Does Kevin Garnett have a good case over Hakeem Olajuwon all time?

[1993Playoffs]

He has no case. To me

[Hawk]

To me he doesn't. They are two different class of players.

[therealbig3]

Meh, I've got them on the same level. I don't think there's nearly as big of a separation between them at their peaks as most people think, and I also don't think Hakeem was only that good during 93-96, and that similar to KG, he was on a poorly managed team for most of his career which makes people forget how good he was.

I would take peak Hakeem slightly over peak Garnett, while I would take Garnett's longevity as a star slightly over Hakeem.

One thing that doesn't get mentioned though is how Hakeem's team was pretty disappointing once past their prime but still effective guys like Barkley and Pippen were added. They didn't really gel with each other all that well, unlike KG with Pierce and Allen. To me, that says something about Hakeem not being as versatile as KG, which DOES matter, because usually, championship level teams are gonna have multiple high usage stars that need to fit together.

[thekdog34]

Meh, I've got them on the same level. I don't think there's nearly as big of a separation between them at their peaks as most people think, and I also don't think Hakeem was only that good during 93-96, and that similar to KG, he was on a poorly managed team for most of his career which makes people forget how good he was.

I would take peak Hakeem slightly over peak Garnett, while I would take Garnett's longevity as a star slightly over Hakeem.

One thing that doesn't get mentioned though is how Hakeem's team was pretty disappointing once past their prime but still effective guys like Barkley and Pippen were added. They didn't really gel with each other all that well, unlike KG with Pierce and Allen. To me, that says something about Hakeem not being as versatile as KG, which DOES matter, because usually, championship level teams are gonna have multiple high usage stars that need to fit together.

In 1996-97 they added Barkley. Hakeem was 34, Barkley 33, and Drexler 33.

Barkley missed 29 games and Drexler 20.

Still, they were 57-25 and top 10 in both defense and offense. They lost to a pretty good Utah team in the WCF. So I'm not sure that it didn't work.

In 1997-98 it didn't work, but there were quite a few injuries and they were clearly past their primes at this time. Hakeem missed 35 games, Barkley 14 and Drexler 12.

1998-99 they added Pippen and lost Clyde, but none of the "big 3" played more than 50 games.

Also, don't discount what he did with Ralph Sampson when he first came in the league. They made the Finals and were projected to be annual contenders until drugs and injuries blew it up.

[therealbig3]

Meh, I've got them on the same level. I don't think there's nearly as big of a separation between them at their peaks as most people think, and I also don't think Hakeem was only that good during 93-96, and that similar to KG, he was on a poorly managed team for most of his career which makes people forget how good he was.

I would take peak Hakeem slightly over peak Garnett, while I would take Garnett's longevity as a star slightly over Hakeem.

One thing that doesn't get mentioned though is how Hakeem's team was pretty disappointing once past their prime but still effective guys like Barkley and Pippen were added. They didn't really gel with each other all that well, unlike KG with Pierce and Allen. To me, that says something about Hakeem not being as versatile as KG, which DOES matter, because usually, championship level teams are gonna have multiple high usage stars that need to fit together.

In 1996-97 they added Barkley. Hakeem was 34, Barkley 33, and Drexler 33.

Barkley missed 29 games and Drexler 20.

Still, they were 57-25 and top 10 in both defense and offense. They lost to a pretty good Utah team in the WCF. So I'm not sure that it didn't work.

In 1997-98 it didn't work, but there were quite a few injuries and they were clearly past their primes at this time. Hakeem missed 35 games, Barkley 14 and Drexler 12.

1998-99 they added Pippen and lost Clyde, but none of the "big 3" played more than 50 games.

Also, don't discount what he did with Ralph Sampson when he first came in the league. They made the Finals and were projected to be annual contenders until drugs and injuries blew it up.

Well the 99 season was a lockout shortened season and was only 50 games long.

I think those are fair points, but being older and past his prime doesn't = ineffective. They were all still good players, probably should have still been better than what they were.

But I don't think Hakeem was all that incapable of playing with other stars, I actually think he was quite good, but I don't think he's quite on Garnett's level in that regard. However, he did show himself to be so good at his peak that this almost doesn't matter...which is why I do take peak Hakeem over peak Garnett.

[thekdog34]

Meh, I've got them on the same level. I don't think there's nearly as big of a separation between them at their peaks as most people think, and I also don't think Hakeem was only that good during 93-96, and that similar to KG, he was on a poorly managed team for most of his career which makes people forget how good he was.

I would take peak Hakeem slightly over peak Garnett, while I would take Garnett's longevity as a star slightly over Hakeem.

