al Attles, and Tom Gola. And Eddie Conlin didn’t miss by much.

As I said, he gets a bad rap for some things, but this is one of those completely frustrating things. Why are you having a problem with your scoring average now when you already lowered it? Why in the world are you harping on averaging 50 again? It's enough to tear one's hair out, and is one reason why Wilt's such a polarizing figure. As I've said before, I have a lot of questions about him as well.

ceiling raiser · Post #105 » by **ceiling raiser** » Sun Jul 6, 2014 5:15 am

ThaRegul8r wrote:Both were at fault, as in the case with Shaq and Kobe, but the bolded point puzzles me. From my notes on Wilt:

As far as Chamberlain not wanting to play high post, Hannum said,

Alex Hannum wrote:In one of our conversations, Wilt said, “You know, I can pass the ball as well as anyone in basketball.”

I said, “Fine, let’s see it.”

This led to a decision made by both Wilt and myself to play him at the high post. Early in his career, Wilt was always near the basket so he could catch the ball in position to score. But he also clogged the middle so that it was hard for his teammates to drive. With all the talent we had, I wanted to give the other guys room to go to the basket. And Wilt wanted to get them the ball so they could score. That was our game plan, and we stuck to it.

So, if Chamberlain had no problem playing high post on the team he’d just left, why was he suddenly unwilling to do it for his new team?

Firstly, I agree 100% that both were at fault.

I believe I've seen that quote before. I could be completely incorrect on this (and if this is the case, apologies for my ignorance), but from my understanding, he was playing in the high post more frequently with VBK than with Hannum (and if you're in that role full-time, the lack of shooting ability makes you a liability there, so I'd imagine it becomes harder for cutters to get free going to the basket). If the frequency was indeed similar, I have no problem conceding that point. I don't think very highly of Wilt's offense in 69 at all, I was just praising his defense that postseason.

One interesting note...I think it was posted on here recently that Wilt disliked passing to Chet Walker because he was a dominant one-on-one player, and would perform dribble moves that would prevent Wilt from receiving an assist (and preferred passing to guys like Jackson or Greer who would get a shot of quickly.. I wonder, was the incompatibility much deeper than that? From my understanding, Baylor was a similar player to Walker in terms of playstyle (again, I could be wrong here). If Wilt has multiple instances of issues with the same player prototype, that could be a severe red flag.

As I said, he gets a bad rap for some things, but this is one of those completely frustrating things. Why are you having a problem with your scoring average now when you already lowered it? Why in the world are you harping on averaging 50 again? It's enough to tear one's hair out, and is one reason why Wilt's such a polarizing figure. As I've said before, I have a lot of questions about him as well.

Agree with the line of questioning in bold 100%. Makes little sense to me.

kayess · Post #106 » by **kayess** » Sun Jul 6, 2014 5:15 am

Doctor MJ wrote:For the record on Hakeem, I've long seen him as ElGEE indicated last time: he's remarkably difficult to place. I can see the GOAT argument, but there's also the matter that his impact wasn't always so clear cut.

It was not considered a give by folks that he was even as good as Robinson until the titles. His typical shooting efficiency makes him look much less like Shaq and more like the more normal centers who nowadays the league doesn't even use to volume score. His team defenses were often meh, and the RAPM data we have for him in the late 90s doesn't show a sustained defensive dominance the way we see with Ribinson, Garnett deep into their post-peak career.

I have not ever really made up my mind though and I'm now going to read fatals post in depth and learn a thing.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Do you guys have some repository of all-time posts about all-timers? Can you link me to these?

I know fatal's done some work on Hakeem, but the board doesn't have a save feature or anything...

