Hakeem the Playoff Dream [Archive] - Message Board Basketball Forum

Roundball_Rock

06-12-2020, 11:19 AM

With all the (context-less) talk about playoff efficiency here I looked at sixteen 90's stars' playoff efficiency and compared it to the regular season efficiency to see how much of a decline they had in their primes. A few players stuck out. K. Malone for being the biggest decliner by either TS % or eFG% (-6% in TS, -7% in eFG). Stockton stuck out for being the second worst--interesting since they were teammates.

On the positive side, Barkley stuck out. He declined too but he did so from such a high level of RS efficiency that Barkley in the playoffs was as efficient as Malone was in the regular season.

The player who stuck out the most, though, was Hakeem. Every player on the list had a decrease in efficiency in the playoffs, no matter how large or small--except Hakeem. Hakeem actually increased his efficiency in the postseason. This is remarkable since playoff defenses as a group are much tougher than RS defenses. Here are the numbers for Hakeem and the other elite centers of his era (RS numbers in parentheses):

Hakeem the Playoff Dream

By eFG% (adjusts for 3’s being worth more)

Ewing 88’-97’: 48.3% (51.6%)
Hakeem 86’-97’: 53.8% (51.5%)
Robinson 90’-98’: 48.1% (52.5%)
Shaq 94’-05’: 56.2% (58.0%)
Mourning 94’-00’: 49.4% (53.0%)

By TS%

Ewing 88’-97’: 52.8% (56.3%)
Robinson 90’-98’: 54.9% (59.0%)
Shaq 94’-05’: 56.7% (58.4%)
Mourning 94’-00’: 54.8% (58.7%)
Hakeem 86’-97’: 57.8% (55.8%)

The numbers are mind boggling. So Hakeem in TS was about 3% less efficient than Robinson in the RS--but in the postseason he became 3% more efficient--a net swing of 6%. Vis-a-vis Ewing, he went from comparable (-0.5%) to 5% more efficient, another net swing of about 6%.

It is even more impressive when you compare him with his longtime contemporaries Ewing and Robinson in the prime years (defined by all-NBA data) in the 90's they were contending for championships (#'s are TS).

Ewing 92'-97': 51.9% (54.7%)
Robinson 94'-98': 52.9% (58.7%)
Hakeem 93'-97': 57.2% (56.4%)

So we see an even larger swing in these years, the years that define the legacies of each of these players. Hakeem went from -2% in efficiency against Robinson to +4% in the postseason, a net swing of 6%. With Ewing his advantage grew from +2% to +5%. Keep in mind these are centers in the era where they played near the basket. So a 52-53% TS for a center is terrible efficiency.

How did Hakeem do it? One possible surface level explanation is his teams made deeper runs in his best years, hence his overall numbers increased. That seems unlikely. The deeper a player goes into the playoffs the tougher the defenses he will face. That hurts efficiency. In Hakeem's case he faced Robinson, Ewing, Shaq in the four finals/WCF series he had in 94' and 95'--literally the three best rivals at his position. Plus, we can isolate those years:

Hakeem in the 94' and 95' playoffs: 56.3% (56.4%)

So even there he holds steady despite facing the toughest competition possible at his position.

How did Hakeem do what is so rare: objectively raise his efficiency numbers in the playoffs? What made him unique? Any Hakeem fans here with thoughts?

HoopsNY

06-12-2020, 11:39 AM

Hakeem doesn't get the respect he deserves. I'm really beginning to question the idea that Bird and Magic > Hakeem.

He comes into what seemed to be a promising situation given that the Rockets drafted Ralph Sampson, a 7'4" 21 pts-11 rebs-2 blks machine. They brought back John Lucas, a veteran PG who was one of the better PGs of his time.

The 1985-86 season saw a lot of promise. In just his second season and Sampson's third, they beat the Lakers and go to the finals, winning 2 games against Boston, (no other team that playoffs won more than 1).

But in that season, Lucas gets released due to his cocaine addiction.

17 ppg Lewis Lloyd ends up getting banned a couple of seasons later, as does a promising role player in Mitchell Wiggins. Then Ralph Sampson gets hurt and he's never the same again.

The Rockets as a team really suffered due to cocaine addictions and injuries. Honestly, if that team is free of that, then what do the 80s look like? I believe it's very possible the Rockets could have won the title in 1988 and 1990, (no one would have beaten the '87 Lakers or the '89 Pistons).

And I also believe had Jordan came back in 1995 for the full season, the Bulls would have still lost to Hakeem's Rockets. So we're ultimately looking at maybe 4 NBA titles in 5 trips to the finals. And maybe that comes with more MVP awards and a definite 4 Finals MVP awards. The man was just that damn good.

Not everyone walked into a golden situation with great veteran leadership and management like Bird and Magic. And when you look at overall skill and ability, were they really better than Hakeem, or did Hakeem just face an unfortunate set of circumstances?

Roundball_Rock

06-12-2020, 12:15 PM

The argument against Hakeem career-wise versus his peers is the totality of his career versus theirs. After doing this exercise, I have to consider putting him ahead of Kobe and Duncan (pending checking the corresponding #'s for them but I doubt they increased efficiency in the postseason), though, but when you get higher on the list you are talking guys with 3+ MVP's, etc.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

06-12-2020, 01:41 PM

Don't see how Bird walked into a "golden situation". Boston was 29-52 before he got there. And 61-21 after his rookie year. Bird led the team in scoring and rebounding, made 1st Team All-NBA and grabbed ROY. To say he took charge from jump is an understatement. Larry brought Boston back to the forefront - instantly.

Your argument probably works for Magic, but even then, he created and popularized 'Showtime'. The Lakers had some of the greatest offenses in history under his reign. And in the playoffs and finals? Magic might have been better. There are 3 or 4 different postseason runs where Magic averaged over 13 assists and scored over 22 points. All on 60%+TS. His offensive impact is up there with anyone's.

Hakeem is underrated though. And as pointed out, is also one of the RARE players who upped his playoff efficiency. Significantly. I don't think Duncan or Kobe were better players. And while I don't have Hakeem>Shaq, I wouldn't disagree with anyone who did either. On the premise that Hakeem faced better competition.

Phoenix

06-12-2020, 01:58 PM

Hakeem doesn't get the respect he deserves. I'm really beginning to question the idea that Bird and Magic > Hakeem.

I'm not sure that's the case. Hakeem is basically considered a top 10 player mostly on the strength of 94 and 95, specifically back to back titles with FMVP, an MVP award, DPOY and conquering his immediate contemporaries in head to head competition. That is an incredibly unique set of circumstances. Outside of that, had Hakeem had two great years in 94 and 95 but flamed out in the playoffs? He'd probably be considered more in the lower half of the top 20. I can't think of another player whose career legacy was defined in such a short window. So I think he gets a ton of respect for essentially what was an incredible 2 year run. Most of the players ranked ahead of him had more sustained success in terms of winning championships over a longer stretch of time.

Your point about him vs Bird and Magic is well taken though. In terms of *peaks* it's not the worst opinion to say he peaked the highest out of the three, though I'm hesitant to outright make that declaration. All three were incredible players.

Roundball_Rock

06-12-2020, 03:02 PM

I'm not sure that's the case. Hakeem is basically considered a top 10 player mostly on the strength of 94 and 95, specifically back to back titles with FMVP, an MVP award, DPOY and conquering his immediate contemporaries in head to head competition. That is an incredibly unique set of circumstances. Outside of that, had Hakeem had two great years in 94 and 95 but flamed out in the playoffs? He'd probably be considered more in the lower half of the top 20. I can't think of another player whose career legacy was defined in such a short window. So I think he gets a ton of respect for essentially what was an incredible 2 year run. Most of the players ranked ahead of him had more sustained success in terms of winning championships over a longer stretch of time.

Your point about him vs Bird and Magic is well taken though. In terms of *peaks* it's not the worst opinion to say he peaked the highest out of the three, though I'm hesitant to outright make that declaration. All three were incredible players.

Agreed. If you took the best two years off of every top 10ish player's resume and re-ranked them things would look very similar--except for Hakeem. That isn't how it works, of course. You don't erase someone's two best years but it shows Hakeem outside of his peak was not doing what the players around or ahead of him in the rankings were. I get giving him a boost based on his peak, but the idea that he>>>Robinson, Ewing at center and was clearly a rung below MJ, a rung ahead of every other 90's players is revisionism based on the aftermath of 94' (which eliminated Ewing) and 95' (which eliminated Robinson) and the injuries that caused Barkley to start to decline in 94' and onward.

dankok8

06-12-2020, 03:08 PM

I've always said that Hakeem was a better player than Kobe and Duncan. Career particularly team accomplishments weigh too heavily on people's minds.

ArbitraryWater

06-12-2020, 03:12 PM

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

06-12-2020, 03:13 PM

The fact they won 61 games in his rookie year should tell you his team was pretty damn good.

Bird wasnt some uber rookie.

First team, ROY and led Boston in scoring and rebounding

Looks pretty "uber" to me :confusedshrug:

Stephonit

06-12-2020, 03:17 PM

Stephonit

06-12-2020, 03:22 PM

The fact they won 61 games in his rookie year should tell you his team was pretty damn good.

Bird wasnt some uber rookie.

29 wins before. 61 after. Seems like the definition of uber rookie.

ArbitraryWater

06-12-2020, 04:01 PM

First team, ROY and led Boston in scoring and rebounding

Looks pretty "uber" to me :confusedshrug:

21 ppg scorers don‘t transform 19 win teams to 61 win teams.

Bird was great, deserved ROY, but that record had as much to do with the well roundedness of the team.

EIGHT 11+ ppg scorers. Pete may have only played 24 games, but thats still almost a third of the games.

HoopsNY

06-12-2020, 04:20 PM

I didn't mean to take away from Bird's rookie year. When I mentioned that he walked into a great situation, consider management and the fact that he had great veteran leadership on his team at the time.

The Celtics had guys like Archibald and Cowens on that team to offer veteran leadership, and in terms of production, Cedric Maxwell and Archibald were no slouches. Some might say that Archibald didn't have amazing production, but he was still 5th in MVP voting, right behind Bird.

The following season they added Parish and McHale to the mix. Archibald was an all-star in both the 1979-80 and 1980-81 seasons. In Bird's second season, Tiny Archibald was All-NBA 2nd team. Clearly he was doing something right, and clearly management was pulling the right strings to develop a championship caliber team.

Bird ended up on some of the most legendary teams with legendary support. This can't be denied. This isn't to say Houston didn't do a good job of drafting and providing talent. They did. The difference is that Hakeem had a stroke of bad luck with how his teammates's careers turned out. But even with that being said, I don't think having Sampson, Lucas, and Lloyd was as good as having McAdoo, Worthy, Kareem, Cooper, Scott or Maxwell, Archibald, DJ, McHale, Parish. and Walton.

Putting aside Hakeem's two title seasons, look at his numbers between 1985-1993:

23.6/12.7/2.5 with 2.1 stls and 3.7 blks on 51%

PER: 24.6
TS%: 55.6%
OBPM: 2.6
DBPM: 3.0
WS/48: 19.3
OWS: 36.6
DWS: 52.4
VORP: 42.3

Magic from 1985-1991

21.1/6.7/12.3 with 1.6 stls and 0.3 blks shooting 50%

PER: 25.5
TS%: 61%
OBPM: 6.9
DBPM: 1.5
WS/48: .247
OWS: 64.9
DWS: 22.0
VORP: 44.2

Bird from 1985-1992:

25.1/9.3/7.0 with 1.6 stls and 0.8 blks on 49.5% shooting

PER: 24.1
TS%: .576%
OBPM: 5.7
DBPM: 1.6
WS/48: .203
OWS: 43.0
DWS: 25.2
VORP: 37.8

And this is with a depleted team from the demise of his running mate and role players. He did have support in the years following, but nothing that would have originally been a dynasty. Not to mention, Hakeem had to carry the offensive load, which is much more difficult when you don't have a viable second option. Keep in mind, these are the numbers WITHOUT his championship years.

kuniva_dAMiGhTy

06-12-2020, 05:10 PM

21 ppg scorers don‘t transform 19 win teams to 61 win teams.

Bird was great, deserved ROY, but that record had as much to do with the well roundedness of the team.

EIGHT 11+ ppg scorers. Pete may have only played 24 games, but thats still almost a third of the games.

Nobody does single-handedly.

Bird was without a doubt their best player. And as 'well-rounded' of a player they had. You seldom find rookies who make 1st team ALL-NBA. Let alone lead a team to 30+ wins.

Cowens, Maxwell and Archibald were still pretty good players, but were also on the team that won just 29 games. The year prior. You mentioned Pete Maravich. another good player, but that was his final season. Nowhere near what he once was.

Objectively, Bird was the player who moved the needle.

