# Wilt Chamberlain is overrated; Hakeem is the GOAT



## The_Franchise

I posted this in the Duncan thread then realized how out of place it was. I've been seeing alot of top 10 lists with Chamberlain ahead of Jordan, and Hakeem basically on the brink of the top 10. Chamberlain put up flashy numbers, but his success is questionable and the environment he did it in even moreso.

I don't think it's fair to compare big men from the 60's like Wilt to the modern day big man, the epitome of whom would be Hakeem Olajuwon. Wilt Chamberlain, although a great center, played in a totally different era than the center's of the 90s. He was 6'10 and considered a freak by his opponents. His athleticism was unheard of for a guy his size in that day, and that's how he averaged 50 ppg for a couple seasons. He could use his height and aggression to shoot over every center in the NBA. The only player that was big enough to stop him was Bill Russell. 

Defense wasn't a priority in his day. No athlete today no matter how much skill and dominance he has could average 50 PPG or 25 RPG. Every player in the NBA player is more athletic and focussed on defense. Wilt Chamberlain was simply too much for his competition to handle. The only thing the puny big men of the 60's could do was foul him. And Wilt, who couldn't hit the side of a barn with a baseball from the FT line, would jump over the line and basically lay it in to the basket. He was never successful until he stopped shooting the ball, and passing it to his teammates. After all this domination and putting up insane numbers, he only won two championships throughout his whole career, and they required him to tone down his posession of the ball. He averaged 24 and 14 ppg in those seasons, showing that he couldn't win games by just being dominant. For him to be effective, he had to rebound and play defense, and pass the ball on offense. Wilt had Chet Walker and Billy Cunningham carry the scoring load in the season of his first championship, and Jerry West and Gail Goodrich carried the Lakers to the championship in 72. Wilt only averaged 14 ppg that year. Are you telling me the greatest center in history couldn't win with the ball in his hands?

Hakeem had a pretty prolific career. He didn't average 50 ppg, but he turned around the Houston franchise. They totalled 29 wins the season before they drafted him, and during his rookie year Hakeem helped the Rockets to 48 wins. He led the Rockets in scoring the first 10 years of his career (would've been more if not for injury) and in that span they went 584 - 400, winning 2 championships and robbed by the Jazz of one more. He had the best collection of post moves in history, and could block, rebound, steal, pass, shoot and scream for the ball in the clutch. He was arguably the greatest offensive and easily the greatest defensive force bigger than 7 ft, and he did this all against the likes of David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, Mutumbo, Shaquille O'Neal (taught him how to play basketball) and the Rockets were the only team to have a winning record against the Bull's in the 90s.

Hakeem Olajuwon was undisputedly the greatest biggie of all time.

There's no doubt that Wilt evolutionized the game, and was the cause of many rule changes. But the competition just wasn't close to what the centers of the 90's had to face. Big men became more and more athletic. Defense was the key to success. If I was given the choice, I'd take Hakeem over Wilt any day.


----------



## banner17

I call it a tie between Russell and Olajuwon. and I'd take both of them over Wilt, Shaq or Jabbar


----------



## JT

*rebound and defense? chamberlain was better.*



> Originally posted by <b>The Franchise</b>!
> Hakeem Olajuwon was undisputedly the greatest biggie of all time.


Undisputed by who? Rockets fans? Hakeem is good but he never led the league in assists, or was rookie of the year slash MVP if I may quote Joe Budden here. He also has only two rebounding titles, while Wilt has 11. Wilt owns Hakeem, that is the only undisputed fact here.


----------



## Johnny Mac

The million dollar question is, should a player be judged by how good they actually are in comparison to a player of another era? Or should they be judge for how good they were compared to the players of their era? 

Hakeem is most likely better than Wilt was, if you were able to take a prime Wilt and a prime Hakeem and compare them. However, theres no doubt that Wilt was better in comparison to the other players in his time. 

I think players should be judged for how good they were in comparison to the players of their time, because I think if you put Tracy McGrady back in the 60s, he might be remembered as the greatest player of all time. A borderline star in the NBA today may have been remembered as a top 10 player of all time, had he played his career in the 60s. Thats what advancements in training will do for you.


----------



## Pan Mengtu

Wilt was 7'1"......


----------



## LakerMania

You can argue to your blue in the face but right now history has the top bigs as 

Wilt
Kareem
Russell 
Shaq

Hakeem was a great player but he is a tier below this group. Some of the media has Hakeem placed higher but the majority have Shaq snugly in place ahead Hakeem.


----------



## The_Franchise

*Re: rebound and defense? chamberlain was better.*



> Originally posted by <b>sherako</b>!
> Undisputed by who? Rockets fans? Hakeem is good but he never led the league in assists, or was rookie of the year slash MVP if I may quote Joe Budden here. He also has only two rebounding titles, while Wilt has 11. Wilt owns Hakeem, that is the only undisputed fact here.


You're looking at numbers and numbers only. If Amare was born in 1940 we would probably be arguing over him being the greatest of all time. Wilt grabbing rebounds over guys who have a vertical equal to that of Mark Jackson isn't that impressive to me. Ask yourself what Hakeem's stats would have been had he played in Wilt's era.


----------



## The_Franchise

> Originally posted by <b>John The Cool Kid</b>!
> The million dollar question is, should a player be judged by how good they actually are in comparison to a player of another era? Or should they be judge for how good they were compared to the players of their era?
> 
> Hakeem is most likely better than Wilt was, if you were able to take a prime Wilt and a prime Hakeem and compare them. However, theres no doubt that Wilt was better in comparison to the other players in his time.
> 
> I think players should be judged for how good they were in comparison to the players of their time, because I think if you put Tracy McGrady back in the 60s, he might be remembered as the greatest player of all time. *A borderline star in the NBA today may have been remembered as a top 10 player of all time, had he played his career in the 60s*. Thats what advancements in training will do for you.


Agreed, we both used analogies of modern day HS miracles (McGrady / Stoudemire) to prove our point.


----------



## Pan Mengtu

The problem with the "he played against inferior" competition argument is that IT WASN'T HIS FAULT.

Think about this. Let's pretend that Shaq is Wilt for a second and he comes into the league in the 60s, as good as he is today, and dominates of course. Do you then say that Hakeem is automatically better than Shaq because he played against taller players?

The question I'm raising is, *how dominate does a guy have to be against 60s/70s players to overcome the inferior competition argument*? You can't automatically write someone off because of competition, because obviously the competition has no effect on how good a player is as an individual.


----------



## JT

*Re: Re: rebound and defense? chamberlain was better.*



> Originally posted by <b>The Franchise</b>!
> You're looking at numbers and numbers only.


How about this number-when Wilt decided to lay off the scoring and concentrate on defense + rebounding, the Lakers won *33* straight games, the longest winning run in pro sports history. What's Hakeem's longest win streak?



> If Amare was born in 1940 we would probably be arguing over him being the greatest of all time.


If Tim Thomas had Jordan's drive, he'd be the best player in the league. It didn't happen so there is no need to argue it.



> Ask yourself what Hakeem's stats would have been had he played in Wilt's era.


Greatness transfers over. Wilt was clearly the best player in that era. Was Hakeem the best in his? No so there really is no argument to make, Wilt owns Hakeem.


----------



## banner17

> Originally posted by <b>LakerMania</b>!
> You can argue to your blue in the face but right now history has the top bigs as
> 
> Wilt
> Kareem
> Russell
> Shaq
> 
> Hakeem was a great player but he is a tier below this group. Some of the media has Hakeem placed higher but the majority have Shaq snugly in place ahead Hakeem.



Do you not remember that Olajuwon dominated Shaq during his first three years in the league?


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>LakerMania</b>!
> You can argue to your blue in the face but right now history has the top bigs as
> 
> Wilt
> Kareem
> Russell
> Shaq
> 
> Hakeem was a great player but he is a tier below this group.


Your history.Olajuwon was a far superior defender to all of the above except for Russell, and Olajuwon was a far superior offensive player to Russell and on par, offensively, with the others with the *possible* exception of Chamberlain (and even that may not be the case, as playing in totally different quality leagues distorts the numbers).


----------



## Pan Mengtu

> Do you not remember that Olajuwon dominated Shaq during his first three years in the league?


Do you remember Shaq dominating Hakeem his last 5 or 6?


----------



## PhatDaddy3100

Hmmm, Wilt once averaged 50 points and 20 rebounds per game ONE SEASON. No one ever dominated like he did.


----------



## Pan Mengtu

> Your history.Olajuwon was a far superior defender to all of the above except for Russell, and Olajuwon was a far superior offensive player to Russell and on par, offensively, with the others with the possible exception of Chamberlain (and even that may not be the case, as playing in totally different quality leagues distorts the numbers).


Come on, no one is a better offensive center than Shaq. PPG don't mean much because Shaq scored as much through other players. Plus he could score at will, and probably still can. Hakeem had great moves, but he's no Shaq on offense.


----------



## rebelsun

Unless we see them 1-on-1 in their respective primes, Wilt is the champ here.


----------



## Spriggan

i think if you put shaq back in wilt's time, he would have had a greater impact than anyone in the history of the game, including olajuwon. does that make him the GOAT? i think by the time shaq's career is over, depending on what he does with the heat, you could make a pretty decent argument that he is.

i remember a few months ago arguing with someone that thought wilt chamberlain was stronger than shaq. wilt was a strong man, but he wasn't nearly as big as shaq. now you might say "size =/= strength, which is true... except that under shaq's one layer of fat is muscle. have you seen him flex? show me someone shaq's size with that kind of muscle definition. he's muscular AND he's a very big man. i strongly doubt wilt was as strong as him.

and i'm referring mainly to shaq in his athletic prime. he's ballooned up quite a bit the past couple years. he's still strong as an ox though.


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> 
> 
> Come on, no one is a better offensive center than Shaq. PPG don't mean much because Shaq scored as much through other players. Plus he could score at will, and probably still can.


I didn't say Olajuwon was a *better* offensive center than Shaq. But, in his prime, he was on par. He also scored at will and was less at the mercy of how the referees were calling the game to be effective.

Any difference between Olajuwon and Shaq offensively was much smaller than the difference between their defenses.


----------



## The_Franchise

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> Do you remember Shaq dominating Hakeem his last 5 or 6?


I don't think anyone can "remember" that, but do you remember Shaq in the NBA Finals without Kobe? Sweep.


----------



## The_Franchise

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> Come on, no one is a better offensive center than Shaq. PPG don't mean much because Shaq scored as much through other players. Plus he could score at will, and probably still can. Hakeem had great moves, but he's no Shaq on offense.


I never saw the Lakers go to Shaq with the game on the line. Why? Because he needs to be close to the basket to be effective, and if he is, the opposing team would just foul him and send him to the FT line, his biggest weakness. Hakeem never had such a weakness.


----------



## sweet_constipation

Damnit, damnit, damnit!

Why do people still compare generations?
You get no freakin' where.

Too many damn variables:
-General knowledge of the game, the Xs and Os, defensive/offensive schemes.

-athletic ability

-rules

-How the game is called.
You don't have to go to far back and notice how the different the game was called. I have games, both regular season and playoffs, as far back as the 70s from my uncles.
You wanna hear two grown men mad, just make them watch and current NBA game, and I do understand where they're coming from.
The way traveling is called is worlds apart, not to mention the issue of what is carrying.

ETC.





sigh........




One last note:
Hakeem was better than any big man of his generation, as well as this one.
He's better at every aspect of the game than both Shaq and Duncan.
My opinion....


----------



## J Blaze

> Originally posted by <b>sweet_constipation</b>!
> Damnit, damnit, damnit!
> 
> Why do people still compare generations?
> You get no freakin' where.
> 
> Too many damn variables:
> -General knowledge of the game, the Xs and Os, defensive/offensive schemes.
> 
> -athletic ability
> 
> -rules
> 
> -How the game is called.
> You don't have to go to far back and notice how the different the game was called. I have games, both regular season and playoffs, as far back as the 70s from my uncles.
> You wanna hear two grown men mad, just make them watch and current NBA game, and I do understand where they're coming from.
> The way traveling is called is worlds apart, not to mention the issue of what is carrying.
> 
> ETC.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> sigh........
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One last note:
> *Hakeem was better than any big man of his generation, as well as this one.*
> *He's better at every aspect of the game than both Shaq and Duncan.*
> *My opinion....*


I agree. Shaq would hesitate before he would say he was better than Hakeem. And he would only say that because of his ego. Anyone remember that HIGHLY TELEVISED SPECIAL ON CABLE, Hakeem vs Shaq 1 on 1?


----------



## Priest

da dream is da greatest center skill wise imo he did everything well..yea i remember that i have da taco bell cup man i wanted to see that sooooooooooo bad thats when the nba was as good as itt gets (post-jordan)


----------



## walkon4

if ANYTHING.. wilt is UNDERRATED.


----------



## Flamesta

Hakeem totally dominates.... in NBA Jam...


----------



## Coatesvillain

Hakeem has the bad fortune of playing in an NBA that featured Bird, Magic, Zeke, and Jordan. Despite all he accomplished on the floor it's almost like there's only so much credit to go around.

I highly doubt there will ever be another Hakeem Olajuwon, his style on the court was just beautiful. There wasn't anything the guy couldn't do and his footwork was just a sight to behold, I wish Hakeem would come back around the league in some capacity, because if he could help just one player learn some of the natural moves he possessed.. it would be all worth it.

All I can say though, it was a very sad day when they finally came down and called the Dream Shake a travel...


----------



## JerryWest

*Re: Re: rebound and defense? chamberlain was better.*



> Originally posted by <b>The Franchise</b>!
> 
> 
> You're looking at numbers and numbers only. If Amare was born in 1940 we would probably be arguing over him being the greatest of all time. Wilt grabbing rebounds over guys who have a vertical equal to that of Mark Jackson isn't that impressive to me. Ask yourself what Hakeem's stats would have been had he played in Wilt's era.


If Amare was playing in Wilt's era, he wouldn't have the information on nutrition and knowledge of weight training to get as fast and as strong he is.

You guys keep talking about Wilt's era, but you have to realize that people in Wilt's era probably had side jobs as well. They didn't have the time or knowledge to be weight training at the age of 13. they didn't have energy boosters or protein shakes being drank like water.

Just my 2 cents


----------



## HeinzGuderian

I dont know how many protein shakes hakeem was drinking over in Laos...

There is some difficulty comparing Shaq and Hakeem because you can argue that Hakeem dominated shaq when he was young, then Shaq could beat hakeem when hakeem was thirty-eight with heart problems. 

That said, I dont think that year eight shaq was a whole lot better than year three shaq.


----------



## kflo

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> Olajuwon was ...... on par, offensively, with the others with the *possible* exception of Chamberlain (and even that may not be the case, as playing in totally different quality leagues distorts the numbers).


if on par means scoring less at a less efficient clip while not passing as well....


----------



## kflo

> Originally posted by <b>HeinzGuderian</b>!
> I dont know how many protein shakes hakeem was drinking over in Laos...
> 
> There is some difficulty comparing Shaq and Hakeem because you can argue that Hakeem dominated shaq when he was young, then Shaq could beat hakeem when hakeem was thirty-eight with heart problems.


he outplayed him in 1 series, at completely different stages of their careers. shaq actually shot a much higher % and rebounded better, but hakeem got the better of shaq, particularly in the clutch (and shaq's to's were big). again, it was 1 series, and it wasn't lopsided like the admiral / hakeem matchup earlier in the playoffs.

i posted a while back that mchale (experienced) arguably outplayed hakeem (2nd season) in the '86 finals. do we want to draw any conclusions from that (and i fully understand the circumstacnces weren't identical).


----------



## Moe The Bartender

I would rate them like this:

1. Kareem (nobody in his time, or this time could stop that shot)
2. Wilt (how much would he have averaged if he could dunk in 
that era?)
3. Shaq
4. Russell

I don't care about anyone's opinion about this, but if Walton would have stayed healthy and ate some meat every now and then, he was the most fundamentally sound center I have ever seen. However, as an anouncer, he sucks!


----------



## jokeaward

You mean Lagos, right?

Wilt's centers of his era weren't that bad. You had Russell, Nate Thurmond, Walt Bellamy, Willis Reed, etc.

Wilt scored 100 in a game. Did Hakeem ever score 100 in two consecutive games? I don't think so.

Wilt in 61-62: 50.7 PPG, 25.2 RPG. Hakeem's league was better but his best regular season totals from seperate games: 52 points, 25 rebounds. 47-20 was a ub=par effort for Wilt that year.

Wilt is also the only center to lead the league in APG. He's probably also the all-time triple-double leader with pts-reb-blk games. Plus like was said before he was ROY and MVP his first year, contending with the all-time MVP leader, Russell.

