#5 Highest Peak of All Time (Hakeem '94 wins)

[Doctor MJ]

But can we be sure that Hakeem is a portable player? Here is a passage from Bill Simmons books on Hakeem:

My one historical nitpick: you could argue that Hakeem’s prime (1992–95) worked so well because he didn’t play with another transcendent guy. Hakeem was something of a ball stopper: he caught the entry pass, thought about it, checked the defense, thought about it some more, made sure he wasn’t getting double-teamed, tried to get a feel for which way his defender was leaning, then picked an In-N-Out Burger move to exploit the situation. 23As weird as this sounds, he was better off playing with a band of three-point shooters and quality role players; he didn’t need help from a second scorer like Dominique or Kobe, nor did he need an elite point guard to keep hooking him up the way Stockton helped Malone. He just needed some dudes to spread the floor and one other rebounder

This is a good point. I can't help but noticing that the kind of cleverness we see as a hallmark of Hakeem's offense looks rather like the kind of selfishness we see as a reason for Dantley's team struggles. Thinking about the strategies of guys like Dantley and Wilt employed as scorers, along with the fact that they clearly left teammates standing around, has left me to think of chess-playing scorers as inherently weaker than explosive scorers. And yet, as I say, I don't look at Hakeem that way.

Makes one question whether the difference in perception isn't really justified. If that's the case, then where do we go with that information?

[therealbig3]

@Doctor MJ

I know I come off as a Duncan homer, lol, but imho I think you're underrating his offense. You said he scored on low volume on middling efficiency.

From 98-07, which I consider his prime, he averaged 21.0 pp36 on 55.4% TS. To me, middling efficiency is about average or maybe a little less. 55.4% TS seems to be a little better than league average over this time. And consider his low TO rate.

Now, you could say that 21.0 pp36 and 55.4% TS is good compared to an average player, but among the best of the best, it counts as "low volume, middling efficiency", but outside of Shaq and Kareem, what big men that are being discussed at this point don't qualify as such? Garnett and Walton are the same way. I know Hakeem was an explosive scorer at times, but from 85-96, Hakeem averaged 23.1 pp36 on 55.8% TS. It looks eerily similar to Duncan's scoring stat line (and Hakeem turned it over more). I know Hakeem had some ridiculous scoring playoff series/games, and I'm not trying to argue that Duncan was on Hakeem's level as a scorer, but Duncan stepped up his volume scoring (and efficiency) in the playoffs plenty of times throughout his career as well.

I wouldn't say he could volume score on high efficiency consistently from beginning to end during a RS and playoff run, but then again, I think there are only a handful of big men that can and should do it on a consistent basis, and Duncan does have a 25+ ppg RS on 58% TS (coupled with a playoff run of 28 ppg on 55% TS).

I think you've alluded to it before, if you're not named Shaq or Kareem, and maybe Hakeem at certain times, you shouldn't be volume scoring on a similar level as a perimeter star on a consistent basis.

So I wouldn't call a prime Duncan a truly great scorer, but he was a pretty darn good scorer who could turn it up when needed (check his 06 playoff series against the Mavs).

[Doctor MJ]

I think you've alluded to it before, if you're not named Shaq or Kareem, and maybe Hakeem at certain times, you shouldn't be volume scoring on a similar level as a perimeter star on a consistent basis.

Pretty much took the words out of my mouth. I think that very VERY few bigs have truly great positive impact when they volume score. Might seem weird then for me to ask why Duncan wasn't put in that role when I don't really approve of that role, but it's not like I'm saying bigs should score 20 PPG because they are best in the game offensive players at that volume. If Duncan could score like Shaq, he should've been scoring like Shaq.

[lorak]

vote: LeBron 2009

[ardee]

One more thing while I'm here: Can someone please make the case for Magic Johnson beyond box score numbers or the basic team stats we know? Why would he be ahead of Bird, for instance.