Roundball_Rock

06-12-2020, 05:27 PM

An increase in playoffs efficiency is interesting for the reason you mention, however, I do not think it means as much as you may think. Another way of looking at it is to suspect that Hakeem didn't try as much during the regular season.

Interesting take. Was Hakeem known to coast in the RS? Any Hakeem fans here?

21 ppg scorers don‘t transform 19 win teams to 61 win teams.

It was the scoring plus the elite passing plus the excellent rebounding for a SF. So he brought a lot of things in a package. Look at what happened when he missed 76 games in 89'. Boston went from 57 wins and the ECF to 42 wins and losing in the first round.

The Celtics had guys like Archibald and Cowens on that team to offer veteran leadership, and in terms of production, Cedric Maxwell and Archibald were no slouches.

How does that compare to other teams around the same time, though? Magic, for instance, was drafted to a team with the best player in the NBA, Norm Nixon (who actually led the team in assists, not Magic, his rookie year), Jamaal Wilkes.

True, but the Celtics had those guys in the previous years too and the team sucked. Not only that, the previous year they also had Bob McAdoo for part of the season and a past his prime but still productive JoJo White.

What changed was Bird.

Bird ended up on some of the most legendary teams with legendary support

True, but they also faced comparable talent on opposing teams in LA and PHI. So they were great but it wasn't as if they were a super team towering above the rest of the comp. Better than what Hakeem had around him, though, for sure.

This isn't to say Houston didn't do a good job of drafting and providing talent. They did. The difference is that Hakeem had a stroke of bad luck with how his teammates's careers turned out

Hakeem didn't have what Bird had but he had more around him than Ewing or Robinson in their respective primes. Ewing never had a player as good as Sampson or Drexler on his teams. His second options in his primes were John Starks and Xavier McDaniel. :lol Robinson had Sean Elliott, probably better than Thorpe but no Sampson or Drexler. Robinson did have Rodman as well--but only briefly and Rodman became a cancer in 95'.

Putting aside Hakeem's two title seasons, look at his numbers between 1985-1993:

23.6/12.7/2.5 with 2.1 stls and 3.7 blks on 51%

PER: 24.6
TS%: 55.6%
OBPM: 2.6
DBPM: 3.0
WS/48: 19.3
OWS: 36.6
DWS: 52.4
VORP: 42.3

Let's do that with David Robinson, though. Tack on 99' since he missed all of 97'.

24.4/11.5/3.0 with 1.6 steals, 3.4 blocks on 52%.

PER: 27.7
TS %: 58.9%
OBPM: 5.3
DBPM: 3.3
WS/48: .261
OWS: 78.5
DWS: 59.3
VORP: 67.5

He wasn't the Hakeem of lore his entire career. This is why he was behind Robinson in all-NBA more often than vice versa. This comparison is unfair since we took out Hakeem's 2 best years and didn't do the same with Robinson, but you get the point.

Hakeem>Robinson but the fact that at the time they were close statistically and perception wise (Robinson would almost certainly win a poll of GM's or coaches before 1994) is a knock against him. Bird and Magic weren't being compared to top 20-30 all-time players prime versus prime, for example.

Phoenix

06-12-2020, 11:45 PM

Hakeem's career track changed for the better when he converted. It's hard to see him as being hot-heated and a mal-content but thats exactly what he was literally 2 years before winning the title. And by 93, he had the right kind of team around him to leverage what he could do on the block. Jet, Mad Mad, Cassell, Horry could stick the 3 enough to make you pay for doubling him so it became a pick your poison affair. Alot of things came together in a fairly short time for Dream to get to the spot he's now mostly remembered by.

But around 92? Ewing was challenging the Bulls out east and Robinson was winning the IBM award for all around statistical excellence and making people think he was the next 'dominant' player. Then Shaq came onboard. Dream had to go through that big man gauntlet to distinguish himself from the pack and as I said before, very seldom had a player managed to conquer all his immediate positional rivals directly enroute to championships.

HoopsNY

06-13-2020, 12:53 AM

How does that compare to other teams around the same time, though? Magic, for instance, was drafted to a team with the best player in the NBA, Norm Nixon (who actually led the team in assists, not Magic, his rookie year), Jamaal Wilkes.

My point wasn't to compare opponents, though. It was to show that when you have a steady circle of great talent around you, you're going to have more opportunities to win, which is exactly what happened with Magic and Larry, who occupied a combined total of 14 finals appearances.

To re-emphasize the point, if Hakeem has that steady core of talent around him, then surely that 1 finals appearance would probably turn into more, especially with Kareem getting older. Who would have challenged Sampson and Hakeem out of the Western Conference had Sampson's career continued without injury?

True, but the Celtics had those guys in the previous years too and the team sucked. Not only that, the previous year they also had Bob McAdoo for part of the season and a past his prime but still productive JoJo White.

They traded for McAdoo. I'm weary of such trades for a couple of reasons. For one, it's a small sample size and in this case McAdoo only played 20 games with them. Also, JoJo White played just 47 games. Secondly, there is a lot to be said about a team being able to gel together.

When the Rockets traded for Clyde, they didn't play well initially. The Rockets were 17-17 after they traded for him and dropped down to the 6th seed, which would later become the lowest seed ever to win the NBA title. I think this speaks volumes about a team being able to gel with new players and the time it takes to adjust.

Let's do that with David Robinson, though. Tack on 99' since he missed all of 97'.

I'm glad you brought that up. To add onto Hakeem's greatness, where he really separates himself from others is his playoff ability. So again, just focusing on 1985-1993 (not including his championship years):

Playoffs: 26.8/12.7/2.7 with 1.9 stls and 3.9 blks on 54%

PER: 26.7
TS%: .585
OWS: 5.9
DWS: 5.0
WS/48: .227
OBPM: 4.7
DBPM: 3.2
VORP: 5.6

Robinson's playoffs from 1989-1999:

21.7/11.6/2.8 with 1.3 stls and 3.0 blks on 48% shooting

PER: 23.9
TS%: .551
OWS: 5.9
DWS: 6.6
WS/48: .199
OBPM: 3.7
DBPM: 2.9
VORP: 6.6

Clearly Hakeem was the better player. And as you previously mentioned, we're not even accounting for his two championship seasons. My contention with Magic and Bird is that they had the luxury of deeper, sustainable dynasties. In the case of Hakeem, he had a set of circumstances that are unique. I honestly can't think of another great player of his caliber that faced such hurdles from his supporting cast, and still managed to turn it around and win multiple titles.

ELITEpower23

06-13-2020, 12:55 AM

Hakeem had like 8 first round exits tho...Even Worse than Malone with 7 and Jordan with 3. Yikes

HoopsNY

06-13-2020, 01:09 AM

Hakeem had like 8 first round exits tho...Even Worse than Malone with 7 and Jordan with 3. Yikes

I'm not sure how relevant this is, especially when the circumstances I mentioned were probably the biggest factor in those exits.

Prior to his two title runs, they made it to the second round twice and the finals once. After the two title runs, his team returned to the WCSF once and the WCF once. So clearly he wasn't a player like Tracy McGrady who couldn't exit the first round, or Kevin Garnett who, without a super-team, managed to get out of the first round just once.

iamgine

06-13-2020, 01:28 AM

Rik Smits seems to be another one who increased his efficiency in the playoff.

Roundball_Rock

06-13-2020, 11:54 AM

Hakeem's career track changed for the better when he converted. It's hard to see him as being hot-heated and a mal-content but thats exactly what he was literally 2 years before winning the title

Agreed. One technical point: he was always Muslim. He just became devout around that time and it helped change his attitude.

Dream had to go through that big man gauntlet to distinguish himself from the pack and as I said before, very seldom had a player managed to conquer all his immediate positional rivals directly enroute to championships.

True. One what if: what happens in 95' if Drexler is not on the Rockets? Hakeem would still crush Robinson but what if the Spurs win the series? Would the perception be the same? Or would it become like Walton and Kareem where the myth became the player on the winning team won the match up?

f Hakeem has that steady core of talent around him, then surely that 1 finals appearance would probably turn into more, especially with Kareem getting older. Who would have challenged Sampson and Hakeem out of the Western Conference had Sampson's career continued without injury?

True. It would be the Lakers and Blazers but Hakeem/prime Sampson would be hard to beat with Kareem no longer elite after 86'.

When the Rockets traded for Clyde, they didn't play well initially. The Rockets were 17-17 after they traded for him and dropped down to the 6th seed, which would later become the lowest seed ever to win the NBA title

They started 9-0 and were 38-35 the rest of the way. They weren't going to win without the trade.

Clearly Hakeem was the better player. And as you previously mentioned, we're not even accounting for his two championship seasons.

True, in the playoffs, but player perception all-time isn't solely based on the playoffs. Hakeem was doing all that and still most people had Robinson better until Hakeem's peak.

My contention with Magic and Bird is that they had the luxury of deeper, sustainable dynasties. In the case of Hakeem, he had a set of circumstances that are unique

That is a fair point. One thing, though, Hakeem won in an era where rosters were most diluted. So yeah, his second option was Otis Thorpe in 94' but it isn't like it was Curry or Pippen or Magic on the other side. New York's second option was John Starks.

People tend to look at those rosters in a vacuum and compare them to past eras, which makes them look better, but he didn't have scrubs when he won--although it is fair to say his 94' team had one of the weaker "casts" of the contenders that year.

I'm not sure how relevant this is, especially when the circumstances I mentioned were probably the biggest factor in those exits.

It comes up because Hakeem had a 5-6 stretch in his prime where he didn't win a playoff series (and missed the playoffs altogether in 92'). He balled in the playoffs but this is something that he had that no other top 10ish ATG had (maybe prime Oscar?) so it will come up.

Rik Smits seems to be another one who increased his efficiency in the playoff.

Interesting. That may help explain why that team often outperformed their RS record in the playoffs.

HoopsNY

06-13-2020, 12:08 PM

That is a fair point. One thing, though, Hakeem won in an era where rosters were most diluted. So yeah, his second option was Otis Thorpe in 94' but it isn't like it was Curry or Pippen or Magic on the other side. New York's second option was John Starks.

People tend to look at those rosters in a vacuum and compare them to past eras, which makes them look better, but he didn't have scrubs when he won--although it is fair to say his 94' team had one of the weaker "casts" of the contenders that year.

That's what makes 1993-94 interesting. Unlike Mj in 1992 and 1993, Hakeem didn't have an elite running mate, yet beat:

- a Blazers team that had Robinson-Drexler-Strickland
- a Phoenix team with Barkley and KJ
- a Utah team with Stockton and Malone

So while the rosters were diluted, it's amazing what he did during that time with what he had, given he didn't have another all-star/All-NBA running mate.

They started 9-0 and were 38-35 the rest of the way. They weren't going to win without the trade.

In the regular season? I believe Clyde played his final 34 games with Houston and they were 17-17 during that time. Regardless of the amount of games, what is notable is how trades can and often do disrupt the flow of a team, and sometimes provide undesirable results.

In the case of Drexler and McAdoo, this seems to be the case. This doesn't take away from Bird. But when looking at +/- totals on wins and losses, it often isn't just due to deleting or adding one player. There usually are some other factors involved.

True, in the playoffs, but player perception all-time isn't solely based on the playoffs. Hakeem was doing all that and still most people had Robinson better until Hakeem's peak.

I was around back then and I think this was largely due to what was available at the time. I.e, competition. Since guys like Bird and Magic had retired by 1992, and Hakeem hadn't won a title, the closest comparison was David Robinson. When you factor in regular season and playoffs, it's pretty clear to me. In most people's eyes, Hakeem is ahead of Robinson. I just happen to think he's pretty underrated in this discussion when compared to other top 10 players.

Roundball_Rock

06-13-2020, 01:20 PM

That's what makes 1993-94 interesting. Unlike Mj in 1992 and 1993, Hakeem didn't have an elite running mate, yet beat:

- a Blazers team that had Robinson-Drexler-Strickland
- a Phoenix team with Barkley and KJ
- a Utah team with Stockton and Malone

So while the rosters were diluted, it's amazing what he did during that time with what he had, given he didn't have another all-star/All-NBA running mate.

True.

In the regular season? I believe Clyde played his final 34 games with Houston and they were 17-17 during that time. Regardless of the amount of games, what is notable is how trades can and often do disrupt the flow of a team, and sometimes provide undesirable results.

Yeah. So they were a .500 team for 90% of the season, which was obscured by their hot 9-0 start.

I think this was largely due to what was available at the time. I.e, competition. Since guys like Bird and Magic had retired by 1992, and Hakeem hadn't won a title, the closest comparison was David Robinson.

Ewing was in there too. In the Carbine Bulls' playoff game thread he notes that Marv referred to Ewing as the premier center in the NBA in 92'.

A lot of the Robinson stuff was his raw tools, which he got the most out of in the RS but not the playoffs, but also projection. By 92' people (thought) they had seen the best of Hakeem but Robinson's was yet to come. Hakeem peaked slightly later. Usually 27-30 is the peak so when a player is 27, 28, or 29 (92' Hakeem) there isn't much left to tap to grow. Hakeem of course peaked from 30-32.