MisterWestside · Post #107 » by **MisterWestside** » Sun Jul 6, 2014 5:20 am

Regarding Chamberlain's unwillingness to play the high-post: the question of roles is always something that I set aside from basketball goodness. Who would ask Magic Johnson to spot-up shoot like Bird instead of set teammates up for Showtime? Who would ask Michael Jordan not to create and score? Who would make Shaquille O'Neal post-up at the free-throw line instead of at the rim? Steve Nash had two careers; one in which he was the "willing" drudge in Dallas and LA, the other in which he was the man in Phoenix, conducting the show. Yeah, he'd probably be a nice teammate if you shoehorned him into another role. You would also be foolish to make him play as something else besides PG extraordinaire. Prime Chamberlain ('60s) played in the wrong era for low-post guys. But he'd have plenty of success there in the right environment, and you wouldn't even have issues with his "unwillingness" to play the high-post.

microfib4thewin · Post #108 » by **microfib4thewin** » Sun Jul 6, 2014 5:21 am

For Hakeem:

1986: 44-24, 3.17 MOV with him. 7-7, -.78 MOV without him.
1987: 40-35, 2.12 MOV with him. 2-5, -11 MOV without him.
1991: 36-20, 3.92 MOV with him. 16-10, 2.34 MOV without him.
1992: 40-30, -.17 MOV with him. 2-10, -10.75 MOV without him.
1995: 44-28, 2.83 MOV with him. 3-7, -4.3 MOV without him.

Baller2014 · Post #109 » by **Baller2014** » Sun Jul 6, 2014 5:32 am

90sAllDecade wrote:Here's a point addressing Duncan vs Hakeem's supporting casts:

Actually, the way this post was originally phrased in the Duncan v.s Hakeem thread is here:
viewtopic.php?p=40178758#p40178758
In it, you describe Hakeem's support cast as "nothing". Well, "nothing" included all-star power forward Otis Thorpe, and in games Hakeem missed over 91 and 92 "nothing" managed to post a 28-20 record. A bit hard to see how that was "nothing".

Duncan

97-98 to 00-01 - D. Robinson - age 32 (All NBA 2nd team x1, All NBA 3rd team x2)
04-05,10-11 - M. Ginobilli (All NBA 3rd team x2, Sixth Man of the Year x1)
05-06 to 13-14 - T. Parker (All NBA 2nd team x3, All NBA 3rd team x1)

All NBA Defensive teammates: Bruce Bowen (1st team x5, 2nd team x2),K. Leonard (1st team x1) D. Robinson (2nd team x1)
HOF Coaches: G. Popovich x17 yrs

Total: 11 years with 1+ All Star, 9 years with all NBA defensive player, 1 HOF coaches x 17 years

Hakeem

84-85 to 86-87 - R. Sampson (All NBA 2nd team x1)
91-92 - O. Thorpe
94-95 to 97-98 - C. Drexler- age 32 (All NBA 3rd team x1)
96-97 - C. Barkley - age 33
01-02 - V. Carter
All NBA Defensive teammates: Rodney McCray (1st team x1, 2nd team x1), S. Pippen - age 33 (1st team x1)
HOF Coaches: 0

Total: 8 years with 1+ All Star, 3 years w/All Defensive player, 0 HOF coach

This is such a misleading analysis, because it has no context to it. You're excluding whole years that are inconvenient, and not mentioning key players, and including non-prime years (why?). You're also acting like Hakeem and Duncan were achieving comparable results with these weak support casts, when they plainly weren't. Looking at Hakeem's career during this period; 42 wins in 1987 (lost to the 39 win Sonics who were barely a playoff team), 46 wins in 88 (lost to the solid but not great Mavs), 45 wins in 1989 (lost to the X-Man Sonics again), 41 wins in 1990 (lost to the Showtime Lakers, but if Hakeem had helped them win more games they never have to play the Lakers in Rnd 1), 1991 they go out in the first round again, and in 92 they did not even make the playoffs (and the injury to Hakeem is an insufficient excuse, because their record with him was only 40-30, hardly comparable to what Duncan was doing with weak support casts in 01-03.

Hakeem often had plenty of good team mates, and until his peak in 93-95 (when he finally put it together) he was not carrying them in remotely the same way as Duncan proved he could. Let's take his support cast in 1990 when they won 41 games for instance. Hakeem had Otis Thorpe, a 17-9-3 all-star, defensively tough power forward with killer efficiency at 548. FG%; Sleepy Floyd, still in his prime at 29 years old, and having made an all-star team several years earlier. He had Mad Max, a fierce defender and talented player (who much like Artest, often gunned it too much from the 3pt line), and solid to excellent role players like Buck Johnson, Wiggins, Lucas and Woodwon (for most of the season anyway). 41 wins? Are you kidding me? Hakeem had most of those guys, including Thorpe and Sleepy, the previous season too.

