1995 Hakeem Olajuwon vs 2004 Kevin Garnet

[dhsilv2]

I know but it doesn't change the fact that Hakeem played out of mind. He was by far the best player in his team and in the whole playoffs. Just because he had good supporting cast doesn't change anything.

Having great teammates certainly makes one look better in the playoffs. They were 2-3 misses or other team makes from being eliminated in the first round. Does Hakeem have the same mystic today if he'd lost in the first round to the Jazz? They were legit 1 worse player as a starter and that likely happens.

Who cares? By that logic most of the championship teams had close series which they would lost with a few misses more. This logic doesn't make sense.

Besides, yoy say about series in which Hakeem averaged over 35 ppg on 60% TS? If Olajuwon played bad, you can make this case. But he played on GOAT level. Garnett never played as good in PS and he was younger than Hakeem when he played for the Celtics (with better supporting cast). Hakeem played great regadless of the help. Even in first round losses he played great. Why should I assume that KG could do the same with good help when he never did that?

Hakeem also averaged 9 rebounds per game and the rockets got killed on the boards. Had the rockets lost, his poor rebounding could easily be spun into a different narrative.

This is the classic winners bias, if you win you get inflated up even if your team was on the brink.

The point isn't to knock Hakeem, but to knock the narrative that because he won and did so playing well he should be propped up over those who didn't win.

[70sFan]

Having great teammates certainly makes one look better in the playoffs. They were 2-3 misses or other team makes from being eliminated in the first round. Does Hakeem have the same mystic today if he'd lost in the first round to the Jazz? They were legit 1 worse player as a starter and that likely happens.

Who cares? By that logic most of the championship teams had close series which they would lost with a few misses more. This logic doesn't make sense.

Besides, yoy say about series in which Hakeem averaged over 35 ppg on 60% TS? If Olajuwon played bad, you can make this case. But he played on GOAT level. Garnett never played as good in PS and he was younger than Hakeem when he played for the Celtics (with better supporting cast). Hakeem played great regadless of the help. Even in first round losses he played great. Why should I assume that KG could do the same with good help when he never did that?

Hakeem also averaged 9 rebounds per game and the rockets got killed on the boards. Had the rockets lost, his poor rebounding could easily be spun into a different narrative.

This is the classic winners bias, if you win you get inflated up even if your team was on the brink.

The point isn't to knock Hakeem, but to knock the narrative that because he won and did so playing well he should be propped up over those who didn't win.

But my reason to consider Hakeem isn't that he won. He simply played better in playoffs than any of KG postseason performance. I don't care, Rockets could lose against Utah or Suns but Hakeem still played better than KG. That's the point, not winning bias.

Show me one playoffs run when Garnett played close to 1995 Hakeem level. It doesn't have to be winning run.

[dhsilv2]

Who cares? By that logic most of the championship teams had close series which they would lost with a few misses more. This logic doesn't make sense.

Besides, yoy say about series in which Hakeem averaged over 35 ppg on 60% TS? If Olajuwon played bad, you can make this case. But he played on GOAT level. Garnett never played as good in PS and he was younger than Hakeem when he played for the Celtics (with better supporting cast). Hakeem played great regadless of the help. Even in first round losses he played great. Why should I assume that KG could do the same with good help when he never did that?

Hakeem also averaged 9 rebounds per game and the rockets got killed on the boards. Had the rockets lost, his poor rebounding could easily be spun into a different narrative.

This is the classic winners bias, if you win you get inflated up even if your team was on the brink.

The point isn't to knock Hakeem, but to knock the narrative that because he won and did so playing well he should be propped up over those who didn't win.

But my reason to consider Hakeem isn't that he won. He simply played better in playoffs than any of KG postseason performance. I don't care, Rockets could lose against Utah or Suns but Hakeem still played better than KG. That's the point, not winning bias.

Show me one playoffs run when Garnett played close to 1995 Hakeem level. It doesn't have to be winning run.