But you can make a case for Hakeem. Great defense, great offense, domination, the complete package. Hopefully he would've been found in those days and wouldn't have just stayed in Africa. Plus he would have to had heard about basketball.


----------



## kflo

> Originally posted by <b>Moe The Bartender</b>!
> 2. Wilt (how much would he have averaged if he could dunk in
> that era


he could.


----------



## Moe The Bartender

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> he could.


He COULD NOT, for many years. That's why he used that funny looking finger roll in his early years.


----------



## jericho

> Originally posted by <b>Moe The Bartender</b>!
> 
> 
> He COULD NOT, for many years. That's why he used that funny looking finger roll in his early years.


Dunks were legal for a good deal of his career, as I recall, but considered poor sportsmanship by many people--too flashy.


----------



## kflo

> Originally posted by <b>Moe The Bartender</b>!
> 
> 
> He COULD NOT, for many years. That's why he used that funny looking finger roll in his early years.


you are mistaken. the dunk was only not allowed in college for a while.


----------



## The_Franchise

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> he outplayed him in 1 series, at completely different stages of their careers. shaq actually shot a much higher % and rebounded better, but hakeem got the better of shaq, particularly in the clutch (and shaq's to's were big). again, it was 1 series, and it wasn't lopsided like the admiral / hakeem matchup earlier in the playoffs.
> 
> i posted a while back that mchale (experienced) arguably outplayed hakeem (2nd season) in the '86 finals. do we want to draw any conclusions from that (and i fully understand the circumstacnces weren't identical).


Individual matchups aside, I think the greatest big man of all time should be someone you could go to in the clutch, try and isolate them, and then expect results. Chamberlain as I mentioned couldn't win with the ball in his hands, he required teammates to carry the bulk of the scoring. Shaq is vulnerable from the FT line (Hakeem was no stud either but he delivered), so he never was much of a clutch player. Hakeem would win games on both ends of the court in the dying seconds, and that to me is what distinguishes him from Shaq and Wilt. These guys never played against each other in their primes, but if you look at what Hakeem accomplished single handedly in Houston it is pretty amazing. The 3 Laker championships were during Shaq's prime, and in those years a fellow by the name of Kobe Bryant averaged 23, 29 and 25 ppg. Wilt, Shaq, Jabbar all had help. Hakeem didn't.


----------



## KS Hoopster

Someone said earlier that it was unfair that we compare shaq and hakeem b/c of the 1 series, and then made reference to the hakeem vs. mchale in 86'.

I would like to make two comments. Neither of which is related to the other.

1. Hakeem's game didnt really reach greatness status till the early 90's. Thats not to say that he wasn't really good before that. He really became much more skilled later on in his career. In his early days Hakeem relied on sheer athleticism. I think he became a much better player. IMO shaq hasn't really added any major additions to his game. Thats not to say that he hasn't gotten better, but i dont think he has really changed that much over the years. He has always relied on his size ( there is nothing wrong with this either, go with what brought u there).

2. U were comparing mchale and hakeem. I really believe that McHale in his prime 87' (before he breaks his foot), is a better player than hakeem. McHale was an all-defensive player who could score at will in the post. Now i want to make this clear, this doesn't mean i think that mchale had a better career, or was the better player over the long haul, but i just believe his peek is little better than hakeems. But u can't dismiss hakeem entirely, he did win two championships as the go to player. Just my 2 cents


----------



## Yyzlin

> Originally posted by <b>The Franchise</b>!
> 
> 
> Individual matchups aside, I think the greatest big man of all time should be someone you could go to in the clutch, try and isolate them, and then expect results. Chamberlain as I mentioned couldn't win with the ball in his hands, he required teammates to carry the bulk of the scoring. Shaq is vulnerable from the FT line (Hakeem was no stud either but he delivered), so he never was much of a clutch player. Hakeem would win games on both ends of the court in the dying seconds, and that to me is what distinguishes him from Shaq and Wilt. These guys never played against each other in their primes, but if you look at what Hakeem accomplished single handedly in Houston it is pretty amazing. The 3 Laker championships were during Shaq's prime, and in those years a fellow by the name of Kobe Bryant averaged 23, 29 and 25 ppg. Wilt, Shaq, Jabbar all had help. Hakeem didn't.


I never understood why people isolated clutch situations as seperate from the other 43 or so minutes of a game. They all count the same, so why differentiate them so? It's the overall perfomance in any game that should be evaluated. 

Secondly, I don't know where this sudden appreciation of Olajuwon's defense has come about. He has always been considered one of the more stellar defensive centers in history, but to consider him by and far _the best_ is extremely poor judgement. Why doesn't David Robinson get the same appreciation? Both statistically and reputation and accolades-wise, he's step and step with Olajuwon. The same could be said for Jabbar, and he likewise doesn't get his due.


----------



## The Mad Viking

> Originally posted by <b>The Franchise</b>!
> I posted this in the Duncan thread then realized how out of place it was. I've been seeing alot of top 10 lists with Chamberlain ahead of Jordan, and Hakeem basically on the brink of the top 10. Chamberlain put up flashy numbers, but his success is questionable and the environment he did it in even moreso.
> 
> I don't think it's fair to compare big men from the 60's like Wilt to the modern day big man, the epitome of whom would be Hakeem Olajuwon. Wilt Chamberlain, although a great center, played in a totally different era than the center's of the 90s. He was 6'10 and considered a freak by his opponents. His athleticism was unheard of for a guy his size in that day, and that's how he averaged 50 ppg for a couple seasons. He could use his height and aggression to shoot over every center in the NBA. The only player that was big enough to stop him was Bill Russell.
> 
> Defense wasn't a priority in his day. No athlete today no matter how much skill and dominance he has could average 50 PPG or 25 RPG. Every player in the NBA player is more athletic and focussed on defense. Wilt Chamberlain was simply too much for his competition to handle. The only thing the puny big men of the 60's could do was foul him. And Wilt, who couldn't hit the side of a barn with a baseball from the FT line, would jump over the line and basically lay it in to the basket. He was never successful until he stopped shooting the ball, and passing it to his teammates. After all this domination and putting up insane numbers, he only won two championships throughout his whole career, and they required him to tone down his posession of the ball. He averaged 24 and 14 ppg in those seasons, showing that he couldn't win games by just being dominant. For him to be effective, he had to rebound and play defense, and pass the ball on offense. Wilt had Chet Walker and Billy Cunningham carry the scoring load in the season of his first championship, and Jerry West and Gail Goodrich carried the Lakers to the championship in 72. Wilt only averaged 14 ppg that year. Are you telling me the greatest center in history couldn't win with the ball in his hands?
> 
> Hakeem had a pretty prolific career. He didn't average 50 ppg, but he turned around the Houston franchise. They totalled 29 wins the season before they drafted him, and during his rookie year Hakeem helped the Rockets to 48 wins. He led the Rockets in scoring the first 10 years of his career (would've been more if not for injury) and in that span they went 584 - 400, winning 2 championships and robbed by the Jazz of one more. He had the best collection of post moves in history, and could block, rebound, steal, pass, shoot and scream for the ball in the clutch. He was arguably the greatest offensive and easily the greatest defensive force bigger than 7 ft, and he did this all against the likes of David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, Mutumbo, Shaquille O'Neal (taught him how to play basketball) and the Rockets were the only team to have a winning record against the Bull's in the 90s.
> 
> Hakeem Olajuwon was undisputedly the greatest biggie of all time.
> 
> There's no doubt that Wilt evolutionized the game, and was the cause of many rule changes. But the competition just wasn't close to what the centers of the 90's had to face. Big men became more and more athletic. Defense was the key to success. If I was given the choice, I'd take Hakeem over Wilt any day.


Let me summarize your logic for you:

Wilt ONLY won 2 championships
but the great Hakeem won TWO CHAMPIONSHIPS!!!  

When Wilt joined the Philadelphia Warriors he lifted them from 32-40 .444pct to 49-23 .653pct. (+17 wins in a 72-game season)

Wilt led the LEAGUE in assists. The only non-guard ever to do so; no other center has even been close.

Wilt was a bad FT shooter. Yet in 1961, he made more FTs in a season (835) than any other NBA player in history not named Jerry West.

Your suggestion that Wilt had no competition is not just a disservice Wilt, it is an insult to several of the greatest players of all time.

Besides Bill Russell:

Walt Bellamy, 6-11 ROY in 1961, HOF
Nate Thurmond, 6-11, one of NBA 50_GOAT, HOF
Willis Reed NBA 50-GOAT, HOF, MVP 
Dave Cowens NBA 50-GOAT, HOF, MVP
& Bob Lanier (HOF) for 3 years at end of Wilt's career.

In addition, there were other 7-footers-
Walter Dukes, who was an established vet when Wilt joined the league.
Reggie Hardy, Tom Boerinkle and Elmore Smith were all 7' and big, at least 250. And there were LOTS of 6-10 centers in Wilt's day.

Most instructive of all, however, is the illustrious career of Kareem Abdul Jabbar, who bridges the gap between Wilt and Hakeem very nicely, thank you.

In Wilt's declining years, KAJ burst on the scene. Despite being near retirement, Wilt won every rebounding title over KAJ and others. KAJ won 2 MVPs while Wilt was still playing. Wilt was no longer a scorer, but still managed 4apg, and played terrific defence as he helped the Lakers win a title in his 2nd-last season.

KAJ was a 37 year-old wonder when Hakeem was a 22-year old rookie. Hakeem's rookie season was overall comparable to the old man, although KAJ had stopped rebounding by then. KAJ still scored and was a much better passer, and still put up 2 bpg.

Comparing KAJ at perhaps .8 of his prime as an old man, to Hakeem at perhaps .85 of his prime as a rookie, it is easy for anyone objective to see that they were very comparable players EACH IN THEIR OWN PRIMES. 

Ditto for KAJ and Wilt.

I'm not suggesting Wilt would have scored 50ppg and 25rpg if he were teleported from 1964 to 1994. But he would have led the league in both scoring and rebounding. He led the league as a 36 year-old over MVP KAJ, who had 16rpg, & Bob Lanier, in the HOF for his rebounding more than anything.

And among the numerous errors in your little diatribe, is Wilt laying in most of his FTs. One of the many rule changes you refer to, was the one enacted overnight to stop Wilt from dunking his FTs...


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> if on par means scoring less at a less efficient clip while not passing as well....


No, it means passing better and being nearly as good a scorer, and a far better option, compared to O'Neal, late in games and at the line.


----------



## Ghost

When the dream won his titles he had the some of the greatest role player ever. and in 95 he has Clyde Drexler to help him.


----------



## Yyzlin

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> No, it means passing better and being nearly as good a scorer, and a far better option, compared to O'Neal, late in games and at the line.


Even taking into account free throws, O'Neal still ranks as the more efficient scorer. Likewise, you underrate O'Neal's passing ability. His large brute size often overshadows his other abilities, and his two highest APG numbers trump Olajuwon's highest. Finally, again, why does performance late in the game matter? Shouldn't the overall game perfomance be all that's ever taken into account?


----------



## jericho

Jeeminy Christmas, these are unwinnable debates. I suppose they can be exasperatingly fun, but they become circular very quickly.

One's choice boils down to a matter of taste (what kind of "game" we like the most), as well as the relative weights we assign to individual and team accomplishments. The most slippery variable to me is the "era factor"--what we think the general skill level was at a certain point in history, who the competition was, and how the game was played then (stylistically and strategically as well as the restrictions of official rules). 

Whether quantitatively or qualitatively, no one is ever going to construct an argument that changes the mind of an ardent Bill Russell supporter to someone who starts out thinking that, say, Shaquille O'Neal is the greatest of all time. They had different attributes, played with different kinds of team strengths around them, and faced different kinds of competition. 

So, narrow the argument by comparing similar "types of player: Mikan to Wilt to Shaq--the unstoppable behemoths of their respective eras. It's possible that Shaq would whoop up on each of them if you could send him back in a time machine. However, if he grew up in an earlier era, both his physique and his game would've evolved differently. And if you could bring a 25 or 30 year-old Wilt Chamberlain forward into 2004, he would do well but not as well as if he had been born in 1976 and were playing in the NBA.

Personally, while Olajuwon and Malone and Russell are my own favorites, on my objective scale I have to give the nod to Wilt. He dominated so overwhelmingly in his era that I think he would dominate in this one--just not to the same degree. I would imagine his career numbers, were he to be retiring this off-season, would be something like 26-27 ppg, 13-15 rpg, 3-4 apg and 3-4 bpg. Incredible HOF numbers, and a step above those of any other modern big man. Maybe Shaq would have pushed him around a bit in the post. But Wilt would end up at least matching him bucket for bucket, and Wilt devoured rebounds consistently like Shaq rarely has. 

Again, this is largely a matter of taste--meaning secret biases that often aren't even understood clearly by the person holding the opinion. 

I think it helps to define the question a bit more narrowly. Are we talking about the most accomplished player? The most skilled? The most effective? Without any kind of qualification, we're going to end up having the same debates the same way a couple times a year on this board.


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> 
> Even taking into account free throws, O'Neal still ranks as the more efficient scorer.


That's fine. I don't believe the difference is huge, personally.



> Likewise, you underrate O'Neal's passing ability. His large brute size often overshadows his other abilities, and his two highest APG numbers trump Olajuwon's highest.


I don't underrate his ability to pass out, but I think Olajuwon was the superior passer. O'Neal's assist totals were helped by the way teams were built around him, with shooters spaced out to take direct passes out from double-teams which doesn't take great skill, in my opinion. I feel Olajuwon was better at hitting cutters, out of the post, which is a much tougher pass, but doesn't generate as many easy assists as are generated by the dump-in/pass-out system.



> Finally, again, why does performance late in the game matter? Shouldn't the overall game perfomance be all that's ever taken into account?


I think being rendered ineffective at any point in the game, routinely, is bad. It doesn't matter if it's the first quarter or fourth quarter.


----------



## Yyzlin

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> That's fine. I don't believe the difference is huge, personally.


Why wouldn't it be significant? Not only is O'Neal a more efficient scorer, but he uses more possesions at that higher rate. 



> I don't underrate his ability to pass out, but I think Olajuwon was the superior passer. O'Neal's assist totals were helped by the way teams were built around him, with shooters spaced out to take direct passes out from double-teams which doesn't take great skill, in my opinion. I feel Olajuwon was better at hitting cutters, out of the post, which is a much tougher pass, but doesn't generate as many easy assists as are generated by the dump-in/pass-out system.


O'Neal has the ability to make those passes, as he shows on rare occasions, but the triangle offense limits those opportunities as O'Neal rarely receives the ball in the high post to allow cutters to manuever. It probably boils down to subjective opinion, but personally, I don't believe there was any difference. 



> I think being rendered ineffective at any point in the game, routinely, is bad. It doesn't matter if it's the first quarter or fourth quarter.


Even in an extreme situation of using the Hack a Shaq every possession down the stretch, O'Neal still converts those possessions at a 40-50% rate, which is hardly considered "ineffective". When teams don't resort to such a tactic, then even greater bonuses are to be reaped from him. The fact is, Shaq's diminishment in supposed clutch situations is terribly overrated. If you compare O'Neals clutch and regular numbers from the past two years, there is no noticable difference. 

2003-2004
Regular- http://82games.com/03LAL17A.HTM
Clutch- http://82games.com/03LAL17E.HTM

2002- 2003
Regular- http://82games.com/02LAL14A.HTM
Clutch- http://82games.com/02LAL14E.HTM


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> 
> Why wouldn't it be significant? Not only is O'Neal a more efficient scorer, but he uses more possesions at that higher rate.


I'm not saying that being a more efficient scorer isn't significant. I'm saying that I didn't feel that the difference in their abilities to score efficiently were large. Olajuwon played his most dominant years against much better competition, through the '80s and '90s. Shaquille O'Neal's most dominant years came when all the best competition (Olajuwon, Robinson, Ewing, Mutombo) were declining towards mediocrity and he never played guys like Eaton, Parrish and Abdul-Jabbar, as Olajuwon did.



> O'Neal has the ability to make those passes, as he shows on rare occasions, but the triangle offense limits those opportunities as O'Neal rarely receives the ball in the high post to allow cutters to manuever. It probably boils down to subjective opinion, but personally, I don't believe there was any difference.


Fair enough.



> Even in an extreme situation of using the Hack a Shaq every possession down the stretch, O'Neal still converts those possessions at a 40-50% rate, which is hardly considered "ineffective". When teams don't resort to such a tactic, then even greater bonuses are to be reaped from him. The fact is, Shaq's diminishment in supposed clutch situations is terribly overrated.


