Most Overrated Player in the Top 10

[WarriorGM]

Hakeem had Drexler in 95 but not 94. Hakeem won in 94 with a surrounding cast of Vernon Maxwell, Sam Cassell, Otis Thorpe, Mario Elie and Robert Horry. Hakeem offensively didnt have the ability to stretch the floor but he dominated the paint on both ends.

Looks like a perfectly respectable cast to me. Cassell future all-star on another team, Thorpe all-star one year removed, Elie won a ring on another team playing starter minutes, Horry won multiple rings playing starter minutes on more than one team after his time on the Rockets with Hakeem.

[Raps in 4]

Considering Russell and Wilt aren't in my top-10, one of them.

[Nate505]

I can't really pick. Maybe Shaq I guess, but that's only because I thought he could have been more dominant than he was. Still, its hard to say him when there was a time where the guy was an absolute force.

[f4p]

Sure but you are using largely subjective criteria not objective. Curry had Durant? Hakeem had Drexler. Curry won twice with a player of that caliber. Curry won twice without a player of that caliber. Curry reached the finals an additional two times too. As I said basically double Hakeem's career highlights.

Hakeem dominated both ends? Did he now? Hakeem does not have the passing and off ball offense Curry does. Curry's offense is complete enough to make great defensive but offensive liabilities playable. That's why Curry's led teams that have been the top team in the league on offense and teams that were top in defense. Hakeem has not led a team to a top offense. Curry's best teams weren't just best of the year either they are in the argument for best historically.

Given the above it really should dawn on some people they are missing something. May I suggest they reconsider their simplistic view of the two sides of the ball theory? Offense and defense? Why not on-ball and off-ball? Or individual production and contribution to teammate production? It's why in a team game there are some things best seen in team results.

Hakeem had Drexler in 95 but not 94. Hakeem won in 94 with a surrounding cast of Vernon Maxwell, Sam Cassell, Otis Thorpe, Mario Elie and Robert Horry. Hakeem offensively didnt have the ability to stretch the floor but he dominated the paint on both ends.

1994 was a very impressive ring for Hakeem and I do have him ahead of Curry, but honestly you could make the argument that last year with Klay coming off of injury and Draymond past his prime was a pretty all-time carry job by Curry too. Not as impressive as what Hakeem did, but still one of the weaker supporting casts to win a ring with.

steph was very good in the finals but basically cruised through the west without doing anything that would be considered a carry. a guy like hakeem in the 2nd round and the finals, doubled up his second best teammate in game score, and was only about a point away from doing it in the other two rounds (24.4 vs 12.9 and 28.7 vs 15.1). curry wasn't particularly close in the memphis round (18 to 11), which was a very close series, and had 4 separate teammates between 13.5 and 14.5 to his 18.9 against the mavs, showing just how deep that team was. even the first round was 21 vs 17.5 and 16. the 6th man jordan poole started 4 games and averaged 25 ppg on something like 78% TS and then had a 79% TS WCF. he was so good he got a $35M/yr extension. and wiggins, a former overall #1 pick, was considered their 4th starter all season. he was so good he got a $28M/yr extension. with still 2 hall of fame, experienced, championship-veteran teammates in draymond and klay, with draymond still being an amazing defensive presence (why the warriors were #1 in defense last year).

[McBubbles]

MJ, Kobe, Wilt and Lebron are the 4 most overrated NBA players ever and I don't think any other players really come close.

Except for maybe Hakeem, when people combine 88-90 and 93-94 Hakeem into one person, then project that out for his entire career.

[indiegrind]

Duncan for me. Hakeem was better than Duncan.

[70sFan]

Except for maybe Hakeem, when people combine 88-90 and 93-94 Hakeem into one person, then project that out for his entire career.

Who really does that though?

[70sFan]

Duncan for me. Hakeem was better than Duncan.

So being worse than Hakeem (which is arguable, but anyway) makes you overrated?

[michaelm]

Hakeem had Drexler in 95 but not 94. Hakeem won in 94 with a surrounding cast of Vernon Maxwell, Sam Cassell, Otis Thorpe, Mario Elie and Robert Horry. Hakeem offensively didnt have the ability to stretch the floor but he dominated the paint on both ends.