Phoenix

06-13-2020, 02:57 PM

True. One what if: what happens in 95' if Drexler is not on the Rockets? Hakeem would still crush Robinson but what if the Spurs win the series?

I suppose the question is, if Drexler isn't on the team who is the alternative filling his spot? To be honest, I feel like the Rockets were still capable of beating the Spurs even sans Drexler. It's a more even matchup without Clyde so maybe it goes 7, but the difference would be Hakeem all else being equal.

Rico2016

06-13-2020, 03:06 PM

Hakeem had like 8 first round exits tho...Even Worse than Malone with 7 and Jordan with 3. Yikes

Yeah, sorry but you cannot sweep EIGHT first round exits under the rug. Does anyone even have more than Hakeem? That is an awful lot of 1st round defeats.

From 88 to 91 alone he lost in the 1st round 4 years in a row and 8 total. He is a legend but let's slow down a bit.

ShawkFactory

06-13-2020, 03:14 PM

Roundball_Rock

06-13-2020, 03:32 PM

I suppose the question is, if Drexler isn't on the team who is the alternative filling his spot? To be honest, I feel like the Rockets were still capable of beating the Spurs even sans Drexler. It's a more even matchup without Clyde so maybe it goes 7, but the difference would be Hakeem all else being equal.

I doubt anyone near Drexler in ability. The best players moved in trades in the 90's were Barkley, Drexler, Mourning, T. Hardaway, Kemp, Baker. Of these only Drexler was moved mid-season. Hornacek probably was the best SG moved mid-season in the 90's, and that was in 94'.

Yeah, I can see Houston still winning but I suspect the perception of the two players would be vastly different of the Spurs won. Hakeem's individual dominance over Robinson would be lost in the mists of the team result like KAJ vs. Walton. Or maybe not--more media, more visibility of what Hakeem did.

houston

06-13-2020, 11:41 PM

Hakeem has an overrated legacy. He a top 20 ATG for sure.

HoopsNY

06-13-2020, 11:46 PM

Yeah, sorry but you cannot sweep EIGHT first round exits under the rug. Does anyone even have more than Hakeem? That is an awful lot of 1st round defeats.

From 88 to 91 alone he lost in the 1st round 4 years in a row and 8 total. He is a legend but let's slow down a bit.

Right, after the demise of nearly his entire starting lineup and best role players. That cannot be ignored. As I mentioned in an earlier post, it's not to say that Hakeem was like KG or TMac. In fact, Backpicks places KG 8th all time despite his 1st round woes outside of his Celtics years.

There is a context to everything and in this case, it matches up with what I began with - the demise of the would be dynasty.

HoopsNY

06-13-2020, 11:53 PM

I doubt anyone near Drexler in ability. The best players moved in trades in the 90's were Barkley, Drexler, Mourning, T. Hardaway, Kemp, Baker. Of these only Drexler was moved mid-season. Hornacek probably was the best SG moved mid-season in the 90's, and that was in 94'.

Yeah, I can see Houston still winning but I suspect the perception of the two players would be vastly different of the Spurs won. Hakeem's individual dominance over Robinson would be lost in the mists of the team result like KAJ vs. Walton. Or maybe not--more media, more visibility of what Hakeem did.

I really doubt the Spurs winning if you replace Drexler with a run of the mill 15 ppg SG. Consider this, in game 6 the Rockets won despite Drexler giving just 16 points on 6-16 shooting (37.5%). He did have 10 rebounds and 7 assists, but Robert Horry was more impactful in that game.

And given the fact that they swept Orlando, I'm not sure Drexler would have made all the difference to change the outcome of that series from 4-0 to Orlando winning. And in the close out game of that series, Drexler had 15 points on 30% shooting, with Robert Horry being the impactful player of support.

The only scenario where having Clyde, IMHO, is truly impactful enough to alter the outcome, is IF MJ played all of the '95 season and the Bulls end up in the finals against Houston.

In that scenario, then Hakeem needs a player like Clyde to counter the Scottie-MJ duo especially since the Bulls were a better defensive team than Orlando. And I think the Rockets with Clyde were the only team capable of beating the Bulls with MJ. That would have been the year to do it.

HoopsNY

06-14-2020, 12:03 AM

Hakeem has an overrated legacy. He a top 20 ATG for sure.

No way is he overrated. If anything, he's underrated. Try to picture this:

*LA Times -EXTRA EXTRA READ ALL ABOUT IT: Lakers C Kareem Abdul-Jabbar goes down with career ending hip and knee injuries, followed by subsequent league bans of Norm Nixon, Byron Scott, and Michael Cooper!!!*

*Boston Globe - EXTRA EXTRA READ ALL ABOUT IT: Boston PF Kevin McHale goes down with career ending hip and knee injuries, followed by subsequent league bans of Dennis Johnson, Danny Ainge, and Bill Walton!!!*

What then becomes of the Lakers and Celtics dynasties, seeing that Hakeem and co already beat LA in Hakeem's second season in 1986?

houston

06-14-2020, 12:37 AM

No way is he overrated. If anything, he's underrated. Try to picture this:

*LA Times -EXTRA EXTRA READ ALL ABOUT IT: Lakers C Kareem Abdul-Jabbar goes down with career ending hip and knee injuries, followed by subsequent league bans of Norm Nixon, Byron Scott, and Michael Cooper!!!*

*Boston Globe - EXTRA EXTRA READ ALL ABOUT IT: Boston PF Kevin McHale goes down with career ending hip and knee injuries, followed by subsequent league bans of Dennis Johnson, Danny Ainge, and Bill Walton!!!*

What then becomes of the Lakers and Celtics dynasties, seeing that Hakeem and co already beat LA in Hakeem's second season in 1986?

That too many what if's. Hakeem was headcase and played on athleticism his early years. Plus he quit on his team. Dude quit on his team before but 94 and 95 were special seasons for him. 95 he won a chip as all-nba third team. But him,Ewing and Robinson were trading for all-nba spots that tell me he in that class of player. One thing we agree on Hakeem by far played with better talent than Robinson and Ewing during his prime years of winning and making deep playoff runs.

iamgine

06-14-2020, 02:50 AM

Hakeem outplayed both Ewing and Robinson in the playoff. Not only outplayed, but straight up dominated them.

I'm still not sure who outplayed who in his playoff matchup with Shaq. Houston swept them though.

Hakeem seems to not take regular season that seriously. I remember Kenny Smith told this story how Hakeem said he only need to show up three or four times a year because there's only that many great centers. That highly suggest he didn't put in full effort. Maybe that could explain his playoff prowess and why his numbers didn't go down.

Phoenix

06-14-2020, 05:10 AM

Yeah, I can see Houston still winning but I suspect the perception of the two players would be vastly different of the Spurs won. Hakeem's individual dominance over Robinson would be lost in the mists of the team result like KAJ vs. Walton. Or maybe not--more media, more visibility of what Hakeem did.

The perception would change because there is a lot of cache in winning a title and a FMVP. The Spurs winning of course means Hakeem goes ringless that year. And because it seems Hakeem is considered in the 8-10 range, losing in 95 knocks him out of the top 10 even if he outplayed Admiral. Dream might be more in that 14-15 range like Moses or Dr.J if that happens.

But, that opens up some alternate realities. If the Spurs go all the way, Robinson is going to get a legacy boost. If he plays Shaq to a draw and SA somehow win, he's going to get the FMVP. So now, where does he fit in the picture? He's like in the 18-22 ballpark now. Especially with how much leverage rings are given and he winds up with 3? He'd be the likely 95 finals MVP, 2nd option in 99, and role player in 03. But with how we ring count, and the fact that beating the Rockets in 95 means he and Hakeem would both have (as clear best players) one ring and FMVP, Hakeem outplaying him head to head isnt nearly as important positively or negatively for their respective legacies. Really, in that scenario Dream and Admiral will likely end up ranked right next to each other.

The other reality is if the Spurs beat the Rockets....then lose to Shaq and the Magic. Robinson gets outplayed or at worst Shaq plays him even. Shaq wins a ring and FMVP. So he will end up with 5 rings, 4 FMVPs. That's obviously huge for Shaqs legacy. If that happens how we perceive Admiral probably mostly stays the same. His team would have overcome Hakeem in spite of the individual matchup ( assuming that's unchanged), then he loses to young Shaq.

Lots of speculation, but I hold to my earlier point that I dont see the Spurs winning that matchup by removing Drexler. There is just wayyyy too much ground for the other Spurs to make up because of the Hakeem-Admiral matchup going as it did. It probably just makes it a 7 game series.

HoopsNY

06-14-2020, 09:53 AM

That too many what if's. Hakeem was headcase and played on athleticism his early years. Plus he quit on his team. Dude quit on his team before but 94 and 95 were special seasons for him. 95 he won a chip as all-nba third team.

You're not seeing my point, though. You can't hold Hakeem's first round exits after 1986 against him when his supporting cast crumbled to no fault of his own. And relying on "well he got bounced from the first round 4 seasons in a row" completely detaches the reality from the situation. Name another GOAT level player that dealt with the same set of circumstances just as their careers began to take off.

But him, Ewing and Robinson were trading for all-nba spots that tell me he in that class of player. One thing we agree on Hakeem by far played with better talent than Robinson and Ewing during his prime years of winning and making deep playoff runs.

Hakeem was better than both of them, not just by accolades but also the fact that he outplayed those guys head-to-head. And I'm not sure that Hakeem "by far played with better talent during his prime years." Sure, you could probably say he did in 1995 because they added Clyde, but what was everyone's excuse prior to that?

And in 1995, the Spurs had Elliott, Johnson, and Rodman. Clyde > Elliott but not by much, Johnson > Smith/Cassell, and Rodman was a better defensive and rebounding support than anyone else on Houston. That Spurs team won 62 games, so I'm not sure they had, "by far," inferior talent.

What I think happened was Hakeem thumped his competition. In game 6 of the '95 WCF, Robinson shot 6-17 (35%) and had 6 turnovers. He had plenty of support that game, so what happened? I'll tell you - a man named Hakeem (39 points 17 rebounds, 64% shooting, 5 blocks, and 2 steals).

In game 7 of the NBA finals in 1994, Ewing had 17 points on 41% shooting and 5 turnovers. The point here is it's less about supporting talent and more about what those individual players did (or didn't) do. The Knicks and Spurs lost in large part due to Ewing and Robinson.

Roundball_Rock

06-14-2020, 12:16 PM

I really doubt the Spurs winning if you replace Drexler with a run of the mill 15 ppg SG. Consider this, in game 6 the Rockets won despite Drexler giving just 16 points on 6-16 shooting (37.5%). He did have 10 rebounds and 7 assists, but Robert Horry was more impactful in that game.

It's unlikely but possible. Horry could put up big numbers (for him) but not have equal impact. Horry didn't command the defensive attention Drexler did and nor would a random 15 PPG SG like 95' Starks.

And given the fact that they swept Orlando, I'm not sure Drexler would have made all the difference to change the outcome of that series from 4-0 to Orlando winning

Not in a sweep but Houston barely got out the 1st round and then again needed 7 games to get out the 2nd. Drexler outplayed Stockton and in the final game of the series went 31/10/3 on 73% TS, Stockton 12/1/5 on 38% TS (Houston won by 4). Drexler wasn't as good against the Suns--KJ outplayed him--so maybe he doesn't change the result there.

Hakeem has an overrated legacy. He a top 20 ATG for sure

Are you a Rockets fan? Your name suggests you may be so curious why you would have such strong feelings on Hakeem.

Top 20 would be guys like Malone, Barkley. Hakeem is borderline top 10 IMO.

Hakeem outplayed both Ewing and Robinson in the playoff. Not only outplayed, but straight up dominated them.

Yeah--the last part of your comment is the key thing. If he outplayed them by a clear but normal margin it would be one thing but he annihilated both of them.

Roundball_Rock

06-14-2020, 12:17 PM

The perception would change because there is a lot of cache in winning a title and a FMVP. The Spurs winning of course means Hakeem goes ringless that year. And because it seems Hakeem is considered in the 8-10 range, losing in 95 knocks him out of the top 10 even if he outplayed Admiral. Dream might be more in that 14-15 range like Moses or Dr.J if that happens.

Agreed.

The perception would change because there is a lot of cache in winning a title and a FMVP. The Spurs winning of course means Hakeem goes ringless that year. And because it seems Hakeem is considered in the 8-10 range, losing in 95 knocks him out of the top 10 even if he outplayed Admiral. Dream might be more in that 14-15 range like Moses or Dr.J if that happens.

Good point. Under that scenario, there isn't much to separate the two and Robinson would benefit from the preconceived confirmation bias of him being the "next big thing", even if Hakeem still objectively was the actual better player and performer. So it may be Robinson 14 and Hakeem 15.

