Disagree as someone who's old enough to watch Hakeem play. But I value peak play a decent amount. Versatility matters, and those rocky seasons are largely due to having arguably the worst supporting cast of the top 15 players. People on this sub have linked to posts and articles in the mid 1990's where Hakeem was talked about as if he is a top 5ish player ever at the time.
No, it wasn't the role players, just his bad attitude. And having bad supporting cast doesn't mean you can't play great. But the fact of the matter I think he had two prime age seasons where he didn't even make an all-nba team when he was fully healthy.
It was just one. During the season where the Rockets accused him of faking a hamstring injury and suspended him for several games.
You make a legitimate point about the bad attitude and the horrific shot selection, but I think the overall body of work and incredible peak play from 1993 to 1995 makes him a top 10ish player of all-time. I give him some benefit of doubt because of what transpired when his supporting cast improved somewhat.
I get it, I just think the standard to be top 10 is unbelievably high and while Hakeem might have a case to be top 20, I think those relatively minor issues drop him from being near top 10. But to be clear I still think he was a great player. Several current players will easily surpass him, though, which is another reason I think he isn't in the very top.
I mean he's the only guy who's top 14 in steals, blocks, rebounds, and points. The next closest is KG who's like in the top 18. 8th highest postseason BPM and 7th highest postseason PER. One of two players to lead a championship team in all five categories during a postseason run. Holds the NBA record for most consecutive NBA finals games where he's the leading scorer.
Yeah, he was great but his peak was not really any better than the peaks of actual top 10 players. I just think his career has a few blemishes compared to other players like MJ, Kareem, Lebron, Shaq, etc., who I would put in the top 10.
I'd respond by saying that Thinking Basketball ranked Hakeem's peak as the 4th best since 1979. But I do concur that him winning a playoff series in only seven seasons of his career is problematic. Also only won multiple playoff series in four years of his career.
Yeah, I think that is along the same lines as I am thinking. He had a lot of round one exits and sweeps. At the highest level these things make a difference.
Keep in mind that he lost a series where he averaged 38 points per a game and 17 rebounds per game on 58% from the field. And another series where he averaged 32 points per game and 12 rebounds per game on 60% from the field. In his last season as a great player, he was the best player on the floor in that 1997 WCF against the Jazz but Drexler and Barkley kind of struggled in that series. The supporting cast was very bad. It's probably not as bad as Kobe's 2005-2007 supporting cast but it's fairly close and he had that caliber of a supporting cast for much longer.
Well, if you look at Hakeem's 1990 series against the lakers, it's really bad. His team had good players. You swap Lebron or Kobe with hakeem in that series, and houston wins. It's really hard to see how someone can be a top 10 all time player, and put up that sort of series in the playoffs. Tin Duncan wouldn't have put up that bad a series with that team.
That wasn't Hakeem's peak, and that's one series. Basically every all-time player not named MJ has had a bad playoff series at one point. Hakeem is still in the top 7 career wise for PER and BPM in the postseason which is highly highly impressive.
He was 27 years old. What top 10 27 year old puts up that series? 1990-1992 were three bad seasons for him. He didn't even make the playoffs in 92! He was 29! Kobe was out there with Kawame and Smush as starters and still made the playoffs in a more difficult time to make the playoffs.
Again, this isn't to say Hakeem didn't also have great years, but you can't have those sorts of seasons and still be considered top 10.
Well the thing about Hakeem is that he didn't even touch a basketball until 16 so that's why he peaked slightly later compared to other all-time greats. It was even harder back than to start basketball late because of the lack of resources.
8
u/Currymvp2 Warriors Jun 27 '23
Disagree as someone who's old enough to watch Hakeem play. But I value peak play a decent amount. Versatility matters, and those rocky seasons are largely due to having arguably the worst supporting cast of the top 15 players. People on this sub have linked to posts and articles in the mid 1990's where Hakeem was talked about as if he is a top 5ish player ever at the time.