Dwight Howard

TheStig

New member
Joined:
Apr 5, 2009
Posts:
3,636
Liked Posts:
38
Hendu0520 wrote:
RPK wrote:
Hakeem was better then Shaq...

Had every post move and even invented some moves.

Clutch playoff performer.

As good as he was offensively, he was even better defensively.

Let's look at some of his accolades...

*Only player in NBA history to have won MVP, Finals MVP and Defensive Player of the Year awards in the same season (1994).

*One of the 4 players in NBA history to have ever recorded a quadruple-double.

*Olajuwon also won the rebounding and blocked shots titles in 1989-90, becoming the third player ever (after Abdul-Jabbar and Bill Walton) to lead the league in both categories during the same season.

*All-time leader in blocked shots.

*Olajuwon is also in the top ten in blocks, scoring, rebounding, and STEALS. He is the only player in NBA history placed in the top ten for all four categories.


*All-time NBA Playoffs leader in total blocks with 472 and blocks per game with 3.3 per game

*Olajuwon ranks 7th all-time in STEALS and is the highest ranked center.

*In 1989, Olajuwon had 282 blocks and 218 steals, becoming the only NBA player to record over 200 blocks and 200 steals in a season

Come on, not only could he block you, but he had amazingly agile hands that he would steal the ball from you too! When do you ever hear about a center stealing the ball?

The MVP, Finals MVP, and DPOY thing is cool but that just proves that the writers got it right for once. Jordan could have won all three in one year, Shaq was always underrated as a defender so he never got a DPOY but IMO should have. So that could have very easily have coincided in one year for other players as well. To me the MVP should have won all of those awards most of the time, he is the best player, just shows the people voting are stupid.

Ok total stats are just because he played so long, and Shaq is not done yet so we can't do total stats. So you can give us blocks and steals that Olajuwon was better at. Shaq had the most altered shots by his body that I have ever seen. No one even came into the paint and I have always felt that kept his blocks stats down. Ok so Shaq was too big to steal as many as Hakeem.

Lets take there head to head matchup when Shaq was a 3rd year player on the biggest stage of the finals. I know Hakeem hit the big shots but his team was better and the Magic were young and I think overwhelmed after the Nick Anderson collapse, it would have been closer if he makes just one free throw, the Magic get game 1 and it could have been totally different.

Hakeem: 32.8ppg 11.5rpg 5.5apg 2spg 2bpg 48%fg 69%ft

(3rd yr)Shaq: 28ppg 12.5rpg 6.3apg .3spg 2.5bpg*** 59%fg 57%ft

Ok so the great shot blocker got out shot blocked by a youngster who wasn't that great at blocking shots. Shaq beat him in Rebounding, Assists, Blocks. Much better FG% because dunks and little hooks are always better than fancy moves and jump shots that dazzle the eye but are actaully less effective. So what if he invented moves, to me every player does moves that the others can't do. Shaq's devestating dropstep or turnaround baby hook, Ewing's cross the foul line jumper, The Dream Shake, the Robinson Drive to the Hoop. The closer you shoot to the basket the more efficient you will be, so Shaq's dropstep I will take because he will be the closest to the basket.

Further more: Hakeem's supporting cast was much better, all of their starters scored more than every other starter on the Magic except Penny(25.5ppg).

Clyde Drexler: 21.5ppg 9.5rpg 6.8apg 1spg .3bpg
Robert Horry: 17.8ppg 10rpg 3.8apg 3spg 2.3bpg
Mario Elie : 16.3ppg 4.3rpg 3.3apg 2spg 0
Sam Cassell: 14.3ppg 3.oapg

Here are the Magic afer Penny: 25.5ppg 8apg 4.8rpg 1spg .8bpg 45%3pt

Horace Grant:13.3ppg 12rpg 1.5apg .5spg .5bpg
Brian Shaw: 12.5ppg 3.3rpg 3.3apg .5spg .3bpg 38%3pt 21mpg far less than NAnderson,Dscott
Nick Anderson: 12.3 8.5rpg 4.3apg 2spg .5bpg 32%3pt
Dennis Scott: 10.5ppg 3.5rpg 2.3apg 1spg .3bpg 24% I repeat 24% from their sharpshooter.

Your gonna tell me that 2 years later after Penny's knee destroyed Orlando, that Shaq wouldn't have killed a Hakeem at his prime.

Other than Grant and Anderson rebounding well Shaq's supporting crew is the reason they lost, not to mention Nick Anderson missing the 4 ft's in game 1.
Hakeem might have total stats, a quadruple double, and 200stls/blks ooh.
Robinson had a quadruple double, 72pts to win a scoring title, from Shaq on the last day of the season, and probably has similar stats to Hakeem in steals and blocks.