That becomes increasingly hard when a team loses though. Take KG's 01 playoff run. A 9.4 BPM .255 WS/48 and 24.9 PER going against Duncan and Robinson (before he playing on fumes). Why is that run not comparable to Hakeem's 95 run (5.3 BPM, .181 WS/48, and 26 PER)?

At a glance it looks like KG did rather well on Duncan in that series, holding him to 46.6% field goal shooting. The spurs were held below their regular season offensive rating by 4-5 points per 100.

[70sFan]

Hakeem also averaged 9 rebounds per game and the rockets got killed on the boards. Had the rockets lost, his poor rebounding could easily be spun into a different narrative.

This is the classic winners bias, if you win you get inflated up even if your team was on the brink.

The point isn't to knock Hakeem, but to knock the narrative that because he won and did so playing well he should be propped up over those who didn't win.

But my reason to consider Hakeem isn't that he won. He simply played better in playoffs than any of KG postseason performance. I don't care, Rockets could lose against Utah or Suns but Hakeem still played better than KG. That's the point, not winning bias.

Show me one playoffs run when Garnett played close to 1995 Hakeem level. It doesn't have to be winning run.

That becomes increasingly hard when a team loses though. Take KG's 01 playoff run. A 9.4 BPM .255 WS/48 and 24.9 PER going against Duncan and Robinson (before he playing on fumes). Why is that run not comparable to Hakeem's 95 run (5.3 BPM, .181 WS/48, and 26 PER)?

At a glance it looks like KG did rather well on Duncan in that series, holding him to 46.6% field goal shooting. The spurs were held below their regular season offensive rating by 4-5 points per 100.

That's good example, but you don't find more comparable ones. Hakeem had many, many elite playoffs runs. 1994 and 1995 aren't exception, 2001 for KG is.

[dhsilv2]

But my reason to consider Hakeem isn't that he won. He simply played better in playoffs than any of KG postseason performance. I don't care, Rockets could lose against Utah or Suns but Hakeem still played better than KG. That's the point, not winning bias.

Show me one playoffs run when Garnett played close to 1995 Hakeem level. It doesn't have to be winning run.

That becomes increasingly hard when a team loses though. Take KG's 01 playoff run. A 9.4 BPM .255 WS/48 and 24.9 PER going against Duncan and Robinson (before he playing on fumes). Why is that run not comparable to Hakeem's 95 run (5.3 BPM, .181 WS/48, and 26 PER)?

At a glance it looks like KG did rather well on Duncan in that series, holding him to 46.6% field goal shooting. The spurs were held below their regular season offensive rating by 4-5 points per 100.

That's good example, but you don't find more comparable ones. Hakeem had many, many elite playoffs runs. 1994 and 1995 aren't exception, 2001 for KG is.

What's wrong with 02?

Or more directly why is 95 that much better than 04?

BPM 6.2 WS/48 .163 PER 25.0
BPM 5.3 WS/48 .143 PER 26.7

2 of the 3 normal rate metrics think KG was better.

[70sFan]

That becomes increasingly hard when a team loses though. Take KG's 01 playoff run. A 9.4 BPM .255 WS/48 and 24.9 PER going against Duncan and Robinson (before he playing on fumes). Why is that run not comparable to Hakeem's 95 run (5.3 BPM, .181 WS/48, and 26 PER)?

At a glance it looks like KG did rather well on Duncan in that series, holding him to 46.6% field goal shooting. The spurs were held below their regular season offensive rating by 4-5 points per 100.

That's good example, but you don't find more comparable ones. Hakeem had many, many elite playoffs runs. 1994 and 1995 aren't exception, 2001 for KG is.

What's wrong with 02?

Or more directly why is 95 that much better than 04?

BPM 6.2 WS/48 .163 PER 25.0
BPM 5.3 WS/48 .143 PER 26.7

2 of the 3 normal rate metrics think KG was better.

To be honest, I don't use stats like that to compare players across the eras. What I know is that Hakeem played at absurd level against better competition than KG. Garnett didn't score well in playoffs (both 2002 and 2004) and even though he made up that im other aspects, I don't see him as better defender in Minny than Hakeem and rebounding alone can't overcome what Hakeem did.

