Did hakeem get screwed out of his chance at goat status?

[No-more-rings]

you misread. Hakeem sustains that level of impact longer, not duncan. Duncan has a more airtight case for his peak(apm stuff actually supports him), but there are less years you can throw there if you are doing a full prime

Got it. I think they both have goat-ish peak cases, but overall primes not really. I haven’t done a deep dive comparing their entire primes, but the board seems to lean in Duncan’s direction usually.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

Between not having a competent or healthy team again until 1993 hakeem championship window was closed for most of his prime

MJ would've done more with those teams.

Jordan twice couldn't even get comparative/more talented teams above .500 twice in his Bulls career

[LukaTheGOAT]

Perhaps, but it’s kind of the same thing people say for Garnett except they look at him at someone who would have a career more comparable to Duncan not necessarily a chance at goat. Not sure I buy it, but that’s what’s often believed anyway.

His title floor raising ability compares with anyone, not as a regular season performer but he’s a guy with a noticeable increase in postseason production. I’m big on his play.

His two-way impact is more or less equal with Duncan’s I’d say with a case to be made either way. And no one that i’m aware of has Duncan a serious goat candidate even despite having 5 rings and 3 fmvp. I think in a more favorable career scenario he’s seen more as a guy with a strong top 5 case as opposed to borderline top 10 like he is now. I firmly believe Hakeem is a better player than Bird for example, and even slightly better than Magic given defensive impact.

I mean... Duncan has the second best regular season apm data, leads everyone in 3 year aupm and on/off and won 58 and 60 games with limited casts.

Hakeem also does probably have era-best regular season stuff if we just go with pure impact. The difference between Hakeem and Duncan is hakeem actually sustains this longer. He's crushing the 61 win Lakers in 86, winning more games than mj with a coke-broke team in 87, is winning 43 and 53 games with a team that went 2-10 without him in 92, and he's winning titles as the lone superstar(a feat only replicated by duncan, (maybe)? lebron, dirk, russell, wilt and giannis. If duncan was operating at 02-03 levels for the entirety of his prime we'd talk about him very differently.

Based on what RS APM data?

[FuShengTHEGreat]

I would guess that another great who wasn't a center (MJ, Magic, Bird, etc.) would do better with the Ralph Sampson years Rockets as the Twin Towers approach didn't seem to maximize Sampson's potential. With the 4 out year Rockets with Rudy T, the opposite would be true and only a center would fit into that slot.

One of those two years Sampson was healthy they beat the 80s' decades best team at their summit from pillar to post even as underdogs. Sampson showed great synergy in that series as 1 half of the twin towers.

Not sure what other non Center in history in only their second NBA season you couldn't slot in and say they'd have done better. And maybe even some of the best Centers in NBA history wouldn't have went to the Finals in their 2nd season in Hakeems shoes

[AEnigma]

I would guess that another great who wasn't a center (MJ, Magic, Bird, etc.) would do better with the Ralph Sampson years Rockets as the Twin Towers approach didn't seem to maximize Sampson's potential. With the 4 out year Rockets with Rudy T, the opposite would be true and only a center would fit into that slot.

I think you are severely overselling Sampson’s potential. He was never going to be a strong defensive anchor at the 5; if anything, playing next to Hakeem is the only thing that made him kind-of work out.

He has limitations that I think keep him from getting there, among other things, he wasn’t an adequate passer until like 93 or so

Okay, and Jordan had flaws in his game which he too smoothed out with a better cast and coach. Same with Lebron. Same with Wilt. Arguably same with Shaq for the one regular season everyone adores. Yeah, he could have looked to pass more early on, but with better teammates that becomes something he would be willing to do much more quickly.

I do think it’s fair to question how resilient his offensive game really is. Like I said he shows up in the postseason in a big way, and can drop 25+ pretty easily usually but how that translates into great team offense is a fair think to ask.

? The 1993-95 Rockets had great postseason offences.

His two-way impact is more or less equal with Duncan’s I’d say with a case to be made either way. And no one that i’m aware of has Duncan a serious goat candidate even despite having 5 rings and 3 fmvp. I think in a more favorable career scenario he’s seen more as a guy with a strong top 5 case as opposed to borderline top 10 like he is now. I firmly believe Hakeem is a better player than Bird for example, and even slightly better than Magic given defensive impact.

