If prime Robinson and prime Duncan switched era's [Archive]

whottt

09-11-2009, 04:06 PM

The 89 team is the only one I question...because you could run the offense through Duncan almost immediately. If they are running the offense through Duncan(and provided he didn't foul out as David did IIRC) then Rod Strickland and Ellliott don't get crossed up and throw the game away. You could run the offense through Duncan by his second year...I'm not entirely sure you could do it the first.

That doesn't mean they would have gone on to beat Detroit though...Detroit would have beaten a half court post player to a bloody pulp with Lambeir and Rodman.

Other than that...I don't see any teams that any other bigman would have won a title with that David played on, because the outside shooting and perimeter game wasn't good enough.

A better question is...if young David Robinson had old Tim Duncan as a teamate...how would things have turned out then?

Anyway, when doing this comparison, there are other factors...

Would Tim Duncan have even signed with the Spurs? It's debatable.

One thing is not...if Tim Duncan had signed with the Spurs, they would have surrounded him with better talent than they did Drob...because Duncan would have made them or else he would have walked. I mean Duncan almost walked away from a Spurs team that had won a championship. David never even came close to walking untill the end of his career and his motivations for walking were entirely different than Duncan's.

David didn't put that same kind of pressure to win on the Spurs. He looked at it as his job and his job alone to win the Spurs a title. He wasn't going to ask them to give him help. And IMO the Spurs took advantage of that aspect of David and didn't do everything they could have done to build a winner around him. Duncan wasn't going to play that game with the Spurs and he made that clear right off the bat...and it's probably the #1 reason the Spurs have 4 championships now more than anything Robinson or Duncan ever did on the court.

Nathan Explosion

09-11-2009, 04:28 PM

Duncan doesn't get owned by Malone and Barkley, that's for sure.

whottt

09-11-2009, 04:33 PM

Duncan doesn't get owned by Malone

Thanks for proving you weren't a Spurfan before 2005. Was already obvious but the proof was nice.

Idiot.

Last I checked Dirk Nowitski kicks our ass....thanks for proving you never watched Barkely and Malone as well.

Idiot.

Baseline

09-11-2009, 04:36 PM

Duncan was and is capable of leading a team to the championship when he is the THE guy, as he has proved several times now. Robinson was a great player, but he's simply not in Tim's class in terms of leading a team to a title when he's the horse.

No disrespect to Robinson, who is a Top 50 player all-time.

But Tim Duncan is a Top 5 player all-time. Big difference.

Jordan
Kareem
Wilt
Magic
Tim

whottt

09-11-2009, 04:42 PM

At least David didn't get buttfucked by Dirk Nowitski and have his 2 guard draw the assignment of defending him, as the guy on his team.

I know I know...it's different then.

Go ahead...blame Manu, I fucking dare you.

Idiots.

ajh18

09-11-2009, 05:17 PM

I don't think Duncan would have won titles in the 90's. I think he may have advanced a bit farther in a few of those playoffs (with probably a worse regular season record than David got) simply because of his post game's effectiveness in the post-season.

With David in his prime on this team? I don't think we win in 2005. Tim really carried that team against the Wallaces, and I'm not sure David would have been quite so effective. That said, despite Tim's awesome performance in 2006, I think David would have beaten the Mavs because of his defensive abilities. David in his prime had the foot speed and athleticism to get up on and guard Dirk (and jump high enough to make his shots more difficult), which Tim (or anyone else we have now) simply can't do. He also would have made the Suns' life even harder, by further shutting down the lane and more than cancelling out Amare. He could guard an Amare, while not giving up any of the team defensive philosophy, far better than anyone we've had since can. Then again, we beat the Suns anyway.

Just my two cents.

Nathan Explosion

09-11-2009, 06:53 PM

Thanks for proving you weren't a Spurfan before 2005. Was already obvious but the proof was nice.

Idiot.

Last I checked Dirk Nowitski kicks our ass....thanks for proving you never watched Barkely and Malone as well.

Idiot.

David Robinson was a rookie in 1989. I was 7 years old. So when I saw I've been watching David since his first game, I mean that. I've also watched Tim since his first game.

How about not getting butt hurt every time someone mentions DRob's shortcomings. You come off like a troll every time you respond.

David doesn't carry the team in 2003 and 2005 the way Tim did (I already showed the stats to back up my theory), and Tim more than likely doesn't get owned by Hakeem, (Duncan was always a position defender who rarely left his feet on pump fakes) and have his entire career defined by one series.

Plus, I also showed that Duncan owned all in 2006 against the Mavs, on bad feet. Remember, Spurs down 3-1, Duncan brings them back, tie series 3-3, Game 7, Spurs have the lead and the win, and.........whoops Gino.

But again, I now you have a huge hard on for Dave, so any response you have can't be rational. After all, you're thinking with the wrong head, so to speak.

kingmalaki

09-11-2009, 06:56 PM

I don't see Duncan winning anything on Dave's teams (not enough supporting talent for most of them, and I don't see him stopping Hakeem in 95 either), but I also don't see Robinson leading any of Duncan's teams anywhere.

kingmalaki

09-11-2009, 06:59 PM

Thanks for proving you weren't a Spurfan before 2005. Was already obvious but the proof was nice.

Idiot.

Last I checked Dirk Nowitski kicks our ass....thanks for proving you never watched Barkely and Malone as well.

Idiot.

Duncan got owned by Dirk one series (I guess you can say that.....the Spurs still advance if not for Manu's dumb foul), but I have also seen Duncan get the better of a superb big in the postseason. When did Robinson ever do this?

whottt

09-11-2009, 07:03 PM

David Robinson was a rookie in 1989. I was 7 years old. So when I saw I've been watching David since his first game, I mean that. I've also watched Tim since his first game.

How about not getting butt hurt every time someone mentions DRob's shortcomings. You come off like a troll every time you respond.

Yeah? Well you come off like a fucking idiot saying at least Duncan wasn't owned by Karl Malone, considering Duncan never beat him in the playoffs.

Fucking lying piece of shit. Duncan is 0-2 againstg Karl Malone. Including 0-1 as a defending champ. And don't you dare bring up teamates...because that was year David Robinson left. And Duncan had a proven championship side kick playing along side.

Furthermore, Duncan has not beaten Dirk Nowiski in the post since David Robinson retired.

David doesn't carry the team in 2003 and 2005 the way Tim did (I already showed the stats to back up my theory), and Tim more than likely doesn't get owned by Hakeem, (Duncan was always a position defender who rarely left his feet on pump fakes) and have his entire career defined by one series.

Duncan cannot guard Amare Stoudemire or Dirk Nowtiski and you think he was going to shut fuckihng Hakeem Olajuwon down?

You are the stupidest fucking idot I haver ever met in my life.

Plus, I also showed that Duncan owned all in 2006 against the Mavs, on bad feet. Remember, Spurs down 3-1, Duncan brings them back, tie series 3-3, Game 7, Spurs have the lead and the win, and.........whoops Gino.

No no no...you go fuck youself. Teamates don't matter remember?

And you consider Manu Ginobili a liability and valid reason for not winning, when he fucking beat Duncan and a team of All Stars in the Olympics? But not Avery Johnson and Vinney Del Negro.