1994 was a very impressive ring for Hakeem and I do have him ahead of Curry, but honestly you could make the argument that last year with Klay coming off of injury and Draymond past his prime was a pretty all-time carry job by Curry too. Not as impressive as what Hakeem did, but still one of the weaker supporting casts to win a ring with.

steph was very good in the finals but basically cruised through the west without doing anything that would be considered a carry. a guy like hakeem in the 2nd round and the finals, doubled up his second best teammate in game score, and was only about a point away from doing it in the other two rounds (24.4 vs 12.9 and 28.7 vs 15.1). curry wasn't particularly close in the memphis round (18 to 11), which was a very close series, and had 4 separate teammates between 13.5 and 14.5 to his 18.9 against the mavs, showing just how deep that team was. even the first round was 21 vs 17.5 and 16. the 6th man jordan poole started 4 games and averaged 25 ppg on something like 78% TS and then had a 79% TS WCF. he was so good he got a $35M/yr extension. and wiggins, a former overall #1 pick, was considered their 4th starter all season. he was so good he got a $28M/yr extension. with still 2 hall of fame, experienced, championship-veteran teammates in draymond and klay, with draymond still being an amazing defensive presence (why the warriors were #1 in defense last year).

Yes, it is a strange and random phenomenon that players look good next to Curry. If you rate players on strength as a foundation stone for a team/impact on whole team performance Curry rates rather highly imo. In my view the quality of his teams is actually evidence in favor of Curry rather than detracting from him. Great as KD is he has never been more effective than he was next to Curry particularly in the 2016-2017 season, and I suspect few PGs in NBA history would have fitted as well with him.

Obviously none of the players under discussion are over-rated, and considered as individual players they have more individual attributes than Curry, many of them being dominant both defensively and offensively which Curry is not. Bill Russell was perhaps somewhat analogous to Curry in being a great defensive player (maybe the best although this is hard to assess at this remove in time) and an offensive facilitator and consummate team player and leader without being a dominant scorer. He did more offensively than Curry does defensively I guess though.

[McBubbles]

Except for maybe Hakeem, when people combine 88-90 and 93-94 Hakeem into one person, then project that out for his entire career.

Who really does that though?

Casuals. Hakeem's 1995 WCF highlights are basically considered his entire career.

[NZB2323]

Let's approach from a different angle: What would Russell have needed to do to show he was better?

Maybe have career numbers better than a 18.9 PER and a 47.1 TS%

I get that stats aren’t everything and they didn’t record blocks and stat’s can’t capture his defense, blocking it to teammate to start a fast break, and leadership…but was he really better than Hakeem?

Could he win a title while leading his team in points, rebounds, and assists? Could he win a title without an all-star on his team?

So if Russell scored more on higher efficiency, but win less and become less impactful player, you'd have him higher on your all-time list?

How would scoring more on higher efficiency cause him to win less and become a less impactful player?

[Cavsfansince84]

give each of these players you have listed in the top 10...Larry Bird's body and athleticism and see how they are. Almost every single one of those players except Magic and Bird, hit the genetic lottery and most of their dominance was predicated on them having a physical and athletic advantage. So essentially most of the centers and Lebron are way overrated and guys like Kobe, West, Havlicek, Oscar and Baylor are underrated because they relied on skill mostly.

The idea of taking innate size and athleticism out of things to say who is or isn't overrated is so strange to me. Would you do this in any other sports?

[shotsquatch]

Which player faced the weakest competition, and has a skill set that stands out as significantly weaker than the others? Russel, no question.

[indiegrind]

Duncan for me. Hakeem was better than Duncan.

So being worse than Hakeem (which is arguable, but anyway) makes you overrated?

Yes, if most rank him above Hakeem, he is overrated.

[michaelm]

Which player faced the weakest competition, and has a skill set that stands out as significantly weaker than the others? Russel, no question.

What more exactly should he have done ?. Won 13/13 instead of 11/13 ?. He was injured one of those years.

The Celtics didn’t win the year before he joined them or the year after he retired, and he did plenty to facilitate the team offensively from what I can glean as well as his leadership and tactical sense, including as player coach for the last 2 titles. As I said a few posts ago he was imo more or less a reverse Curry, if you are crazy great on one side of the ball, in his case defensively, then it frees up your roster on the other side of things.

He did all he did while subject to relentless racial vilification which other players in the top 10 list might not have enjoyed if they had faced the same thing for similar reasons.

[70sFan]

Maybe have career numbers better than a 18.9 PER and a 47.1 TS%

I get that stats aren’t everything and they didn’t record blocks and stat’s can’t capture his defense, blocking it to teammate to start a fast break, and leadership…but was he really better than Hakeem?