The question was whether he could have been the best of his generation. He lacks Kareem’s and Duncan’s longevity, but against Jordan he is comfortably advantaged on that front.

Speaking of…

It is possible that we are all falling prey to winning bias but I do feel as if there is some separation between Jordan and him in terms of career who was playing at the same time as him.

Like suppose you think 93-95 Hakeem are all-time years...I think you could argue 88-90, and 91-93 as comparable MJ stretches. 2 times the amount of all-time level seasons I think has an exponential impact.

Weird framing because Hakeem was still excellent in 1988-92 even if you prefer Jordan in those seasons, while Jordan was absent for all of 1994 and basically all of 1995.

I don't think Hakeem's top 10, otoh, fwiw.

I do think MJ would have done more with equivalent teams, fwiw,

When? What did Jordan do 1985-90 that suggests doing more (or otherwise doing as much with less) as what Hakeem did 1985-94?

In terms of the denied opportunity years in particular, Garnett has a 4 year run where his worst Reference composites are
PER: 26.4, WS/48: .225; BPM: 7.8
and the averages are
PER: 27.7, WS/48: .247; BPM: 9.0

Yeah I would have Garnett as a better regular season offensive player, and really just a better regular season player in general, but there is a reason Garnett falls behind Hakeem despite that.

and in general Minny gives us relatively strong evidence of massive impact (not that Hakeem's stuff is bad, but less good and less certain).

Sure, but the comparison here is Jordan, and that impact case is a lot shakier than Garnett’s, who arguably grades out as one of the three to five most valuable players ever (again, at least by regular season impact).

Tricky years Hakeem never touches these numbers in a single season.

1993, and again that is just under the frame that those metrics are particularly good or useful for assessing overall player quality.

Might his teams have made the playoffs and gone deeper more with better teammates? Probably. Might his numbers regressed more to the mean in a greater sample ... I think probably (unless you're coasting, you don't get more productive, versus a higher standard of player whilst the baselines jump up in real terms [higher average standard of player].

Think I disagree on that. Possible that having a better team depresses some of those box numbers, but seems just as reasonable to suspect that they may improve with better guard play or better passing options or less defensive responsibility.

And I think in the years they did win he was pretty lucky and we could easily swing the other way. In '95, If Drexler isn't superb, if the shooters aren't strong, if Anderson and Scott aren't shooting awful (whether via perimeter D or luck or Anderson's headspace), if the Rockets don't win the finals at a strong rate when Hakeem's off the floor [they win with him on too, but circa 2/5 of their net winning margin came in the limited minutes of him being off the floor ... if they go from circa +11* to circa -11]…

Okay, and 1992 Jordan’s team played basically just well with him off the court as they did with him on. 2001 Shaq. 2005 Duncan. Seems like a needless nitpick.

In '94 if the Sonics don't choke [good team, bad matchup for Houston], if Houston doesn't win a series in which they are outscored (or in '95 if they don't a couple of narrow margin series) ... it's very easy to see both Hakeem and the Rockets' fundamentals being the same and title outcomes and his narrative being much worse.

And we can do that with pretty much everyone. Bird could easily lose 1981 and 1984, Shaq could lose 2000 and 2002, Lebron could lose 2013 and 2016, Russell could have lost like half his titles… and how does Jordan fare if Pippen’s body breaks down while Paxson and Armstrong develop coke habits? Again, needless nitpicks.

Everyone could win more with better teams. But I don't think his narrative circumstance is particularly unlucky.

Compared to the average player, sure. Compared to guys who spent the bulk of their primes paired with other top talent? Looks like he drew a pretty short straw.

[SHAQ32]

Between not having a competent or healthy team again until 1993 hakeem championship window was closed for most of his prime

MJ would've done more with those teams.

Jordan twice couldn't even get comparative/more talented teams above .500 twice in his Bulls career

Hakeem missed the playoffs, in the middle of his prime, with Otis Thorpe, Kenny Smith, and Vernon Maxwell.

[LukaTheGOAT]

I would guess that another great who wasn't a center (MJ, Magic, Bird, etc.) would do better with the Ralph Sampson years Rockets as the Twin Towers approach didn't seem to maximize Sampson's potential. With the 4 out year Rockets with Rudy T, the opposite would be true and only a center would fit into that slot.