Because in 1987, he was pretty much the perfect offensive player. He could score with the best whenever needed, as TheRegul8or explained, and was still the best playmaker in the league. We don't have numbers for it, unfortunately, but Magic had one of the best mid-range jumpshots in the league at the time. Maybe not as good as Bird or Jordan, but his release was

You need to watch the '87 Finals to understand just how impossible it was to guard him. 6'9, with a great jumper, and fast enough to beat anyone off the dribble. Skillset wise, you can't pick flaws with his offensive game. It obviously paid dividends when you look at the kind of basketball he had the Lakers playing.

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL ... ature=plcp

When you watch this series, it feels like the pinnacle of offensive basketball, on par with Jordan's 1991 Finals.

[PTB Fan]

I'm still undecided on who to vote and the deadline is close...

[bastillon]

not sure if I'm not on the voting pannel but I got the invitation to join this project so hopefully Doc will count me in.

Now, you could say that 21.0 pp36 and 55.4% TS is good compared to an average player, but among the best of the best, it counts as "low volume, middling efficiency", but outside of Shaq and Kareem, what big men that are being discussed at this point don't qualify as such? Garnett and Walton are the same way. I know Hakeem was an explosive scorer at times, but from 85-96, Hakeem averaged 23.1 pp36 on 55.8% TS. It looks eerily similar to Duncan's scoring stat line (and Hakeem turned it over more). I know Hakeem had some ridiculous scoring playoff series/games, and I'm not trying to argue that Duncan was on Hakeem's level as a scorer, but Duncan stepped up his volume scoring (and efficiency) in the playoffs plenty of times throughout his career as well.

that doesn't come close to showing the real gap between Duncan and Hakeem. Dream is the only back to the basket big in history who could score really from anywhere inside 17 feet. he could do things Duncan wouldn't dream of. really look at some YouTube clips posted by fatal with peak Hakeem and you'll know what I mean. Duncan just doesn't pass any sort of eye test. you can use numbers whatever you want, but trust me, after watching one or two games with both players, you'll no longer have doubts as to who's the better scorer.

the fact that Hakeem was far superior as a scorer didn't mean that much against weak opposition because they could score on them anyway. but against the very best Hakeem maintained his volume and efficiency. that's what seperates them. Duncan could not stay effective against great defense. Hakeem could somehow raise his effectiveness. if Hakeem wanted to, he could dominate much more in the RS than he did. he just needed motivation. that's why he improved in the playoffs. that's why he performed the best vs the very best.

when I think about Duncan I can't forget about several things.

1) defensively, the defenses he anchored were sometimes getting gangraped in the playoffs. Suns absolutely embarassed those schemes because Duncan struggled guarding pick and rolls. Mavs never seemed to have any trouble scoring either. don't get me started on Kobe who always torched the Spurs the most. I mean were the Spurs really that elite defensively in the playoffs ? who did Duncan stop from scoring ? not only didn't he do that, some players just had their way with Duncan in the playoffs (Amare rings a bell). compare that to Hakeem and his defense vs Parish, Ewing, Robinson and Shaq. not to mention that Tomjanovich never had Olajuwon hiding behind Thorpe to stay out of foul trouble. Duncan was never used as a defensive stopper until late in games, he didn't have half of Olajuwon's defensive responsibilities.

2) offensively, I always felt like Duncan was very overrated scorer because of how often he got easy layups from his teammates. I mean post-2003 once Parker and Ginobili developed into very good pick and roll players, Duncan was often scoring tons of open layups. Parker and Ginobili rarely get credit for that, but I think they prolonged Duncan's career a lot. you don't see Duncan scoring from the low post since basically 2008, and he was still posting about 17-20 ppg after that. Hakeem never had that kind of luxury. he had to create everything on that team because there were no playmakers. more importantly, Duncan never performed well vs elite post defenders. Sheed, Karl Malone, Varejao, Grant, they all gave him a lot of trouble. watch some 2005 tape of Duncan struggling to do anything against Sheed 1 on 1, and then look at what Hakeem was doing with NYK's frontline or DPOY David Robinson. just no way, they're comparable post scorers.