Could he win a title while leading his team in points, rebounds, and assists? Could he win a title without an all-star on his team?

So if Russell scored more on higher efficiency, but win less and become less impactful player, you'd have him higher on your all-time list?

How would scoring more on higher efficiency cause him to win less and become a less impactful player?

It's simple - you can impact the game in more ways than scoring alone. That's why Russell is one of the best, most impactful players ever despite not being a great scorer.

I am sure that had Russell scored more on better efficiency, but played worse defense and won less, would make him a better player on your list - even if he would have been worse in reality.

[70sFan]

Duncan for me. Hakeem was better than Duncan.

So being worse than Hakeem (which is arguable, but anyway) makes you overrated?

Yes, if most rank him above Hakeem, he is overrated.

If people rank him above Hakeem only because of more rings, then it's a bad argument. Thankfully there are people who have much more thoughtfull reasons to put Duncan ahead of Hakeem.

The idea that Hakeem is Duncan, but better is wrong. They are different players with different strengths and different weaknesses.

[2020]

You honestly don't believe that Hakeem >>> Bill Russell in the 60s and 90s

Is this a question?

I think Russell is the most overrated because of the very skewed 13 rings. Ya'll really think Russell would have won a ring on a team other than the Celtics?

The man has nine rings as a player; you can argue that the rings are worth less due to era, but you can only do so much to explain away nine rings. His role on those teams speaks for itself, too; he wasn't just along for the ride.

11 championships in 13 seasons. Injured in the Finals in one of the others, but overall very durable.

Yeah go ahead and ignore the obvious (my arguments) to push your narrative

I'm arguing that he probably would not have won a ring if he played on another team besides the Celtics (similar to KD on the Warriors).

Also, that Hakeem on them Celtics would have made them a much better team, therefore, bringing to question who of the 2 (Hakeem or Wilt) are actually better

[70sFan]

Is this a question?



The man has nine rings as a player; you can argue that the rings are worth less due to era, but you can only do so much to explain away nine rings. His role on those teams speaks for itself, too; he wasn't just along for the ride.

11 championships in 13 seasons. Injured in the Finals in one of the others, but overall very durable.

Yeah go ahead and ignore the obvious (my arguments) to push your narrative

I'm arguing that he probably would not have won a ring if he played on another team besides the Celtics (similar to KD on the Warriors).

Also, that Hakeem on them Celtics would have made them a much better team, therefore, bringing to question who of the 2 (Hakeem or Wilt) are actually better

1. Russell didn't always play on stacked teams. Take a look at 1963/64 roster for example (arguably the most dominant Russell team) - they literally had one player who scored with above average efficiency. Surrounding seasons weren't much better. Then we have 1969 when an old team wasn't even close to the most talented in the league, which can be seen the next season without Bill.

Of course Russell wouldn't have won 11 titles in a worse team. What does it prove though? No player can build a dynasty by himself. Meanwhile, Russell built a dynasty that is untouchable by any other and he didn't do that with any MVP-level teammates like your KD comparison.

By the way, I wonder what do you mean by Hakeem making them "much better team"? How can you be much better than the best dynasty in sports history?

[Fencer reregistered]

11 championships in 13 seasons. Injured in the Finals in one of the others, but overall very durable.

Yeah go ahead and ignore the obvious (my arguments) to push your narrative

I'm arguing that he probably would not have won a ring if he played on another team besides the Celtics (similar to KD on the Warriors).

Also, that Hakeem on them Celtics would have made them a much better team, therefore, bringing to question who of the 2 (Hakeem or Wilt) are actually better

1. Russell didn't always play on stacked teams. Take a look at 1963/64 roster for example (arguably the most dominant Russell team) - they literally had one player who scored with above average efficiency. Surrounding seasons weren't much better. Then we have 1969 when an old team wasn't even close to the most talented in the league, which can be seen the next season without Bill.

Of course Russell wouldn't have won 11 titles in a worse team. What does it prove though? No player can build a dynasty by himself. Meanwhile, Russell built a dynasty that is untouchable by any other and he didn't do that with any MVP-level teammates like your KD comparison.

By the way, I wonder what do you mean by Hakeem making them "much better team"? How can you be much better than the best dynasty in sports history?

While I agree with your general thoughts -- in 7 out of Russell's 13 seasons, he had a teammate who also got votes for first-place MVP. (Cousy 5x, Sam Jones twice.)

Admittedly, after Cousy's MVP Russell's rookie season, those votes were quite few in number.