and was prime chuck hayes too short, really? but back to the first question. with shaq retiring and the inevitable all-time ranking discussions that followed, it reminded me of the common refrain we always hear when hakeem is brought up. at his peak, he was as good as anyone, but he just didn't have enough great years. this seems to be the accepted narrative among nba fans, and even among many rockets fans. but is it true? how does hakeem stack up with other all-time greats in terms of maintaining his play at or near his peak level. i decided to use PER as the basis of my comparison. whatever your thoughts on PER, as a measure of a given player it should have the same strengths and weaknesses from year to year for that player, and therefore the rise or fall of that particular player's PER each season should largely be a function of how well he played his game in that season. i picked 25 players with some of the best PER's ever (plus bill russell) to determine the average career trajectory of an all-time great. if your favorite player isn't on there, oh well. and Dr. J isn't on there because his early years in the weaker ABA completely screw up his numbers. i also didn't include moses malone's first 2 years from the ABA for the same reason. for a player's peak, i used his best back-to-back 2-year PER average (i could have used 3 or 4 years but it wouldn't have changed much). then the PER from every other year is simply compared to that peak to determine how close you were to your peak. so with shaq for example, his best 2 year PER was 30.55. at age 24, shaq's PER was 27.1. 27.1/30.55=0.89. so at age 24, shaq was at 89% of his peak. i used a player's age because players start their careers at various ages and comparing an 18 year old rookie's season to a 23 year old rookie's season doesn't make any sense because the 23 year old is obviously much further along in his development. as for the results, remember this is comparing a player to his own peak so it's a relative comparison and a measure of consistency. if rafer alston had the same PER his whole career (he didn't), he would be the most consistent player ever and look really good in this discussion even though he obviously would just be consistently close to a much lower peak value. this is just a discussion of who maintained their career at a high level for the longest. so here are the initial results: Code: [SIZE="2"][B][U]AGE Jordan Lebron Shaq Hakeem Kareem Duncan Dirk Barkley Wade Drob Wilt West Magic Kobe Karla Baylor KG Bird Moses Big O Stockton Wilkins Drexler Ewing Russell AVG[/U][/B] [U]18 0.53 0.53 19 0.58 0.68 0.55 0.61 20 0.82 0.75 0.46 0.77 0.70 0.63 0.69 21 0.82 0.89 0.93 0.84 0.63 0.65 0.96 0.80 0.71 0.76 0.61 0.78 22 0.88 0.78 0.94 0.80 0.76 0.86 0.82 0.80 0.60 0.65 0.86 0.91 0.48 0.78 0.82 0.95 0.56 0.83 0.96 0.79 23 0.95 0.93 0.86 0.92 0.98 0.92 0.87 0.90 0.79 0.88 0.91 0.86 0.86 0.63 0.82 0.76 0.91 0.96 0.72 0.69 0.83 0.70 1.04 0.86 24 1.01 1.01 0.89 0.90 1.02 0.88 0.92 0.99 0.95 0.87 0.87 0.88 0.84 0.97 0.73 0.86 0.83 0.73 0.93 0.91 0.80 0.80 0.85 0.76 0.95 0.89 25 0.99 0.99 0.94 0.89 0.97 1.00 0.81 0.96 0.99 0.91 1.00 0.98 0.87 0.88 0.86 0.92 0.83 0.83 0.97 1.02 0.98 0.87 1.01 0.88 0.92 0.93 26 0.99 0.87 1.00 0.96 0.83 0.99 0.94 0.97 0.74 0.91 1.00 1.01 0.90 0.86 0.96 1.03 0.92 0.89 1.03 0.98 0.97 0.97 0.99 0.89 0.83 0.94 27 1.01 1.00 0.92 0.90 1.00 1.01 1.03 1.04 0.80 0.99 0.99 1.01 1.04 0.87 0.97 1.02 0.89 0.97 0.93 1.01 0.98 0.93 1.04 0.89 0.97 28 0.88 0.99 0.92 0.92 1.00 0.99 0.88 0.96 1.02 0.90 0.92 0.86 0.96 0.89 0.97 0.98 0.98 0.84 0.94 0.99 0.99 0.93 0.96 0.83 0.94 29 0.95 0.97 0.90 0.94 0.85 0.88 0.93 0.88 0.96 0.89 0.94 1.01 0.89 0.92 0.77 0.93 0.94 0.87 0.91 0.96 0.91 0.99 0.92 0.88 0.92 30 0.97 1.04 0.99 0.96 0.83 0.81 0.97 0.83 0.90 0.99 0.90 0.81 0.75 0.84 0.97 0.79 0.80 0.90 1.02 