I think you are severely overselling Sampson’s potential. He was never going to be a strong defensive anchor at the 5; if anything, playing next to Hakeem is the only thing that made him kind-of work out.

He has limitations that I think keep him from getting there, among other things, he wasn’t an adequate passer until like 93 or so

Okay, and Jordan had flaws in his game which he too smoothed out with a better cast and coach. Same with Lebron. Same with Wilt. Arguably same with Shaq for the one regular season everyone adores. Yeah, he could have looked to pass more early on, but with better teammates that becomes something he would be willing to do much more quickly.

I do think it’s fair to question how resilient his offensive game really is. Like I said he shows up in the postseason in a big way, and can drop 25+ pretty easily usually but how that translates into great team offense is a fair think to ask.

? The 1993-95 Rockets had great postseason offences.

His two-way impact is more or less equal with Duncan’s I’d say with a case to be made either way. And no one that i’m aware of has Duncan a serious goat candidate even despite having 5 rings and 3 fmvp. I think in a more favorable career scenario he’s seen more as a guy with a strong top 5 case as opposed to borderline top 10 like he is now. I firmly believe Hakeem is a better player than Bird for example, and even slightly better than Magic given defensive impact.

The question was whether he could have been the best of his generation. He lacks Kareem’s and Duncan’s longevity, but against Jordan he is comfortably advantaged on that front.

Speaking of…

It is possible that we are all falling prey to winning bias but I do feel as if there is some separation between Jordan and him in terms of career who was playing at the same time as him.

Like suppose you think 93-95 Hakeem are all-time years...I think you could argue 88-90, and 91-93 as comparable MJ stretches. 2 times the amount of all-time level seasons I think has an exponential impact.

Weird framing because Hakeem was still excellent in 1988-92 even if you prefer Jordan in those seasons, while Jordan was absent for all of 1994 and basically all of 1995.

I don't think Hakeem's top 10, otoh, fwiw.

I do think MJ would have done more with equivalent teams, fwiw,

When? What did Jordan do 1985-90 that suggests doing more (or otherwise doing as much with less) as what Hakeem did 1985-94?

I don't think some team down years should matter for evaluating players seriously, if the player played well.

In terms of the denied opportunity years in particular, Garnett has a 4 year run where his worst Reference composites are
PER: 26.4, WS/48: .225; BPM: 7.8
and the averages are
PER: 27.7, WS/48: .247; BPM: 9.0

Yeah I would have Garnett as a better regular season offensive player, and really just a better regular season player in general, but there is a reason Garnett falls behind Hakeem despite that.

and in general Minny gives us relatively strong evidence of massive impact (not that Hakeem's stuff is bad, but less good and less certain).

Sure, but the comparison here is Jordan, and that impact case is a lot shakier than Garnett’s, who arguably grades out as one of the three to five most valuable players ever (again, at least by regular season impact).

Tricky years Hakeem never touches these numbers in a single season.

1993, and again that is just under the frame that those metrics are particularly good or useful for assessing overall player quality.

Might his teams have made the playoffs and gone deeper more with better teammates? Probably. Might his numbers regressed more to the mean in a greater sample ... I think probably (unless you're coasting, you don't get more productive, versus a higher standard of player whilst the baselines jump up in real terms [higher average standard of player].

Think I disagree on that. Possible that having a better team depresses some of those box numbers, but seems just as reasonable to suspect that they may improve with better guard play or better passing options or less defensive responsibility.

And I think in the years they did win he was pretty lucky and we could easily swing the other way. In '95, If Drexler isn't superb, if the shooters aren't strong, if Anderson and Scott aren't shooting awful (whether via perimeter D or luck or Anderson's headspace), if the Rockets don't win the finals at a strong rate when Hakeem's off the floor [they win with him on too, but circa 2/5 of their net winning margin came in the limited minutes of him being off the floor ... if they go from circa +11* to circa -11]…

Okay, and 1992 Jordan’s team played basically just well with him off the court as they did with him on. 2001 Shaq. 2005 Duncan. Seems like a needless nitpick.