Rewatch some games from 1995. Houston were in troubles so many times and Hakeem always contributed. What he did against Spurs is something I've seen only among GOAT candidates. It wasn't only series as he was on that level for the whole playoffs. I don't say that KG played bad in 2004 (or 2001 or 2003), he was legit superstar even in playoffs. But he's compared here to one of the best individual playoffs runs ever. Hakeem was on 1977 Kareem and 2000 Shaq level in playoffs. Garnett has some good runs, but nothing comparable to that.

[E-Balla]

That becomes increasingly hard when a team loses though. Take KG's 01 playoff run. A 9.4 BPM .255 WS/48 and 24.9 PER going against Duncan and Robinson (before he playing on fumes). Why is that run not comparable to Hakeem's 95 run (5.3 BPM, .181 WS/48, and 26 PER)?

At a glance it looks like KG did rather well on Duncan in that series, holding him to 46.6% field goal shooting. The spurs were held below their regular season offensive rating by 4-5 points per 100.

That's good example, but you don't find more comparable ones. Hakeem had many, many elite playoffs runs. 1994 and 1995 aren't exception, 2001 for KG is.

What's wrong with 02?

Or more directly why is 95 that much better than 04?

BPM 6.2 WS/48 .163 PER 25.0
BPM 5.3 WS/48 .143 PER 26.7

2 of the 3 normal rate metrics think KG was better.

02 was a 3 game sweep where he let Dirk average 33/16 and outplay him in all 3 games. Chauncey averaged 22/5/6 on 55 TS% and Wally averaged 20/7/2 on 58 TS% and KG still couldn't win. I wouldn't even call that a good performance in context.

[dhsilv2]

That's good example, but you don't find more comparable ones. Hakeem had many, many elite playoffs runs. 1994 and 1995 aren't exception, 2001 for KG is.

What's wrong with 02?

Or more directly why is 95 that much better than 04?

BPM 6.2 WS/48 .163 PER 25.0
BPM 5.3 WS/48 .143 PER 26.7

2 of the 3 normal rate metrics think KG was better.

To be honest, I don't use stats like that to compare players across the eras. What I know is that Hakeem played at absurd level against better competition than KG. Garnett didn't score well in playoffs (both 2002 and 2004) and even though he made up that im other aspects, I don't see him as better defender in Minny than Hakeem and rebounding alone can't overcome what Hakeem did.

Rewatch some games from 1995. Houston were in troubles so many times and Hakeem always contributed. What he did against Spurs is something I've seen only among GOAT candidates. It wasn't only series as he was on that level for the whole playoffs. I don't say that KG played bad in 2004 (or 2001 or 2003), he was legit superstar even in playoffs. But he's compared here to one of the best individual playoffs runs ever. Hakeem was on 1977 Kareem and 2000 Shaq level in playoffs. Garnett has some good runs, but nothing comparable to that.

Hakeem's teams were out rebounded in every series despite him having decent rebounding teammates. Neither the suns nor jazz nor magic were strong defensive teams. So I'm not sure I really buy that the competition was that much better if at all. IF we were talking 93 or 94 Hakeem, it would be a completely different story. 95 Hakeem wasn't close to 94 or 93 Hakeem in the playoffs which is where this thread loses me.

[dhsilv2]

That's good example, but you don't find more comparable ones. Hakeem had many, many elite playoffs runs. 1994 and 1995 aren't exception, 2001 for KG is.

What's wrong with 02?

Or more directly why is 95 that much better than 04?

BPM 6.2 WS/48 .163 PER 25.0
BPM 5.3 WS/48 .143 PER 26.7

2 of the 3 normal rate metrics think KG was better.

02 was a 3 game sweep where he let Dirk average 33/16 and outplay him in all 3 games. Chauncey averaged 22/5/6 on 55 TS% and Wally averaged 20/7/2 on 58 TS% and KG still couldn't win. I wouldn't even call that a good performance in context.

I used it because it was a sweep!