[ardee]

It seems like most are trying to decide between Hakeem, Magic and Bird...

Personally I eliminated Bird because he wasn't at his best until the new year. His top form was as good as anyone's, but a partial GOAT season < a full GOAT season. More importantly, he had four other players whom you could run the offense through for periods: DJ, McHale, Parish, and when he was healthy, Walton.

Magic and Hakeem, well, I feel that Hakeem's offensive peak came in 1995 (it showed with his team's offense exploding in those Playoffs as well). His defense in 1994 was better though.

With Magic you can't go wrong with 1987 in anyway. He was offensively flawless and was a good team defender (he played the passing lanes extremely well at times).

In the end I guess Hakeem's two GOAT level seasons that both offered something slightly different may hurt him by splitting the vote.

[AnaheimRoyale]

Hakeem only did things that give him an argument over Duncan for a small segment of his career... thankfully for him in this argument, this is a peak thread, so it doesn't matter. I can see the argument for Hakeem or Duncan, though I'd rather Duncan, but it bothers me no end that Hakeem is misrepresented as though he consistently played throughout his career like he did in 93-95. As for scoring, while Duncan isn't Kareem or Shaq in that department, he's still an offensive anchor, indeed back in 02-03 that was pretty much the Spurs entire offensive gameplan; kick it in to TD, let him make something happen. Play after play, the Spurs did the same thing in 02 and 03 (quite a contrast to the diverse schemes Popp runs these days). Duncan in 02 for instance was the 5th best scorer in the NBA (above Kobe), with a TS% higher than any Hakeem ever had, and scoring a comparable amount to peak Hakeem (but at a lower pace). Nor did Duncan have guys like Clyde or Kobe to kick it out to, he didn't even have a support cast as good as Hakeem's 94 team. And in the playoffs Duncan would often play even better (go look at his god like stats in the 06 playoffs, where he almost carried his team over the Mavs, while playing next to 3 swing men and Tony Parker... literally). Now that isn't to say peak Hakeem doesn't have an argument over Duncan, but where this "Duncan can't score" argument came from I have no idea.

[ardee]

Hakeem only did things that give him an argument over Duncan for a small segment of his career... thankfully for him in this argument, this is a peak thread, so it doesn't matter. I can see the argument for Hakeem or Duncan, though I'd rather Duncan, but it bothers me no end that Hakeem is misrepresented as though he consistently played throughout his career like he did in 93-95. As for scoring, while Duncan isn't Kareem or Shaq in that department, he's still an offensive anchor, indeed back in 02-03 that was pretty much the Spurs entire offensive gameplan; kick it in to TD, let him make something happen. Play after play, the Spurs did the same thing in 02 and 03 (quite a contrast to the diverse schemes Popp runs these days). Duncan in 02 for instance was the 5th best scorer in the NBA (above Kobe), with a TS% higher than any Hakeem ever had, and scoring a comparable amount to peak Hakeem (but at a lower pace). Nor did Duncan have guys like Clyde or Kobe to kick it out to, he didn't even have a support cast as good as Hakeem's 94 team. And in the playoffs Duncan would often play even better (go look at his god like stats in the 06 playoffs, where he almost carried his team over the Mavs, while playing next to 3 swing men and Tony Parker... literally). Now that isn't to say peak Hakeem doesn't have an argument over Duncan, but where this "Duncan can't score" argument came from I have no idea.

Truth be told, the more I think about it, you have a major point.

In his '03 season, The Fundamental averaged 28-14-5 on 59% TS against LA and then Dallas in the WC Playoffs.

Then in the Finals it became a messy, defensive series, and he took over on the boards (17 rpg) and 5.3 blocks per game. He still averaged 24 points and 5 assists on 56% TS in a series where the Spurs shot 43% and the Nets shot 37%.

The guy could certainly put the ball in the hole. That Finals, however, DID stand out more for his defensive mastery.