Even when he put it together in 93, he still lost to the Sonics in the playoffs (who always seemed to own him, by employing a borderline illegal defense which, very importantly, would be totally legal in today's game... Hakeem was very fortunate he didn't have to play those same Sonics in 94 or 95 IMO).

Sure, Duncan had more help in general over his career... and he met or surpassed expectations in all those years when he had good talent around him. But when he didn't have help, in 01-03, he still delivered. Hakeem didn't when the chance to carry bad teams arose, and he had plenty of chances. Those Rocket teams I referred to from 87-92 were positively brimming with talent compared to the 01-03 Spurs support casts.

Dipper 13 · Post #110 » by **Dipper 13** » Sun Jul 6, 2014 5:33 am

66 is problematic. Wilt allegedly skipped practices before the final two games of the series, which ended up as a 5 game series win for Boston. After all the progress he made from 63-64, this doesn't sit well with me. Yeah, I get that he didn't like the coach, but you're spiting your teammates as well, which is not a good indication of positive leadership.

He had cold/flu that week, it was reported in the recap of Game 1. In an interview he gave shortly after the series he said both the organization and Coach Schayes were aware. Also notes how after the close loss in Game 4, he recognized the team offense was dead and took on the scoring load in Game 5. Just one example of him seeing a problem with the team and making an adjustment, something many here have declared him unable to do.

Full Interview

Spoiler:

And I'll say that it's the main issue with posting-up anyone from the era in the low block. When Chamberlain posted up, double-teams and help defenders were readily available, since the other Celtics weren't pulled far enough away from the paint. This caused the lane to be clogged for cutters to the basket.

He was usually still able to hit guarded cutters like it was nothing. In addition to just about every part of his game, I believe his passing ability is especially underrated on the forum. However, only one team had Russell waiting in the paint.

Sports Illustrated - November 25, 1968

"Last summer, while Russell was in Los Angeles making a TV film," Hayes said, "he spent three days coaching me. One thing he told me was that Wilt was going to get his 20, 30 points a game, and he was going to get his rebounds, and nobody in the world was going to stop him. If Wilt wants to score, well, he's just going to score. Where you have to stop him is on his assists, his assists up the middle. Bill said if you don't stop him there he'll destroy you."

Chamberlain naturally couldn't shoot as much being further away from the rim (he wasn't a jumpshooter by trade), but he pulled away defenders and rim protectors a few feet away from the basket. That can make a difference for teammates scoring underneath.

In the 1966 series, in each game recap the one common thing that I noticed was the mention of poor floor spacing, with the Celtics sagging back in the paint Wilt. That and the horrible outside shooting. Here is an example below (Chamberlain off. rebound + dunk) showing just how poor the Sixers shooting was. Wali barely hits the backboard on a 15 foot jumper.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngg3owcJl1g&t=18m33s

We can also note how the Celtics pressed full court to keep the ball out of his hands as much as possible and at the 17:25 mark off the opening jump ball how the entire defense was shifted to Wilt's preferred (left) side of the floor before he even set up, leaving Wali unguarded for a shot.

Also a blatant illegal defense by KC Jones (25) before the ball is even thrown in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngg3owcJl1g&t=3m1s

Game 1

Spoiler:

Game 2

Spoiler:

Game 3

Spoiler:

Game 4

Spoiler:

Game 5

Spoiler:

ThaRegul8r · Post #111 » by **ThaRegul8r** » Sun Jul 6, 2014 5:37 am

kayess wrote:
Doctor MJ wrote:For the record on Hakeem, I've long seen him as ElGEE indicated last time: he's remarkably difficult to place. I can see the GOAT argument, but there's also the matter that his impact wasn't always so clear cut.

It was not considered a give by folks that he was even as good as Robinson until the titles. His typical shooting efficiency makes him look much less like Shaq and more like the more normal centers who nowadays the league doesn't even use to volume score. His team defenses were often meh, and the RAPM data we have for him in the late 90s doesn't show a sustained defensive dominance the way we see with Ribinson, Garnett deep into their post-peak career.

