RealGM

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?

He would probably be considered around David Robinson level so top 15-20.

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.

rk2023 wrote: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.

I appreciate that and 100% agree.

Matt15 wrote:He would probably be considered around David Robinson level so top 15-20.

Agreed in terms of the consensus of basketball fans.

I'd like to think it wouldn't change my ranking of him, but I doubt that. I'm sure some winning bias would creep into my mind, and I'd drop him a few spots.

70sFan wrote:

rk2023 wrote: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.

I appreciate that and 100% agree.

Thanks works the same way in that if Hakeem had five rings and an FMVP / clear best player status for each one of them with all else had equal, he wouldn’t have any stronger an argument over (let’s say for example) Tim Duncan as he does right now.. at least as far as I’m concerned

As much as I'd like to say I'm above ring counting, "playoff success" is a legitimately valuable thing to assess and rings are a part of that, like it or not. Maybe it'd impact my subconscious bias or something too. Can't say with 100% certainty.

That said, I'd probably just swap him and Shaq among the ATG top 5 centers (which I have Kareem > Russell > Hakeem > Shaq > Wilt). Duncan #1/#2 if we count him as a C depending how I weigh "team culture" impact based on anecdotes and reporting. It wouldn't have a huge impact, but just enough that I'd be lower on Hakeem's style of offense.

I think I'd have him still as top 12-14.

All the negative threads about Ewing would be about Hakeem.

Sent from my SM-S9080 using RealGM mobile app

20-25

prophet_of_rage wrote:All the negative threads about Ewing would be about Hakeem.

Sent from my SM-S9080 using RealGM mobile app

I don't think so because at the end of the day Hakeem would still be thought of as an atg level playoff performer(much like West is). Ewing wasn't in that tier(though the ring in 94 obviously helps get him out of the no rings club).

Cavsfansince84 wrote:

prophet_of_rage wrote:All the negative threads about Ewing would be about Hakeem.

Sent from my SM-S9080 using RealGM mobile app

I don't think so because at the end of the day Hakeem would still be thought of as an atg level playoff performer(much like West is). Ewing wasn't in that tier(though the ring in 94 obviously helps get him out of the no rings club).

West actually won a title though (albeit not in a year where he played great in the playoffs). And he made a ton of finals. If Hakeem didn’t win a championship, I think he’d be seen as closer to Charles Barkley in terms of playoff greatness (Barkley was actually a great playoff performer, but people mostly forget about it since he never won a title). Maybe a bit better than that since he was a bit better as a player and made more than one finals (I’m assuming the “no championships” scenario involves losing the finals in 1994 and 1995, rather than losing pre-finals), but I think that’s probably a pretty good guide of where things would be for Hakeem in terms of how far his playoff performances would’ve gotten him without a title, in terms of reputation.

lessthanjake wrote:

Cavsfansince84 wrote:

prophet_of_rage wrote:All the negative threads about Ewing would be about Hakeem.

Sent from my SM-S9080 using RealGM mobile app

I don't think so because at the end of the day Hakeem would still be thought of as an atg level playoff performer(much like West is). Ewing wasn't in that tier(though the ring in 94 obviously helps get him out of the no rings club).

West actually won a title though (albeit not in a year where he played great in the playoffs). And he made a ton of finals. If Hakeem didn’t win a championship, I think he’d be seen as closer to Charles Barkley in terms of playoff greatness (Barkley was actually a great playoff performer, but people mostly forget about it since he never won a title). Maybe a bit better than that since he was a bit better as a player and made more than one finals (I’m assuming the “no championships” scenario involves losing the finals in 1994 and 1995, rather than losing pre-finals), but I think that’s probably a pretty good guide of where things would be for Hakeem in terms of how far his playoff performances would’ve gotten him without a title, in terms of reputation.

I mean, if Hakeem was a clearly better basketball player than Barkley and they played in the same era, he should be ranked clearly higher than him, right?

I don't see any scenario that would put Hakeem outside of my top 12 without making Hakeem a worse player or making him injured.

70sFan wrote:I don't see any scenario that would put Hakeem outside of my top 12 without making Hakeem a worse player or making him injured.

Do you mean worse player or would less evidence of his goodness suffice?

I.e. The change is: his teams do worse in the playoffs for reasons we know are nothing to do with him
This reduces his playoff body of work (if it were to bring down averages, that'd help clarify my question but lets primarily go with more early exits cutting into the sample).
Could you see scenarios where a you, on the knowledge available to them, might have him lower than 12 because of less evidence (even though we know he hasn't changed)?

Owly wrote:

70sFan wrote:I don't see any scenario that would put Hakeem outside of my top 12 without making Hakeem a worse player or making him injured.

