The Hawk for the Hippie

[Colbinii]

I would point out that at this point we know that the entire notion that you should be looking to volume score on the interior as a matter of course has been discredited.

Kareem would feast…but he feasted on Walton so that not different.

I would say that prime Hawkins would be by far the best offensive player on the court when playing any of those other guys you mention.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I hope you excluded Kareem from this group, as it's not clear for me you did.

With unfavorable matchup, you can see some of them having more offensive impact than Hawkins. I'm also not 100% sure that Hawkins was a better offensive player than Bob Lanier for example.

That was certainly what I was trying to convey. Kareem is an Offensive GOAT candidate, the rest of those guys? Not even close.

And yeah I’d consider Hawkins considerably better at offense than Lanier. I think Hawkins has a case for being the best offensive player in the world at his peak.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup. Even if you consider Hawkins/Lanier similar scorers, Hawkins is a considerably better passer, probably a better offensive rebounder [based on the data we have] and signifcantly better at drawing fouls [He had something like a 60-70% foul rate in 1968].

[DQuinn1575]

THis is a team that comps pretty well to Denver, who won 50 in the regular season, and lost to POR in 6.
Issel played center, which isnt much better than Hawkins or Lucas.
In talent:
The Hawk is fairly comparable to THompson at this point.
Issel and Lucas are also somewhat comparable.
Bobby Jones on DEN of course is a star, but still just playing 29 mpg
A lot of good names, decent players fill out DEN, but just looking up and down the roster, I dont see a team a lot better than DEN.

Similar comp to PHI as well - Hawk and Lucas in this scenario are probably comparable to Doc and McGinnis -
Hollins and Collins fairly even, and the rest of the rosters arent stacked too much for PHI.

League was at a point that a healthy POR was best team, but after that nobody much better than a 50 win team. Thinking POR gets around there, but eventually loses to someone in playoffs.

[Doctor MJ]

I hope you excluded Kareem from this group, as it's not clear for me you did.

With unfavorable matchup, you can see some of them having more offensive impact than Hawkins. I'm also not 100% sure that Hawkins was a better offensive player than Bob Lanier for example.

That was certainly what I was trying to convey. Kareem is an Offensive GOAT candidate, the rest of those guys? Not even close.

And yeah I’d consider Hawkins considerably better at offense than Lanier. I think Hawkins has a case for being the best offensive player in the world at his peak.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup. Even if you consider Hawkins/Lanier similar scorers, Hawkins is a considerably better passer, probably a better offensive rebounder [based on the data we have] and signifcantly better at drawing fouls [He had something like a 60-70% foul rate in 1968].

Glad you brought this stuff up. You and I aren't the only ones in the thread who know this I think, but I just remember when I really looked at Hawkins' ABA data. Was not expecting to see that while he led the league in scoring, he was only 3rd on his team in FGA and first in assists. It's insane how effective he was.

[70sFan]

That was certainly what I was trying to convey. Kareem is an Offensive GOAT candidate, the rest of those guys? Not even close.

Yeah, it makes sense and thanks for clarification.

And yeah I’d consider Hawkins considerably better at offense than Lanier. I think Hawkins has a case for being the best offensive player in the world at his peak.

Two things:

1. I'm not really sure Hawkins is clearly better than Lanier offensively.
2. I really doubt Hawkins was even close to peak West and prime Oscar and that's who he'd have to beat to become the best offensive player in the world. I don't really think he has a very strong case against Philly Wilt either, but I don't want to focus too much on that one.

[70sFan]

Hawkins is a shot blocker. He’s too weak to be a big man defender, but he’s got big man length and perimeter agility. He can operate as a help rover.

Nothing I have seen suggest that Hawkins was a big time shotblocker. He could block shots and was very long of course, but I don't consider him a shotblocker in games I have watched.

Do you have some contemporary reports about him? I'd love to get a better view on his game.

[70sFan]

I hope you excluded Kareem from this group, as it's not clear for me you did.

With unfavorable matchup, you can see some of them having more offensive impact than Hawkins. I'm also not 100% sure that Hawkins was a better offensive player than Bob Lanier for example.

