"GREATNESS" can only be defined, honestly, at the end of a players career... Sure, you can casually say, "That guy is great." But that can just be a general complement. "Great," truly great, can be categorized in two groups at the end of a career: 1) Ability (scoring, rebounding, blocks, assists...) 2) RINGS! Karl Malone is considered a "great player." One of the 50 greatest. But he never won a ring. Bill Russell won 11 Rings. But did it with a solid team from 2-12. And is considered one of the greatest winners of all time. Wilt Chamberlain won 2 rings, but whose stats were sooooooo incredible that they seem to make his legacy that much more impressive (50pts per game and 20+ rbg...)... Lets wait until Yao's career if finished. In the mean time lets have fun watching him grow... Play-off games will also help Yao's legacy. Especially if he hits a few winning shots in a few 7 game serise.
m_cable, I seem to agree. Because all it takes is one ball to bounce one way or the other (not in the basket), and that occurrence can "lower or raise (a notch)" a players legacy. I remember before Duncan won his 2nd ring, Shaq was the "MVP" before and Duncan wasn't even mentioned in the same breath as the "best player in the league." Not until he knocked Shaq out of the playoffs. Kobe was even ranked higher than Duncan. Duncan changed his greatness in ONE series. Even if Duncan had been playing JUST AS GOOD during the regular season, people didn't see him as "great." Kenny Smith is right. You make your name in the regular season. But you make your fame in the play-offs. Francis for Prez really isn't off either. His point is bascially about "what the player does (destiny?)." Which is true. Players make or break their own legacy. Some come close. But don't win the ring. But people still see them as great. Just a little different. It just depends on how your define "great." Imagine how many more great players (or greater) there would be if Jordan didn't retire (Kemp, Payton, Stockon and Malone).
yao is gonna be a great player. but he'll never be able to repeatedly go against triple teams and dominate. he's not the same player. and comparing anyone to hakeem is blasphamy on this board. really. just stop. forever. never ever compare hakeem to anyone. and really i doubt anyone who saw hakeem in the 80s could ever talk like this.
The people who keeps on posting threads comparing Hakeem and Yao to SUPPORT the case for Yao should stop. It serves no purpose except to incite the crowd. At least use another center in history without Houston ties.
At these stages of their careers, even though Hakeem was raw he was just awesome. Great, great rebounder, something Yao has not shown (8.5 rpg career) will become despite his size; and great shot blocking ability something Yao has not displayed at all despite his frame. To be a great center, I believe you have to be efficient in rebounding and blocked shots. Yao does seem to read defenses better, and is a better passer at this point but that's about it. That being said, I love Yao and I' am glad he's on our team
At this point in Yao's career he is no where near Hakeem statur. In my opinion Hakeem was godly at his prime but Yao has yet reached his prime so we will see. Even then no one will ever be able to match "The Dream".
You can go ahead and compare stats all you want but don't compare him in any other way to Hakeem. Just don't please don't even try. At this point there is no discussion needed about it other than their stats. That's about it....
Has anyone else noticed that DavidS uses "quotation" marks at least 10 times in every one of his posts?
Ok, there have been so many posts now that I can't possibly respond to all of them. But I'll try to address some major points. 1. Many of you say that you can't compare Yao to Hakeem simply because Hakeem is one of the best. This is, of course, obvious. However, my original post hardly tries to do that. It only compares Yao to Hakeem in their first 2 years. Not even average basketball fans would think that Yao in 2 years is comparable to Hakeem's whole career. So please don't bring in stats from the latter Hakeem days when he was the best center in the NBA. Because that's not the guy I'm trying to compare. 2. There's also the point raised that Yao is not the player that Hakeem is. That they're different styles playing in different times. Which, of course, is true. But again, I wasn't trying to compare how they play. Instead, I'm trying to compare how USEFUL each player is to his team. After all, isn't that what it matters? Whether you're rolling over defenders for dunks, or passing through 3 screens to make that open jumper, you're scoring regardless. So who cares HOW a player scores? Looking at PPG as a % of team scoring is more accurate representation of a player's value to his team, at least in terms of scoring value. In this case, last year's Yao provided about similar value to the 03-04 Rockets as Akeem provided to the 85-86 Rockets. 3. There are also some raise the point along the lines that I haven't seen Hakeem play, and that he's the better player. This may be true. In fact, if the 23 yr old Hakeem played on the Rockets last year instead of Yao, perhaps the Rockets have a better record. But then again, I can think of quite a lot of reasons how Akeem)the 85-86 version) would not have performed as well as Yao last year. Either way, we'll probably never know. So that's incomparable. But as I pointed out earlier, we can compare each player's value to his team. 4. Finally, there are arguments like this. If you go by this argument, the players in the 80s are horrible, horrible, HORRIBLE defenders. The Rockets, with Akeem and Ralph anchoring the middle, gave up 109 points a game. By comparison, not even the Mavs or the Kings are that bad. Yao and Cato anchors a defense that gave up 87 ppg.