I think under this scenario, though, neither winds up top 10. Hakeem got there through the combination of 94' and 95' and the great story of Ewing, Robinson, Shaq. If it is just 94' that would be akin to Dirk in 11'--and people may attach an asterisk to it with no MJ (not an issue for 95' since MJ played).

The other reality is if the Spurs beat the Rockets....then lose to Shaq and the Magic. Robinson gets outplayed or at worst Shaq plays him even. Shaq wins a ring and FMVP. So he will end up with 5 rings, 4 FMVPs. That's obviously huge for Shaqs legacy. If that happens how we perceive Admiral probably mostly stays the same

Good points. I would say Robinson probably would get a small boost, at least among fans. Fans seem to value "making the finals as the man" and losing more than winning as a #2 (look at the Drexler discussions--people always note the finals losses but not the W). He also wouldn't have his most famous YouTube clip being Hakeem destroying him. On net, though, it would give him maybe 2-3 spots.

The thing that holds Shaq behind Magic, Bird, and co. is it is perceived that he didn't have longevity or staying power as an elite player. The irony is he had both over those guys but perception is not always reality. If he won in 95', 00'-02', and 06' the picture would look different.

Hakeem was better than both of them, not just by accolades but also the fact that he outplayed those guys head-to-head.

The weird thing is Robinson had a lot of success h2h against Hakeem--just not when it mattered. :lol Robinson was the best talent of Hakeem/Ewing/Robinson but talent is only part of it. Hakeem>Robinson in totality.

And in 1995, the Spurs had Elliott, Johnson, and Rodman. Clyde > Elliott but not by much, Johnson > Smith/Cassell, and Rodman was a better defensive and rebounding support than anyone else on Houston

Rodman was a cancer by then--he was a net negative arguably. That is why the Bulls' got him basically for free (Will Perdue, who became Robinson's backup).

In game 7 of the NBA finals in 1994, Ewing had 17 points on 41% shooting and 5 turnovers

39% TS in the entire finals, 36% raw FG. For perspective, his prime RS TS % was 55% so Ewing declined by 16%. That must be a record for a superstar.

HoopsNY

06-14-2020, 04:42 PM

It's unlikely but possible. Horry could put up big numbers (for him) but not have equal impact. Horry didn't command the defensive attention Drexler did and nor would a random 15 PPG SG like 95' Starks.

Not in a sweep but Houston barely got out the 1st round and then again needed 7 games to get out the 2nd. Drexler outplayed Stockton and in the final game of the series went 31/10/3 on 73% TS, Stockton 12/1/5 on 38% TS (Houston won by 4). Drexler wasn't as good against the Suns--KJ outplayed him--so maybe he doesn't change the result there.

Good points. However, keep in mind the previous season, the Rockets went to 7 games twice and still managed to win. One of those series was against Phoenix.

Both KJ and Barkley played well in those series while Vernon Maxwell shot 36% and averaged 13 points. In game 7 of that series, he shot 5-14 (36%) and KJ and Barkley combined for 50 points. It was Horry and Cassell who stepped it up.

I think it's reasonable to think that they could have won without Drexler and a replacement who could at least provide steady shooting numbers.

Top 20 would be guys like Malone, Barkley. Hakeem is borderline top 10 IMO.

I guess I factor in team support in all of this. For one, I don't think I can put Tim Duncan ahead of Hakeem, and I know many people that do. Hakeem was superior both offensively and defensively, so how could he not be the better player?

Also, while Bird and Magic are both ahead of Hakeem offensively, it's not by a mile. Defensively, however, is a different story. Hakeem is easily ahead 10+ miles. Add those two up and who is really the better player?

Roundball_Rock

06-14-2020, 05:09 PM

However, keep in mind the previous season, the Rockets went to 7 games twice and still managed to win. One of those series was against Phoenix.

True.

I don't think I can put Tim Duncan ahead of Hakeem, and I know many people that do. Hakeem was superior both offensively and defensively, so how could he not be the better player?

An argument for Duncan would be he was legitimately and clearly the best player in the NBA at one point. Hakeem did it because the real best player retired at his peak and there was always a Hakeem vs. David Robinson debate. Duncan had better longevity too. Then again, is it Hakeem's fault he overlapped with Magic, Bird, MJ in his prime while Duncan had "only" Shaq, Kobe, young LeBron? He never surpassed Shaq straight up; he did it via Shaq declining.

Also, while Bird and Magic are both ahead of Hakeem offensively, it's not by a mile. Defensively, however, is a different story. Hakeem is easily ahead 10+ miles. Add those two up and who is really the better player?

True, but you can make the same argument about David Robinson too as Hakeem-lite. Magic and Bird's teams were .500 without them and pushing 60 wins with them. Did Hakeem have that level of impact?

86' Rockets with Hakeem: 44-24 (53 win pace)
86' Rockets w/out Hakeem: 7-7 (41 win pace)

91' Rockets with Hakeem: 36-20 (53 win pace)
91' Rockets w/out Hakeem: 16-10 (50 win pace)

92' Rockets with Hakeem: 40-30 (47 win pace)
92' Rockets w/out Hakeem: 2-10 (14 win pace)

95' Rockets with Hakeem: 44-28 (50 win pace)
95' Rockets w/out Hakeem: 3-7 (25 win pace)

96' Rockets with Hakeem: 47-25 (54 win pace)
96' Rockets w/out Hakeem: 1-9 (8 win pace)

From this I think you have to conclude he did have a massive team impact. There is a lack of ceiling (47-54 wins) but the floor fell out without him the last three times. Those are LeBron-like results of sky high floor, limited ceiling.

All things considered, I will have to dig into Hakeem more with this info and his playoff performance and re-rank him most likely.

Roundball_Rock

06-15-2020, 09:37 AM

HoopsNY

06-15-2020, 09:53 PM

True.

An argument for Duncan would be he was legitimately and clearly the best player in the NBA at one point. Hakeem did it because the real best player retired at his peak and there was always a Hakeem vs. David Robinson debate. Duncan had better longevity too. Then again, is it Hakeem's fault he overlapped with Magic, Bird, MJ in his prime while Duncan had "only" Shaq, Kobe, young LeBron? He never surpassed Shaq straight up; he did it via Shaq declining.

Precisely.

All things considered, I will have to dig into Hakeem more with this info and his playoff performance and re-rank him most likely.

His playoff performances are what separate him from Robinson. Hakeem was a far better playoff performer and I don't really believe it's close.

HoopsNY

06-15-2020, 09:59 PM

Where do you have Hakeem? For me the tiers are this:

GOAT candidate tier: Kareem, MJ, Wilt, LeBron, Russell
Shaq tier: Shaq by himself
Second tier: Bird, Magic, Hakeem, Duncan, Kobe, Oscar, West

Where would you slot Hakeem in among these?

This is a really good question. For most of my life, Hakeem wasn't even top 10, especially after Kobe and Duncan emerged as the stars that they were. Since then, I've started to reshape my thinking by adjusting my own rubric. I tend to value the following much more...

Finals performances
Playoff performances
Elimination/close out performances
Peak years
Prime years

...in no specific order. I've also fallen out of love with longevity. While it's important to use it as a metric when comparing careers, I don't feel it tells me as much about who the player I would want the most when having a 7 game do or die series.

I also think it's important to weigh offensive ability+defensive ability. On a cursory level, I think it's fair to say that both Magic and Bird have an edge over Hakeem, offensively, though not by much.

Then when I look to defense, it's clear that Hakeem's defensive impact is far above and beyond Bird and Magic's. So the question then is, do Magic and Bird's offensive gap with Hakeem make up for the huge gap between them in defense? This is where it gets sticky, especially when you consider how strong of a postseason performer Hakeem was (postseason defense being far more critical.)

For a big man, what were his flaws? I can't think of any. Post up game - check, mid-range game - check, rebounding - check, blocks - check, agile - check, footwork- major check, clutch - check, help defense - check, on the ball defense - check, free throw shooting (for a big man) - check.

Gotterdammerung

06-15-2020, 11:33 PM

I followed the Rockets closely in the 90s because Hakeem Olajuwon was my favorite player.

The one thing I noticed most about his play was that he played more out of pride than anything. He absolutely loved the challenge of playing against rival all-star centers. He probably entered the league confident that he was the best center, after a few summers of training with Moses Malone at the Fonde Recreation center.

Besides having almost no weaknesses in his game on either end, and that he stepped it up in the clutch and in the playoffs, it actually takes a hall of fame center to get the best out of him.

Roundball_Rock

06-15-2020, 11:36 PM

This is a really good question. For most of my life, Hakeem wasn't even top 10, especially after Kobe and Duncan emerged as the stars that they were. Since then, I've started to reshape my thinking by adjusting my own rubric. I tend to value the following much more...

Finals performances
Playoff performances
Elimination/close out performances
Peak years
Prime years

...in no specific order. I've also fallen out of love with longevity. While it's important to use it as a metric when comparing careers, I don't feel it tells me as much about who the player I would want the most when having a 7 game do or die series.

I also think it's important to weigh offensive ability+defensive ability. On a cursory level, I think it's fair to say that both Magic and Bird have an edge over Hakeem, offensively, though not by much.

Then when I look to defense, it's clear that Hakeem's defensive impact is far above and beyond Bird and Magic's. So the question then is, do Magic and Bird's offensive gap with Hakeem make up for the huge gap between them in defense? This is where it gets sticky, especially when you consider how strong of a postseason performer Hakeem was (postseason defense being far more critical.)

For a big man, what were his flaws? I can't think of any. Post up game - check, mid-range game - check, rebounding - check, blocks - check, agile - check, footwork- major check, clutch - check, help defense - check, on the ball defense - check, free throw shooting (for a big man) - check.

Good points. The one disagreement is on longevity. It matters if your criteria is "who would I draft?" because getting 17 elite years from KAJ will give your team more shots at a ring than getting 8 from Bird, for example.

iamgine

06-16-2020, 12:30 AM

Good points. The one disagreement is on longevity. It matters if your criteria is "who would I draft?" because getting 17 elite years from KAJ will give your team more shots at a ring than getting 8 from Bird, for example.
I think that is sort of a fallacy because

1. No player is guaranteed longevity. Just because KAJ played 17 seasons before, doesn't mean he'll avoid injuries in this hypothetical draft.
2. Players change teams. Shaq only played 4 seasons with Magic. Does that mean we now can only account 4 seasons out of him in "who would I draft"? I don't think so but it does follow that logic.

Other than players with obvious injury proneness like Greg Oden or Yao Ming, it's hard to gauge the value of longevity. For example, Magic would still be going strong a few more years if not for HIV. So would Bird if he didn't break his back shoveling rock. Do we count HIV into the longevity?

Rico2016

06-16-2020, 12:53 AM

I think that is sort of a fallacy because

1. No player is guaranteed longevity. Just because KAJ played 17 seasons before, doesn't mean he'll avoid injuries in this hypothetical draft.
2. Players change teams. Shaq only played 4 seasons with Magic. Does that mean we now can only account 4 seasons out of him in "who would I draft"? I don't think so but it does follow that logic.

Other than players with obvious injury proneness like Greg Oden or Yao Ming, it's hard to gauge the value of longevity. For example, Magic would still be going strong a few more years if not for HIV. So would Bird if he didn't break his back shoveling rock. Do we count HIV into the longevity?

Ehhh, thats not how 'longevity value' works tho. We are assuming the player doesnt leave. It is very rare for a player to leave a great team. And yes of course we are assuming the player doesnt get hurt :lol It's a 'duplicate' projection. Or else can we also say "but how do you know Shaq will still be a great scorer and not get fat and give up sooner in his career?" It'a silly take, so is your "but Kareem might get injured" take.

iamgine

06-16-2020, 08:14 AM

Ehhh, thats not how 'longevity value' works tho. We are assuming the player doesnt leave. It is very rare for a player to leave a great team. And yes of course we are assuming the player doesnt get hurt :lol It's a 'duplicate' projection. Or else can we also say "but how do you know Shaq will still be a great scorer and not get fat and give up sooner in his career?" It'a silly take, so is your "but Kareem might get injured" take.
The question being answered is not longevity value by itself but in the context of if you draft that player. If you draft Kareem or Magic, you can reasonably expect them to be great players even in hypothetical draft. But to expect them to have 17 years injury free, or get HIV, like in real life, is the fallacy. Longevity doesn't translate like that.

HoopsNY

06-16-2020, 10:20 AM

Good points. The one disagreement is on longevity. It matters if your criteria is "who would I draft?" because getting 17 elite years from KAJ will give your team more shots at a ring than getting 8 from Bird, for example.

Yea. The order changes based on goals. If you're looking for a draft pick, then I would also have to put KAJ above Hakeem, no arguments there. So depending on the goal (1 game, 7 games, 1 season, or a career), I think the 1-10 spread looks a little different each time.

