Nikos

I created this thread as a result of a discussion in another thread involving Minstrel, Paulo, and Hakeem among others.

When looking at Hakeem he seems like arguably the best big man since the Magic and Bird Era. Shaq is probably the one guy who might get as much respect as Hakeem, but many consider Hakeem the superior defender, and only marginally less weaker on offense than Shaq. Even if they are relative close when compared, Hakeem probably gets the slight edge in favor considering he did outplay Shaq in the 1995 NBA Finals (albeit not a fully prime Shaq, but close).

Which ever way you slice it, is pretty clear that most would favor Hakeem and Shaq as the best big men of the past two decades.

Some might give Tim Duncan, Karl Malone, David Robinson, Patrick Ewing and Charles Barkley some love and compare them favorably to those two, but I would venture to say in their respective primes Shaq and Hakeem probably have the consensus vote.
Lets take a look at each big man and what they have done.

Hakeem Olajuwon in his prime seasons (1993-95) had a PER of about 26.2 – along with being probably the best defender in the league in each season. That pretty much means he was a franchise player on both ends of the court and a Top 3 player in the NBA every season in his prime. And in 2 of those seasons, he had pretty mediocre supporting cast. One of which he won an NBA title with. Hakeem wasn’t as dominant as Shaq on offense in these regular seasons, but its possible with his mediocre supporting cast and all the attention he drew that maybe he might have had better offensive numbers with more talent around him.

Shaquille O’Neal in his prime seasons (1999-2003) had an average PER of about 30. He was also a defensive beast, especially in the 1999-00 campaign where he averaged 3.0bpg and anchored the second best defense in the league. Shaq was clearly an offensive juggernaut, and in the regular season even more so than Hakeem Olajuwon or another other big man was (except for maybe Drob in one or two seasons). He may have easily been the most dominant offensive big man of all time. Where Hakeem closes the gap is probably on defense (Shaq was never as versatile on that end).

David Robinson: Now here is the most interesting guy to evaluate. He never played well in pretty much in of all his NBA playoff career. He had minimal talent around him a few seasons (at least offensively) – but his teams always seem to lose prematurely. People say he never had a goto move, but he still put together some of the most impressive regular seasons in the history of the NBA. From 1994-1996 he had an average PER of 29.7! His defensive numbers were unreal much like Hakeem Olajuwon. Virtually identical. Both of these guys were clearly the best defenders in the league. David even played like Shaq on offense in 1994 with pretty minimal offensive talent around him (similar to Hakeem in 93 and somewhat 1994). He averaged 29.8ppg on .577TS% not to mention 4.8apg. That is Prime Shaq like. For a few seasons this guy was an absolute stud in the regular season, but a dud in the playoffs. How do you evaluate someone like that? Since Hakeem outplayed him in 1995 he is obviously not considered on his level, but at the same time Drob never seemed to rise to the occasion against other playoff competition either. Was it lack of supporting cast? Bad luck? You can’t be that good in the regular season and simply play worse in the playoffs because its just ‘the playoffs’ and teams have time to figure you out. Surely teams could have figured David out in the regular season after he was unstoppable in the 1994 campaign. Why should he be considered weaker than Shaq or Hakeem as a franchise player? Is he above Duncan, Karl Malone, and Ewing? Where do you draw the line in evaluating a guy like this?

Tim Duncan is somewhat like a modern day Hakeem. He had a PER of 27 in his prime seasons. Anchor of an all time great defense, and a pretty good offensive player. He carried some mediocre talent in a few seasons (2002 and 2003). Most would say he is a weaker player than David Robinson because he was clearly a weaker defender. But he did seem to rise in most playoffs and play better (had a few duds like in 2004) – but in general steps up. Why is he a considered a weaker player than Robinson? Isn’t he also a more valuable defensive piece than Barkley or Malone were? They were better on offense, but Duncan was more valuable on defense. Sure Malone was a tough individual defender, but honestly Duncan was just a vastly better help defender and still a decent one on one defender. That is more valuable when you look at defense.

Barkley and Malone to me are similar. Both could pass the ball and had offensively elite seasons. They were similar to Shaq on offense for some of their prime seasons (which hovered around a per 29+). Both could pass, and both were mediocre shot blockers. Barkley never had enough talent around him in his prime, and Malone’s teams sometimes underachieved, and sometimes played awesome ball (like in 1997 and 1998). Basically they were elite offensively and not elite defensively. Both were better on O than Duncan and Ewing.

Ewing was another defensive anchor similar to Duncan. He was very good offensively, and elite defensively for the most part. Had reasonable defensive supporting cast, but mediocre on offense. I find him to be similar to Duncan, but has less accolades, and probably didn’t step up in the playoffs as much as he should of in some seasons (yeah he was playing the Bulls, and Hakeem in the finals – but he could have put up better numbers).

