2024 76’ers: Replace Embiid w/ Peak Hakeem

[Matt15]

Replace Embiid w/ Peak Hakeem on the Sixers. How far do they go?

[tsherkin]

It's an interesting question which pivots around how you think Hakeem would look like offensively in this environment.

He was a better defender than Embiid, but a far worse playmaker and considerably less efficient on offense. Definitely nothing like him in terms of his ability to draw fouls, definitely worse at the line, definitely didn't have 3pt range. His game orbited taking and making difficult shots which the defense couldn't deny him, wherefore his resiliency into the playoffs, but he also wasn't a hyper-efficiency monster.

I think you probably get the same outcome with Olajuwon, IF the rest of Philly plays as it has, and IF you don't see significant improvement in Olajuwon's offensive performance. BUT with increased tempo, a quality scoring guard next to him, the way paint scoring is in this environment... it's possible you see Olajuwon as better than that. Indeed, in 1993, he was a 57.7% TS guy, which is nearly league average today, and that was against a league-average of 53.6%, so +4.1% rTS. If you give Olajuwon a little boost for pace and for ease of paint touch, and a bit of a 3pt shot? Remember, Olajuwon had a solid 17-footer (look at his 16-23 footer from 1997 to 1999, the beginning of the years it was tracked, and that matches the eye test), and in 93 was a 77.9% FT shooter. It isn't impossible to imagine him as a 33-35% 3pt shooter on like 2 or 3 3PA/g.

So now we're talking about maybe a 60% TS guy? 61%? And a little more resilient, a little healthier. THAT Dream would help Philly knock off the Knicks in 5 or 6.

[AEnigma]

It's an interesting question which pivots around how you think Hakeem would look like offensively in this environment.

He was a better defender than Embiid, but a far worse playmaker

Rest is fair but strongly disagree here. Feels like Hakeem gets penalised because he was not used as a team playmaker for the first half of his career, and now that coaches understand that is a great approach if your centre has the skills — which Hakeem very much did — then you see it relatively early.

But to whatever extent we can say Embiid had a better start on that front than Hakeem did, he did not take a real leap until 2022 — and it did not extend to the postseason until this year where Nurse explicitly was using Embiid as an overall offensive hub. It is not as if Embiid has great passing intuition; say just as a product of the times he has more than Hakeem did in the 1990s, okay, sure, but relative to their environments they are pretty similar on that end. As a reminder, Hakeem is the one who still has a higher player assist percentage even with all those pre-Rudy years, and Embiid did not pass him in assist rate until this series.

[tsherkin]

Rest is fair but strongly disagree here. Feels like Hakeem gets penalised because he was not used as a team playmaker for the first half of his career, and now that coaches understand that is a great approach if your centre has the skills — which Hakeem very much did — then you see it relatively early.

I think he was closer to Durant in that regard than anything else. Slower to see it but game to try it, I guess. I do agree that you need a coach to empower the big guy to actually use the skill past a given point though, no question. I don't think Embiid has "great" passing intuition, just better than Olajuwon. Same same Shaq.

[eminence]

Well, they're almost certainly the 2 seed to start based off health alone (PHI was 31-8 with Embiid in the RS). Don't see anyone at the bottom of the East challenging them in round 1. Round 2 NY seems most likely for a matchup. Obviously a very competitive series already, it was winnable for PHI. I think PHI gets it with Hakeem, with continuity a meaningful factor. Don't think they get by Boston (assuming health), but it'd be an interesting contrast in styles.

[Owly]

Feels like Hakeem gets penalised because he was not used as a team playmaker for the first half of his career,

This seems like a generous phrasing - he was not used [implied ... by coaches etc] rather than unable or not choosing - relative to my impressions ... e.g. from Barry and Cohn in '89

Olajuwon is indefensible by one man and can often handle the double-team, so that leaves the triple team. But he doesn't read it well: He has a tendency to force the shot or wait too long. For the amount of time the ball is in his hands, his 1.8 assists a game (none in the first seven games) is dreadful. He also had a miserable 3.4 turnovers a game (he'll beat his man, but defenders helping out will take it from him when he puts it on the floor). When Akeem really learns to pass, Houston will be a dangerous team. He's already an adequate outlet passer.

After that there's some sense he improves somewhat (from that low baseline) in the write-ups but for instance against big man peers in 1992 his B- passing grade from them is slightly unfavorable to that Ewing (B) and Parish (B) and even with McHale (B-).