I have not ever really made up my mind though and I'm now going to read fatals post in depth and learn a thing.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Do you guys have some repository of all-time posts about all-timers? Can you link me to these?

I know fatal's done some work on Hakeem, but the board doesn't have a save feature or anything...

I save good posts made by other members and include them in my own repository when relevant. I just copy and paste into Word, citing the poster, the date it was posted and the link. There is no save feature. That can simply be done one's self.

ThaRegul8r · Post #112 » by **ThaRegul8r** » Sun Jul 6, 2014 5:42 am

90sAllDecade wrote:Kareem, a GOAT level center, also struggled without great coaching and team support.

And he also completely turned around an expansion team right out of the gate, taking them to the division finals as a rookie.

ThaRegul8r · Post #113 » by **ThaRegul8r** » Sun Jul 6, 2014 5:47 am

Baller2014 wrote:Even when he put it together in 93, he still lost to the Sonics in the playoffs (who always seemed to own him, by employing a borderline illegal defense which, very importantly, would be totally legal in today's game... Hakeem was very fortunate he didn't have to play those same Sonics in 94 or 95 IMO).

I don't know why people keep talking about Jordan when Jordan never played in the Western Conference and was thus irrelevant. Hakeem was lucky he didn't have to face Seattle. They owned him both regular and postseason, and the one thing different about '94 and '95 from 'the years around it is that they didn't have to face Seattle. Not so coincidentally, that title run is bookended by eliminations at the hands of the Sonics. The Rockets should have given Mutombo some kind of award in '94.

And by the way, to continue on the theme of consistent criteria, if "how would they translate today" is a factor, then how does the bold impact Hakeem's translation into today's game, and thus, apparently, his all-time ranking? No double standards.

90sAllDecade · Post #114 » by **90sAllDecade** » Sun Jul 6, 2014 5:54 am

DQuinn1575 wrote:
90sAllDecade wrote:
Many regular players back then didn't make the salaries they could now to live on, so many had second jobs and had to practice on weekends.

This is an untrue statement.

Players in the 60s weren't making big money, but the average salary was better than an average salary
The average salary in 1967 was $13,000 (http://www.apbr.org/apbr-faq.html); almost double the average household income of $7,200 (http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-062.pdf)

Some players may have had off-season jobs, like selling insurance, but there weren't any players were working second jobs like this.

These guys were full-time professionals.

Good objective evidence, I have no problem agreeing with this. But do you have information if the top earners were skewing that average upwards? Did they pay travel or other expenses out of pocket?

I don't know for sure and have to research, but just so you know here is where I got my information from (a book about Russell):

Earnings

During his career, Russell was one of the first big earners in NBA basketball. His 1956 rookie contract was worth $24,000, only fractionally smaller than the $25,000 of top earner Bob Cousy.[27] In contrast to other Celtics, who had to work in the offseason to maintain their standard of living (Heinsohn sold insurance, Gene Guarilia was a professional guitar player, Cousy ran a basketball camp, and Auerbach invested in plastics and a Chinese restaurant),[83] Russell never had to work part-time. When Wilt Chamberlain became the first NBA player to earn $100,000 in salary in 1965, Russell went to Auerbach and demanded a $100,001 salary, which he promptly received.[84]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Russell

I did some digging and this book lists the minimum NBA salary at around $5,000 in 1962.

http://books.google.com/books?id=QaCrl_F_5cMC&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=nba+minimum+salary+1960&source=bl&ots=I_5aUQv-G5&sig=npiZKlxjSJza71NmPoFa_BFN2yo&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BeC4U8K-EcSMqAaonoCwDw&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=nba%20minimum%20salary%201960&f=false

This also says median income for families is estimated at $6,000 in 1962.

http://www2.census.gov/prod2/popscan/p60-040.pdf

So I'm wondering if the top guys were pros and heavily paid, but the bottom guys had to work second jobs? I'll revisit this, but I have no problems being wrong or learning.