Is David Robinson better than Shaq too?
You really underrate having a second superstar on the team. Hakeem never had that to take off pressure till he got a heavily declining Drexler. Shaq always had a young Penny, Kobe, Wade and even now has steve nash(old but still top 5 at his postion). It takes a lot off when you don't have to do what Lebron does for a decade. I mean really, he made cassell, smith, horry and maxwell look like good.
 

dougthonus

New member
Joined:
Mar 13, 2009
Posts:
2,665
Liked Posts:
9
I think you guys are overrating Howard a bit and are jumping the gun in calling him top 5 all time. Howards rebounding rate is also inflated due to the fact that everyone else on his team averaged less than 6rpg. I am not going to try to compare Russel to Howard but that same year you cited for Russel he played with two other guys who got more than 5rpg, so despite having a lower rate he was playing with better rebounders and not wing players.

First, I wasn't claiming that Howard was a top 5 center of all time. Just to be clear. I was just discussing whether he could get into that group when his career is over. That obviously means he will need to continue to do well in the future and have a long productive career.

So back to the rebounding argument, once we pace adjust and minute adjust Russell's stats you're now left finding excuses as to why Russell had a 6% lower rebound rate. That's like trying to justify why Kobe shoots 5% less than Michael Jordan and has never come even remotely close to Jordan's scoring averages, but still claiming he's a better scorer than Jordan.

As I said, once you compare apples to apples, it's an observable statistical fact that Russell's rebound rate simply wasn't that special relative to other guys in the modern era. His gaudy rebounding statistics, like that of many players were a product of the era he played in.

Bill Russell, most overrated player in the history of basketball.
 

dougthonus

New member
Joined:
Mar 13, 2009
Posts:
2,665
Liked Posts:
9
One interesting facet of Shaq's four championships that will never be discussed is this:
1) They should have lost to Portland one year. Portland had one of the greatest ever chokes in the history of basketball up by 17 in the fourth quarter (or something like that going off memory) and losing in game 7.

2) They should have lost to Sacramento in 6 games one year, in the infamous donaghy reffed game that many NBA insiders believe was fixed against Sacramento. If it wasn't fixed, it was the worst reffed game in the history of the league.

The results are what they are, but Shaq could easily be sitting here with two titles and one of them as the second best player on the team.
 

houheffna

Ignoring Idiots
Joined:
May 6, 2009
Posts:
8,673
Liked Posts:
2,711
Well the Portland argument is a bit mute. The outcome was that the Lakers won, it was fair so there is nothing to talk about there. The Kings game is a serious problem. I didn't like hearing that...
 

TheStig

New member
Joined:
Apr 5, 2009
Posts:
3,636
Liked Posts:
38
dougthonus wrote:
I think you guys are overrating Howard a bit and are jumping the gun in calling him top 5 all time. Howards rebounding rate is also inflated due to the fact that everyone else on his team averaged less than 6rpg. I am not going to try to compare Russel to Howard but that same year you cited for Russel he played with two other guys who got more than 5rpg, so despite having a lower rate he was playing with better rebounders and not wing players.

First, I wasn't claiming that Howard was a top 5 center of all time. Just to be clear. I was just discussing whether he could get into that group when his career is over. That obviously means he will need to continue to do well in the future and have a long productive career.

So back to the rebounding argument, once we pace adjust and minute adjust Russell's stats you're now left finding excuses as to why Russell had a 6% lower rebound rate. That's like trying to justify why Kobe shoots 5% less than Michael Jordan and has never come even remotely close to Jordan's scoring averages, but still claiming he's a better scorer than Jordan.

As I said, once you compare apples to apples, it's an observable statistical fact that Russell's rebound rate simply wasn't that special relative to other guys in the modern era. His gaudy rebounding statistics, like that of many players were a product of the era he played in.

Bill Russell, most overrated player in the history of basketball.
I am not trying to find excuses why Russel's numbers are lower. It is just a legitimate reason why Howard's are inflated. I mean really, he spends 95% of the time playing with only wings and a pg who aren't good rebounders. Why can't the Biendris effect factor into Howard's numbers. I am not trying to take anything away from him but to me he looks like a ZO/Ewing type. Thats not to say he can't become top 5 or that being Zo/Ewing is bad, but I don't think he has the absolutely domaniant post game of the top 5 to be there. Furthermore, Howard doesn't play against quality competition that the others do, there wasn't even a second all star center in the east this year. Who is the next best C in the east? Lopez? Big Z? Perkins? I am not trying to detract from Howard, he will be a very very good player at the least, but he is just in the right place and time to make his numbers better than they should be.
 

houheffna

Ignoring Idiots
Joined:
May 6, 2009
Posts:
8,673
Liked Posts:
2,711
Good point about the lack of competition, but that doesn't stop Shaq fans from claiming he's the greatest....
 