0.87 0.84 0.89 0.90 31 0.70 0.80 0.96 0.87 0.90 0.82 0.90 1.03 0.78 0.99 0.94 0.81 0.88 0.62 0.88 1.03 0.92 0.79 0.95 0.98 0.77 0.93 0.79 0.87 32 0.94 0.88 0.99 0.86 0.90 0.84 0.89 0.92 0.69 0.95 0.88 0.92 0.74 0.74 0.73 0.81 0.72 0.99 0.92 0.94 0.88 0.85 0.86 33 0.89 0.80 0.97 0.87 0.91 0.82 0.82 0.78 0.93 1.02 0.77 0.67 0.81 0.82 0.70 0.93 1.01 0.84 0.84 0.78 0.85 34 0.80 0.71 0.86 0.79 0.81 0.77 0.81 0.64 0.94 0.98 0.76 0.72 0.73 0.78 0.63 0.93 0.89 0.83 0.86 0.70 0.80 35 0.56 0.79 0.80 0.83 0.78 0.58 0.90 0.90 0.76 0.77 0.70 0.52 0.92 0.68 0.83 0.94 0.77 36 0.73 0.88 0.72 0.71 0.67 0.60 0.79 0.95 0.74 0.93 0.78 0.77 37 0.59 0.63 0.78 0.59 0.87 0.72 0.95 0.81 0.68 0.74 38 0.66 0.57 0.79 0.77 0.74 0.68 0.94 0.52 0.71 39 0.61 0.55 0.61 0.76 0.47 0.93 0.64 0.58 0.64 40 0.54 0.63 0.89 0.68 41 0.44 0.44[/U][/SIZE] so that's just a big jumble of numbers. but what does it all mean? well, first, here is the average trajectory a player's career takes. a pretty smooth upward ascent up to about age 27 (10 of the 25 players peaked at 27) and then a steady decline (if stockton hadn't screwed up the data point at 40, it would look better). even with kobe being the only data point for 18 and kareem for 41, those 2 ages still fit on the curve really well. so how does hakeem fare? here is his data overlaying the average trajectory: he fares very well. for most of his 20's he oscillates around the average, but in his 30's he holds on to his peak much better than most. what about that paragon of consistency and the real inspiration behind this study, tim duncan? perception appears to be reality. except for one year, he is as close or closer to his peak than the average. very impressive. so what about over some long career spans? tim duncan has played from ages 21-34. who played closest to their peak over those ages? Code: [SIZE="2"]Hakeem 0.9260 West 0.9209 Wilkins 0.9182 Magic 0.9179 Duncan 0.9163 Lebron 0.9119 Drob 0.9118 Jordan 0.9079 Shaq 0.9058 Kareem 0.9001 Stockton 0.8997 Kobe 0.8968 Barkley 0.8781 AVG 0.8771 Ewing 0.8768 Moses 0.8726 Drexler 0.8721 Russell 0.8699 Wade 0.8677 Big O 0.8644 Dirk 0.8627 Bird 0.8579 Wilt 0.8546 Karla 0.8429 Baylor 0.8326 KG 0.8321[/SIZE] why it's our good friend, that brief flash in the pan Hakeem Olajuwon. playing at 92.6% of his peak for those 14 years (note: if MJ's 1995 season had been like his other seasons, he might have edged into 1st place). what if instead of ages, we just go with the best stretch of a player's career? here are the best 12 year stretches: Code: [SIZE="2"]Best 12 yr avg Stockton 0.9549 West 0.9439 Hakeem 0.9363 Duncan 0.9319 Shaq 0.9310 Jordan 0.9253 Wilkins 0.9231 Karla 0.9149 Kareem 0.9114 Barkley 0.9057 Magic 0.9056 Drob 0.9012 Ewing 0.8983 Drexler 0.8980 Kobe 0.8968 Moses 0.8895 Russell 0.8844 Big O 0.8837 Wade 0.8677 Dirk 0.8627 Bird 0.8595 Lebron 0.8591 KG 0.8550 Wilt 0.8546 Baylor 0.8266[/SIZE] and 10 year stretches: Code: [SIZE="2"]Best 10 yr avg Stockton 0.9611 West 0.9532 Wilkins 0.9530 Shaq 0.9489 Hakeem 0.9452 Jordan 0.9416 Duncan 0.9412 Kareem 0.9277 Barkley 0.9246 Drob 0.9215 Big O 0.9186 Magic 0.9159 Karla 0.9155 Drexler 0.9111 Ewing 0.9111 Kobe 0.9076 Moses 0.9044 Russell 0.8984 Dirk 0.8905 Wilt 0.8836 KG 0.8816 Bird 0.8812 Wade 0.8677 Lebron 0.8591 Baylor 0.8402[/SIZE] so basically, no matter how you slice it, hakeem stayed near his peak over the course of his career better than almost any all-time great ever. so the next time you're in a discussion about this topic and someone tells you hakeem wasn't great for very long, you can confidently tell them "you're wrong, some guy on an internet message board said so." and about the second question - no, prime chuck hayes is not too short, he's awesome. P.S. if you have a problem with any of the formatting or see any errors, well, keep that stuff to yourself.