ThaRegul8r · Post #115 » by **ThaRegul8r** » Sun Jul 6, 2014 6:00 am

The Olajuwon Rules

Whether or not Hakeem Olajuwon is the best player on the planet today is beside the point. As the playoffs approach, there is no player in the league who requires more preparation than the man who carries the moniker "The Dream," answers to the name Hakeem and has entire game plans (henceforth called The Olajuwon Rules) designed just to stop him.

"We have situations where we kind of turn the rules on and off," says Seattle SuperSonics head coach George Karl, "but the basic rule is that we want the ball in other people's hands. Hakeem is the best in basketball right now. From a standpoint of getting the ball and playing with the double-team and punishing the double-team, there's nobody better."

Everyone has a theory on how to play the two-time NBA Finals MVP. "You just try to get him in foul trouble before he gets you in foul trouble," says the Orlando Magic's Shaquille O'Neal. Easier said than done.

"You can't get frustrated with him or by officials' calls," says the Denver Nuggets' Dikembe Mutombo.

"You can't let him know who's going to guard him or what position the defense is going to be in," adds Seattle's Shawn Kemp.

Orlando assistant coach Richie Adubato says the age-old strategy of doubling the big man doesn't work against Olajuwon: "Hakeem's such a good passer now, and Houston's three-point shooters are so great that sometimes he hurts you with a pass more than a shot."

These are but a few components of The Olajuwon Rules, a strict set of defensive laws that the greatest NBA minds are developing in trying to prevent the Rockets from winning a third straight championship. Stop Hakeem, stop Houston.

The Olajuwon Rules are similar to their predecessors, The Jordan Rules, in that teams dedicate themselves to shutting down one man. Former head coach Chuck Daly devised The Jordan Rules in the late '80s when the Detroit Pistons forced any Chicago Bull other than Jordan to beat them in their many head-to-head battles.

Each Piston had specific responsibilities in containing Jordan, and the rules dictated that Joe Dumars do one thing, Isiah Thomas another, and their teammates something else to prevent MJ from weaking havoc.

It worked for a couple of years, but when Scottie Pippen and Horace Grant stepped up to star status and consistently hit the open jumpers, the Pistons were no longer effectively able to implement their rules.

The difference between The Jordan Rules and The Olajuwon Rules is this: Hakeem's teammates already have established that they will step up and hit the big three-point shot if left open.

What NBA coaches now try to do to stop Houston is: 1) stop Hakeem from looking to score; 2) challenge the pass he makes to the spot-up three-point shooters; 3) sprint at the Rocket launchers, forcing them to work in two-point territory with the 24-second clock running down.

But one defensive game plan, says Adubato, isn't enough against the Rockets. "Hakeem can hurt you in so many ways that you try to think of ways that will slow him down, even if it's just for a couple of minutes."

Case in point: In the last meeting between Houston and Orlando, the Magic played without injured big men Horace Grant and Jon Koncak. When Shaquille O'Neal got into foul trouble, Orlando was forced to guard the 7-0, 255-pound Olajuwon with 6-11, 230 pounds Joe Wolf, a backup power forward. When O'Neal returned, Magic head coach Brian power forward Mark Bryant (normally positioned on the free-throw line extended), thus enabling Shaq to double-team Dream in the game's final quarter.

Rule No. 1: Converge on Hakeem, defending the shot as well as the kick-out.

"We wanted to come with a big double-team so Hakeem couldn't pass crosscourt so easily," says O'Neal. It worked. The Rockets made only two three-pointers in the fourth quarter--none in the final four minutes--and the Magic won the game, 97-96.

"It was effective," says Adubato, "but next time we do that, Rudy [Tomjanovich] will move Bryant down and put Shaq on the baseline. Now if we come off Bryant with Shaq on a double-team, Bryant will get a dunk every time. Rudy and his staff are very good. As soon as they see where we're coming from, they adjust."

No team defends Olajuwon and Houston better than Seattle. Going into the last month of the season, the SuperSonics had won seven straight games against the Rockets.

"Don't tell him that," says Karl. "Please don't tell him that."

Sorry, Coach, he already knows.

