I'll have to say it again, you cannot directly compare these player's skills against each other. Its the 'inflation' argument again...its completely unfair for the older guys..
Thats EXACTLY what I am saying. Players dont win championships by themselves. They do it with the right supporting cast. Chicago's offense was designed, around Jordan, to put complimentary players, like Paxon, in a position to help them win. Same thing with the Rockets. And if you dont have the personell to make those shots, you dont win. If we had 2s and 3s that couldnt shoot the 3, then our team fails! If Jordan doesnt have players like Rodman to battle inside or Paxon/Kerr to make the outside shots when they are open, they dont win! Role players can make or break a team! Why didnt we win more titles? Because our personel changed and the players that we here before and after werent as good of a fit as the ones that were here when we did win!
Jabbar is the all time leading scorer and played more seasons than anyone! That doesnt count for anything?
You are on the money. Ya know, Russell didnt have to score because of the players around him. No one can say Russell wouldnt be able to score more if it was required of him. If Hakeem played with high power scorers, then his offensive numbers would be less than what they were. Its just impossible to compare players from different ears, like you said. There are too many arguments that can be made when doing so. Too subjective.
Yes. I'm saying that since those guys were on the whole, BELOW average players, the odds are in favor of another NBA quality starter being able to fill their shoes. Maxwell and Smith COULD NOT MAKE AN NBA ROSTER when they left Houston. Not even a bench spot, for ANY team (Maxwell later resurfaced). What does that tell you? ANYTHING? And you're going to say that these guys were so good as to be irreplacable? When no team wanted them? Huh? Hakeem put food on their table and clothes on their kids' backs man, no doubt about it.
Odds are, Malone wont break that record, although he has a shot. Hes going to have to average 20 plus for the next three years. And Malone will be remembered as one of the top all time great power forwards. In fact, he is already.
codell, d'uh, like we don't know it's a 5 man game and you need chemistry. You are totally missing the point that Hakeem had the weakest supporting cast of these three centers, by a long shot. and NO, Jabbar's points and longevity mean jack **** to me. Besides, Hakeem ppg average is higher than Kareem's in the playoffs, and he's in the top 10 in points, rebounds, steals, blocks, anyhow. Jabbar was a reknowned playoff loser without Magic. Jabbar should have dominated a weak, diluted 70's decade, but he didn't, because the best centers could control him in big games. <b>People unable to rise their game in playoffs, need not apply.</b> Hakeem scored 27ppg, 11.5 rbp, 3.5 bpg in <b>140 playoff games</b>. That is 6ppg over his regular season average. That is the 6th highest playoff average, behind Jordan, West, Shaq, Baylor, Gervin. Wilt and Jabbar are not in the TOP TEN!!!! Kareem is not even in the top 10 in ppg for playoffs at 24ppg and 10.4 rpg. That is the same scoring as his regular season ave...he didn't step up.
Yes he did have the weakest cast. However, it was said earlier in this thread that supporting casts dont matter when it comes to winning championships as long as you have a great player. You argument is off. Points and longevity dont matter? Most people, including myself, disagree with you. Jabbar didnt win without Magic? Well, Jordan didnt come close to winning until Pippen was drafted. So does that mean Jordan isnt as good as people think he was? And again, Russell and Kareem didnt HAVE to score alot in the playoffs to help their teams win. They had other players around them. If Kareem was in Hakeem's shoes and had a weak supporting cast, do you not think his scoring average would have been higher? If Hakeem had 1 or 2 all stars playing with him, his scoring average wouldnt be as high either! Still 24 points and 10 boards in the playoffs over the course of a career isnt shabby. Hakeem's numbers are better, but its not like his numbers are WAY better than Kareem's.
That is such Bull. The media is on the inside? Dude, the media will do what it takes to sell their programs. If it means calling Jabbar the greatest because he plays in L.A., they will do it. They certainly don't have any incentive to make Hakeem a big name.
You know what? Forget about the media already. Im mainly talking about inside guys who have played the game! Ive not seen ONE, not ONE, that has Hakeem ranked ahead of any of those guys. I beg you to find something where an former NBA players states such.
