Why was Hakeem getting beat in Rd 1 or missing the playoffs for so much of his prime

[FultzNationRISE]

'89 first round L
'90 first round L
'91 first round L (swept)
'92 missed the playoffs.

^ That was age 25-29. In a league with far less total talent than today. Three straight first round bounces, and a missed playoffs. In his prime.



And the same idiots who destroy players today for playoff results have the nerve to put Hakeem in their top 10

Imagine being that low IQ.

[NBAGOAT]

His team was bad. Also bit overrated by this board. He’s easily the worst playmaker among guys in the top 15. He’s just a really good shotmaker but those guys don’t elevate your offense that much unless they’re also floor spacers

[FultzNationRISE]

His team was bad. Also bit overrated by this board. He’s easily the worst playmaker among guys in the top 15. He’s just a really good shotmaker but those guys don’t elevate your offense that much unless they’re also floor spacers

Interesting.

Why are there so many low IQ people on ISH who cherry pick the good parts of Hakeem's resume to put him top 10, but for today's players they include all the shortcomings when evaluating a guy?

[NBAGOAT]

Interesting.

Why are there so many low IQ people on ISH who cherry pick the good parts of Hakeem's resume to put him top 10, but for today's players they include all the shortcomings when evaluating a guy?

You get excused when you have a team with just role players. Add on when the role guys and hakeem improved they won a title and it’s one of the few times in history a guy won with no co star

[FultzNationRISE]

You get excused when you have a team with just role players. Add on when the role guys and hakeem improved they won a title and it’s one of the few times in history a guy won with no co star

Yes, what a coincidence.

Now let's pretend that exact situation happened today. What would the narrative be?







Why do people only apply context to today's players and not for any of their precious "Nostalgia GOATs"?

[tontoz]

Black hole, didn't play well with others, settled for jumpers too often. Inconsistent player in general.

When he was motivated and his jumper was on he was unstoppable. A lot of the time one or the other was missing.

[Im Still Ballin]

I haven't done a GOAT list in years. Refresh my memory: where is Hakeem usually ranked? Around 8-12, right?

[FultzNationRISE]

I haven't done a GOAT list in years. Refresh my memory: where is Hakeem usually ranked? Around 8-12, right?

Usually ahead of Duncan, Kobe, Curry, Jokic, Durant, sometimes ahead of Shaq, and even on completely retarded occasions ahead of Lebron.

Somehow the Hakeem mystique has ensured nobody from later generations can pass him, even tho his playoff success is FAR more inconsistent than many of today's greats, despite a weaker era. And yet playoff success is the exact criterion these same people use to put Hakeem ahead of guys who had more of it.

Funny how that works.

[NBAGOAT]

Yes, what a coincidence.

Now let's pretend that exact situation happened today. What would the narrative be?







Why do people only apply context to today's players and not for any upof their precious "Nostalgia GOATs"?

Narrative be hakeem took the leap from just an all time great to one of the best peaks of all time and his team got better. That was narrative back then and now. Realgm gave him a top 5 peak I think. Current guys have also been excused for not winning with no help. Jokic 22 being a recent examine

[SouBeachTalents]

Usually ahead of Duncan, Kobe, Curry, Jokic, Durant, sometimes ahead of Shaq, and even on completely retarded occasions ahead of Lebron.

Somehow the Hakeem mystique has ensured nobody from later generations can pass him, even tho his playoff success is FAR more inconsistent than many of today's greats, despite a weaker era. And yet playoff success is the exact criterion these same people use to put Hakeem ahead of guys who had more of it.

Funny how that works.

Nah, Duncan is consistently ranked ahead of Hakeem, who's usually in the fringe top 10 range. The guy does have 2 titles, 2 FMVP's and made 3 Finals, which is worst case as good, if not better, than virtually anybody else outside the top 10. It's not just the titles, his peak during those years (and '93 too) was legitimately as dominant as any player ever, and imo it's his level of play during those years that has a lot of people putting him in the top 10, not just the titles themselves.

You really think he doesn't have a valid case to be ranked ahead of Kobe, Curry, KD, Jokic etc.?

[warriorfan]

Usually ahead of Duncan, Kobe, Curry, Jokic, Durant, sometimes ahead of Shaq, and even on completely retarded occasions ahead of Lebron.

