Was Hakeem Olajuwon's post-up game a little overrated?

[QUOTE=tontoz;15019080]Thats why i specifically mentioned offense. He actually took a lot of jumpers and wasn't that good at making them. It is like he became a better offensive player after he retired and people forgot that he was frequently a black hole that bricked a lot of jumpers.

He won 1 MVP in his career and was top 3 only twice. I see people on here saying he is top 10 all time and i don't see it.[/QUOTE]

We can't track data prior to 1997, but the last good years for him were 1997-99. From 10-16ft and 16-29ft, Hakeem shot 44% and 46%. Lookup Ewing and Robinson's numbers those same years and he shot better.

Robinson: 36%/43%
Ewing: 41%/43%

So what's Hakeem doing in his peak years? In the years mentioned, his FG% was 50.5%. From '93-'96 (peak years), his FG% was 52.5%.

[QUOTE=Carbine;15019081]It's because of his two post season runs, one of which was one of the biggest carry jobs of all time. He is one of the only players to have a claim as best offensive and best defensive player during his peak.

The players who played against him revere him. The players who played with him, perhaps even more so.

Robert Sorry "Hakeem is 100 times the player Tim was"

He played with both, at or near their peaks.[/QUOTE]

Why do people rely only on those 2 years, as if Hakeem was not a statistical juggernaut before then? Here's Hakeem's stat-line prior to 1994:

Hakeem PS '85-'93: [B]26/13/3/2/4 on 54% [/B]

I'm genuinely curious, how many players from that era were doing this not named Michael Jordan?

[QUOTE=HoopsNY;15020802]We can't track data prior to 1997, but the last good years for him were 1997-99. From 10-16ft and 16-29ft, Hakeem shot 44% and 46%. Lookup Ewing and Robinson's numbers those same years and he shot better.

Robinson: 36%/43%
Ewing: 41%/43%

So what's Hakeem doing in his peak years? In the years mentioned, his FG% was 50.5%. From '93-'96 (peak years), his FG% was 52.5%.[/QUOTE]



*yawn*

Hakeem's career best TS was 57.7%. Barkley's career average was 61.2% in spite of bricking 3s.

[QUOTE=tontoz;15020806]*yawn*

Hakeem's career best TS was 57.7%. Barkley's career average was 61.2% in spite of bricking 3s.[/QUOTE]

Tim Duncan's highest was 57.9%. Giannis' career TS% is 61.1%. Who has better post moves?

Magic's TS% is 61%, Kyrie's is 58%...who has the bigger bag?

Kobe's TS% is 55%. Allen's is higher at 58%. Who has the bigger bag?

[QUOTE=HoopsNY;15021172]Tim Duncan's highest was 57.9%. Giannis' career TS% is 61.1%. Who has better post moves?

Magic's TS% is 61%, Kyrie's is 58%...who has the bigger bag?

Kobe's TS% is 55%. Allen's is higher at 58%. Who has the bigger bag?[/QUOTE]

Exactly this.

[QUOTE=HoopsNY;15021172]Tim Duncan's highest was 57.9%. Giannis' career TS% is 61.1%. Who has better post moves?

Magic's TS% is 61%, Kyrie's is 58%...who has the bigger bag?

Kobe's TS% is 55%. Allen's is higher at 58%. Who has the bigger bag?[/QUOTE]

Good post, I like the Duncan and Giannis comparison.

In fairness to the user tontoz, though, TS is fantastic for encapsulating all-around efficiency. Its just there's obviously no way of knowing what percentage came from post ups. We'd need to see their shooting chart (the data only goes back to 1997, which is a year or so removed from their prime).

[QUOTE=HoopsNY;15021172]Tim Duncan's highest was 57.9%. Giannis' career TS% is 61.1%. Who has better post moves?

Magic's TS% is 61%, Kyrie's is 58%...who has the bigger bag?

Kobe's TS% is 55%. Allen's is higher at 58%. Who has the bigger bag?[/QUOTE]

I like TS and use it a lot but this is a decent post.

That being said…numbers don’t lie and TS is a much more accurate metric than most in terms of scoring.

Doesn’t have to be the end all to be all but still it provides a lot more context than straight up FG%

Free throws matter! Usually the term game of inches is reserved for football and baseball but realistically every sport is the game of inches once you get to a certain level. Game of 1/8th of inches, 1/16th even. As we keep progressing every little fraction of an inch matters. FG% doesn’t account for a lot of things and especially in today’s game where getting to the stripe and hitting your 3’s is such an important thing.

