Who was the second best player in the world during MJs run?

[kodo]

Magic wasn't really a factor in the late 90s, Houston was a 57 win team in '97.
On a matchup level I believe the Rockets played the Bulls to about 50/50 during the threepeat era, not sure if any other team broke even w/ the Bulls with MJ on it.

[VanWest82]

Have to go with Magic here. His impact from 87-91 was greater than Hakeem from 92-96. If people want to deduct points from Magic because of time frame chosen and go with quantity > quality or say they were about even on the latter so the former is a tie breaker, then I get it, but to me the relevant piece is who was better for their 3-5 year prime, and that's Magic.

Edit: here's a RAPM study by a former NBA team and league office employee. Magic is way ahead of everyone not named Michael Jordan.

Read on Twitter

This is kind of why you need to look at multiple stats though, with this RAPM being heavily influenced by the sum of the parts. For instance, no way in hell is Toni Kukoc better than Charles Barkley, or Shaq, or Clyde. If you'll see, a lot of guys on that list are roleplayers playing on the best teams of their era.

I agree you need to look at multiple stats but 10-year RAPM samples are about as good as it gets when looking at longer timeframes.

Your role player objection isn't a very good one in this case because RAPM isn't saying Kukoc > Shaq, Barkley, etc; it's saying that factoring in teammates and opponents, line ups with Kukoc performed slightly better than line ups that had some of those other guys. No doubt this is because Toni got to play a lot with Mike and Scottie. Also, it's because Kukoc is one of the most underrated players of the 90s and so it isn't an accident that he was additive to those Bulls teams. But the main thing is, if we can agree that stars drive winning in the NBA more so than role players, then it still makes sense to use large multi-year samples of RAPM to compare impact between stars while understanding that you're going to get some exceptional role players in there that test well because they help form part of exceptional line ups. Make sense?

The better objection imo is that the sample is incomplete, and Dream has a lot of games missing compared to the other stars in the sample. Still, there's enough sample size with him that it'd be unlikely he'd make up the ground. The reality is Hakeem just didn't drive +/- the same way as MJ and Magic in the regular seasons. This used to be accepted back in the day, but then the legend of Dream took off because he had a couple of incredible post season runs.

[MavsDirk41]

I'll take Pippen over Ewing pretty easily. I'd have to think about him vs Drexler but I think I'd take him there too. The rest...nah.

Ewing was top 5 in mvp voting 6 times in his career and took his team to the finals. He peaked higher/accomplished more than Pippen by far. I think Drexler and Pippen is close career wise but im taking Clyde still.

I'll give Ewing a better peak, around 90. But otherwise I think he was massively overrated by the media being NYC back when the voters were massively skewed to the new east media. Then the massively lesser role that Pippen took because of Jordan to me should be a huge increase to his value. I'll add the advanced stats still give a small lead to Pippen despite him not getting to shine as a scorer.

I think Pippen was best as a secondary scorer. He was a jack of all trades and could do a little bit of everything but i think Jordan being the focal point of the offense helped Pippen get his numbers. Ewing shouldered the scoring burden for those Knicks teams all those years. After Chicago Pippen played with Hakeem and Barkley for a year and then a deep Portland team with guys like Sabonis, Steve Smith, Rasheed Wallace, and Damon Stoudamire. So he was only “the man” for less than two years of his career. I cant put Pippen over Ewing.

[dhsilv2]

Ewing was top 5 in mvp voting 6 times in his career and took his team to the finals. He peaked higher/accomplished more than Pippen by far. I think Drexler and Pippen is close career wise but im taking Clyde still.

I'll give Ewing a better peak, around 90. But otherwise I think he was massively overrated by the media being NYC back when the voters were massively skewed to the new east media. Then the massively lesser role that Pippen took because of Jordan to me should be a huge increase to his value. I'll add the advanced stats still give a small lead to Pippen despite him not getting to shine as a scorer.

I think Pippen was best as a secondary scorer. He was a jack of all trades and could do a little bit of everything but i think Jordan being the focal point of the offense helped Pippen get his numbers. Ewing shouldered the scoring burden for those Knicks teams all those years. After Chicago Pippen played with Hakeem and Barkley for a year and then a deep Portland team with guys like Sabonis, Steve Smith, Rasheed Wallace, and Damon Stoudamire. So he was only “the man” for less than two years of his career. I cant put Pippen over Ewing.