[O_6]

40 point Games-
Hakeem ('95 Playoffs): 5
Garnett (Career): 4

Garnett was better during the regular season but Hakeem's volume scoring ability was insane. Hakeem could ramp up his scoring and offensive impact in a way Garnett never could. I'd go '93-'95 Hakeem over '04 KG.

[70sFan]

What's wrong with 02?

Or more directly why is 95 that much better than 04?

BPM 6.2 WS/48 .163 PER 25.0
BPM 5.3 WS/48 .143 PER 26.7

2 of the 3 normal rate metrics think KG was better.

To be honest, I don't use stats like that to compare players across the eras. What I know is that Hakeem played at absurd level against better competition than KG. Garnett didn't score well in playoffs (both 2002 and 2004) and even though he made up that im other aspects, I don't see him as better defender in Minny than Hakeem and rebounding alone can't overcome what Hakeem did.

Rewatch some games from 1995. Houston were in troubles so many times and Hakeem always contributed. What he did against Spurs is something I've seen only among GOAT candidates. It wasn't only series as he was on that level for the whole playoffs. I don't say that KG played bad in 2004 (or 2001 or 2003), he was legit superstar even in playoffs. But he's compared here to one of the best individual playoffs runs ever. Hakeem was on 1977 Kareem and 2000 Shaq level in playoffs. Garnett has some good runs, but nothing comparable to that.

Hakeem's teams were out rebounded in every series despite him having decent rebounding teammates. Neither the suns nor jazz nor magic were strong defensive teams. So I'm not sure I really buy that the competition was that much better if at all. IF we were talking 93 or 94 Hakeem, it would be a completely different story. 95 Hakeem wasn't close to 94 or 93 Hakeem in the playoffs which is where this thread loses me.

Hakeem was probably at his offensive best in 1995 playoffs. Sure, he wasn't the same defender he used to be in 1988-94 span, but I don't believe that KG in Minny was any better defender than 1995 Hakeem. Olajuwon peaked in 1995 playoffs as far as being offensive anchor and KG was never on that level.

If you have 1993 and 1994 Hakeem over peak KG, you have to be very high on Garnett's edge on defense because Olajuwon was as good offensively in 1995 as ever.

[dhsilv2]

To be honest, I don't use stats like that to compare players across the eras. What I know is that Hakeem played at absurd level against better competition than KG. Garnett didn't score well in playoffs (both 2002 and 2004) and even though he made up that im other aspects, I don't see him as better defender in Minny than Hakeem and rebounding alone can't overcome what Hakeem did.

Rewatch some games from 1995. Houston were in troubles so many times and Hakeem always contributed. What he did against Spurs is something I've seen only among GOAT candidates. It wasn't only series as he was on that level for the whole playoffs. I don't say that KG played bad in 2004 (or 2001 or 2003), he was legit superstar even in playoffs. But he's compared here to one of the best individual playoffs runs ever. Hakeem was on 1977 Kareem and 2000 Shaq level in playoffs. Garnett has some good runs, but nothing comparable to that.

Hakeem's teams were out rebounded in every series despite him having decent rebounding teammates. Neither the suns nor jazz nor magic were strong defensive teams. So I'm not sure I really buy that the competition was that much better if at all. IF we were talking 93 or 94 Hakeem, it would be a completely different story. 95 Hakeem wasn't close to 94 or 93 Hakeem in the playoffs which is where this thread loses me.

Hakeem was probably at his offensive best in 1995 playoffs. Sure, he wasn't the same defender he used to be in 1988-94 span, but I don't believe that KG in Minny was any better defender than 1995 Hakeem. Olajuwon peaked in 1995 playoffs as far as being offensive anchor and KG was never on that level.

If you have 1993 and 1994 Hakeem over peak KG, you have to be very high on Garnett's edge on defense because Olajuwon was as good offensively in 1995 as ever.

