Are we only ever allowed to bring players forward in eras? Because I feel like some guys like LeBron and KD would absolutely have cracked under the pressure of racism of the '50s, considering how sensitive they are to criticism in the current era. Doesn't matter how talented you are if you have racist coaches and owners sabotaging your career, and you don't have a specific kind of metal fortitude to persevere in silence. Steph's game without a 3-point line and the strict carrying rules of the early NBA would nullify almost everything that makes him an all-timer. If Kobe is Jordan's contemporary, rather than his successor, how much worse does his legacy look, where he's clearly second best at his position, and ends up with no rings (probably moves a lot closer to David Robinson, who has the same problem of never really being the guy during his era). Shaq flying coach to every game, playing back-to-back-to-backs, might be retired or out of the league before he earned a second contract simply due to accumulated injury and bad medical care.
Yes, I was considering not only taking older players forward but also current players back. It's a hypothetical, but I agree things like mental strength with racism at the time (You really appreciate how great and brilliant Bill Russell was if you read his biographies of the era, what he dealt with and he still accomplished what he did), medical care and even little things like these guys wore old school converse to play a full NBA season etc. But for most, just thinking how their game would translate across eras is an interesting exercise at times. I think Curry would still do well as a generational shooter, as Jerry West was an all time shooter but had no three point line. But West's defense was very underrated and he may have been the best defensive guard of that era. But Curry's production or percentages may likely take a small hit as well due to no three point line and the sheer physicality of the rules back then. For Kobe, I think he wouldn't be seen any worse than Drexler without championships and ranked higher. A better player but without the LA spotlight and rings his hype would be slightly different I agree. Shaq would likely still be a monster with actually enhanced defense due to the rules back then. Likely as dominant as Wilt, but it's definitely debatable due to the work ethic Wilt had on his body, if Shaq would even come close to his longevity back then. There are other factors and rabbit holes, like adjusting for pace across eras and looking at the playoff numbers for those guys. But that's another thing that can be considered. FYI, Hakeem gets a lot better the closer you look at him versus others in the top 10 as an individual player. It's really not fan hyperbole, his case is real.
Style of play? No. His production declined but he was in a system that worked. Just say you like Duncan because he appears a nice guy. He wasn't a better basketball player than Kobe Bryant
This is a great take. People remember how dominant Hakeem was in that window but forget that he wasn't at that level for the majority of his career. He's always been an amazing athlete and a great player, but he got such a late start that his physical gifts were starting to decline right as his overall game was at its peak. If we had seen prime Hakeem for 10 seasons he'd be top 5 IMO.
Dream has objectively been proven to not only be top 10 but the GOAT by a Jordan fan. Please see the link below. https://hickamsdictum.com/the-g-o-a-t-who-is-the-best-basketball-player-of-all-time-e43c7e53a9a7
Shaq in an era where offensive fouls were called would have been interesting. I don't think his game translates across eras nearly as well as some others.
It's offseason, and clutchfans rarely offers historical comparisons that much. We can look at the objective deep stat dives, but to keep it light here are some testimonials of what some players thought of Hakeem. Tip of the iceberg but perhaps I'll add more with time.
This is a fair take and yes a lot of his moves would be offensive fouls in other eras. Another reason I have Hakeem and arguably Duncan over him all time due to the versatility and without those weaknesses in their game. Those two can hit jumpers, free throws consistently and other options without drawing offensive fouls and close out games. To his credit Shaq has a lot more skill then he gets credit for, moves around the hoop, baby hooks etc. His perimeter defense would be badly exposed in other eras, like when Karl Malone and Stockton spammed him with pick and roles in a playoff series and embarrassed him. Still a monster and very entertaining, a very good man off the court as well.
He would have needed to play a little slimmer, more like mid 90s shaq vs lakers shaq where he got massive.
Bogus list. Duncan at #7 is absurd. He had all the help and nothing he did was extraordinary. Yea call me a hater. Hakeem was much better.
We did though. It's a common argument about Dream, but the stats don't back it up. At all. He had this perceived lull between his first few years and the "prime" championship years because the team around him imploded, sucked, and didn't win much--not because of his play. He had a strong first 13 years during which he received MVP votes for 12 of them. That seems like a decently long prime to me. His scoring average ranged from 20.6 to 27.9 during those seasons. 9 seasons as a Top 10 scorer. Only one of those years (96-97) saw rebounds fall below 10 per game with him leading the NBA during his "non-prime" years of 88-89 and 89-90. He played in 12 of the 13 All-Star games during this stretch, missing 1991 due to injuries. He made 8 All-Defensive teams (should have been 13, but media bias during our down years). Seven seasons finishing in the Top 10 for steals. 11 straight years finishing in the Top 3 for blocks per game, 9 years with more than 3 blocks per game, and leading the NBA for three of those seasons. Five straight seasons starting in 86-87 with the highest defensive rating in the NBA. Again, his "non-prime" years. Then there were the playoffs. For example, in a "non-prime" year (87-88) where his crap team lost in 4 during the first round, he put up 37 points, 17 rebounds, and 3 blocks per game. Dream was a force from his rookie year on.
Alrighty, so for those that don't think Hakeem is top 5. How would you rank the top 5-10 supporting casts throughout their career, including coaching? How many years did each have a HOF or all star teammate, all defensive etc. Mt. Rushmore coaches etc. {a big one is how did they fare the years they had no all star teammate?} How would you rank the top 10 in defensive impact only? Lastly, how would you rank their level of competition in their eras? Rather than confirmation bias, after really answering those questions be open to changing your mind and ranking. Look to find the truth and not to be proven right. FYI, I thought Wilt, Russell etc. were better than Hakeem in my younger casual days, I was not expecting him to rank there and walked in with him ranked lower, until my mind changed with deeper research.
Hakeem played in an era of some of the greatest teams ever, and he torched them. Until very late in his career, he never had difference-making teammates. Magic, Duncan, etc. played with amazing teammates throughout their entire careers.
Yep. If cultural influence is a consideration, he was the modern age original. Everyone wanted to be Dr J. I first heard about him in my little East Texas town where we only got channels 2 and 11 and we tried imagine the feats we were reading about in sports magazines and what older kids were telling us. He was also the primary reason for the ABA/NBA merger--the NBA had to have Dr J. This was one of the first times we "saw" him: There's a direct lineage of cultural kings that goes Dr J to Bird and Magic to Jordan.
