How high would you rate Hakeem if he had no championships?

[tsherkin]

Tough call. Winning rings is such a big part of his claim to higher rankings. Maybe 15-20? Above that, context matters so much because there are so many players who could have won more if they had more support. Olajuwon had a great 95 postseason, but an overrated Finals with his -3.7% rTS vs playoff average in that Finals against Orlando. Big volume, trash efficiency. Significant impact defensively versus Shaq, still, but an overrated series. If they didn't win, then the tone changes a lot, I think, and people start wondering if he wasn't past his prime and if he didn't just have a brief peak burst, etc, etc, etc. Especially had they not won the year before, people start wondering about if he's a title anchor and all that, despite the team context.

I feel like 15-25 starts to become more appropriate.

[rk2023]

If he did all of the exact same things and had the exact same value exerted, Hakeem would still be top 5/6 for me.

Yep. What amazes me about him is how great he was all over the floor, and his incredible physical gifts. I don’t think he won championships because he was especially clutch, I mean that was just another thing he was good at, but it doesn’t stand out to me the way it does with other players, of the things he was ~ all time great at that would not particularly rank high on his list. And I already think he was carrying a team as much as you can, if he hadn’t been able to do it, I’d have just assumed it couldn’t be done. It’s a bit different with great bigs, they are contributing in so many areas that you don’t isolate a big 3 or w/e in your memory, because down the stretch he’s all over the court just like the rest of the game.

Well said. One thing I may see more than you is the point about being 'especially clutch'. In that regard, I'm aware he fares beyond exceptionally as an elimination game performer and as an SRS underdog. All of that, to a reasonable extent, falls under 'clutch' for me - so I regard Hakeem highly there. I think a lot of prime Hakeem was good enough to be an anchor on a championship team. Could be likely that all of the reinforcement of having to floor raise and 'be the hero' on both sides (at the cost of his offensive efficacy, though i'm not fixating on that too much) helped him play that role amazingly even with a better cast - being able to take-over games on both sides of the floor through Houston's 1994 and 95 gauntlet.

[Johnny Tomala]

Still #8 all time for me.

[Harry Palmer]

If he did all of the exact same things and had the exact same value exerted, Hakeem would still be top 5/6 for me.

Yep. What amazes me about him is how great he was all over the floor, and his incredible physical gifts. I don’t think he won championships because he was especially clutch, I mean that was just another thing he was good at, but it doesn’t stand out to me the way it does with other players, of the things he was ~ all time great at that would not particularly rank high on his list. And I already think he was carrying a team as much as you can, if he hadn’t been able to do it, I’d have just assumed it couldn’t be done. It’s a bit different with great bigs, they are contributing in so many areas that you don’t isolate a big 3 or w/e in your memory, because down the stretch he’s all over the court just like the rest of the game.

Well said. One thing I may see more than you is the point about being 'especially clutch'. In that regard, I'm aware he fares beyond exceptionally as an elimination game performer and as an SRS underdog. All of that, to a reasonable extent, falls under 'clutch' for me - so I regard Hakeem highly there. I think a lot of prime Hakeem was good enough to be an anchor on a championship team. Could be likely that all of the reinforcement of having to floor raise and 'be the hero' on both sides (at the cost of his offensive efficacy, though i'm not fixating on that too much) helped him play that role amazingly event with a better cast - being able to take-over games on both sides of the floor through Houston's 1994 and 95 gauntlet.

Oh, for sure. But take a look at his stats against Seattle in almost every/every? series loss, he’s completely all over the place (as in dominant in all spheres) at least as good as in many of the series he won. He wasn’t more dominant when they did so, he just had a smidget of help so people paid more attention. (And also a couple of those Seattle series were decided with terrible officiating, but it was also just a ‘matchups make fights’ deal.)

[FuShengTHEGreat]

Just like Jerry West (I consider him a SG) if he had 0 rings. Still the 2nd best ever at their position.

I am very high on players that were able to maintain/elevate their individual level of play in the playoffs vs what they did in the regular season for their careers. And both West and Hakeem excelled equally at both ends of the floor.

[Ursusamericanus]

Really interesting topic, thanks for raising it. I'd probably end up putting him in the 15-20 range without any rings, rather than being around 10 in reality. He'd be the best player without a ring, definitely above Malone and Barkley.

As a side note, I've got Ewing around 30, and would bump him up to 20-25 with the 1994 title. Because it'd mean he maybe shot >40% instead of 36% in those finals. He'd still be behind Hakeem even if the Knicks won though... Hakeem was just better.

[Throwawaytheone]

.

[MacGill]

In 1994, Starks has a better game 7, and the Knicks win. In 1995, the Spurs also win a close game 7 series. Everything else about how Hakeem played is the same. How much does this change where you would rank him? Would this outcome close the gap or even put Robinson/Ewing over him by giving those titles to them?

The only reason why I include championships and accolades in player rankings/comparisons is because there are enough sample sizes of the best ever demonstrating that greatness = winning as well. Of course, it will look different in overall totals accumulated but there is really no surprise to me that the greatest ever usually dominated the accolades and the winning side of basketball.

Now how they get there is where I will jockey positions but Hakeem is in my top 7 who I rank right after Shaq. Understanding that he never even started playing basketball until he was a mid-teenager shows you just how amazing of an athlete he was and everything he did captured by video footage.

If he didn't win any chips I would still be defending his greatness 100%, but as I mentioned, the best ever aren't simply at the top because they won, they're at the top because their greatness translated to 'top in league' and 'winning'. And with that, they're normally the larger reason why their team was able to accompish this feat.