I mean Ewing was best as a secondary scorer too. He just was on a team where he was the lead scorer. But unlike Pippen Ewing didn't have the ability to do a little of everything else too.

A lot of all time greats were better suited to be a second option. Robinson was better in that role. KG was clearly better suited for it. Being a great second option is often a more difficult role to fill which is why we don't have a lot of great examples.

[Biff]

Have to go with Magic here. His impact from 87-91 was greater than Hakeem from 92-96. If people want to deduct points from Magic because of time frame chosen and go with quantity > quality or say they were about even on the latter so the former is a tie breaker, then I get it, but to me the relevant piece is who was better for their 3-5 year prime, and that's Magic.

Edit: here's a RAPM study by a former NBA team and league office employee. Magic is way ahead of everyone not named Michael Jordan.

Read on Twitter

This is kind of why you need to look at multiple stats though, with this RAPM being heavily influenced by the sum of the parts. For instance, no way in hell is Toni Kukoc better than Charles Barkley, or Shaq, or Clyde. If you'll see, a lot of guys on that list are roleplayers playing on the best teams of their era.

I agree you need to look at multiple stats but 10-year RAPM samples are about as good as it gets when looking at longer timeframes.

Your role player objection isn't a very good one in this case because RAPM isn't saying Kukoc > Shaq, Barkley, etc; it's saying that factoring in teammates and opponents, line ups with Kukoc performed slightly better than line ups that had some of those other guys. No doubt this is because Toni got to play a lot with Mike and Scottie. Also, it's because Kukoc is one of the most underrated players of the 90s and so it isn't an accident that he was additive to those Bulls teams. But the main thing is, if we can agree that stars drive winning in the NBA more so than role players, then it still makes sense to use large multi-year samples of RAPM to compare impact between stars while understanding that you're going to get some exceptional role players in there that test well because they help form part of exceptional line ups. Make sense?

The better objection imo is that the sample is incomplete, and Dream has a lot of games missing compared to the other stars in the sample. Still, there's enough sample size with him that it'd be unlikely he'd make up the ground. The reality is Hakeem just didn't drive +/- the same way as MJ and Magic in the regular seasons. This used to be accepted back in the day, but then the legend of Dream took off because he had a couple of incredible post season runs.

Don't agree. Magic had a far better supporting cast around him his entire career and I think that is going to heavily influence RAPM. Hakeem would look a lot better RAPM-wise had he played with Kareem, Worthy, Byron Scott, and so on. He got a few good years out of Ralph Sampson and then mostly had roleplayers around him. Until Clyde. And by that time Clyde was no longer at his peak and Hakeem was just about to start to decline.

Same with Barkley. He is far better than his place on that RAPM list suggests. But he played on some real crappy teams for a number of years. Magic never once played on a crap team and thus saying he's better than Hakeem because he has better RAPM is suspect. You have no idea what Magic's RAPM and Hakeem's RAPM would look like if their situations were switched.

[Biff]

Have to go with Magic here. His impact from 87-91 was greater than Hakeem from 92-96. If people want to deduct points from Magic because of time frame chosen and go with quantity > quality or say they were about even on the latter so the former is a tie breaker, then I get it, but to me the relevant piece is who was better for their 3-5 year prime, and that's Magic.

Edit: here's a RAPM study by a former NBA team and league office employee. Magic is way ahead of everyone not named Michael Jordan.

Read on Twitter

This is kind of why you need to look at multiple stats though, with this RAPM being heavily influenced by the sum of the parts. For instance, no way in hell is Toni Kukoc better than Charles Barkley, or Shaq, or Clyde. If you'll see, a lot of guys on that list are roleplayers playing on the best teams of their era.

All this says is that Toni in a tiny sample was great in his role. You can use just RAPM and still know that a guy mostly coming off the bench isn't carrying the same load. You don't have to add more stats to apply knowledge of basketball and what the metric is actually telling you.

That'd be fine if that was how it's used but homeboy is saying Hakeem can't touch Magic because he had better RAPM. Magic had way better players around him his entire career and that roster was perfectly suited to his skillset. Hakeem had a few good years with Sampson (and that is very debatable whether that was a maximum benefit to Hakeem) and then mostly had mediocre talent around him for awhile after that. He didn't play with another all-star until Clyde and by then Clyde was on the decline. And Hakeem was at the start of his decline as well.