[PTB Fan]

Vote: '94 Hakeem Olajuwon

Just a great season overall from the start to the finish. He was down a bit from his RS averages in the Finals against the Knicks, but still did enough to lead his Rockets to the title. His '95 season was where he peaked offensively, but his teammates stepped up quite a bit and wasn't as good presence defensively and on the glass compared to '94.

[Doctor MJ]

Reminder voting is to end tonight.

[JordansBulls]

From what I have seen thus far

1. ardee - Magic 87
2. Doctor MJ - ??? (Haven't seen a vote unless I missed it) - Voted for LBJ 09 last time
3. C-izeMe - Hakeem 94
4. colts18 - Lebron 09
5. DavidStern - Lebron 09
6. DrMufasa - Hakeem 94 (Switched at post 100)
7. drza - Hakeem 94 (picked the one in the lead)
8. ElGee - Bird 86
9. JordansBulls - Kareem 71
10. Rapcity_11 - OFF the list
11. Vinsanity420 - (Haven't seen a vote unless I missed it)
12. therealbig3 - Lebron 09
13. Josephpaul - Kareem 71
14. ThaRegul8r - ??? (not sure if Magic 87 is the vote or Dr J 76)
15. PTB Fan - Hakeem 94

Hakeem 94 - 4 votes
Lebron 09 - 3 votes
Kareem 71 - 2 votes
Magic 87 - 1 vote
Bird 86 - 1 vote


OTHERS who have voted but not on panel -->

thebottomline - Bird 86
bastillion - Hakeem (didn't say which year)
Semi-Sentiment - Magic 87
Fatal9 - assumming Hakeem

Not sure how you feel DoctorMJ but haven't seen a vote from Rapcity in any thread, not sure if you want to replace him or not or if he will start participating, but others such as the thebottomline, Fatal9, Semi have been in threads participating as well not sure if they want to be regulars though

[ardee]

From what I have seen thus far

1. ardee - Magic 87
2. Doctor MJ - ??? (Haven't seen a vote unless I missed it) - Voted for LBJ 09 last time
3. C-izeMe - Hakeem 94
4. colts18 - Lebron 09
5. DavidStern - Lebron 09
6. DrMufasa - Hakeem 95
7. drza - ??? (Haven't seen a vote unless I missed it)
8. ElGee - Bird 86
9. JordansBulls - Kareem 71
10. Rapcity_11 - (Haven't seen a vote unless I missed it)
11. Vinsanity420 - (Haven't seen a vote unless I missed it)
12. therealbig3 - Lebron 09
13. Josephpaul - Kareem 71
14. ThaRegul8r - ??? (not sure if Magic 87 is the vote or Dr J 76)
15. PTB Fan - Hakeem 94

Lebron 09 - 3 votes
Hakeem 94 - 2 votes
Kareem 71 - 2 votes
Hakeem 95 - 1 vote
Magic 87 - 1 vote
Bird 86 - 1 vote


OTHERS who have voted but not on panel -->

thebottomline - Bird 86
bastillion - Hakeem (didn't say which year)
Semi-Sentiment - Magic 87
Fatal9 - assumming Hakeem

Not sure how you feel DoctorMJ but haven't seen a vote from Rapcity in any thread, not sure if you want to replace him or not or if he will start participating, but others such as the thebottomline, Fatal9, Semi have been in threads participating as well not sure if they want to be regulars though

Hmm I was hoping we wouldn't run into this.... Hakeem = LeBron, but now it's split into two years for the Dream.