Somehow the Hakeem mystique has ensured nobody from later generations can pass him, even tho his playoff success is FAR more inconsistent than many of today's greats, despite a weaker era. And yet playoff success is the exact criterion these same people use to put Hakeem ahead of guys who had more of it.

Funny how that works.

I don’t really see hakeem over duncan very much, that is definitely an outside opinion

To be simplistic he had an insane peak and people like to FMVP count. And he has 2x that of jokic.

[FultzNationRISE]

Nah, Duncan is usually ahead of Hakeem, who's typically in the fringe top 10 range. The guy does have 2 titles, 2 FMVP's and made 3 Finals, which is better than virtually anybody outside the top 10. It's not just the b2b titles, his peak those 2 years (and '93 too) was legitimately as dominant as any player ever, and imo it's his level of play during those years that has a people putting him in the top 10, not just the titles themselves.

You really think it's that bad he's ranked ahead of Kobe, Curry, KD, Jokic etc.?

My point is if you ask someone today to critique those players... they're going to include every failure and caveat under the sun. People yesterday were saying Jokic was eliminated from the top 10 because he had a mediocre second half to last night's game.

I have NEVER heard anyone mention Hakeem's four year playoff drought in his prime. He won two playoff GAMES in four years of his prime.

Now, is there context to that? Sure. But people dont use context when they talk about Lebron's finals record. Or they'll use context negatively when talking about KD's Golden State run.

But nobody ever says "Man, Hakeem won two playoff GAMES in four years, what's up with that." People just dont bring it up. They'll bring up how Curry's 73 win team called MVP KD from the parking lot of a finals loss to beg for help and that's how they got two more championships. But they dont talk about prime Hakeem getting swept in round 1.

You just never ever hear this aspect of Hakeem's career mentioned the way you hear every modern player's career get picked apart game by game.

[SouBeachTalents]

My point is if you ask someone today to critique those players... they're going to include every failure and caveat under the sun. People yesterday were saying Jokic was eliminated from the top 10 because he had a mediocre second half to last night's game.

I have NEVER heard anyone mention Hakeem's four year playoff drought in his prime. He won two playoff GAMES in four years of his prime.

Now, is there context to that? Sure. But people dont use context when they talk about Lebron's finals record. Or they'll use context negatively when talking about KD's Golden State run.

But nobody ever says "Man, Hakeem won two playoff GAMES in four years, what's up with that." People just dont bring it up. They'll bring up how Curry's 73 win team called MVP KD from the parking lot of a finals loss to beg for help and that's how they got two more championships. But they dont talk about prime Hakeem getting swept in round 1.

You just never ever hear this aspect of Hakeem's career mentioned the way you hear every modern player's career get picked apart game by game.

I just mentioned in another thread the shocking amount of mediocre playoff series Bird had that never get talked about, the fact is guys that came before the internet/social media age caught a huge break in that all their failures weren't documented permanently in real time for all the world to see. That's an advantage pre 2000's players will always have over those that came afterword.

[FultzNationRISE]

I don’t really see hakeem over duncan very much, that is definitely an outside opinion

To be simplistic he had an insane peak and people like to FMVP count. And he has 2x that of jokic.

Okay but it's the exact kind of thing people would completely dismiss other players from being top 10 for. "Four years with no playoff series wins in his prime, hell no."

It's literally a worse and more damning indictment than "durr, 4 for 10 in finals, he cant be da G0at!"

But nobody ever uses it. EVAAAA.

[warriorfan]

Okay but it's the exact kind of thing people would completely dismiss other players from being top 10 for. "Four years with no playoff series wins in his prime, hell no."

It's literally a worse and more damning indictment than "durr, 4 for 10 in finals, he cant be da G0at!"

But nobody ever uses it. EVAAAA.

it’s tough because i’m speaking on behalf of people but I think they consider the 2 fmvps in back to back championships erasing a lot of those early problems.

I would say the common consensus is that during those prime years you listed in the OP…his team was just not very good. Theres only so much you can do and it doesn’t help when you are running into the Lakers constantly.

Hakeem also in his second year beat the 1986 Lakers who were an all time great team