One thing that doesn't get mentioned though is how Hakeem's team was pretty disappointing once past their prime but still effective guys like Barkley and Pippen were added. They didn't really gel with each other all that well, unlike KG with Pierce and Allen. To me, that says something about Hakeem not being as versatile as KG, which DOES matter, because usually, championship level teams are gonna have multiple high usage stars that need to fit together.

In 1996-97 they added Barkley. Hakeem was 34, Barkley 33, and Drexler 33.

Barkley missed 29 games and Drexler 20.

Still, they were 57-25 and top 10 in both defense and offense. They lost to a pretty good Utah team in the WCF. So I'm not sure that it didn't work.

In 1997-98 it didn't work, but there were quite a few injuries and they were clearly past their primes at this time. Hakeem missed 35 games, Barkley 14 and Drexler 12.

1998-99 they added Pippen and lost Clyde, but none of the "big 3" played more than 50 games.

Also, don't discount what he did with Ralph Sampson when he first came in the league. They made the Finals and were projected to be annual contenders until drugs and injuries blew it up.

Well the 99 season was a lockout shortened season and was only 50 games long.

I think those are fair points, but being older and past his prime doesn't = ineffective. They were all still good players, probably should have still been better than what they were.

But I don't think Hakeem was all that incapable of playing with other stars, I actually think he was quite good, but I don't think he's quite on Garnett's level in that regard. However, he did show himself to be so good at his peak that this almost doesn't matter...which is why I do take peak Hakeem over peak Garnett.

Ah yes, good point on 99.

Also, maybe doesn't matter, but Barkley and Pippen were feuding.

I think for Hakeem a better fit was definitely a good wing or point guard rather than another big. Although the twin towers were succesful for a short time. He wasn't a guy who was a good passer from the high post.

[dautjazz]

To me he doesn't, but I got them apart by something like 2-4 spots in the all-time ranking, so it's not really nuts by any stretch.

[Jaivl]

I have KG over Hakeem so I guess he does have a case.

[LakerLegend]

Of course there is. Don't understand why Hakeem is put on this pedestal above the 2nd tier ATG guys like Malone, Barkley, etc. I have him, KG, and Dirk around the same level.

You must have never watched him play.

Hakeem is absolutely on the same tier as guys like Shaq and Duncan.

[LakerLegend]

Meh, I've got them on the same level. I don't think there's nearly as big of a separation between them at their peaks as most people think, and I also don't think Hakeem was only that good during 93-96, and that similar to KG, he was on a poorly managed team for most of his career which makes people forget how good he was.

I would take peak Hakeem slightly over peak Garnett, while I would take Garnett's longevity as a star slightly over Hakeem.

One thing that doesn't get mentioned though is how Hakeem's team was pretty disappointing once past their prime but still effective guys like Barkley and Pippen were added. They didn't really gel with each other all that well, unlike KG with Pierce and Allen. To me, that says something about Hakeem not being as versatile as KG, which DOES matter, because usually, championship level teams are gonna have multiple high usage stars that need to fit together.

Those Rocket teams with Barkley and Drexler were significantly older, faced stiffer competition, and didn't have nearly the same complementing talent around them as KG's Celtics.

That first year in Houston, when Barkley, Hakeem, and Drexler were all healthy they had a record of like 33-4 or something.

[Ron Swanson]

Of course there is. Don't understand why Hakeem is put on this pedestal above the 2nd tier ATG guys like Malone, Barkley, etc. I have him, KG, and Dirk around the same level.

You must have never watched him play.

Hakeem is absolutely on the same tier as guys like Shaq and Duncan.

Huh, I could've sworn I've seen countless games and footage of Hakeem both in his prime and past it, but I guess I didn't. Weird...

[mischievous]

Of course there is. Don't understand why Hakeem is put on this pedestal above the 2nd tier ATG guys like Malone, Barkley, etc. I have him, KG, and Dirk around the same level.

You must have never watched him play.

Hakeem is absolutely on the same tier as guys like Shaq and Duncan.

Huh, I could've sworn I've seen countless games and footage of Hakeem both in his prime and past it, but I guess I didn't. Weird...

Well Hakeem was a much better playoff performer than Karl, and a much better defender than Barkley.

[Jaivl]

Hakeem is absolutely on the same tier as guys like Shaq and Duncan.

So is KG.

[LakerLegend]

Hakeem is absolutely on the same tier as guys like Shaq and Duncan.

So is KG.

He's not, his offense isn't good enough.

[Jaivl]

He's not, his offense isn't good enough.

And Duncan's is? Because I don't see much difference. Is Shaq's defense good enough?

