Put prime Hakeem in Bill Russell's era

[-23-]

A PRIME Hakeem was not much better than a 23 year old Hakeem. Of course, there will be those that use his 13 games in the '94 and '95 playoffs as some kind of sample size (his seven games against Ewing in the '94 Finals, and his six games against Robinson in the '95 playoffs.) Yet, they will ignore the fact that in his other 1238 regular season games, and his other 132 playoff games, he was just a very good player. You want a REAL sample size? How about an 18 SEASON career, in which he NEVER led the NBA in scoring, nor in FG%. He led the NBA in rebounding, TWICE, and in blocked shots, THREE times. What does THAT tell you? He simply COULDN'T lead the NBA in scoring, nor in efficiency from the floor. He was, at his peak, a very good rebounder, and nothing more. In fact, when he was paired with Barkley in '97, Barkley outrebounded him by FOUR per game.

Now, if a PRIME Kareem was putting up 35 ppg seasons and on .574 shooting, I suspect that he would have been over 40 ppg, but on a considerably lower FG% in the early 60's. BUT, Hakeem was NEVER even CLOSE to the scorer, or shooter, that a PRIME Kareem was. So, I just don't see Hakeem putting up anything more than 30-33 ppg, and on 46-47% shooting, in the early 60's. Certainly very good numbers, BUT, obviously they would have PALED in comparison to Wilt's seasons (year-after-year.)

A prime Hakeem is MUCH better than a 23 year old Hakeem. I've followed Hakeem since 84'.

[jlauber]

A prime Hakeem is MUCH better than a 23 year old Hakeem. I've followed Hakeem since 84'.

The NUMBERS clearly do NOT show a MUCH better Hakeem in '94 than in '86. Stats aren't everything, but even in his very next season, in '87, he was first team all-defense.

BTW, a PRIME Hakeem couldn't lead the league in scoring (and was considerably behind the leader.) And he was MILES behind the leaders in FG% and rebounding. How come?

Yet, a PRIME Kareem just BLOWS AWAY the same 38 year old Abdul Jabbar that was scoring 33 ppg on .634 shooting against Hakeem in their FIVE H2H's in the '86 regular season (and then another 27 ppg, with two 30+ games in their five playoff games.)

[Fazotronic]

im going to show you exactly were your logic fails.

What a moronic post. Kareem was the "bridge." If there was ever a VALID comparison, it would be the Wilt-Kareem, then Hakeem-Wilt H2H's. Did Kareem's game improve in his 20 years? Prove it. He was more dominant in his 71 and 72 seasons than at any other point in his career. In fact, he had some other seasons AFTER that that were considerably WORSE than what he had in the 80's. So, you can't have it both ways. He was dominant early in his career, leveled off in his physical prime, and then, while being a very good center in the 80's was nowhere near as dominant. As mentioned earlier, Moses pounded him in their post-season H2H's.

ther you have it. can't you see it? i said like a thousend times that big athletic guys had it easier in the 50s/60s.
You said it yourself that kareem was more dominant in his first seasons.
Why is that? beacause he was better? thats your logic but i say no. beacause the competition was weaker. Your claim just proves my point.

And, one more damned time..."inflated stats?" What the hell does that REALLY mean? Wilt's 50.4 ppg season would translate into a 42 ppg season in 2011. Just use basic math you idiot. In 2011 the NBA averaged 99.6 ppg. In Wilt's '62 season, the NBA averaged 118.8 ppg. 2011 was at 83% of 1962.

thats exaclty the reason why you make no sense at all.
oh today the nba averages 99.6. back than 118.8. just do the simple math right?
WRONG. what about the competition? what about the overall talente? what about the globel interest of basketball? what about the millions and millions of ppl that didn't even knew about basketball back than? all those ppl wilt didn't have to worry about beacause they never even heard of the nba let alone playing against them.
You just completly ignore all of these and go like "oh so if wilt puts that many points in this era, ill just do the math with todays league averages and get a clear view of how wilt would do today."
Why even bother thinking that wilt maybe would have much more trouble averaging those numbers considering that ALL his opponents would be almost as big as he was and stuff like that.
It makes me crazy to read the shit you come up with and think its just logical. No its NOT!