The advanced metrics, especially BPM which scales as I think most fans see the game, is SUPER high on 93 and 94 Hakeem, and sees 95 as rather pedestrian. Hakeem's rebounding in 95 by all time great big men standards is down right terrible in all honesty. More over, when you look at say Offensive rating to see who was more efficient with a possession, Hakeem was the lowest or near lowest of anyone on his team in the 95 playoffs. Now he also had an absurd 37% usage rate but it's hard to watch those games and think the team wouldn't have been better with more passing and less iso hakeem. And again the advanced metrics are screaming that Hakeem was worse in 95 than the prior two years.

In short I've watched games and I'm looking at the stats. I don't get the hype for that 95 run. Other than PPG. Hakeem was significantly worse imo defensively in 95 from 94 or 93. DPOY level to say 80 percentile center, it was a huge drop.

[70sFan]

Hakeem's teams were out rebounded in every series despite him having decent rebounding teammates. Neither the suns nor jazz nor magic were strong defensive teams. So I'm not sure I really buy that the competition was that much better if at all. IF we were talking 93 or 94 Hakeem, it would be a completely different story. 95 Hakeem wasn't close to 94 or 93 Hakeem in the playoffs which is where this thread loses me.

Hakeem was probably at his offensive best in 1995 playoffs. Sure, he wasn't the same defender he used to be in 1988-94 span, but I don't believe that KG in Minny was any better defender than 1995 Hakeem. Olajuwon peaked in 1995 playoffs as far as being offensive anchor and KG was never on that level.

If you have 1993 and 1994 Hakeem over peak KG, you have to be very high on Garnett's edge on defense because Olajuwon was as good offensively in 1995 as ever.

The advanced metrics, especially BPM which scales as I think most fans see the game, is SUPER high on 93 and 94 Hakeem, and sees 95 as rather pedestrian. Hakeem's rebounding in 95 by all time great big men standards is down right terrible in all honesty. More over, when you look at say Offensive rating to see who was more efficient with a possession, Hakeem was the lowest or near lowest of anyone on his team in the 95 playoffs. Now he also had an absurd 37% usage rate but it's hard to watch those games and think the team wouldn't have been better with more passing and less iso hakeem. And again the advanced metrics are screaming that Hakeem was worse in 95 than the prior two years.

In short I've watched games and I'm looking at the stats. I don't get the hype for that 95 run. Other than PPG. Hakeem was significantly worse imo defensively in 95 from 94 or 93. DPOY level to say 80 percentile center, it was a huge drop.

Then I think that we've seen different games because Hakeem's offense is as refined as ever in 1995. Not as good defensively as before, but still good and at his best offensively. Do you think that Rockets would fare better with less isos against Spurs? I doubt.

[dhsilv2]

Hakeem was probably at his offensive best in 1995 playoffs. Sure, he wasn't the same defender he used to be in 1988-94 span, but I don't believe that KG in Minny was any better defender than 1995 Hakeem. Olajuwon peaked in 1995 playoffs as far as being offensive anchor and KG was never on that level.

If you have 1993 and 1994 Hakeem over peak KG, you have to be very high on Garnett's edge on defense because Olajuwon was as good offensively in 1995 as ever.

The advanced metrics, especially BPM which scales as I think most fans see the game, is SUPER high on 93 and 94 Hakeem, and sees 95 as rather pedestrian. Hakeem's rebounding in 95 by all time great big men standards is down right terrible in all honesty. More over, when you look at say Offensive rating to see who was more efficient with a possession, Hakeem was the lowest or near lowest of anyone on his team in the 95 playoffs. Now he also had an absurd 37% usage rate but it's hard to watch those games and think the team wouldn't have been better with more passing and less iso hakeem. And again the advanced metrics are screaming that Hakeem was worse in 95 than the prior two years.

In short I've watched games and I'm looking at the stats. I don't get the hype for that 95 run. Other than PPG. Hakeem was significantly worse imo defensively in 95 from 94 or 93. DPOY level to say 80 percentile center, it was a huge drop.

Then I think that we've seen different games because Hakeem's offense is as refined as ever in 1995. Not as good defensively as before, but still good and at his best offensively. Do you think that Rockets would fare better with less isos against Spurs? I doubt.