That was certainly what I was trying to convey. Kareem is an Offensive GOAT candidate, the rest of those guys? Not even close.

And yeah I’d consider Hawkins considerably better at offense than Lanier. I think Hawkins has a case for being the best offensive player in the world at his peak.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup. Even if you consider Hawkins/Lanier similar scorers, Hawkins is a considerably better passer, probably a better offensive rebounder [based on the data we have] and signifcantly better at drawing fouls [He had something like a 60-70% foul rate in 1968].

I have heard a lot of talks about Hawkins passing skills, but he never really made such impression on me. Maybe I have to go and watch all of his footage available again.

What data shows Hawkins a better offensive rebounder than Lanier? I hope you're not talking about his massive outlier 1968 season in a league with no quality bigs at that time. We're talking about the league where Mel Daniels posted absolutely staggering raw rebounding numbers (while not being nearly as impressive adjusted for pace). Daniels was certainly a very good rebounder, but his numbers don't look close to that in 1973-75 period when the league got more talent.

Same with FTr - Rick Barry changed the leagues and came from 38% to 59% within two seasons (with one year break). Considering Hawkins style and NBA numbers, he'd still have the edge here but it's not nearly as big as the ABA numbers suggest.

I think we have to acknowledge that Hawkins was an elite talent who played against very weak ABA in 1968. I'm not someone who downgrades ABA overall, but the first 2-3 seasons were far from the NBA level.

[Doctor MJ]

That was certainly what I was trying to convey. Kareem is an Offensive GOAT candidate, the rest of those guys? Not even close.

Yeah, it makes sense and thanks for clarification.

And yeah I’d consider Hawkins considerably better at offense than Lanier. I think Hawkins has a case for being the best offensive player in the world at his peak.

Two things:

1. I'm not really sure Hawkins is clearly better than Lanier offensively.
2. I really doubt Hawkins was even close to peak West and prime Oscar and that's who he'd have to beat to become the best offensive player in the world. I don't really think he has a very strong case against Philly Wilt either, but I don't want to focus too much on that one.

I respect your opinion 70s.

I do think the question of Hawkins vs West vs Oscar is debate to have for the best offensive players of that time period. West & Oscar were certainly more proven in the NBA, and I'm not really looking to make an argument specifically pointing to that Hawk was better than them.

Something I say pretty definitively is that I believe Hawkins is the most talented basketball player born between 1938 (Oscar/West) and 1947 (Kareem), and I think it's pretty rare that we see a handing over of the title belt for best offensive player across a 9 year gap like that, though I'd have to dive into that to really be sure.

Of course, Oscar & West aged well, Hawkins did not (by literal age, though he played tons of basketball before the injuries took their toll), and Kareem was great from the jump.

[AEnigma]

It is certainly possible, perhaps even likely, that Hawkins’ scoring, passing, and playmaking advantages all make him a better offensive player than Lanier. I do not see it as especially relevant with Lanier’s substantial defensive advantage as a centre, but all the same, it is a reasonable stance on its own.

However, I would be careful extrapolating his 1968/69 ABA numbers to make that point. Yes, he had a ~65% free throw rate before his injury. That would not be replicated in a proper league. Cliff Hagan had career highs in free throw rate years removed from both his prime and from playing professional basketball. Mel Daniels had the highest scoring and free throw rates of his career. So did Red Robbins, Art Becker, Cincy Powell, Freddie Lewis, Larry Jones, Jimmy Jones… Roger Brown and Rick Barry also both had their free throw rates peak. With the acknowledgment that 1970 Connie was a diminished version from his peak, his production that season is a lot closer to what I would expect if placing peak Connie directly into 1977, and that is not nearly enough offensive production to justify such a severe weakness in rim protection.

[Colbinii]

That was certainly what I was trying to convey. Kareem is an Offensive GOAT candidate, the rest of those guys? Not even close.

Yeah, it makes sense and thanks for clarification.

And yeah I’d consider Hawkins considerably better at offense than Lanier. I think Hawkins has a case for being the best offensive player in the world at his peak.