Now, you tell me just what a 7-2 Wilt (and 7-3 in shoes), with a 7-8 wingspan, and at a massively strong 280-300 lbs, and with a high-jump that WON a Big-7 title in college, and with a sprinter' speed that enabled him to run with KU's 4x100 team, and with solid range of up to 15 ft., and with a myriad of post moves...do in a 2011 NBA in which the only decent center is a 6-10 Howard, who would be much shorter, not nearly as long, no more athletic, and not nearly as strong, and with less skills?

and now your are just twisting shit again. it was always about wilt and hakeem. and i will tell you that i truly belevie hakeem would have the much better skillset and career.

[millwad]

The NUMBERS clearly do NOT show a MUCH better Hakeem in '94 than in '86. Stats aren't everything, but even in his very next season, in '87, he was first team all-defense.

BTW, a PRIME Hakeem couldn't lead the league in scoring (and was considerably behind the leader.) And he was MILES behind the leaders in FG% and rebounding. How come?

Yet, a PRIME Kareem just BLOWS AWAY the same 38 year old Abdul Jabbar that was scoring 33 ppg on .634 shooting against Hakeem in their FIVE H2H's in the '86 regular season (and then another 27 ppg, with two 30+ games in their five playoff games.)

You are just retarded, you show it time after time.
The problem is that you never saw him play, basketball-reference is the only way you know about him. Instead of posting this crap, go and watch the '86 series vs the Lakers, it's on youtube. When you're done with that, go and watch the 94 and 95 playoffs and then you'll shut up. Almost everyone on ISH ranks Hakeem's runs higher than Wilt and especially Wilt's second one..

You are so stupid that you think he was just as good in '86 as he was from 93-95 which only proves you stupidity.. The same Kareem and his beloved Lakers big got their ass kicked by Olajuwon in the playoffs still and it wasn't close, Olajuwon killed the Lakers and Jabbar in the WCF and it's not even close. Jabbar killing Olajuwon is a joke considering that Olajuwon the same season abused him and his team in the playoffs.

And prime Hakeem not leading the league in scoring is just a terrible argument, in 1994 he had the third highest PPG average and in 1995 he was the 4th best scorer and the same season he crushed Robinson who was the MVP that year and Robinson was the league's 2nd best scorer that season and in the finals he outplayed Shaq who had the highest scoring average.

And Hakeem still has the highest ppg average in the playoffs for any center of all-time, not Wilt. And Hakeem scored way more than what Wilt did during his runs, in fact, in 1995 Hakeem scored twice as many points per game as an average than what Wilt did during his 2nd run.. Haha.

And by the way, Wilt didn't win crap when he had his high scoring season's and when he finally won in '67 he had the leagues 5th best scoring average and in '72 when he won the 2nd time haha, he averaged 14 points per game..

[jlauber]

im going to show you exactly were your logic fails.



ther you have it. can't you see it? i said like a thousend times that big athletic guys had it easier in the 50s/60s.
You said it yourself that kareem was more dominant in his first seasons.
Why is that? beacause he was better? thats your logic but i say no. beacause the competition was weaker. Your claim just proves my point.



thats exaclty the reason why you make no sense at all.
oh today the nba averages 99.6. back than 118.8. just do the simple math right?
WRONG. what about the competition? what about the overall talente? what about the globel interest of basketball? what about the millions and millions of ppl that didn't even knew about basketball back than? all those ppl wilt didn't have to worry about beacause they never even heard of the nba let alone playing against them.
You just completly ignore all of these and go like "oh so if wilt puts that many points in this era, ill just do the math with todays league averages and get a clear view of how wilt would do today."
Why even bother thinking that wilt maybe would have much more trouble averaging those numbers considering that ALL his opponents would be almost as big as he was and stuff like that.
It makes me crazy to read the shit you come up with and think its just logical. No its NOT!



and now your are just twisting shit again. it was always about wilt and hakeem. and i will tell you that i truly belevie hakeem would have the much better skillset and career.

Your arguments are flawed on so many levels.

First of all, basketball was not invented in the 1960's. It was invented in the 1890's. Collleges were playing it in the 1890's, and there were PRO leagues in the 1920's. And aside from the 24 sec shot clock in the mid-50's, and the 3 pt shot in the late 70's, the game has changed very little. Yes, there have been minor tweaks, like the widening of the lane, offensive and defensive goal-tending, etc, but overall, the game is very much the SAME as it was in the early 1900's.

So, when idiots like yourself claim that Wilt's stats were "inflated", they never back up their arguments, except with "pace" and "competition." True, the pace was SLIGHTLY higher in the early 60's, but by even as late as 1968-69, it was already down to 112.3 ppg. But once again, even today's game is played at only 83% of the NBA's peak scoring in 61-62. MJ's and Hakeem's 86-87 season was at 92.5% of Wilt's highest scoring season.