Shakes

Iconoclast
Joined:
Apr 22, 2009
Posts:
3,857
Liked Posts:
142
dougthonus wrote:
The results are what they are, but Shaq could easily be sitting here with two titles and one of them as the second best player on the team.

Which is really another reason why championships are such a worthless tool in evaluating players.

It's not just Shaq either, Hakeem by rights should have zero championships. His team was never the best in the league (or even really close to it), they just got lucky and won some playoff series where they were the underdogs.

I think people forget that even if a team has 2:1 odds of winning every game it will still lose a 7 game series over 17% of the time. To win a championship you not only need a good team around you, you need to get lucky in the playoffs, because even good teams can lose just through the dumb luck of small sample size.
 

dougthonus

New member
Joined:
Mar 13, 2009
Posts:
2,665
Liked Posts:
9
I am not trying to find excuses why Russel's numbers are lower. It is just a legitimate reason why Howard's are inflated. I mean really, he spends 95% of the time playing with only wings and a pg who aren't good rebounders.

Who is the dominant rebounder that Russell played with? The next tallest guy on the team in his best rebounding year was 6'7 and weighed 218 lbs. Russell had the same deal.

Why can't the Biendris effect factor into Howard's numbers. I am not trying to take anything away from him but to me he looks like a ZO/Ewing type. Thats not to say he can't become top 5 or that being Zo/Ewing is bad, but I don't think he has the absolutely domaniant post game of the top 5 to be there.

I think Zo and Ewing were better centers than Russell too, and their "type" of center is better than Russell. Russell was a Marcus Camby type.


urthermore, Howard doesn't play against quality competition that the others do, there wasn't even a second all star center in the east this year.

Seriously, you think the competition in the NBA was better when Russell played? If you put up Russell's celtics against the Clippers today, the Clippers would beat the crap out of them.
 

dougthonus

New member
Joined:
Mar 13, 2009
Posts:
2,665
Liked Posts:
9
houheffna wrote:
Well the Portland argument is a bit mute. The outcome was that the Lakers won, it was fair so there is nothing to talk about there. The Kings game is a serious problem. I didn't like hearing that...

What I'm really saying is that using championships is such a dicey proposition. Three of Shaq's four titles really could have, and possibly should have gone the other way. I believe game 6 against the Kings was fixed. When Kobe elbowed bibby in the face and they called bibby for an offensive foul, it was about the most ridiculous call in the history of basketball.

Portland got absolutely screwed by the refs in their game 7 collapse as well, but they also did themselves in by not hitting anything at all.

Dwyane Wade got the benefit of every whistle in his finals as well, and I think a lot of people feel that Dallas got screwed really badly there, not that this championship really effects Shaq's legacy to me given how he didn't really play all that well in that playoff run.

Anyway, this isn't to say Shaq didn't deserve the rings, but to say that given how thin the line was between championship and not championship with potential ref conspiracies involved in three of the four titles, I don't like to weigh the championships heavily in the argument.

I don't know if I'd make Shaq the greatest center of all time, but I think I'd call him the greatest offensive center of all time for sure. I'm not sure, because I haven't spent tons of time trying to really evaluate them, but I think he's probably worse defensively than most of the other great centers though. He really struggled with the pick and roll.

He also didn't put in full effort to stay in shape a lot of times. If Shaq was more motivated he could have probably been better than Jordan.
 

houheffna

Ignoring Idiots
Joined:
May 6, 2009
Posts:
8,673
Liked Posts:
2,711
Which is really another reason why championships are such a worthless tool in evaluating players.

It's not just Shaq either, Hakeem by rights should have zero championships. His team was never the best in the league (or even really close to it), they just got lucky and won some playoff series where they were the underdogs.

I think people forget that even if a team has 2:1 odds of winning every game it will still lose a 7 game series over 17% of the time. To win a championship you not only need a good team around you, you need to get lucky in the playoffs, because even good teams can lose just through the dumb luck of small sample size.


That makes no sense. In 93-94, they were one of the best teams in the league, they started the year 15-0 and Olajuwon would get the MVP. Your ability to lead a team when you are the underdog which what JORDAN HAD TO DO is commendable to say the least. Olajuwon's teams would win in the playoffs because during that time, he was the best player on the floor.

Your sampling is nonsensical also. You have to know the difference between luck and skill, obviously you were not watching Olajuwon at that time, so you dismiss it as luck, sweeping a 62-win team when you were the sixth seed and played as the underdog the whole damn playoff is NOT LUCK its OLAJUWON...period.
 

dougthonus

New member
Joined:
Mar 13, 2009
Posts:
2,665
Liked Posts:
9
In 15 years Hakeem got past the second round of the playoffs just three times. I think you have to factor that in when discussing how great he was and how much he carried teams in the playoffs if you bring up that as a point in his favor.
 