Two things:

1. I'm not really sure Hawkins is clearly better than Lanier offensively.
2. I really doubt Hawkins was even close to peak West and prime Oscar and that's who he'd have to beat to become the best offensive player in the world. I don't really think he has a very strong case against Philly Wilt either, but I don't want to focus too much on that one.

I respect your opinion 70s.

I do think the question of Hawkins vs West vs Oscar is debate to have for the best offensive players of that time period. West & Oscar were certainly more proven in the NBA, and I'm not really looking to make an argument specifically pointing to that Hawk was better than them.

Something I say pretty definitively is that I believe Hawkins is the most talented basketball player born between 1938 (Oscar/West) and 1947 (Kareem), and I think it's pretty rare that we see a handing over of the title belt for best offensive player across a 9 year gap like that, though I'd have to dive into that to really be sure.

Of course, Oscar & West aged well, Hawkins did not (by literal age, though he played tons of basketball before the injuries took their toll), and Kareem was great from the jump.

Off the Top of my Head, nothing exact, not accounting for missed seasons, some seasons these players aren't clear #1
Jokic 2022 - Present
Curry 2018 - 2021
LeBron 2012 - 2017
Nash 2005 - 2011
Dirk 2003 - 2004
Shaq 1999 - 2002
Jordan 1992-1997
Magic 1987 - 1991
Bird 1981 - 1986
Kareem 1971 - 1980
West 1968 - 1970
Oscar 1961 - 1967

The only time two players were the best and came in at/around the same time after Oscar/West was Dirk/Nash and then Bird/Magic. Otherwise, most players are ~5 years apart.

[rk2023]

Playoffs but not advancing. On a per play rate, Walton is likely one of the 15 best / most impactful players in history. Connie isn’t replicating the defense that catalyzed Blazer-mania. While he might be better at getting his, doesn’t seem like he’d offer close to the scalable and connective skills Walton did - which fit well in an egalitarian offensive attack from Portland.

[Doctor MJ]

Hawkins is a shot blocker. He’s too weak to be a big man defender, but he’s got big man length and perimeter agility. He can operate as a help rover.

Nothing I have seen suggest that Hawkins was a big time shotblocker. He could block shots and was very long of course, but I don't consider him a shotblocker in games I have watched.

Do you have some contemporary reports about him? I'd love to get a better view on his game.

How much footage do you have of him from '67-68 to '69-70? Not saying I've seen more than you, only that those would the years I'd expect to see signs of it, though I'd definitely expect it to be less in '69-70 in the aftermath of the injuries.

And yes, contemporary reports. In general he was not seen as a great defender:

* Not strong enough to be a good man defender - could even get backed down by a sturdy guard like Oscar.
* Distractable, which I would tend to see through the lens of gambling - block/steal hunting

Additionally, there's a general weakness with Hawkins where he was never really taught Xs & Os the way guys who took the traditional path did, which frustrated his coaches particularly on defense.

I wouldn't call Hawkins a "big time shotblocker", but then to me that means he's an active intimidator in the paint. But we know he had the build to block shots and we know that he did look to block shots, so to me the question is about how well this could be utilized on a team that's better designed.

Do I think he could be anywhere near as good on defense as Walton? Nope, and as I've said, I'd expect these Blazers to get worse with the switch, but would the team lose all ability to block shots? Absolutely not.

Further, as I alluded to before, I think Jack Ramsay would have all sorts of ideas of how to make use of Hawkins on both sides of the floor, which certainly was not the case with a number of the coaches Hawkins played with. There's a limit to how good that defense could be, but so long as you had a sturdy big to handle brute strength post up attacks, I think you could make something pretty decent.

[Doctor MJ]

That was certainly what I was trying to convey. Kareem is an Offensive GOAT candidate, the rest of those guys? Not even close.

And yeah I’d consider Hawkins considerably better at offense than Lanier. I think Hawkins has a case for being the best offensive player in the world at his peak.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yup. Even if you consider Hawkins/Lanier similar scorers, Hawkins is a considerably better passer, probably a better offensive rebounder [based on the data we have] and signifcantly better at drawing fouls [He had something like a 60-70% foul rate in 1968].