[Colbinii]

Hakeem is absolutely on the same tier as guys like Shaq and Duncan.

So is KG.

He's not, his offense isn't good enough.

If you want to see posts explaining Kevin Garnett's offense, you should go to read some of the recent top 100 projects (specifically #6-#9). Drza, Jaivl, Doc, and myself have delved extensively into how great Garnett's offense was.

Basically, Kevin Garnett is a much better playmaker than Duncan/Dirk, while being slightly worse as a finisher than Duncan at the rim and a slightly worse jump shooter than Dirk. When you combine all of Garnett's offensive game he is just as valuable, if not more valuable than Dirk and a clear upgrade to Duncan.

[G35]

They use the defense argument a lot with Garnett but in this case he's up against a guy who is certainly better than him on that end. Hakeem was anchoring top 1-3 defenses in Houston with bad teammates, something Garnett was never able to do until he got Pierce and Allen.

On offense, it's no comparison. I've seen people arguing that Garnett's passing and shooting make him more valuable than Hakeem's volume scoring, but it's not as if prime Hakeem was a slacker as a passer, the whole Houston offense was built around Hakeem's gravity as a 4 out-1 in with shooters spotting up. His volume scoring won championships and it's a far bigger advantage than anything Garnett had.

I have like 6 spots separating them, Hakeem is 11 and Garnett is 17 but there is a bit of a dropoff from 11 to 12 (Hakeem to Oscar).

Pierce and Allen are not the reason for Boston having a good defense. It was the added role players like Rondo, Perkins, Allen, and House.

Ray Allen on: 100.5 Defense
Ray Allen off: 95.9 Defense

Unfortunately, we don't have data for the defense of the Houston Rockets without Hakeem. We do have the defense for Minnesota during KG's tenure, and I can say for certain that those Rockets teams would not have been towards the bottom of the league without Hakeem.

2001: 102.9 (14th), 107.2 (27th)
2002: 104.2 (14th), 108.6 (Last)
2003: 102.4 (10th), 110.9 (Last)
2004: 98.5 (5th), 104.6 (20th)
2005: 106.6 (14th) , 105.3 (12th)
2006: 104.7 (11th), 105.5 (14th)
2007: 106.2 (13th), 112.5 (Last)
2008: 97.3 (1st), 101.4 (1st)
2009: 98.6 (1st), 105.8 (7th)
2010: 102.1 (1st), 106.7 (14th)
2011: 98.1 (1st), 104.4 (7th)

So he wasn't that impactful defensively in 2005 and 2006, right? If this is the only way to measure defense, KG in 2005 has negative impact defensively. That's not possible for me and that's why I don't believe that these stats show us how impactful he really was.

Hakeem post 1986 anchored top 5 defenses in almost all years until 1995. He didn't have great defensive teammates. Maxwell was good but not really shutdown defender and Jones almost never play. Thorpe was nice, but he wasn't Ho Grant either. Horry didn't play until 1993. Hakeem played with many rosters and his team was always among the best defenses in the league. KG couldn't and didn't do that in Minny, even with decent supporting cast. This team even with him on the floor wasn't in top 10 most of the times.

I think KG has better case offensively than defensively over Hakeem. The Dream is among very best defenders ever and I always KG is a bit overrated compared to other all-time great defenders (like Admiral, Hakeem, Duncan, Thurmond, Mutombo).

70's fan I feel your argument but I actually think if you were going to frame an argument for KG it would have to come from the defensive end.

Hakeem is light years ahead of KG on offense...my biggest issue with KG is he shrinks in the playoffs on offense and on offense is where you need your stars the most. Defense requires all teammates to work together, offense can come down to one or two players.

Hakeem's offense was the difference in several playoff series, can anyone say that KG's offense was ever the difference in any series. Personally, I take Hakeem on both sides of the ball.......

[Colbinii]

Pierce and Allen are not the reason for Boston having a good defense. It was the added role players like Rondo, Perkins, Allen, and House.

Ray Allen on: 100.5 Defense
Ray Allen off: 95.9 Defense

Unfortunately, we don't have data for the defense of the Houston Rockets without Hakeem. We do have the defense for Minnesota during KG's tenure, and I can say for certain that those Rockets teams would not have been towards the bottom of the league without Hakeem.

2001: 102.9 (14th), 107.2 (27th)
2002: 104.2 (14th), 108.6 (Last)
2003: 102.4 (10th), 110.9 (Last)
2004: 98.5 (5th), 104.6 (20th)
2005: 106.6 (14th) , 105.3 (12th)
2006: 104.7 (11th), 105.5 (14th)
2007: 106.2 (13th), 112.5 (Last)
2008: 97.3 (1st), 101.4 (1st)
2009: 98.6 (1st), 105.8 (7th)
2010: 102.1 (1st), 106.7 (14th)
2011: 98.1 (1st), 104.4 (7th)

So he wasn't that impactful defensively in 2005 and 2006, right? If this is the only way to measure defense, KG in 2005 has negative impact defensively. That's not possible for me and that's why I don't believe that these stats show us how impactful he really was.