I have shredded these "pace" arguments MANY times here before. Using Wilt's 61-62 season, and transferring it to ANY other season, and it STILL blows away ANY other season. For instance, if youy reduce Wilt's FGAs and FTA's down to MJ's levels in '87, Wilt would have scored 42 ppg. And that is BEFORE adjusting for LEAGUE AVERAGE FG%. In Chamberlain's 61-62 season, the NBA shot .426. In MJ's 86-87 season, the NBA shot .480. AFTER adjusting for the differences in FG%, Wilt's NUMBERS rise to about 46 ppg.

Competition? Using your logic, that there are more people in the world today, and therefore today's talent levels are at their highest, then we have to dismiss EVERY season before 2011. Your beloved Hakeem hasn't played a decnet game in over ten years, and he was a shell at that time. MJ hasn't played a meaningful game since 1998. Furthermore, were those two in their PRIMES in those years?

Furthermore, give a season in which YOU believe that the NBA became what we see today? I can GUARANTEE you that I will find other players who were more dominant just the season before ANY season you select. I get so sick-and-tired of these assertions. Even MJ, in the late 80's wasn't winning MVPs, and players like Magic and Bird in the mid-80's were BETTER. Go back to 1980, and then take the '79 season. Players like Moses, Dr. J, Kareem, McAdoo, and Unseld were just as dominant than those in 1980 (including some of the same players.)

Which brings up another point, when does a player PEAK? According to your reasoning, it looks like Kareem PEAKED in 1986, and at age 38. You are claiming that his 70-71 and 71-72 seasons were achieved in "weak" eras. Ok, then what happened in 74-75 and 75-76, when his FG%'s dropped dramatically down to .513 and .529? Was the "competition" better in those two years. Then there was his 78-79 season, when he averaged 23.8 ppg and on .577 shooting. A year later he averaged 24.8 ppg on .604 shooting. Then it went to 26.2 ppg on .574 shooting in 80-81. Hmmm, a roller coaster ride. Of course, his rebounding declined almost every season since his high in 75-76, at 16.9, down to his 6.1 rpg in 85-86. And then he REALLY dropped off in scoring, rebounding, and FG%. Of course, he was 39 thru 41 in those three years.

BUT, here again, it appears that you are claiming that the Kareem who just SHELLED Hakeem in that 85-86 was at his PEAK. If not, then give me the year in which it was at his peak. Obviously, you claim that it couldn't have been in 70-71 and 71-72, despite the fact that he dominated the NBA in those two seasons FAR more than he did in ANY other year of his career.

In any case, if you believe that Kareem at 38 was at his peak, then he sure dropped off in the course of ONE year, and just a couple of years later he was a complete shell.

And, using your logic, when was Hakeem's peak? His NUMBERS were hardly different in that 85-86 season, than they were in 93-94. Oh, and BTW, Hakeem was 31 in that 93-94 season. So, if Kareem was at his PEAK at age 38, what happened to Hakeem at age 38? 11.9 ppg, 7.4 rpg, and .498. Oh, I know...the league was more talented in that 2000-2001 season, That would also explain why MJ's NUMBERS were so much lower in that season than what he had in the 80's and 90's.

And according to you, a player gets better every year until they turn 38. Of course, there are other's that simply believe that a player gets better every year until they peak, and then they decline every year after that. Obviously BOTH arguments are extremely flawed.

How about Rick Barry? In his 66-67 season, he averaged 35.6 ppg on .451 shooting. His NBA NUMBERS declined again until, all of sudden, in 74-75, he averaged 30.6 ppg on .464 shooting. Interesting, while Barry had one of hios greatest seasons in that 74-75 season, as did Bob McAdoo, Kareem merely had a very good season with 30.0 ppg on a career LOW .513 shooting. Why was the "competition" so much weaker for Barry and McAdoo (who averaged a staggering 34.5 ppg in the 75-76 season, in a league that only averaged 102.6 ppg), and yet so much more difficult for Kareem?

The REALITY is, almost ALL players have peaks and valleys throughout their careers, and it occurs in ALL sports. And you are right, some players peak late in their careers, and some decline rapidly in their's. Some peak in one year, decline a few years, and then suddenly peak again. And how do we KNOW that? Their NUMBERS.