I have heard a lot of talks about Hawkins passing skills, but he never really made such impression on me. Maybe I have to go and watch all of his footage available again.

What data shows Hawkins a better offensive rebounder than Lanier? I hope you're not talking about his massive outlier 1968 season in a league with no quality bigs at that time. We're talking about the league where Mel Daniels posted absolutely staggering raw rebounding numbers (while not being nearly as impressive adjusted for pace). Daniels was certainly a very good rebounder, but his numbers don't look close to that in 1973-75 period when the league got more talent.

Same with FTr - Rick Barry changed the leagues and came from 38% to 59% within two seasons (with one year break). Considering Hawkins style and NBA numbers, he'd still have the edge here but it's not nearly as big as the ABA numbers suggest.

I think we have to acknowledge that Hawkins was an elite talent who played against very weak ABA in 1968. I'm not someone who downgrades ABA overall, but the first 2-3 seasons were far from the NBA level.

Re: passing - Bill Russell talked about how Hawkins' passing was like nothing he'd ever seen before when he watched Hawkins' joined the NBA in '69-70 and others said he was the best passer in the world, so I don't think there's a question of whether there was something spectacular about his passing.

What I'd say to look for is his use of palming the ball to get defenders going the wrong way. I don't think he was as good at doing Oscar-things as Oscar, but he brought something new to the table.

Re: offensive rebounding - Here I'd be skeptical of the ABA numbers. I think he'd be less effective at this in a league with better bigs.

Re: Ftr. Just keep in mind that in '69-70, Hawkins was 3rd in FTAs with a considerably higher FTr than the 2 guys (West & Kareem), way beyond anything Barry ever did in his NBA career, and this was not Hawkins with his peak body. I'll also note that while West had years in the same FTr tier as Hawkins' '69-70, Kareem never did. So yeah, Hawkins was a free throw drawing monster by any league's standards, and he was a pretty accurate shot from the stripe.

[70sFan]

How much footage do you have of him from '67-68 to '69-70? Not saying I've seen more than you, only that those would the years I'd expect to see signs of it, though I'd definitely expect it to be less in '69-70 in the aftermath of the injuries.

Not a lot unfortunately, but you made me dive into the Hawk footage I have and I will try to make something out of it.

And yes, contemporary reports. In general he was not seen as a great defender:

* Not strong enough to be a good man defender - could even get backed down by a sturdy guard like Oscar.
* Distractable, which I would tend to see through the lens of gambling - block/steal hunting

Additionally, there's a general weakness with Hawkins where he was never really taught Xs & Os the way guys who took the traditional path did, which frustrated his coaches particularly on defense.

I wouldn't call Hawkins a "big time shotblocker", but then to me that means he's an active intimidator in the paint. But we know he had the build to block shots and we know that he did look to block shots, so to me the question is about how well this could be utilized on a team that's better designed.

Do I think he could be anywhere near as good on defense as Walton? Nope, and as I've said, I'd expect these Blazers to get worse with the switch, but would the team lose all ability to block shots? Absolutely not.

Further, as I alluded to before, I think Jack Ramsay would have all sorts of ideas of how to make use of Hawkins on both sides of the floor, which certainly was not the case with a number of the coaches Hawkins played with. There's a limit to how good that defense could be, but so long as you had a sturdy big to handle brute strength post up attacks, I think you could make something pretty decent.

Thanks for your contribution, I will keep that in mind when I watch him and try to evaluate his talent.

[70sFan]

Re: passing - Bill Russell talked about how Hawkins' passing was like nothing he'd ever seen before when he watched Hawkins' joined the NBA in '69-70 and others said he was the best passer in the world, so I don't think there's a question of whether there was something spectacular about his passing.

What I'd say to look for is his use of palming the ball to get defenders going the wrong way. I don't think he was as good at doing Oscar-things as Oscar, but he brought something new to the table.

Interesting, I wonder how much of that was flash vs substance. Certainly worth keeping in mind though.