[QUOTE=SouBeachTalents;15019167]He did make the Finals his 3rd year knocking off the showtime Lakers, the only team to beat them from '85-'88, and took 2 games off a consensus top 3-5 team of all time in the '86 Celtics.

[B]Him being 3rd Team in '95 was a function of him being a center with Robinson & Shaq both having MVP caliber seasons[/B], he's likely 1st Team if he plays any other position.[/QUOTE]

Yep, and then proceeded to go through both in en-route to his 2nd title lol. There's a reason that 94 and 95 run is so( rightfully) revered. I can't think of a better example where a player went through a gauntlet of his immediate positional rivals to that degree.

[QUOTE=Tavr;15021175]Good post, I like the Duncan and Giannis comparison.

In fairness to the user tontoz, though, TS is fantastic for encapsulating all-around efficiency. Its just there's obviously no way of knowing what percentage came from post ups. We'd need to see their shooting chart (the data only goes back to 1997, which is a year or so removed from their prime).[/QUOTE]

I get his premise but there's too much emphasis on it. For one, let's look at the PS leaving out the tail ends of their careers:

Hakeem '85-'97: 57.5% TS%
Barkley: '85-'97: 58.4% TS%

Barkley also shot 54.4% TS% in the finals (1993). Hakeem made it 3 times and his TS% was 53.4%. It's a smaller sample for Barkley, and still higher, but again the difference isn't significant.

Mainly, we should consider who was more skilled. And that's where the separation occurs.

Basically, we're splitting hairs at this point.

[QUOTE=HoopsNY;15021386]I get his premise but there's too much emphasis on it. For one, let's look at the PS leaving out the tail ends of their careers:

Hakeem '85-'97: 57.5% TS%
Barkley: '85-'97: 58.4% TS%

Barkley also shot 54.4% TS% in the finals (1993). Hakeem made it 3 times and his TS% was 53.4%. It's a smaller sample for Barkley, and still higher, but again the difference isn't significant.

Mainly, we should consider who was more skilled. And that's where the separation occurs.

Basically, we're splitting hairs at this point.[/QUOTE]

Reading through the thread again it looks like the conversation evolved beyond post-ups and into overall offense, ie. jumpshooting. My bad. I'd also take Hakeem over Barkley if we're just talking offensive skill. Barkley turned into a pretty respectable jumpshooter in Phoenix and had more range than Hakeem, but he never could maintain good efficiency from 3 (despite attempting quite a few of them). Splitting hairs is a good way to put it.

Barkley was the more impactful offensive player when they were teammates, if you go by RAPM. IIRC, it's not even close.

To me, I don't think his post-up game is overrated, it's his lack of playmaking that held him back from being a GOAT tier offensive big.

[QUOTE=Tavr;15021413]Reading through the thread again it looks like the conversation evolved beyond post-ups and into overall offense, ie. jumpshooting. My bad. I'd also take Hakeem over Barkley if we're just talking offensive skill. Barkley turned into a pretty respectable jumpshooter in Phoenix and had more range than Hakeem, but he never could maintain good efficiency from 3 (despite attempting quite a few of them). Splitting hairs is a good way to put it.[/QUOTE]

His 3point attempts went up with his physical decline as he got older( pretty common transition as players age) but only slightly. What's really crazy is his 2point % from like 87-91. For a guy listed 6'6 but was really 6'4, that is absolute bonkers interior scoring ability, especially when in terms of height he was pretty much playing amongst trees. For comparison sake, Shaq at the apex of his dominance never reached Barkley's 2% efficiency.

[QUOTE=HoopsNY;15021172]Tim Duncan's highest was 57.9%. Giannis' career TS% is 61.1%. Who has better post moves?

Magic's TS% is 61%, Kyrie's is 58%...who has the bigger bag?

Kobe's TS% is 55%. Allen's is higher at 58%. Who has the bigger bag?[/QUOTE]



Jumping around to different eras is lame. Barkley and Hakeem were drafted the same year so we dont need any era adjustments.

Barkley was a true beast in the low post. He was a back to the basket player and this thread is about post play.


Kyrie? Are you trying to say Kyrie is a post player? Or are you just rambling incoherently?

Hakeem has a reputation as a post player but the reality is that he was more of a midrange jump shooter that sometimes played in the post. He had great highlights in the post but day in day out his post game wasnt as big a factor as his reputation would suggest.