In '94 if the Sonics don't choke [good team, bad matchup for Houston], if Houston doesn't win a series in which they are outscored (or in '95 if they don't a couple of narrow margin series) ... it's very easy to see both Hakeem and the Rockets' fundamentals being the same and title outcomes and his narrative being much worse.

And we can do that with pretty much everyone. Bird could easily lose 1981 and 1984, Shaq could lose 2000 and 2002, Lebron could lose 2013 and 2016, Russell could have lost like half his titles… and how does Jordan fare if Pippen’s body breaks down while Paxson and Armstrong develop coke habits? Again, needless nitpicks.

Everyone could win more with better teams. But I don't think his narrative circumstance is particularly unlucky.

Compared to the average player, sure. Compared to guys who spent the bulk of their primes paired with other top talent? Looks like he drew a pretty short straw.

Yeah and Jordan was another level from 88-92 lol. I said all-time level years, and I'm not eager to push 88-92 Hakeem into the same territory as Jordan. I didn't mention 96-98 Jordan where Jordan was clear of Hakeem either because I didn't think that stretch was in the same tier.

And as I said, I think those all-time level years are exponentially more valuable than just MVP level years. Hakeem's extra years don't do it for me. Same is true when comparing MVP years to All-NBA years, etc.

[ShaqAttac]

people are saying hakeem is better than mj? wow

scottie pippen next ig

[ShaqAttac]

Between not having a competent or healthy team again until 1993 hakeem championship window was closed for most of his prime

MJ would've done more with those teams.

I don't think so.

really? was hakeem better then? i never hear this before

[FuShengTHEGreat]

MJ would've done more with those teams.

Jordan twice couldn't even get comparative/more talented teams above .500 twice in his Bulls career

Hakeem missed the playoffs, in the middle of his prime, with Otis Thorpe, Kenny Smith, and Vernon Maxwell.

Oh you mean 3 guys that never got out of the 1st round their entire NBA careers without Hakeem? I like that you didn't mention that season Hakeem missed 12 games where they went 2-10.

Did any of them lead the nba in total rebounding like Jordan had Oakley doing when his squad finished below .500? Did any of them average 23ppg & 55% like Woolridge did on jordans other under .500 team?

It's funny you critique Hakeem for missing the playoffs while leading a team to more wins than jordans under .500 teams that made the playoffs. And he played all season and missed 0 significant time unlike 91-92 Hakeem.

Where would Jordan's 38-44 and 40-42 Bulls squads have landed out west in 91-92? Lotteryville that's where

[Owly]

Still I think there are those with better production, greater certainty of consistently high impact outside the consensus top 10, though they may have other warts, and others weigh different factors differently.

Will note that hakeem's profile looks alot better(and there are many years can throw in the mix) if you take the "pure" approach as opposed to apm. Considerign that the raw approach has him beating the apm cap of 25-30 wins several times, it's possible, maybe even probable, the "numbers" you're using are misattributing hakeem impact to role players.

That being said, you raise a good point by brining everyone in the mix. While you can proabbly get hakeem to era-best if you take the pure approach, that doesn't get him past kareem, lebron, russell, or duncan. Jordan can always point to box-score/bpm/box-score aggregates to clear most of the two-way bracket

Is this an allusion to 94-96 on off?

If so doesn't Robinson best him by at least 5 points every year. He's very narrowly behind Blaylock on the average of the 3 individual years. He's much closer to Bo Outlaw than to Robinson. That framing is a mean one. His numbers are very good. Akin to some top Nash or Kidd spells. But given this is more or less at his generally perceived apex, not some huge ace for someone assumed to be top 10 by many here I think.

In any case I'd be curious as to a) what number you are using and also (b) what numbers it is that you think are mis-attributing Hakeem's impact. If the box stuff given for the comp with Garnett I'd suggest he was often playing with weaker teammates tugging teams down more and they get partial credit for his lift, but perhaps you may be talking about some impact numbers.

[SHAQ32]

Jordan twice couldn't even get comparative/more talented teams above .500 twice in his Bulls career

Hakeem missed the playoffs, in the middle of his prime, with Otis Thorpe, Kenny Smith, and Vernon Maxwell.

Oh you mean 3 guys that never got out of the 1st round their entire NBA careers without Hakeem? I like that you didn't mention that season Hakeem missed 12 games where they went 2-10.

