Is Hakeem Overrated?

[Killakobe81]

Always putting Kobe where he doesnt belong. Nobody in their right mind would consider Kobe at 4. Excluding old timers:

MJ
KAJ
Magic
Bird
Shaq
Duncan
Dream
Kobe

Hasnt the biggest knock on Olajuwon always been the fact that he had a relatively short prime? Or is that BS??

There are plenty that can knock Duncan and Bird for the 4 spot as well. LIke someone else posted, after the top 3, you could make a strong case for any of those guys. You dont like Kobe, we get that. You are the Spur version of Kool with his hate on Duncan. But most on here even if they have Kobe at the bottom of that list agree that it's pretty close. Kobe has a strong case for 4 so does Shaq, Duncan and Bird. You dont agree, that is why it's a NBA forum, state your case. I wont argue for Kobe here because nothing has changed since he won #5 he had two up and down regular season and playoffs since then. Not enough to move him up or down. Thought about moving up timmy but he the bed against OKC ... happens.

[Killakobe81]

My revised list:

1. MJ
2. Kareem
3. Magic
4a. Bird
4b. Kobe
4c. Duncan
4d. Shaq
4e. Hakeem
5. Lebron (if he closes the deal I dont put ringless players in ANY top 10 not even Barry Sanders)

Normally when players are close I use rings as the tie breaker, but wil give Bird the nod for now.
But when ranking players i look at:

1. Rings
2. Significant contributions to mutliple les
3. Outstanding peak years where they were considered the best at their respective position
4. Being a TRUE "star" and not a "comet" ...meaning being a legit star for multiple seasons and not a flash in the pan like TMAC, Penny, Antione Walker or Derick Coleman
5. Last would be stats. Advanced traditional doesnt really matter. I think you use them to validate what you see. For example, I remember Hakeem going nuclear in the playofffs against the sonics in Game 7 that is why I brought it up. Didnt recall the numbers sol I looked them up. But it just confirmed that Hakeem was a bad man. I remember Kobe's performances against Sacto and the Spurs in the playoffs the OT against the Pacers in the Finals. i look up those boxscores and they confirm what I remember.

[FkLA]

Why do Kobe fanboys never analyze rings/contribution? He won them with loaded teams and for an organization that always wins. Winning rings in San Antonio/Houston is much more difficult than in LA. Houston hasnt sniffed a le since Hakeem retired, SA will be in the same boat post-Duncan. Lakers will be back in contention 5-10 yrs after Kobe. Then you add the fact that he was a second banana for the first three and that when he had limited squads he led his teams to exactly the same results guys like Tmac/VC/AI led their limited teams to, and its just laughable to have him ahead of the guys on that list. Hes last on that list anything else is re ed bruh.

[ambchang]

Slightly. Hakeem was absolutely unstoppable given the right team (entire offense runs through him, great shooter opening up the lane for him), but he was not a great passer (good, but not Walton, or even Shaq or Duncan good), and requires a lot of space in the low post to operate.

On defense, he was arguably one of the best of all time in terms of individual defense or even help defense. But his team defense wasn't as good as the numbers indicate.

He is top 10, without question, mainly because he was allowed to showcase his skills with the right team. If he was surrounded by crap teammates his whole career, he would have been another Robinson.

[Killakobe81]

Why do Kobe fanboys never analyze rings/contribution? He won them with loaded teams and for an organization that always wins. Winning rings in San Antonio/Houston is much more difficult than in LA. Houston hasnt sniffed a le since Hakeem retired, SA will be in the same boat post-Duncan. Lakers will be back in contention 5-10 yrs after Kobe. Then you add the fact that he was a second banana for the first three and that when he had limited squads he led his teams to exactly the same results guys like Tmac/VC/AI led their limited teams to, and its just laughable to have him ahead of the guys on that list. Hes last on that list anything else is re ed bruh.

Dream has 2 rings and how are his contributions any different when it is even more difficult (historically) for a perimeter player to lead a team to a le? Kobe did build off Shaq, no one denies that. But he was more of a contibutor than Wade is right now. Bird had 2 HOF frontliners plus another in the backcourt. Sure Tim and Hakeem pop the cherry for their cities and that WAS impressive but in the grand shceme legacy wise...Kobe's career and accomplishments rivals Duncan and Shaq's and pretty much eclipses everyone else after MJ, Kareem and Magic.