Re: offensive rebounding - Here I'd be skeptical of the ABA numbers. I think he'd be less effective at this in a league with better bigs.

Yeah, I don't think we should expect him to be elite offensive rebounder in the NBA.

Re: Ftr. Just keep in mind that in '69-70, Hawkins was 3rd in FTAs with a considerably higher FTr than the 2 guys (West & Kareem), way beyond anything Barry ever did in his NBA career, and this was not Hawkins with his peak body. I'll also note that while West had years in the same FTr tier as Hawkins' '69-70, Kareem never did. So yeah, Hawkins was a free throw drawing monster by any league's standards, and he was a pretty accurate shot from the stripe.

Note that I said that Hawkins would have a clear advantage over Lanier anyway here - I just warn people to use his massive outlier 1968 numbers, because they were not sustainable:

1968: 64.5%
1969: 57.1%

1970: 51.2%
1971: 47.4%

Still a monster foul drawer (probably due to his excellent slashing ability), but his 1968 numbers are just beyond absurd:

1st in ppg
2nd in rpg
4th in apg
2nd in FG%
1st in FTA
1st in TS%
2nd in FTr

I mean, I think we can agree that he was an enormous talent, but he also wasn't simultaneously the best scorer, finisher, foul drawer, rebounder, inside defender and passer in the league type of talent - unless you think he's the clear GOAT. I'm quite sure he'd be a superstar in the NBA (especially considering his post injury 1969/70 season), but I am sceptical that he'd crush the NBA of the 1960s.

[Doctor MJ]

Yeah, it makes sense and thanks for clarification.


Two things:

1. I'm not really sure Hawkins is clearly better than Lanier offensively.
2. I really doubt Hawkins was even close to peak West and prime Oscar and that's who he'd have to beat to become the best offensive player in the world. I don't really think he has a very strong case against Philly Wilt either, but I don't want to focus too much on that one.

I respect your opinion 70s.

I do think the question of Hawkins vs West vs Oscar is debate to have for the best offensive players of that time period. West & Oscar were certainly more proven in the NBA, and I'm not really looking to make an argument specifically pointing to that Hawk was better than them.

Something I say pretty definitively is that I believe Hawkins is the most talented basketball player born between 1938 (Oscar/West) and 1947 (Kareem), and I think it's pretty rare that we see a handing over of the title belt for best offensive player across a 9 year gap like that, though I'd have to dive into that to really be sure.

Of course, Oscar & West aged well, Hawkins did not (by literal age, though he played tons of basketball before the injuries took their toll), and Kareem was great from the jump.

Off the Top of my Head, nothing exact, not accounting for missed seasons, some seasons these players aren't clear #1
Jokic 2022 - Present
Curry 2018 - 2021
LeBron 2012 - 2017
Nash 2005 - 2011
Dirk 2003 - 2004
Shaq 1999 - 2002
Jordan 1992-1997
Magic 1987 - 1991
Bird 1981 - 1986
Kareem 1971 - 1980
West 1968 - 1970
Oscar 1961 - 1967

The only time two players were the best and came in at/around the same time after Oscar/West was Dirk/Nash and then Bird/Magic. Otherwise, most players are ~5 years apart.

5 years makes sense, but I think 9 is probably an outlier. If I take your list by birth year:

1938 - Oscar/West
1947 - Kareem
1956 - Bird
1959 - Magic
1963 - Jordan
1972 - Shaq
1978 - Dirk
1974 - Nash
1984 - LeBron
1988 - Curry
1995 - Jokic

So looking at this, 9 years seems in general like about as long as things can get, but it's happened several time (1938->1947, 1947->1956, 1963->1972) so it's not implausible even if it is on the longer side.

I'll note that at first glance that the Nash-to-LeBron thing is weird on a couple levels. One being that that 1974->1984 gap of a decade represents the longest span on the list, two being that it marks the only time when the birth year goes backwards at all, and it manages to go backwards 4 years which is pretty big. I don't think there's any doubt that it's one more indicator that Nash's career is extremely unusual and he was an extreme talent.