How about Sandy Koufax. He was an average pitcher, at best, in the first half of his career. Then, all of a sudden, he exploded. And, a case could be made that he was at his PEAK in his LAST season, and at age 30. 27-9 with a 1.73 ERA. Now you tell me, was his "competition" getting WEAKER each year he was in the league.

And how about Ted Williams? In his 1941 season, and only his third year in the league at age 22, he batted .406 (the last time anyone ever hit .400) with 37 HRs. Ok, while he had many exceptional seasons after that, his numbers were nowhere that 1941 season. In 1950, and at age 31, and three years after integration, he was down to .317 with 28 HRs. Obviously, his numbers were "inflated " in that 1941 season because it was "pre-integration" right? Ok, then what happened in 1957? All of a sudden, and at age 38, he batted .388 with 38 HRs. Oh, wait, he was age 38, same as Kareem in 85-86. HOWEVER, there was a major difference between Kareem, at age 38, and Williams, at 38. Williams nearly matched his greatest seasonal NUMBERS, at age 38, as he did at age 22. Kareem's NUMBERS, at age 38, were NOWHERE NEAR what they were at age 23 or 24.

How about Willie Mays? In 1955, at age 24, he slugged 51 HRs on a .319 average. By 1960, at age 29, he was batting .319, but with only 29 HRs. Obviously he was slowing down. Oh wait, what happened in 1965, when, at age 34, he batted .317 with 52 HRs? Not only that, but his 13 HR differential over the nest highest ML batter was the largest since the Ruth era, and in fact, is STILL the largest differential. How is that possible? How can a player have TWO peaks?

OJ Simpson was so bad in his first four years of his career, that his coach was about to convert him to a wide receiver. Fortunately for him, his new coach in 1972 decided to build an OL around him, and he exploded for a 1200 yard season. His 1973 season may very well have been the greatest by a RB in NFL history, when he rushed for 2003 yards. In fact, considering that the Bills QB play was arguably the WORST in NFL history, and that opposing defenses geared up exclusively for him, it was even more staggering. However, he could "only" rush for 1000 yards the very next season. Obviously, his peak was over right? Oh, wait, in 1975 he rushed for 1817 yards, and added another 426 in receiving. It was perhaps an even greater season than his '73 season. In any case, what happened in 1974? Was his "competition" greater in '74 than in '73 and '75?

To be continued...

[jlauber]

Continuing...

Furthermore, how do we explain players like Roger Maris in 1961, or Denny McLain in 1968? Maris came out of nowhere to hit 61 HRs, and while McLain went from a good pitcher, to having an "immortal" season in 1968? And, as quickly as both exploded into greatness, they fell back down to earth, and were basically washed up within a couple of seasons.

Of course, using YOUR logic, ANY time a player has a truly "immortal" season, it must be attributed to "weaker" competition, right?

Kareem's 70-71 and 71-72 seasons were two of those staggering seasons. BUT, according to you, they were accomplished because of "weak " competition. Let's take a closer look at that 71-72 season, shall we? Kareem faced centers like Cowens, Hayes, Lanier, Bellamy, Reed, Thurmond, Unseld, and an old washed up Chamberlain...ALL in the HOF (and in only a 17 team league.) But, none of those guys would be any good in today's era, right?

And yet, Kareem in 85-86, at age 38, and with dramatically reduced physical skills, was at his PEAK? If he was, he STILL CRUSHED Hakeem. Here again, we KNOW that Kareem averaged 33 ppg on just an eye-popping .634 FG%. He even hung a 46 point game, on 21-30 shooting, and in only 37 minutes on Hakeem (and that was just one of THREE 40+ point games that Kareem carpet-bombed Hakeem with BTW.)

Of course, you and Dickwad argue that Hakeem was "nowhere near" his peak in 85-86, despite the FACT that his NUMBERS in 85-86 were only SLIGHTLY lower than in his 93-94 season.

So, when Kareem's NUMBERS drop DRAMATICALLY from his PEAK NUMBERS of 71-72 down to merely exceptional NUMBERS in his 85-86 season, according to you, it was not because Kareem was 38 in 85-86, but because his "competition" was tougher in '86 (even though he didn't face nearly the same number of HOF centers in '86.)

AND, somehow we are supposed to then believe that Hakeem's PEAK came in 93-94, even though his NUMBERS were only SLIGHTLY better than in '86...and in a league with even LESS HOF centers.