One can disagree with the qualitative analysis, offensive stats occur within a context etc ... I don't see a clear signal or discussion of underused latent playmaking talent. And as the source notes it's not like he isn't spending time on the ball and getting to make decisions.

[tsherkin]

Feels like Hakeem gets penalised because he was not used as a team playmaker for the first half of his career,

This seems like a generous phrasing - he was not used [implied ... by coaches etc] rather than unable or not choosing - relative to my impressions ... e.g. from Barry and Cohn in '89

It is worth mentioning that he did a CONSIDERABLE amount of skill development over his first several years in the league. Like, a fairly atypical amount of development in a fashion I can personally recall seeing only from Ewing and Karl Malone in terms of bigs and their jumpers, for example. And so along the way, he's learning about passing and reading, and all that. And it's worth recalling he'd been playing ball for what, 7 years by the time he was a rookie? He was a soccer player and a late start to basketball, so it's also not that surprising that his skill development arc was delayed compared to some, especially if he wasn't an inherently intuitive guy in that context.

[AEnigma]

Unless you think Hakeem’s arc as a playmaker would have been the exact same regardless of his coaching situation and that he just so happened to abruptly develop the talent in 1992, I am not really seeing the point in highlighting what we already knew about his early habits.

[Owly]

Unless you you think Hakeem’s arc as a playmaker would have been the exact same regardless of his coaching situation and that he just so happened to abruptly develop the talent in 1992, I am not really seeing the point in highlighting what we already knew about his early habits.

I'm not sure how this relates to the original quote.

The inference is it was there and not used. There's no signal there.

I don't know why
a) anyone would assert anyone's arc as a playmaker would be "the exact same" regardless of coaching situation?
If we withheld judgement on all players because they are not exposed to all possible coaching outcomes and things would not remain the "exact same" if they were. That seems an absurdly high bar.
b) it would be required that he "just so happened to abruptly develop the talent in 1992" to say that it wasn't just coaches making the wrong choice that restrained his passing.

Perhaps the implications are that the later outcomes are the signal?

Rudy can have talked him into looking to pass more, be more alert, work on awareness (and off what a read one thing Hakeem was good at was working on his game in the offseason) given more spacing (though Bullard, Maxwell, Smith, Jamerson, Floyd, Woodson, Short weren't all reluctant outside shooters and predated the switch)

...

His first and longest coach is Fitch and so far as I can tell he
a) was a demanding coach, for better or worse
b) loved film
c) liked conventional post players (didn't like Sampson's outside stuff)
d) was broadly well respected a coach even if the taskmaster, drill sergeant player relations side stuff got a more mixed reception

I don't know about player development skills but at first glance he looks in a decent position to develop judgement, awareness and skills in the post. He's given the ball. And on the passing side he doesn't.

He's not a strong passer under Fitch and under Chaney and latterly under Wilkens ... and heck ... the last 3 years under Rudy T. I'm just not sure we can suggest that the one (longer) spell under one coach is the signal and that the output at the time in question is noise and the view at the time in question were wrong and he just "wasn't used" as a passer. I can't imagine "Hey Hakeem don't bother passing out of the triple-team" was a coaching call.

[AEnigma]

When we are talking talent, yes, I would in fact be looking at what a player has shown themselves able to do rather than what they habitually did not do. And when we see a coach who does foster and bring forth that talent, that seems a little more inherently meaningful than speculation about whether it makes sense for worse predecessors to have potentially ignored it (or more accurately not done much to draw it out).

And I similarly do not see any reason to believe that only age 29/30 Embiid could have generated the playmaking volume he did under Nurse.

[Owly]

When we are talking talent, yes, I would in fact be looking at what a player has shown themselves able to do rather than what they habitually did not do. And when we see a coach who does foster and bring forth that talent, that seems a little more inherently meaningful than speculation about whether it makes sense for worse predecessors to have potentially ignored it (or more accurately not done much to draw it out).

He didn't show any great passing aptitude in the time window.
I don't think there's any speculation in that.
I don't think BBIQ is only "talent" and that "talent" is the limited framework of the conversation.
I don't know that it's a given Rudy is a better coach than Fitch (or Wilkens in the limted sample, or that Rudy became a much worse coach for their last three years together).
I don't think anyone was "speculat[ing] whether it makes sense for worse predecessors to have potentially ignored it (or more accurately not done much to draw it out)" of course it wouldn't make sense (though that statement seems based on an assumption it was there). I have said it would make much sense to tell him not to pass when tripled teamed which is the extent of the speculation on my side. You seem to be speculating that Hakeem was both willing and able to be a playmaker ... from day one? much earlier than he did? ... and have simplified the absence of such to a coaching choice.