HoopsNY

06-16-2020, 10:24 AM

I think that is sort of a fallacy because

1. No player is guaranteed longevity. Just because KAJ played 17 seasons before, doesn't mean he'll avoid injuries in this hypothetical draft.
2. Players change teams. Shaq only played 4 seasons with Magic. Does that mean we now can only account 4 seasons out of him in "who would I draft"? I don't think so but it does follow that logic.

Other than players with obvious injury proneness like Greg Oden or Yao Ming, it's hard to gauge the value of longevity. For example, Magic would still be going strong a few more years if not for HIV. So would Bird if he didn't break his back shoveling rock. Do we count HIV into the longevity?

I understand what you mean. There definitely is an element of luck into all of this. Even when it came to MJ in the 1985-86 season, he was lucky not to re-injure himself when playing more than the 14 stipulated minutes the team doctors gave him. Had he re-injured his foot, then his career would have been over.

A hypothetical draft, I think, eliminates all of these scenarios. I don't think it matters as much as a high intensity finals series, since you have the best of the best against one another, weeding out all the weak teams and players.

Roundball_Rock

06-16-2020, 10:28 AM

No player is guaranteed longevity. Just because KAJ played 17 seasons before, doesn't mean he'll avoid injuries in this hypothetical draft.

True, but all we can work with is what we knew from their actual careers. We saw KAJ dominate for 17 seasons; we saw Bird do it for 8-9. We aren't supposed to factor that in when comparing Bird to KAJ or LeBron?

It cuts other ways too. If KAJ is drafted by LA or NY he never leaves so he doesn't spend half his prime on weak teams.

Players change teams. Shaq only played 4 seasons with Magic. Does that mean we now can only account 4 seasons out of him in "who would I draft"? I don't think so but it does follow that logic.

That gets us away from the purpose of the thought exercise: think who the better players were. If we use that route, then Reggie Miller brought more value to Indiana than Shaq to Orlando. That's the problem with throwing that variable in. If it is draft day and Shaq and Miller are on the board, it is a no brainer.

For example, Magic would still be going strong a few more years if not for HIV. So would Bird if he didn't break his back shoveling rock. Do we count HIV into the longevity?

That stuff reduced their longevity and counts against it. It doesn't matter the reason. They did not produce the same # of elite seasons as many of their peers.

The order changes based on goals. If you're looking for a draft pick, then I would also have to put KAJ above Hakeem, no arguments there. So depending on the goal (1 game, 7 games, 1 season, or a career), I think the 1-10 spread looks a little different each time.

We all will have different criteria. That is what I use for every sport (auto racing too). I think the key is having a criteria and applying it consistently. A lot of what we see is stans flip flopping to suit agendas.

Whoah10115

06-16-2020, 10:33 AM

Hakeem is underrated in the sense that 94 and 95 often appear to be the sole reason he gets ranked so highly.

Not only did he face better competition than Shaq (especially at C) but he wasn't a stat freak like Shaq. And he never had a team like the one he beat in 95 in the Finals. He never had Kobe. Drexler is not Kobe and in 95 was great but far from his prime.

Hakeem is as good as any center ever.

Nowitness

06-18-2020, 11:40 AM

How many first round exits does the man have? In the mild West where Rolando Blackman was arguably a top 5 player?

HoopsNY

06-18-2020, 12:11 PM

How many first round exits does the man have? In the mild West where Rolando Blackman was arguably a top 5 player?

Those teams were loaded though. Aguirre-Blackman-Harper-Perkins were a solid team and won more games than Houston did. In the 1988 series where they beat Houston in the first round, they had 6 players average double figures with Harper missing the mark as their 7th with 9.8 ppg.

Hakeem's spread in that series? 37.5-16.8-1.8 with 2.3 stls and 2.8 blks on 57% shooting. In the elimination game of that series, Hakeem 40 and 15 on 67% shooting. His next best scorer scored 12.

That Mavericks team went on to the WCF to lose to LA (no shame in that).

The following season in 1989 they lost in the first round to Seattle with Hakeem putting up 25-13-3 with 2.5/2.8 on 51% shooting. His next best provided 16 points and just 5 rebounds (Otis Thorpe).

The Sonics ended up losing to the Lakers (again, no shame in that).

The following season in 1990, Hakeem's Rockets lose in the 1st round to LA, a 63 win team with the MVP. The Lakers had 6 players averaging double figures including Worthy who put up 28 a night and Magic dropping 19/7/13.5. Hakeem didn't play that well in this series, so i'll give you that much.

The following year they lose to LA (eventual NBA finals contenders) with Hakeem averaging 22-15-2 with 2.7 blks on 58% shooting.

So other than the one series against a dominant LA team, how do we really pin the blame on Hakeem, especially after his team falls apart due to unfortunate circumstances?

Stephonit

06-18-2020, 01:28 PM

Those teams were loaded though. Aguirre-Blackman-Harper-Perkins were a solid team and won more games than Houston did. In the 1988 series where they beat Houston in the first round, they had 6 players average double figures with Harper missing the mark as their 7th with 9.8 ppg.

Hakeem's spread in that series? 37.5-16.8-1.8 with 2.3 stls and 2.8 blks on 57% shooting. In the elimination game of that series, Hakeem 40 and 15 on 67% shooting. His next best scorer scored 12.

That Mavericks team went on to the WCF to lose to LA (no shame in that).

The following season in 1989 they lost in the first round to Seattle with Hakeem putting up 25-13-3 with 2.5/2.8 on 51% shooting. His next best provided 16 points and just 5 rebounds (Otis Thorpe).

The Sonics ended up losing to the Lakers (again, no shame in that).

The following season in 1990, Hakeem's Rockets lose in the 1st round to LA, a 63 win team with the MVP. The Lakers had 6 players averaging double figures including Worthy who put up 28 a night and Magic dropping 19/7/13.5. Hakeem didn't play that well in this series, so i'll give you that much.

The following year they lose to LA (eventual NBA finals contenders) with Hakeem averaging 22-15-2 with 2.7 blks on 58% shooting.

So other than the one series against a dominant LA team, how do we really pin the blame on Hakeem, especially after his team falls apart due to unfortunate circumstances?

Looks like a bunch of unconvincing excuses to be honest. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt against the Mavericks who look like an underrated team, his results against the Sonics in 87 and 89 are disappointing for a top 10 player. Dale Ellis and Xavier McDaniel seem to be Hakeem stoppers. Who would be an equivalent duo from recent times? The top 10 candidates from this era I think would be expected to do better against an equivalent duo.

Roundball_Rock

06-18-2020, 01:41 PM

Nowitness

06-18-2020, 01:46 PM

Needed a stacked back court to even content, period.

His second options were Drexler, Barkley, Pippen and Sampson. The fact he could only dominate for a 2 year stretch marks him down historically.

Try to gloss over it all you want but losing to a team lead by Derek Harper and Sam Perkins is a travesty. Shame, if he focused more on basketball and less on being one of the worst teammates ever until he converted to Islam he may have beat a team led by Xavier McDaniel.

Stephonit

06-18-2020, 01:48 PM

Dale Ellis and Xavier McDaniel weren't matching up with Hakeem. These are 5 on 5 games, not 1 on 1 or 2 on 2 streetball matchups. Why are we acting like those wing players "stopped" Hakeem (from what, scoring 38 or whatever he did?)?

That does bring up an interesting point. Hakeem's most memorable successes were when he was up against teams where there was a direct star match-up against him. But looking at the historical record he went down to defeat as often as not when confronted with balanced teams that did not go directly at him.

Roundball_Rock

06-18-2020, 01:53 PM

That does bring up an interesting point. Hakeem's most memorable successes were when he was up against teams where there was a direct star match-up against him. But looking at the historical record he went down to defeat as often as not when confronted with balanced teams that did not go directly at him.

He is most remembered for annihilating Ewing and Robinson in consecutive years and outplaying a young Shaq. To your point, it is easier for him to impact the outcome if he is matched up with the other team's best player. He took Ewing from 25 PPG on 55% TS in the regular season to 19% on 39% TS, for instance. Meanwhile he maintained his RS numbers. So he is erasing 6 points directly from the scoreboard--and the real impact is even greater since there is a cost associated with that terrible efficiency from a center on high volume (i.e., a lot of pissed away possessions).

If Dale Ellis is hitting his shots from the perimeter there is not much he can do about that. He can try to score more himself but he can't have the same defensive impact.

He also wasn't the same Hakeem his entire career. Hakeem lacked the year-to-year consistency of the other top 10 all-time greats. The other players were consistently all-NBA 1st team in their primes, for instance, while Hakeem was trading all-NBA spots with Robinson, Ewing for most of his prime (he was even behind Daughtery at one point).

HoopsNY

06-18-2020, 04:37 PM

Looks like a bunch of unconvincing excuses to be honest. Let's give him the benefit of the doubt against the Mavericks who look like an underrated team, his results against the Sonics in 87 and 89 are disappointing for a top 10 player. Dale Ellis and Xavier McDaniel seem to be Hakeem stoppers. Who would be an equivalent duo from recent times? The top 10 candidates from this era I think would be expected to do better against an equivalent duo.

Hakeem in the 2nd round in 1987: 30/13 on 60%
Hakeem in the 1st round in 1989 : 25/13 on 51% with 2.5 stls and 2.8 blks

And the elimination games of those years in question?

Game 6 of 1987: 49 points 25 rebounds 6 blks 58% shooting
Game 4 of 1989: 24 points 13 rebounds 4 stls 65% shooting

What excuses are you referring to? The fact that he was a dominant force or that his team became depleted?

Furthermore:

Kevin Garnett (prime years) gets bounced out of the 1st round every year for all but one year with Minnesota, and has to form a super-team to make it out.

Kobe Bryant (prime years) misses the playoffs in 2004-05 and the next two seasons gets bounced from the first round.

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (prime years) misses the playoffs in 1974-75 and 1975-76 with Dandridge and Goodrich as sidekicks. In 1973, the Bucks win 60 games but are upset by a 47 win Warrior team where Kareem averages 22.8 pts on 42% shooting, including 54% from the line.

Oscar Robertson's (prime years) Royals from 1967-1969 missed the playoffs.

Larry Bird (prime years) and the Celtics in 1983 are swept by Milwaukee. Yes Bird missed a game, but the way the series went indicated that it didn't matter.

Michael Jordan was swept out of the first round three years in a row.

LeBron James missed the playoffs his first two years in the league.

So who gets the excuses, really?

HoopsNY

06-18-2020, 04:53 PM

Try to gloss over it all you want but losing to a team lead by Derek Harper and Sam Perkins is a travesty. Shame, if he focused more on basketball and less on being one of the worst teammates ever until he converted to Islam he may have beat a team led by Xavier McDaniel.

What are you talking about? Harper nor Perkins were their best players, Mark Aguirre was, and he one of the best scorers of the 1980s. Aguirre scored 25.1 ppg that year. They also had Ronaldo Blackman.

That makes Harper their third best player. Harper was a great defensive PG (was All-Defensive 2nd team in '87 and '89) and that season he averaged 17 pts and nearly 8 assists, 2 stls, on 46% shooting. Not bad for a 3rd option, no?

And are you conveniently forgetting that that Mavericks team took the '88 Lakers to 7 games?

Needed a stacked back court to even content, period.

His second options were Drexler, Barkley, Pippen and Sampson. The fact he could only dominate for a 2 year stretch marks him down historically.

Drexler comes in 1995, AFTER Hakeem had already been to the finals twice and won a championship and finals MVP just the year prior. Furthermore, I believe it's very reasonable to think that Hakeem could have won the chip in 1995 without Drexler.

Barkley came in 1996-97 when Hakeem and Clyde were both 34 and ailing. And Pippen? He arrived in 1999, just a mere 15 years after Hakeem was first drafted. Pippen himself was older and banged up by that time. And that team didn't gel well, not because of Hakeem, but because of Pippen and Barkley not getting along.

Phoenix

06-18-2020, 05:38 PM

Needed a stacked back court to even content, period.

Kenny Smith and Vernon Maxwell were good enough to warrant being called a 'stacked backcourt'?

The tall-tales on this site are glorious.

HoopsNY

06-18-2020, 05:49 PM

He is most remembered for annihilating Ewing and Robinson in consecutive years and outplaying a young Shaq. To your point, it is easier for him to impact the outcome if he is matched up with the other team's best player. He took Ewing from 25 PPG on 55% TS in the regular season to 19% on 39% TS, for instance. Meanwhile he maintained his RS numbers. So he is erasing 6 points directly from the scoreboard--and the real impact is even greater since there is a cost associated with that terrible efficiency from a center on high volume (i.e., a lot of pissed away possessions).

If Dale Ellis is hitting his shots from the perimeter there is not much he can do about that. He can try to score more himself but he can't have the same defensive impact.