[ambchang]

Killakobe, stop drinking the Lakers koolaid.

Kobe's last two championship were far and away the most stacked during their respective years. In fact, the Lakers has been the most stacked team since 08, until the three amigos joined forces two summers ago, but even then, the Lakers have by far the best front court.

The first two (00 and 01), it was all Shaq, you can sort of make a case Kobe contributed some in 02, but like every sane person knows, TMac or Carter would have won those championships next to Shaq from 00 to 02. While TMac and Carter were no doubt fantastic players in their own right, no one in their right minds would put them in the top 10, or even top 30 of all time.

Kobe's accomplishments looks great on paper strictly because of his 5 les, but when you realized how much help he had for those les, he moves him down a notch. Sort of like how Willis Reed won those two les in the 70s.

[Killakobe81]

Killakobe, stop drinking the Lakers koolaid.

Kobe's last two championship were far and away the most stacked during their respective years. In fact, the Lakers has been the most stacked team since 08, until the three amigos joined forces two summers ago, but even then, the Lakers have by far the best front court.

The first two (00 and 01), it was all Shaq, you can sort of make a case Kobe contributed some in 02, but like every sane person knows, TMac or Carter would have won those championships next to Shaq from 00 to 02. While TMac and Carter were no doubt fantastic players in their own right, no one in their right minds would put them in the top 10, or even top 30 of all time.

Kobe's accomplishments looks great on paper strictly because of his 5 les, but when you realized how much help he had for those les, he moves him down a notch. Sort of like how Willis Reed won those two les in the 70s.

You sometimes make good solid arguments, but when you make asinine comments like that, especially after Kobe did this:

In 2000
1. Kobe scored 28 and led us to a OT win in Game 3 of the finals after shaq fouled out
2. the last 2 games vs. Portland in a epic WCF, Kobe had 33 and 6 asists and 25 7and 11 rebounds in Game 7

2001
1. In the second round versus a loaded Sacramento team Kobe closed out that series with: 48 and 16/36 and 7 both on the road in one of the loudest arenas.
2. Against a Tim/Pop/David and recent rafter anointee Bruce Bowen squad ... Kobe put up 45 and 10 on the road in SAS (another loud arena) and followed that with 28, 7 and 6 ... 36 and 8 and 24 and 11.
3. In the Finals: (after a horrible game one which contrbuted to our only playoff loss) Kobe had 31 and 8, 32 and 6, 19 10 and 9 and 26 12 and 6 in the closeout game.

Sure Shaq did ALL of the work ...
Look we had some good debates on Duncan and Kobe in the past. But if you continue to write such uninformed crap I cant take you seriously. When you take your Kobe bias out we can continue, until then refer to our previous debate.

[Killakobe81]

Killakobe, stop drinking the Lakers koolaid.

Kobe's last two championship were far and away the most stacked during their respective years. In fact, the Lakers has been the most stacked team since 08, until the three amigos joined forces two summers ago, but even then, the Lakers have by far the best front court.

The first two (00 and 01), it was all Shaq, you can sort of make a case Kobe contributed some in 02, but like every sane person knows, TMac or Carter would have won those championships next to Shaq from 00 to 02. While TMac and Carter were no doubt fantastic players in their own right, no one in their right minds would put them in the top 10, or even top 30 of all time.

Kobe's accomplishments looks great on paper strictly because of his 5 les, but when you realized how much help he had for those les, he moves him down a notch. Sort of like how Willis Reed won those two les in the 70s.

LOL maybe. But 2001 Lakers would of swept that team. Maybe they (2009-2010) Lakers beat last year's Mavs, the 2007 Spurs and Wade's Heat but the last 2 Laker le teams were NOT stacked like the 2008 Celtics 2005 Spurs or even the Pistons of 2004.