[DraymondGold]

How would we rate Hakeem if he had no championships? It's an interesting question!

Well, that depends on our criteria. Do we incorporate things that are primarily team-level achievement into our evaluation of a player?

Some people would consciously say yes.

Shaq and Skip Bayless absolutely cite “rangz” as reason for ranking a player higher. Other publications and fans like to cite a player’s ‘Resume’ as evidence of their greatness. Rings or Finals MVPs become important bullets on a player’s resume. These fans (who tend to be casuals, though not always) would absolutely rank Hakeem lower without the rings.

Still other fans tend to incorporate ‘indelible moments,’ ‘playoff improvement,’ and ‘playoff clutchness’ as reason for ranking a player highly. Qualitatively, these fans tend to prefer underdog upsets such as the ones Hakeem showed in the 94 and 95 playoffs.

Indeed, in this board’s own Top 100 Project, team over-performance in the playoffs was one of the biggest points used to vote in Hakeem 6th all time, the highest he’s ever been, in an upset over Wilt Chamberlain. If Hakeem hadn’t won either championship, he would look worse in the metric of team playoff over-performance, which might have changed a few minds to vote for Wilt instead of Hakeem.

Some people would consciously say no…. but I’m not sure I fully believe them.

Other fans try to focus on evaluating players based on goodness or career value. These fans tend to be more analytically minded. They care more about the player’s individual play than the team result. For these people, taking away Hakeem’s rings *shouldn’t* change his rankings. But I’m not sure everyone in this camp would be able to follow their criteria fully. Why?


1) How much would a lower sample size decrease our confidence in rating Hakeem highly? Depending on what round he lost in, we might have a lower playoff sample during Hakeem’s best playoffs. Do people get more concerned about smaller sample size issues and noise being a cause for Hakeem’s perceived playoff improvement if he plays just as well, but loses to the Suns in Game 7 Round 2 in both 94 and 95? Does a slightly lower performance in cumulative playoff stats like Playoff VORP slightly reduce his ranking?

Some more analytically minded people do incorporate team performance as a secondary criteria. For example, team performance with a good supporting cast can be used as a ‘proof of concept’ to see how good player is as a ceiling raiser; team performance with a poor supporting cast can be used to see how good a player is as a floor raiser. Obviously, this should be complemented with other analysis to make sure you’re not assigning credit for good team performance to the wrong player. Would a worse performance in team stats (e.g. lower playoff SRS from losing more or fewer SRS upsets) undermine Hakeem’s reputation as an all-time floor raiser?

2) I wonder if unconscious bias would play a role here.
How much do rings and team wins make us unconsciously biased to favor Hakeem’s playoff improvement over other players?

For example, let’s say we live in a world where Hakeem loses in Game 7 of Round 2 to the Suns in both 94 and 95, without changing his level of play. Let’s say Patrick Ewing goes on to win a championship in 94 and either David Robinson or Shaq go on to win a championship in 95. Are we *sure* we wouldn’t end up perceiving those players slightly as slightly greater, and thus Hakeem slightly lower in comparison?

Consider David Robinson. People love to point out Robinson’s underperformance in the playoffs (both in individual stats and on a team-level) as a reason for ranking him lower than Hakeem. If Robinson wins in 95, while appearing to play better in the Conference Finals simply because the Suns are an easier matchup for him (so he’s not actually getting any better) then goes on to win against Shaq… people might perceive Robinson's playoff decline as much less significant. If so, they would rate Robinson higher, and thus have Hakeem as slightly less dominant in his era. Likewise, if Shaq wins in 95, are we sure people don’t end up unconsciously thinking higher of young Shaq, to the extent that he’s rated 6th in the Top 100 project instead of Hakeem?

Similarly, if Hakeem didn’t win the two rings, we might live in a world where all the other publications and people who value rings and resume rate Hakeem lower. Are we sure this cultural context doesn’t bias us to similarly rate Hakeem slightly lower?

Let’s compare Hakeem to Garnett. Both have a case for being one of the top 5 defenders ever (Hakeem might be slightly better). Both have great WOWY numbers (Garnett might have slightly better). Both had a poor situation early on, before having more playoff success with a better team later on in their prime. Both have incredible longevity (Garnett might have slightly better old seasons).

Yet Garnett only has 1 rings to Hakeem’s 2. ESPN ranked Garnett only 21st in the latest ESPN Top 75 list. The Athletic ranked him 17th ever. Hoopshype ranked him 18th. I’d argue this cultural perception has limited people’s rankings of Garnett, at least slightly. Even on this board, who rate Garnett much higher than the average publication list. Garnett has always been at least 2 spots behind Hakeem in this board’s Top 100 projects, and Garnett is one of the more controversial rankings of this board. There are still people on this board who think we dramatically overrate Garnett, and I’d think it’s more likely that these Garnett nay-sayers *have* caused us to rank Garnett lower in at least some of the past Top 100 projects. If Hakeem had no rings, are we sure Hakeem doesn’t get the Garnett treatment in the media? And if so, are we sure that doesn’t trickle into the opinions of some of the voters here?

It's a fun hypothetical to consider. I'd like to believe that those of us who just try to evaluate goodness or career value wouldn't be biased by rings. But unconscious bias can be very difficult for someone to self-diagnose -- playoff moments and ring culture are a very real part of basketball culture, and I worry unconscious bias would lower our rating of Hakeem without the rings, even if we try our best to not let it.