Did any of them lead the nba in total rebounding like Jordan had Oakley doing when his squad finished below .500? Did any of them average 23ppg & 55% like Woolridge did on jordans other under .500 team?

It's funny you critique Hakeem for missing the playoffs while leading a team to more wins than jordans under .500 teams that made the playoffs. And he played all season and missed 0 significant time unlike 91-92 Hakeem.

Where would Jordan's 38-44 and 40-42 Bulls squads have landed out west in 91-92? Lotteryville that's where

Listen, all I'm saying is Jordan singlehandedly beating the Cavaliers in 88 and 89 is more impressive than anything Hakeem did sans 94 and 95.

[Owly]

Jordan twice couldn't even get comparative/more talented teams above .500 twice in his Bulls career

Hakeem missed the playoffs, in the middle of his prime, with Otis Thorpe, Kenny Smith, and Vernon Maxwell.

Oh you mean 3 guys that never got out of the 1st round their entire NBA careers without Hakeem?

Tangential to the point as it's a very crude measure of player quality but Thorpe twice got out of the 1st round without Olajuwon, as a veteran on Miami in '00 and Charlotte in '01. It appears he didn't play well in his limited minutes either year which reiterates my first sentence.

[ronnymac2]

I don't believe Hakeem was "screwed" out of his chance, and I doubt a real competitor like Hakeem would ever think that way either.

Hakeem has to settle for being the best player ever at his apex.

[OhayoKD]

Hakeem missed the playoffs, in the middle of his prime, with Otis Thorpe, Kenny Smith, and Vernon Maxwell.

Oh you mean 3 guys that never got out of the 1st round their entire NBA careers without Hakeem? I like that you didn't mention that season Hakeem missed 12 games where they went 2-10.

Did any of them lead the nba in total rebounding like Jordan had Oakley doing when his squad finished below .500? Did any of them average 23ppg & 55% like Woolridge did on jordans other under .500 team?

It's funny you critique Hakeem for missing the playoffs while leading a team to more wins than jordans under .500 teams that made the playoffs. And he played all season and missed 0 significant time unlike 91-92 Hakeem.

Where would Jordan's 38-44 and 40-42 Bulls squads have landed out west in 91-92? Lotteryville that's where

Listen, all I'm saying is Jordan singlehandedly beating the Cavaliers in 88 and 89 is more impressive than anything Hakeem did sans 94 and 95.

Beating the lakers in 5 in 86 is honestly significantly more impressive to me, and that's without considering that price missed a game and was hobbled throughout for the 88 year.

Think one could argue 86 vs the magic as the most impressive victory of the era tbh.

[AEnigma]

His statistical profile is low for a GOAT-tier candidate. Let's take the Top 12 peaks from the latest project (Jordan/LeBron, Shaq/Kareem/Wilt/Duncan/Hakeem/Russell/KG, Magic/Curry/Bird)...
-RAPM: We have actual RAPM data from 59 games pre-97 (in 85, 88, 91, and 96), thanks to the great work of Squared2020 . Small sample, non-peak years, but still... Hakeem appears in the top 30 in the league only once, and never gets in the top 15. Despite the small sample, it's still large enough for players like Jordan, Magic, Kareem, Bird, Moses, Robinson, and Barkley to all clearly have Top-10 level seasons.

I have quibbles with weaponising those other metrics against him, but I doubt that would be productive (although I did find it funny how specifically this time around you decided to bail on those CORP evaluations you usually value so much ).

But using RAPM in this way feels much more severely objectionable.

Say I take a “random” sample of Lebron’s NPI RAPM.

2005: slots in right around #60 even though he is averaging 27/7/7.

2008: #11

2014: #20

2018 (no postseason): #36

… damn, Lebron’s all-time impact suddenly looks pretty questionable.

Now imagine if we only had samples of 20% of games. How bad could I make him look?

Hakeem does not seem to show absolute top of the line regular season impact, no. At best, he might have a speculative one season at the top of the league in the regular season (1993) and a somewhat less speculative and possibly generous second place in 1994. But this is not a genuine way to frame that argument, relying on single-season RAPM samples from random fifths of seasons that might not even crack his personal top five.

Once we have full-season RAPM data in 1997, Hakeem's not even in the Top 50 in the league.