He also wasn't the same Hakeem his entire career. Hakeem lacked the year-to-year consistency of the other top 10 all-time greats. The other players were consistently all-NBA 1st team in their primes, for instance, while Hakeem was trading all-NBA spots with Robinson, Ewing for most of his prime (he was even behind Daughtery at one point).

How so? Hakeem put up considerably great numbers every year until 1997-98, and during that season he was hurt. People are talking about Clyde-Barkley-Hakeem but forget that during the '97-'98 season, Hakeem played just 47 games, starting just 45 of them.

In 1990-91 when we also see a dip in his numbers, Hakeem started just 50 games and played in 56 of them and the following season he missed 12 games. Ironically, it's the years he was injured where we really see a dip in his numbers. And 1990-92 weren't bad: 21.4-12.8-2.3 with 2.0 stls and 4.2 blks on 51% shooting. Just not the typical scoring numbers that we were used to seeing.

HoopsNY

06-18-2020, 05:51 PM

The other players were consistently all-NBA 1st team in their primes, for instance, while Hakeem was trading all-NBA spots with Robinson, Ewing for most of his prime (he was even behind Daughtery at one point).

Which is why Hakeem's full package (including the playoffs) is where he separates himself from the pack. Daughtery couldn't beat MJ. Give Hakeem Price, Nance, and Harper and MJ loses every time.

Robinson and Ewing weren't the playoff performers that Hakeem was. All-NBA selections are regular season accolades. While they matter, it's the playoffs where you really show your true colors.

Stephonit

06-18-2020, 06:43 PM

Hakeem in the 2nd round in 1987: 30/13 on 60%
Hakeem in the 1st round in 1989 : 25/13 on 51% with 2.5 stls and 2.8 blks

And the elimination games of those years in question?

Game 6 of 1987: 49 points 25 rebounds 6 blks 58% shooting
Game 4 of 1989: 24 points 13 rebounds 4 stls 65% shooting

What excuses are you referring to? The fact that he was a dominant force or that his team became depleted?

If only it came down to nice looking stat lines in individual games.

James Harden

in 2015 WCF Game 4 to stave off elimination:
45/9/5/2/2 on .591 FG% .812 TS%

in 2019 WCSF Game 5:
31/4/8/4/1 on .625 FG% .760 TS%

That's against the Warriors not the Ellis/McDaniel Supersonics. Harden has had regular seasons that are very impressive in comparison to Hakeem's. If Harden going forward wins two championships you placing him in the top 10?

Furthermore:

Kevin Garnett (prime years) gets bounced out of the 1st round every year for all but one year with Minnesota, and has to form a super-team to make it out.

Kobe Bryant (prime years) misses the playoffs in 2004-05 and the next two seasons gets bounced from the first round.

Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (prime years) misses the playoffs in 1974-75 and 1975-76 with Dandridge and Goodrich as sidekicks. In 1973, the Bucks win 60 games but are upset by a 47 win Warrior team where Kareem averages 22.8 pts on 42% shooting, including 54% from the line.

Oscar Robertson's (prime years) Royals from 1967-1969 missed the playoffs.

Larry Bird (prime years) and the Celtics in 1983 are swept by Milwaukee. Yes Bird missed a game, but the way the series went indicated that it didn't matter.

Michael Jordan was swept out of the first round three years in a row.

LeBron James missed the playoffs his first two years in the league.

So who gets the excuses, really?

I wouldn't say KG or Oscar are better and the others have more success on the positive side of the ledger. The title of this thread is Hakeem the Playoff Dream so scrutiny of his entire playoff record should be expected.

HoopsNY

06-18-2020, 07:15 PM

If only it came down to nice looking stat lines in individual games.

James Harden

in 2015 WCF Game 4 to stave off elimination:
45/9/5/2/2 on .591 FG% .812 TS%

in 2019 WCSF Game 5:
31/4/8/4/1 on .625 FG% .760 TS%

That's against the Warriors not the Ellis/McDaniel Supersonics. Harden has had regular seasons that are very impressive in comparison to Hakeem's. If Harden going forward wins two championships you placing him in the top 10?

You singled out two specific years as if to say he isn't to be excused (or perhaps that the losses were his fault). I responded with numbers that show that wasn't the case, in addition showing how the Mavericks were a legit (underrated) team.

This isn't about James Harden. If Harden does make three finals and win a couple, then maybe he should get consideration. But for now, we're discussing Hakeem.

I wouldn't say KG or Oscar are better and the others have more success on the positive side of the ledger. The title of this thread is Hakeem the Playoff Dream so scrutiny of his entire playoff record should be expected.

But you began by discussing first round exits, as if that is something unique to Hakeem. I began this discussion by talking specifically about the demise of his supporting cast. If any other GOAT player sees that kind of demise, they aren't winning anything, and that includes Michael Jordan, period.

KG is ranked 8th on Backpick. Big O is ranked top 10 by many. The point is that many players, historically, despite their level of greatness, found themselves with lack luster teams that failed to make the playoffs or got bounced from the 1st round. It's nothing new, so why should Hakeem be singled out? If your retort is 3 finals and 2 chips, then my response goes back to my original claim - that no other player would have survived such a demise. That includes Magic, Larry, Kareem, and Mj.

Roundball_Rock

06-18-2020, 07:29 PM

How so? Hakeem put up considerably great numbers every year until 1997-98, and during that season he was hurt. People are talking about Clyde-Barkley-Hakeem but forget that during the '97-'98 season, Hakeem played just 47 games, starting just 45 of them.

The All-NBA voting tells the tale. He was going back and forth with Robinson, Ewing. Kareem was 1st team as late as 86' over them. Daughtery made 3rd team over Hakeem one year. That isn't the same Hakeem that run roughshod over the league in the 94' and 95'. We are splitting hairs in terms of greatness but peak Hakeem was on another level than his top peers; prime Hakeem wasn't.

Daughtery couldn't beat MJ

Give Hakeem Price, Nance, and Harper and MJ loses every time.

Daughtery was a second-tier star. You had Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing as the top-tier centers. Later Shaq. Then Daughtery, Mourning, Mutumbo in a second tier. Smits was not as good as the second tier but he was clearly better than the next group of guys (e.g., people like Seiklay, Duckworth).

The comps are Robinson, Ewing. Some of the delta is all-NBA voting is for the RS so it doesn't bake in his rise in the PO, while Robinson and Ewing regressed in the PO. So maybe all-NBA doesn't tell the full story in his unique case as the one star from that era who actually improved his production in the postseason.

Robinson and Ewing weren't the playoff performers that Hakeem was. All-NBA selections are regular season accolades. While they matter, it's the playoffs where you really show your true colors.

This is why I need to read the whole post before typing. :lol Agreed.

That's against the Warriors not the Ellis/McDaniel Supersonics. Harden has had regular seasons that are very impressive in comparison to Hakeem's. If Harden going forward wins two championships you placing him in the top 10?

The difference is Harden was never the best player in the league. His peak level isn't the same as Hakeem's. Harden is underrated by today's fans but I think his best case scenario would land him as borderline top 20. Another MVP would help a lot. He probably winds up top 25-30. Worst case is he winds up top 35-40. I can't see him finishing any lower even if he retired tomorrow.

Stephonit

06-18-2020, 07:31 PM

But you began by discussing first round exits, as if that is something unique to Hakeem. I began this discussion by talking specifically about the demise of his supporting cast. If any other GOAT player sees that kind of demise, they aren't winning anything, and that includes Michael Jordan, period.

KG is ranked 8th on Backpick. Big O is ranked top 10 by many. The point is that many players, historically, despite their level of greatness, found themselves with lack luster teams that failed to make the playoffs or got bounced from the 1st round. It's nothing new, so why should Hakeem be singled out? If your retort is 3 finals and 2 chips, then my response goes back to my original claim - that no other player would have survived such a demise. That includes Magic, Larry, Kareem, and Mj.

Hakeem's reputation in large part is based on two championship runs he had and this relatively new notion that he outperformed in the playoffs. There is nothing special about his regular seasons so his playoffs need to stand out to justify his reputation. His two championship runs are special but there are enough lackluster results in his record to have scruples with the exalted status Hakeem seems to have acquired that was not accorded to him during his own time.

In today's game Embiid is largely seen as possibly the player most like Hakeem. If Embiid were to go on two championship runs where he beats Giannis and Davis decisively the way Hakeem did Robinson and Ewing that would be a rough analogy of what Hakeem accomplished. It would be impressive but still open to question. That's largely how I see Hakeem.

HoopsNY

06-18-2020, 07:48 PM

Hakeem's reputation in large part is based on two championship runs he had and this relatively new notion that he outperformed in the playoffs. There is nothing special about his regular seasons so his playoffs need to stand out to justify his reputation. His two championship runs are special but there are enough lackluster results to have scruples with the exalted status Hakeem seems to have acquired that was not accorded to him during his own time.

I can understand all of that. But you cannot divorce a drastic demise after 1986 from a set of unfortunate circumstances, then place that blame on Hakeem as if he caused Ralph Sampson to have career ending hip and knee injuries and three of his teammates either being released or banned from the league all together, especially when two of them were starters. And this demise didn't happen at the end of his career, it occurred just as he was entering his prime. Name another player that this happened to.

If MJ loses Scottie in 1990, and then Horace Grant and John Paxson get banned due to substance abuse. Where are the Bulls from 1990 onward?

Hakeem's rise in 1993-1995 wasn't some anomaly. He had been putting up dominant numbers for years, though those were his peak years. In the 1992-93 season, for example, he finished 2nd in MVP voting. In the '85-'86 season, he finished 4th, ahead of Kareem, Moses, McHale, Isiah, Barkley, etc. And when looking back at it, he probably deserved to be ahead of Nique and Magic.

In today's game Embiid is largely seen as possibly the player most like Hakeem. If Embiid were to go on two championship runs where he beats Giannis and Davis decisively the way Hakeem did Robinson and Ewing that would be a rough analogy of what Hakeem accomplished. It would be impressive but still open to question. That's largely how I see Hakeem.

And what would Embiid have done without Harris, Butler, Simmons, and Reddick? And I don't think Embiid is as skilled or athletic as Hakeem. He has a 3 point shot over Hakeem, but that's mostly it.

Soundwave

06-19-2020, 04:22 PM

HoopsNY

06-20-2020, 12:57 PM

I think in all honest *at their peak* Jordan, Shaq, and Hakeem (in that order) may well be the three best players ever. I tend to have Kareem there, but there's a fair argument that Hakeem at his absolute peak might have been an actual better player. More skilled quite possibly, footwork was ridiculous, better face up shooter, probably a better defender too.

Hakeem just had kind of a weird peak that came into his 30s but in his prime? Yeah he's probably the third best player I've seen. He's the most skilled big man I've ever seen.

I can only imagine what the NBA looks like had Sampson not gotten injured and his supporting cast not been coke addicts. I'm pretty convinced that the Rockets probably win a couple of titles in the late 80s in addition to the titles in the mid 90s. Not to mention, Hakeem probably adds some finals MVPs and MVPs to his name as a result.

I watched him play for nearly all of his career and he was surely a wizard down low in the post and his impact defensively had to be seen with the eye as it is impossible to comprehend through a stat sheet.

I understand that we can't merely go by the "what ifs," but we often discredit LeBron and KD for super-teams (of their own doing). But shouldn't we give the benefit of the doubt when the opposite happens, as in the case with Hakeem, which wasn't his doing? Food for thought.

Roundball_Rock

06-20-2020, 01:46 PM

I'm pretty convinced that the Rockets probably win a couple of titles in the late 80s in addition to the titles in the mid 90s. Not to mention, Hakeem probably adds some finals MVPs and MVPs to his name as a result.

Probably. The one caveat in these type of scenarios is another team emerges as a much bigger threat than whatever else existed at the time, the other team (in this case mainly the Bulls but in the 10's with the Rose injury it is the Heat), would have behaved differently. So the Bulls likely make a bigger push to get more weapons and get a Rodman level player earlier (granted, how they got Rodman was a perfect storm but you get the point).

This is why I think ring hugging is dumb. There is so much that goes into winning once let alone multiple times. You need a strong team, you need the right opposition, you need your team to be healthy and these are just factors before you step onto the court.

I like how Backpicks' does it: assess how much a player would be worth to a random team. That tells you more about value than what they actually did in specific contexts.

-teams (of their own doing). But shouldn't we give the benefit of the doubt when the opposite happens, as in the case with Hakeem, which wasn't his doing?

Well, he did demand out of Houston because he was frustrated with his "help." Just because it didn't happen doesn't change that he tried to get to a better team situation.

HoopsNY

06-20-2020, 01:51 PM

Probably. The one caveat in these type of scenarios is another team emerges as a much bigger threat than whatever else existed at the time, the other team (in this case mainly the Bulls but in the 10's with the Rose injury it is the Heat), would have behaved differently. So the Bulls likely make a bigger push to get more weapons and get a Rodman level player earlier (granted, how they got Rodman was a perfect storm but you get the point).