You stupid, ignorant motherfucker.

But again, I now you have a huge hard on for Dave, so any response you have can't be rational. After all, you're thinking with the wrong head, so to speak.

Actually you chickenshit piece of shit...the reason you get so much hostility is because you act like David had everything he needed to win a championship yet immediately go the teamates card when you get your own ignorance stuck up your ass.

You're a fucking idiot, and you bring down the intelligence level of the board.

Even worse, you throw David Robinson under a bus, just make Duncan look better, which is something he doesn't even needl, which makes you not only an idiot, but a piece of shit as well.

FOAD. Your take is a dime a dozen, it's stupid, you contradict yourserlf immediately when presented with even a rudimentary counterpoint, and you are too fucking stupud to even realize it.

Furthermore, you consider Manu Ginobili a reason the Spurs didn't win and David Robinson a reason Vinny Del Negro didn't win.

You don't know shiit. You are a fucking moron.

whottt

09-11-2009, 07:12 PM

In 2001: So why did the Spurs just lose to the Lakers by the worst margin in NBA WCF history in 2001, including Duncan geting held to 9 points in a game. Why did the double and triple teams render Duncan so ineffctive the Spurs were forced to turn to a 36 year old David Robinson who could barely walk, and was being defnded by Shaq to carry the offense?

Nathan E: Duncan didn't feel like stepping up.

It had nothing to do with the fact that not a single perimeter player could shut Kobe down or knock down a shot? Which is pretty much what happened to David Robinson every year due to the fact the had a PG who made 1 playoff 3 pointer in a 19 year career and a 2 guard who could not defend Bruce Bowen, and would have been a back up on any other team in the NBA?

Nathan E: Oh yeah well when you put it like that yeah. It definitely wasn't Duncan's fault. It was everyone elses. Plus Duncan just didn't feel like stepping up. He preferred to sit there on the sideline and cry...because he just didn't feel like stepping up.

In 2003:

Nathan E: Spurs won the championshiop because Ducnan felt like stepping up.

Fucking moron.

DPG21920

09-11-2009, 07:14 PM

:wow I have not seen Whottt this pissed ever. Whottt honestly loves Drob and I cannot blame the guy. I tell you what, I will never argue Robinson (not that I could ever say anything bad about the man) with Whottt.

Barry on the other hand is fair game....

whottt

09-11-2009, 07:40 PM

Duncan got owned by Dirk one series (I guess you can say that.....the Spurs still advance if not for Manu's dumb foul)

Uh...Dirk's gotten him twice now. Karl Malone got him twice.

Amare Stoudemire dropped nearly 40 point a game on Duncan a couple of years ago.

So what you are saying is because Duncan had a team that could win a game where he scored 5 points means he is better because David played on teams that couldn't win games when he scored 30 points?

but I have also seen Duncan get the better of a superb big in the postseason. When did Robinson ever do this?

Hey fucking idiot...

Avery Johnson made 1 playoff 3 pointer in 19 fucking years, that was an extra defender he had to contend with...that was John Stockton, being free to elbow him in the balls in every series they ever played.

You show me...one other player since the merger, that carried a team to the playoffs, much less to the conference finals, that David Robinson wasn't on...that had a PG that made 1 fucking playoff 3 pointer in a 19 year career.

To put this in perspective...in Tony Parker's first game as a 19 year old rookie, against a HOF point guard, named the Glove, he tripled the figure Avery Johnson put up in his entire career.

Let me spell it out for you one more time

AJ in 19 years, in 90 playoffs games:

1-26 3pm-3pa

Tony Parker in his first playoff game, against Gary fucking Payton, at the age of 19

1 game:

3-3 3pm-3pa

And Tony's not even supposed to be able to shoot.

You guys that make these arguments are just too fucking stupid to understand what a double team is, what enables them to be done to players, and what it takes to beat them.

That first year Hakeem won a title...he played for a team that set the NBA single season record for 3 pointers made.

It mattered...it wasn't just that Hakeem felt like stepping up.

Dipshits, why don't ya'll go look at the numbers David put up in the post seasion, when he had PG's that had some semblance of a perimeter threat..

And by the way...David Robinson was never swept in a series in his prime. That is not true of Hakeem, or Duncan, or Shaq, or Kareem, or Wilt.

And with the exception of the loss to GS, the teams David lost to were either teams that would at some point make the finals, to lose to perenneial champions like the Pistons or Bulls, and featured multiple HOF'ers on them, or at some point won a championship.

EricB

09-11-2009, 08:01 PM

EricB

09-11-2009, 08:04 PM

Duncan got owned by Dirk one series (I guess you can say that.....the Spurs still advance if not for Manu's dumb foul), but I have also seen Duncan get the better of a superb big in the postseason. When did Robinson ever do this?

Dikembe Mutombo in 1995 ring a bell?

Cry Havoc

09-11-2009, 08:12 PM

Duncan doesn't get owned by Malone and Barkley, that's for sure.

http://www.forumspile.com/STFU-Stop_Posting.jpg

http://firasd.org/wp/wp-content/uploads/2007/04/stop-posting.jpg

http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/thumb/2/26/STOP_POSTING.gif/120px-STOP_POSTING.gif

http://media.photobucket.com/image/stop%20posting/BBBJustin/Forums/stop_posting.jpg

Biggems

09-11-2009, 08:19 PM

We win at least 5 straight titles with Robinson.....possibly 7.

Look how awesome we were with crap coaching and no real talent around David for most of his career....

Now with Manu, Parker, Bowen, Horry, Bones, Jax, Kerr, etc.....We own.

RuffnReadyOzStyle

09-11-2009, 08:21 PM

There is no apostrophe in "eras".

And yes, I am on apostrophe rampage this morning! :lmao

whottt

09-11-2009, 08:23 PM

I notice you don't cover the bullshit "malone and Barkley" thing.

Just so you can be forewarned, you are now talking to a man that thinks they could have plugged any old scrub in to defend Shaq during the Spurs first two championships. It's like, not even important to him. Defending Shaq is just, nothing, any team can do it. Besides, Duncan was feeling it those two years....

When Jaren Jackson nuked the Lakers? Was because Tim Duncan was feeling it that season.

That 19 points in a quarter and OT against Detroit in game 5 of the NBA finals by Robert Horry?

Duncan
Feeling
It
100%.

Steve Kerr? Mavs?

Duncan feeling it. The reason Kerr was in the game was not because no one else could hit a shot, it was because Duncan wasn't feeling it. Kerr was put into the game so Duncan would again, feel it.

Stephen Jackson bombing all those shots in the 2003 run?

Yeap. Duncan, feeling it.

S'really what it's all about. Duncan either feels it or he doesn't.

Olympics, with LeBron and Wade and AI and Kidd, gainst Manu?

Not feeling it. Not that year. Spent the off season practicing with the Olympic Squad, gave up his summer....fucked himself up for the following season, being humiliated on a world stage, and trashed(along with the Dream Team) by his fellow citizen, just because it seemed like it would be fun. He did not want to win Olympic Gold that year....