Which brings me back to Wilt's "inflated" numbers. BEFORE Wilt came into the NBA, the NBA scoring record was 29.2 ppg, and the FG% mark was .490. In Wilt's 14 seasons, he SHATTERED the RECORD BOOK. 45 and 50 ppg seasons. 27 and 27.2 rpg seasons. .683 and .727 FG% seasons.

Not only that, but it was ONLY Wilt. too. Take Chamberlain out of those 14 years, and Barry's 35.6 ppg season in '67 and little known Johnny Green's .587 FG% in 70-71 were the highs. Wilt was LIGHT YEARS ahead of his "competition"...which included players like Bellamy, Reed, Hayes, Unseld, Embry, Lovellette, Schayes, Pettit, Cowens, Thurmond, Lanier, Russell,...and Kareem. ALL in the HOF. And...ONLY Wilt. Why? Was it because those players were "weak" competition?

Of course, Kareem could only shoot .464 against Wilt in their 28 H2H games (27 of which came after Wilt turned 34 and on a surgically repaired knee.) Kareem didn't even shoot 45% against Nate Thurmond, either, in some 50 H2H games. And, Kareem's HIGH game against Thurmond was only 34 points. BTW, Wilt not only had SEVERAL 30+ point games against Thurmond in their few H2H games in Chamberlain's "scoring seasons" he even had one game in which he battered Thurmond 45-13. He also had 20 ppp seasons on .562 shooting against Thurmond's Warriors, and overall he had THREE post-seasons of .500, .550, and .560 against him. Meanwhile, in Kareem's three post-seasons against Thurmond, he only shot .486, .428, and a horrid .405.

And how about Wilt hanging THREE games of 50+ on HOFer Reed, including a high game of 58 points? Or Chamberlain pounding 6-11 HOFer Walt Bellamy with THREE games of 60+, including a 73 point game??!!

Kareem faced Thurmond, Reed, and Bellamy, and yet, he never came CLOSE to dominating those three in the OVERWHELMING fashion that a PRIME Wilt did.

My god, in Wilt's 68-69 season, in a league that averaged 112 ppg, and in a season in which he only averaged 14 FGAs per game, he STILL hung TWO 60+ point games (Including the most efficient 60+ game in NBA history, when he scored 66 points on 29-35 shooting)? What is the significance of those two games? Kareem came in the league the very next season (69-70), and faced BOTH of those SAME centers...and yet, he never came CLOSE to putting up 60 games on them. In fact, his career high game was only 55 points...in 20 seasons. Wilt had 118 games of 50+, and 32 of 60+...and against MANY of the SAME centers that Kareem faced. How come?

And once again...a 37-38 year old Kareem could MURDER a 22-23 year old Hakeem with THREE games of 40+...AND on just mind-boggling FG%'s. While an OLD Wilt held a PRIME Kareem (yes, Kareem's REAL prime was in the early 70's...and against a HUGE number of HOF centers), to about 100 points BELOW his career FG% (Chamberlain held Kareem to .464 shooting those 28 H2H games, while Kareem shot .559 in his career)...and yet an OLD Kareem could not only score at will against a young Hakeem (and whose PRIME NUMBERS were not significantly better than those in '86) he shot .599 in their 22 H2H games (and in which Kareem was between the ages of 38 thru 41)...or nearly 50 points ABOVE his career FG%. How?

And yet, idiots like you and Dillweed claim that Hakeem was better than Wilt? There is no EVIDENCE to suggest anything NEAR that conclusion.

Of course, using YOUR logic, players like a PRIME MJ (probably late 80's), Hakeem (probably early to mid 90's...although his NUMBERS were hardly better than those of his mid-80's shooting, which was at his peak in his ROOKIE season), Kareem (whose PRIME was OBVIOUSLY in the early 70's), and even Shaq (whose PRIME was late 90's to early 00's) would not be NEARLY as great today, since the league is more talented, right?

[jlauber]

You are just retarded, you show it time after time.
The problem is that you never saw him play, basketball-reference is the only way you know about him. Instead of posting this crap, go and watch the '86 series vs the Lakers, it's on youtube. When you're done with that, go and watch the 94 and 95 playoffs and then you'll shut up. Almost everyone on ISH ranks Hakeem's runs higher than Wilt and especially Wilt's second one..

You are so stupid that you think he was just as good in '86 as he was from 93-95 which only proves you stupidity.. The same Kareem and his beloved Lakers big got their ass kicked by Olajuwon in the playoffs still and it wasn't close, Olajuwon killed the Lakers and Jabbar in the WCF and it's not even close. Jabbar killing Olajuwon is a joke considering that Olajuwon the same season abused him and his team in the playoffs.