[Biff]

A perfect example of why RAPM is flawed in this scenario is Steve Nash. Look at Steve's RAPM during his Dallas days vs Suns days, they don't remotely compare. He looks like a superstar with the Suns and only all-star with the Mavs. He wasn't a different player, he simply played in a system and with players that more or less maximized his talents.

[MavsDirk41]

I'll give Ewing a better peak, around 90. But otherwise I think he was massively overrated by the media being NYC back when the voters were massively skewed to the new east media. Then the massively lesser role that Pippen took because of Jordan to me should be a huge increase to his value. I'll add the advanced stats still give a small lead to Pippen despite him not getting to shine as a scorer.

I think Pippen was best as a secondary scorer. He was a jack of all trades and could do a little bit of everything but i think Jordan being the focal point of the offense helped Pippen get his numbers. Ewing shouldered the scoring burden for those Knicks teams all those years. After Chicago Pippen played with Hakeem and Barkley for a year and then a deep Portland team with guys like Sabonis, Steve Smith, Rasheed Wallace, and Damon Stoudamire. So he was only “the man” for less than two years of his career. I cant put Pippen over Ewing.

I mean Ewing was best as a secondary scorer too. He just was on a team where he was the lead scorer. But unlike Pippen Ewing didn't have the ability to do a little of everything else too.

A lot of all time greats were better suited to be a second option. Robinson was better in that role. KG was clearly better suited for it. Being a great second option is often a more difficult role to fill which is why we don't have a lot of great examples.

Nah i think Ewing was fine as a primary scorer. Ewing also had 12 strong seasons where as in Pippen’s case he had like 6 or 7. His first few years in the league he was pretty good and then he missed half of the season 97/98 and was never the same player. Ewing was dominant year one and won ROY. It took Pippen 3 years to kind of fullfill his potential.

[dhsilv2]

This is kind of why you need to look at multiple stats though, with this RAPM being heavily influenced by the sum of the parts. For instance, no way in hell is Toni Kukoc better than Charles Barkley, or Shaq, or Clyde. If you'll see, a lot of guys on that list are roleplayers playing on the best teams of their era.

All this says is that Toni in a tiny sample was great in his role. You can use just RAPM and still know that a guy mostly coming off the bench isn't carrying the same load. You don't have to add more stats to apply knowledge of basketball and what the metric is actually telling you.

That'd be fine if that was how it's used but homeboy is saying Hakeem can't touch Magic because he had better RAPM. Magic had way better players around him his entire career and that roster was perfectly suited to his skillset. Hakeem had a few good years with Sampson (and that is very debatable whether that was a maximum benefit to Hakeem) and then mostly had mediocre talent around him for awhile after that. He didn't play with another all-star until Clyde and by then Clyde was on the decline. And Hakeem was at the start of his decline as well.

I mean you can use other stats and they'll still show Magic was better too. But you can much better compare a Magic and Hakeem than bringing in a Toni (makes no sense to bring him up with talking about the other two with any stat).

Also Thorp was an allstar with Hakeem but...doesn't really matter.

[dhsilv2]

I think Pippen was best as a secondary scorer. He was a jack of all trades and could do a little bit of everything but i think Jordan being the focal point of the offense helped Pippen get his numbers. Ewing shouldered the scoring burden for those Knicks teams all those years. After Chicago Pippen played with Hakeem and Barkley for a year and then a deep Portland team with guys like Sabonis, Steve Smith, Rasheed Wallace, and Damon Stoudamire. So he was only “the man” for less than two years of his career. I cant put Pippen over Ewing.

I mean Ewing was best as a secondary scorer too. He just was on a team where he was the lead scorer. But unlike Pippen Ewing didn't have the ability to do a little of everything else too.

A lot of all time greats were better suited to be a second option. Robinson was better in that role. KG was clearly better suited for it. Being a great second option is often a more difficult role to fill which is why we don't have a lot of great examples.

Nah i think Ewing was fine as a primary scorer. Ewing also had 12 strong seasons where as in Pippen’s case he had like 6 or 7. His first few years in the league he was pretty good and then he missed half of the season 97/98 and was never the same player. Ewing was dominant year one and won ROY. It took Pippen 3 years to kind of fullfill his potential.