Because...
He
Did
Not
Feel
It

then.

TD 21

09-11-2009, 08:39 PM

There is such a thing as making your case for one player over the other without desperately trying to demean the other. It seems to me that all you're doing is propping up Robinson by trying to downplay Duncan's greatness. We all know about the times that role players stepped up; guess what? That's what happens on championship teams. The supposedly greatest player of all-time had guys like Paxson in the '93 Finals and Kerr in the '97 Finals there to make big shots. You can list similar examples with any all-time great, because, after all, basketball is a team game. The ultimate team game, and nobody wins a damn thing on their own.

But Duncan, he came about as close to doing that as one can get in '03. I understand and don't underestimate the job Robinson did guarding O'Neal, or the importance of Parker, Ginobili, Bowen, Jackson, Rose, and Claxton, but let's get real here: what Duncan did in '03 is unmatched -- save for probably Olajuwon in '94 -- in recent NBA history.

By the way, Duncan's line in game 4 against the Lakers in '99 to close down the Forum: 33 points, 14 rebounds, 4 assists, 11-14 fg's. You can point to the Kerr moment in the '03 West Finals all you want, but just remember the type of numbers Duncan was throwing up in that series, as well as in the '06 West Semis against the Mavs.

Biggems

09-11-2009, 08:45 PM

scanry

09-11-2009, 08:47 PM

whottt

09-11-2009, 08:51 PM

There is no apostrophe in "eras".

And yes, I am on apostrophe rampage this morning! :lmao

Why in the hell don't you an Alamo ever get down in the trenches and get bloody with me?

Who gives a crap if David would want it or not...it's about the truth.

Pretend these guys I am arguing with are timvp and the commisioner of Dleague 1 :tu

Get dirty.

TD 21

09-11-2009, 08:55 PM

Duncan was hit with some poor luck....

2004.......the shot

2006.....plantar fascia

2008.....Manu injured, Pop wouldnt play Barry more

We could have and should have won 5, possibly 6 consecutive NBA titles.

Right, and why was this the case? Mainly because of Duncan. Ginobili, and Parker, as good as they've been, particularly in Ginobili's case from '05-present, and Parker's '07-present, at least in terms of the playoffs, they're not full fledged superstars. Were the Spurs more talented than the Pistons, Suns, or Mavericks? Individually, no. Look at that '07 team. Knock the competition all you want, but 16-4, while remarkable in itself, for a team starting two sub par offensive players (Oberto, Bowen), and two players who shouldn't have been starting (Finley, at that point in his career; Oberto was never true starting caliber), is truly mind-boggling.

whottt

09-11-2009, 08:56 PM

Some people are taking this too darn personnel. D Rob was and still is loved by the Spurs community, so why the trash talk.

I can't believe someone can actually belittle Duncan to make D Rob look better? :nope The Spurs are blessed to have had D Rob and Duncan represent San Antonio.

And I can't believe Spur fans shit on David Robinson...

More importantly, what I am saying is the truth, and what they are saying is not. I am not speaking from ignorance and lack of insight, and they are.

They start it, they start the ugliness...they start the Spur on Spur violence.

Don't whine like a bitch just because I can get uglier...

Anytime David Robinson is belittled to make Duncan look better I am going to stick it up their ass until they fucking bleed.

And I will outdo them in visciousness, ugliness and shittyness every fucking time.

So you guys either stop being stupid enough to insinuate David Robinson was in any way the reason we didn't win championships, in a stupid effort to get Duncan credit he already gets...or else it's ugliness.

Don't say David Robinson was the reason the Spurs didn't win a championship, don't even fucking think it. Idiots.

TD 21

09-11-2009, 09:03 PM

And I can't believe Spur fans shit on David Robinson...

More importantly, what I am saying is the truth, and what they are saying is not. I am not speaking from ignorance and lack of insight, and they are.

They start it, they start the ugliness...they start the Spur on Spur violence.

Don't whine like a bitch just because I can get uglier...

Anytime David Robinson is belittled to make Duncan look better I am going to stick it up their ass until they fucking bleed.

And I will outdo them in visciousness, ugliness and shittyness every fucking time.

So you guys either stop being stupid enough to insinuate David Robinson was in any way the reason we didn't win championships, in a stupid effort to get Duncan credit he already gets...or else it's ugliness.

Don't say David Robinson was the reason the Spurs didn't win a championship, don't even fucking think it. Idiots.

So you can't believe that Spurs fans supposedly "shit on" Robinson, but you'll do the same, ten times worse, to Duncan? The same guy that damn near unanimously is considered a greater player than Robinson was. That doesn't make sense.

EricB

09-11-2009, 09:04 PM

99 Drob was more of a centerpiece of winning that ring that Duncan.

2003 it was just because he had nothing left but again, they don't get by the Lakers NOR the Nets without Robinson.

EricB

09-11-2009, 09:05 PM

So you can't believe that Spurs fans supposedly "shit on" Robinson, but you'll do the same, ten times worse, to Duncan? The same guy that damn near unanimously is considered a greater player than Robinson was. That doesn't make sense.

Look retard he's shitting on Duncan because fuckwads that jumped on the bandwagon in 2004 don't give Robinson his fucking due.

Keep up the great fight Whottt.

TD 21

09-11-2009, 09:08 PM

99 Drob was more of a centerpiece of winning that ring that Duncan.

2003 it was just because he had nothing left but again, they don't get by the Lakers NOR the Nets without Robinson.

Duncan clearly was the centerpiece, obviously you're just being biased, and nostalgic at this point.

Now the truth comes out; you're just unwilling, for whatever reason, to acknowledge Duncan's greatness. Maybe because you think it takes away from Robinson's greatness? Whatever the case, obviously no team ever get's past any team, particularly elite team, without myriad contributors. But Duncan's '03 performance ranks amongst the top handful in the history of the game.

TD 21

09-11-2009, 09:11 PM

Look retard he's shitting on Duncan because fuckwads that jumped on the bandwagon in 2004 don't give Robinson his fucking due.

Keep up the great fight Whottt.

Another ignorant piece of shit. I guess if you don't have 5 million posts then your opinion is not respected around here. Just because we're all not a bunch of old men getting all nostalgic about the "good 'ol days", doesn't mean we don't understand, and appreciate the impact Robinson had on this franchise. But shitting on Duncan, an even greater player, is not the answer. It's downright childish.

EricB

09-11-2009, 09:11 PM

Duncan clearly was the centerpiece, obviously you're just being biased, and nostalgic at this point.

Now the truth comes out; you're just unwilling, for whatever reason, to acknowledge Duncan's greatness. Maybe because you think it takes away from Robinson's greatness? Whatever the case, obviously no team ever get's past any team, particularly elite team, without myriad contributors. But Duncan's '03 performance ranks amongst the top handful in the history of the game.

Fuck off.

Tim Duncan is the greatest power forward to ever play the game.

