Stupid argument. Not for saying Hakeem is better than Harden as of now (which everybody agrees), but using regular FG% as the measuring stick for evaluating scoring ability. This is why analytics need to be taught to the general public, I'm so sick and tired of people using FG% to make their case. Absolutely awful. Just so you know, Harden is taking 8.7 three-point shots per game this year. Consider the negative effect that has on your average FG%, as opposed to a Center whose majority of shot attempts come from within 10 feet of the basket. Simply put, if every shot you take is a 3 pointer and you make them at 40% clip, you're gonna have 40 FG%. Would that be considered worse than a big man who averages 41% around the rim? If they both take 100 shots and make all of them, the first guy will have 100 more points. Think about that. Harden has similar 2PT FG% compared to Hakeem's career 2PT FG% (I know, it's hard to believe), as well as higher 3PT%, FT%, eFG% and TS%. Not to mention the assist numbers, which is a huge part of offense, and better OWS, ORtg and OBPM during the regular season. Yes, as a two-way player Hakeem is definitely better, but it shouldn't be controversial to say that Harden is a better regular season offensive player.
Well, from looking around quickly Wilt had another one where he had 51/29/11 and Elgin Baylor had one with 52/29/10. Keep in mind steals and blocks weren't tracked until the early 70's, so Wilt and Russell were probably racking up quadruple and quintuple doubles. For example, in Wilt's 53/32/14 game, he apparently unofficially had 24 blocks (lol) and 11 steals, too, but the game was in 1968, so the latter 2 stats weren't official. But no doubt Harden's numbers were, if not the best, at least top 2-3 for triple doubles since they started keeping track of steals and blocks.