"Of all teams, Seattle plays the toughest team defense against me," says Olajuwon. "Seattle sends three guys down when I'm on the left block, but it seems like five because they're all big guys. They just try to get the ball out of my hands. Whoever guards me puts on a three-quarter front, but they send two guys right away as soon as the pass is in the air. They're very active."

To further break down Seattle's version of The Olajuwon Rules, we enlisted the help of the Sonics' big men, each having his own secret to the puzzle no one else can solve.

* Shawn Kemp's Mix-the-Defense Theory: Though listed as a power forward, Kemp assumes as large a load as anybody in guarding center Olajuwon. Kemp at times will front Hakeem, totally denying him the ball. At other times, Kemp concentrates on playing behind Olajuwon so he can push him off the blocks to the baseline, where Dream likes to shoot his fadeaway. In other situations, Kemp sets up to the side and just bangs.

"I think a lot of guys don't play him very well because they don't mix the defense up," says Kemp. "If he knows when he comes down that you're just gonna push on him, he's gonna beat you every time. He's not just a good basketball player, he's smart. It's like a game of chess to him."

Olajuwon confirms. "By making me work all the time, figuring out defenses, that is the best way. No easy baskets. Contest every shot. Bang. Do different things."

Kemp, who slips into the role of stopper against Houston, seemingly doesn't mind sacrificing a little offense when playing Olajuwon. He only averages 13 points in his games against Houston, well below his league average.

In cheese terms, that's a queen for a queen.

* Ervin Johnson's Clog-the-Paint Theory: "When Hakeem gets the ball, everybody's in the paint," says Johnson, whose observation is substantiated by The Dream's claim that he feels quintuple-teamed when facing Seattle. By having defenders converge on Olajuwon, the Sonics are in prime position to fly out at the three-point shooters.

* Sam Perkins' Go-At-Him-Big Theory: Seattle has the luxury of having three excellent defenders who can body up with Olajuwon in Kemp (6-10), Johnson (6-11) and Perkins (6-9). Even Frank Brickowski, at best a mediocare defender, can give Olajuwon a different look.

"We just throw so many people at him," says Perkins. "That's probably a key to some of our success when we play him."

* Steve Scheffler's 3-on-2 Theory: "Attack whoever delivers the ball to Hakeem, or whatever set gets the ball into Hakeem," says Scheffler, who doesn't play often but has as much court knowledge as any 12th man in the game. "You take Houston out of that, you make them rotate, you say: "We're gonna play you 3-on-2, but three of those guys won't be Hakeem. And we'll play you on the weak side.' Keep the ball away from him and then try to scramble from there."

The danger in that move, as Scheffler points out, is that if Clyde Drexler is one of those three against your two, your team's in trouble. For that reason, opposing NBA coaches rarely double down on Olajuwon with Drexler's man. They're forced to double off the point guard (Sam Cassell or Kenny Smith), small forward (Mario Elie when healthy) or power forward (Robert Horry, if he happens to be playing the 4; Chucky Brown or Mark Bryant, if not).

"That's why sprinting out on the three-point shooters is so important," says Audobato. "Any one of those guys can hit it." If you can keep the sharpshooters in two-point range, Drexler covered and the ball out of Olajuwon's hands (whew!), then and only then you do have a chance.

"I'm glad I don't have to figure out an answer to stopping Hakeem because I don't know if there really is a way," says Rockets assistant Carroll Dawson.

No one ever said The Olajuwon Rules always worked.

"If you ever see a situation where you can gain the upper hand on Hakeem, you have to try and take advantage of it because those opportunities don't come along often," says Seattle assistant Terry Stotts, who advance scouts the Rockets.

"You take a little bit here and a little bit there," he says, before breaking out laughing: "And even then it doesn't always work."

Post #116 » by **Doctor MJ** » Sun Jul 6, 2014 6:01 am

MisterWestside wrote:Regarding Chamberlain's unwillingness to play the high-post: the question of roles is always something that I set aside from basketball goodness. Who would ask Magic Johnson to spot-up shoot like Bird instead of let players up for Showtime? Who would ask Michael Jordan to not create and score? Who would make Shaquille O'Neal post-up at the free-throw line instead of at the rim? Steve Nash had two careers; one in which he was the "willing" drudge in Dallas and LA, the other in which he was the man in Phoenix, conducting the show. Yeah, he'd probably be a nice teammate if you shoehorned him into another role. You would also be foolish to make him play as something else besides PG extraordinaire. Prime Chamberlain ('60s) played in the wrong era for low-post guys. But he'd have plenty of success there in the right environment, and you wouldn't even have issues with his "unwillingness" to play the high-post.