[Doctor MJ]

Re: passing - Bill Russell talked about how Hawkins' passing was like nothing he'd ever seen before when he watched Hawkins' joined the NBA in '69-70 and others said he was the best passer in the world, so I don't think there's a question of whether there was something spectacular about his passing.

What I'd say to look for is his use of palming the ball to get defenders going the wrong way. I don't think he was as good at doing Oscar-things as Oscar, but he brought something new to the table.

Interesting, I wonder how much of that was flash vs substance. Certainly worth keeping in mind though.

I've come to the conclusion that the difference between "flash" and "substance" is really just efficiency.

You can put together a package of Maravich plays that make him look like the GOAT passer, but you don't see the plays he blows, and in the end, basketball is a per possession game, and the sum total of Maravich isn't something that helps you win in the NBA, so he goes on the flash pile.

Hawkins was a shockingly efficient player (before his decay) compared to what I expected, so while he had oodles of style, I don't see any reason to dismiss what he was doing as being without substance.

Re: Ftr. Just keep in mind that in '69-70, Hawkins was 3rd in FTAs with a considerably higher FTr than the 2 guys (West & Kareem), way beyond anything Barry ever did in his NBA career, and this was not Hawkins with his peak body. I'll also note that while West had years in the same FTr tier as Hawkins' '69-70, Kareem never did. So yeah, Hawkins was a free throw drawing monster by any league's standards, and he was a pretty accurate shot from the stripe.

Note that I said that Hawkins would have a clear advantage over Lanier anyway here - I just warn people to use his massive outlier 1968 numbers, because they were not sustainable:

1968: 64.5%
1969: 57.1%

1970: 51.2%
1971: 47.4%

Still a monster foul drawer (probably due to his excellent slashing ability), but his 1968 numbers are just beyond absurd:

1st in ppg
2nd in rpg
4th in apg
2nd in FG%
1st in FTA
1st in TS%
2nd in FTr

I mean, I think we can agree that he was an enormous talent, but he also wasn't simultaneously the best scorer, finisher, foul drawer, rebounder, inside defender and passer in the league type of talent - unless you think he's the clear GOAT. I'm quite sure he'd be a superstar in the NBA (especially considering his post injury 1969/70 season), but I am sceptical that he'd crush the NBA of the 1960s.

I mean, I don't see much point in trying to knock downplay Hawkins' FTr when we know that he was north of 50% in the NBA. That's a really big number, and we know it wasn't him at his best. I'm not going to say I expect a 64.5% number from a peak Hawk in the NBA, but whatever number it was going to be, it was clearly going to be right up there with the best in the league.

Re: wasn't simultaneously best scorer, finisher, foul drawer, rebounder, inside defender and passer in the league. Oh definitely not, but he may have had an argument for scorer, finisher, foul drawer & passer.

As I say all that, forced to make a list, I can't put him ahead of West or Oscar holistically. The more interesting point to me is just the stuff that he did that others did not.

[70sFan]

The more interesting point to me is just the stuff that he did that others did not.

I think that's the most interesting thing about Hawkins. He was really a spacial talent and I wish he had played more healthy years in the NBA. I think he could have had a better career than the top forwards of the 1960s (Baylor, Barry, Havlicek) and that's a huge praise as I have all of them inside my top 40.

[Doctor MJ]

The more interesting point to me is just the stuff that he did that others did not.

I think that's the most interesting thing about Hawkins. He was really a spacial talent and I wish he had played more healthy years in the NBA. I think he could have had a better career than the top forwards of the 1960s (Baylor, Barry, Havlicek) and that's a huge praise as I have all of them inside my top 40.

I absolutely agree he'd be better than any of those guys, but there is one funny thing:

I think Hawk would be less interesting as a player had he gone the traditional route.

All this stuff about trick passing, my understanding is that that wasn't a part of his game in high school or in the ABL. It came with his time on the Globetrotters, which he made sure to supplement continuing to play competitive basketball elsewhere.

Go straight to college and the NBA, and he ends up playing more like everyone else. Far greater longevity, maybe more resilient impact across team situations, but less unique.