[fatal9]

But can we be sure that Hakeem is a portable player? Here is a passage from Bill Simmons books on Hakeem:

My one historical nitpick: you could argue that Hakeem’s prime (1992–95) worked so well because he didn’t play with another transcendent guy. Hakeem was something of a ball stopper: he caught the entry pass, thought about it, checked the defense, thought about it some more, made sure he wasn’t getting double-teamed, tried to get a feel for which way his defender was leaning, then picked an In-N-Out Burger move to exploit the situation. 23As weird as this sounds, he was better off playing with a band of three-point shooters and quality role players; he didn’t need help from a second scorer like Dominique or Kobe, nor did he need an elite point guard to keep hooking him up the way Stockton helped Malone. He just needed some dudes to spread the floor and one other rebounder

Based on what actually happened, Hakeem has played with two borderline all-star players in his extended prime. '86 Sampson and '95 Drexler, both of who offensively were a success with him. Houston's offense was awesome when Hakeem was paired with Clyde (first real guy on the perimeter he played with who could create his own shot and for others). This is the most versatile center of all-time. He scores facing up, he scores with his back to the basket, he scores by spotting up from midrange jumpers all over the court, portability is not a concern for me.

I can see why this could be an issue for some people because Hakeem did not look great offenisvely during the Chaney years when the offense wasn't centered around him, but more so around chuckers like Sleepy Floyd and Maxwell. This is an incredibly difficult situation for a center to succeed in offensively, not getting the ball, not having playmakers around you, a coach who has a history of coaching horrible horrible offenses (Chaney has coached 12 seasons, only one team was above league average, and almost every team was better offensively before and after his stint).

If you are a post player who scores 20+ ppg, you're always going to be a ball stopper to a certain extent. And I'm actually surprised Simmons would think Hakeem's decision making was "slow" when that's one of his strengths to me, to make quick dynamic plays and read what the defense is doing in a split second. He often passed out of doubles quickly (often knew where he was going to pass the ball before receiving the ball) without even putting the ball on the floor. This was what allowed the Rockets strategy of "4 around 1" to be successful. Hakeem wasn't even close to being something like say a mid/late 90s Barkley who pounded the ball with his back to the basket in order to create offense for others, he acted way quicker than that.

I think Simmons partly says this because there have been a few notable cases of Hakeem scoring 40+ points and the Rockets losing, or playoff games where he didn't score as much but Rockets won with ease. But how much of that is Hakeem adjusting his game to what the team needed him to do in those games? Overall this was hardly a problem though, he played with tremendous balance at his peak, and scoring wise could have perhaps even been more of a threat with an all-star wing (gets more points created for him, less defensive attention, has the ability to score without the ball and feed off another guy because of finishing ability and a midrange game).

[ElGee]

I would argue that Magic had a larger impact on his teams offense by way of the position he played.

Interesting. Perhaps true. But are we really defaulting to positional arguments? What about Bird's defense?

He was the guy that dictated the tempo and largely responsible for the Lakers high octane offense, and quite frankly, Bird never led an offense as good as Magic's '87 Lakers.

Technically, the 88 RS Boston offense was farther from mean, and did so with bottom of the league OREB%.

How many times was the Lakers offense contained in the playoffs with Magic running the show in the mid-80's? The closest that we saw was probably the Rockets series in '86, but even then the Lakers shot better than 50% for the series with Magic averaging 22.2 pts (.632 ts%), 16.2 ast and 8.0 reb (imagine how much hype any other player would have gotten had he put up those numbers...). No team could stop their attack. If they lost it was because they couldn't stop the other team (Rockets murdered them on the glass) or they just flat out threw games away (like in '84).

I find this to be a good point, but my goodness look who the Lakers were playing. That in it of itself doesn't mean we can dismiss what they did, but it makes you wonder how much it slants our perspective of it. That said, they were obviously something special on offense.

But how much of that is Magic and how much of that is the team? How much of that is a strategy geared toward offense?

We know the Lakers without Magic were clearly an above average offense team in the early 80's. We know that Cooper had at least 6 double-digit assist games in December 1983 when Magic was out, including 2 games over 16 assists. If the Lakers played at a constant pace, the ORtg in those games was ~ 110 (almost no change). With some quick pace estimations, it looks like they actually played slower, which means an improvement in offense in those 15g.

In 86 Magic misses 9 relevant games and we have the pace numbers: +6.1 ORtg in the lineup and...+5.0 with Magic out of the lineup. Cooper has 15 and 11 assists to start, then 13, 13, 3, 11, 12, 13, 11. Cooper's a good player, but unless you think he was some sort of hidden QB-genius PG who was totally masked/misused his entire career, this is suggesting strong things about the Laker team/strategy, is it not?

