Hakeem the Playoff Dream

[Roundball_Rock]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

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

Bird wasnt some uber rookie.

[kuniva_dAMiGhTy]

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

[Stephonit]

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.

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. Should he be lauded for not performing as much as one thinks he could have in the regular season? In terms of the pattern seen, Barkley's is actually more impressive. But in an overall comparison of the players it's the end numbers and results that are the best arbiter.

[Stephonit]

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]

First team, ROY and led Boston in scoring and rebounding

Looks pretty "uber" to me

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]

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]

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]

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. 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.