No it wasn't.
Your post spoke nothing, suggested nothing about needing great teammates to help you win. That wasn't the point of your post, let alone the ENTIRE point of your post. Your point was that Hakeem wouldn't be able to dominate the way he did in an era where teams used more zone. That's the reason why I responded in the first place. To what level Hakeem would have or could have dominated offensively in today's NBA would depend greatly on how good the rest of his teammates were, whether having another dominant scorer or having a good number of outside shooters. Teams started using zones or defensive schemes like zones to try to slow down Shaq. He still put up dominant numbers because he had another great scorer and the Lakers surrounded him and Kobe with shooters. Same goes with the Spurs approach to build around Duncan as well, particularly adding more shooters.
This was not the entire point of your post. Read it again.
If a player scores 24-26 points on 58% shooting from the field, it's not average, let alone below average. That's a good scoring game, arguably great. You can't compare it to his regular season averages because his regular season averages are NOT "average." His regular season averages were elite. If Jordan averaged 33 points on 50% during the regular season and he scores 28 points on 11-for-17 shooting from the field in a playoff game, you're not going to say that was a below average game for Jordan. Same with every other player. 20+ points on over 50% from the field is never an average performance. That was a ridiculous attempt to support your "average," "below average" comments. Ridiculous.
Hakeem's 1996-97 Regular season: 23.2 PPG, 9.2 RPG, 51.0% FG
Hakeem's 1997 Seattle series: 21.7 PPG, 12.3 RPG, 57.8% FG
Why would averaging a point and a half fewer points mean he was performing below average in that 1997 Seattle series? Are you being serious? Really serious? Hakeem put up a couple 30 point games in that series. And the two low scoring outputs he had, he still shot over 50% from the field, and he took fewer shots because his teammates went berzerk from three point range in those games, both wins by the way. Your logic is beyond absurd on this topic. Are you really going to try to suggest that if a player doesn't hit his scoring average from the regular season, no matter what else he does on the court, regardless of his field goal efficiency, it's a below average performance? Is that really what you want to argue?
Come on, man.