And prime Hakeem not leading the league in scoring is just a terrible argument, in 1994 he had the third highest PPG average and in 1995 he was the 4th best scorer and the same season he crushed Robinson who was the MVP that year and Robinson was the league's 2nd best scorer that season and in the finals he outplayed Shaq who had the highest scoring average.

And Hakeem still has the highest ppg average in the playoffs for any center of all-time, not Wilt. And Hakeem scored way more than what Wilt did during his runs, in fact, in 1995 Hakeem scored twice as many points per game as an average than what Wilt did during his 2nd run.. Haha.

And by the way, Wilt didn't win crap when he had his high scoring season's and when he finally won in '67 he had the leagues 5th best scoring average and in '72 when he won the 2nd time haha, he averaged 14 points per game..

I am getting so tired of constantly making a complete fool out of you, but one more time.

I SAW virtually every big game and series in the NBA since the 1963-64 season, including the televised game of that 85-86 WCF series. And no Hakeem NEVER "owned" Kareem. Hell, he couldn't even guard him. This from a 23 year old Hakeem, whose NUMBERs in his supposed "prime" were only SLIGHTLY better later in his career. And, once again, this from a 38 year old Kareem. It is truly comical that a 38 year old could average 33 ppg and on a shocking .634 FG% against a 23 year old Hakeem, who would not be signficantly better even in his so-called prime. A 38 year old Kareem that so annihilated that 23 year old, that in recap, the Houston coach was chastised for allowing the obliteration. A 46 point game, on a staggering 70% FG%, and in only 37 minutes. The recap even claimed that Kareem probably would have easily eclipsed his career high game of 55 points had he played longer.

And you are so proud of that 23 year old Hakeem outscoring that 38 year old Kareem (who had a bad habit of shrinking in the post-season BTW), by a 31-27 margin, too. If anything, that makes Olajuwon look even WORSE. Once again, what would a PRIME Kareem have SHELLED that Hakeem with? 50-60- and perhaps even 70+ point games?

Hakeem played 18 seasons. Yet, his highest scoring season was 27.8 ppg (and on only a .517 FG%, too.) He NEVER came CLOSE to winning a scoring title. Why? Especially since you claim that Hakeem played with poor rosters. How come players like Kobe could score 35 ppg with crappy rosters, or MJ with a 37 ppg season with poor rosters...or a WILT could score 45 and 50 with PUTRID rosters...and yet Hakeem couldn't even approach 30 ppg? Obviously, he couldn't do it.

As for Wilt not "winning crap" in his "scoring seasons. Hmmm, five of those seven seasons were on WINNING teams. AND, Wilt came into the league with a roster that had been in LAST PLACE before he arrived. In fact, he even LED the NBA in scoring (33.5 ppg) in his 65-66 season, and BTW, his TEAM had the BEST RECORD in the league (and oh, BTW, Wilt also averaged a league leading 24.6 rpg, and a then-record FG% of .540.) First of all, Hakeem NEVER led the NBA in scoring, NOR did he ever lead his team to the BEST RECORD in the league.

And this ridiculous assertion that Hakeem was a better scorer in the post-season. True, he had a higher average. BUT, Chamberlain averaged 33 ppg along with 27 rpg, and on .510 shooting...in leagues that averaged .430 shooting in his first SIX post-seasons...COMBINED! In fact, he averaged 29.3 ppg, 26.6 rpg, 4.8 apg and on .518 shooting in his first EIGHT straight post-seasons...COMBINED! Give me ONE post-season in which Hakeem averaged 29 ppg, 27 rpg, and shot .518.

He also had FOUR post-seasons of 33.2, 34.7, .35.0 and 37.0 ppg. How many 30+ ppg post-seasons did Hakeem have? Not to mention that in those four post-seasons, Wilt averaged 23.0, 25.2, 25.8, and 26.6 rpg.

And Wilt had series of 37, 37 and 38.6 ppg, too. He also had FOUR post-seasons of 30+ against Russell, including one of 30 ppg and 31 rpg.

As for Hakeem's slight edge of .528 to .522 in the playoffs...Hakeem played in leagues that averaged over 47% shooting, while Wilt played in leagues that shot about 44% on average. So, the REALITY was, Wilt was shooting FAR higher against his peers than what Hakeem was against his.

