As I said earlier in the thread I think most people were brainwashed into thinking MJ was the best because of great marketing from Nike, the NBA, and Gatorade. Is he one of the best? Definitely. Is he hands down the best ever. No. He was the poster boy for the NBA and aside from the marketing that pushed it down your throat that he was the best, the NBA also made a boatload off him and with that, no way will they call an offensive foul on MJ with the flu in game 6 versus the jazzholes. It kinda makes me sad that so many of you guys on this board are picking him over Hakeem because that means the number of people that think MJ is the best is even bigger than what's represented on this board.
Count me in as someone who honestly believes Hakeem was indeed the best. But, your post is garbage, nonetheless. If you have to resort to baseless means to tear someone down, then you are doing that because you have no other argument. MJ is hands down the second best player ever, and you know it.
Not tearing him down. He was a great player. I just don't think he was the best and I believe that marketing had a huge part in why people are convinced MJ was the best. Is there anyway to prove this? No, of course not but that's ultimately what it comes down to. An opinion.
whats up mr scrooge, MJ undoubtedly is the greatest, he transcended the game both on and off the court and no other comes close, hes the blueprint of every athlete.. Ali is the same way, youll sound crazy seriously trying to debate someone otherwise.. you can take something and appreciate from every great player, but these guys are simpy the cream of the crop, the athlete their peers and successors aspire to be
What parts of that is bull****? LOL its not my fault you're ignorant of the facts. Fact is, the Mj-less Bulls were good enough to reach the Finals, what do you think is gonna happen if you put a power house team like that and add a player of MJ's caliber? This is like taking the current Lakers team and adding Lebron to the lineup. Wonder how many rings those guys will win?
This is what I've been saying. The so-called Best Ever is an opinion. People treat it as indisputable fact. But it's just an opinion. There's no way you can compare players in different eras. Jordan and Hakeem were in the same era. But they played different positions. So it still comes down to opinion. This is especially true when defensive impact has very little ready-made statistical measurement.
I think you have to look at the eras in which all of these players have played and also who their supporting cast were? Imagine Hakeem in Wilts era? Do you honestly think he could touch Hakeem? Imagine a young Jordan against a young Jerry West, Jordan would have dominated. So comparisons are difficult especially considering the developement of the game as well over the years. I dont honestly know who is the greatest but if i had to choose my choice would be Hakeem, he dominated centers his size on both ends of the court with very little supporting cast. Jordan is similar in comparison as well, his supporting cast was limited and he dominated several eras. I bleed Rocket red, so Hakeem is my guy but i see the reason for Jordan but when they played each other Hakeem dominated.
Nope, Hakeem was the best most likely. However, if Jordan wanted to concentrate more on defense, it's very likely he would be the best at his position hands down. When you carry almost the entire offensive load of a championship team on your shoulders, your defense has to suffer.
i don't understand this line of thinking. he won 10 scoring titles. he won 5 mvp's and could have easily had more. he won 6 titles, all as the undisputed best player on the team. he has the highest regular season PER. the highest regular season WS/48. he has the highest playoff PER and WS/48 and the only person even close in the playoffs is george mikan who, for all intents and purposes, played so long ago and for such a short time that he doesn't even count in these discussions. i don't think he ever lost a playoff series as the higher seed, meaning he didn't miss any chances at winning a title. forget intangibles, leadership, marketing and all that other subjective stuff. just by concrete, actual accomplishments and production, it seems really hard to make an argument that he isn't the best ever. and i say that as someone who hated/hates jordan.
I've already conceded that Hakeem was the best defensive player of all time. I've thought that before this thread. Yes, definitely much better. The difference b/t the '91-92 team that missed the playoffs and the 55 game winning team the next year that should have made the conference finals with no significant changes in the roster would be the main thing I would point to for support. I think if you put the prime Hakeem onto the '86 team instead of the real Akeem, they would have won the championship, for openers. See my previous comment about what a difference Hakeem's increase in play made for the Rockets b/t '91-92 and the following year. I think that would have meant a significant difference in regular season records over the years as well as better chances at playoff success.
U cant compare players through different eras... u got to think how they dominated the eras they played in. That being said... chamberlain would had destroy hakeem. The man was a better athlete and he was way stronger than hakeem, hell he was probably stronger than shaq. Hakeem had the best moves, and great footwork, but chamberlain also got a lot of game, and he was dominant as hell, completely unstopable. He is one of the athletes u can insert on any age and he would dominate, not only because of skills, but because he was a freak of nature. U cant say the same about most players of the 60s or 70s, and thats why you just usually dont compare players that played different times.
Well he was probably one of the greatest Defensive Guards in history (a far cry from Kevin Martin) leading the league in Scoring AND winning DPoY in the same season. 30 ppg and his will to win made him the best, and was fun to watch as well.