This is why I think ring hugging is dumb. There is so much that goes into winning once let alone multiple times. You need a strong team, you need the right opposition, you need your team to be healthy and these are just factors before you step onto the court.

I like how Backpicks' does it: assess how much a player would be worth to a random team. That tells you more about value than what they actually did in specific contexts.

Well, he did demand out of Houston because he was frustrated with his "help." Just because it didn't happen doesn't change that he tried to get to a better team situation.

Yea, I haven't gone too deeply into their articles, but KG being #8 to me is really odd.

HoopsNY

06-20-2020, 01:53 PM

It is true that Chicago might have made some adjustments. We'll never know the moves and counter moves that teams would have made. A Rockets/Bulls finals in 1991 with both sides healthy would have been EPIC. Houston in 7. :D

Stephonit

06-20-2020, 06:40 PM

This is why I think ring hugging is dumb. There is so much that goes into winning once let alone multiple times. You need a strong team, you need the right opposition, you need your team to be healthy and these are just factors before you step onto the court.

Oxymoronic statement. Many factors go into winning once let alone multiple times? Says to me winning isn't just about luck.

I like how Backpicks' does it: assess how much a player would be worth to a random team. That tells you more about value than what they actually did in specific contexts.

In other words let's invent hypothetical scenarios substituting our biases for reality and consider these imaginary results as the truth.

Roundball_Rock

06-20-2020, 11:12 PM

Many factors go into winning once let alone multiple times? Says to me winning isn't just about luck.

No, but luck is a necessary ingredient. You need a lot to go right to win. Ask the Warriors who lost in upsets twice and in 15', 17' and 18' had their biggest competition diminished by injuries (in 19' the tables turned on GS).

In other words let's invent hypothetical scenarios substituting our biases for reality and consider these imaginary results as the truth.

Horry is the modern GOAT if we want to be lazy and just count rings.

Stephonit

06-20-2020, 11:16 PM

Horry is the modern GOAT if we want to be lazy and just count rings.

That's just an example of going to extremes to try and make a point. Then again I do think Horry is underrated whenever the claim is made Hakeem played with weak teams.

Roundball_Rock

06-20-2020, 11:29 PM

What is your criteria?

Stephonit

06-20-2020, 11:32 PM

What is your criteria?

Criteria for what?

Roundball_Rock

06-20-2020, 11:33 PM

Criteria for what?

Ranking players. I stated mine so am curious what yours are. We probably won't agree but you put thought into things so curious.

Stephonit

06-20-2020, 11:42 PM

Ranking players. I stated mine so am curious what yours are. We probably won't agree but you put thought into things so curious.

It all starts from the goal and follows from that: winning. Wins explain themselves or force explanations to be created for them. It's like investing in stocks. The goal is to make money. If you do not make money putting money in a stock the investment failed. It doesn't matter if the company is fundamentally sound by all the known criteria if the price doesn't go up it didn't work out. As likely as not the price actually tells the real truth because all the bad news is hidden but couldn't be hidden from the price.

Roundball_Rock

06-21-2020, 12:39 AM

Stephonit

06-21-2020, 01:30 AM

How do you rank your top 10 under that? One issue with going solely by winning is there isn't much daylight between some legends in career team success. How do you compare Kobe and Magic, for instance? 5 rings each, both won several as second options, etc. What's the tiebreaker? Overall team success (which would be Magic with more RS success, more finals, etc.)?

I'm not didactic. I will use all the other evidence available and apply common sense but there needs to be some form of winning on the table. I consider Curry greater than both Kobe and Magic for example even though he has less rings although I would not begrudge others who think otherwise. Kobe I consider greater than Magic because although they both started their careers with another all-time great Kobe's 2009 and 2010 rings without Shaq look more impressive than Magic's years without Kareem.

Stephonit

06-21-2020, 01:59 AM

Then again I didn't really watch Kobe so maybe I'm not the one to ask.

Phoenix

06-21-2020, 04:03 AM

Kobe I consider greater than Magic because although they both started their careers with another all-time great Kobe's 2009 and 2010 rings without Shaq look more impressive than Magic's years without Kareem.

I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. Magic was nearly 30 when Kareem retired and only managed to get 2 seasons in before he himself had to prematurely retire. In those 2 seasons he won MVP in 90, then in 91 was runner up and got the Lakers to the finals. The Lakers had already prepared for a post Kareem future when they handed Magic the keys a few seasons earlier. So it's not as if he enjoyed no level of success when Cap retired.

Kobe was 25 when Shaq left and had more years to establish a post-Shaq legacy. And his Lakers had much more of an immediate drop-off because Shaq was still in the later part of his prime, missing the playoffs then two first round losses until Pau joined the team in 08.

Stephonit

06-21-2020, 05:02 AM

I'm not sure that's a fair comparison. Magic was nearly 30 when Kareem retired and only managed to get 2 seasons in before he himself had to prematurely retire. In those 2 seasons he won MVP in 90, then in 91 was runner up and got the Lakers to the finals. The Lakers had already prepared for a post Kareem future when they handed Magic the keys a few seasons earlier. So it's not as if he enjoyed no level of success when Cap retired.

Kobe was 25 when Shaq left and had more years to establish a post-Shaq legacy. And his Lakers had much more of an immediate drop-off because Shaq was still in the later part of his prime, missing the playoffs then two first round losses until Pau joined the team in 08.

To me Magic's MVPs look somewhat gifted. They were not terribly strong MVP seasons. Even without Kareem Magic had Worthy, Cooper and a solid lineup. To Magic's credit he got them to the finals. When Kobe had something comparable though (indeed weaker on paper) he won and beat established champions along the way. Indeed I find Kobe's 2009 and 2010 hard to ignore because my impression is he wasn't supposed to win.

Phoenix

06-21-2020, 05:15 AM

To me Magic's MVPs look somewhat gifted. They were not terribly strong MVP seasons. Even without Kareem Magic had Worthy, Cooper and a solid lineup. To Magic's credit he got them to the finals. When Kobe had something comparable though (indeed weaker on paper) he won and beat established champions along the way. Indeed I find Kobe's 2009 and 2010 hard to ignore because my impression is he wasn't supposed to win.

Alot feel Barkley should have been 90 MVP but again there are many who think CP3 should have been the 08 MVP. I'm just saying that comparing Magic and Kobe on account of their post HOF bigmen careers isn't really an apples to apples. If Kareem had left the Lakers in, say, 84 and leaving a 25 year old Magic to pick up the slack over the next 7 years of his prime, that would be more analogous to what happened with Kobe. Though you are correct that Magic still had some solid pieces like Worthy, Scott, Cooper etc around him.

You said above you never really watched Kobe, how long have you been following the NBA? ( curious question, not trying to be snarky).

Roundball_Rock

06-21-2020, 11:17 AM

Indeed I find Kobe's 2009 and 2010 hard to ignore because my impression is he wasn't supposed to win.

That is the power of narrative after the fact. At the time everyone considered the Lakers an elite team with a great "supporting cast" and many people considered their front line the best in the league with Gasol/Odom/Bynum. Spin after the fact has made it seem like Kobe won with little help--which is ironic because we actually did see Kobe at his peak with a poor "cast" and he came nowhere near winning anything.

insidious301

06-21-2020, 11:37 AM

To me Magic's MVPs look somewhat gifted. They were not terribly strong MVP seasons. Even without Kareem Magic had Worthy, Cooper and a solid lineup. To Magic's credit he got them to the finals. When Kobe had something comparable though (indeed weaker on paper) he won and beat established champions along the way. Indeed I find Kobe's 2009 and 2010 hard to ignore because my impression is he wasn't supposed to win.

This is a weird take.

Magic had great all around numbers and was the best at his position. This while leading LA to 63-19, the number 1 seed. So how exactly was that year in particular *gifted*? With Kobe, the Lakers were the #1 seed while Vegas had them favorites in 2009. What gave you the impression that Kobe wasn't supposed to win? He had a very good supporting cast and arguably the best PF in the league at that time.

Stephonit

06-21-2020, 07:14 PM

You said above you never really watched Kobe, how long have you been following the NBA? ( curious question, not trying to be snarky).
Casually on and off since the 80s.

That is the power of narrative after the fact. At the time everyone considered the Lakers an elite team with a great "supporting cast" and many people considered their front line the best in the league with Gasol/Odom/Bynum. Spin after the fact has made it seem like Kobe won with little help--which is ironic because we actually did see Kobe at his peak with a poor "cast" and he came nowhere near winning anything.

With Kobe, the Lakers were the #1 seed while Vegas had them favorites in 2009. What gave you the impression that Kobe wasn't supposed to win? He had a very good supporting cast and arguably the best PF in the league at that time.

My comments previously more precisely applied to 2008. It's an opinion formed only after everyone saw them winning. Like the Warriors before the 2015 season.

This is a weird take.

Magic had great all around numbers and was the best at his position. This while leading LA to 63-19, the number 1 seed. So how exactly was that year in particular *gifted*?

As brought up by someone else Magic didn't have the most number one votes. The situation at the top in terms of who was the best player in the league was in flux too with Bird's career on the rocks due to injury and new unestablished guys putting up numbers. The league needed a star and my impression is Magic was a beneficiary of that. If Barkley or Jordan had won a championship already I don't see Magic getting the MVP that year.

In the playoffs Magic loses to Kevin Johnson and the Suns undercutting your point that he was the best at his position. Indeed a case can be made that during Magic's peak without Kareem the best team in the league was the Detroit Pistons and with that the best point guard was Isiah Thomas.

Roundball_Rock

06-22-2020, 10:30 AM

My comments previously more precisely applied to 2008. It's an opinion formed only after everyone saw them winning. Like the Warriors before the 2015 season.

People forget how big a deal the Gasol trade was. It was viewed as a game changer, one of the most lopsided trades in history. They added Gasol to a core of Kobe, Odom, Bynum without giving anything up. At that point they became the favorites to win the West and did so. Them losing in the finals doesn't change that.

The Lakers had an elite PF, one of the best centers, and their third option was a versatile point forward. They then added Artest in 10'. No team could rival this front court (and then you obviously had Kobe there as well). Some people argued for Boston but KG/Pierce/Perkins isn't the same because of the Perkins weak link.

insidious301

06-22-2020, 01:31 PM

My comments previously more precisely applied to 2008. It's an opinion formed only after everyone saw them winning. Like the Warriors before the 2015 season.

When you say "more" do you mean "actually"? Because the 2009 Lakers were never underdogs. If you were only talking about 2008 though, what you said isn't exactly true. After Pau was traded to Los Angeles, they went from a team in the mix to the favorite out West. Title contenders basically.

As brought up by someone else Magic didn't have the most number one votes. The situation at the top in terms of who was the best player in the league was in flux too with Bird's career on the rocks due to injury and new unestablished guys putting up numbers. The league needed a star and my impression is Magic was a beneficiary of that. If Barkley or Jordan had won a championship already I don't see Magic getting the MVP that year.

In the playoffs Magic loses to Kevin Johnson and the Suns undercutting your point that he was the best at his position. Indeed a case can be made that during Magic's peak without Kareem the best team in the league was the Detroit Pistons and with that the best point guard was Isiah Thomas.

Magic was second in the league in assists behind John Stockton. Third in PER tied with Barkley and second behind Jordan in BPM. And as I mentioned above, led the Lakers to 63 wins. The #1 seed. He was still sensational in the playoffs averaging a career high in points. But that's not what makes an MVP. What happened to the Lakers in the playoffs has no bearing on a regular-season award.

I also disagree with your "flux" take. The league had peak Michael Jordan and Ewing who had the best season of his career. 1990 was a strong year for BITW and MVP.

First Team:
Charles Barkley
Patrick Ewing
Magic Johnson
Michael Jordan
Karl Malone

Second Team:
Larry Bird
Tom Chambers
Kevin Johnson
Hakeem Olajuwon
John Stockton

Third Team:
Clyde Drexler
Joe Dumars
Chris Mullin
David Robinson
James Worthy

The "flux" you are talking about wasn't a big issue then. There was HOARDS of talent across the league, battling for BITW.

With all of that being said, your argument about Magic being "gifted an MVP" is still weird. And was never the perception when it played out.

Roundball_Rock

06-22-2020, 01:33 PM

That shows how small sample sizes work. According to some on ISH, that would mean KJ>Magic which is crazy.

Magic did not get the most #1 votes in 90' but keep in mind he already had won 2 MVP's before that. He didn't win out of nowhere.

insidious301

06-22-2020, 01:40 PM

Why do people still conflate MVP with postseason play? You'd think decades proving they're mutually exclusive would be enough. But yes, Kevin Johnson over Magic is a wild take.

Roundball_Rock

06-22-2020, 01:48 PM

Not sure but it happens all the time with fans. It is weird. MVP literally is a RS award.