Duncan was NOT clearly the centerpiece in 99, nostalgic my ass.

ajh18

09-11-2009, 09:12 PM

There is such a thing as making your case for one player over the other without desperately trying to demean the other. It seems to me that all you're doing is propping up Robinson by trying to downplay Duncan's greatness. We all know about the times that role players stepped up; guess what? That's what happens on championship teams. The supposedly greatest player of all-time had guys like Paxson in the '93 Finals and Kerr in the '97 Finals there to make big shots. You can list similar examples with any all-time great, because, after all, basketball is a team game. The ultimate team game, and nobody wins a damn thing on their own.

This is why I believe the only major difference between how the Spurs would perform is based on matchups. I think that on the teams of our current decade, David in his prime makes us match up much better with the Mavs and the Suns, mostly due to his superior man-on-man defense, especially when guarding quicker players like Amare and Dirk.

I believe that having Duncan, however, gave us the advantage against the Pistons in '05, and that we might have struggled more against some of the teams we beat really easily like the Jazz and Nuggets if David is there instead.

Ironically, I agree with a post I read in another thread. You take Manu, Parker, and Bowen, and put them on the mid-90's Spurs with David? I think we beat not just the rockets and jazz, I think we take out the bulls and win 2 or 3 titles at a minimum.

whottt

09-11-2009, 09:12 PM

So you can't believe that Spurs fans supposedly "shit on" Robinson, but you'll do the same, ten times worse, to Duncan? The same guy that damn near unanimously is considered a greater player than Robinson was. That doesn't make sense.

Oh but you see...what I say is the total truth, Duncan wasn't good enough to do it by himself....not at any point did he do so.

I am sorry if that doesn't jibe with your stupid perception of the game...but it is true nontheless.

You guys OTOH are saying David Robinson wasn't good enough to do it with a team capable of doing it.

And that is absolutely not the truth whatsoever. David Robinson was good enough to win a championship, from the very day he stepped on the court, to the day he walked off of it. And not a single time that they failed to do so, was it ever his fault.

It makes total sense to me...I am a misanthropic individual pretty much at odds with the world and the mindless stupidity of human beings, I just need a deserving outlet...and idiots serve that purpose. If you guys are going to be bunch of stupid fucking morons that crap on the guy that saved the franchise, something Duncan probably would not have done had the situation been reversed....you aren't much of a Spurfan.

I know what a lot of people say...a lot of people also used to say the earth was flat.

I don't care if you guys think Duncan is better than Drob, I do not care if you guys think he is the greatest player ever....

But when you say David Robinson couldn't get it done...you are being a shithead and a fucking moron. And he did get it done, he did everything in his power, even taking a role beyond the notice of idiots, just like he promised he would when he signed his contract with SA.

EricB

09-11-2009, 09:12 PM

Another ignorant piece of shit. I guess if you don't have 5 million posts then your opinion is not respected around here. Just because we're all not a bunch of old men getting all nostalgic about the "good 'ol days", doesn't mean we don't understand, and appreciate the impact Robinson had on this franchise. But shitting on Duncan, an even greater player, is not the answer. It's downright childish.

Ah the old "just because I dont have a billion posts doesn't mean I'm an idiot"

No one said anything about post count oor anything like that, were talking about fuckwads tearing down David Robinson so that the Altar to Tim Duncan isn't shadowed at all.

TD 21

09-11-2009, 09:18 PM

Oh but you see...what I say is the total truth, Duncan wasn't good enough to do it by himself....not at any point did he do so.

I am sorry if that doesn't jibe with your stupid perception of the game...but it is true nontheless.

You guys OTOH are saying David Robinson wasn't good enough to do it with a team capable of doing it.

And that is absolutely not the truth whatsoever. David Robinson was good enough to win a championship, from the very day he stepped on the court, to the day he walked off of it. And not a single time that they failed to do so, was it ever his fault.

It makes total sense to me...I am a misanthropic individual pretty much at odds with the world and the mindless stupidity of human beings, I just need a deserving outlet...and idiots serve that purpose. If you guys are going to be bunch of stupid fucking morons that crap on the guy that saved the franchise, something Duncan probably would not have done had the situation been reversed....you aren't much of a Spurfan.

I know what a lot of people say...a lot of people also used to say the earth was flat.

I don't care if you guys think Duncan is better than Drob, I do not care if you guys think he is the greatest player ever....

But when you say David Robinson couldn't get it done...you are being a shithead and a fucking moron. And he did get it done, he did everything in his power, even taking a role beyond the notice of idiots, just like he promised he would when he signed his contract with SA.

To you and EricB, that's fine what you're doing, but attempting to demean, and downplay Duncan's greatness in the process is retarded. They both have contributed a great deal to the franchise you cheer for.

EricB, I may be new here, but I've been around enough message boards to know how people like you act on them. You're clearly the type that disregards anyone who's not a veteran member.

Whottt, I never said Robinson wasn't good enough to be 'the guy' on a championship team (although he never accomplished the feat, no matter how you two choose to remember '99), so don't lump me in with others. Like I said, of course Duncan didn't "do it alone" in '03, but he came about as close as you can, particularly as a big man.

whottt

09-11-2009, 09:28 PM

The only thing I'm saying about Duncan is that he didn't do it by himself, and giving examples....oh how mean can I be?

Meanwhile you guys are saying David couldn't get it done on a team capable of it, as if he was somehow part of the problem...the only one belittling anyone is you.

Just because I'm being vulgar doesn't mean I'm belittling Duncan. He wasn't good enough to get it done by himself...neither was David, neither was any other player in NBA history. The POV that it is otherwise is both fucked and wrong.

whottt

09-11-2009, 09:30 PM

The way I look at it...any Spurfan that sounds like a RocketFan...is a RocketFan. I don't care who they say their favorite player is.

HarlemHeat37

09-11-2009, 09:31 PM

I love David, but a lot of you really aren't being realists here..there's really no way we do better with Robinson ahead of Duncan, even if he's more versatile defensively against a guy like Dirk..

Duncan wasn't the reason we lost vs. Dallas, he CLEARLY outplayed Dirk..he did all he could..it was a fluke series where Manu made a horrible mistake..if he doesn't, then nobody remembers Dirk's performances, or the Mavs in general..

David Robinson is severely underrated by non-Spurs fans, partly due to the series vs. Hakeem, and partly due to his personality..he never had the proper supporting cast around him..he was clearly an athletic freak, and he's one of the best 15 players to ever play..shit, he's probably the most underrated of the entire bunch..there's something realists won't deny though, and that's the fact that David had a lot of disappointing performances in the playoffs, partly due to his mentality and style, although some of it has to do with the support..

Excluding the last 2 seasons of his career(it would be unfair to him to include them), David's PPG dropped by 1.7 from season to playoffs, and his FG% dropped by a whole 5%, which is pretty bad for a player of his caliber..

Duncan has been the opposite..he has kept his FG% steady from season to playoffs, which is impressive in itself, but he's also raised every one of his statistical categories in the playoffs..

As for the support, Timmy clearly has had more, and it's been a big reason for our success..but he's already proven himself as a guy that can carry an entire franchise..Duncan in 2003 was only the 3rd player in the NBA's history to lead a team to a title while leading the team in PPG, RPG, APG, and BPG, joining Hakeem and Bill Walton..so quoting moments from 2003 is silly..