Well, the result was even a coach as good as Phil Jackson lost faith in him in late-game situations, turning the ball over to Kobe Bryant, who was a considerably less efficient scorer. Certainly, Kobe Bryant didn't become "better" in the clutch. Jackson felt that O'Neal became a worse option late, and thus reversed his general tactic of running the offense through O'Neal.


----------



## Yyzlin

> I'm not saying that being a more efficient scorer isn't significant. I'm saying that I didn't feel that the difference in their abilities to score efficiently were large. Olajuwon played his most dominant years against much better competition, through the '80s and '90s. Shaquille O'Neal's most dominant years came when all the best competition (Olajuwon, Robinson, Ewing, Mutombo) were declining towards mediocrity and he never played guys like Eaton, Parrish and Abdul-Jabbar, as Olajuwon did.


Even in his second and third season, where there was considerable center competition, O'Neal was able to maintain an extremely robust FG% using a high number of possessions. I'm fairly confident he would have been able to do the same in his prime, regardless of his competition. Likewise, you could claim that Olajuwon has had his advantages as well, playing the majority of his career in the late 80's and early 90's when the overall league FG% was much higher and defenses were more lax. 




> Well, the result was even a coach as good as Phil Jackson lost faith in him in late-game situations, turning the ball over to Kobe Bryant, who was a considerably less efficient scorer. Certainly, Kobe Bryant didn't become "better" in the clutch. Jackson felt that O'Neal became a worse option late, and thus reversed his general tactic of running the offense through O'Neal.


Which Lakers team are you exactly talking about? Perhaps during the last one or two years, Jackson has turned ,questionably, to Bryant more and more, but during the Lakers title run, there was no doubt that the Lakers were going to try to get the ball to O'Neal down the stretch. When they didn't, it was usually a bafflement to everyone. You don't have to look much further than this year's NBA Finals, where O'Neal dominated in game 4, but his teammates still ignored him for large periods of time. Was that Jackson's doing? I don't think so. 

Only in situations where time was left for only one possession did Jackson turn to Bryant, which logically makes sense. Guards are much more adept at creating a suitable shot opportunity under tight time constraints. Not only that, but getting the ball to a center in the low post under those same time constraints would prove to be a fustrating task. It's obvious that taking the superstar guard over the superstar center in any of those situations would be a smarter choice.


----------



## The_Franchise

> Finally, again, why does performance late in the game matter? Shouldn't the overall game perfomance be all that's ever taken into account?


Because that is what seperates the great from the immortal. Hakeem and Shaq put up very similar numbers in their prime years (although Hakeem had more BPG, SPG, RPG and both had the same APG), and since they didn't play against each other in their respective primes, you have to take into consideration what they did with the game on the line. Why is Jordan the greatest of all time? Because he delivered with the game on the line. Why is Lance Armstrong the greatest of all time in his sport? Because he delivers DOWN THE STRETCH. Rudy T could go to Hakeem during the last posession of the game, and expect results. I never once saw Phil Jackson put the ball in Shaquille O'Neals hands with the game on the line. A dominant player? Yes. The greatest? No.



> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> Why wouldn't it be significant? Not only is O'Neal a more efficient scorer, but he uses more possesions at that higher rate.


O'Neals power game is all about positioning. He gets under the basket, screams for the ball, and gets an easy 2. That is why his "efficiency" numbers are above Hakeem's. Hakeem was a finesse player, he could get the ball on the baseline or near the FT line, and still use his speed and spin moves to get to the basket. Shaquille won't ask for the ball away from the basket and toss up a jump shot. Not only is he not capable of that, but he has the luxury of Kobe Bryant occupying the wings, and keeping post defenders modest.



> Only in situations where time was left for only one possession did Jackson turn to Bryant, which logically makes sense. *Guards are much more adept at creating a suitable shot opportunity under tight time constraints.* Not only that, but getting the ball to a center in the low post under those same time constraints would prove to be a fustrating task. It's obvious that taking the superstar guard over the superstar center in any of those situations would be a smarter choice.


You obviously haven't seen Hakeem play as much as I have. He could get baskets out of nothing situations. His turnaround jumper on the baseline was possibly the greatest clutch shot for a big man. When you have two great players who have both won rings, put up insane stats, you have to go with who was the better clutch player. Hakeem.


----------



## kflo

yyzlin, i'm with you on alot of this, but the lakers clearly go to kobe more in the 4th. it's part of their offensive strategy, and not just for the last shot.

if shaq's shooting 50% or lower from the line (as he did this year, worse in playoffs), hack a shaq brings la's points/possession down under 1, which isn't very good.


----------



## kflo

> Originally posted by <b>The Franchise</b>!
> 
> O'Neals power game is all about positioning. He gets under the basket, screams for the ball, and gets an easy 2. That is why his "efficiency" numbers are above Hakeem's. Hakeem was a finesse player, he could get the ball on the baseline or near the FT line, and still use his speed and spin moves to get to the basket. Shaquille won't ask for the ball away from the basket and toss up a jump shot. Not only is he not capable of that, but he has the luxury of Kobe Bryant occupying the wings, and keeping post defenders modest.


it's far more important the what, than the how. shaq put up better offensive production - bigger numbers, more efficiently. why or how isn't quite as important.

and i'll take shaq as a rebounder over hakeem as well. shaq's dominance on the boards in the playoffs goes up, and significantly in the championship (clutch) years. he has also is arguably the greatest finals performer ever. crunchtime becomes more of a moot point when you dominate completely throughout the game.


----------



## The_Franchise

> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> Secondly, I don't know where this sudden appreciation of Olajuwon's defense has come about. He has always been considered one of the more stellar defensive centers in history, but to consider him by and far _the best_ is extremely poor judgement. Why doesn't David Robinson get the same appreciation? Both statistically and reputation and accolades-wise, he's step and step with Olajuwon. The same could be said for Jabbar, and he likewise doesn't get his due.


David Robinson didn't have close to the defensive impact Olajuwon had on the floor, and his stats aren't on par with Olajuwon's either. And let's not forget how Olajuwon absolutely demolished Robinson in the playoffs.

Jabbar wasn't as quick with his hands as Olajuwon was, and wasn't as agile as Olajuwon was on defense.


----------



## kflo

> Originally posted by <b>The Franchise</b>!
> 
> 
> David Robinson didn't have close to the defensive impact Olajuwon had on the floor, and his stats aren't on par with Olajuwon's either. And let's not forget how Olajuwon absolutely demolished Robinson in the playoffs.


yet from '91 to '96, smack in the middle of hakeem's peak, robinson was 1st team all defense 4 times, to hakeem's 2.

demolishing robinson in '95 goes along way in his defense though. but, then again, he didn't have to guard himself.


----------



## LB26matrixns

Hakeem was not as good as Jordan.....but Chamberlain I can see. After all....Hakeem won just as many rings with FAR less hall of fame help than Wilt. Look at the amount of hall of famers that each spent significant time with (i.e. two seasons with Barkley and one with Pippen ARE NOT significant time):

Hakeem = 2 rings, 1 hall of fame teammate
Wilt = 2 rings, 7 hall of fame teammates

Wilt played with West and Baylor who were BOTH better than Drexler.


----------



## kflo

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> Hakeem was not as good as Jordan.....but Chamberlain I can see. After all....Hakeem won just as many rings with FAR less hall of fame help than Wilt. Look at the amount of hall of famers that each spent significant time with (i.e. two seasons with Barkley and one with Pippen ARE NOT significant time):
> 
> Hakeem = 2 rings, 1 hall of fame teammate
> Wilt = 2 rings, 7 hall of fame teammates
> 
> Wilt played with West and Baylor who were BOTH better than Drexler.


at least mention that wilt was playing *against* teams with as many or more hof'ers than his team. especially when he was at his peak. how many hof'ers did ewings knicks have, or robinsons spurs, or shaq's magic (ans - 1), or barkley's suns or malone's jazz (ans - 2).


----------



## kflo

wilt certainly had some failures in his career. it's why there is even a discussion of his place in history.


----------



## The_Franchise

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> yet from '91 to '96, smack in the middle of hakeem's peak, robinson was 1st team all defense 4 times, to hakeem's 2.
> 
> demolishing robinson in '95 goes along way in his defense though. but, then again, he didn't have to guard himself.


You're selectively using stats. From 1986-94 Hakeem made the All NBA Defensive team 5 times, and Robinson only made the All-Defensive team 4 times throughout his career. He missed out in 90-91 because of injury, starting only 50 games that season but putting up the best defensive numbers in the league for a C. Anyways I don't think that itself is an argument, Robinson couldn't rebound like Hakeem, he couldn't block like Hakeem (although he was pretty darn close) and he didn't have Hakeem's quick hands. Don't throw out arguments about how many awards Robinson won compared to Hakeem, because you'll come up empty.


----------



## kflo

> Originally posted by <b>The Franchise</b>!
> 
> 
> You're selectively using stats. From 1986-94 Hakeem made the All NBA Defensive team 5 times, and Robinson only made the All-Defensive team 4 times throughout his career. He missed out in 90-91 because of injury, starting only 50 games that season but putting up the best defensive numbers in the league for a C. Anyways I don't think that itself is an argument, Robinson couldn't rebound like Hakeem, he couldn't block like Hakeem (although he was pretty darn close) and he didn't have Hakeem's quick hands. Don't throw out arguments about how many awards Robinson won compared to Hakeem, because you'll come up empty.


your argument was that robinson didn't have close to the defensive impact as hakeem, yet in their primes, together, robinson was beating him head to head for all-defensive teams. hakeem getting 1st team before robinson entered the league doesn't say much about how they were perceived in comparison to each other.


----------



## Yyzlin

> Originally posted by <b>The Franchise</b>!
> Because that is what seperates the great from the immortal. Hakeem and Shaq put up very similar numbers in their prime years (although Hakeem had more BPG, SPG, RPG and both had the same APG), and since they didn't play against each other in their respective primes, you have to take into consideration what they did with the game on the line. Why is Jordan the greatest of all time? Because he delivered with the game on the line. Why is Lance Armstrong the greatest of all time in his sport? Because he delivers DOWN THE STRETCH. Rudy T could go to Hakeem during the last posession of the game, and expect results. I never once saw Phil Jackson put the ball in Shaquille O'Neals hands with the game on the line. A dominant player? Yes. The greatest? No.


Oh please. You are simply speaking in hyperbole that doesn't change the fact that it's if you do it, not when you do it that has the effect on the bottom line. When you can tell me logically why a possession at the end of the game would have more importance than a possession at the beginning of the game, than I'll believe you.


----------



## The_Franchise

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> your argument was that robinson didn't have close to the defensive impact as hakeem, yet in their primes, together, robinson was beating him head to head for all-defensive teams. hakeem getting 1st team before robinson entered the league doesn't say much about how they were perceived in comparison to each other.


Hakeem was named to the All-NBA Defensive team 5 times, which is 1 more time than Robinson, 3 of which Robinson was around for. The only reason Robinson won in 91 was because of Hakeem's injury, which caused him to miss 26 games. He still put up better numbers that year. 1992 was Robinson's breakout year defensively, he was a phenomenal defensive presence and was named to the All NBA Defensive team that year. Hakeem got it in 93 and 94, Robinson got it in 95 and 96. 

Robinson only produced his maximum defensive output for 7 yeards. He was never the same after 96. Hakeem did it for 13 years.


----------



## sweet_constipation

Forget Wilt, different era.
Why can't people just leave it at that?
Also, with these comparisons, it's best if you've actually watched these guys play year-in, year-out instead of going to some website to bring up stats.
Example: Jazz.
Sure they didn't win during their primes, but they were knocked out twice by the Rockets on the road to their championships, and had to face who many consider the greatest player ever twice as well. This is not an excuse, just something to consider.
No different when people bring to play the issue of competition during a generation.


Hakeem is far better than Mutombo, Shaq, Ewing, Robinson, Mourning, and every other big man of his generation to present......why.........because he was so strong in every aspect of the game. Just my opinion, but the only person as good in passing out of the post to the open man, or for cutters is probably Shaq.

Mutombo - nothing needs to be said.

Shaq - the issue of late game scoring IS important. You don't Hack-a-Hakeem because he could make free throws. Every Kobe-Tmac-Jordan discussion, people always say he had Shaq, but Shaq had Kobe who is arguably the best 2-guard ever behind MJ.
Also, there's something Hakeem did for an entire game in his prime...*played defense*. Was a better offensive player and could fit into various motion/inverted guard offenses because of his athletic ability, footwork, ball-handling, and jump shot from 18 feet and in.

Ewing - a poorer man's Hakeem imo. Not as athletic, but could score from various areas....though not as a good a offensive player. Good defensive player, but not as good. Bad thing with him is his reputation for choking.

Mourning - Damn good defensive player, and probably the most intense player in the bunch, but not as good overall as Hakeem.
Sad to see his career end while he was considered a top 5 MVP candidate.

Robinson - Ummmm, just watch the 1995 western conference finals. Here is where he put all the questions to rest as did Jordan to Clyde during the 1992 Finals.
Robinson is probably the nicest guy in this group, and probably ever when it comes to pro sports, but carried the rap of being soft and not clutch.

Duncan - Yeah, I said to date so that includes Timmy.
Duncan fans feel free to disagree, but again I believe Hakeem to be better with every aspect of the game when compared to Duncan.
I'm not saying Duncan is the equivalent of Ewing, but just like him he's a poorer mans Hakeem.


----------



## Yyzlin

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> yyzlin, i'm with you on alot of this, but the lakers clearly go to kobe more in the 4th. it's part of their offensive strategy, and not just for the last shot.


Here are 2002-2003's numbers for Bryant and O'Neal in clutch situations.

O'Neal- http://82games.com/02LAL14E.HTM
Bryant- http://82games.com/02LAL5E.HTM

O'Neal was putting up almost identical PPG numbers as Bryant as recently as one year ago. Yes, there was a severe shift in the last two years to simply let Bryant do whatever he wanted to down the stretch, but during the threepeat years, O'Neal was the go-to guy in those same situations. 



> if shaq's shooting 50% or lower from the line (as he did this year, worse in playoffs), hack a shaq brings la's points/possession down under 1, which isn't very good.


It's still better than league average, and on par or better than what Bryant usually shoots at in those situations.


----------



## Yyzlin

> Originally posted by <b>The Franchise</b>!
> Hakeem was named to the All-NBA Defensive team 5 times, which is 1 more time than Robinson, 3 of which Robinson was around for. The only reason Robinson won in 91 was because of Hakeem's injury, which caused him to miss 26 games. He still put up better numbers that year. 1992 was Robinson's breakout year defensively, he was a phenomenal defensive presence and was named to the All NBA Defensive team that year. Hakeem got it in 93 and 94, Robinson got it in 95 and 96.
> 
> Robinson only produced his maximum defensive output for 7 yeards. He was never the same after 96. Hakeem did it for 13 years.


Why does it matter how long someone sustained his maximum defensive output, if we are discussing prime value?


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> 
> Even in his second and third season, where there was considerable center competition, O'Neal was able to maintain an extremely robust FG% using a high number of possessions. I'm fairly confident he would have been able to do the same in his prime, regardless of his competition.


I'm confident of that, too. Just not as robust.



> Which Lakers team are you exactly talking about? Perhaps during the last one or two years, Jackson has turned ,questionably, to Bryant more and more, but during the Lakers title run, there was no doubt that the Lakers were going to try to get the ball to O'Neal down the stretch.


I disagree. Outside of perhaps the 1999-2000 season, I think during Jackson's time with the Lakers, the Lakers have turned to Bryant more and more in the second half of the fourth quarter. This is part of what led to the "Kobe's clutch, McGrady's not," due to the claim that the first three quarters are Shaq's and the fourth quarter is when Kobe becomes the first option.


----------



## bballlife

I see a lot of people who I don't consider being very knowledgeable in basketball history, saying that Wilt is better cause he had the staggering stats, 50ppg, 25 rpg, lead the league in assists, 100 in a game, etc, etc. 

The true knowledgeable fan will be able to tell that Hakeem's skill set blows Wilt's away, as does his D.

Hakeem was a better center than Wilt whether you want to believe it or not.


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> 
> Here are 2002-2003's numbers for Bryant and O'Neal in clutch situations.
> 
> O'Neal- http://82games.com/02LAL14E.HTM
> Bryant- http://82games.com/02LAL5E.HTM
> 
> O'Neal was putting up almost identical PPG numbers as Bryant as recently as one year ago.


That doesn't show who the Lakers were going to primarily. Look at this from those links (using the per-48 min stats):

Kobe Bryant: 13.2_FGM / 33.3_FGA - 37.3 Points
Shaquille O'Neal: 12.1_/ 21.1 - 36.3

The reason their PPG numbers are almost identical is because Shaq scored at a much higher efficiency. Kobe took many more shots, which is more indicative of who was the player being featured.