Do you mean worse player or would less evidence of his goodness suffice?

I.e. The change is: his teams do worse in the playoffs for reasons we know are nothing to do with him
This reduces his playoff body of work (if it were to bring down averages, that'd help clarify my question but lets primarily go with more early exits cutting into the sample).
Could you see scenarios where a you, on the knowledge available to them, might have him lower than 12 because of less evidence (even though we know he hasn't changed)?

I don't think so, I rank Garnett quite highly (top 9) and his body of work in the playoffs is quite underwhelming.

I can see ranking Hakeem lower with less body of work that I do now (which is top 7, likely 6th), but coming outside of top 12 is very unlikely to me - unless you assume he'd always play with the WOAT support and wouldn't make playoffs at all - but that's not realistic scenario.

Thank you for specifying how they lost, as that sometimes gets skipped over and is a pretty important part of it.

I currently have Hakeem in a 7-10 tier (with Wilt/Magic/Shaq), usually towards the bottom of it.

Realistically that probably drops him into the next tier somewhere in the 11-15 range.

A successful superstar run by Robinson does likely move him past an unsuccessful Hakeem for me, but I don't think Ewing gets moved up that much.

Best I ever saw do it.

Not best career, horrible supporting cast during his prime killed that, but never saw another guy just dominate both ends of the floor all game long like that, and also so unique to watch, suddenness and power, agility and grace, skill and athleticism, awareness and relentlessness, he had it all. (but is a bit overrated as a passer. His assists were just the result of how much defensive focus he saw, usually pretty basic kicks to open shooters.) There’s a reason nobody mentions him being drafted over Jordan, and the Rockets owning the prime era Bulls probably helped keep it that way. MJ has said Hakeem was the only player he ever feared, the ‘Big African’, as he called him. (Though in fairness Bird kinda owned him too, but as that was more a rivalry MJ’s not gonna talk too much about that, and also to be fair Bird had waaaaY more help than Hakeem, almost a case of two extremes.)

But a lot of people forget that like MJ, Hakeem exploded onto the scene, beat prime Showtime Lakers to reach the finals in his 2nd year, and was giving probably the best Celtics team ever all it could handle until Sampson’s knee/Hakeem’s ejection. There’s this magazine cover, can’t remember if it was SI or TSN or what, but the cover and lead article were making the case that Hakeem and Sampson back to back 1st overall generational talents were basically cheating and poised to upset the competitive balance and maybe the league should get involved. That was with MJ, Bird/McHale, Showtime, etc. in the league, it was received wisdom that the Twin Towers were the next big thing. Then it all fell apart in a matter of months and he spent the bulk of his career competing against those kind of stacked teams having 2nd best players the likes of Sleepy Floyd or Vernon Maxwell as opposed to Pippen or McHale or Kareem/Worthy, etc. He had support for two brief phases at the very beginning of his career and at the end of his prime and in those 4 or 5 years got to three Finals, winning two. To me this speaks volumes about what he’d have done running with his own Scottie or McHale.

What a waste…but to the guys who played with/against him it was very understood. For just a few examples, Jordan says Hakeem was the best big ever, Shaq says he was the best ever, Big Shot Bob played with prime Duncan and prime Shaq and says Hakeem and it’s not close, etc. But I’ll admit he doesn’t have the resume others do, and his offensive efficiency stats were degraded by carrying such a heavy load at both ends with little support. A lot of people don’t realize that the Dreamshake was a move originated to spin away from the double teaming that was just about automatic for most of his career…indeed Riley says Hakeem was the most routinely doubled/tripled player he ever saw, though in fairness he means specifically doubles from the catch anywhere; Shaq wouldn’t see that but would see a bum rush whenever he got the ball down low that Hakeem did not. Arguably the greatest defensive player ever, arguably the most skilled and among the most athletic bigs ever, he was such a unique built-for-basketball freak, with relatively short powerful legs and long long arms, and a foundation in sports like football (soccer) handball and a kind of volleyball that left him with unreal footwork for a man of any size, off the charts ball to hand coordination and exceptional endurance. One of a kind. Who is like him? Shaq compares with Wilt, Kobe compares with MJ, Dirk with Jordan, Penny with Magic, etc. but who compares with Hakeem?

It would drop him to the 11-15 range with many saying he choked and was good enough.

rk2023 wrote: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.

onedayattatime wrote: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?

Because such a large part of his top 10 all time resume is his rep as a playoff monster, losing both titles to the two main contemporary rivals who both get slammed as playoff chokers would hurt him, both directly in terms of seeing his playoff impact a bit less, and indirectly as in he wouldn't be seen as standing out from rivals David Robinson and Patrick Ewing to the same degree.