Ewing had about 2 years where he was actually looking like a legit number 1 option. Then his knee issues came in and at that point he was no longer able to produce much more than about league average if not well below offenses built around him. Heck he was only on one team with a top 10 offense and after 92 he'd never even be in the half half of the league in terms of offense. If Ewing was your best offensive player, you were a team built on defense if you wanted to win because you'd not winning on offense with him.

The difference with Pippen is that he could both be a scorer AND distributor. Even post back injury he was still an impactful offensive player, just not as a scorer. It was Hakeem who had just fallen off a cliff for those Rockets when Pippen and Chuck were with him. And then Pippen remained a key offensive player for the Blazers.

As basketball keeps showing us time and time again. Unless you're a legit MVP level scorer...and even then not always. Passing is just more valuable and scales better with talent around you. Ewing was a poor passer and once he lost a step which happened early, he wasn't having that level of impact on offense. He was still a great defender of course.

[Biff]

All this says is that Toni in a tiny sample was great in his role. You can use just RAPM and still know that a guy mostly coming off the bench isn't carrying the same load. You don't have to add more stats to apply knowledge of basketball and what the metric is actually telling you.

That'd be fine if that was how it's used but homeboy is saying Hakeem can't touch Magic because he had better RAPM. Magic had way better players around him his entire career and that roster was perfectly suited to his skillset. Hakeem had a few good years with Sampson (and that is very debatable whether that was a maximum benefit to Hakeem) and then mostly had mediocre talent around him for awhile after that. He didn't play with another all-star until Clyde and by then Clyde was on the decline. And Hakeem was at the start of his decline as well.

I mean you can use other stats and they'll still show Magic was better too. But you can much better compare a Magic and Hakeem than bringing in a Toni (makes no sense to bring him up with talking about the other two with any stat).

Also Thorp was an allstar with Hakeem but...doesn't really matter.

Thorpe was a very weak all-star by evidence he played the fewest minutes of anyone that game.

And once again, while I think Magic is an ATG, I also think some of his stats benefit tremendously from the system and players around him. See my Steve Nash comment above.

[dhsilv2]

That'd be fine if that was how it's used but homeboy is saying Hakeem can't touch Magic because he had better RAPM. Magic had way better players around him his entire career and that roster was perfectly suited to his skillset. Hakeem had a few good years with Sampson (and that is very debatable whether that was a maximum benefit to Hakeem) and then mostly had mediocre talent around him for awhile after that. He didn't play with another all-star until Clyde and by then Clyde was on the decline. And Hakeem was at the start of his decline as well.

I mean you can use other stats and they'll still show Magic was better too. But you can much better compare a Magic and Hakeem than bringing in a Toni (makes no sense to bring him up with talking about the other two with any stat).

Also Thorp was an allstar with Hakeem but...doesn't really matter.

Thorpe was a very weak all-star by evidence he played the fewest minutes of anyone that game.

And once again, while I think Magic is an ATG, I also think some of his stats benefit tremendously from the system and players around him. See my Steve Nash comment above.

Magic was an all time great passer...passing has shown consistently to have the more value on offense of any skillset. He was also an elite team defender which we can see from his high steal numbers. He was switchable and rebounded well. If you were building a guy you'd expect to do exceptionally well by a metric, he fits that bill. Same with Nash...and we got to see Nash have elite offensive impact on the Mavs, on the suns and we even saw him do it with an without Amare.

Not the guys I'd use to argue against stats.

As for Thorp, I didn't say he was a great one. Though not playing in the stupid game is a horrid argument. But Thorp for that era absolutely is the profile of a guy who likely deserved a few allstar games but wasn't anything special...like a LOT of allstars from the 90's.

[Biff]

I mean you can use other stats and they'll still show Magic was better too. But you can much better compare a Magic and Hakeem than bringing in a Toni (makes no sense to bring him up with talking about the other two with any stat).

Also Thorp was an allstar with Hakeem but...doesn't really matter.

Thorpe was a very weak all-star by evidence he played the fewest minutes of anyone that game.

And once again, while I think Magic is an ATG, I also think some of his stats benefit tremendously from the system and players around him. See my Steve Nash comment above.

Magic was an all time great passer...passing has shown consistently to have the more value on offense of any skillset. He was also an elite team defender which we can see from his high steal numbers. He was switchable and rebounded well. If you were building a guy you'd expect to do exceptionally well by a metric, he fits that bill. Same with Nash...and we got to see Nash have elite offensive impact on the Mavs, on the suns and we even saw him do it with an without Amare.