Barkley led the league in 2pt% 5 straight years. 4 of those years were over 63%. Hakeem never shot 54% on 2s in his career.

[QUOTE=Phoenix;15021474]His 3point attempts went up with his physical decline as he got older( pretty common transition as players age) but only slightly. What's really crazy is his 2point % from like 87-91. For a guy listed 6'6 but was really 6'4, that is absolute bonkers interior scoring ability, especially when in terms of height he was pretty much playing amongst trees. For comparison sake, Shaq at the apex of his dominance never reached Barkley's 2% efficiency.[/QUOTE]

With the Suns, his three point attempts actually went up in the postseason. Barkley shot around 4 per game (quite a bit for his era) during that 94-96 run. I thought he began to show a physical drop in the 96 playoffs just before going to Houston. Incredibly efficient from 2 like you said, though. For what he lacked in height, he definitely made up for with center of mass. Chuck was an absolute bulldozer.

I keep hearing about Hakeems lack of "play making" but his playoff games in his peak I never once came away saying "Hakeem isn't seeing the floor well" or an unwilling passer. It didn't hold him back at all?

Maybe that was a problem pre peak. I don't know the answer to that, but he was not any different than Tim Duncan in this regard a decade later and nobody goes around saying Duncan lacked a playmaking element to his game.

[QUOTE=Carbine;15021527]I keep hearing about Hakeems lack of "play making" but his playoff games in his peak I never once came away saying "Hakeem isn't seeing the floor well" or an unwilling passer. It didn't hold him back at all?

Maybe that was a problem pre peak. I don't know the answer to that, but he was not any different than Tim Duncan in this regard a decade later and nobody goes around saying Duncan lacked a playmaking element to his game.[/QUOTE]


In his first 7 postseasons he had more turnovers than assists in 6 of them.

A great post on the other forum from a highly respected poster who has tracked a huge number of games of various older players. Some great insights here; for instance, Olajuwon as a post player was extremely one-sided dominant, reliant on the right block at the rate of about 70-75/30-25. And on that side, he largely went to one shot: the baseline fadeaway.

[QUOTE=70sFan]A few things to add:

1. Hakeem is often overrated as an offensive player for reasons already mentioned: relatively weak game managing, ball-dominance, reliance on tough shot making, mediocre floor vision etc. He was a very good offensive player, clearly an offensive star, but he never approached the best offensive player in the league category.

2. If people want to argue that Hakeem is a little overrated as a offensive post-up player (because he's definitely not overrated defensively in that regard), then it's fine when you focus on his passing and playmaking limitations, along with the relatively static off-ball approach compared to guys like Shaq or Kareem, who were way more involved in the possession when they didn't have the ball.

3. All of that absolutely doesn't mean he's overrated post-up SCORER. I have tracked around 40 Hakeem games from 1992/93 and 1993/94 seasons and his post-up scoring are truly remarkable. I am out of my country right now, so I won't be able to provide them but he was extremely efficient for a post up isolation scorer, especially at such a huge volume. The thing is that isolations are not very efficient in general and Hakeem relied heavily on it for his scoring game, which made his raw efficiency not spectacular, but it is spectacular in the context of his shot selection. Hakeem was remarkably efficient and effective post scorer, people might be shocked at the fact that he's more efficient ISO scorer than Shaq (and comparable to Kareem) - though on lower volume overall.

4. At the same time, Hakeem's post game is a bit misunderstood. People view him as the most versatile post scorer with million moves and counters, but when you go beyond highlight reels and start breaking down his scoring game, it's actually remarkably simple. First of all, Hakeem did over 70% of his post work on one side - right block. That's extremely one-dimensional, players like Kareem and Shaq had the 55/45 proportions. In that aspect, Hakeem was more similar to Wilt Chamberlain who also preferred the right block (though, not to that degree from my tracking data). Wilt's comparison is adept in another way - Hakeem relied heavily on his baseline fadeaway jumper. It was his go-to move and he used it extensively. Again, I don't have the data in front of me, but if I remember correctly it's like 7 fadeaways per game (almost 40% of his total shots and over half of total post-up attempts). It's also not true (which was suggested in previous posts) that Hakeem didn't rely on that shot in postseason, he took them on ridiculous volume. Of course, Hakeem had plenty of counter moves. He had a nice jumphook to the middle and he used fakes, spins, dropsteps etc. to blow by slower defenders. On the left block, his go-to move was a fadeaway to the middle. He attacked baseline when players overplayed the middle. Interestingly, he didn't seem to use fadeaway shot from the left shoulder much, although he could take such shots.