Stephonit

06-22-2020, 10:44 PM

Magic was second in the league in assists behind John Stockton. Third in PER tied with Barkley and second behind Jordan in BPM. And as I mentioned above, led the Lakers to 63 wins. The #1 seed. He was still sensational in the playoffs averaging a career high in points. But that's not what makes an MVP. What happened to the Lakers in the playoffs has no bearing on a regular-season award.

I also disagree with your "flux" take. The league had peak Michael Jordan and Ewing who had the best season of his career. 1990 was a strong year for BITW and MVP.

First Team:
Charles Barkley
Patrick Ewing
Magic Johnson
Michael Jordan
Karl Malone

Second Team:
Larry Bird
Tom Chambers
Kevin Johnson
Hakeem Olajuwon
John Stockton

Third Team:
Clyde Drexler
Joe Dumars
Chris Mullin
David Robinson
James Worthy

The "flux" you are talking about wasn't a big issue then. There was HOARDS of talent across the league, battling for BITW.

With all of that being said, your argument about Magic being "gifted an MVP" is still weird. And was never the perception when it played out.

Yes and with all that talent fighting for it it went to Magic. Does that prove or give a strong indication he was the best player that year? No.

Not sure but it happens all the time with fans. It is weird. MVP literally is a RS award.

Yes but MVPs aren't always used like that. If the MVP is a proxy for only the regular season then yes those 3 MVPs make sense but if they are used as proxies for the whole season like they are often used in discussions comparing great players then a distinction can be made. One cannot just point at the MVPs as shorthand and say they hold most of the relevant information. For all the accolades that Magic received he didn't dominate as much as one might expect. Prime Bird and the Celtics were more impressive than Prime Magic and the Lakers without Kareem. Yet people see 3 MVPs for Bird and 3 for Magic, 2 of which came pretty much when Kareem was done, and think they are comparable at their peaks. No they are not.

Roundball_Rock

06-23-2020, 09:27 AM

MVP's are the single best metric. Just look at the players with 3+. All but Moses are consensus top 10--and Moses is still top 15.

You can't use them, or any other sole metric, as the be all end all, though. For instance, yes Magic and Bird both have 3 MVP's but Bird was runner up 4x, Magic 2x. Bird was top 2 from 1981-1986 and then again in 88'. Magic never had a run like that. Magic was splitting MVP votes with Kareem through 1986 (when KAJ was 38). That is why I think it is funny it is viewed as all Magic decades later. If that was the case, why was he splitting MVP votes with KAJ--even with KAJ pushing 40?

Whoah10115

06-23-2020, 09:38 AM

Yes and with all that talent fighting for it it went to Magic. Does that prove or give a strong indication he was the best player that year? No.

Yes but MVPs aren't always used like that. If the MVP is a proxy for only the regular season then yes those 3 MVPs make sense but if they are used as proxies for the whole season like they are often used in discussions comparing great players then a distinction can be made. One cannot just point at the MVPs as shorthand and say they hold most of the relevant information. For all the accolades that Magic received he didn't dominate as much as one might expect. Prime Bird and the Celtics were more impressive than Prime Magic and the Lakers without Kareem. Yet people see 3 MVPs for Bird and 3 for Magic, 2 of which came pretty much when Kareem was done, and think they are comparable at their peaks. No they are not.

Yeah this is dumb, and you don't know.

When Kareem was done...and who came in replaced him? The Lakers were a loaded squad the way, maybe, the Thunder were. A ton of talent, but genuinely goes top to bottom.

When Kareem dropped, did they replace them with anyone, or with better depth?

Whoah10115

06-23-2020, 09:48 AM

Robinson's playoff "failures" are grossly exaggerated. Robinson would literally do everything. In 95, Rodman was sitting on the bench and being a headcase, which is why they traded him.

The only real disappointment would be losing to the Warriors in 91...then you see that Don Nelson played a crazy smallball lineup that threw everything off, and that the Warriors had Run TMC who averaged something like 71PPG.

I'd take him ahead of just about anyone. And Ewing, again, was the light in that tough to watch offense.

Hakeem belongs with the Big 3 and it should be a Big 4. If I had to pick someone for a game? Well...I'd probably take Hakeem.

Soundwave

06-23-2020, 03:26 PM

Hakeem I think seriously has a case for the 3rd best player ever *at his absolute peak*.

I think its Jordan, Shaq, and Hakeem as the best players ever peak for peak. I had Kareem there, but I think Hakeem at his absolute highest point may be better. More versatile offensively, probably better defensively, if you put Hakeem into the 70s, he'd wreck shit up.

Hakeem gets weighed down because the overall career dominance longevity probably wasn't long enough for some but I also look at who's just flat out the best player and there I think there's not many players that have played basketball that are actually better than what Hakeem was at in his absolute peak.

Phoenix

06-23-2020, 03:45 PM

Robinson's playoff "failures" are grossly exaggerated. R

Not really. His raw numbers declined as well as his efficiencies several years. It was most prominent in seasons where he set a very high level of expectation: Case in point, in 94 he averaged 30/11/5 58% TS during the season, and 20/10/4 47% TS. Ten less points on 10 percentage points less efficiency is a massive drop-off. Then go to 95....28/11/3 60% TS ( wins MVP) during the season, 25/12/3 54% TS. Not horrible but again, he's not producing like he is during the season and that was compounded by his matchup with Hakeem. Those years stand out because he was pretty much top 3 level at that point so his relative under-performances compared to the regular season stand out. 91 is actually the one year in his prime where his playoff numbers held consistent with his regular season( he even increases his TS%).

Roundball_Rock

06-23-2020, 04:36 PM

Not really. His raw numbers declined as well as his efficiencies several years. It was most prominent in seasons where he set a very high level of expectation: Case in point, in 94 he averaged 30/11/5 58% TS during the season, and 20/10/4 47% TS. Ten less points on 10 percentage points less efficiency is a massive drop-off. Then go to 95....28/11/3 60% TS ( wins MVP) during the season, 25/12/3 54% TS

Yeah, his reputation was made by having these large declines in the middle of his prime years. He performed well his first two seasons but had issues thereafter.

Robinson in the RS from 1993-1996: 26.4/11/4 on 58.4% TS
Robinson in the PO from 1993-1996: 23.8/12/4 on 53.6% TS

He had a large decline in 98' too--going from 58.1% to 49.6%.

I don't know how a 4.8% decline isn't big, especially for a player of his caliber. The only players from that era who are worse are Malone & Stockton.

1994 is particularly egregious. He was considered by many to be the best player yet he shed a whopping 10 PPG and 11% in TS as his 56 win team was upset 3-1 in the first round. Then the next year he gets annihilated by Hakeem in the WCF. These were his peak years and that ended the "Robinson vs. Hakeem" debate for good.

Great player but his playoff issues are what keep him in the top 20-25 all-time range versus being higher. If you look solely at the RS, his record is essentially the same as Hakeem's.

When Kareem dropped, did they replace them with anyone, or with better depth?

The drafted Vlade Divac for the year after KAJ retired. Mychal Thompson remained the starter for 90' but by 91' it was Divac.

HoopsNY

09-25-2022, 11:15 PM

Such a great thread. This guy HoopsNY really came with it. :oldlol:

RRR3

09-25-2022, 11:28 PM

Such a great thread. This guy HoopsNY really came with it. :oldlol:
Wrong account?

Round Mound

09-25-2022, 11:54 PM

Hakeem is the 2nd best player from 85 to 95.

HoopsNY

09-26-2022, 12:19 AM

Wrong account?

No. I'm just praising myself lol. I was searching for this thread and finally found it. I'm pleasantly surprised by the conversation between myself and Roundball. It was actually civil. lol

HoopsNY

12-03-2023, 02:05 PM

It's also amazing that people think Hakeem's legacy was just off of his '94 and '95 seasons, as if 1993 didn't happen.

Hakeem finished 2nd in MVP voting, ahead of MJ. Are people forgetting that? He put up 26/13/4/2/4 on 53%. He also won DPOY. It's just unreal how underrated Hakeem was.

Oh and the playoffs? A measly 26/14/5/2/5 on 52%. '93 Hakeem was also peak Hakeem. Give him Penny, Kobe, or Wade like Shaq had and that team does a 3-peat. Actually, they'd beat MJ every single time :lol

Heck, give him Pippen and give MJ Vernon Maxwell and it's Hakeem winning 6 chips.

Xiao Yao You

12-03-2023, 02:46 PM

HoopsNY

12-03-2023, 11:09 PM

doubt Pippen is even remembered if he doesn't play with the GOAT

That's a bit silly, I think. Does Pippen evolve into the player he became circa 1994 and 1995? Maybe not. But does that mean he becomes useless? Absolutely not.

Pippen likely becomes an all-star in any given scenario and playing alongside Hakeem would have helped him thrive. Their defensive abilities together would have likely created the greatest defense, or at least one of the greatest defenses, of all time. I would have been marvelous and he would have certainly been better than Otis Thorpe or Vernon Maxwell.

SATAN

12-03-2023, 11:14 PM

doubt Pippen is even remembered if he doesn't play with the GOAT

Doubt MJ would have ever made the finals without Pippen :facepalm

Xiao Yao You

12-03-2023, 11:18 PM

That's a bit silly, I think. Does Pippen evolve into the player he became circa 1994 and 1995? Maybe not. But does that mean he becomes useless? Absolutely not.

Pippen likely becomes an all-star in any given scenario and playing alongside Hakeem would have helped him thrive. Their defensive abilities together would have likely created the greatest defense, or at least one of the greatest defenses, of all time. I would have been marvelous and he would have certainly been better than Otis Thorpe or Vernon Maxwell.

lots of guys that weren't useless that you've never heard of. Otis Thorpe was really good. Not convinced Pippen was anything special without the Goat and Phil

Xiao Yao You

12-03-2023, 11:19 PM

Doubt MJ would have ever made the finals without Pippen :facepalm

Hard to imagine MJ not winning eventually. Was too good and too driven. The guys that were lucky enough to be part of that are the forunate ones

SATAN

12-03-2023, 11:48 PM

:oldlol:

MJ wasn't winning anything with out the right people around him and right circumstances. Not sure why you would go there. Anyone is lucky to win championships period.

Xiao Yao You

12-03-2023, 11:51 PM

:oldlol:

MJ wasn't winning anything with out the right people around him and right circumstances. Not sure why you would go there. Anyone is lucky to win championships period.

Sure he would have needed the right people just like anyone. To say Pippen is the only person that was right is ridiculous. You don't win 6 out of 6 as the favorite by luck though. He was special

SATAN

12-04-2023, 12:05 AM

Sure he would have needed the right people just like anyone. To say Pippen is the only person that was right is ridiculous.

The comment was in relation to how silly yours was. More a comparison. Not literal.

dankok8

12-04-2023, 12:38 PM

HoopsNY

12-06-2023, 09:09 AM

Relatively speaking, Hakeem's scoring got better and better against good defenses in the playoffs. His moves weren't super efficient overall but they were impossible to take away so against the best defenses those difficult moves became a pretty good option. Hakeem's weakness for most of his career was weak passing but in the mid 90's they surrounded him with shooter plus his passing improved.

I always felt Hakeem was underrated in this regard because Shaq gets a lot of credit for his ability to spot shooters coming out of double and triple teams during his peak, but I clearly remember Hakeem doing the same.

RS Shaq '00-02: 68 games with 5+ assists
RS Hakeem '93-'95: 70 games with 5+ assists

PS Shaq '00-'02: 12 games with 5+ assists
PS Hakeem '93-'95: 25 games with 5+ assists

RS Shaq '00-'02: 3.5 APG
RS Hakeem '93-95: 3.6 APG

PS Shaq '00-'02: 3.0 APG
PS Hakeem '93-'95: 4.4 APG

Granted, these stats don't tell us a whole lot, but I do think it speaks to Hakeem's passing ability somewhat given that Shaq's development was really built on his ability to spot his shooters. Hakeem, at least during his peak, was clearly able to do the same IIRC.

Xiao Yao You

12-06-2023, 12:26 PM

I always felt Hakeem was underrated in this regard because Shaq gets a lot of credit for his ability to spot shooters coming out of double and triple teams during his peak, but I clearly remember Hakeem doing the same.

RS Shaq '00-02: 68 games with 5+ assists
RS Hakeem '93-'95: 70 games with 5+ assists

PS Shaq '00-'02: 12 games with 5+ assists
PS Hakeem '93-'95: 25 games with 5+ assists

RS Shaq '00-'02: 3.5 APG
RS Hakeem '93-95: 3.6 APG

PS Shaq '00-'02: 3.0 APG
PS Hakeem '93-'95: 4.4 APG

Granted, these stats don't tell us a whole lot, but I do think it speaks to Hakeem's passing ability somewhat given that Shaq's development was really built on his ability to spot his shooters. Hakeem, at least during his peak, was clearly able to do the same IIRC.

Shaq started doing what Hakeem had done. No one had ever used the 3 and spacing like those Rockets up to that time