It's hard to really do a fair comparison here. That was imo by far the best team hakeem had around him offensively...we could debate the first year with chuck I suppose. So doubling Hakeem was brutal as everyone could shoot or at least most could.

In context of Hakeem vs KG, how do you compare Hakeem's team and KG...a team that give 3 starts to Darrick Martin who in all seriousness I"m not sure why he was even in the nba, let alone starting on a playoff team.

[thekdog34]

Hakeem was probably at his offensive best in 1995 playoffs. Sure, he wasn't the same defender he used to be in 1988-94 span, but I don't believe that KG in Minny was any better defender than 1995 Hakeem. Olajuwon peaked in 1995 playoffs as far as being offensive anchor and KG was never on that level.

If you have 1993 and 1994 Hakeem over peak KG, you have to be very high on Garnett's edge on defense because Olajuwon was as good offensively in 1995 as ever.

The advanced metrics, especially BPM which scales as I think most fans see the game, is SUPER high on 93 and 94 Hakeem, and sees 95 as rather pedestrian. Hakeem's rebounding in 95 by all time great big men standards is down right terrible in all honesty. More over, when you look at say Offensive rating to see who was more efficient with a possession, Hakeem was the lowest or near lowest of anyone on his team in the 95 playoffs. Now he also had an absurd 37% usage rate but it's hard to watch those games and think the team wouldn't have been better with more passing and less iso hakeem. And again the advanced metrics are screaming that Hakeem was worse in 95 than the prior two years.

In short I've watched games and I'm looking at the stats. I don't get the hype for that 95 run. Other than PPG. Hakeem was significantly worse imo defensively in 95 from 94 or 93. DPOY level to say 80 percentile center, it was a huge drop.

Then I think that we've seen different games because Hakeem's offense is as refined as ever in 1995. Not as good defensively as before, but still good and at his best offensively. Do you think that Rockets would fare better with less isos against Spurs? I doubt.

Seems to me like OBPM is flawed. I see no reason why Hakeem should have lower OBPM in 95 vs 94.

It seems like the formula overly penalizes him for a drop in freethrow rate. Even though his volume increased with no loss in efficiency and he increased his assist % while lowering his turnover rate.

[70sFan]

The advanced metrics, especially BPM which scales as I think most fans see the game, is SUPER high on 93 and 94 Hakeem, and sees 95 as rather pedestrian. Hakeem's rebounding in 95 by all time great big men standards is down right terrible in all honesty. More over, when you look at say Offensive rating to see who was more efficient with a possession, Hakeem was the lowest or near lowest of anyone on his team in the 95 playoffs. Now he also had an absurd 37% usage rate but it's hard to watch those games and think the team wouldn't have been better with more passing and less iso hakeem. And again the advanced metrics are screaming that Hakeem was worse in 95 than the prior two years.

In short I've watched games and I'm looking at the stats. I don't get the hype for that 95 run. Other than PPG. Hakeem was significantly worse imo defensively in 95 from 94 or 93. DPOY level to say 80 percentile center, it was a huge drop.

Then I think that we've seen different games because Hakeem's offense is as refined as ever in 1995. Not as good defensively as before, but still good and at his best offensively. Do you think that Rockets would fare better with less isos against Spurs? I doubt.

It's hard to really do a fair comparison here. That was imo by far the best team hakeem had around him offensively...we could debate the first year with chuck I suppose. So doubling Hakeem was brutal as everyone could shoot or at least most could.

In context of Hakeem vs KG, how do you compare Hakeem's team and KG...a team that give 3 starts to Darrick Martin who in all seriousness I"m not sure why he was even in the nba, let alone starting on a playoff team.

I don't compare their supporting cast. I compare them individualy. Garnett didn't do better with Celtics in 2008 and he wasn't older or past his prime and his help was better than 1995 Rockets.

Meanwhile Hakeem proved before that he could kill teams even with the worst supporting cast. Why should I assume that KG would fare better with the Rockets when he didn't when he finally got better supporting cast.

[Jiminy Glick]

Garnett was a better passer, rebounder, and a more versatile defender. You can create a much better team with Garnett.