Not the guys I'd use to argue against stats.

As for Thorp, I didn't say he was a great one. Though not playing in the stupid game is a horrid argument. But Thorp for that era absolutely is the profile of a guy who likely deserved a few allstar games but wasn't anything special...like a LOT of allstars from the 90's.

Don't agree, the system in Phoenix was tailor made for Nash and he looked better in Phoenix than he did in Dallas.

"Nash delivered more quality passes, per possession, than anyone I’ve ever studied on film. In Dallas, he was already competing with the greatest passers in history, slinging a “good” or “great” pass on over 5 plays per 100. But in Phoenix, surrounded by better athletes and shooters that spaced the floor, Nash uncorked good passes on almost 9 percent of possessions! While Magic played in a time where there were fewer great passing opportunities, Nash’s wild forays into the paint created many of those small windows. If Magic exploited, Nash explored; he’d tug on defenses like a puppet master, waiting to see if big men would overplay his scoring while hoping help defenders would rotate to the wrong man."

"However, Nash’s situational value clearly changed from Dallas to Phoenix, as multiple APM methodologies demonstrate marginal impact in Dallas and seismic correlations in Phoenix. Improved health and the freedom-of-movement rule change were both factors, but I view these competing measurements as a classic case of fit. Similar to LeBron and Wade, Nash’s style of play created some diminishing returns. Unlike LeBron or Wade, Nash’s unheralded background and diminutive stature masked his poor fit in Dallas. Nash was more of a situational floor-raiser who could wash out in certain lineups next to ball-dominant scorers; he wasn’t as versatile as someone like LeBron, so pairing him with other centerpieces didn’t automatically supercharge such teams.10"

https://thinkingbasketball.net/2018/02/22/backpicks-goat-19-steve-nash/

[VanWest82]

Don't agree. Magic had a far better supporting cast around him his entire career and I think that is going to heavily influence RAPM. Hakeem would look a lot better RAPM-wise had he played with Kareem, Worthy, Byron Scott, and so on. He got a few good years out of Ralph Sampson and then mostly had roleplayers around him. Until Clyde. And by that time Clyde was no longer at his peak and Hakeem was just about to start to decline.

Same with Barkley. He is far better than his place on that RAPM list suggests. But he played on some real crappy teams for a number of years. Magic never once played on a crap team and thus saying he's better than Hakeem because he has better RAPM is suspect. You have no idea what Magic's RAPM and Hakeem's RAPM would look like if their situations were switched.

I agree somewhat with your last sentence but disagree with everything else. RAPM is different from raw +/- in that it accounts for both teammates and opponent players on the floor using stint line up data which is more robust with more line up combinations (which happens over a 10+ year sample). Over time, Magic and Hakeem's impact gets teased out in relation to their teammates. Magic plays without Kareem (borderline washed after 86) or Worthy or Scott or some combination, and those guys play without Magic vs. various opponents and it becomes apparent who was really driving winning. Same with Hakeem and Kenny Smith, Vernon Maxwell, Otis Thorpe, Robert Horry, etc. As an example, MJ led the NBA by a wide margin in 88 despite no all star help and no real role player help outside of Charles Oakley and rookie Horace Grant off the bench.

I'd also argue switching PGs and Cs doesn't make a lot of sense for comparison. Of course things would've played out differently. But let's say they did switch in '84 and their teams had ample opportunities to reorganize rosters around each guy, I still think Magic is better represented in RAPM. He was both a considerable floor and ceiling raiser. Hakeem seemed like more of a ceiling raiser who needed certain teammates for his team to be good.

[dautjazz]

I suppose Olajuwon since he started at the same time, but how often was he really the 2nd best? He was certainly 1 or 2 when MJ retired.

Bird was the best player when MJ started, then as Bird declined, MJ became the best, with Magic second best for a few seasons, then I suppose Barkley for a bit, then Hakeem/Robinson, and finally Malone. Overall I think its got to be Olajuwon.