Oh, and did I forget to mention that Wilt faced a starting HOF center in 99 of his 160 post-season games, while Hakeem faced one in 32 of his 145? Or that Hakeem's HIGH playoff scoring and rebounding series came in a four game series in which, as USUAL, his team was eliminated in the FIRST ROUND?

His playoff runs in either 93-94, or 94-95 PALES in comparison to Wilt's OVERWHELMING run in '67 too. Wilt had the Sixers HIGH game, of 41 points (on 19-30 shooting) in that post-season, And he DOMINATED in the clinching wins, unlike Greer, who did not. Of course, Wilt not only CRUSHED Russell and Thurmond, he averaged 21.7 ppg, 29.1 rpg, 9.2 apg, and shot .579 in that post-season. How about Hakeem in '94. He led a favored team over Ewing's less talented Knick team in a seven game series, and on .500 shooting. Then, in the '95 Finals, he was FLAMED by a .595 to .483 shooting margin by a young Shaq. Has any other "great" been so thoroughly outshot in a Finals.

Speaking of Finals...Wilt shot .560 in his SIX Finals, while Hakeem shot .488 in his THREE (covering 17 games.) Hell, his high Finals was an even 50%. How about Wilt? He not only had a career .560 in those 35 Finals games, he had one Finals in which he shot .625 (and on ONE leg), along with 23.2 ppg and 24.1 rpg. Find me a Finals like that Hakeem? You won't.

And I can't help by laugh my ass off at Dickwad claiming that he had poorer teammates. First of all, Wilt's teams were ROUTINELY outgunned by HOFers. In fact, in every post-season but two, covering 13, he faced a team with MORE HOFers, and by large a margin as 8-2. Hakeem seldom faced a team with THREE, and when he did, his team lost. His '94 Rockets were as talented as Ewing's Knicks, and they STILL barely won that series. And then in '95, he had a 2-1 edge in HOFers against Shaq's team.

Of course, Hakeem also never had teammates that collectively shot less than 40%. How about Wilt? He had SIX that shot .382, .380, .354, .352, .352 (on a team that went 55-25 BTW...,while Wilt shot .509 in that post-season), and even .332. How did Wilt get those team's, with teammates shooting that poorly to one Finals, and two ECF's against the HOF-laden Celtics, and then in those two ECF's, they went to game seven's, and with losses by TWO and ONE point?????? Hakeem NEVER had to overcome such OVERWHELMING adversity. And, when he did, he and his TEAMs flopped in the first round.

[jlauber]

Continuing...

And that was the REAL legacy of Hakeem. The only "great" that "led" EIGHT teams (out of 15 playoff seasons) to FIRST ROUND exits (and most all were blowout series too.) He also "led" FOUR higher seeds to series defeats, as well.

Yep...the SAME Hakeem who was so highly regarded that he won ONE MVP (and that was in a year in which the REAL best player took the year off.) The SAME Hakeem who managed ONE other season in which he came in SECOND. The SAME Hakeem who would finish as high as FOURTH, on TWO more occasions. There you have it...in an 18 season career, Hakeem was voted in the Top-FOUR...FOUR measley times. In fact, he didn't even finish in the TOP_10 in HALF of those EIGHTEEN season (NINE times he couldn't crack the Top-10 in his 18 seasons.)

His TEAM success PALES in comparison to Wilt's who not only led SIX teams to the Finals (and against FAR stronger competition), but got his teams to the Conference Finals in TWELVE of them. And, he didn't have the luxury of facing "cannon-fodder" teams in the first rounds that Hakeem so routinely "stats-padded" in (while taking his team down in flames in the process.) Wilt LED FOUR teams to 60+ wins...including two of 68-13 and 69-13. And how did they do in those two overwhelming title seasons? They routed a 60-21 Celtic team that had SIX HOFers. Then in '72 Wilt easily outplayed Kareem (in which EVERYONE who WATCHED that series claimed that he not only outplayed Kareem, but there were those that claimed that he DECISIVELY outplayed him), and then they buried a Knick team that had FIVE HOFers. Give me a list of teams that Hakeem faced in which he beat that had as many as FOUR. Once again, in his title runs, Hakeem had as many HOFers as Ewing, and MORE than Shaq.

So, Wilt, at his PEAK was FAR better scorer in BOTH the regular season, and then again, in the POST-SEASON. He was LIGHT YEARS ahead of Hakeem in rebounding in BOTH. He won NINE FG% titles, and in leagues that shot FAR worse. And in the post-season, he outshot the LEAGUE AVERAGE by a considerably higher differential than Hakeem did. And, one can only imagine what Wilt would have shot had he played in the "defenseless 80's: when entire LEAGUES were shooting nearly 50%, and even 30-52 teams were shooting as high as .504? Had he had the luxury of playing his post-seasons in the 80's...he would have been shooting at FAR greater clips.