----------



## LB26matrixns

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> at least mention that wilt was playing *against* teams with as many or more hof'ers than his team. especially when he was at his peak. how many hof'ers did ewings knicks have, or robinsons spurs, or shaq's magic (ans - 1), or barkley's suns or malone's jazz (ans - 2).


Yes look at Wilt's competition. The 1970 Knicks didn't have one player considered as good as LA's top 3.....and they beat LA in 7 with 6'6" Dave Debusschere guarding Wilt for most of the game.

Also remember.....the 1994 Rockets had one hall of famer on their team......Hakeem. The rest of the players were barely role players anywhere else. Horry? Thorpe? Maxwell? LMAO. And they beat the Suns that year in the playoffs correct? A Suns team with two hall of famers and SEVERAL players better than any Rocket besides Hakeem......like Chambers and Majerle.


----------



## LB26matrixns

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> wilt certainly had some failures in his career. it's why there is even a discussion of his place in history.


LOL see this tone is idiotic. I've reduced anyone I've ever had this discussion with in person to stuttering. Wilt averaged 22 PPG in the playoffs and lost more NBA Finals than he won while playing with 7 hall of famers in his career. But wait....he scored 100 points on a team with a bunch of guys you couldn't name without looking it up. Yes.....he's the second greatest REGULAR SEASON player ever. Of course.....Dominique Wilkins is one of the greatest regular season players ever too.....but like Wilt he "wilted" in the playoffs. ROFL....ha ha ha. 

Wilt will never be Jordan and now after looking it over I doubt he's better than Hakeem. Hell Hakeem never got D'd up by a 6'6" white guy in game 7 of the NBA Finals. LMAO do you realize that Debusschere was guarding Wilt in game 7 of the NBA finals and Debusschere is 4" shorter than Toni Kukoc?? Now picture Kukoc trying to guard Hakeem. LOL Debusschere was two inches shorter than Dan Majerle and the same height as JAMAL CRAWFORD!!


----------



## Flamesta

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> LOL see this tone is idiotic. I've reduced anyone I've ever had this discussion with in person to stuttering. Wilt averaged 22 PPG in the playoffs and lost more NBA Finals than he won while playing with 7 hall of famers in his career. But wait....he scored 100 points on a team with a bunch of guys you couldn't name without looking it up. Yes.....he's the second greatest REGULAR SEASON player ever. Of course.....Dominique Wilkins is one of the greatest regular season players ever too.....but like Wilt he "wilted" in the playoffs. ROFL....ha ha ha.
> 
> Wilt will never be Jordan and now after looking it over I doubt he's better than Hakeem. Hell Hakeem never got D'd up by a 6'6" white guy in game 7 of the NBA Finals. LMAO do you realize that Debusschere was guarding Wilt in game 7 of the NBA finals and Debusschere is 4" shorter than Toni Kukoc?? Now picture Kukoc trying to guard Hakeem. LOL Debusschere was two inches shorter than Dan Majerle and the same height as JAMAL CRAWFORD!!


Pwned :yes:


----------



## bballlife

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> That doesn't show who the Lakers were going to primarily. Look at this from those links (using the per-48 min stats):
> 
> Kobe Bryant: 13.2_FGM / 33.3_FGA - 37.3 Points
> Shaquille O'Neal: 12.1_/ 21.1 - 36.3
> 
> The reason their PPG numbers are almost identical is because Shaq scored at a much higher efficiency. Kobe took many more shots, which is more indicative of who was the player being featured.


I am not sure what point are you trying to make here? Ya Shaq scored at a higher efficiency, and he should, He is one of the league leaders in fg% every year, and he is unmatched at his position.


Kobe has been the Lakers go to guy for the last 4 or 5 seasons, Reason being he can create his shot better than Shaq, hit FT's better than Shaq, and has shown extreme calm under high pressure. 

Kobe is more efficient when it really counts.


----------



## bballlife

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> LOL see this tone is idiotic. I've reduced anyone I've ever had this discussion with in person to stuttering. Wilt averaged 22 PPG in the playoffs and lost more NBA Finals than he won while playing with 7 hall of famers in his career. But wait....he scored 100 points on a team with a bunch of guys you couldn't name without looking it up. Yes.....he's the second greatest REGULAR SEASON player ever. Of course.....Dominique Wilkins is one of the greatest regular season players ever too.....but like Wilt he "wilted" in the playoffs. ROFL....ha ha ha.
> 
> Wilt will never be Jordan and now after looking it over I doubt he's better than Hakeem. Hell Hakeem never got D'd up by a 6'6" white guy in game 7 of the NBA Finals. LMAO do you realize that Debusschere was guarding Wilt in game 7 of the NBA finals and Debusschere is 4" shorter than Toni Kukoc?? Now picture Kukoc trying to guard Hakeem. LOL Debusschere was two inches shorter than Dan Majerle and the same height as JAMAL CRAWFORD!!


Dave DeBusschere was nicknamed Big D for a reason. He was a really tough nose defender. But I will not argue with the rest, I just wanted to point out that Dave was no push over.

Two corrections.

Thunder Dan is 6-6 not 6-8. So Dan is the same height Dave was.
And Jamal is 6-5.


----------



## Flamesta

> Originally posted by <b>bballlife</b>!
> 
> 
> Dave DeBusschere was nicknamed Big D for a reason. He was a really tough nose defender. But I will not argue with the rest, I just wanted to point out that Dave was no push over.
> 
> Two corrections.
> 
> Thunder Dan is 6-6 not 6-8. So Dan is the same height Dave was.
> And Jamal is 6-5.


Pwned


----------



## LB26matrixns

> Originally posted by <b>bballlife</b>!
> 
> 
> Dave DeBusschere was nicknamed Big D for a reason. He was a really tough nose defender. But I will not argue with the rest, I just wanted to point out that Dave was no push over.
> 
> Two corrections.
> 
> Thunder Dan is 6-6 not 6-8. So Dan is the same height Dave was.
> And Jamal is 6-5.


Learn something new every day.....however Debusschere was still 6'6".....he was not a center....and was known for his "big D" on forwards.....

Majerle I always thought was taller.......

Some sources (i.e. Bulls radio and TV media) refer to Jamal as 6'6".....but NBA.com does say 6'5" so you get thr ruling.


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>bballlife</b>!
> 
> 
> I am not sure what point are you trying to make here?


That Kobe Bryant was the Lakers' go-to guy in the fourth quarters since at least 2000-01.



> Kobe has been the Lakers go to guy for the last 4 or 5 seasons, Reason being he can create his shot better than Shaq, hit FT's better than Shaq, and has shown extreme calm under high pressure.


I disagree that Bryant has been the go-to guy in general. In the fourth quarters, and usually the second half of the fourth quarter, Bryant has been the go-to guy, but Shaq was the guy the Lakers ran the offense through the rest of the time.


----------



## Yyzlin

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> 
> 
> That doesn't show who the Lakers were going to primarily. Look at this from those links (using the per-48 min stats):
> 
> Kobe Bryant: 13.2_FGM / 33.3_FGA - 37.3 Points
> Shaquille O'Neal: 12.1_/ 21.1 - 36.3
> 
> The reason their PPG numbers are almost identical is because Shaq scored at a much higher efficiency. Kobe took many more shots, which is more indicative of who was the player being featured.


Doesn't that lead to a paradox of sorts then? Why is Bryant taking more FGA when O'Neal is far more effective, even in the clutch? Is Phil Jackson just daft and doesn't realize this, or is there more to the story? 



> I disagree. Outside of perhaps the 1999-2000 season, I think during Jackson's time with the Lakers, the Lakers have turned to Bryant more and more in the second half of the fourth quarter. This is part of what led to the "Kobe's clutch, McGrady's not," due to the claim that the first three quarters are Shaq's and the fourth quarter is when Kobe becomes the first option.


I think it's just that Bryant has been to a higher stage than McGrady has, and thus, more media and hype has been focused on him, not McGrady.



> I'm confident of that, too. Just not as robust.


You ignored the other comment I made in that section about the era Olajuwon played in. That would likely compensate for any difference in FG% that O'Neal has gained from playing against lesser competition in the last few years.


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> 
> Doesn't that lead to a paradox of sorts then? Why is Bryant taking more FGA when O'Neal is far more effective, even in the clutch? Is Phil Jackson just daft and doesn't realize this, or is there more to the story?


There may be more to the story. But I do think that Jackson made Bryant the focal point in the latter stages of the game.



> I think it's just that Bryant has been to a higher stage than McGrady has, and thus, more media and hype has been focused on him, not McGrady.


Well, this is really a lesser (irrelevant, I guess, really) point, so we don't really need to go much further. I've just heard a lot of comments about how Kobe's so clutch, he gets the fourth quarter while McGrady performs in the first three.



> You ignored the other comment I made in that section about the era Olajuwon played in. That would likely compensate for any difference in FG% that O'Neal has gained from playing against lesser competition in the last few years.


That's possibly true. Competing dynamics don't necessarily mean a complete evening out, but I don't really know whether it was better to play in a more wide-open offensive era but against superior competition or vice versa. Or whether it's basically the same.


----------



## Yyzlin

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> There may be more to the story. But I do think that Jackson made Bryant the focal point in the latter stages of the game.


But why? Why would he make a less ineffective player (by quite a margin, nonetheless) the focal point? It doesn't make sense, does it? Especially considering the caliber of coach that Jackson is.



> Well, this is really a lesser (irrelevant, I guess, really) point, so we don't really need to go much further. I've just heard a lot of comments about how Kobe's so clutch, he gets the fourth quarter while McGrady performs in the first three.


You're right. It is irrelevant, and all of the claims are fairly unfounded. 



> That's possibly true. Competing dynamics don't necessarily mean a complete evening out, but I don't really know whether it was better to play in a more wide-open offensive era but against superior competition or vice versa. Or whether it's basically the same.


Well, it's tricky to know how much advantage that O'Neal gained by playing with inferior competition but we can figure out the advantage of playing in a more offensive era. Just comparing the league average FG% of the 1990-1991 season and ten years later (2000-2001), the difference is huge. In 90-91, the average FG% was .474. In 00-01, the average FG% was .442, leading to a .032 differential. That's quite a significant margin, and I would say, would go a long long way to compensate for any level of competition difference.


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> 
> But why? Why would he make a less ineffective player (by quite a margin, nonetheless) the focal point? It doesn't make sense, does it? Especially considering the caliber of coach that Jackson is.


I'm really not sure why. But you'd expect a coach the caliber of Jackson to have his reasons, wouldn't you?




> Well, it's tricky to know how much advantage that O'Neal gained by playing with inferior competition but we can figure out the advantage of playing in a more offensive era. Just comparing the league average FG% of the 1990-1991 season and ten years later (2000-2001), the difference is huge. In 90-91, the average FG% was .474. In 00-01, the average FG% was .442, leading to a .032 differential. That's quite a significant margin, and I would say, would go a long long way to compensate for any level of competition difference.


Do you happen to have the average field goal percentages by position? For example, for centers and power forwards? Because I think it's possible that the higher field goal percentages were more a perimeter player phenomenon than an inside player phenomenon. From observation, it was long-range and mid-range games that were less tightly defended in the past, perimeter players getting open shots almost at will. Inside players, however, were still contested quite a bit.

Again, that's just from observation, but I think it's a theory worth exploring, whether that difference in field goal percentage was mostly guard/small forward-driven or applied equally across the board.


----------



## sweet_constipation

Yyzlin, you must also factor in how diluted the league has become, as well as lack of the ability to hit open mid-range jumpshots.
Not to mention the youth movement which has retarded much of the growth process of the league.
You go from having the guys coming out of college like Jordan, Hakeem, and Drexler, to players like Kobe, Tmac, and J. O'neal who you have to wait a couple of years before they're ready to actually play the game well.


----------



## The Mad Viking

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Yes look at Wilt's competition. The 1970 Knicks didn't have one player considered as good as LA's top 3.....and they beat LA in 7 with 6'6" Dave Debusschere guarding Wilt for most of the game.
> 
> Also remember.....the 1994 Rockets had one hall of famer on their team......Hakeem. The rest of the players were barely role players anywhere else. Horry? Thorpe? Maxwell? LMAO. And they beat the Suns that year in the playoffs correct? A Suns team with two hall of famers and SEVERAL players better than any Rocket besides Hakeem......like Chambers and Majerle.


Simply unbelievable. You repeat crap like this, and people actually believe it.

FACT: Wilt had missed almost the whole season with a knee injury, and came back for the playoffs playing on one leg.

FACT: DeBusschere guarded Wilt in game 6, which Willis Reed missed with an injury. Facing elimination, Wilt scored 45 on DeBusschere, to tie the series.

FACT: Willis Reed came back in game 7 to guard Wilt and lead the Knicks to the7th game win.

FACT: The Knicks had 4 HOFers, Reed, DeBusschere, Walt Frazier and Bill Bradley. They had a 5th star in Dick Barnett, and a 6th star in Cazzie Russell, a 20ppg SF who came off the bench in 69-70 due to the depth. 
The Lakers had Wilt, Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, but Baylor was 35 and at the end of his career. He only played another 11 games in his career. They had a 4th star in F Happy Hairston, but the remaining players were journeymen.

FACT: The Knicks were 60-22 that year, the Lakers were 46-36.


----------



## jericho

> Originally posted by <b>The Mad Viking</b>!
> 
> 
> Simply unbelievable. You repeat crap like this, and people actually believe it.
> 
> FACT: Wilt had missed almost the whole season with a knee injury, and came back for the playoffs playing on one leg.
> 
> FACT: DeBusschere guarded Wilt in game 6, which Willis Reed missed with an injury. Facing elimination, Wilt scored 45 on DeBusschere, to tie the series.
> 
> FACT: Willis Reed came back in game 7 to guard Wilt and lead the Knicks to the7th game win.
> 
> FACT: The Knicks had 4 HOFers, Reed, DeBusschere, Walt Frazier and Bill Bradley. They had a 5th star in Dick Barnett, and a 6th star in Cazzie Russell, a 20ppg SF who came off the bench in 69-70 due to the depth.
> The Lakers had Wilt, Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, but Baylor was 35 and at the end of his career. He only played another 11 games in his career. They had a 4th star in F Happy Hairston, but the remaining players were journeymen.
> 
> FACT: The Knicks were 60-22 that year, the Lakers were 46-36.


Nicely done. Good to see a thorough job of backing up an argument. :yes:


----------



## KS Hoopster

Another thing we need to keep in perspective here is how games were called in the 60's compared to how they were called today. WIlt was never allowed to bowl through people to score. ANy type of contact was called a foul one way or the other. This negated alot of the height advantage WIlt has because he is not allowed to punish the smaller defender. Players also weren't allowed to push people around in the lane. Wilt couldn't force Dave out of the way to get positioning. Finally what happened was New York double teamed Wilt who passed it out like he should, and then Jerry and Elgin decide to have two of the worst games of their career. So lets not think That Dave playing Wilt then is the same as if they were playing today.


----------



## KeiranHalcyon

From NBA.com's bio of Chamberlain:



> He retired as the all-time in career points with 31,419, which was later surpassed by Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, Karl Malone and Michael Jordan. He is tops in rebounds with 23,924. He led the NBA in scoring seven years in a row. He was the league's top rebounder in 11 of his 14 seasons. *And as if to prove that he was not a selfish player, he had the NBA's highest assist total in 1967-68. *


Doing it to prove something means absolutely nothing, in my opinion.

Being the only center to lead the league in assists means nothing, if the only reason you're doing it is to prove a point.

Hell, if Steve Francis put up 20ppg and 15apg next year, would it prove that he's the best PG ever? No. Why? Because he's doing it for his own selfish reasons. It doesn't mean he's a great player. Great talent, yes. Player, no. Especially if the team doesn't win.

This is just like Kobe passing up open shot after open shot because the media said he shot too much. You just don't do something that selfish and stupid. You just don't.

Is Wilt the GOAT? Maybe. Is Hakeem the GOAT? Maybe. Is Hakeem one of, if not the, most well-rounded center ever? Yes. He's my favorite player of all time, the player I'd choose over every other to build a franchise around; but is he the best ever? There's no way of telling.


----------



## KS Hoopster

I just wan to make something clear as well i like hakeem a whole lot more than wilt. I like the player who is more finesse than power but that shouldnt take away from what Wilt did.


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>KeiranHalcyon</b>!
> 
> Doing it to prove something means absolutely nothing, in my opinion.
> 
> Being the only center to lead the league in assists means nothing, if the only reason you're doing it is to prove a point.


That line you quoted didn't say that he did it to prove a point. It said, *as if* to prove a point. That language construction means that there's no reason to believe that he did it for that reason, but it had that effect.