2 things:

1) I don't get why you think you couldn't thrive in the low post in any era.

2) Fundamentally part of what every player is supposed to be doing is just doing things that make sense given what's out there on the playing field no matter what sport you're talking about. Yes not all players do that equally well and coaches have to do the best they can with dumb jocks but factoring in field intelligence is an absolute given when it comes to rating any team sport.

This therefore simply must be part if Wilts story. When he played he didn't achieve what he might have because he wasn't good enough at deciding what to do when he was out on the court. The end.

Now does that mean Wilt must rank below X? Nope. Up to you to decide how you factor it in...but Wilt ain't going to become a zen/savant/leader just because he gets to play for Kurt Rambis.

Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

Baller2014 · Post #117 » by **Baller2014** » Sun Jul 6, 2014 6:18 am

We're 6 pages in, and I've asked 3 times now: "What sort of penalty are Shaq/Wilt voters imposing for their long and painful history of antics, which clearly hurt their team's performance?" I don't think anyone has really answered this at all.

Following on from that; Shaq clearly had better talent on his teams during his career than Duncan did, he even had a slightly longer prime, and a higher peak... yet his teams did worse. He won only 4 rings (only 3 as the teams best player) and, on the 5 occasions prime Duncan and prime Shaq played each other in the playoffs, Duncan was the best player for 3/5 series (and arguably tied him in 04, given the much poorer circumstances he faced that series, as discussed in my OP). Shaq was a career underachiever, yet people are acting like he brings you more success. It's pretty weird tbh.

batmana · Post #118 » by **batmana** » Sun Jul 6, 2014 6:41 am

Spoiler:

I have Shaq and Duncan basically tied for this spot. I used to think I'd probably vote Shaq first but I've changed my mind. First, why I have nobody else here (and why Hakeem is not a contender for this spot in my book).

Hakeem is not the GOAT 2-way center unless we are talking peak. But if that's the case, then I retroactively go back and change my No. 2 vote to Shaq and my No. 3 vote to Bill Walton. Hakeem played a long career and his supporters are trying to extrapolate a 2-year stretch over his entire career. Hakeem wasn't as skilled offensively from the get-go; he wasn't a good leader early on, he even caused locker-room problems. Hakeem's Houston teams weren't very good, at times they were putrid; they also underperformed in years in which they played well. As others have pointed out, Hakeem's offensive and defensive peaks didn't coincide. That's like combining Wilt's 50 PPG/25 RPG season with his 8+ APG season and with his ~70% FG season in one. It can't slide. Globally, Hakeem's amazing 2-year stretch makes him borderline top-10 and puts him above other all-time greats like his contemporaries Ewing, Robinson but doesn't make him top 5 when we have players like Magic, Bird, Duncan, Shaq, etc. Hakeem indeed outplayed D-Rob convincingly in the 1995 playoffs; Shaq however stood his ground. That was the only period where it was even an argument that Hakeem could be better than Shaq. It's also revisionist history to claim that Hakeem has been the No. 2 player in the league during Jordan's time - nobody viewed it that way, Hakeem was consistently mentioned just below Malone and Barkley and in one breath with Ewing and Robinson, there was very little separation there. In fact, if it wasn't for that 1995 series, Robinson is pretty much on par with Hakeem. I'll be glad to argue for Hakeem once we approach the 10th spot but he has no business of going this early.

Wilt gets a knock for his inability (lack of desire?) to push himself to win titles. He found enough drive to push himself to put up unreal records but that won't get him higher on my list. Unlike Wilt, Shaq won 3 titles in his absolute prime while dominating and being the clear-cut leader of his team. Duncan did the same at least 3 or 4 times. So what separates Shaq and Duncan?