You take away Kobe, Phil and Fisher and that is a useless group of players without their leadership. Pau is a high skill player but would of never won without their guidance. In fact, Pau had to be carried on his spanish national teams more times than not. Not hating but it's a fact. Ask the euro fans on here. Manu and Scola owned his ass in international play and those countries are HUGE rivals in bball and soccer.

[LkrFan]

You sometimes make good solid arguments, but when you make asinine comments like that, especially after Kobe did this:

In 2000
1. Kobe scored 28 and led us to a OT win in Game 3 of the finals after shaq fouled out
2. the last 2 games vs. Portland in a epic WCF, Kobe had 33 and 6 asists and 25 7and 11 rebounds in Game 7

2001
1. In the second round versus a loaded Sacramento team Kobe closed out that series with: 48 and 16/36 and 7 both on the road in one of the loudest arenas.
2. Against a Tim/Pop/David and recent rafter anointee Bruce Bowen squad ... Kobe put up 45 and 10 on the road in SAS (another loud arena) and followed that with 28, 7 and 6 ... 36 and 8 and 24 and 11.
3. In the Finals: (after a horrible game one which contrbuted to our only playoff loss) Kobe had 31 and 8, 32 and 6, 19 10 and 9 and 26 12 and 6 in the closeout game.

Sure Shaq did ALL of the work ...
Look we had some good debates on Duncan and Kobe in the past. But if you continue to write such uninformed crap I cant take you seriously. When you take your Kobe bias out we can continue, until then refer to our previous debate.

Killa with da goods. Props son.

[Ice009]

You sometimes make good solid arguments, but when you make asinine comments like that, especially after Kobe did this:

In 2000
1. Kobe scored 28 and led us to a OT win in Game 3 of the finals after shaq fouled out
2. the last 2 games vs. Portland in a epic WCF, Kobe had 33 and 6 asists and 25 7and 11 rebounds in Game 7

2001
1. In the second round versus a loaded Sacramento team Kobe closed out that series with: 48 and 16/36 and 7 both on the road in one of the loudest arenas.
2. Against a Tim/Pop/David and recent rafter anointee Bruce Bowen squad ... Kobe put up 45 and 10 on the road in SAS (another loud arena) and followed that with 28, 7 and 6 ... 36 and 8 and 24 and 11.
3. In the Finals: (after a horrible game one which contrbuted to our only playoff loss) Kobe had 31 and 8, 32 and 6, 19 10 and 9 and 26 12 and 6 in the closeout game.

Bruce Bowen wasn't on the Spurs in 2001. Those Kobe games are the reason the Spurs went out and got him.

Derek Anderson was the starting 2 guard. Derek separated his shoulder in round 2 and missed the first two games of the series. He played in games 3 and 4 but was ineffective scoring 2 points for the whole series. I think Antonio Daniels was guarding Kobe quite a bit in the series. We had no one that could guard him at all.

That Lakers team was killer and we got totally rolled (It's one of the only Lakers teams I give credit to in this era for being great), but you went to the trouble of getting his stats and it seems like you didn't even watch the series? I didn't have access to watch it, but still recall quite a bit of it. If we had a healthy Derek Anderson and Bruce Bowen then that series may have been the mega series it was billed to be. Spurs had no one to guard Kobe except a short average defender in Antonio Daniels. Any elite scorer could have lit up our guards that season.

Kobe did contribute quite a lot though as the Spurs lost both those first two games at home which were close. Without Kobe's huge games they may not have even won those first two games. I thought the Spurs did a good job on Shaq, but that gave Kobe space and he killed us. I don't know if we would have done any better, may have still gotten rolled, but I would have liked to have seen that series if DA was fully healthy from game 1 onwards.

Bottom line to me is that Kobe did have quite a few monster games, but overall Shaq was clearly the better player who drew more of the defensive attention. That gave Kobe more room to do his thing when the other team had to have it's primary focus on stopping Shaq. Spurs did a great job on Shaq numerous times in those early playoff series, but that also allowed Kobe just a little bit more room, and a player as lethal as him took advantage of it.

I really don't know if Tmac or VC would have been able to do the same, they very well could have, but it'd just be a guess.

[dbreiden83080]

Would have loved to see Prime Duncan go at it with him in a series.. 2003 Timmy versus 94 Hakeem..