----------



## Yyzlin

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> I'm really not sure why. But you'd expect a coach the caliber of Jackson to have his reasons, wouldn't you?


Well, honestly, I don't believe it to be merely a coaching influenced decision. Jackson couldn't control everything that happened on the court. Even if he did tell the team to get the ball to O'Neal in key situations, which is the logical decision, the team might not have listened. Again, just as an example, in game 4 of the NBA Finals, why would Bryant continue to revel in his own erratic shot selection, instead of dumping it down to an on-fire O'Neal every possession? It just doesn't make sense. It couldn't have been what Jackson wanted. 

Also curious is the fact that it was O'Neal who had the better relationship with Jackson, not Bryant. If Jackson was indeed telling the team to give the ball to Bryant in pressure situations and giving him the opportunities to be a hero, wouldn't it seem likely that Bryant would hold a favorable opinions toward Jackson? Shouldn't O'Neal be the one who would hold the grudge against Jackson for going to a more inefficient player? Yet, the opposite holds true. The pieces in the puzzle simply don't fit, and sometimes you just have to wonder why. 



> Do you happen to have the average field goal percentages by position? For example, for centers and power forwards? Because I think it's possible that the higher field goal percentages were more a perimeter player phenomenon than an inside player phenomenon. From observation, it was long-range and mid-range games that were less tightly defended in the past, perimeter players getting open shots almost at will. Inside players, however, were still contested quite a bit.
> 
> Again, that's just from observation, but I think it's a theory worth exploring, whether that difference in field goal percentage was mostly guard/small forward-driven or applied equally across the board.


No, I don't have those statistics readily available, but I will make an effort to further examine that. I wouldn't imagine it to make much of a difference though. Swarming double teams and quick defensive rotations are a major factor in hindering big men today, which is something you almost never saw 10-15 years ago.


----------



## Yyzlin

> Originally posted by <b>sweet_constipation</b>!
> Yyzlin, you must also factor in how diluted the league has become, as well as lack of the ability to hit open mid-range jumpshots.
> Not to mention the youth movement which has retarded much of the growth process of the league.
> You go from having the guys coming out of college like Jordan, Hakeem, and Drexler, to players like Kobe, Tmac, and J. O'neal who you have to wait a couple of years before they're ready to actually play the game well.


Yes, but the league has also received additional talent benefits in those past years to help compensate for the slight dilution of the league that has resulted from high school draftees. The whole group of European and other international players that exist today was almost nonexistent in 90-91. That additional pool of talent has helped give the NBA an influx of top notch players that have made this a better league.


----------



## LB26matrixns

> Originally posted by <b>The Mad Viking</b>!
> 
> 
> Simply unbelievable. You repeat crap like this, and people actually believe it.
> 
> FACT: Wilt had missed almost the whole season with a knee injury, and came back for the playoffs playing on one leg.
> 
> FACT: DeBusschere guarded Wilt in game 6, which Willis Reed missed with an injury. Facing elimination, Wilt scored 45 on DeBusschere, to tie the series.
> 
> FACT: Willis Reed came back in game 7 to guard Wilt and lead the Knicks to the7th game win.
> 
> FACT: The Knicks had 4 HOFers, Reed, DeBusschere, Walt Frazier and Bill Bradley. They had a 5th star in Dick Barnett, and a 6th star in Cazzie Russell, a 20ppg SF who came off the bench in 69-70 due to the depth.
> The Lakers had Wilt, Jerry West and Elgin Baylor, but Baylor was 35 and at the end of his career. He only played another 11 games in his career. They had a 4th star in F Happy Hairston, but the remaining players were journeymen.
> 
> FACT: The Knicks were 60-22 that year, the Lakers were 46-36.


Dude don't step to me......

FACT: Willis Reed came limping onto the court and played a few minutes before departing.

FACT: Just like my initial post said......Dave Debusschere guarded Wilt for MOST of the game. 

Care to argue that the Knicks had ONE player better than West or Baylor career?


----------



## LB26matrixns

Career playoff statistics:

Wilt Chamberlain:
22.5 PPG 52.2% FG

Michael Jordan
33.4 PPG 48.7% FG

Hakeem Olajuwon
25.9 PPG 52.8% FG

You see Hakeem is higher in both totals despite facing:

Shaquille O'neal
David Robinson
Patrick Ewing

In the playoffs. Who was the biggest player Wilt ever faced in the playoffs?

Walt Bellamy? Maybe....at 6'11" 245.


----------



## ufm19

> Originally posted by <b>The Franchise</b>!
> I posted this in the Duncan thread then realized how out of place it was. I've been seeing alot of top 10 lists with Chamberlain ahead of Jordan, and Hakeem basically on the brink of the top 10. Chamberlain put up flashy numbers, but his success is questionable and the environment he did it in even moreso.
> 
> I don't think it's fair to compare big men from the 60's like Wilt to the modern day big man, the epitome of whom would be Hakeem Olajuwon. Wilt Chamberlain, although a great center, played in a totally different era than the center's of the 90s. He was 6'10 and considered a freak by his opponents. His athleticism was unheard of for a guy his size in that day, and that's how he averaged 50 ppg for a couple seasons. He could use his height and aggression to shoot over every center in the NBA. The only player that was big enough to stop him was Bill Russell.
> 
> Defense wasn't a priority in his day. No athlete today no matter how much skill and dominance he has could average 50 PPG or 25 RPG. Every player in the NBA player is more athletic and focussed on defense. Wilt Chamberlain was simply too much for his competition to handle. The only thing the puny big men of the 60's could do was foul him. And Wilt, who couldn't hit the side of a barn with a baseball from the FT line, would jump over the line and basically lay it in to the basket. He was never successful until he stopped shooting the ball, and passing it to his teammates. After all this domination and putting up insane numbers, he only won two championships throughout his whole career, and they required him to tone down his posession of the ball. He averaged 24 and 14 ppg in those seasons, showing that he couldn't win games by just being dominant. For him to be effective, he had to rebound and play defense, and pass the ball on offense. Wilt had Chet Walker and Billy Cunningham carry the scoring load in the season of his first championship, and Jerry West and Gail Goodrich carried the Lakers to the championship in 72. Wilt only averaged 14 ppg that year. Are you telling me the greatest center in history couldn't win with the ball in his hands?
> 
> Hakeem had a pretty prolific career. He didn't average 50 ppg, but he turned around the Houston franchise. They totalled 29 wins the season before they drafted him, and during his rookie year Hakeem helped the Rockets to 48 wins. He led the Rockets in scoring the first 10 years of his career (would've been more if not for injury) and in that span they went 584 - 400, winning 2 championships and robbed by the Jazz of one more. He had the best collection of post moves in history, and could block, rebound, steal, pass, shoot and scream for the ball in the clutch. He was arguably the greatest offensive and easily the greatest defensive force bigger than 7 ft, and he did this all against the likes of David Robinson, Patrick Ewing, Mutumbo, Shaquille O'Neal (taught him how to play basketball) and the Rockets were the only team to have a winning record against the Bull's in the 90s.
> 
> Hakeem Olajuwon was undisputedly the greatest biggie of all time.
> 
> There's no doubt that Wilt evolutionized the game, and was the cause of many rule changes. But the competition just wasn't close to what the centers of the 90's had to face. Big men became more and more athletic. Defense was the key to success. If I was given the choice, I'd take Hakeem over Wilt any day.


This proves that you are way too biased in your opinions. I wouldn't be too mad if you would take Hakeem over Wilt, but you say Hakeem is "undisputedly the greatest biggie ever". undisputably? are you kidding me? I have a ton of respect for Hakeem, he is everything that's right about basketball. But how in hell can you call him the best big man ever? And btw, Wilt was 7'2, not 6'10. Bit of a difference there. Wasn't close? Everything you say there is, what you call what i say, your opinion. They didn't care about defense? Were you alive back then? You judge players and teams based on HoFs, well half of Wilt's games came against Hall of Fame centers. Height does not make the player? How did Ben Wallace not let Shaq dominate in the Finals despite being shorter than many of the centers who played Wilt (Both Wilt and Shaq are 7'2)? Bill Russell (13% of Wilt's games against him!), Nate Thurmond, Walt Bellamy, Kareem, and Willis Reed, all Hall of Famers, all all-time greats. Hakeem played two Hall of Famers for most of his career out of 27-29 teams, and at the end of it 3 (Shaq came in halfway thru). Sure, Kareem came at the end of Wilt's but that's still 50% of his games (more because of the playoffs) against Hall of FAmers. Hakeem played 3 out of 28 teams with Hall of Famers. Wilt had MUCH better competition. I don't see Wilt playing Chris Dudley or Jon Plazine. Hakeem was maybe the best big game center, yes, but you say Wilt isn't as good because he only won 2 titles. Hakeem "only" won two titles. Don't tell me he kept getting denied by MJ because he never played the Bulls and Wilt, every year, went up against hte greatest dynasty ever, by far. Wilt would've won 6 or 7 titles if the Celtics weren't almighty kings. I guarantee Wilt's teams had a better record than Hakeem's, AND the talent was so much more concentrated because there was only 9 teams. Hakeem was the dominant player for maybe two years, and even then not in the league of all-time dominant; he was never one of the few most dominant or great players ever. He won one MVP and probly should've won another in what you call an awful era of NBA basketball (yes you said 1994 and 1995 were awful years). Elliot Kalb, an NBA expert, ranked Hakeem 16th alltime in his book. I wouldn't put him in the Top 10. You honestly think he's better than Wilt, Bill Russell, Shaq, and Kareem, not to mention Moses Malone? The best big man ever? Hakeem is an alltime great but don't make me laugh. Could Wilt not block and rebound and steal and all that? How's his success questionable when his teams were a lot better than Hakeem's and won the same amount of titles? How did Houston get robbed by Utah? Are you serious? They lost in 6 games on a John Stockton shot when it was tied. 1) they probly would've lost the game if Stock missed it 2) if they won there would be a Game 7 in Utah and 3) The Bulls would've beat them if they got past Utah. If you say they got robbed there then you could say Wilt got robbed every year he lost to Russell and then every time he lost the NBA Finals, all of which were closer than that series. Now you make it sound great that Hakeem won 2 titles when you say that Wilt only won 2 titles. Can you stop contradicting yourself, for once? Now you can easily argue MJ is the best ever but don't go there with Hakeem. Jerry West carried LA to the title? Who finished 2nd in MVP voting, ahead of West? As I said earlier, Wilt's offense in his later years was buitl around him getting the defensive rebound, outletting to a fast break and having his guards get a finish. What does it mean that he didn't carry the scoring load in 1967? HE FINISHED 2nd IN THE LEAGUE IN SCORING, FAR BEYOND ANYONE ELSE ON HIS TEAM? JEsus, stop making up stuff. HE also averaged 25 rebounds in 1967 that is considered maybe the best season by any player ever don't try to tell me he didn't carry them. Elliot Kalb lists that year as the 2nd best ever behind his 1968 season where he led the league in assists, rebounds, and was third in points. You have chewed more than you can swallow. You are obviously just a Wilt hater and newbie NBA fan. I have tremendous respect for Hakeem and think he's one of the best centers ever but he's definitely not the best. I can throw much more stats at you. Your main basis for putting Hakeem #1 was that his team won; Wilt's teams won at a MUCH higher rate and won the same amoutn of titles against the best dynasty ever. He was on a much better team than any of Hakeems teams in 1972.


----------



## wild_style

i will never call anyone who scores 100 points in a game over rated


----------



## farhan007

by pure skill and pure athletisism, Hakeem is propably the best. This guy was a athletic machine!!!!! HE was so beutiful to watch doing all thos spins and shakes that totaly fooled players. Can Shaq do that???


----------



## kflo

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> LOL see this tone is idiotic. I've reduced anyone I've ever had this discussion with in person to stuttering. Wilt averaged 22 PPG in the playoffs and lost more NBA Finals than he won while playing with 7 hall of famers in his career. But wait....he scored 100 points on a team with a bunch of guys you couldn't name without looking it up. Yes.....he's the second greatest REGULAR SEASON player ever. Of course.....Dominique Wilkins is one of the greatest regular season players ever too.....but like Wilt he "wilted" in the playoffs. ROFL....ha ha ha.
> 
> Wilt will never be Jordan and now after looking it over I doubt he's better than Hakeem. Hell Hakeem never got D'd up by a 6'6" white guy in game 7 of the NBA Finals. LMAO do you realize that Debusschere was guarding Wilt in game 7 of the NBA finals and Debusschere is 4" shorter than Toni Kukoc?? Now picture Kukoc trying to guard Hakeem. LOL Debusschere was two inches shorter than Dan Majerle and the same height as JAMAL CRAWFORD!!


is it even possible for you to have a rational discussion?

and your boasting about arguments you claim you've won in the past is irrelevant to me (and i'm sure everyone else). i'm not impressed.

this black-and-white world you live in doesn't exist. it's possible to have differing opinions than you have. things you present as 100% uncontovertable are not.

barkley used to guard hakeem at times. he's 6'4 1/2 and 1/2 the defender debusshere was (and debusshere was about 20x the defender kukoc was as well - kukoc is taller than ben wallace - who would you think would be tougher to play against?). does that mean hakeem sucked? sam perkins played the middle for a sonics team that shut hakeem down pretty good in '96. reflection on hakeem?

wilt was a 30+ ppg scorer until '67. then he was well below that. he played 1/2 his playoff games from '67 & on. in large part because they changed the playoff format. prior to '67, his playoff averages were 33 ppg, 26 rpg. pretty sound stats (although the scoring was lower than his regular season avg's).

the hof'ers he played with were at different times, and again, he was going up against teams with more hofers. hakeem typically wasn't.


----------



## sweet_constipation

Well stated kflo.

Though, those damn Sonics were running a freakin' zone before it was legal and got away with it for the most part.
The league didn't begin to come down on them until '96.
Just my .02




As for KS Hoopster.........we have a winner.
Someone with some common sense.
You can't compare such different generations because of how the game was called during that particular time.


----------



## bballlife

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> is it even possible for you to have a rational discussion?
> 
> and your boasting about arguments you claim you've won in the past is irrelevant to me (and i'm sure everyone else). i'm not impressed.
> 
> this black-and-white world you live in doesn't exist. it's possible to have differing opinions than you have. things you present as 100% uncontovertable are not.
> 
> barkley used to guard hakeem at times. he's 6'4 1/2 and 1/2 the defender debusshere was (and debusshere was about 20x the defender kukoc was as well - kukoc is taller than ben wallace - who would you think would be tougher to play against?). does that mean hakeem sucked? sam perkins played the middle for a sonics team that shut hakeem down pretty good in '96. reflection on hakeem?
> 
> wilt was a 30+ ppg scorer until '67. then he was well below that. he played 1/2 his playoff games from '67 & on. in large part because they changed the playoff format. prior to '67, his playoff averages were 33 ppg, 26 rpg. pretty sound stats (although the scoring was lower than his regular season avg's).
> 
> the hof'ers he played with were at different times, and again, he was going up against teams with more hofers. hakeem typically wasn't.




Barkley is really a tad over 6-6. Surprised someone with your knowledge falls for the 6-4 thing. Thats a snowball that has been created to somehow make the feats Barkley accomplished even more greater. Whenever you see him on tv, you can clearly see he stands about 4 inches above Kenny Smith who is above 6-2. Checkout the 93 finals, he is about 1/2 inch taller than Michael. They stand next to each and talk throughout the series. 

Evidence is all over the place. 

You can find his mug shot on the internet, he reads 6-8 on that, take into account a few inches for shoes and it makes sense. 

Barkley was no shorter than 6-6.


----------



## Eatinthepudding8

Wilt, Russell, Shaq, and Kareem are the 4 greatest centers of all time without a doubt


----------



## Bball_Doctor

First off, I actually think that Shaq is underrated. Not by the media outlets as many of them have placed him very high and one author even claiming that he is the greatest of all-time. But by the general perception. The perception being that he is all size and very little skill. A dilemma once faced by Wilt himself and why many were discouraged to admit his greatness. I think over time, just as with Wilt's, Shaq's legacy will be viewed in much more light. What he can do given his size is just incredible. Just think about it what is the difference between Shaq utilizing his size and Jordan utilizing his athletic ability? No one can fault Shaq for his 340 pound frame but for some reason many do. It's the old David vs. Goliath argument. No one wants to cheer for the giant.

Now onto this thread's argument.

Honestly I loved Hakeem's game. He was a blend of power and finesse. He was athletic and possessed cat-like quickness for a center which helped him excel on both ends of the floor. His dream shake was unstoppable and he dominated 3 of the greatest centers of all-time in a span of two years. As far as skill set goes I would admit that I believe Hakeem was the most skilled center of all time. Kareem being second and then Walton. At his peak, Hakeem to me was AS great not necessarily greater than any center that has ever played (and I remember my arguments about Hakeem vs. Kareem at their respective peaks). That is until I discuss Wilt.

