Hakeem ranked lower than Shaq,Wilt, Russell and Kareem

Magic Johnson
Michael Jordan
Scottie Pippen (though I really don't want to)
Kevin Garnett
Hakeem Olajuwon

Not the best players at each individual position, but perfect combination of defense and offense. I would take this team against any other. Pippen and KG would open up the lanes and paint for Dream and Jordan to go to work. Four all time great defensive players to boot. Magic is the cherry on top.

 

Well to be fair Malone ' s title chances had to go through Jordan and Olajuwon.

 

He was 31 for the first title and he was 32 for the 2nd.At 36 years old Olajuwon wasn't close to what he was during the title seasons.

 

Pretty much any team, according to those numbers, starts with Garnett + Olajuwon.

 

The post that I was responding to were a bunch of stats showing Jabbar dominating Chamberlain. A 25 year old dominating a 36 year old doesn't prove who was the better player.

 

Frazier
Jordan
Hakeem
Duncan
LeBron

That team is unbeatable.

 

Of course, I was adding to your point in which Kareem said his toughest opponent was 33-36 year old... with a blown out knee.

 

Dirk had to go through Lebron and Wade, who were on the same team (unlike Hakeem and Jordan) and cost as much in this as Hakeem and Jordan combined .

 

There isn't a forum to compare players on Clutchfans, but I'd like to flesh the Wilt vs Hakeem ideas out a little, since it isn't usually spoken about here. This edited Basketball Reference blog article speaks a little on the idea of looking at raw stats back then vs now.

His argument is strictly pace and numbers based, without other factors. He was comparing Oscar Robertson's triple double season average to LeBron's modern numbers.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=1423

 

Dream vs. Wilt would be the matchup of the century among great centers.

Wilt, circa 65-68 vs. Dream, circa 92-95

 

I understand what you are saying, and I appreciate the data.

My main point is that it is very challenging to compare players from across generations. What a lot of people try to do is to think how the players would compare if you placed them 1v1. Or to try to think how a certain player would perform if you moved him to a different time period.

My argument is that both of those ideas are impossible to do. If you try to do that, it is really just pure speculation at that point. We have no idea how Wilt Chamberlain would perform if he was born in this time period, with this amount of emphasis on athletics and on basketball, with this amount of money involved, with these levels of gyms and training staffs, and with the rules of today's NBA. No idea. We can sit here and try to think we do, but we don't.

We have no idea how Hakeem would have performed in the NBA of the 60's. The rules of the game were different. It wasn't as popular. Shoot, would Hakeem have even stopped playing soccer and started playing basketball if that was the case? We can't know those kinds of answers.

Let's take the idea of the blocked shot for example. We know Hakeem was an excellent shot blocker. He is the all time leader in blocked shots. If you moved Hakeem to the 60's, we might know that he was a good defender. We might know that he was a good shot blocker. But we wouldn't have anyway to know how good. Blocked shots weren't even recorded. Someone else would be the all-time leader in blocked shots. That part of Hakeem's game would have been diminished in the history books because it wouldn't be recorded. The game of basketball was completely different.

So my argument is just that all we can do now is to compare how dominant that player was in his time period compared to the other players that he played against.

It is easy to talk about how bad the competition was when Wilt Chamberlain played. And to a certain extent, that might be true. Basketball wasn't as popular, there weren't as many players or as much money involved.

But did Wilt have an unfair advantage over the other player's of that time period?
Did he have more access to training than they did?
Was there any way that he cheated to get all of the points and rebounds and minutes that he did?

The pace of the game was different, true. And the competition may not have been as good.

But if those factors are really all that it took for him to get such great numbers, how come there weren't more players who were coming close to what he was doing?

George Mikan wasn't anywhere close. His averages for points and rebounds are almost half of what Wilt's was.
Neither was Jerry West or Oscar Robertson. Both great players who had impressive stats as well, bot nothing nearly like Wilt.
Bill Russell's offensive numbers weren't even in the same room as Wilt's, but his rebounding wasn't even nearly as effective as well.
What about Walt Bellamy? Or Elgin Baylor? Not to mention the other good players of the time.

If the competition was so weak, how come these other great players weren't putting up anything close to the same kind of numbers as Wilt was?

How come, in the history of the entire NBA, there has only been one center to lead the league in assists? Or one player to score 100 points in a game? Or one player to score over 3000 points in a season three times, much less over 4000 points in a season.

If the pace of the game contributed to those stats, there would have been more players who would have been doing those things. Or at least coming close.

If the pace of the game and the easy competition was what contributed to Wilt scoring so many points, why weren't there more players in those time periods who also were scoring so many points? In the time period before or after Wilt, no one else was doing what he was doing.