So how do you evaluate these guys based on production in the regular season versus accolades and numbers in the playoffs. David Robinson was probably objectively better than Duncan and maybe Olajuwon in the regular season, but many would consider him the weakest of the bunch. Should he be considered that weak? Was it bad luck, bad circumstances? Was Hakeem just a tough matchup?

If you could assign a rating to these players 1-10, what would they be?
(In increments of .1, like 9.5, 9.7 etc…). Lets say Michael Jordan is a perfect 10, and Magic Johnson and Larry Bird are 9.8, and Scottie Pippen is a 9.5.

Think of these guys in terms of value on both ends, how they steered their teams in the regular season, how they upped or lowered their games in the playoffs etc… How would you evaluate them?

Shaquille O’Neal
Hakeem Olajuwon
David Robinson
Tim Duncan
Karl Malone
Charles Barkley
Patrick Ewing


(Sorry for the long thread, but I want to see how heavily some people weigh matchups and playoff success vs. regular season production and the objective evaluation of a player.)

Mateo

I think Robinson was better than any of them in his "prime" but it was much shorter than the other guys, of course. I'd probably go something like this:

Shaquille O’Neal: 8.4
Hakeem Olajuwon: 8.7
David Robinson: 9.1
Tim Duncan: 7.9
Karl Malone: 7.8
Charles Barkley: 7.7
Patrick Ewing: 7.6

Minstrel

Great post, Nikos.

Shaquille O’Neal : 9.8
Hakeem Olajuwon : 9.9
David Robinson : 9.7
Tim Duncan : 9.5
Karl Malone : 9.6
Charles Barkley : 9.4
Patrick Ewing : 9.2

__________________
Nothing ever burns down by itself
Every fire needs a little bit of help
Give the anarchist a cigarette.

PauloCatarino

About them centers, let me start by saying this:

Hakeem:

- 5 seasons (one with Sampson) over 50 wins.

P-Ew:

- 7 seasons with 50 wins;

D-Rob:

- Injured in 1997, never was the same again (eventhough he had a good 1998 season). Before the injury, he was a 25pts-12rbds-3ast-1stl-3blk player.
- 6 seasons with 50 wins.

Shaq:

In Orlando:
In LA:
- 10 seasons with 50 wins.

Now, why am i putting this stuff up? To ilustrate something: untill Hakeem reached the Finals without Sampson (wich he did 2 times and won both of them) he wasn't perceived as being the type of player who could carry the Franchise to the championship. In fact, he had 4 straight one-and-out seasons.

In all honesty, Ewing and Robinson were viewed as guys who could provide more impact to the franchise. It's not a fluke that Hakeem only played 3 CF (won2) as the Rocksts Franchise Player.

I think that Hakeem's "edge" due to playoff success against the likes of Ewing and Robinson is a little exagerated by the fact that he had 3 good playoff years. People forget that the ONLY team that put up a fight for the Bulls in the playoffs were the Knicks (and believe me that Ewing played with crap for a long, long time).

Impact players don't only show on the players' stats: the impact is showned on the w/l column.

__________________
(...) we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender (...)

Mateo

win/loss is a stat.

PauloCatarino

Fixed it.

__________________
(...) we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender (...)

PauloCatarino

If Scottie Pippen is a 9.5, i would have to give each player 9.6 or 9.7 (all better than Pippen and worse that Magic/Bird...)

So, forgetting Pippen and thinking about Magic/Bird as 9.8 type of players, i'd go:

Shaquille O’Neal: 9.5
Hakeem Olajuwon: 9.3
David Robinson: 9.0
Tim Duncan: 8.9
Karl Malone: 9.2
Charles Barkley: 8.7
Patrick Ewing: 8.9

Or something like that. And considering career value, not prime years.

__________________
(...) we shall not flag or fail. We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender (...)

Minstrel

Incorrect. The Pacers played the Bulls extremely tough too, as they and the Knicks were the only teams to take the Bulls to 7 games in a series during their title years.

I guess that makes Smits a pantheon center as well.

__________________
Nothing ever burns down by itself
Every fire needs a little bit of help
Give the anarchist a cigarette.

Nikos

One thing I forgot to mention is to try and put a little more emphasis on a players prime 2-3 seasons.

BTW Minstrel, do you really think Pippen in his prime 2-3 years was superior to a prime Barkley? I know Pippen was a superior defender, but wasn't Barkley just too dominant offensively to ignore? Pippen was excellent on both ends in 1994, but doesn't great offense combined with rebounding outweigh excellent defense?

Also why would Pippen be Duncan's equal? Besides passing, is he really better at anything? Duncan with good defensive support has anchored all time great defenses. Pippen isn't quite as dominant on both ends, is he?