Wilt was a phenomenon. He was mythic and so far ahead of his peers even Russell on an individual level. Sure you can negate his stats somewhat but the truth is no one has even scored near 50 ppg in any era. Wilt was blessed with natural physical ability and if the reports are real he is stronger than practically everyone in the NBA despite not having the extensive weight training available to players today. Who is to say how strong he would get today? There are stories of his incredible athleticism...so impressive he had one man dunk exhibition shows while as a Globetrotter. From the footages I have seen, Wilt is not as quick as Hakeem but he was blessed nevertheless.

But what makes Wilt stand out for me is just how far ahead he was in his era. It is because of this separation that I simply cannot dismiss what he could possibly accomplish today. You can call me naive for believing so...but I admit it. Wilt is like Babe Ruth. Yes, we know Bonds, McGwire, and Sosa all hit over 65 home runs at least once in their career while Babe's highest was 60. But no one would dismiss Babe simply because of the evolutions in sports medicine today. Could you imagine if Babe weight trained or had Creatine? But what really stands out about the Babe was that he was so far ahead of his peers. That separation created a mystique about Babe which still carries onto today and why the Babe is still looked as the most feared home run hitter of all time. That is how I feel about Wilt. Sure put Shaq and Hakeem back into Wilt's era (afterall Russell who was the greatest post defender of their time was only 6'10 and 225 pounds) and their stats would no doubt be inflated. But who is to say that Wilt can't put up as good or even better stats than the greatest centers today if you were to place him in today's game given all of it's evolution?

If we were to take both players without regarding all the criterias that have to be taken into account by their difference of era...I still think Wilt is a better player. Wilt was like a more athletic and mobile version of Shaq. Kind of like Shaq when he was younger but with more skillset. Basically, Wilt was Hakeem with 50 pounds of muscle. Sure Hakeem's dream shake was unstoppable but I would find it hard for any center of any era to guard a player with Wilt's strength + mobility + athleticism. However if this was a debate about which center had a better skillset than of course Hakeem would be better. But when we argue about who is a better player skillset can't be the only measure. Otherwise we would come to the conclusion that KG now is a better player than Shaq in 1999-2000. If we had a draft I'm pretty sure 99.9% of knowledgable basketball people would select 99-00 MVP version of Shaq ahead of last season's MVP version of KG. Although it is quite obvious that KG possesses a higher skillset than Shaq at anytime of Shaq's great career.

But that is why comparing players from different eras is too difficult because there are too many variables. This is the reason why there will never be an absolute objective opinion and why such debates cause a lot of interest. But I think the GOAT (at least IMO) Jordan said it all perfectly:

"There is no such thing as a perfect basketball player, and *I don't believe there is only one greatest player* either. Everyone plays in different eras. I built my talents on the shoulders of someone else's talent. I believe greatness is an evolutionary process that changes and evolves era to era. Without Julius Erving, David Thompson, Walter Davis, and Elgin Baylor there would never have been a Michael Jordan. I evolved from them."


----------



## kflo

> Originally posted by <b>bballlife</b>!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Barkley is really a tad over 6-6. Surprised someone with your knowledge falls for the 6-4 thing. Thats a snowball that has been created to somehow make the feats Barkley accomplished even more greater. Whenever you see him on tv, you can clearly see he stands about 4 inches above Kenny Smith who is above 6-2. Checkout the 93 finals, he is about 1/2 inch taller than Michael. They stand next to each and talk throughout the series.
> 
> Evidence is all over the place.
> 
> You can find his mug shot on the internet, he reads 6-8 on that, take into account a few inches for shoes and it makes sense.
> 
> Barkley was no shorter than 6-6.























it's not that important his exact height. it doesn't change the point. if he's 6'6, 6'5, whatever. i'm not that concerned with his actual height. it's reported different all over the place. i don't really care. 6'6? fine with me.


----------



## Yyzlin

> Originally posted by <b>Minstrel</b>!
> Do you happen to have the average field goal percentages by position? For example, for centers and power forwards? Because I think it's possible that the higher field goal percentages were more a perimeter player phenomenon than an inside player phenomenon. From observation, it was long-range and mid-range games that were less tightly defended in the past, perimeter players getting open shots almost at will. Inside players, however, were still contested quite a bit.
> 
> Again, that's just from observation, but I think it's a theory worth exploring, whether that difference in field goal percentage was mostly guard/small forward-driven or applied equally across the board.


Well, out of curiosity, I did go ahead and calculate the PF/C and SF/SG/PG splits for FG% for those two years using dougstats.com's spreadsheet friendly statistics. In 90-91, the average FG% of PF/C was .489. The average FG% of SF/SG/PG was .466. In 00-01, the average FG% of PF/C was .463. The average FG% of SF/SG/PG was .432.



Code:


|       |90-91 | 00-01 | Difference |
------------------------------------------
|PF/C| .489  | .463   |    .026       |
------------------------------------------
|SF/G| .466  | .432   |    .034       |
------------------------------------------

As you can see, the difference in average FG% over different years is slightly altered for different positions. PF/C don't experience as great a slide as perimeter players do. However, the overall difference between the two is still fairly small, and change of .026 is still nothing to sneeze at.


----------



## Minstrel

Thanks for the data, Yyzlin. I didn't expect there to be no era difference. I just felt the effect might be lesser for big men than perimeter players. It is significant for both though, yes.


----------



## Ryoga

check the adjFG%, shooting 33% in a 3pts shot is like shooting 50% closer to the basket.
I don't have the numbers here, but it's a lot closer.


----------



## Cap

*Yyzlin*,

Some of the reasons Phil turned away from Shaq in late game situations the last few years:

1) The zone. Shaq was still able to maintain his statistical averages during the first year of the zone and afterwards, but was generally less effective at putting the ball in the hole as quickly as he used to. Zone allows double teams weak side, noticeably weakening Shaq's ability to operate. That's one of the reasons Jackson hasn't used Shaq a lot in the high post over the last couple years. Well that, and the fact that he just isn't as good as he was in 2000 (age, weight, etc.). 

2) Shaq is an unreliable FT shooter and the Lakers' momentum was quite easily killed in late game situations where Shaq was missing FTs. Kobe was the complete opposite, and a much better creator off the dribble where he could penetrate the lane and dish to Shaq. For all this talk about Kobe being selfish, his assists go up dramatically when the the ball isn't being dumped into Shaq all the time and old, unreliable shooters are depended on to make shots when Shaq passes out of a double team. 

3) Shaq's age and weight have taken a toll on how much he can do late in games. He has clearly gotten worse over the years, with his weight being the primary culprit, along with other factors (zone as previously mentioned). For example, during this year's playoffs, when Shaq got two days of rest or more, he scored over 5 points more per game and grabbed over 2 rebounds more as well. Playing every other day decreased his stats *that* much, it's true. Interestingly enough, people seem to forget that Stern has been adamant about condensing the playoff schedule from here on out, and that was a major factor in trading Shaq, as the Lakers saw it taking away any hope that Shaq had of having fresh legs during a postseason run. Especially considering Shaq's questionable work ethic.


----------



## Yyzlin

Yes, I understand that there were reasons to turn more to Bryant in late game situations last year, but Minstrel and I were not discussing that time period. The three title seasons were the actual point of contention.


----------



## The Mad Viking

> Originally posted by <b>LB26matrixns</b>!
> 
> 
> Dude don't step to me......
> 
> FACT: Willis Reed came limping onto the court and played a few minutes before departing.
> 
> FACT: Just like my initial post said......Dave Debusschere guarded Wilt for MOST of the game.
> 
> Care to argue that the Knicks had ONE player better than West or Baylor career?


:cthread:

Reed played the first half. At the end of the half, the Knicks led by 24, 61-37. Backup center Nate Bowman, 6-10, played quite a bit in the second half. Walt Frazier scored 36 and had 19 assists. Jerry West was playing with cortisone injections in both hands.

Don't redefine your argument. Your point was that Wilt had better teammates but lost. That argument is false. The Knicks had the better team in 1970.

You may be thinking of game 5, the game where Willis got hurt. In the second half, the Knicks basically switched to a zone, on offence and defence. DeBusschere keyed on Wilt. The Lakers couldn't figure it out and had 30 turnovers, and Wilt only scored 4 points in the second half. 

They got organized for game 6, & figured out how to get Wilt the ball, and he lit them up for 45.


----------



## Cap

> Originally posted by <b>Yyzlin</b>!
> Yes, I understand that there were reasons to turn more to Bryant in late game situations last year, but Minstrel and I were not discussing that time period. The three title seasons were the actual point of contention.


Sure, I understand that. My point was that the Lakers were able to win 3 in a row between 2000 and 2002 because of essentially good timing.


----------



## rocketsthathavespurs

Wilt is such a great guy he helped my great uncle get up and down the stairs frm collage.(he wuz handicapted) He should that great responsiblity on and of the court. He had seasons that he averaged 50 pt a game and had a 100 pt game? thats over rater i think not!


----------



## PauloCatarino

Wilt Chamberlain is over rated?

Can the most prolific scorer *and *rebounder the game has ever seen be over rated?

:whoknows:


----------



## martin bolima

> Originally posted by <b>LakerMania</b>!
> You can argue to your blue in the face but right now history has the top bigs as
> 
> Wilt
> Kareem
> Russell
> Shaq
> 
> Hakeem was a great player but he is a tier below this group. Some of the media has Hakeem placed higher but the majority have Shaq snugly in place ahead Hakeem.
> 
> Shaq over Hakeem?
> 
> Yup, I'd argue with that till my face turns blue.
> 
> Hakeem had a plethora of moves that will leave Shaq's head spinning. Olajuwon had the 15-17 foot jumper. He's top three in blocks all-time and is considered as one of the most complete centers in the league.
> 
> Shaq? Sure he's good, but he doesn't have the same offensive dexterity as Hakeem. Big Diesel is definitely an overpowering player, but he wasn't as adept as Olajuwon.
> 
> And didn't Shaq say that Hakeem Olajuwon is the greatest center he's played against?


----------



## kflo

> Originally posted by <b>martin bolima</b>!
> Shaq? Sure he's good, but he doesn't have the same offensive dexterity as Hakeem.


he doesn't have the same offensive dexterity. where he did have him beat was in offensive productivity and scoring efficiency.



> Originally posted by <b>martin bolima</b>!
> And didn't Shaq say that Hakeem Olajuwon is the greatest center he's played against?


that just shows shaq thought hakeem was better than ewing, robinson and mourning.


----------



## snowmt

IMO, Shaq and Hakeem is a wash.

Offensively, they can't defend each other 1-on-1. Both will get their numbers. Shaq scored 3 more points in the regular season 
but Hakeem always stepped up in the playoff. 

Defensively, Shaq's presence is huge but Hakeem is a better defender. Shaq has as much blame as Fisher and Payton in Lakers' atrocious pick-and-roll defense. Hakeem on the other hand is the all-time blocking leader and top 10 in steals. 

As to rings, Shaq always has complementary superstar guards, a luxury Hakeem only had at the age of 32. Don't discredit Kobe because he was the second fiddle. Shaq had no rings until Kobe became a top 2 guard in the league.

My Top 5 center

Russell -- The winner and MVP of the 11-time world champion
Wilt -- Stat monster but unable to lead his team to rings 
Kareem -- 5 rings, 6 times MVP, scoring champion
Hakeem - 2 rings, MVP and DPOY, one of the best playoff runs ever in 1995 
Shaq -- Could be the best. Has all the tools and superstar teammates but working ethic is atrocious


----------



## E.H. Munro

*Re: rebound and defense? chamberlain was better.*



> Originally posted by <b>sherako</b>!
> 
> 
> Undisputed by who? Rockets fans? Hakeem is good but he never led the league in assists, or was rookie of the year slash MVP if I may quote Joe Budden here. He also has only two rebounding titles, while Wilt has 11. Wilt owns Hakeem, that is the only undisputed fact here.


I'm sorry, but Wilt could never have led the 1993-94 Rockets to an NBA title. When discussing centers, that's the baseline, show me any center that could carry that collection of castoffs to an NBA title and we'll start a discussion. To this day I marvel at his performance that postseason. Wilt was a seven footer playing in an era when centers were 6'9". Hakeem was a 6'10" guy in an age of seven footers. Drop Hakeem into the sixties and we'd be marveling that a person could average 60/30 numbers. 

But dominance is relative to era, Shaq in his prime is better than either of those two in theirs. Nothing personal, that's just the way it is. In twenty years time there'll be some 7'3" 275lb Chinese kid tearing up the NBA and young'uns on this board now will be telling their kids "Why, that Yan is nothing compared to Shaq, by cracky, that Shaq could play I'll tell ya." And they'll be as wrong as those of you that insist that Chamberlain would dominate the NBA if you took him out of time and dropped him in the 21st century. The sport gets better.


----------



## The Mad Viking

That's a very common theory, but rather difficult to test. In addition, does improved training, diet, sports medicine and equipment mean that a player today should be considered better than a player in the 60s? To me, that is ridiculous.

If you want to test the theory, lets actually try to test it, rather than making unsubstantiated conclusions.

Wilt at the end of his career, far from his prime, played against Kareem during KAJ's first 2 MVP seasons. And completely held his own.

It would not be unreasonable to conclude that Wilt in his prime was better than MVP KAJ.

Kareem at the end of his career, way past his prime, played against a yound Hakeem. And completely held his own.

It would not be unreasonable to conclude that KAJ and the Dream were generally equivalenet players.

Therefore, there is absolutely no valid reason to discount Wilt's capabilities as a premier center at any time in NBA history.

Obviously his stats would be somewhat lower with a more uniform level of quality big men defending him every night. 

People tend to think of Wilt as a tall thin guy. They once asked HOF center Bob Lanier what his greatest thrill in basketball was. He quipped, "I was jockeying for position with Chamberlain in the post. Then he just reached out, picked me right off my feet, and set me down out of his way." Wilt was not a great athlete for a 7-footer. He was a great athlete for a guy ANY SIZE, who also happened to be 7 feet tall.


----------



## kflo

> Originally posted by <b>The Mad Viking</b>!
> That's a very common theory, but rather difficult to test. In addition, does improved training, diet, sports medicine and equipment mean that a player today should be considered better than a player in the 60s? To me, that is ridiculous.
> 
> If you want to test the theory, lets actually try to test it, rather than making unsubstantiated conclusions.
> 
> Wilt at the end of his career, far from his prime, played against Kareem during KAJ's first 2 MVP seasons. And completely held his own.
> 
> It would not be unreasonable to conclude that Wilt in his prime was better than MVP KAJ.
> 
> Kareem at the end of his career, way past his prime, played against a yound Hakeem. And completely held his own.
> 
> It would not be unreasonable to conclude that KAJ and the Dream were generally equivalenet players.
> 
> Therefore, there is absolutely no valid reason to discount Wilt's capabilities as a premier center at any time in NBA history.
> 
> Obviously his stats would be somewhat lower with a more uniform level of quality big men defending him every night.
> 
> People tend to think of Wilt as a tall thin guy. They once asked HOF center Bob Lanier what his greatest thrill in basketball was. He quipped, "I was jockeying for position with Chamberlain in the post. Then he just reached out, picked me right off my feet, and set me down out of his way." Wilt was not a great athlete for a 7-footer. He was a great athlete for a guy ANY SIZE, who also happened to be 7 feet tall.


well done viking. 2 points though - i'm not sure why you conclude that it's not unreasonable to conclude wilt was better than kareem, yet conclude it's not unreasonable to conclude kareem & dream were equivalent?

also, on the wilt vs kareem matchups - the expectations of the 2 at that point were completely different. kareem was a dominant scorer. wilt was primarily a rebounder and defender. wilt holding his own against kareem mostly meant keeping him under control offensively while outrebounding him. it didn't mean he matched him offensively, or came close. actually, not unlike what russell used to do to wilt.


----------



## The Mad Viking

They met in the playoffs in back to back seasons.

In the first season, when wilt was 34, Kareem got the better of the matchup.

In the second, when wilt had a year to adjust to the radical game of the 7-2 skyhook, wilt outplayed Kareem in every category, including scoring. Even though wilt was "just" a 20 point guy them.

Your first point, Hakeem was still a ways from his peak when he played KAJ, at 38, to a draw.

When Wilt played KAJ, KAJ was at his peak. Back then, KAJ rebounded in the low teens AND scored in the 30s.


----------



## kflo

> Originally posted by <b>The Mad Viking</b>!
> 
> In the second, when wilt had a year to adjust to the radical game of the 7-2 skyhook, wilt outplayed Kareem in every category, including scoring. Even though wilt was "just" a 20 point guy them.


i'd love to read something about that or see a link. kareem averaged 28.7 ppg that season in the playoffs, wilt 14.7. i'm just a little skeptical that wilt outscored him.