TheStig

New member
Joined:
Apr 5, 2009
Posts:
3,636
Liked Posts:
38
dougthonus wrote:
I am not trying to find excuses why Russel's numbers are lower. It is just a legitimate reason why Howard's are inflated. I mean really, he spends 95% of the time playing with only wings and a pg who aren't good rebounders.

Who is the dominant rebounder that Russell played with? The next tallest guy on the team in his best rebounding year was 6'7 and weighed 218 lbs. Russell had the same deal.

Why can't the Biendris effect factor into Howard's numbers. I am not trying to take anything away from him but to me he looks like a ZO/Ewing type. Thats not to say he can't become top 5 or that being Zo/Ewing is bad, but I don't think he has the absolutely domaniant post game of the top 5 to be there.

I think Zo and Ewing were better centers than Russell too, and their "type" of center is better than Russell. Russell was a Marcus Camby type.


urthermore, Howard doesn't play against quality competition that the others do, there wasn't even a second all star center in the east this year.

Seriously, you think the competition in the NBA was better when Russell played? If you put up Russell's celtics against the Clippers today, the Clippers would beat the crap out of them.
Doug, I am not sure why we are debating the merits of Bill Russel. I don't really hold him in the top 5. I would rank Shaq, Wilt, Hakeem, Kareem, Malone, and Robinson ahead of them in no particular order. You are taking my agruements and applying them specically to Russel when only one of them are specific(Russel having better rebounders). And to address that point you stated that Russel usaully played with 5 other HOF players, it stands to reason that at least one of them was an above average rebounder for their postion instead of the average at absolute best howard plays with. Lastly its not fair to compare athletic abilities and heights from nearly 50 years ago. The average person is taller, stronger and heavier than 50 yrs old, it stands that through evolution that an average 7 footer could push russel around but you can only compare Russel against players in his generation unless you have the fountain of youth somewhere. Which is why I rank Wilt higher than him.
Back to Howard, I don't think its unfair to grade his competition, the east doesn't have anything better than an average center and he only played a real center a few times a year. It is so bad that the east has no other allstar center this year. I believe that the guys 10 yrs ago having to battle shaq, robinson, hakeem, ewing, zo, mutumbo and so on had harder competition and more depth at the postion. I also don't think its unfair to point out the biendris effect of playing on a team that doesn't play any other real post player for 95% of the time. Outside of Gorat's minutes backing up Howard and playing with him for a couple minutes a game, who else at that team is anything more than an average rebounder at their postion. At that, Lewis is a poor rebounding PF (because he is a sf) and I would say their backcourt is poor at rebounding too. They certainly don't get many rebounds from their sg. So I think that inflates Howard's numbers and has nothing to do with russell.
 

houheffna

Ignoring Idiots
Joined:
May 6, 2009
Posts:
8,673
Liked Posts:
2,711
n 15 years Hakeem got past the second round of the playoffs just three times. I think you have to factor that in when discussing how great he was and how much he carried teams in the playoffs if you bring up that as a point in his favor.

I don't think that is his fault. When you put good talent around him, you win. Because of him, they were usually competitive, but when you give him 5 or 6 long distance shooters and clutch performers and a team that is at/near the top in the league defensively when he reaches his prime, you get a couple of championships. The talent that he had in many ways were comparable to the Skiles' Bulls teams.

He never had a great wing player to play alongside him, Shaq had three. Olajuwon had an aging Drexler, and that was the closest he would get to playing with a great player while they still had greatness left.


I like Shaq, my top 5 centers are Kareem, Chamberlain, Moses, Olajuwon, and Shaq.
 

Shakes

Iconoclast
Joined:
Apr 22, 2009
Posts:
3,857
Liked Posts:
142
houheffna wrote:
That makes no sense. In 93-94, they were one of the best teams in the league, they started the year 15-0 and Olajuwon would get the MVP. Your ability to lead a team when you are the underdog which what JORDAN HAD TO DO is commendable to say the least. Olajuwon's teams would win in the playoffs because during that time, he was the best player on the floor.

While only the Sonics finished with a better record than the rockets in 93-94, there were 5 teams with a better point differential, which is a better indicator of team strength than wins. The Rockets were a good, but not great, team that year: to put it in perspective, the 06-07 Bulls had a better point differential than they did.

Your sampling is nonsensical also. You have to know the difference between luck and skill, obviously you were not watching Olajuwon at that time, so you dismiss it as luck, sweeping a 62-win team when you were the sixth seed and played as the underdog the whole damn playoff is NOT LUCK its OLAJUWON...period.

If Olajuwon was so good at lifting a team why could he not do it for the regular season? Surely it doesn't take too much of a statistical background to see that you're going to get a better indication of how good a team is over a sample size of 82 games than over a 7 game series.

Sometimes the underdog will win, and Olajuwon happened to be on a couple of those teams. He was a great player no doubt, but he really got lucky to win the championships he did.
 

Top