NZ Spurs

09-11-2009, 09:36 PM

Get over it. Duncan is better than Robinson.

RuffnReadyOzStyle

09-11-2009, 09:41 PM

Why in the hell don't you an Alamo ever get down in the trenches and get bloody with me?

Who gives a crap if David would want it or not...it's about the truth.

Pretend these guys I am arguing with are timvp and the commisioner of Dleague 1 :tu

Get dirty.

Sorry mate, I'm not in a debating mood right now, I'm all chilled out.

I'll read this thread later and get to it for you though.

Don't worry, I'll be back with my full, fire-breathing persona come the season. :D

As for David's legacy, I think 48MoH pretty much nailed it:

http://www.48minutesofhell.com/2009/09/11/david-robinson-was-a-fine-role-player/

He carried mediocre Spurs teams for a decade. He was a physical and statistical marvel who was far better than he is remembered because of only one fact - he never won a championship alone (he also never had teammates like TP or Manu). Most important of all, he single-handedly kept the Spurs in SA, and he shaped the culture of this franchise, which in turn led to the explosion in success this decade.

Oh, and none of that is in any way detracting from Timmy.

whottt

09-11-2009, 09:44 PM

Whottt, I never said Robinson wasn't good enough to be 'the guy' on a championship team (although he never accomplished the feat, no matter how you two choose to remember '99), so don't lump me in with others. Like I said, of course Duncan didn't "do it alone" in '03, but he came about as close as you can, particularly as a big man.

Crock of shit...the 2003 team was the best Spurs Team of them all, are you fucking kidding me?

3 Hall of Famers
3 Olympic Championships
About 20 All NBA Teams
About 18 All NBA Defensive Teams
Best 3 point shooter in NBA history, single season, and a carreer.
About 6 NBA 3 point shooting titles.
3 or 4 rebounding titles.
Blocked Shots Title.
Scoring Title.
Olympic MVP
Finals MVP

And none of those are including Tim Duncan.

I can't believe you guys think Duncan didn't have help on that team. That was one of the best basketball teams ever assembled.

It is the only basketball team in history to defeat a 3 time defending champion with it's core intact(meaning it's superstars were healthy).

It is the only team in NBA history to do that...and that doesn't even include the 60 win team they beat(that they haven't beat since), or the returning conference finalist.

You guys are morons if you think that was a scrub team...David Robinson right now would be better than any guy to line up at C since...and don't say he wasn't servicable, non-servicable players aren't the guys being asked to defend Shaq and actually left in by Pop to do it, and holding him scoreless when they are guy defending him in at least one of those games.

senorglory

09-11-2009, 09:44 PM

1) There's no NBA team in San Antonio without Robinson.
2) There's no Duncan as we know him without Robinson.
3) There's no successful formulaic franchise model to follow without Robinson.

EricB

09-11-2009, 09:47 PM

1) There's no NBA team in San Antonio without Robinson.
2) There's no Duncan as we know him without Robinson.
3) There's no successful formulaic franchise model to follow without Robinson.

Bravo.

whottt

09-11-2009, 09:52 PM

..so quoting moments from 2003 is silly..

As I said...and this is to you NZ Spur, I don't care if you guys think Duncan is better, it's that whole "Drob wasn't good enough" line that gets shit going.

I'll bring up 2003 all day long...

Matter of fact I'll bring it up right now.

We won. Yay.

How come we didn't win in 2004? We got rid of those old scrubs like Drob and Kerr that Duncan was basically forced to carry past the Lakers, Nets and Mavs...

So what happened in 2004? We reloaded, got a good young C...got Hedo. Manu and Parker were better.

How come we couldn't beat the Lakers? 0.4 wasn't the shot that eliminated us.

wekko368

09-11-2009, 09:55 PM

whottt

09-11-2009, 10:07 PM

You can't gauge a roster by past and future accomplishments. You have to look at their merits during the year in question.

On the 2003 Spurs roster, there was only 1 HOF caliber player (Duncan). Robinson was very far removed from his dominance in the mid 90's, and Ginobili hadn't come close to being the player he is today.

Nontheless......I can look right then and there see fucking Robinson was the guy guarding Shaq and that was Steve Kerr(and Stephen Jackson) pulling our asses out of the fire...and that was Tony Parker lighting Kidd's ass up in the finals to where Jason Kidd was pulled off of him....9 time ALL NBA D Jason Kidd was pulled off of Tony Parker. I used to have the quote by him in my sig...

What did you to differently to defend Tony Parker?

Kidd(laughing): I started defending someone else.

Tim Duncan had nothing to do with that. That was all Tony Parker there.

EricB

09-11-2009, 10:11 PM

Nontheless......I can look right then and there see fucking Robinson was the guy guarding Shaq and that was Steve Kerr(and Stephen Jackson) pulling our asses out of the fire...and that was Tony Parker lighting Kidd's ass up in the finals to where Jason Kidd was pulled off of him....9 time ALL NBA D Jason Kidd was pulled off of Tony Parker. I used to have the quote by him in my sig...

What did you to differently to defend Tony Parker?

Kidd(laughing): I started defending someone else.

Tim Duncan had nothing to do with that. That was all Tony Parker there.

God thats a whole new point of contention with Tony Parker and how he "choked" in that Finals...

whottt

09-11-2009, 10:15 PM

You can't gauge a roster by past and future accomplishments. You have to look at their merits during the year in question.

On the 2003 Spurs roster, there was only 1 HOF caliber player (Duncan). Robinson was very far removed from his dominance in the mid 90's, and Ginobili hadn't come close to being the player he is today.

And that's wasn't Duncan that dropped 27 points on Kobe's ass in game 2either.

You guys are fucking insane...there is absolutely no way you guys watched any playoffs before 2003. Kobe destroyed us, we would not have ever beaten the Lakers without Bruce Bowen and David Robinson to defend Kobe and Shaq.

You are guys are outta your fucking trees if you think we would have.

And no, there was no one that could defend Kobe like Bowen and Shaq like Drob(not even then).

Admiral

09-11-2009, 10:18 PM

I am sure both David and Tim would have done well if their eras were switched, because they are such versatile and complete players. We have been very blessed to have both as cornerstones of our franchise, and the fact that their careers overlapped by several seasons was a real treat.

What is sometimes frustrating, though, is to see fans - especially Spurs fans - fail to recognize what a great player David was. I love the fact that he is such a great guy, and I admire the fact that he let Tim be the go-to guy on offense starting in 1999, but unfortunately some people remember those things at the exclusion of David's basketball skills, and that is a real shame.

David really could play, and is one of the best centers ever. He dominated during a time when there were some great centers playing (much better than today!). I wish everyone recognized that - especially Spurs fans.

whottt

09-11-2009, 10:21 PM

I'll tell you what really pisses me off...I've noticed, the same guys that think Duncan did it all by himself are the first ones to come in here and start ripping him when he's having a subpar playoffs(and prior to last season, that was always because he was being doubled and no one was breaking the doubles off).

whottt

09-11-2009, 10:37 PM

It's like you guys think that Duncan being the best player on the 2003 team is some kind of insight.