But no he was incredible..

Abused Robinson in the playoffs, Beat Ewing in the finals and Shaq...

[tlongII]

Wilt would dominate in any era. He was that good.

[Killakobe81]

Bruce Bowen wasn't on the Spurs in 2001. Those Kobe games are the reason the Spurs went out and got him.

Derek Anderson was the starting 2 guard. Derek separated his shoulder in round 2 and missed the first two games of the series. He played in games 3 and 4 but was ineffective scoring 2 points for the whole series. I think Antonio Daniels was guarding Kobe quite a bit in the series. We had no one that could guard him at all.

That Lakers team was killer and we got totally rolled (It's one of the only Lakers teams I give credit to in this era for being great), but you went to the trouble of getting his stats and it seems like you didn't even watch the series? I didn't have access to watch it, but still recall quite a bit of it. If we had a healthy Derek Anderson and Bruce Bowen then that series may have been the mega series it was billed to be. Spurs had no one to guard Kobe except a short average defender in Antonio Daniels. Any elite scorer could have lit up our guards that season.

Kobe did contribute quite a lot though as the Spurs lost both those first two games at home which were close. Without Kobe's huge games they may not have even won those first two games. I thought the Spurs did a good job on Shaq, but that gave Kobe space and he killed us. I don't know if we would have done any better, may have still gotten rolled, but I would have liked to have seen that series if DA was fully healthy from game 1 onwards.

Bottom line to me is that Kobe did have quite a few monster games, but overall Shaq was clearly the better player who drew more of the defensive attention. That gave Kobe more room to do his thing when the other team had to have it's primary focus on stopping Shaq. Spurs did a great job on Shaq numerous times in those early playoff series, but that also allowed Kobe just a little bit more room, and a player as lethal as him took advantage of it.

I really don't know if Tmac or VC would have been able to do the same, they very well could have, but it'd just be a guess.

my bad on Bruce Bowen ... And you are right Shaq drew attention from Kobe and I'm pretty sure Kobe did some of the same for Shaq. Shaq was the more dominant player I never disputed that. Lol tmac, rofl Vc ... Shaq couldn't win with prime Penny and barely won with Wade playing at a level he has never reached since. He couldn't win with Nash or LeBron either. Give Kobe his due period. He won with Pau. Very skilled but not as good as any of those guys.

[Killakobe81]

And even more importantly praise to Hakeem who won with past their primes Otis Thorpe and Drexler as his wingmen ... That first le wasn't ALL Hakeem because no one wins without help but he had some of the least ... One of the few champions that won a le without another HOF caliber #2

[dbreiden83080]

Wilt would dominate in any era. He was that good.

True..

[Blake]

* A shot-blocking machine. The only other shotblocker in his class all-time is David Robinson.

Duncan is right there as well.

[baseline bum]

Duncan is right there as well.

LOL, not even close. Duncan has never had 3 blocks a game for a season, while Robinson and Olajuwon averaged that for their respective careers.

[dbreiden83080]

LOL, not even close. Duncan has never had 3 blocks a game for a season, while Robinson and Olajuwon averaged that for their respective careers.

That's what happens when in the 80's and 90's the refs actually let them play.. You blow on guys that come to the rim these days and it's a flagrant..

[baseline bum]

That, and having a vertical helps too.

[dbreiden83080]

That, and having a vertical helps too.

Duncan does have the blocks record for the finals..


2003..

[Blake]

Duncan does have the blocks record for the finals..


2003..

Duncan and Robinson also have the exact same blocks per playoff game average at 2.56.

Both better averages in the playoffs than anyone else of note not named Hakeem.

[ambchang]

You sometimes make good solid arguments, but when you make asinine comments like that, especially after Kobe did this:

In 2000
1. Kobe scored 28 and led us to a OT win in Game 3 of the finals after shaq fouled out
2. the last 2 games vs. Portland in a epic WCF, Kobe had 33 and 6 asists and 25 7and 11 rebounds in Game 7

He had three good games out of 23?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../gamelog/2000/

Shaq had 5 games over 40 points. Using the Kobe benchmark of 33 points? Shaq had 11 games of 33 points or more. ELEVEN.