This is kinda getting off topic...but... meh, this requires you to actually watch some games from those periods. Not just make an assessment based on the ppg. All you are looking at is the resulting ppg. I mean, did you even watch any of the 86 Rockets? Horrible defenders? What?!?! Akeem and Ralph anchoring the middle were NOT HORRIBLE defenders. It's that the teams that they played against could actually break down the team (Rockets) and actually put the ball in the basket regardless of the great defense that the Rockets played (see Lakers and Celtics). See how that goes? The players!!! Those guys running around on the court played as a TEAM; defensively and offensively. This allowed them to find the right players, under the basket, cutting, setting a screen, or coming off a pick for a jump shot. This is missing from many of our teams today. Passing and shooting (not ISO), but *team assisted shooting* is not celebrated today as it was back then. The Mavs last year gave up 100.8 per game (and the Akeem/Ralph lead Rockets gave up 109ppg). Ok, and???? So, are you saying that the 2004 Mavs play better defense than the 86 Rockets!?!?! Uh, no... As far as your "Yao and Cato anchors a defense that gave up 87 ppg" comment. You just stepped into that one... Because, I hope you know that Akeem and Ralph were way better defenders than Cato and Yao. Yet, you claim that 87ppg is ONLY because of the great defense of Yao and Cato? Yeah, right... Yes, there has been an effort to concentrate on defense over the last 15 years because of a lack of shooting and passing skills (team wise). Defense was *a way* to try and win (out of necessity; the coaches can only use the players that they are given). But if you couple that with average team shooting and passing, that makes the defense seem better. It's not. Even then, not all teams are that good defensively. Especially if your compare them to the Pistons of the 88-90 era (or the 86 Rockets). So, please don't go saying that we are *that* good defensively. I think you should watch at least a few of his 80's games.
Elbows? No. Dominates a guy nearly a foot shorter? Yeah. Bill Hanzlik and Danny Schayes gave Hakeem fits. He still tore them a new one.
i'm not quite sure you understand what the hakeem of 85-86 did. he tore the showtime lakers a new one in the western conference finals (and kareem i believe was still voted all-nba first team that year) and then took the 86 celtics, possibly the best celtics team ever (they were something like 67-15) to 6 games in the finals. and he was the best player on that team. it's not that yao is bad, it's that he's not great and hakeem was real great. and that's right off the bat. he was also the best center in his early days. ewing and robinson threw up some great years that got him out of all-nba first team a few times, but he was consistently the best almost right from the beginning. oh, and don't believe anything DavidS says about the players of yesteryear being superior to today's players. funny how all that great passing, open shots, finding the open man stuff works so well when no one plays defense. i'll never be able to convince him of this (and he won't convince me the other way) but i can try and save others.
a littel off topic but just curious, how many of you think the Dream won the two titles just because MJ was playing around with baseball at that time? I suspect if MJ had been there, the Dream would have produced the same stats, but no title. If so, would he still be considered a greater player than somebody like Ewing? Does a title really mean so much to the definition of greatness? A great player is a great player no matter which team you place him in, but for winning a title, you would need something besides the greatness of a particular great player ..........
And it's funny how you can say that "NO ONE played defense," as in ZERO! That's what you are saying, right? Anyways... That great passing, open shots, finding the open man stuff works so well because you had stars, mid-tier and lower role players that all HAD to learn at least some NCAA fundamentals before entering the league. And this has had an negative effect of the team offense throughout the years. Why can't you get through your thick skull? I mean, why do I expect a "Francis lover" to every understand this? HE never has. You seem to actually think that guys back then just automatically passed so well because of *bad defense*. Uh, they actually HAD to learn technique in the first place. Which is not as stressed today, as it was back then. You can't see this today, because you are blind to it. You can only see "mad hops." The physical ability of players has increased over the year. Yes. But the knowledge (or desire) to play more team oriented, -- WITH the "gifts" of iso skills of the particular stars of this era -- has not kept up with THAT increased physical ability you love so much. So, it's not just increased defense you are seeing. It's a degradation of team oriented offense knowledge. Superior to me, means both the physical ability AND the mental knowledge of the player. You can't just take a physical specimen like Francis, and just let him use his physical ability (dependent) to carry his talents. He has to develop the knowledge of the team concept; passing, screen, and shooting form (not just dribble ISOs). If he continues to, it will *always* limit his game. Too bad for him... Not all players have limited their games. KG and Duncan, are two of the best that have elevated their games on both levels. TMac maybe this year, as long as he plays within the system. Yao, although he needs to develop more of his physical ability, has solid mental ability. Where his physical ability levels out is unknown. But his mental ability can carry him over the long run. Especially part of a very good team.