a few additional thoughts on some other players. kareem is often heralded for his unparalleled longevity, but was that really the case in terms of production? while his career has some big swings early on, after age 31, he basically follows the normal career trajectory very closely (though as the only data point at age 41, that is kind of expected). it appears his gift was not so much that he never fell off but that a) he had a high peak from which to fall and b) stayed healthy enough to play out his declining years while most are too injured to make it to 40. another player noted for his longevity is our good friend karl malone. on the one hand, he was amazingly productive in his later years. he peaked at 33, the latest peak by 2 years. on the other hand, he got off to a very slow start. he wasn't even at 75% of his peak at age 24. in fact, his career trajectory actually just looks like someone who was actually 4 years younger than we thought. here is his chart if you just shift his whole career by 4 years. it's much more in line with everybody else. it's like they just got his birth certificate wrong. also, the only other player to be below 75% at 24 was larry bird, and maybe not coincidentally he peaked at the second highest age, 31 (unfortunately, he missed almost all of the next season and was never the same so we'll never know if he would have had malone's longevity into his 30's). perhaps being a late starter allows you to maintain later in your career and regardless of age, the body only has so many years it can stay at its peak. unless you're john stockton apparently. guy was a freak and basically didn't fall off in terms of his per minute contributions. although, interestingly, just like malone his career got off to a very slow start. one surprise to me was how quickly wilt fell off. after age 27 he started falling off quickly. the older, bigger wilt just wasn't the same as the slim model that rolled off the assembly line in the early 60's.
They way I look at it, Hakeem had a long peak, and then a superpeak that people mistakenly call his "peak." He simply took it to another gear that other players dont have.
This is really nice, thanks. Is it the case that older generation players appear to peak later? If that's the case, it could just be a function of what age they enter the league at. Are the results similar if you go by number of years in the league instead of age?
As good as Hakeem was, he never had a killer instinct and he never wanted to show people up, except for Robinson. That is why people question him. I think Hakeem lacked what Bird, Magic and Jordan didn't. Shaq also had the killer instinct Hakeem didn't. The series against Robinson showed that Hakeem could have taken his game to a greater level. But for many years Hakeem felt contend not to.
It is real. Why would you question it? Hakeem was a nice guy on the court and he had that spirit of competition thing in spades. The only time he really got angry was when he felt the nba slighted him, and robinson paid for that. I suppose you could also say that when olajuwon was younger he had more of a temper, but it was always directed at being slighted in some way, never at his opponent. That all changed with Robinson. Micheal and Larry and Shaq and Magic had that for thier whole careers.
I guess you never heard of Billy Paultz, Mitch Kupchak, and Michael Cage. Also treated Patrick Ewing like his b**** for his whole career. Your post is like a surreal fairweather fan post from something like an ESPN board that only saw Hakeem in a few games.
How did Shaq exhibit a "killer instinct" in a way that Hakeem didn't? You are confused if you think disrespecting the opponent automatically makes you a better competitor.
I acknowledged that he had a temper. But, maybe I should have made myself clearer. The spirit of competition (killer instinct) was meant to convey that Olajuwon didn't try to show up his competition, the way others I've pointed out tried to bury their opponent. Also, when I mentioned temper I was specifically trying to guard against somebody using spirit of completion and THAT and then bring up Hakeem's tantrum he threw when he wanted to play center, not pf. Rather than meaning to color him a saint. The fighting that you brought up doesn't change the fact that Hakeem was a "nice" player. He played a "quite" game and only unleashed the beast on Robinson, the fist fighting notwithstanding.
He has said in the past that he was a long time Rockets fan from the 80s/90s, before moving to Memphis. He also said this: http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showpost.php?p=2984193&postcount=13 Change of heart, I guess.
I do not agree with this at all. Look up his stats in his early years against Boston in the playoffs. He was a beast.
bwaahahahaaa...hahahahahaha...hahAHAHAHAHAHA...pffhahaHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...bwahahahahhahahaHAHAHAHA
I do think that Olajuwon was hungrier earlier in his career. He came out like a tornado, but then there were a lot of years that he went through the motions and finally after Rudy T re-energized him, he had a couple of great basketball playoffs starting with the 7 game series with the sonics, then the finals with NY and finally the robinson dismantling. After that the sizzle ran out.
Don't mind him. He's as delusional as they come. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=204554&highlight=rudy