I wouldn't say Hakeem's post game is overrated outside of 1990s cultists, but it's a bit misunderstood. The same thing can be said about any great post player - Shaq, Kareem, Wilt etc. because people don't pay attention to details and don't track games.

I wouldn't call Hakeem the best offensive post player because of his playmaking limitations and off-ball tendencies, but when you want to pick the best isolation scorer in the post, it would be hard to find a better option. I think that only Kareem is overall better in that regard.[/QUOTE]

Hakeem was doing like 33 ppg with 4apg

The only other players that exceeded this type of scoring production is peak MJ.

That's the list.

Shaq never eclipsed that PPG or APG total in any of his playoff runs and most would put him in that best offensive player ever discussion during his peak.

Hakeem is definitely in the GOAT discussion for offense for big men. I would say Jokic has the title but it's so hard to compare eras 25-30 years apart. I honestly don't know what Hakeem would be capable of in today's NBA offensively. It wouldn't surprise me whatsoever if he was Embid plus with a heart and durability.

[QUOTE=tontoz;15021530]In his first 7 postseasons he had more turnovers than assists in 6 of them.[/QUOTE]

Ok, but Hakeem is not judged on what he did in the 80s.

What he eventually became, is what I think is more important. He kept evolving. That's the whole point.

The proliferation of the three-point shot & its usage by HOU under coach Rudy T is an important detail to acknowledge. How much did Hakeem improve as a passer, and how much did the available passing [I]opportunities[/I] improve? These are interesting questions to be asked.

[QUOTE=Carbine;15021533]Ok, but Hakeem is not judged on what he did in the 80s.

What he eventually became, is what I think is more important. He kept evolving. That's the whole point.[/QUOTE]


So we are only supposed to judge him based on 3 seasons in a 18 year career? Cool story bro

We aren't talking about career greatness here. The subject is his offense. It's perfectly fine to use a players peak in this case.

If we're talking about the best offensive bigs, I'd first ask what is meant by [I]bigs[/I]. Just centers? What about forwards? And are we talking peak, prime, or a career aggregated mean?

C: Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, Jokic
PF/C: Dirk
PF/SF: Barkley

I might be missing some, but that's where I'd start. Wilt more so for his 1967 peak.

[QUOTE=Carbine;15021541]We aren't talking about career greatness here. The subject is his offense. It's perfectly fine to use a players peak in this case.[/QUOTE]

So it is ok to only look at 57 games in a career of 1383 games?

:facepalm

[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin;15021542]If we're talking about the best offensive bigs, I'd first ask what is meant by [I]bigs[/I]. Just centers? What about forwards? And are we talking peak, prime, or a career aggregated mean?

C: Wilt, Kareem, Shaq, Jokic
PF/C: Dirk
PF/SF: Barkley

I might be missing some, but that's where I'd start. Wilt more so for his 1967 peak.[/QUOTE]

If you're going to include for his 1967 peak, why wouldn't you include Hakeem with that group? His peak was as good or better than any of Shaqs best. That is undeniable, against better direct competition as well.

[QUOTE=tontoz;15021543]So it is ok to only look at 57 games in a career of 1383 games?

:facepalm[/QUOTE]

If you value some random third game in four nights regular season game the same as a playoff game be my guest.

If you value any of his games in Toronto, be my guest.

I value what you were at your relative best. What your final form was. Shows me that you worked on your game and eventually had it all come together.

Let me rephrase it for you so you don't become argumentative just for the sake of it. Hakeem is definitely in the GOAT offensive peaks ever for big men.

[QUOTE=Carbine;15021546]If you value some random third game in four nights regular season game the same as a playoff game be my guest.

If you value any of his games in Toronto, be my guest.

I value what you were at your relative best. What your final form was. Shows me that you worked on your game and eventually had it all come together.

Let me rephrase it for you so you don't become argumentative just for the sake of it. Hakeem is definitely in the GOAT offensive peaks ever for big men.[/QUOTE]


:roll:


Even at his peak in the playoffs his scoring efficiency was nothing special. He isn't even in the same ZIP code as Jokic on offense. Jokic has a career average in the playoffs of 27 pts 8 assists.