You argument doesnt hold water. If Kareem doesnt have Magic, Worthy or whoever, and therefore would get more shots, you dont think he would score more points? Look at Jordan. In his earlier years, when his teamates were no good, his scoring average was much higher than it was after Pippen and co. came along.
I think one of the problems on this thread is the question: What exactly is greatness? Is it longevity, heroism, championship, domination, innovation, or the numbers? Is it intimidation, myth, the legends, defining moments? Is it how much these players inspired others? Or is it some magical quality? I think we all have different measures of greatness and are applying our different standards...on things so hard to measure. I think Olajuwon is great because of the fact he wasn't a basketball player until his mid-teens, and I think he became the a new kind of center. Wilt was big, Russell was defensive, but Kareem came up with the sky hook. But Olajuwon did something more. A center taking turn around jumpers. That was truly revolutionary for a post player. How many people use a sky hook today? No one. How many players used the turn-around jumper? Even Jordon added that weapon to his arsenal during his first comeback. The way Hakeem faked, spun, ducked like a guard to this day is unmatched by any player. He was ahead of his time. And this is my main argument. Who would you take in their prime? I would take Hakeem over any other center. Period. He could outmuscle and outrebound Jabbar. He could Defend Wilt and score on him. He could out shoot Russell. He already has shown he could out play Shaq. Maybe over a career the other players were more consistent. But who pushed the position of center to new heights? I think it was Hakeem. And make no doubt, the Modern Basketball era is far more competitive. Basketball 30 years ago didn't have the number of people playing now. There wasn't as big as a college game, much less the NBA game. Millions ball now, it's part of American culture...and it's a world game. Was that true in 1970? C'mon, 30 years ago, Shawn Bradley would have been a force. And that's the truth.
<blockquote>"<i>You argument is off. Points and longevity dont matter? Most people, including myself, disagree with you. </i>"</blockquote> that's bull, in basketball...most people in the 70s called Jabbar a playoffs loser like Malone and Barkley. Smart people look at playoff performances. Further you are just looking at ONE STAT!! Like anyone would think Pete Rose is a top 5 hitter for demolishing the top hits mark. Jabbar does not win a stat argument with Dream anymore than he wins it over Russell. Hakeem was 27 ppg to Kareem's 24 in playoffs Kareem was 24 ppg to Hakeem's 21 in regular seasons. Hakeem was superior in rebounds average in the playoffs and tied for reg season And Hakeem's totals in blocks/steals beat Kareem across the board. Further, do you realize that Karl Malone is higher in PPG and RPG that Jabbar, played in a tougher defensive era, yet no one would ever consider him better than Jabbar. So, you are very wrong when you say most people look at total points and longevity.
<blockquote><i>Ive not seen ONE, not ONE, that has Hakeem ranked ahead of any of those guys. I beg you to find something where an former NBA players states such.</i></blockquote> And apparently, you don't remember people calling Kareem a loser in the late 70s either. Codell, Quit changing the subject. Hakeem does not have to ranked ahead of them, just WITH THEM in the elite circle. The circle can be 4 now. And I bet you you can find many that will say Hakeem was superior to Kareem, anyhow. I've read for sure. What you won't find is anyone who called Hakeem a playoff loser, like you did with Kareem.
you were making some good points there until you started comparing players from different eras again...I know its hard not to do that, but you just can't compare..
Why not? And if what you say is so, that players can not be compared across eras, then Hakeem belongs as tied for the best center ever since during his era he was the best. Then you can't rank Hakeem below Jabbar, Wilt, and Russell since doing so is comparing across eras. Any one who ranks the centers is making a comparison across eras. So I think your point is full of fallacy. Also, Hakeem was considered to be the second best player of his era, behind Michael Jordon. Thus the argument could be made that since Jordon was the greatest to ever play, Hakeem might be one of the second greatest to ever play.
I think the reason why people always rank Kareem up there for centers is because the media's infatuation with the total number of points scored record, just like the media is so infatuated with Aaron's home run record. They tend to judge greatness soley on these records even though it can be quite misleading. A player's longevity doesn't impress me much, its the amount of impact they had on the whole league when they were playing is what defines greatness in my eyes. If people feel that Kareem is the greatest center ever because of the record, fine, its their stupid opinion.