----------



## Priest

just throw out stats and just look at skill when comparing centers..Hakeem had everything on lock....Shaq isnt a better offensive player then da dream, more dominant yes but not better offensively


----------



## farhan007

> Originally posted by <b>LakerMania</b>!
> You can argue to your blue in the face but right now history has the top bigs as
> 
> Wilt
> Kareem
> Russell
> Shaq
> 
> Hakeem was a great player but he is a tier below this group. Some of the media has Hakeem placed higher but the majority have Shaq snugly in place ahead Hakeem.


didnt shaq say he idoled Dream???


----------



## farhan007

> Originally posted by <b>Pan Mengtu</b>!
> 
> 
> Do you remember Shaq dominating Hakeem his last 5 or 6?


when Dream was in his 30's????


----------



## BLUE CHIP

The reason I believe you should rate players on what they do in the prime of the careers is because of this arguement.

I've heard people say that Hakeem's offensive talent was like no other center...

YET...

There was a point in time when Hakeem's offensive ability was limited. There was a point in time when Hakeem's foot movement was as raw as it can be. From about his rookie season to 1992, Hakeem had no trust in his teammates whatsoever. There was a point when Hakeem was going to be traded because of the distraction he was having in the Rocket Locker Room.

BUT...

From 1993 to 1995, Hakeem was the best player in the league. His offensive ability took a major leap. He started believeing in his teammates more, and he shedded the Hakeem people knew from the late 80s.

In my opinion, Hakeem in 1993, 1994, and 1995 reached a level that I don't believe any other center has ever reached in the NBA. He was on top of the center's peak potential level in dominance. He did everything amazingly well.

I do believe Hakeem was the better player just by those three seasons.


----------



## HKF

It's time to inject some sense into this thread. 

I don't have to listen to people who barely play the game say Hakeem was the best, when I hear his contemparies (West, Russell, Oscar, Kareem) say he was the best.

Do some of you not realize that Wilt used to have NBA teams calling him when he was in his 50's to come back and play basketball? Sorry to say, but Hakeem Olajuwon as great as he was, was not better than Wilt.

It just shows the age of the posters here. Please find some tapes, watch ESPN classic, write letters to old NBA players, do something, but don't sit here and say Hakeem Olajuwon was better than Wilt Chamberlain. 

He draws the Dream in almost every category. Wilt was a freak of nature, the way KG is a freak of nature, only better. I can't believe this thread actually exists. 

Why is Hakeem better than Kareem Abdul-Jabbar? He didn't have the longevity of Jabbar and Jabbar's numbers again are better, with more rings and a crapload of all-star appearances.


----------



## Critic

Couldnt agree more Hong Kong...

Wilt was a freak.

He led the league in scoring 7 times but only slowed down his point production because the coaching staff requested him to...share the ball round and we will win they said. What did he do...he led the league in assists one year! He also destroyed all the rebounding records and the only man that still comes close is his great rival and friend Bill Russell. 

That someone has grabbed 55 rebounds in one game is just unfathomable to me. If any of you have played high level basketball like I have...you would realise how hard it is just to grab double figures on the boards let alone 20, 30, 40 or 55!

Wilt would have also without doubt led the league many times in shots blocked seeing they didnt keep such as stat during his career.

One of his most amazing stats of all...was the fact that he never once fouled out in his entire NBA career. Incredible for such a dominant front court player that spent the amount of time he did on the floor.

Hong Kong's right. Wilt was being called upon to come back to the league late in his life...especially until he was in his late 40's.
This old guy I spoke to in Los Angeles a few years back when I was visiting....told me that he got the chance to watch Wilt have a scrimmaging session against most of the Lakers squad (including Jabbar) in the early 80's. Wilt was obviously well into his 40's by this stage. He told me that Wilt was by no means just there to participate and make up the numbers. Despite his age...he consistently scored on Jabbar and was able to rebound just as easily despite being against an all time great in the prime of his career.

There is no question about this issue... Wilt Chamberlain remains the finest frontcourt player to ever step foot on a basketball court...just as Michael Jordan is the greatest guard.

As Oscar Robertson said when he was once asked if Wilt was the greatest ever... "The recordbooks don't lie"


----------



## JerryWest

some of you guys are *edited: No personal attacks*...

If Wilt was born in this era, he'd be in better condition, and likewise the guys from this era wouldn't be close to what they are now, while working a second job to supplment their basketball careers.


----------



## Jonathan Watters

I just got NBA TV last week, and watched game 4 of the 1967 EC Finals, Philly vs Boston. 

I knew basketball had evolved quite a bit since then, but I was in no way prepared for how terrible these players really were. 

Forget about how unathletic and out of shape everybody was (players walked up the court most of the time), nobody had the slightest conception of some of the most basic basketball fundamentals - most notably, dribbling with your off hand and the freaking bounce pass. 

Chamberlain shot his free throws UNDERHANDED. 

The guy was a shotblocker, but at least at this point in his career, had no offensive skill whatsoever. When he did manage to get the ball in the post (no bounce pass, all lobs that got deflected and stolen half the time ), he would simply attempt to bowl over Russell or whoever his defender was and literally throw the ball at the basket. We rip on Shaq for simply being a brute, using all strength and no skill - he's a freaking acrobat compared to 1967 Wilt. 

The 1967 Wilt would struggle to be an average center in today's game. 

I realize that today's players had plenty of advantages that Wilt didn't have, but if you simply look at the player Wilt was at that time and compare him to today's players, there's no way he would star in 2004. 

BTW, John Havlicek was the most impressive player out there. He wouldn't stand a chance today because he's freakin slow, but he could nail jumpshots off the dribble like nobody's business. Probably the only guy out there who attempted to play the game like it's played today. "ahead of his time", you could say. 

Don Nelson was out there also, and Matt Goukas was the point guard for the sixers.


----------



## Da Grinch

there is a level of top centers in nba history and it includes wilt russell , abdul-jabbar and shaq

in the next level you will find olajuwon , ewing, robinson, walton m.malone and probably cowens .

wilt was a freak of nature , he was 7'1 and 1/4 w/o shoes and a former big 8 high jump champion he came in to the nba at 275 and left at a very muscular 335, to say he coulldn't play today at an extremely high level is crazy

HKF was on the level when he posted about how the greats did against each other as a good barometer the guy who comes out on top is kareem , he was the only guy no one in the history of the game could guard until his age made it possible 

olajuwon could be defended for most of his career by his contemporaries(top centers) one on one , ewing , robinson mourning & shaq all usually guarded him one one one it wasn't at all clear over the span of their careers who clearly got the edge ....some years ewing got the better of hakeem , some years it was the other way around same with robinson and shaq.

there was no such parity with the top 4 , you couldn't find anyone outside of that 4 who could have done anything with them....all russell did was find a way to win virtually every time against anyone .

KAJ was the guy with probably the best case to be considered the best of all time since he couldn't be slowed by anyone most of the time. 

shaq is the best player in the game and has been for several years without looking i am sure no center has been as dominant as him since kareem was in his prime i'm quite positive ewing robinson and olajuwon were passing the mantle of best center around quite a bit year to year in the all nba team and with good reason they were all about the same level

and wilt is a freak the likes of which has not been seen since ....he has shot 73% from the field in a season , avg. 50 points led the league in assists and has a career avg. of 22.9 rebounds


----------



## The_Franchise

Great post blabla97.



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> there is a level of top centers in nba history and it includes wilt russell , abdul-jabbar and shaq
> 
> in the next level you will find olajuwon , ewing, robinson, walton m.malone and probably cowens .


I don't see the logic behind putting Olajuwon on the same level as Ewing and Robinson when he clearly dominated them throughout his career. He destroyed them in the playoffs. And then he dominated Shaq... obviously Shaq wasn't in his prime but then again he didn't have Kobe next to him either. Jabbar put up all his numbers in the 70's, which means nothing to me. Skim through the pages of this thread for more info on that.



> olajuwon could be defended for most of his career by his contemporaries(top centers) one on one , ewing , robinson mourning & shaq all usually guarded him one one one it wasn't at all clear over the span of their careers who clearly got the edge ....some years ewing got the better of hakeem , some years it was the other way around same with robinson and shaq.


He really *couldn't* be defended by his contemporaries down the stretch or in the clutch. The only time Ewing got the best of Hakeem was in college.


----------



## Jonathan Watters

Hakeem was CLEARLY a step ahead of Robinson, and at least two ahead of Ewing. Neither player was up to the challenge of beating an Olajuwon-led team, and this was proven repeatedly. Anyone who claims otherwise doesn't have a very clear memory of the ball being played in the early to mid 90's. 

Olajuwon also made Shaq look downright foolish on multiple occasions early in his career. It's not fair to hold that against Shaq because he was in his first couple of seasons in the league, so I would put Hakeem and Shaq on the same level. Drob a step below, Ewing and Mourning another step below that.


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>Ming Bling</b>!
> Great post blabla97.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't see the logic behind putting Olajuwon on the same level as Ewing and Robinson when he clearly dominated them throughout his career. He destroyed them in the playoffs. And then he dominated Shaq... obviously Shaq wasn't in his prime but then again he didn't have Kobe next to him either. Jabbar put up all his numbers in the 70's, which means nothing to me. Skim through the pages of this thread for more info on that.
> 
> 
> 
> He really *couldn't* be defended by his contemporaries down the stretch or in the clutch. The only time Ewing got the best of Hakeem was in college.


actually he didn't dominate them at all thought his career , in team wins ewing , robinson and olajuwon were pretty even when they faced each other ...in stats they all avg. in the areas that they avg against the rest of the league ....although i remembr all 3 of their FG% were lower against each other.

you dont want to count some of kareems #s because they were in the 70's does that mean that its ok to discount what olajuwon did in the 80's ?

every one likes to talk about what hakeem did in 1994-95...he was like 31 or 32 by then ....if he were some legendary figure it would have been apparent long before then did it take til MJ was 31 or bird, magic ...and so on.

do you realize he was all nba 3 times in the 90's ...david robinson had that honor 4 times ...hakeem was hardly as dominant as you would like to believe in in his most dominant time ...heck one of those title winning seasons, robinson was the MVP, if he were dominant why didn't he win the MVP that year ?

there is a difference between a guy who for a time played great and a truly great player .


----------



## kflo

> Originally posted by <b>Ming Bling</b>!
> Jabbar put up all his numbers in the 70's, which means nothing to me.


yeah, the 80s and 90s were just so far superior to the 70s and 80s.


----------



## HKF

> Originally posted by <b>kflo</b>!
> 
> 
> yeah, the 80s and 90s were just so far superior to the 70s and 80s.


It's not worth arguing. I will never believe Hakeem is better than Wilt or Jabbar. Never.


----------



## The_Franchise

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> actually he didn't dominate them at all thought his career , in team wins ewing , robinson and olajuwon were pretty even when they faced each other ...in stats they all avg. in the areas that they avg against the rest of the league ....although i remembr all 3 of their FG% were lower against each other.


So these guys played in the same era, and put up the same numbers. 

If you are trying to say Olajuwon wasn't as good as people say he is because of his tough competition, then what can you say to defend Shaq. Let's list the great centers (who were close to their primes) over the time period Shaq has dominated:

......



> you dont want to count some of kareems #s because they were in the 70's does that mean that its ok to discount what olajuwon did in the 80's ?


It was a whole different era. David Stern became commissioner in the 80's and this is when, IMO, the NBA became far more popular and competitive. 



> do you realize he was all nba 3 times in the 90's ...david robinson had that honor 4 times ...hakeem was hardly as dominant as you would like to believe in in his most dominant time ...heck one of those title winning seasons, robinson was the MVP, *if he were dominant why didn't he win the MVP that year* ?


Well then, if Shaq was truly dominant (especially over the years he won 3 titles), how come he has only won the MVP once? Jabbar has 6 MVP's, but only 2 of those came in a championship winning season. Chamberlain has 4 MVP's (all in the 1960s), but only 1 came in a championship winning season.

Again, there is an argument to everything you have said amongst the 9 pages in this thread.


----------



## Pinball

> Originally posted by <b>blabla97</b>!
> Hakeem was CLEARLY a step ahead of Robinson, and at least two ahead of Ewing. Neither player was up to the challenge of beating an Olajuwon-led team, and this was proven repeatedly. Anyone who claims otherwise doesn't have a very clear memory of the ball being played in the early to mid 90's.
> 
> Olajuwon also made Shaq look downright foolish on multiple occasions early in his career. It's not fair to hold that against Shaq because he was in his first couple of seasons in the league, so I would put Hakeem and Shaq on the same level. Drob a step below, Ewing and Mourning another step below that.


Sounds good to me.


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>Ming Bling</b>!
> 
> 
> So these guys played in the same era, and put up the same numbers.
> 
> If you are trying to say Olajuwon wasn't as good as people say he is because of his tough competition, then what can you say to defend Shaq. Let's list the great centers (who were close to their primes) over the time period Shaq has dominated:
> 
> ......
> 
> 
> 
> It was a whole different era. David Stern became commissioner in the 80's and this is when, IMO, the NBA became far more popular and competitive.
> 
> 
> 
> Well then, if Shaq was truly dominant (especially over the years he won 3 titles), how come he has only won the MVP once?
> 
> Again, there is an argument to everything you have said amongst the 9 pages in this thread.


my point is pretty simple , hakeem was not head and shoulders the best center in his own time ....so how is he the best center of all time ?

even shaq is without doubt the best center over the last 6 or 7 seasons ...has hakeem ever had a time when he could claim the same thing?

not in the 90's if its anyone its robinson 
not in the 80's moses malone won 3 mvps in the 80s 

karrem was winning titles in the 80s 

so what time was olajuwons time the late 80s ?

up until 1990 when pat ewing garnered all nba honors 

what makes olajuwon better than his contemporaries that its even close to believable he is the best of all time?

you say these have all been answered so do a lil' answering for me and give me that.


----------



## Da Grinch

*32-16 robinson vs. olajuwon all time in 48 meetings*

http://espn.go.com/nba/s/2003/0116/1493700.html

in 35 meetings ewing 17 wins 
olajuwon 18

is olajuwon really head and shoulds beyond these 2 ?

i would say no.

olajuwon vs oneal.28 games 
17 for oneal ,
11 for hakeem

combined record against the top 3 centers of his era 

66 wins for shaq, ewing & robinson
45 for olajuwon.


----------



## farhan007

*Re: 32-16 robinson vs. olajuwon all time in 48 meetings*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> http://espn.go.com/nba/s/2003/0116/1493700.html
> 
> in 35 meetings ewing 17 wins
> olajuwon 18
> 
> is olajuwon really head and shoulds beyond these 2 ?
> 
> i would say no.
> 
> olajuwon vs oneal.28 games
> 17 for oneal ,
> 11 for hakeem
> 
> combined record against the top 3 centers of his era
> 
> 66 wins for shaq, ewing & robinson
> 45 for olajuwon.


it doesnt matter what happened in the regualr season. Dream dominated in the playoffs and there is no question about that!


----------



## farhan007

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> 
> 
> my point is pretty simple , hakeem was not head and shoulders the best center in his own time ....so how is he the best center of all time ?
> 
> even shaq is without doubt the best center over the last 6 or 7 seasons ...has hakeem ever had a time when he could claim the same thing?
> 
> not in the 90's if its anyone its robinson
> not in the 80's moses malone won 3 mvps in the 80s
> 
> karrem was winning titles in the 80s
> 
> so what time was olajuwons time the late 80s ?
> 
> up until 1990 when pat ewing garnered all nba honors
> 
> what makes olajuwon better than his contemporaries that its even close to believable he is the best of all time?
> 
> you say these have all been answered so do a lil' answering for me and give me that.


did robinson win any championships over Dream? Face it, Dream was superiour to all the centers during his prime years.


----------



## HKF

I have learned if you are going to argue with happygrinch, you better bring your A game, because he is on top of his facts man.


----------



## farhan007

playoffs:
Robinson: 23.8 PPG, 11.3 RPG 
Olajuwon: 35.3 PPG, 12.5 RPG


----------



## PauloCatarino

*Re: 32-16 robinson vs. olajuwon all time in 48 meetings*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> http://espn.go.com/nba/s/2003/0116/1493700.html


Thanks for the link, happygrinch. :greatjob: 

There goes the notion that Russell was able to contain Wilt...

And Jabbar dropping 50 on Walton (who had 7) and outscoring Mo 18-4 on their first encounters (not unlike first facing Wilt, off course)?

Delicious...