11 rebounds is the high mark for Kobe? Shaq had 21 out of 23 games of 11 rebounds or more. But Shaq is a center, so this is more or less a moot point.

As for the assists, Kobe is guard, and had 7 assists 3 times in the 00 playoffs. Shaq had one game of 7 assists, and one game of 6 assists.

2000 was no contest, Shaq was THE Lakers.

2001
1. In the second round versus a loaded Sacramento team Kobe closed out that series with: 48 and 16/36 and 7 both on the road in one of the loudest arenas.
2. Against a Tim/Pop/David and recent rafter anointee Bruce Bowen squad ... Kobe put up 45 and 10 on the road in SAS (another loud arena) and followed that with 28, 7 and 6 ... 36 and 8 and 24 and 11.
3. In the Finals: (after a horrible game one which contrbuted to our only playoff loss) Kobe had 31 and 8, 32 and 6, 19 10 and 9 and 26 12 and 6 in the closeout game.

Kobe was a lot better in 2001, we all know that, but Shaq was the center of the entire Lakers.

Shaq averaged only 1 more point than Kobe, but the entire reason is because teams were double / triple teaming Shaq. Could the Lakers go 15-1 in the playoffs without Kobe? Of course not, but the Lakers could easily win the championship that year with any all-star caliber player in place of Kobe. The Lakers couldn't win squat without Shaq that year.

I am not even going to go into how dominant Shaq was on the boards that year in the playoffs, it was sick.

Sure Shaq did ALL of the work ...
Look we had some good debates on Duncan and Kobe in the past. But if you continue to write such uninformed crap I cant take you seriously. When you take your Kobe bias out we can continue, until then refer to our previous debate.

2000 was pretty much locked, it was all Shaq. I can stand some debate on 2001. I am sure you watched that impressive playoff run by the Lakers, and anyone who watched it knew the Lakers were Shaq. Teams gear up for Shaq, that's why stiffs like Mengke Bateer had a job. That's why large, immobile or otherwise skillless bigmen were in demand. No team looked for a Kobe stopper, every team looked for a Shaq stopper, and the only ones they could find were another body with 6 fouls, and yet Shaq ran through them and dominated the playoffs.

[Killakobe81]

He had three good games out of 23?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/.../gamelog/2000/

Shaq had 5 games over 40 points. Using the Kobe benchmark of 33 points? Shaq had 11 games of 33 points or more. ELEVEN.

11 rebounds is the high mark for Kobe? Shaq had 21 out of 23 games of 11 rebounds or more. But Shaq is a center, so this is more or less a moot point.

As for the assists, Kobe is guard, and had 7 assists 3 times in the 00 playoffs. Shaq had one game of 7 assists, and one game of 6 assists.

2000 was no contest, Shaq was THE Lakers.



Kobe was a lot better in 2001, we all know that, but Shaq was the center of the entire Lakers.

Shaq averaged only 1 more point than Kobe, but the entire reason is because teams were double / triple teaming Shaq. Could the Lakers go 15-1 in the playoffs without Kobe? Of course not, but the Lakers could easily win the championship that year with any all-star caliber player in place of Kobe. The Lakers couldn't win squat without Shaq that year.

I am not even going to go into how dominant Shaq was on the boards that year in the playoffs, it was sick.



2000 was pretty much locked, it was all Shaq. I can stand some debate on 2001. I am sure you watched that impressive playoff run by the Lakers, and anyone who watched it knew the Lakers were Shaq. Teams gear up for Shaq, that's why stiffs like Mengke Bateer had a job. That's why large, immobile or otherwise skillless bigmen were in demand. No team looked for a Kobe stopper, every team looked for a Shaq stopper, and the only ones they could find were another body with 6 fouls, and yet Shaq ran through them and dominated the playoffs.