Even in 1988, with the "prime" Magic -- outside shot, post game, etc. -- the Lakers ORtg was -1.1 in the 10 games he missed. Cooper himself was injured as well (!) and did not start in place of Magic. Instead, the Lakers started

Kareem
Rambis/Green
Worthy
Scott
Milt Wagner/Wes Matthews

They started Milt Wagner (Dajuan's dad) or Wes Matthews (Wes' dad). Milt Wagner could barely make the league. Wes Matthews played for 6 different teams, starting ~half his games in 85-86 on middling clubs, and would play one more NBA game after the 1988 season. In short, these were terrible backups. All told, during this stretch the averages were

Scott: 24.4 ppg (+3.1) 4.8 rpg 5.5 apg (+1.6) 5.3 FTA (+1.6) 56.4% TS (-3.0%)
Worthy: 21.3 ppg (+1.8) 4.7 rpg 4.8 apg (+1.1) 5.9 FTA (+2.1) 59.2% TS (+2.5%)

So we have yet another (small) piece of evidence that the Lakers were quite excellent on offense or geared toward offense (even Matthews had some big assist games while starting).

I'm just rejecting the "de facto" treatment of Magic here. *I* have him as my offensive GOAT, but like Jordan in the GOAT argument, I'm not sure it's good that no one really made much of a case of how he stacks up. That's what I'm asking for from the people who just treat him as living on an offensive island. I also have Bird right behind him offensively, and other players nearby (eg Jordan, who is a better defender). It's not simply a case of "great team O = Magic" and "great team O = Nash" but that seems to be the treatment I'm seeing.

[ElGee]

Boy I tell you, it really makes me uncomfortable essentially arguing that Hakeem had an unrealistic supporting cast run twice in a row, particularly when it's based on a strategy now common place, and where the %s they had isn't really that out there compared to modern standards.

I would completely agree that Hakeem was INCREDIBLY fortunate that Tomjanovich arrived on the scene, in the sense that he could have easily had a coach who didn't use a strategy at all like this. How to factor all that in in the context of this project though is tricky. In one sense, I find it absurd to look skeptically around any player season which was based off a strategy we now consider normal, but on the other hand, how would we view the '90s centers today, if it had been Robinson, Ewing, or Shaq who had had the coach with the strategic edge?

Doc, can you expound on some of this stuff?

Here's what I'm thinking: you say you are uncomfortable saying Hakeem had a "weak" team around him...but the Rockets never really had a good RS team. They are two of the weaker champions ever in that regard. But then in the Bird-Magic discussion you seemed like you weren't looking at the PS results as much to indicate team strength, even though the sample is larger and more consistent. ??

[colts18]

If we put Magic and Bird in soon, don't we have to put in Peak Nash pretty close after? I mean his offenses in 2005 were +8.4 in RS and +16.2 in the PS so arguably he was a better offensive player than Magic and Bird. But Bird/Magic don't play good enough defense to make the overall gap between them and Nash that large.

[ElGee]

@ Ardee - I don't understand this "Bid didn't start well" line of thinking. I mean, do you realize the difference in impact between a guy who misses -- not plays bad, just DOESN'T PLAY -- 20 games and 0 games in the RS assuming comparable PS play? It's microscopic. Just seems like a totally arbitrary thing to say..."Bird only got better and better in 86 -- that's TERRIBLE!"

@ Colts -- There's definitely an over-emphasis on the team stat. It's instructional, it's useful, it tells us a lot, but it's not an individual statistic. It's very possible for one key offensive player to be on a +10 offense and another on a +5 and the weaker team features the better offensive player.

And I really wonder how people are viewing Bird's defensive impact to make statements like this. Do people not realize he was the "power forward" on fantastic defensive teams for these years??

[Dr Positivity]

l will switch my vote to 94 Hakeem if that season is getting more traction