Hakeem post 1986 anchored top 5 defenses in almost all years until 1995. He didn't have great defensive teammates. Maxwell was good but not really shutdown defender and Jones almost never play. Thorpe was nice, but he wasn't Ho Grant either. Horry didn't play until 1993. Hakeem played with many rosters and his team was always among the best defenses in the league. KG couldn't and didn't do that in Minny, even with decent supporting cast. This team even with him on the floor wasn't in top 10 most of the times.

I think KG has better case offensively than defensively over Hakeem. The Dream is among very best defenders ever and I always KG is a bit overrated compared to other all-time great defenders (like Admiral, Hakeem, Duncan, Thurmond, Mutombo).

70's fan I feel your argument but I actually think if you were going to frame an argument for KG it would have to come from the defensive end.

Hakeem is light years ahead of KG on offense...my biggest issue with KG is he shrinks in the playoffs on offense and on offense is where you need your stars the most. Defense requires all teammates to work together, offense can come down to one or two players.

Hakeem's offense was the difference in several playoff series, can anyone say that KG's offense was ever the difference in any series. Personally, I take Hakeem on both sides of the ball.......

Garnett averaged 27 points with over 5 assists in his series against LA in 2003. Timberwolves get swept in this series without Kevin Garnett playing this well, and they still ended up losing in 6 games to a superior Lakers team.

[PhilBlackson]

Not a chance.

Hakeem embarrassed other top Cs, Kev was 2nd to Duncan.

[G35]

So he wasn't that impactful defensively in 2005 and 2006, right? If this is the only way to measure defense, KG in 2005 has negative impact defensively. That's not possible for me and that's why I don't believe that these stats show us how impactful he really was.

Hakeem post 1986 anchored top 5 defenses in almost all years until 1995. He didn't have great defensive teammates. Maxwell was good but not really shutdown defender and Jones almost never play. Thorpe was nice, but he wasn't Ho Grant either. Horry didn't play until 1993. Hakeem played with many rosters and his team was always among the best defenses in the league. KG couldn't and didn't do that in Minny, even with decent supporting cast. This team even with him on the floor wasn't in top 10 most of the times.

I think KG has better case offensively than defensively over Hakeem. The Dream is among very best defenders ever and I always KG is a bit overrated compared to other all-time great defenders (like Admiral, Hakeem, Duncan, Thurmond, Mutombo).

70's fan I feel your argument but I actually think if you were going to frame an argument for KG it would have to come from the defensive end.

Hakeem is light years ahead of KG on offense...my biggest issue with KG is he shrinks in the playoffs on offense and on offense is where you need your stars the most. Defense requires all teammates to work together, offense can come down to one or two players.

Hakeem's offense was the difference in several playoff series, can anyone say that KG's offense was ever the difference in any series. Personally, I take Hakeem on both sides of the ball.......

Garnett averaged 27 points with over 5 assists in his series against LA in 2003. Timberwolves get swept in this series without Kevin Garnett playing this well, and they still ended up losing in 6 games to a superior Lakers team.

I was having this discussion in another post about production vs impact.

In the 2009 series ORL vs CLE Lebron had a more productive series than Dwight, but Dwight had more impact over the game. He collapsed CLE's defense and allowed Rashard/Hedo/Courtney/Rafer to kill CLE from three land. The Magic shot 40% in that series...in six games they shot 152 three's and made 62....that is 10 three's a game. Which is pretty damn good in the playoffs.

So even though Lebron played amazing, he did not have the most impact in that series. Just because a player puts up great production does not mean anything. James Harden does that every year, WB does that every year.....but they do not impact the game the way Steph Curry does.

Not getting swept in a series is nothing to point to imo, KG just did what he was suppose to do...nothing more. He couldn't guard Shaq (biggest reason why he will never be on DRob or Hakeem's level) and his offense didn't force the Lakers to change their defense at all. It's not like the Lakers said, "We gotta double KG! He's just killing us!"

It was a first round series....I don't even think the Lakers took them seriously. They took the last two games by a combined scoring margin of 46 points, with Minnesota losing by 30 at home in G5. They destroyed them at home...this is like CLE vs BOS and Isaiah Thomas thinking he is on the same level as Lebron. KG doesn't have that switch.......