----------



## rocketeer

*Re: 32-16 robinson vs. olajuwon all time in 48 meetings*



> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> http://espn.go.com/nba/s/2003/0116/1493700.html
> 
> in 35 meetings ewing 17 wins
> olajuwon 18
> 
> is olajuwon really head and shoulds beyond these 2 ?
> 
> i would say no.
> 
> olajuwon vs oneal.28 games
> 17 for oneal ,
> 11 for hakeem
> 
> combined record against the top 3 centers of his era
> 
> 66 wins for shaq, ewing & robinson
> 45 for olajuwon.


that's a pretty bad arguement though because you completely left out all their stats.

ewing and hakeem were even recordwise, but hakeem easily got the better of the matchup. he had 20.7 and 10.8 to ewing's 18.1 and 8.9. in the postseason ewing added 3 rebounds but hakeem added 6 points. no contest hakeem was better.

with robinson it's even more lopsided. they were almost even in the regular season(hakeem with 2 more points), but robinson was completely dominated during the playoffs. hakeem went for 35 and 12.5 to robinson's 23.8 and 11.3. and this was against the regular season mvp that hakeem was scoring 35 on. once again hakeem wins easily.

with shaq it's a little different. in the early matchups, hakeem got the better of him and swept him on the way to a championship(he also beat ewing and robinson to win titles). shaq didn't past up hakeem until hakeem was old and injured.

that link and stats that you bring up just show that hakeem was easily better than both robinson and ewing and was the best center of his time. there is more question about shaq and that's a question that can only be answered by opinion since prime hakeem beat young shaq and prime shaq beat old and hurt hakeem. though robert horry who played with both prime hakeem and prime shaq said that hakeem was the best player he played with.


----------



## HKF

Why are Hakeem's stats relevant and yet Wilt's aren't? 

You can't play both sides.


----------



## rocketeer

> Originally posted by <b>Hong Kong Fooey</b>!
> Why are Hakeem's stats relevant and yet Wilt's aren't?
> 
> You can't play both sides.


i never argued that hakeem was better than wilt. it's impossible to compare them because the stats are so different then and now.

though in this arguement i could throw out stat's when comparing wilt and hakeem since they played in different eras, and use stats to compare hakeem to shaq, robinson, and ewing because they played at the same time. the stats are relevant when they came against the same competition in the same era, and could be seen as not relevant when the competition and basketball being played was completely different.


----------



## Da Grinch

excuses , excuses , the goal of basketball is to win not anything else and until there is an oldtimers league for ewing robinson and olajuwon to play in the facts bear it out .

robinson won more titles , robinson won the head to head matchups more often then not at nearly a 70% clip and that is including playoffs ....you people act as if those 6 games wipe out the other 42 ....got news for you , it doesn't.

robinson is more acclaimed vs. the rest of the league at a time when olajuwon was most dominant....basically all the olajuwon apologist have is a week and a half in 1995 to say hakeem is better ...omitting that the previous 7 months of basketball that robinson was voted the actual better player by all the basketball experts.

in fact looking at all the factors robinson comes out the best of that era 

so i ask again how is olajuwon considered the best of all time when he is not head and shoulders better than the top centers of his own time?


----------



## The_Franchise

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> my point is pretty simple , hakeem was not head and shoulders the best center in his own time ....so how is he the best center of all time ?
> 
> *even shaq is without doubt the best center over the last 6 or 7 seasons *...has hakeem ever had a time when he could claim the same thing?


Do you bother reading my posts? Look at the centers that Hakeem played against and proved we was better than (individual matchups, since stats were pretty similar) during the prime of his career:

Patrick Ewing, Dikembe Mutombo, Alonzo Mourning, David Robinson, Shaquille O'Neal (it was only after Hakeem's career altering knee surgery that Shaq took over the torch of MDE). The only reason you can't say Hakeem was the undisputed greatest center from 88-96 was because Robinson had a _couple_ of great MVP seasons in that span. The embarassing thing for Robinson was that in his career/MVP season, he was taken apart by Olajuwon in the playoffs. *Hakeem was the cream of the crop*.

Shaquille O'Neal has not had close to the competition Hakeem has had at the 5 spot. He has dominated, but it's been against mediocre centers or great centers way past their prime. The one center he's had problems with is Yao Ming, who in his 2nd year would have been killed by Hakeem offensively or defensively. You can make an argue about Shaq being a greater offensive threat than Olajuwon in his prime, but there is no way Shaq comes close to Olajuwon defensively, and that's what gives Hakeem the edge.



> what makes olajuwon better than his contemporaries that its even close to believable he is the best of all time?


^


----------



## Jonathan Watters

I have to agree with Ming Bling. The playoffs is where reputations are made, and in the playoffs, DRob never showed up. Hakeem ran circles around David Robinson, and he clearly was the dominant center of the first half of the decade. You'd have to pick Shaq for the second half, but that's only because Hakeem was getting old. 

And since when did Robinson have more titles than Hakeem? I thought they both had two. Furthermore, Robinson never even made an NBA finals when he was the go-too guy. He won both his titles as the second fiddle to Tim Duncan. In no way, shape, or form can you compare Drob's title success to Hakeem's.


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>Ming Bling</b>!
> 
> 
> Do you bother reading my posts? Look at the centers that Hakeem played against and proved we was better than (individual matchups, since stats were pretty similar) during the prime of his career:
> 
> Patrick Ewing, Dikembe Mutombo, Alonzo Mourning, David Robinson, Shaquille O'Neal (it was only after Hakeem's career altering knee surgery that Shaq took over the torch of MDE). The only reason you can't say Hakeem was the undisputed greatest center from 88-96 was because Robinson had a _couple_ of great MVP seasons in that span. The embarassing thing for Robinson was that in his career/MVP season, he was taken apart by Olajuwon in the playoffs. *Hakeem was the cream of the crop*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ^


http://www.nba.com/history/awards_allnba.html

excuses ...are you actually saying the reason hakeem didn't dominate his era is because some other guy had a couple of better years during that span ?(88-96...your time frame, not mine) 

try 4 ...4 times during that span(91,92, 95,96) robinson was on the nba 1st team instead of olajuwon (pretty nice considering he didn't enter the nba until 89)

ewing also had a 1st team all nba(90) to his name during that time and 2 other times during that span finished ahead of olajuwon by placing on the 2nd team behind robinson as a 1st teamer.

so during your time frame of which he dominated he was all nba 5 times and another guy was 4 times at his position ...this is not to me the definition of dominated especially since at the start of your time frame his main competition was not yet in the nba.

olajuwon did not dominate this time ...not at all...especially considering ...robinson(the guy who 4 times was all nba team) won 67% of the time whenever they faced each other


----------



## Minstrel

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> excuses , excuses , the goal of basketball is to win not anything else


In that case, Will Perdue is a greater center than Shaquille O'Neal, as he's won more championships.

Please don't go into their individual stats, or who was more important to their teams. That would just be "excuses, excuses." The goal of basketball is to win championships and not anything else.

Will Perdue: 4 championships
Shaquille O'Neal: 3 championships


----------



## rocketeer

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> excuses , excuses , the goal of basketball is to win not anything else and until there is an oldtimers league for ewing robinson and olajuwon to play in the facts bear it out .
> 
> robinson won more titles , robinson won the head to head matchups more often then not at nearly a 70% clip and that is including playoffs ....you people act as if those 6 games wipe out the other 42 ....got news for you , it doesn't.
> 
> so i ask again how is olajuwon considered the best of all time when he is not head and shoulders better than the top centers of his own time?


more titles? david robinson won 2 championships unless i'm mistaken. and one of those was all thanks to tim duncan, tony parker, steven jackson, and manu ginobili. he was just an old role player. so they won the same ammount of titles, but hakeem won his in his prime over a prime mvp robinson, while robinson won his thanks to help from his very good teammates.

the fact is hakeem outplayed robinson in their matchups. hakeem was the better player. if winning is all that matters, russell is a way better center than wilt. i mean they played head to head and even though wilt easily won the matchup, russell won. that's just not right.

hakeem is easily head and shoulders above the top centers of his time. there is no arguement to put ewing, robinson, mutumbo, mourning, or any others. the only one that could have arguement is shaq and they never played head to head when they were both in their primes so that's a hard judgement to make with certainty. but there is no arguement that hakeem was not better than his peers.


----------



## The_Franchise

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> excuses , excuses , the goal of basketball is to win not anything else and until there is an oldtimers league for ewing robinson and olajuwon to play in the facts bear it out .
> 
> *robinson won more titles* , robinson won the head to head matchups more often then not at nearly a 70% clip and that is including playoffs ....you people act as if those 6 games wipe out the other 42 ....got news for you , it doesn't.


No he didn't. They both won 2 titles, and Robinson was a clear 2nd option when he won those titles.



> robinson is more acclaimed vs. the rest of the league at a time when olajuwon was most dominant....basically all the olajuwon apologist have is a week and a half in 1995 to say hakeem is better ...omitting that the previous 7 months of basketball that robinson was voted the actual better player by all the basketball experts.


I lost you here. In the 94-95 season Hakeem averaged more PPG, BPG, SPG, APG and they averaged the same number of rebounds. However Hakeem missed 10 games in the season and the new look Rockets with Clyde Drexler were having injury problems, with Horry and Maxwell missing 18 games each. 

People seem to forget the incredible amount of help Robinson had in 94-95. Dennis Rodman (same guy Jordan used to win 3 more championships) was pulling down 16.8 rpg. Sean Elliot averaged 18 ppg and made 136 treys shooting 41% from downtown. Avery Johnson averaged 13.4 pts and 8.2 assists. Here's an interesting quote: 


> Robinson won the NBA Most Valuable Player Award for a season in which he was *third* in the league in scoring (27.6 ppg), *seventh* in rebounding (10.8 rpg), and *fourth* in blocked shots (3.23 per game)


http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamyear.htm?tm=SAS&lg=N&yr=1994



> in fact looking at all the factors robinson comes out the best of that era


http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1400237#post1400237
http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1400327#post1400327



> so i ask again how is olajuwon considered the best of all time when he is not head and shoulders better than the top centers of his own time?


Well this is clearly an opinion, the majority of NBA experts would say that Hakeem is a level above Robinson, but that would be their opinion.


----------



## Da Grinch

> Originally posted by <b>Ming Bling</b>!
> 
> 
> No he didn't. They both won 2 titles, and Robinson was a clear 2nd option when he won those titles.
> 
> 
> 
> I lost you here. In the 94-95 season Hakeem averaged more PPG, BPG, SPG, APG and they averaged the same number of rebounds. However Hakeem missed 10 games in the season and the new look Rockets with Clyde Drexler were having injury problems, with Horry and Maxwell missing 18 games each.
> 
> People seem to forget the incredible amount of help Robinson had in 94-95. Dennis Rodman (same guy Jordan used to win 3 more championships) was pulling down 16.8 rpg. Sean Elliot averaged 18 ppg and made 136 treys shooting 41% from downtown. Avery Johnson averaged 13.4 pts and 8.2 assists. Here's an interesting quote:
> 
> 
> http://www.basketballreference.com/teams/teamyear.htm?tm=SAS&lg=N&yr=1994
> 
> 
> 
> http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1400237#post1400237
> http://basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?postid=1400327#post1400327
> 
> 
> 
> Well this is clearly an opinion, the majority of NBA experts would say that Hakeem is a level above Robinson, but that would be their opinion.


now i've heard it all robinson had more help so in your opinion hakeem is better ...didn't hakeem at various points in his career have ralph sampson, clyde drexler, charles barkley, sam cassell and scottie pippen ?

all of these guys i believe made nba 1st team at some point except sampson & cassell who made all nba 2nd team.

the bottom line is in hakeems prime he really wasn't head and shoulders better than his contemporaries ...did the rockets win the finals against the knicks because olajuwon was so dominant over ewing ?

no it went 7 and the detrmining factor was john starks not knowing when to stop shooting.

i didn't decide the time frame you buddy did in that time frame robinson also did things olajuwon never did.

their career stats and career highs are pretty darn close 

olajuwon avg 21.8 (27.8) robinson 21.1(29.8)
reb 11.1 (14.0) 10.6(13.)
ast 2.5 (3.6) 2.5(4.8)
to/s 3.0 (3.9) 2.5(3.3)
bl 3.1 (4.6) 3.0(4.5)
fg% 51% (54) 52%(55)
ft% 71 (79) 74%(77)
st 1.8 (2.6) 1.4(2.3)

head and shoulders better the numbers say no

in accolades ...olajuwon has more ...but in his prime robinson was right there with him ...the difference would be before robinson was in the nba

in head to head meetings robinson killed him(32-16)., his teams usually went deeper in the playoffs 

clearly better olajuwon is not ....so how could he possibly be better than wilt?


----------



## Hakeem

I agree with you, Happygrinch, that Olajuwon wasn't "head and shoulders" above Robinson, but he was denfinitely better. What set him apart was defense. You can quote all the bpg and spg figures you want (though these show Hakeem to be superior), but these aren't a very good indicator of defensive ability (otherwise Charles Barkley would be twice as good as Rodman in that respect ). The fact is that Olajuwon was roughly equal to Robinson offensively, was a better rebounder, was a marginally worse passer, and most importantly to this argument a considerably better defender. Furthermore, he became better in the postseason (especially in big games), while Robinson had a tendency to wilt slightly (pun unintended). Citing team winning percentages is useless, as they mean next to nothing. Hakeem had Sampson, Drexler, Barkley and Pippen? Sampson left early, and the rest came when they were over the hill. SA simply had better teams. The Rockets would have been nothing without Olajuwon. So much for that.

Btw, I'm not going to enter the Hakeem vs Wilt (or for that matter Hakeem vs Kareem) argument. Such comparisons are pointless.


----------



## The_Franchise

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> now i've heard it all robinson had more help so in your opinion hakeem is better ...didn't hakeem at various points in his career have ralph sampson, clyde drexler, charles barkley, sam cassell and scottie pippen ?


What did Hakeem do when he had Ralph Sampson? In just his 2nd year, he took the Rockets to the finals, where they lost 4-2 in 1986 and then Sampson left. He also won a title with Drexler. A past-prime Barkley and Pippen came to the Rockets after Hakeem's knee surgery, and Cassell only played his first 3 seasons in Houston. Now maybe you could tell me how Robinson couldn't even get to the Finals without playing second fiddle to Tim Duncan and still be on Hakeem's level?



> no it went 7 and the detrmining factor was john starks not knowing when to stop shooting.


You can blame an opponent for any championship win... why did the Bulls win 6 championships? Because Byron Russell slipped. Don't try to take away from what Hakeem achieved without the help of a secondary star.



> head and shoulders better the numbers say no
> 
> in accolades ...olajuwon has more ...but in his prime robinson was right there with him ...the difference would be before robinson was in the nba
> 
> in head to head meetings robinson killed him(32-16)., his teams usually went deeper in the playoffs
> 
> clearly better olajuwon is not ....so how could he possibly be better than wilt?


Just because Wilt played in an era where basketball wasn't popular, and he was heads and shoulders ahead of the rest of the field athletically (save Russell), why should Hakeem have to be head and shoulders ahead of a much more competitive field? He was the best, I think you are pushing it with the Robinson comparision. When a guy averages 50+ ppg, and 25+ rpg, it is an accomplishment but you have to wonder how hard it was for him to do it. Like blabla97 said, he would be an average center in today's NBA.


----------



## kflo

> Originally posted by <b>Ming Bling</b>!
> Like blabla97 said, he would be an average center in today's NBA.


but that's a ridiculous assessment. find a single expert who holds a similar position on wilt. the question is how dominant wilt would be today, not if he'd be dominant. he's so far beyond most of today's centers that to think he'd be average makes little sense. he was big, strong and athletic. he was one of the greatest athletes in the world in his heyday.

wilt played against kareem who played against hakeem. there's a chain, and very little to suggest that wilt would be average today.


----------



## rocketeer

> Originally posted by <b>happygrinch</b>!
> now i've heard it all robinson had more help so in your opinion hakeem is better ...didn't hakeem at various points in his career have ralph sampson, clyde drexler, charles barkley, sam cassell and scottie pippen ?


you bring up big names but they mean nothing. hakeem and sampson would have been huge and they did make it to the finals in hakeem's 2nd year. but then sampson had injuries and there were lots of other problems with that team. then hakeem carried a team of solid role players to the title. yes cassell was on that team but he was just a bench player that only played 17 minutes a game. no one on that team was more than a role player. then the next year drexler came and though they struggled some in the regular season hakeem came out and dominated in the playoffs getting the better of robinson and shaq. by the time barkley got to the team, hakeem was having injury problems that would slowly end his career. even mentioning pippen is a joke because of the pathetic effort he put up as a rocket.

i still haven't seen a legit arguement to how robinson could be considered equal or better than hakeem.


----------

