Larry Bird vs Hakeem Olajuwon

[Milbuck]

This is turning out to be a nice history lesson for OP

1) No one has disputed what I said. Arguably the worst supporting cast out of the top 11 GOATs behind peak Duncan? Stand by it. Jordan, Bird, Magic, Kobe, Lebron, Shaq, Russell, etc all better casts.

2) You are so excited right now trying to finally "get back at me". Rent free

[ArbitraryWater]

rent free AND 3 smileys.. someone's butthurt

confirm with reply

[Milbuck]

rent free AND 3 smileys.. someone's butthurt

confirm with reply

Got you already pulling out the "last word" defense, as usual

Anyways, please make a serious post or I’m gonna have to ask you to leave my thread. Last warning. Thanks!

[SugarHill]

Larry Bird is overrated as **** if people are acting like his peak was unquestionably better. Fvck out of here.

[T_L_P]

Hakeem.

He's a big man.
He's a two way player.
He proved he could do it with less (although the addition of Drexler made that 95 squad very strong)
He has better longevity (elite for 12 years then had another good season)

That said, Hakeem's defense for the early part of his career gets overrated. He wasn't commanding or demanding enough to be a true defensive anchor (ala Bill Russell or Ben Wallace), and he was a notorious gambler, something I despise. His defense in the 90s was godlike though, and a low-post man is the most reliable when it comes to the Playoffs.

I have Hakeem ranked 6th or 7th and Bird 9th.

[Milbuck]

Larry Bird is overrated as **** if people are acting like his peak was unquestionably better. Fvck out of here.

But...intangibles. Leadership. Right place at the right time defense. Knowledge of the game. Hakeem was good, but he didn't have that "it" factor.

[SugarHill]

But...intangibles. Leadership. Right place at the right time defense. Knowledge of the game. Hakeem was good, but he didn't have that "it" factor.

Is this sarcasm?

[Milbuck]

Is this sarcasm?

[COLOR="White"]yup[/COLOR]

[3ball]

Hakeem was good, but he didn't have that "it" factor.

that's certainly part of it, it's also about how most of hakeem's career was spent achieving mediocre records and playoff results..

also, he didn't develop into a truly elite offensive player until the latter stage of his career, which happened to converge with great fortuitous circumstance that greatly benefited his team (jordan's retirement).

[La Frescobaldi]

Having seen all of Hakeem's carreer it was kind of an incredible convergence of circumstances that led to him "coming out of nowhere". He was raw when he was in college and his early years. Super athletic and raw. He was never a good open court dribbler ever. He dribbled funny w his hand on top of the ball and pushed it out in front of him. He could dribble in the post just fine. He was improving pretty much every season. He was really smart and would learn and do more and more. Then Rudy T came along and realized how smart he was and how well he saw the game and decided to run the offense through him which really made his stats go up. But it was a great move. So he was peaking and had the team/offense around him at just the right time.

Moses Malone spent a lot of time with him when he was a kid. This was when Moses was winning MVPs like candy

[AlphaWolf24]

how overrated are we going with Bird? will it ever ever stop

fixed...

Bird was a beast and an alltime great.....but Dreams Finals runs are on par if not better then anyone....ever.

Dude was as dominating as any player I ever seen....IMO more then Bird

[Roundball_Rock]

I actually think that they would have beaten the Bulls w Jordan but that's just my opinion.

We will never know but that is unlikely. The Bulls battled for the #1 seed with a D-Leaguer at SG. Add MJ, or even Jeff Hornacek, and they presumably become clear favorites.

For what it's worth, the Bulls and Rockets split their season series in 94'--and Pippen did not play in the Bulls' loss (he had 25/12/6/2 in the Bulls' win). The Jordan-less Bulls went 2-2 against the Rockets in 94' and 95' and were 2-1 when Pippen played. Even without Horace Grant and Jordan they split the season series in 95', including holding Hakeem to a 2 for 18 shooting performance in their win.

something to consider is that olajuwon came out of nowhere in 1994 - maybe jordan's absence inspired him to step up more than he would have.. in all reality, we don't know what would have happened if jordan had played in 1994, other than him being the prohibitive favorite to win again.

Hakeem was runner-up for MVP in 93'. 1993-1995 were his peak years. He "came out of nowhere" in 93', not 94'.

I have always thought people make too much of how weak Hakeem's "supporting cast" was in 94'. It was indeed weak relative to champions in other years but it was solid in the context of 94'. The Rockets, Knicks, Bulls and Spurs (teams that won 55-57 games, similar to the Rocket's 58 wins) all had the same formula of one superstar and a few other good players (i.e. all these teams featured a PF who was a strong rebounder). That year also featured two contenders without any superstar in Atlanta and Indiana. Unless the Suns or Jazz won you were going to have a champ that year which, in terms of "supporting cast," would be weak compared to champions in other years.

As to the OP, my vote is for Bird. Hakeem has a case for a slightly superior peak (I still take Bird in that category) but Bird clearly had a better prime and better career. People seem to assume that 1993-1995 Hakeem was the Hakeem that existed for his entire career. In reality he was viewed as more or less on par with Robinson and Ewing for most of his career.

1990: Ewing, Hakeem, Robinson (rookie)
1991: Robinson, Ewing, Hakeem
1992: Robinson, Ewing, Daughtery
1993: Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson
1994: Hakeem, Robinson, Shaq
1995: Robinson, Shaq, Hakeem
1996: Robinson, Hakeem, Shaq

So after his rookie year Robinson beat him 4-2 and Ewing was ahead of him in 3 of 7 years, albeit Hakeem missed time in 92'. Granted, all-NBA voting is not a perfect gauge but it does illustrate that Hakeem was not viewed as heads and shoulders above his top competitors at center for most of his career. In contrast, Bird was for several years the undisputed best player in the league (Hakeem was for "only" 2 years and that was only because MJ retired) and was top 2-3 for a almost an entire decade.

Compare their MVP finishes:

Bird from 1980-1988: 4th, 2nd, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 1st, 1st, 3rd, 2nd.

Hakeem from 1986-1996: 4th, 7th, 7th, 5th, 7th, 18th, N/A, 2nd, 1st, 5th, 4th.

So one guy was top 3 in eight consecutive seasons while the other guy was top 3 in MVP voting twice in his entire career. Bird simply was on another level than Hakeem.

[bdreason]

I typically side with the big man in these circumstances, but Larry was one of a very few wing players in the history of the game that could dominate a game in multiple ways. Larry had a higher peak and prime, and was also infinitely more marketable.



If we're playing a pickup game, and I get first pick? I'm taking the big man.

[masonanddixon]

I don't remember either well enough but since Hakeem is black I imagine most posters will say he had the greater peak.

[CJ Mustard]

Larry Bird is overrated as **** if people are acting like his peak was unquestionably better. Fvck out of here.

It's close, but the nod goes to Bird. 28/10/7 on 50/40/90 while leading historically great teams is more impressive than Hakeem's 27/12/4 en route to 2 hard fought titles with Jordan out of the game. Bird was a wing who passed the ball better than PG's and rebounded better than PF's and C's. That, along with his ridiculous shooting made him one of the most dominant players ever. Hakeem's superiority defensively makes this an argument, but I'd personally take Bird (who was underrated defensively) every single time.