[C64]

Not an easy question to answer…

Living and watching through that era, one might come away thinking it’s probably Charles Barkley.
But…Hakeem was probably that guy, followed closely by Shaq/Robinson
Honestly, I don’t see Magic/Bird quite in that same era. Just because they were both on the tail end of their careers.
Malone, Ewing were quite dominant in their own right but needed a facilitator to make them what they became. Sort of the same with Robinson, who was a bigger version of LeBron, yeah I said it.
Back then it was just unheard of that a big could handle the ball and it just didn’t happen because of coaching and theory of what was more defined roles then.
Clyde was diet MJ which is not derogatory, he was a beast … MJ was just Dexter put all the way to 10 on every level.
With all that said, the don’t have an answer. Honestly, I’d probably go Hakeem with Barkley 1b.
Before MJ though, Bird was the guy. Honestly I think (imho) was the best player, and iI’d have him over LeBron as the best small forward to ever play the game. In their prime, I’d take bird over LeBron in their prime.

[dhsilv2]

Thorpe was a very weak all-star by evidence he played the fewest minutes of anyone that game.

And once again, while I think Magic is an ATG, I also think some of his stats benefit tremendously from the system and players around him. See my Steve Nash comment above.

Magic was an all time great passer...passing has shown consistently to have the more value on offense of any skillset. He was also an elite team defender which we can see from his high steal numbers. He was switchable and rebounded well. If you were building a guy you'd expect to do exceptionally well by a metric, he fits that bill. Same with Nash...and we got to see Nash have elite offensive impact on the Mavs, on the suns and we even saw him do it with an without Amare.

Not the guys I'd use to argue against stats.

As for Thorp, I didn't say he was a great one. Though not playing in the stupid game is a horrid argument. But Thorp for that era absolutely is the profile of a guy who likely deserved a few allstar games but wasn't anything special...like a LOT of allstars from the 90's.

Don't agree, the system in Phoenix was tailor made for Nash and he looked better in Phoenix than he did in Dallas.

"Nash delivered more quality passes, per possession, than anyone I’ve ever studied on film. In Dallas, he was already competing with the greatest passers in history, slinging a “good” or “great” pass on over 5 plays per 100. But in Phoenix, surrounded by better athletes and shooters that spaced the floor, Nash uncorked good passes on almost 9 percent of possessions! While Magic played in a time where there were fewer great passing opportunities, Nash’s wild forays into the paint created many of those small windows. If Magic exploited, Nash explored; he’d tug on defenses like a puppet master, waiting to see if big men would overplay his scoring while hoping help defenders would rotate to the wrong man."

"However, Nash’s situational value clearly changed from Dallas to Phoenix, as multiple APM methodologies demonstrate marginal impact in Dallas and seismic correlations in Phoenix. Improved health and the freedom-of-movement rule change were both factors, but I view these competing measurements as a classic case of fit. Similar to LeBron and Wade, Nash’s style of play created some diminishing returns. Unlike LeBron or Wade, Nash’s unheralded background and diminutive stature masked his poor fit in Dallas. Nash was more of a situational floor-raiser who could wash out in certain lineups next to ball-dominant scorers; he wasn’t as versatile as someone like LeBron, so pairing him with other centerpieces didn’t automatically supercharge such teams.10"

https://thinkingbasketball.net/2018/02/22/backpicks-goat-19-steve-nash/

I had a response written but I'm going to stop and just ask the simple questions.

Should a coach build around their best player? If they do this, how much of the success is the player and how much is the coach? Lets ignore teammates for a second here. Just assume the team isn't elite or terrible. Just a middle team with an MVP level guy added.

Honest question and this is the same stuff I'd have asked Elgee to breakdown (and he'd do) if he still posted here. And while I respect Ben, we certainly argued on here plenty, despite that I often will quote him too. But these are the areas where it's worth talking because it's about quantifying it.

And just to put some context on why I ask. The mavs had the best offense in the league, but when you have Dirk and Nash...a coach can logically build around either and they chose Dirk. That doesn't mean it was the right call or the wrong call. It's like having the choice between two models to date, who also happen to be smart, cool, and fun for you to be around. You can't lose.

[NCHeels2008]

I don't really like the question. That's a thirteen year time frame. It changes within that time frame.

From 1985 to 1991, it was Magic.
From 1992 to 1995, it was Hakeem(though Barkley might have an argument for 93).
From 1996 to 1998, I'd argue it was Shaq, as Hakeem was declining by then.

And I disagree with the notion that Hakeem is clearly > Magic. I always take Magic over him. In fact, I think Magic is being pretty disrespected in the poll.

even if it was to 93 I'd take Magic but there's too many years he literally didn't play so I voted Hakeem