Already conceded that it was MOSTLY Shaq. Never did I say it was all Kobe, or even 50% in 2000 or 2001. I just find it silly to say it was ALL Shaq, even in 2000. 65-75% Shaq (not counting role players)? No problem. ALL Shaq is from the Skip Bayless, Stephen A Smith school of basketbal analysis, and I would hope you are better than that. But your bias clouds your judgement ... when Kobe and Duncan are not the subject matter, your posts are usually well informed. But this is a lot of horsehit, backed by the fact Shaq was not only the MVP of the league (when healthy and in shape) not only the Lakers. I get that. Yet still it was not ALL Shaq, I know I watched the Lakers for almost 25 years. When it was all Shaq, he got swept out of the playoffs ...consistently. He could not and did not win until Kobe and later Wade stepped up. He was not clutch because his FT shooting and (on the road) and foul trouble limited his effectiveness late in games.That is not hating. Just fact. It's also a fact, Shaq especially in Game 1's at home was the most dominanting player I have EVER seen not named MJ. Since you looked at Shaq's stats check his game 1 splits. I bet plenty of those eleven came in Games 1 and 2 and I bet at LEAST 7 are home games. Plenty of 30 and 15 games in those scenarios. But as the series shifts to San Antonio, Portland, Sacramento etc. his game suffered due to the lack of home-cooking and Kobe stepped up, even in 2000.

[ambchang]

LOL maybe. But 2001 Lakers would of swept that team. Maybe they (2009-2010) Lakers beat last year's Mavs, the 2007 Spurs and Wade's Heat but the last 2 Laker le teams were NOT stacked like the 2008 Celtics 2005 Spurs or even the Pistons of 2004.

Wonder why that is. The Lakers have Shaq, Fisher, Horry, and Fox in 2001, and Gasol, Bynum, Artest/Ariza in 09/10. Kobe became a more well-rounded and overall better in 09/10, and yet the 01 would have swept the 09/10 version by your own admission. Really speaks to how important Shaq was in 01, does it?
And also, I really need to clarify, I mean the Lakers were stacked in their years, allowing them to win the championship. I am not going into the argument of whether the 08 Celtics or 05 Spurs were more stacked, but the 09/10 Lakers were more stacked than any other 09/10 teams, thus allowing them to win the championship.

You take away Kobe, Phil and Fisher and that is a useless group of players without their leadership. Pau is a high skill player but would of never won without their guidance. In fact, Pau had to be carried on his spanish national teams more times than not. Not hating but it's a fact. Ask the euro fans on here. Manu and Scola owned his ass in international play and those countries are HUGE rivals in bball and soccer.

Pau was skilled, he may have lacked leadership skills, but his basketball skills are great. He may not be the second coming of KAJ, but he was skilled enough to be a top 5 big man in the league (some would argue top 3) in 09 and 10. That is what is important.

[Killakobe81]

Wonder why that is. The Lakers have Shaq, Fisher, Horry, and Fox in 2001, and Gasol, Bynum, Artest/Ariza in 09/10. Kobe became a more well-rounded and overall better in 09/10, and yet the 01 would have swept the 09/10 version by your own admission. Really speaks to how important Shaq was in 01, does it?
And also, I really need to clarify, I mean the Lakers were stacked in their years, allowing them to win the championship. I am not going into the argument of whether the 08 Celtics or 05 Spurs were more stacked, but the 09/10 Lakers were more stacked than any other 09/10 teams, thus allowing them to win the championship.



Pau was skilled, he may have lacked leadership skills, but his basketball skills are great. He may not be the second coming of KAJ, but he was skilled enough to be a top 5 big man in the league (some would argue top 3) in 09 and 10. That is what is important.

So we agree. Shaq was great. Where we disagree on is Kobe's importance to their teams. You can post all the bull- theories or stats you want, I saw those games and if you did too and watched objectively, how was 2000 ALL Shaq?! I watched al those games. I even have them on VHS.

BTW, What le run was ALL Duncan or even MJ? Shaq had a future HOF to help him. Sure Kobe was young and not as good as he would someday be, but he had a ALL NBA team-mate at his side who they do not win without. 2001 was not ALL Shaq but of course he was important, he was the real MVP of the league at that time (2000-2002). Kobe, Fisher, Fox and Horry ALL made huge contributions. Shaq was the biggest but Kobe began to narrow that gap. I would say more 60-40 than 65/35 (2001) and 55/45 by 2002.