When it's more like a no shit. Duncan has been the best player on the Spurs since he was drafted(although Parker is pushing him bigtime)...but don't sit here and fucking tell me he played the same hand David did.

Don't tell me the talent surrounding David was equal.
Don't tell me the coaching was equal.
Don't tell me the organization was equal.

Don't tell me David Robinson was the reason the Spurs didn't win a championship.

And don't wave those rings in David's face...without him, not only would we not have those rings, we wouldn't have a fucking team.

Fucking Asshats.

EricB

09-11-2009, 10:43 PM

wekko368

09-11-2009, 11:11 PM

You can't gauge a roster by past and future accomplishments. You have to look at their merits during the year in question.

On the 2003 Spurs roster, there was only 1 HOF caliber player (Duncan). Robinson was very far removed from his dominance in the mid 90's, and Ginobili hadn't come close to being the player he is today.

And that's wasn't Duncan that dropped 27 points on Kobe's ass in game 2either.

You guys are fucking insane...there is absolutely no way you guys watched any playoffs before 2003. Kobe destroyed us, we would not have ever beaten the Lakers without Bruce Bowen and David Robinson to defend Kobe and Shaq.

You are guys are outta your fucking trees if you think we would have.

And no, there was no one that could defend Kobe like Bowen and Shaq like Drob(not even then).

Calm down. We all know what happened that series. I was simply pointing out a glaring error in your logic.

Admiral

09-11-2009, 11:49 PM

One of the best posters of all time makes a rare appearance.

Good to see you admiral :toast

He's as always 100% right..

Good to see you too, EricB AKA T Park num 9. :hat

Today has been a great day. :toast

Duncan2177

09-12-2009, 01:52 AM

whottt

09-12-2009, 01:58 AM

Calm down. We all know what happened that series. I was simply pointing out a glaring error in your logic.

There is no error in my logic. Tim Duncan had a hell of a lot better supporting casts than David did, and the one you are calling the weakest, is by far the strongest. And not just because of Tim Duncan...see 2001 and 2002 if you are still confused about this.

wekko368

09-12-2009, 02:06 AM

There is no error in my logic. Tim Duncan had a hell of a lot better supporting casts than David did, and the one you are calling the weakest, is by far the strongest. And not just because of Tim Duncan...see 2001 and 2002 if you are still confused about this.

Whatever man. Anyone can scroll up and see that you refer to Tony Parker, Ginobili, and Robinson as a HOF supporting cast on the 2003 Spurs. The error in your logic is that you cannot judge a player by perceived future accomplishments.

J.T.

09-12-2009, 02:06 AM

Go ahead...blame Manu, I fucking dare you.

I'm not blaming him but if I ever meet Ginobili outside an NBA-sanctioned event, I'm going to ask him to give me a refund for the tickets I bought to that game.

MaNuMaNiAc

09-12-2009, 02:23 AM

:lol been a while since I've read a thread this entertaining.

MaNuMaNiAc

09-12-2009, 02:23 AM

I'm not blaming him but if I ever meet Ginobili outside an NBA-sanctioned event, I'm going to ask him to give me a refund for the tickets I bought to that game.

yeah, I bet you would :rolleyes

whottt

09-12-2009, 02:24 AM

I'm not blaming him but if I ever meet Ginobili outside an NBA-sanctioned event, I'm going to ask him to give me a refund for the tickets I bought to that game.

The point I am making is that these guys say Robinson couldn't get it done, ignoring factors like his PG's lack of outside shot meant he had aa extra defender in every series they played together...

I don't want to hear about Manu's foul when Strickland's no-look pass to the goal post and Elliott being out of positon in 89 counts as David not being good enough to it done...

That's bullshit. Anyone can apply different standards to different players and make excuses for their guy and refuse to make similar ones for other players.

That's exactly what these fucktards are doing it..and the fact that stupid posters like that get smackdowns(allowed by the Admins) on ST is why it is the best sports board on the net. If it was full of posters like them...it wouldn't be. It'd be another board full of idiots.

Fact.

BTW, sup JT?

Vito Corleone

09-12-2009, 03:15 AM

My opinion is that we win a title in Duncan's first year, that year we were better than the Pistons and Blazers and easily could have beaten both of them. However, we never would have won anything else after that.

You see winning starts with ownership and back then we didn't have a owner committed to winning like we do now.

Not to mention once Larry Brown left San Antonio didn't have another good head coach until Pop took over. David and Tim might have carried us to another championship in 99 and maybe in 2003 but the fact is David was not the type of Player to run your offense through like Tim was so he probably couldn't have carried us like Tim did in 2005 and 2007.

whottt

09-12-2009, 03:56 AM

holcs50

09-12-2009, 05:07 AM

LOL, this was the exact same thread I made when I joined, or it might've been on spursreport before I realized ST was better. Anyways, this question has been asked plenty of times, and it's a tough question because it's putting different times together and different teams and saying WHAT IF.

I decided to stop reading after whottts rants because though I tend to agree on the DR side for this argument there's no need for that shit, settle the f down, geez-us. It's a legitimate question, one no one will know. I would say if TD would've gone back and started in 89 he would've done similar to the drob teams-there just wasn't enough there to do much with imho.

Now if you put a rookie DR in at 97 with say a TD at 32 or so and I think the crew completely constructed the same since 97 would have more than 4. Just my personal opinion, but TD has benefited from teams overwhelmingly better than robinson had. I think the lakers battles would've been a lot closer-and more fun because we could really see shaq-robby in prime on big time stages, instead of an old robby vs shaq. Robby vs shaq battles from 92-96 were epic, and very even. I think roles reversed we win 04 and the fish shot is insignificant.

kingmalaki

09-12-2009, 09:34 AM

Dikembe Mutombo in 1995 ring a bell?

Mutombo is not a elite big. He is an elite defender but not someone you have to even guard on the other end. He isn't a lock to make the HOF and if he does get in it may be due to his off the court efforts combined with what he did on the court.

Malone, Barkley and Hakeem all got the better of Robinson in the playoffs. He never came out ahead in these playoff matchups. His prime nutrider keeps blaming his teammates, as if that has something to do with him letting Hakeem shit on him or him putting up 11 pts in back to back games against Malone, or Barkley hitting winning J's in his eye.

David didn't have the greatest teammates, but they were good enough to get to the postseason with. Their play dipped in the postseason, but so did his. Whott fails to acknowledge that and yet blames everyone else. Robinson advances in 95 if he can stop his man from dropping 40 a night.

JamStone

09-12-2009, 09:44 AM

I think perhaps some people are taking the topic a little too personally. I don't think it was the OP's intent (I could be wrong) to try to start a war between Duncan fans and Robinson fans. It was a simple question requiring a simple answer.

Take away the 1999 and 2003 titles where both were on the team, how many titles would the Spurs have won from 1987-97 with Duncan in his prime instead of Robinson and how many titles would the Spurs have won from 2003-09 with Robinson in his prime?