Yeah you should source that because mine has him in the top thirty and roughly on par with Penny Hardaway, and that is of course with all the usual role-player filler (Terry Mills!).

Again, it's a small sample and in non-peak years, but Hakeem is last by a large margin in the RAPM data we have for the Top-12 peaks (which is only missing Russell/Bird)

Oh is it missing Bird? Because I could not help but notice that 1985 and 1988 Bird come across as quite underwhelming in those RAPM samples, even though those samples are much more complete than Hakeem’s and much more tied to his actual peak.

I respect Squared’s work in trying to put that together, but I wish he had held back on sharing any data that was far short of usual sample standards, because this scattering of games has so far pretty much only worsened discourse.

Like you mentioned, his team performance is also lower (likely partially because of worse teammates). Bt if you were to try to convince me that he had a GOAT-level peak in 93-95, I'd also probably want better team dominance. We have to be careful not to equate the team's performance to value of their best player, but peak Hakeem's teams (93-95) are last in postseason co-Net Rating (the new Backpicks metric) among this tier of players, near the bottom in postseason relative Net Rating, and at the very bottom in overall SRS (regular season + postseason). And this is if we only look at years where he had a better cast.

… Better casts that were still well shy of the standard of everyone else in that top eleven group, while facing overall brutal SRS postseason competition. Getting the average of those rosters performing at a, what was it, 7.6 SRS postseason level is more impressive than the “floor-raising” I have seen of basically anyone shy of Lebron.

[Clay Davis]

A more interesting question is whether Jordan retiring cemented his being outside the GOAT conversation. Imagine he runs into the Bulls in either of 94,95 and pulls out a victory in one (or both). Obviously, not a guarantee that they'd win that series, but it'd at least serve as a strong opportunity.

[Owly]

is winning 43 and 53 games with a team that went 2-10 without him in 92

Could you clarify what is meant by these numbers? Thanks.

[OhayoKD]

Still I think there are those with better production, greater certainty of consistently high impact outside the consensus top 10, though they may have other warts, and others weigh different factors differently.

Will note that hakeem's profile looks alot better(and there are many years can throw in the mix) if you take the "pure" approach as opposed to apm. Considerign that the raw approach has him beating the apm cap of 25-30 wins several times, it's possible, maybe even probable, the "numbers" you're using are misattributing hakeem impact to role players.

That being said, you raise a good point by brining everyone in the mix. While you can proabbly get hakeem to era-best if you take the pure approach, that doesn't get him past kareem, lebron, russell, or duncan. Jordan can always point to box-score/bpm/box-score aggregates to clear most of the two-way bracket

Which pre-'97 sample for p/m are you referencing here and could you provide a link?

It's not p/m. I did a brief tldr version on the first page here, but enigma, tsherkin(and to a lesser degree, myself) get into the weeds of this here:
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2224933&p=101198164&hilit=sampson#p101198164
viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2224933&p=101211169&hilit=sampson#p101211169
I think this also covers the specific stuff you were asking about owly. I may compile everything we have for hakeem later

[AEnigma]

Weird framing because Hakeem was still excellent in 1988-92 even if you prefer Jordan in those seasons, while Jordan was absent for all of 1994 and basically all of 1995.

Yeah and Jordan was another level from 88-92 lol. I said all-time level years, and I'm not eager to push 88-92 Hakeem into the same territory as Jordan. I didn't mention 96-98 Jordan where Jordan was clear of Hakeem either because I didn't think that stretch was in the same tier.

And as I said, I think those all-time level years are exponentially more valuable than just MVP level years. Hakeem's extra years don't do it for me. Same is true when comparing MVP years to All-NBA years, etc.

Except we are comparing two all-time years to one nothing year and another near nothing year. If you and you specifically are grading 1988-92 as like a 100, no complaints, whatever, and say 1988-92 Hakeem is on average only like a… what… 70… okay, that gives your individual assessment of the two a solid 150 cumulative value difference, or something like that. Arbitrary numbers but illustrates a point if you sincerely think that Jordan over that period was close to 1.5 times as valuable (which I would not agree with in the slightest, but that is tangential to this exercise).

That cumulative value should be pretty much entirely wiped away by 1994 and 1995, and that is without throwing 1986 in there too.