If you look at the most points scored by one player in a single game, Wilt Chamberlain has 15 of those games out of the top 21! Including 4 out of the top 5 (Kobe's 81 point game being number 2).

If the pace of the NBA at the time was what contributed to those numbers, wouldn't there be a lot more players from that time period in that list? Instead of just Wilt dominating it?


I understand that the competition as a whole wasn't as good. There wasn't nearly the same quantity of great players, but there still were some really great players. And even those other great players, going up against the same sub-par competition, didn't dominate the game in the same way that Wilt did.




Ultimately, I think it is impossible discussion to know a true answer to. There are so many variables when comparing across generations.
From what I have been able to read, in my opinion it appears that Wilt dominated the NBA during his prime more than any other center ever has.

 

If, either played a bulk of their career on a top-tier team, it would be 8-14 titles between. I get bashed in other forums for this, but MJ, Wilt, and Olajuwon. Those are the three that could elevate a mediocre team the most.

 

There has probably never been another center more athletic than Wilt, he was basically the Lebron of centers.

 

I understand your point. But if that is your stance then I would say there is no greatest, since we can't know how each player would respond in different eras.

But if you rank players and say Wilt is better or Hakeem is better, you're already cross comparing them and saying whose best. Might as well go in depth and do it fully imo.

This sounds like the Wilt & Russell etc. are better shot blockers than Hakeem argument. I'll flesh this out for a second.

Both Wilt, Russell, Thurmond etc. got to play center with a smaller lane, no three point line and we allowed to camp out there to block shots. They had less space to cover to block shots, more time and with out a three point line, it funneled players inside to take high percentage shots.

There was no incentive to take a long distance shot, so gifted shot blockers could inflate their shot blocking by using beneficial rules. The NBA has historically changed the rules to benefit perimeter players vs bigs.

http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html

This rule change affected how many block opportunities centers can have and changed the game offensively and defensively for them and other players.

When ranking Wilt he had lesser competition, rules & pace that inflated his stats, better team support and an easier path to success. That is an unfair advantage in comparisons to modern centers imo.

Wilt was one of the first players to lift weights and be over 7 ft tall and athletic. Lesser competition is an advantage. If you put a generational talent (top 5 center) with weaker competition, he'll put up historical numbers.

This was why I used the Yao Ming example, his numbers at a very young age were Wilt-esqe against lesser competition. If you want a player who put up similar number in a similar situation, that's one.

One thing that is not discussed often is that Wilt was one of the first players to lift weights and hung around bodybuilders when there was no drug testing in the NBA. For a historically strong and athletic man at an old age he died young. It bears the ugly question if he used steroids.

Many don't talk about this, because it could hurt his legend and would be tough to accept. Like lance Armstrong's dominance for example.

Like I said, the rules, lack of competition etc. for a generational center and overall easier path led to his record numbers. Other players in that era had freakish rebounds, blocks, minutes per game. He was also the only two way top 5 center in that era. No Shaq, Kareem (yet) or Hakeem.

Wilt's coaches made him jack up 30-40 shots a game. No other player comes close to having that kind of green light to shoot. If you're bigger, stronger, more athletic and taller than everyone and you can camp out in the lane and shoot over everyone, why wouldn't you? Again, just like Yao Ming in the CBA.

The thing is, Wilt wasn't even the most impactful player in his own era.

Bill Russell put up similar rebounding numbers, shot-blocking and his team's dominated Wilt's in the playoffs. Wilt had slightly less talent and still lost until he started to focus on a team game and defense.

His selfishness and mental weakness hurt his teams. Hakeem was much stronger in this regard, Dream didn't even come close to the other supporting casts other top 10 players had in their careers.

 

Agreed 100%, impenetrable defense unstoppable offense. 4 players are the best to have ever played their position.

 

Lol, Bill Russell had at times, 7 other Hall of Fame players on his team. Slightly less talent is like saying Atlanta has slightly less talent than Miami.

 

I took a closer look and you're right. Wilt had a similar number of all stars on his teams, but Russell had a big HOF advantage.

Wilt played with two all stars most of his career and on one occasion three, Russell played with two and on one occasion three. As far as guys who made the all star game in a given year, it was definitely slightly less talent.

But Russell had at times 3-7 HOFers on his team and Wilt played with 2-3 most of his career, so it was a big advantage. I haven't checked which guys were still in their primes or peaks though.

There were times he had a better team like in his later years with Elgin Baylor and West and still only won one ring.It has been said Russell made some of those guys into Hall of famers, but I haven't checked that deep yet.

But good call. I'll have to check more into that at another time.

 

Prime Garnett is possibly the best player on the PF list.

Hakeem (1), Garnett (1), Jordan (5) plus any two scrub is enough.

 

As much as I hate to agree , all of those are better players than Dream. Except maybe Wilt but he has 11 rings so yeah...