[dhsilv2]

Then I think that we've seen different games because Hakeem's offense is as refined as ever in 1995. Not as good defensively as before, but still good and at his best offensively. Do you think that Rockets would fare better with less isos against Spurs? I doubt.

It's hard to really do a fair comparison here. That was imo by far the best team hakeem had around him offensively...we could debate the first year with chuck I suppose. So doubling Hakeem was brutal as everyone could shoot or at least most could.

In context of Hakeem vs KG, how do you compare Hakeem's team and KG...a team that give 3 starts to Darrick Martin who in all seriousness I"m not sure why he was even in the nba, let alone starting on a playoff team.

I don't compare their supporting cast. I compare them individualy. Garnett didn't do better with Celtics in 2008 and he wasn't older or past his prime and his help was better than 1995 Rockets.

Meanwhile Hakeem proved before that he could kill teams even with the worst supporting cast. Why should I assume that KG would fare better with the Rockets when he didn't when he finally got better supporting cast.

RAPM would tell us KG was the best player in the NBA in 08. That's where these things get a bit more complex. KG didn't put up the "stats" we expect from elite players perhaps?

And while I won't call the 94 rockets a great cast, they didn't have nearly the awful players as the 04 wolves had.

I'll point you back to rebounding in this comparison. Drexler was out rebounding KG's starting center...

[70sFan]

It's hard to really do a fair comparison here. That was imo by far the best team hakeem had around him offensively...we could debate the first year with chuck I suppose. So doubling Hakeem was brutal as everyone could shoot or at least most could.

In context of Hakeem vs KG, how do you compare Hakeem's team and KG...a team that give 3 starts to Darrick Martin who in all seriousness I"m not sure why he was even in the nba, let alone starting on a playoff team.

I don't compare their supporting cast. I compare them individualy. Garnett didn't do better with Celtics in 2008 and he wasn't older or past his prime and his help was better than 1995 Rockets.

Meanwhile Hakeem proved before that he could kill teams even with the worst supporting cast. Why should I assume that KG would fare better with the Rockets when he didn't when he finally got better supporting cast.

RAPM would tell us KG was the best player in the NBA in 08. That's where these things get a bit more complex. KG didn't put up the "stats" we expect from elite players perhaps?

And while I won't call the 94 rockets a great cast, they didn't have nearly the awful players as the 04 wolves had.

I'll point you back to rebounding in this comparison. Drexler was out rebounding KG's starting center...

Hakeem played with awful players though and he always was better PS performer.

I said before that KG has clear rebounding edge, but it's not enough to overcome Hakeem's offensive edge.

Also, I'm strictly talking about playoffs. I said before that I can't decide because Garnett is definitely bettet in RS. It's a good comparison, but I can't see how you can say that KG is comparable in playoffs. He just wasn't at any point of his career.

[tihsad]

Garnett was a better passer, rebounder, and a more versatile defender. You can create a much better team with Garnett.

Unfortunately, this is the sort of statement that feeds the KG backlash on this board. I would hope everyone agrees that KG's 04' season was an amazing peak for an all-time great player. Furthermore, I'd agree that "this was the season KG had help" is a bit overblown - it was still a relatively weak squad for a title contender. That being said, Hakeem was a wrecking ball through the 95' playoffs. I agree that Garnett was better passer, ball handler, and rebounder, but "versatile on defense" doesn't mean better on D. 04 offensive and defensive sets looked a lot more like 1995 then 2018. No, Hakeem wasn't as strong a defender in 95 as he was in 93, but who was better then he was in 1993? Peak Russell? Then of course there is pure scoring ability, which I assume I don't have to explain or draw numbers for? Hakeem's claim to fame is 93-95, especially the post season of those last two years. I might also make mention of the murderer's row of teams that Houston had to go through in the 95' playoffs (lowest wins of the four teams was Orlando at 57). There are many clips to chose from, but I'll leave it to this one, which I'm guessing most everyone here has seen (and yes, this series is over used, but I did hear it through the grapevine that the guy talking at 1:32 in was a decent defender...) :

Watch on YouTube