Advanced stats are even more lopsided. Jokic has a career postseason average OBPM of 8 which is double what Hakeem had during his "peak".

If you're going to believe that Hakeem in his two championship runs had less of an offensive impact on his team (7.5 combined OBPM) than Chauncey Billups did for the Pistons when they made back to back finals (8.1 combined OBPM) I don't really want to discuss any further.

I'm not interested in debating stats like that. If that's how you do it, good for you man. You better stay consistent about that. For example, LeBron's peak shits on Currys OBPM for any playoff run. Actually he has two that are above and beyond anything Curry has ever done.

CJ McCollum regular season two peak years are about equal to Gilbert Arenas regular season two year peak.

If that's the route you wish to take..... Tread carefully

[QUOTE=Carbine;15021576]If you're going to believe that Hakeem in his two championship runs had less of an offensive impact on his team (7.5 combined OBPM) than Chauncey Billups did for the Pistons when they made back to back finals (8.1 combined OBPM) I don't really want to discuss any further.

I'm not interested in debating stats like that. If that's how you do it, good for you man. You better stay consistent about that. For example, LeBron's peak shits on Currys OBPM for any playoff run. Actually he has two that are above and beyond anything Curry has ever done.

CJ McCollum regular season two peak years are about equal to Gilbert Arenas regular season two year peak.

If that's the route you wish to take..... Tread carefully[/QUOTE]


I don't need to tread carefully when Jokic's numbers are double Hakeem's. :lol

During Hakeems title runs he scored only a few points more than Jokic's career playoff average, with barely more than half the assists and worse efficiency.

If someone wants to say Hakeem was a better player overall i would disagree but wouldn't care enough to argue because Hakeem was such a strong defender. But saying Hakeem was better on offense is laughable. Jokic is a better shooter from everywhere and the best passing center ever.

During his title runs Hakeem had an ORTG of 109-110. Jokic's career playoff average is 123.

[QUOTE=tontoz;15021553]:roll:


Even at his peak in the playoffs his scoring efficiency was nothing special. He isn't even in the same ZIP code as Jokic on offense. Jokic has a career average in the playoffs of 27 pts 8 assists.

Advanced stats are even more lopsided. Jokic has a career postseason average OBPM of 8 which is double what Hakeem had during his "peak".[/QUOTE]

Yet he could completely take over and control games on both ends of the floor simultaneously. Joker could never dream of controlling a game defensively.

[QUOTE=sdot_thadon;15021635]Yet he could completely take over and control games on both ends of the floor simultaneously. Joker could never dream of controlling a game defensively.[/QUOTE]


That is a separate argument. This discussion is about offense. Try to keep up.

akeem was defender first in league besides a weak side offense and boards man...

When the 2 chips , his game was polished and his foot work was supreme.

Players today go to him to immolate his foot work to create open shoots.

Remember Giannis's early years.. Now he has Dirk one legged as well as left wing foot work like Akeem/

The Hakeem/ Jokic thing is interesting, because they really do have different responsibilities on top of how different their eras are. Jokic is very clearly a better shooter and passer, and that's regardless of era. Hakeem is no doubt light years ahead on defense, and that also would be in any era( you can see that Hakeem would be fine on defense in 2025 because he was mobile enough to switch on the perimeter if need be). I do wonder what Hakeem would be like offensively if he took his foot off the pedal on defense. I don't find he and Jokic to be all that comparable just trading numbers. I can more easily see the things and attributes they're each better at regardless of the era they played in. Really, any player that is an inherently great passer would feast today. Can you imagine Magic playing with today's spacing, when his entire reputation as a passer was build on sleight of hand threading the needle in clogged paints?

[QUOTE=tontoz;15021636]That is a separate argument. This discussion is about offense. Try to keep up.[/QUOTE]

Its just a small point to illustrate how much the advanced stats only tell you some of what really was. Olajuwon was just as much the hub of the Rockets offense as Joker was just more post gravity than playmaking. The rockets literally put 4 guys around him who could anywhere from shoot well to kinda shoot ok occasionally and let him work down low. Hed either score or create an open shot for one of those guys. It worked well enough to win back to back titles. Joker does have pretty stats, I cant deny that but Dream would eat him alive.

