Because of the reason you put forth yourself, Hakeem declined rapidly by then, and the team shifted away from him.
It's like voting for the guy who has the shiny dunks or triple doubles instead of the stats or wins. MJ himself put Hakeem as his starting center in his all time 5 list.
Based on stats and wins Hakeem is clearly ahead of Shaq, in your view? MJ also put James Worthy ahead of Karl Malone on his top 5 list, as I recall. One guy’s opinion can’t be used to invalidate another’s.
I kind of went on a Russell Westbrook slam there. Hakeem would've won more if he was in Shaqs place than vice versa. Kobe would've loved playing with Hakeem. Can shaq be in dream's shoes? Sure you can especially if that someone is MJ, who's played Hakeem and Shaq and has no reason to knock one over the other for any reason. Karl took MJs MVP in his last season, so petty pick. Unless you guys would actually choose Shaq over Hak in your starting 5, I don't see a reason why this guys list is any better than any random person off the internet that we can't **** on.
It is better because of the methodology, not because I personally agree with how he ordered the players. All lists of this sort are not of equal quality. Speaking of pettiness, saying the list is no better than any other random list because Shaq was one position ahead of your favorite player strikes me as rather petty. You talk about the need to base things on actual objective criteria (stats and wins) rather than flashy play, and yet your argument ultimately rests on hypothetical scenarios and conjecture. You are aware that in 2000 there were defensive rule changes that permitted double teaming off the ball on the strong side? What effect does that have on Hakeem’s game? We don’t know.
Something has been bothering me for a while, and I just got to get it off my chest, so bear with me here. First of all, if you want to be taken seriously on a ROCKETS fan site, you should NOT refer to 34, Hakeem Abdul “The Dream” Olajuwon, The OG Twin Towers, Wielder of the Dream Shake, Defender of Heart of a Champion, Destroyer of the Admiral, All Time Blocks Leader, Reigning and Only DPOY/MVP/FMVP Triple Crown, Best Rocket Ever, any title of which would be instantly recognizable to Houstonians/Rockets fans, as “Hak”. Second of all, re-read first of all until you do not make this mistake again.
I'm not arguing for Hakeem because of one position lower but because it's Shaq. They both overlapped, played together and one was better than the other, the other won more because he had the better team and lesser competition throughout his later years. I can't prove to you Hakeem would have won more in Shaqs place but do you think otherwise? If you do, then that's fine. I would rather agree to disagree on that than whatever it is right now which is more about this guys list than the players. He has a methodology that he chose which take certain things into account, it's by no means a better methodology than someone else's decision to say Tim Duncan had the better career than both Shaqs and Hakeem's and put in all the arguments for it, ie championships, respect from team, teammates, coach etc. Yes I'm aware, a decision that was put in place to limit Shaq as there were no other player in the league who could effectively limit his offense, or at least match him on the other end. Because of the lesser quality in the big men that he had to face.
A different methodology that yields a different list can indeed be just as interesting and valid. I happen to like his. It’s just that most people don’t bother to follow any discernible methodology when coming up with their lists. That’s what makes this list somewhat unique, IMO. Eliot Kalb, “Mr. Stats” as Marv Albert called him, had a book that listed Shaq as number 1 all time because of the manner in which he dominated opposing front lines in his prime. I like this guy’s list more.
