RealGM

Is not a secret that hakeem is essentislly the top 10~ player (sans maybe garnett) who got the less help and real chsnces at winning over his career

Between dealing with the 86 celtics as a sophomore and not having a competent or healthy team again until 1993 hakeem championship window was closed for most of his prime

Do you think hakeem would have had a shot at being the best or most winning player of his era if he had better help?

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.

SHAQ32 wrote:

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.

SHAQ32 wrote:

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.

While is possible that other players would have floorraised those rockets mor

i dont see anyone who would have made them a champion or even a finalist in that 87-92 span

Just like jordan bulls didnt become a finals threat until 90 when pippen and grant took a leap into great players

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.

But to answer directly, no I don’t really think so. He has limitations that I think keep him from getting there, among other things, he wasn’t an adequate passer until like 93 or, and 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.

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.

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.

Unless you believe Hakeem in a different environment learns to become a better passer earlier (feasible I think), I think he probably falls a bit short.

I don't think he is quite that level of player, just not good enough for long enough for me to put him in the MJ/LBJ/KAJ level.

falcolombardi wrote:Is not a secret that hakeem is essentislly the top 10~ player (sans maybe garnett) who got the less help and real chsnces at winning over his career

Between dealing with the 86 celtics as a sophomore and not having a competent or healthy team again until 1993 hakeem championship window was closed for most of his prime

Do you think hakeem would have had a shot at being the best or most winning player of his era if he had better help?

Maybe.

I think I still lean MJ but my confidence in that position has dropped considerably in the last 2 months.

SHAQ32 wrote:

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.

Well, MJ did less with what seems to have been comparable help to Hakeem from 85-88. That being said, even though the "pure" impact stuff favors Hakeem, there is box-stuff/apm stuff that favors mj, and, to my knowledge, Hakeem doesn't actually have data to contest the idea that he would be less valuable without spacing or as cieling raiser(lebron and kareem do have this).

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.

OhayoKD wrote:I think I still lean MJ but my confidence in that position has dropped considerably in the last 2 months.

What specifically has caused this drop in confidence?

No-more-rings wrote: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.

ty 4191 wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:I think I still lean MJ but my confidence in that position has dropped considerably in the last 2 months.

What specifically has caused this drop in confidence?

Hakeem has several samples where he does more or as much with as much or less(going off how the team plays without him/contextual factors like the team havign a coke crisis in 97) than MJ during the start of their primes and then their fortunes diverge as MJ's cast improves dramatically and Hakeem's falls off. Jordan doesn't really have any counter-examples i'm aware off. That being said the samples here are alot noiser than they are with Lebron and "stabilized" impact stuff(with the exception of PIPM) leans the other way.

I think we'd really need a in-depth granular breakdown for me to have confidence with picking one over the another. I'm going to lean mj on the basis that he theoretically could fit better with better help but...eh. Hakeem is probably the better floor raiser regardless

LukaTheGOAT wrote: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.

Unless you believe Hakeem in a different environment learns to become a better passer earlier (feasible I think), I think he probably falls a bit short.

You're omitting 86-88 though where Hakeem joins a 29 win team, immediately does much better in 85 and 86(and achieves maybe the most impressive outcome of the era by beating the lakers 4-1), and wins a bit more in 87 when the team gets coked out.

Are we sure 86-88 isn't on the same level as 93-95, 91-93 or 88-90?

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

I do think MJ would have done more with equivalent teams, fwiw, but then I think MJ is nearer the top of the goat list. Whether "more" is enough to have a big narrative swing ...

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

So did he have some poor rosters around him. Yes. Does he hold up well in the playoffs, yes. Is that at least partially due to defense inelastic shooting, probably.

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.

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]. 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] ... 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.

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

* source for +11 in 17m 11s of him off: viewtopic.php?t=1242882

OhayoKD wrote:

No-more-rings wrote: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.

…Well sure Duncan lasted longer than Hakeem did. But Hakeem’s longevity isn’t any worse than Shaq, Wilt or Russell depending how you weigh era longevity.

But if we’re talking about Hakeem being in an ideal scenario like Duncan was its probable he winds up with better longevity. Still though, It’s hard to imagine a scenario where he’d have a strong goat case.

Owly wrote:
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

No-more-rings wrote:

OhayoKD wrote:

No-more-rings wrote: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.

…Well sure Duncan lasted longer than Hakeem did. But Hakeem’s longevity isn’t any worse than Shaq, Wilt or Russell depending how you weigh era longevity.

But if we’re talking about Hakeem being in an ideal scenario like Duncan was its probable he winds up with better longevity. Still though, It’s hard to imagine a scenario where he’d have a strong goat case.

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

Hmm, cool question! I agree with No-more-rings that having a better supporting cast does raise him in the rankings (especially among casual fans, given their love of ringzzz), but he should still fall short of the GOAT tier.

In the peaks project, I was vocally lower on Hakeem relative to most people here. At his defensive best, he's certainly all-time level and has an argument for the best defender post-Russell. His resilient scoring is also quite enticing, as is that hot-streak at high efficiency he had in the mid/late 80s postseason runs. But his lack of passing (and overall portability) is very concerning to me. I'm also lower on the idea that his defense and offense peaked at the same time.

Warning: Hakeem naysayer rant incoming

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)...
-WOWY: he's 3rd to last in average prime WOWYR at 5.5 (barely above Wilt/Bird, with a massive gap below Jordan's 8.2, LeBron's 7.7, Magic's 9, Curry's ~10.2, Russell's 6.7, etc.). And WOWYR is a stat that tends to be high on defensive anchors. His un-regularized WOWY data is also not GOAT-tier... he looks phenomenal in the late 80s (though still below players like Walton/Bird/Shaq), but his 90s data looks far more pedestrian for a GOAT player (and again this stat should capture defensive value).
-PIPM: His PIPM estimate is also non-GOAT tier. His RS / RS-PS peak is a clear drop below Jordan, LeBron, Curry, Kareem, and KG (tied with Shaq). His 3-year postseason-only PIPM estimate also puts him below Duncan, Bird, and Magic. And this is without including Wilt/Russell.
-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. Once we have full-season RAPM data in 1997, Hakeem's not even in the Top 50 in the league. 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)
-BPM: He's again in the bottom tier in regular season BPM. If we take his peak postseason, he rises a bit... but is still clearly below Jordan/LeBron/Bird/Magic/Duncan/Kareem.

In short: statistically, he's probably last in the regular season among the Top 12 peaks we chose in the recent project. The non-box data we have (which should capture his defensive value) aren't significantly higher on him. And he doesn't rise enough in the postseason in the metrics we have to look GOAT-tier. And this is all without including other possible top-10/20 peak players like West/Oscar/Kobe/Walton/etc, who might also eclipse him in some stats (e.g. West/Oscar/Walton look clearly better in WOWY data).

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.

I don't want to be too harsh on him. His Defense is a joy to watch, as are his scoring heights. I loved watching the 86 Rockets run. In truth, I'm just sound harsh because he's being compared to the very best. Ultimately, his lack of passing and the fact that his defense and offense may have peaked at different times keep his peak clearly below the GOAT tier for me. And the rather steep drop off in 96/97 hurts his prime-length and longevity enough to keep his overall career clearly below the GOAT tier careers. And these concerns would still be the same, even if his surrounding team had been better. But that's just me! Happy to hear any disagreements anyone has.

OhayoKD wrote:

Owly wrote:
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?

His bad teams screwed him out of Top 5 status imo.

MJ , Kareem, LeBron, maybe Shaq (and Wilt) are better regardless