Defense? Take a look at the highest Defensive Win-Shares...

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...ws_season.html

Wilt just BLOWS Hakeem AWAY.

130+ RECORDS. SEVEN scoring titles (and he averaged 40 ppg over that span COMBINED.) NINE FG% titles (and he had the TWO highest in NBA history...and by a MILE.) And ELEVEN rebounding titles. All in 14 seasons. He had FIVE seasons in which he LED the NBA in BOTH scoring AND rebounding, at the SAME time. He had FOUR seasons in which he LED the NBA in scoring AND FG%, at the SAME time. He had EIGHT seasons in which he LED the NBA in FG% and rebounding, at the SAME time. And he had THREE seasons in which he LED the NBA in scoring, rebounding, AND FG%, at the SAME time! He even LED the NBA in assists one season (as well as rebounding and FG% at the SAME time.)

How about Hakeem? Two rebounding titles (and he barely won those.) He also had seasons in which he finished MILES behind the leader (the 6-8 Rodman had him by FIVE per game one season). And when he was paired with a another very good rebounder, as he was with Barkley in '97, he was outrebounded by the 6-5 Charles, by FOUR per game.

Unlike Wilt, he was a black hole in the post. While Wilt averaged 4.5 apg in his career, and in leagues in which assists were harder to come by, Hakeem came in at 2.5 apg, Wilt had seasons of 8.6 and 7.8..along with a 5.2 apg season in a year in which he averaged 33.5 ppg. Even in the post-season, Wilt CRUSHED Hakeem. In Wilt's dominating playoff runs he was putting up 9.2 apg and 6.5 apg post-seasons...and he even had TWO series in which he averaged aTRIPLE DOUBLE.

And we all know that Wilt was the greatest shot blocker of all-time, and only Russell came close. In Wilt's WORST seasons he was estimated to have blocked around 6 bpg...or better than the all-time record of 5.6 by Mark Eaton (who, BTW, won more block titles than Hakeem, and they played in the same era.) And we KNOW that Wilt recorded 23 blocks in a nationally televised game in '68, which blows away the "official" mark of 17 by Elmore Smith.

Wilt was, quite simply, better at every facet of the game. He even MADE more FTs than Hakeem, and his IMPACT at the line was considerably greater. Scoring, shooting, passing, defense, blocking shots, and rebounding...Chamberlain...and it's not even close.

TEAM success, and CLUTCH play...again, Wilt by a MILE.

MVP voting? Wilt...by a HUGE margin (4-1, and then a whopping edge in overall voting, too.)

Other than all of that...well, maybe Hakeem has a case.

[millwad]

Again pure nonsense copy and paste job from Jlauber without any good or even decent points.. AS USAL.

The funny thing is that you think you think you're owning everyone everytime you write one of those idiot-essays but people only think you're a tool since the text itself is pure garbage.


Come back when you've seen the guy play. You comment on games you even haven't seen, you've made the most ignorant and stupid comments about Hakeem and it's so obvious that you haven't seen the games you comment at all since all you do is writing, "My god, look at this stat".

And still the "crappy" Hakeem won two titles, the same amount of titles Wilt won while dominating way more than what Wilt did during his 2 runs while having way worse supporting casts. I know you're butthurt over the fact that people rank Hakeem's runs over Wilt's but come on, get real, it's just basketball and Wilt played 50 years ago. You didn't even see Wilt play, you were a kid and there's no way you remember 40-50 year old basketball games anyway.

Only really few people rank Wilt's first run over Hakeem's both runs, most of us are sure about the FACT that Hakeem was more dominant during his runs. And don't even get me started on Wilt's 2nd run, getting outscored with 23 points per game by Kareem who also had better FG% and also outassisted Wilt..

You're the same idiot who a couple of years ago used to think that the modern era is better in every way there is and suddenly you got butthurt over and insecure and you made a 180 turn. Fact still remains that you changed your mind over some youtube-footage we all saw and some silly quotes which only shows how little of Wilt you'd seen before which takes away your whole credibility.

People, just check Jlauber's previous comments:

[QUOTE]
[B]Originally Posted by jlauber

[Duncan21formvp]

would he be the most dominant player of all time?

Is he going to the Celtics? If so, then probably.