I've read a few of the full backpick analyses... maybe 7-10. He does have a discernible methodology... but it's not clear that his methodology matters more than someone else's... EVEN if that someone else's methodology is basically "eye-test". As I've noted in earlier posts in this thread, for example, he doesn't factor in strength of the league as a whole, or era, or strength of competition at the position. And there's other things someone could nitpick if they wanted. Another FOR EXAMPLE, he supports his arguments with youtube clip after youtube clip. I've seen plenty of youtube NBA clips in my day, lol. And if I based my top 40 list on youtube clips, I'd have a much different top 40. Ha. That sounds like I'm saying don't actually look at basketball... which I'm not. But to further pick on Bill Russell... who I think in now way is the #4 best basketball player in NBA history (though his list is best careers, whatever that means)... early in his analysis he praises Russell's defense, at the age of 35, for basically blocking a layup attempt. I mean it's nonsensical. It's a random clip of a big blocking a guy who's not as big or athletic. Nevermind it completely ignores the fact that Russell makes the block only after he lets the guy blow by him. Again, it's just an example, but they're all (all of his analyses) littered with these fairly random 10-30 second clips that are just so cherry picked, be it positive or negative. Regarding Russell in general, there's no arguing his overall NBA career - "career" wise, frankly, I don't see how he isn't #1. Great stats. Clearly one of the best players of his era and generation. Then championships galore. A freaking championship as a player-coach (actually i think more than one in this role). But in terms of overall if you were picking teams from all NBA players in history, say just starting lineups, the thought that I'd have Russell picked among the first 5 I think is crazy. I terms of centers/bigs alone, I'd pick Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan and Wilt ahead of him, and might even argue for KG (who I nonetheless think is too high on his list) and David Robinson. but that's just my opinion, obviously.
@JayZ750 I think the clips add little as well. You could find enough videos of Andrew Bynum to show that he's Shaq plus defense. The most important contribution he makes to these types of discussions is his impact evaluations, IMO. What you perceive to see on tape, when backed by statistical analysis, becomes incontrovertible. In an All-Time Draft scenario where you're drafting not necessarily players, but impacts, I would definitely pick an impact of 13 year defensive domination in the top five. This is why Russell is top five here. Imagine if a center could do impact your team defense to the point that no other team could come close to matching it, regardless of player turnover, and significantly limit other opposing bigs for 13 years.
Comparing Russell and Wilt, the question is who would you take in that era if the team around them was chosen randomly? Many would take Wilt. He makes a good argument for why Russell would be the better pick. And I agree, his arguments aren’t built from video clips. They just provide glimpses to explain why he had the impact he had.
Ok, I just read this list and it's stupid!! How can you put Curry on this list but no Harden? They played the same # of NBA games. And how can you put Reggie Miller ahead of Curry? LOL. 2 MVP? 2 NBA championship? LOL What a dumb list. I should have stopped when I saw Curry on the list and no Harden on the list.
yea, I'm always shocked when I hear top 5 or top 10 and they don't mention Kareem. Even when you talk centers, people always talk Wilt or Russell. Kareem was the only player in history to have an unstoppable shot! The #'s he put up were crazy and he did it for such a long time. And don't forget he kicked Bruce Lee's ass!
Longevity is a factor. He said he expected Curry to jump up to low 20s after this season. I don't know what his assessment of Harden's game is. If I had to guess, he would grade Harden as a worse defender and less impactful overall on offense since he doesn't have the same gravity effect on a defense that Curry has (no one does, really). Taylor also seems to value off ball play a bit more from what I've read of his, which isn't Harden's strong suit.
Always room for disagreement, I just don't understand the argument of if the players played against each other who would fair better. Or worse yet, how an accomplished team with polished veterans playing against a team of very young inexperienced players is indicative of who had the better individual career. I do think Duncan had a lesser career than Shaq.
If Curry is 32 and i think Harden's career and stats have already passed Clyde who is #39, how can you not have him in between there? Even Ray Allen ahead of him? He will have 1 MVP and finish 2nd twice already for his career and has played mostly with non all-stars which the writer tends to give credit for guys who carry lower tier teammates. Clyde finished 2nd in MVP once behind MJ. Reggie Miller and Ray Allen? Zero times ahead of 9th-11th finish. Hondo-none. Gilmore-none in the NBA. Elgin Baylor-finished 2nd once. Kidd- finished 2nd once. Pierce? Never. Frazier-none. I could probably keep going on. None of these guys with a single MVP and barely any finished 2nd or close to it in their career in MVP voting. Yet Curry at 32, Durant at 26 and the soon to be MVP and 2x runner up Harden is no where to be seen. How far behind could he realistically be? 41? I would LOVE to see him update this list in the future with in depth write up on Harden and Russ and Hardens impact evaluations compared to Westbrook lol.