[AEnigma]

You are characteristically overcomplicating a simple concept. This thread is about replacing Embiid with peak Hakeem. Tsherkin called Hakeem a “far worse playmaker”. I said that sentiment seems to draw excessively from how he played before Rudy T — who was a much better offensive coach than Fitch and pertinently had a better understanding of how to build an offence around an all-time big in the absence of real perimetre talent (on which note I will say I have little interest in pretending it is a meaningful failing for 36-38-year-old Hakeem to dramatically scale back as a playmaker on a roster with Pippen/Barkley, Barkley/Francis, and peak Francis). And I also further emphasised the importance of coaching scheme on playmaking in this comparison by way of Nick Nurse giving Embiid heightened playmaking responsibilities in much the way Rudy T did for Hakeem.

If you think they both suddenly developed the talent to be lead offensive playmakers over a single offseason, then to me that would indeed speak to latent ability. And if you think they had the ability already as of some unspecified prior time, then it is even more apparently a product of schematic choices. Which brings us back to the question, exactly what part of this do you find productive.

[OhayoKD]

It's an interesting question which pivots around how you think Hakeem would look like offensively in this environment.

He was a better defender than Embiid, but a far worse playmaker and considerably less efficient on offense. Definitely nothing like him in terms of his ability to draw fouls, definitely worse at the line, definitely didn't have 3pt range. His game orbited taking and making difficult shots which the defense couldn't deny him, wherefore his resiliency into the playoffs, but he also wasn't a hyper-efficiency monster.

I think you probably get the same outcome with Olajuwon, IF the rest of Philly plays as it has, and IF you don't see significant improvement in Olajuwon's offensive performance. BUT with increased tempo, a quality scoring guard next to him, the way paint scoring is in this environment... it's possible you see Olajuwon as better than that. Indeed, in 1993, he was a 57.7% TS guy, which is nearly league average today, and that was against a league-average of 53.6%, so +4.1% rTS. If you give Olajuwon a little boost for pace and for ease of paint touch, and a bit of a 3pt shot? Remember, Olajuwon had a solid 17-footer (look at his 16-23 footer from 1997 to 1999, the beginning of the years it was tracked, and that matches the eye test), and in 93 was a 77.9% FT shooter. It isn't impossible to imagine him as a 33-35% 3pt shooter on like 2 or 3 3PA/g.

So now we're talking about maybe a 60% TS guy? 61%? And a little more resilient, a little healthier. THAT Dream would help Philly knock off the Knicks in 5 or 6.

The real question is how Hakeem's knees hold up. Sixers are probably my finals pick if Embid is close to full-healtj

[OhayoKD]

Unless you you think Hakeem’s arc as a playmaker would have been the exact same regardless of his coaching situation and that he just so happened to abruptly develop the talent in 1992, I am not really seeing the point in highlighting what we already knew about his early habits.

I'm not sure how this relates to the original quote.

The inference is it was there and not used. There's no signal there.

I don't know why
a) anyone would assert anyone's arc as a playmaker would be "the exact same" regardless of coaching situation?

Arguing against Hakeem being unfairly penalized makes little sense without that assumption. He was not optimized. You're using a bunch of bullet points but this isn't that complicated.

[Owly]

You are characteristically overcomplicating a simple concept. This thread is about replacing Embiid with peak Hakeem. Tsherkin called Hakeem a “far worse playmaker”. I said that sentiment seems to draw excessively from how he played before Rudy T — who was a much better offensive coach than Fitch and pertinently had a better understanding of how to build an offence around an all-time big in the absence of real perimetre talent (on which note I will say I have little interest in pretending it is a meaningful failing for 36-38-year-old Hakeem to dramatically scale back as a playmaker on a roster with Pippen/Barkley, Barkley/Francis, and peak Francis). And I also further emphasised the importance of coaching scheme on playmaking in this comparison by way of Nick Nurse giving Embiid heightened playmaking responsibilities in much the way Rudy T did for Hakeem.

If you think they both suddenly developed the talent to be lead offensive playmakers over a single offseason, then to me that would indeed speak to latent ability. And if you think they had the ability already as of some unspecified prior time, then it is even more apparently a product of schematic choices. Which brings us back to the question, exactly what part of this you find productive.

What was meaningful was ... what I said. Was Hakeem just not utilized or was he not good (or willing) at a thing. You asserted it solely as the former.

I argued it wasn't. You object to this.