Shaq has the more impressive peak, he was as dominant as only a select few (Jordan, Wilt, maybe Kareem). When he was rolling in 2000-2002, nothing could stop him. Duncan did not put mind-blowing numbers but he impacted the game more than Shaq on the defensive end, and he always gave full effort. Duncan's amazing longevity and his elite impact throughout his career is what stands out. 2014 Duncan could have been out of the league (17th season, age 38), instead he was a vital piece on a Championship team, not just a role player. Basically Duncan combines the prime impact that Shaq also had with an amazing post-prime run. Shaq had IMO a lesser impact on winning the 2006 title than Duncan had on winning the title in 2014. It is also impressive that Duncan historically was able to play Shaq as good as any other center and has better career numbers against him. Duncan was Shaq's toughest opponent and he elevated his scoring while keeping Shaq's scoring down (of course all this is into the team context but still impressive). These facts to me shape out a better career for Duncan and that's why I am comfortable to vote him at the No. 4 (he's No. 3 in my list as I have Kareem lower than most).

My vote for the No. 4 spot is Tim Duncan.

90sAllDecade · Post #119 » by **90sAllDecade** » Sun Jul 6, 2014 6:44 am

ThaRegul8r wrote:
90sAllDecade wrote:
I consider Carlise an elite coach who will go to the HOF someday if he puts in more years.

Question.

If Carlisle becomes a HOF coach "if he puts in more years," does that retroactively make him a HOF coach at the time the Mavericks won in 2011?

Well, technically no one players included are HOF players until they are inducted after retirement. Afterwards they are retroactively HOF, I guess. My point was about caliber of coaching.

Carlise is a better coach then Hakeem's and will likely go to the HOF at this rate. He switched teams three times and if given a quality roster on a team or the Mavs I think he'll continue the trend.

I said more years to make him a lock. For example guys who won less, but put in 20-30 years made it into the HOF. Ramsay did it in 20 years, Daly in 17, Sloan in 20 years, Larry Brown in 30, Bill Sharman in 9 but he won more.

I actually hold Dirk in pretty high regard and I'd like to see the Garnett vs Dirk argument. I'll do an analysis of their teams during the championships later as I have to call it a night soon.

I'll address other questions tomorrow, and touch on more comparisons, I didn't expect to be on the computer this long lol.

microfib4thewin · Post #120 » by **microfib4thewin** » Sun Jul 6, 2014 7:20 am

90sAllDecade wrote:Here's a point addressing Duncan vs Hakeem's supporting casts:

Spoiler:

90sAllDecade wrote:True about Kareem's age. But keep in mind Kareem also arguably got outplayed by HOF centers during his prime in the past. During his prime this didn't happen to Hakeem (23-33). Kareem, a GOAT level center, also struggled without great coaching and team support.( I urge you to fully read Fatal9's excellent post earlier about this.)

Spoiler:

90sAllDecade wrote:Parish played 20 years, made several all star teams and the HOF. If you don't respect Parish for reaching that level as a player than that's your right to your own opinion. He's a HOF center who Hakeem dominated.

Spoiler:

90sAllDecade wrote:Ewing is a HOF two way center and linchpin of arguably the greatest modern defensive year of all time (1993 cast). The 94' Knicks had a prime HOF center, three all stars (Oakley, Ewing and Starks) with a GOAT top 4 coach all time in Pat Riley. They were also the #1 defense in the league in Drtg and Opp ppg.

Spoiler:

90sAllDecade wrote:Hakeem's athletic peak was in the 80's and he lead the league in Drtg 5 consecutive years, is top 10 in steals, #1 in Blocks tracked and considered the greatest modern defensive player ever (all time great level) without the same level of help Duncan had. Shaq never won a ring without Phil Jackson or Pat Riley in addition to his top SG and star PG help.

His offense opened up when he finally was given a little talent to work with and space the floor along with a competent coach in Rudy to build the offense around him. Duncan always had Pops and his better talent around him to enhance his passing, team accomplishments etc. Duncan always had a better team or lesser competition, like in his peak.

Spoiler:

I will accept the articles for now. I will need to do some reading to get more information on Hakeem's historical context.