I think the answer is probably zero for both parts of the question, although there's a chance that Duncan and the Spurs might have been able to outplay one of those Houston Rockets teams in 1994 or 1995. So, best case scenario, maybe 1 title for Duncan in the 1987-97 stretch during Jordan's title runs. I don't think Robinson would have led to any post 2003 titles if he were the one in his prime, and moreover, the absence of Duncan may have allowed that Shaq-Kobe Lakers squad to stay together for a much longer stretch of titles. But, again, without Duncan in the league, there's a chance that David Robinson and the Spurs find a way to get past a Shaq team and win a title somewhere especially assuming that both Tony Parker and Manu Ginobili contribute and ultimately develop the same way as players, so the answer is similarly "maybe" 1 title during that stretch, maybe 2005 again when Shaq and Kobe would have likely soured once again after perhaps 5 straight titles.

Das Texan

09-12-2009, 10:41 AM

Good to see you too, EricB AKA T Park num 9. :hat

Today has been a great day. :toast

Yesterday was a great day Admiral

Glad to see you make a rare appearance around here. Be good my friend.

Extra Stout

09-12-2009, 10:52 AM

Let's take the year David Robinson won the scoring championship, scored 71 points in a game, and recorded a triple double. Here was his supporting cast:

Point Guards: Sleepy Floyd, Negele Knight, Chris Whitney
Shooting Guards: Vinny Del Negro, Willie Anderson, Lloyd Daniels
Small Forwards: Dale Ellis
Power Forwards: Dennis Rodman, Antoine Carr, J.R. Reid, Terry Cummings (post-ACL tear)
Centers: Jack Haley

Take David Robinson away and that is a 15-67 basketball team. Those Spurs with Robinson went 55-27.

Cry Havoc

09-12-2009, 11:37 AM

I think perhaps some people are taking the topic a little too personally. I don't think it was the OP's intent (I could be wrong) to try to start a war between Duncan fans and Robinson fans. It was a simple question requiring a simple answer.

The problem is that the (mostly younger) Spurs fans feel the need to say how great Duncan is, to the extent that they completely disregard the contributions David made.

We have arguably two of the best post players in the history of the NBA in San Antonio. Why Spurs fans feel the need to establish a hierarchy between them and say that one was incapable of winning on his own instead of just appreciating both is beyond me.

Something about modern sports has made fans (again, especially younger fans) take up the "what have you done for me lately" idea to the extreme. It's kind of sad to see.

Killakobe81

09-12-2009, 12:11 PM

I love watching Spurs fan argue David was the better athlete but duncan the better player and leader iMHO bot are great but Robinson was no Hakeem or Duncan ...no disgrace in that he and EWing are the two best big men since 1980 not named Kareem, Hakeem Duncan or Shaq (in that order) he is top 5 no doubt ...

Killakobe81

09-12-2009, 12:24 PM

I could see Duncan being a difference on the 89 team...but David did get a post game eventually.

Flipping it around...Amare and Nash wouldn't be shit compared to a Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili and David Robinson fast break. That would be insane.

And those great fast break teams that have big men that can defend...those are the great dynasties in NBA history. That's what the 60's Celtics were. That's the what the 80's Lakers were.

David Robinson wouldn't just be finishing the break either, he'd be leading it sometimes, just like he did then on teams with Avery Johnson and Rocket Rod Strickland.

And I've give my left nut to have Manu on any team David was on. Get fucking serious.

Did you guys see what he did to a team of NBA All Stars with a group most of whom had never stepped foot on an NBA court at that time?

You guys just need to realize that Manu Ginobili and Tony Parker will both one day be in the HOF. David having either of them would have made a huge difference, because he never had a perimeter scoree that could take over a game. Ever. He only had an inside player that could do it(TC) for 2 years or so.

Understand where you are coing from but some problems with your logic.
1. TP is no HOF lock he has a chance no doubt but speed guys have steep declines ...and Parker will have more miles than most ...Manu is a lock because of his international greatness ...
2. I agree Drob did not have equal talent but he did have HCA and lost much like many on here criticize the Mavs cavs or Pistons of recent years and lost.
3. And Im not a fan of woulda coulda shoulda ...Robinson is much like Elway two great players HOF'ers but they could not lead their team without another player leading the way. Elway finally won when TDavis was the best back in football Robinson won when duncan was the best big man those are the facts ...everything else is hypothetical

Example: Many felt Kobe needed to win last year to validate his greatness. I didnt think so as you said Kobe killed the Spurs Bowen at least slowed him some ...but Kobe helped shaq win much like Robinson helped Duncan David was Duncan's Scotty. Difference is Kobe has now won as the man without Shaq (Wade was the man in Miami) and Duncan won without David that is why Duncan is better ...

MI21

09-12-2009, 12:31 PM

In my humble opinion, for what it is worth, David Robinson was every bit the player the Tim Duncan is, and more.

The type of defense D-Rob played, Timmy can only dream of. Dave put up ridiculous scoring numbers with great efficiency without ever developing a consistent go to post move (his only weakness). He faced incredible competition at his position, always defended the oppositions best bigman and dealt with constant double teams.

If you give David Robinson an all-star PG, the best perimeter defender role player SF in the NBA, an all-star caliber 6MOY SG and an all time great defensive coach, I think you may have seen some better results in the 90's.

For example, give 1994/1995 D-Rob this lineup...

PG - Kevin Johnson
SG - Latrell Spreewell
SF - Derrick McKey
PF - insert average older veteran player
C - David Robinson

Coach - Pat Riley

...and see what happens.

I'm not that comfortable comparing Dave to Timmy because they are my two favourite players of all time, but the homer in me will always favour Dave.

I just think Daves place in history would look a lot different if he had a decent supporting cast all those years. Taking nothing away from Timmy, who is looking like being at worst, a top 12 player of all time, but I think at a minimum Dave would be looked at in a similar way if he had a bit of help in his prime.

bigbendbruisebrother

09-12-2009, 12:44 PM

If you switched them, I doubt much would change. The problem with the pre-Duncan Spurs was that they never had consitent second or third options who could go apeshit when Dave got double teamed (ala Manu, Tony, Jax, etc). Terry Cummings was old. Sean Elliott didn't really come into his own until he beefed up (after Timmy arrived). Willie Anderson, David Wingate and Rod Strickland were about as clutch as the Dallas Mavericks. Vinnie couldn't guard his own nutsack. It's amazing to me now that the Spurs managed to be as good as they were in the 90's prior to Tim's arrival.

The question nagging in the back of my mind is, are we in for another decade like the 80's after Timmy retires? Will we have to be cellar dwellars again in order to rebuild?

Shaolin-Style

09-12-2009, 04:07 PM

Interestingly I think if you gave them both different eras they'd outperform each other in each of them. I'd think Tim would have done just a little bit better but not much more. Still wouldn't have made the finals. And I think Dave would've had more success than Duncan in this era with the weakness at the C position.

Phenomanul

09-12-2009, 05:38 PM

whottt

09-12-2009, 06:31 PM

Understand where you are coing from but some problems with your logic.
1. TP is no HOF lock he has a chance no doubt but speed guys have steep declines ...and Parker will have more miles than most.

Well we can argue about whether not Tony is actually a HOF talent, and will remain one...but without a doubt he's going to be in the HOF.

Forget about talent and stats, it's that he's already started on 3 NBA championshop teams, made a few all star games, won a finals MVP. That stuff counts just as much as stats do.