Now you argue Hakeem "scaled back as a playmaker" playing with Pippen and Barkley as though he hadn't already played with Barkley and a wing star. You highlight well this is age 36 but you're seemingly only counting his years from age 30 so ... sure if only age 30-35 are a viable means of assessing what one can do in their twenties...

Then too "scaling back" ... this isn't subtle ... his usage is up on the previous year so it's not like he isn't getting the ball, he's got this coach.... There's a large chunk of his career where he's seeing the ball quite a bit and the superficial indicators are he isn't creating much for others.

The simplistic dual framing of "sudden development = latent ability" or "already there and unshown by scheme" ignores complexity. What of willingness? What of slow progression whilst remaining at an unremarkable level then a confluence of factors relating to scheme and circumstance and experience and willingness/motivation and greater motivation in working on improving this weakness. And why is this one spell the best read of what he could do earlier than ... what he actually did. One could just as well argue Isaiah Thomas put up a 6.7 BPM season so he could always have done so.

[lessthanjake]

Well, Hakeem probably wouldn’t have gotten injured for most of the regular season, so they’d very likely have a better seed and have a fairly simple first round matchup. From there, it probably just depends on when they’d face the Celtics.

In general, as with anyone that excels at tough but unstoppable shotmaking and is not a great playmaker, Hakeem would likely be a better offensive player the more low-efficiency an era is. In a high-efficiency offensive era like this one, his offensive value would suffer relative to the league, because the efficiency of his offense likely wouldn’t go up as much as league efficiency had. Combined with the fact that the Celtics this year are incredibly good, I just don’t see them beating the Celtics. There’s no other genuinely good team in the East this year though, and I tend to think a healthy peak Hakeem would still do better than an as-always hobbled-in-the-playoffs Embiid, so I’d give them the nod over the Knicks. Which basically means that I’d say they’d make the ECF, unless they were only the 4th or 5th seed, in which case they’d lose in the second round.

[tsherkin]

The real question is how Hakeem's knees hold up. Sixers are probably my finals pick if Embid is close to full-healtj

Not a real question?

Hakeem was generally quite healthy, 91 notwithstanding. And he certainly handled a heavier minutes load than Embiid, and was fine with his postseasons.

[Owly]

Unless you you think Hakeem’s arc as a playmaker would have been the exact same regardless of his coaching situation and that he just so happened to abruptly develop the talent in 1992, I am not really seeing the point in highlighting what we already knew about his early habits.

I'm not sure how this relates to the original quote.

The inference is it was there and not used. There's no signal there.

I don't know why
a) anyone would assert anyone's arc as a playmaker would be "the exact same" regardless of coaching situation?

Arguing against Hakeem being unfairly penalized makes little sense without that assumption. He was not optimized. You're using a bunch of bullet points but this isn't that complicated.

You cut the quote but as you say "this isn't that complicated".

If we withheld judgement on all players because they are not exposed to all possible coaching outcomes and things would not remain the "exact same" if they were. That seems an absurdly high bar.

If you are going to say because a player won't develop exactly the same regardless of coaching is a license to ignore what actually happened at the time (numerically and in terms of qualitative assessment) and arguably rewrite history ...

The reporting from the time is he's getting stripped on doubles and well ..

Olajuwon is indefensible by one man and can often handle the double-team, so that leaves the triple team. But he doesn't read it well: He has a tendency to force the shot or wait too long. For the amount of time the ball is in his hands, his 1.8 assists a game (none in the first seven games) is dreadful. He also had a miserable 3.4 turnovers a game (he'll beat his man, but defenders helping out will take it from him when he puts it on the floor). When Akeem really learns to pass, Houston will be a dangerous team. He's already an adequate outlet passer.

It's not always that bad but ... is the scheme saying "try to force the shot or wait too long".

if the passing is only there for part of the career under one coach ... and not in the sample cited...

[OhayoKD]

The real question is how Hakeem's knees hold up. Sixers are probably my finals pick if Embid is close to full-healtj

Not a real question?

Hakeem was generally quite healthy, 91 notwithstanding. And he certainly handled a heavier minutes load than Embiid, and was fine with his postseasons.

The argument would be that bigs get injured more in this iteration of the league due to covering more ground and faster pace(I think KG said that on a pod)

[tsherkin]

The argument would be that bigs get injured more in this iteration of the league due to covering more ground and faster pace(I think KG said that on a pod)

That would make sense relative to a big who was considerably less mobile than Dream... but he was already doing face-up dribble attack with spins, triple-threat drives, and was one of the most active bigs at contesting shots in space and creating deflections, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.