[QUOTE=sdot_thadon;15021661]Its just a small point to illustrate how much the advanced stats only tell you some of what really was. Olajuwon was just as much the hub of the Rockets offense as Joker was just more post gravity than playmaking. The rockets literally put 4 guys around him who could anywhere from shoot well to kinda shoot ok occasionally and let him work down low. Hed either score or create an open shot for one of those guys. It worked well enough to win back to back titles. Joker does have pretty stats, I cant deny that but Dream would eat him alive.[/QUOTE]

Again it is a separate discussion who is the better player overall. There is no question who is better on offense. Jokic shoots better than Hakeem from anywhere and is the best passing center ever.

When people talk about playmaking from the center position Hakeem's name doesn't come up.

I already said Jokic was the best offensive center ever?

I'm just not sure if it's 100 percent because of eras. I don't care about either player, so I'm as unbiased in this as anyone here. It's perfectly logical to say Jokic numbers are definitely helped out by the era in which he has played in. That is pretty obvious to me. Perhaps not to you.

So yes, Jokic is the best offensive big ever, but there's some room for logical era centric debates.

The whole reason I got into this is not MENTIONING Hakeem in the GOAT discussion for offensive bigs. Not that he's better than Jokic, so for someone saying "Try to keep up" to other posters, you're failing to do that as well.

Again, if you want to judge Hakeem by OBPM then he's not anywhere near the discussion. He's just a pretty good offensive player. A player like Billups had more impact on offense for his team than Peak Hakeem did according to it. That's not a path I want to go down because in my mind that is so badly wrong and so misguided and a reason NOT to take OBPM seriously that it's a rabbit hole or me finding 100 examples of shit that doesn't make sense.

[QUOTE=Carbine;15021664]I already said Jokic was the best offensive center ever?

[/QUOTE]

You also said this

][QUOTE=Carbine;15021546]

Let me rephrase it for you so you don't become argumentative just for the sake of it. Hakeem is definitely in the GOAT offensive peaks ever for big men.[/QUOTE]


That is simply not true, in the absolute sense or taking into account the era difference.

Hakeem was first team all NBA defense 5 times, and 2nd team a few others. With that being the case why was he top 3 in the MVP voting only twice in his career? Because other guys had a much bigger impact on offense.

I certainly understand why you dismiss stats that don't support you, while freely quoting basic stats that support you. The problem is that you have to dismiss stats other than just OBPM. ORTG is also hugely in favor of Jokic, as are offensive win shares. It isn't even close.

[QUOTE=Im Still Ballin;15021423]Barkley was the more impactful offensive player when they were teammates, if you go by RAPM. IIRC, it's not even close.[/QUOTE]

Yea, but that's because Houston ran the offense through Barkley, and then we have to consider things once they added Pippen. But we should contextualize based on a series of variables.

[B]RS Hakeem ORAPM '97: +1.92
[/B]RS Barkley ORAPM '97: +0.85

[B]PS Hakeem ORAPM '97: +1.55
[/B]PS Barkley ORAPM '97: +0.73

Barkley missed 29 games in 1997. Houston had a 110 ORTG with Barkley and a 107 ORTG without him. With Barkley, Hakeem put up 22/9/2/1/2 on 51%. Without him, he put up [B]25/10/4/2/2 on 50%[/B].

But here's the thing, Clyde also missed 20 games in 1997 and both him and Barkley missed the majority of their games during the same time (Feb-March).

1998 gets weird because Hakeem missed half of the season, and '99 was the lockout season, but they also added Pippen. I believe '97 is the best indication of who the better offensive player was, all things considered, and it wasn't Barkley.

[QUOTE=1987_Lakers;15021439]To me, I don't think his post-up game is overrated, it's his lack of playmaking that held him back from being a GOAT tier offensive big.[/QUOTE]

Hakeem was part of the first original 3 and D team, and a major reason why they improved between '92 to '93 offensively (20th in ORTG to 6th in ORTG) was because Rudy T made the offense run through Hakeem. Hakeem became a master at hitting spots and finding his shooters.

Okay sure, that's not comparable to Wilt or Jokic, but why wouldn't it put him on the same tier when during his playoff peak he put up [B]30 PPG, 4.4 APG, on 52.4%[/B] shooting?

PS Shaq '00-'03: 29.4 PPG | 3.1 APG | 54.9 FG%
PS Hakeem '93-'95: 29.8 PPG | 4.4 APG | 52.4% FG%

I think you'd say Shaq's peak was GOAT tier offense. I don't see why Hakeem's wouldn't be. If you wanna say their entire careers then okay, fair. But I think a lot of that had to do with coaching.