And I completely disagree that Chamberlain would dominate Hakeem, because Hakeem would fake the crap out of Wilt and footwork and speed would leave him in the Dust. Just for the heck of it here's the all time starting line-up: PG Magic Johnson SG Michael Jordan SF Larry Bird PF Charles Barkely C- Hakeem Olajuwon Imagine that starting 5! Unbelievable
i just think you're either overrating hakeem those 4 years or underrating hakeem the previous 8 years. i don't think anyone in history has been so much better than pre-1992 akeem/hakeem that they could replace him and turn low- to mid-40's win teams into 60 win championship teams. and especially not the playoff version of hakeem in those years. in the regular season, you're talking about a pre-1992 PER of 23.7 going to 26.0 the next 4 years. and in the playoffs, the change was basically non-existent, going from 26.0 to 26.3. so we're talking about a 10% difference in the regular season, which wouldn't be worth more than maybe a win or two, and almost no difference in terms of the playoffs. as for the difference in 91 vs 92, while hakeem was quite a bit better in 92-93 vs 91-92, we're also talking about the very best year of his career against one of the worst. and even then there were other changes on the roster that accounted for some of the change in wins. while the main 4 players (hakeem, thorpe, maxwell, smith) were there both years, you went from buck johnson/sleepy floyd/matt bullard being 5th, 6th, and 7th in minutes to the next year bullard moving to 8th, floyd to 10th and johnson off the team as rookie horry actually got the 4th most minutes and brooks and herrera, who were tons more efficient than floyd and johnson, moved to 6th and 7th in minutes. those changes were worth a decent amount of wins. comparing these 2 years as the basis for 14 win changes from year to year feels like using the 93-94 bulls vs the 92-93 bulls to argue michael jordan was only worth 2 wins to the bulls every year. the rosters weren't really exactly the same in either situation and you probably had a degree of underachieving/overachieving to create seemingly extreme results (hakeem suddenly became 14 wins better or mj was only worth 2 wins). and i just don't see the 85-86 title. for one thing, that was hakeem's 2nd year. saying someone could have more championships if they were at their peak in year 2 doesn't really seem fair as almost no one is at their peak in year 2. and secondly, hakeem had a hell of a season and playoffs that year. he averaged 27/12/3.5 in the playoffs and was 1 steal away from leading the playoffs in total points, rebounds, blocks, and steals. i'm not sure how much better he could realistically be expected to be. and even then, we're talking about knocking off the 85-86 celtics, a 67-15 (40-1 at home) team considered one of the best of all time. the 51 win rockets were already doing amazingly well just to knock off the 62 win lakers, the only time in a 9 season stretch the lakers didn't make it out of the west. asking them to knock off a 67 win team that was invincible at home due to improvement in the player that was already giving them 27/12/3.5 just seems impossible. even if hakeem had been in 1995 WCF beast mode it probably doesn't happen, and nobody could play that well all the time. like i said before, even with the hakeem of those 4 years and hakeem's best supporting casts, we just barely won our championships. i know you were there, but just to recap we needed a double-digit 4th quarter comeback against utah in game 5 in 1995, we needed a phoenix game 5 that included barkley missing 2 free throws, hakeem making a tough turnaround, and wesley person missing a wide open 3 in the final 20 seconds of regulation just to force OT, just to try to win 3 games in a row to win the series. and we needed 2 other game 7's in 1994 and an elimination game 6 in the finals to win that year. the odds of all that working out was already pretty low. now trying to flip really mediocre teams into championship teams just on barely noticeable playoff improvements in hakeem? and saying they would have won with any sort of certainty? i just don't see it.
It's too easy to crown Jordan the best, when most of us didn't see everyone play. He MIGHT be the best of his generation, but I personally was never a huge fan. What I did appreciate is Jordan's tenacity, will to win and just wanting to cut your heart out, something most players today lack IMO. I'm not sure you can really say there was one that is/was greater than all. There were so many true greats that played this game. Personally my top players of all time (in no peticular order) Wilt, Kareem, Magic, Jordan and Bird. I'd really like to throw Dream in the mix since he was so dominant on both ends, but that is probably just the Rockets homer in me. Jordan was great no doubt, but the best? I think not.
Wow, didn't know this thread was full of MJ haters I mean yeah, I ****ing hate when stupid Jordan fanboys say we wouldn't have won if he didn't retire, and I still think he's lucky to have gotten out of Dream's way for his 2 titles, but you gotta admit, stats and hardware don't lie.
because of the time period he played in. wilt & russell played in the 60s. If you played & accrued your greatness in the 60s or before 1970 (at least) your greatness does not stand the test of time. This is true in all sports. THEIR GREATNESS DOES NOT CROSSOVER TO DIFFERENT ERAS. wilt & russell got their stats & titles during the infancy of the nba against inferior speed, size, athleticism.