Championships are huge plus to HOF eligibility.

There is a actually a debate on whether or not Robert Horry belongs in the HOF, and whether you think he does or does not, the fact remains it is actually being debated. And it's entirely on the basis of his 7 championship rings.

Check out the HOF monitor at basketball reference sometime, the formula they use is based on everyone admitted to the HOF and titles weigh heavily, it's a no-brainer Parker is going to be a HOF'er according to their formula..

And that formula doesn't even take into accout the fact that he is an international player, the greatest player produced by France. The biggest basketball star in France, the most well known player from France.

He'll absolutely be in the HOF. So will Manu. They may not be first ballot HOF'ers but their international origins and accomplishments combined with their notoriety from winning multiple championships, added to the NBA's desire to be a global game...makes them shoo-ins. Unless some Argentine and French players come along to surpass them, and even if they do, Parker and Manu can still claim to be the originals, the barrier breakers.

They're both HOF'ers...if you look at them as a typical player they obviously don't have the NBA stats, but they aren't typical players, they are both the greatest players produced by their respective countries, and they are champions.

Admiral

09-12-2009, 06:55 PM

David didn't have the greatest teammates, but they were good enough to get to the postseason with...Robinson advances in 95 if he can stop his man from dropping 40 a night.

Superstars like David can take teams with crappy supporting casts and get them to the playoffs, but those teams are never able to win a title. That is precisely the difference between the DRob era in the 1990s and the Duncan era in the 2000s. David put up some ridiculous numbers (easily more ridiculous than Duncan's), but because his supporting casts were far inferior it didn't matter. Tim has had some memorable playoff performances, which were made possible by having a great supporting cast that other teams had to worry about.

Since you seem to be having trouble understanding this concept, you can use the 1995 Western Conference Finals as an example. Hakeem Olajuwon played great, but his performance would not have been enough had the Rockets not had Clyde Drexler, Robert Horry, Sam Cassell, Kenny Smith, etc. Those guys opened up so much for Hakeem. They even gave Hakeem the luxury of never having to guard David one-on-one that series. As you know, David did not have that luxury when trying to guard Hakeem.

TD 21

09-12-2009, 06:58 PM

Crock of shit...the 2003 team was the best Spurs Team of them all, are you fucking kidding me?

3 Hall of Famers
3 Olympic Championships
About 20 All NBA Teams
About 18 All NBA Defensive Teams
Best 3 point shooter in NBA history, single season, and a carreer.
About 6 NBA 3 point shooting titles.
3 or 4 rebounding titles.
Blocked Shots Title.
Scoring Title.
Olympic MVP
Finals MVP

And none of those are including Tim Duncan.

I can't believe you guys think Duncan didn't have help on that team. That was one of the best basketball teams ever assembled.

It is the only basketball team in history to defeat a 3 time defending champion with it's core intact(meaning it's superstars were healthy).

It is the only team in NBA history to do that...and that doesn't even include the 60 win team they beat(that they haven't beat since), or the returning conference finalist.

You guys are morons if you think that was a scrub team...David Robinson right now would be better than any guy to line up at C since...and don't say he wasn't servicable, non-servicable players aren't the guys being asked to defend Shaq and actually left in by Pop to do it, and holding him scoreless when they are guy defending him in at least one of those games.

You're calling others on being new fans? Did you just look at the impressive collection of names from the '03 team, and decide it was one of the greatest of all-time?

The truth of the matter is:

Robinson was on his last legs
Bowen was a sub-par offensive player still building his reputation as the best perimeter defensive player in the game
Parker, while talented, was a 20 year old 2nd year point guard who struggled mightily at times
Ginobili, again, while talented, and an established international star, was an NBA rookie still adapting to the NBA game, and being a role player
Jackson was a minimum free agent signing, and a mostly unproven player trying to establish himself in the league
Rose, as solid as he was a both ends of the court, was a mere role player
Claxton, was an injury prone runt, who was also an unestablished player at that point

In conclusion, that team lacked a certifiable 2nd All-Star, a true star-superstar caliber creator on the perimeter, and was mostly filled with past their prime vets (Robinson, Willis, Kerr, Smith, Ferry), or talented, yet erratic young players (Parker, Ginobili, Jackson).

Just look at their playoff record of 16-8. It took Duncan putting up historical numbers (24.7 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 5.3 apg, .529 fg pct, 42.5 mpg, also accounting for 5.98 win shares, the most in a single playoff since that stat has been recorded), and one of the all-time great defenses to overcome their shortcomings.

Anyone pulling the "look at Robinson's regular season stats" argument is a damn fool. Sure, Duncan's never blocked 4.49 shots per game in a season, but guess what? No one does nowadays. Howard led the league last year at 2.92 blocks per game. The game has evolved, and become more perimeter oriented. That being said, as we've seen before, when he had to carry the team and put up monster numbers, Duncan was more than capable of doing so. If he was selfish, he easily could have had another one or two MVP's (and probably should have anyway, in addition to the multiple DPoY awards he should have won).

whottt

09-12-2009, 07:02 PM

Hakeem's performance would not have been as great if the Spurs coach had a clue how to defend in the post season. He should have his butt kicked for expecting the guy to carry the offensive load to also be the primary defender on Hakeem. Rodman, who would go on to defend Shaq at times for the Bulls, hardly got anywhere near Hakeem.

Take a look a Bob Hill's coaching record...dude never had anything close to a winning season other than the 2 years he coached Drob. John Lucas is similar. Bob Hill coached offense, not defense, and that series was lost because of the Spurs D and coach who did not have a clue about it's importance.

THe Rockets didn't ask Hakeem to stop David all by himself, much like the Spurs have never asked Duncan to stop anyone all by himself, the Spurs did basically ask that of David, and what double teams they utilized were ineffective, because it was Hakeem, and because their coach had no clue.

whottt

09-12-2009, 07:05 PM

You're calling others on being new fans? Did you just look at the impressive collection of names from the '03 team, and decide it was one of the greatest of all-time?

The truth of the matter is:

Robinson was on his last legs
Bowen was a sub-par offensive player still building his reputation as the best perimeter defensive player in the game
Parker, while talented, was a 20 year old 2nd year point guard who struggled mightily at times
Ginobili, again, while talented, and an established international star, was an NBA rookie still adapting to the NBA game, and being a role player
Jackson was a minimum free agent signing, and a mostly unproven player trying to establish himself in the league
Rose, as solid as he was a both ends of the court, was a mere role player
Claxton, was an injury prone runt, who was also an unestablished player at that point

In conclusion, that team lacked a certifiable 2nd All-Star, a true star-superstar caliber creator on the perimeter, and was mostly filled with past their prime vets (Robinson, Willis, Kerr, Smith, Ferry), or talented, yet erratic young players (Parker, Ginobili, Jackson).

Just look at their playoff record of 16-8. It took Duncan putting up historical numbers (24.7 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 5.3 apg, .529 fg pct, 42.5 mpg, also accounting for 5.98 win shares, the most in a single playoff since that stat has been recorded), and one of the all-time great defenses to overcome their shortcomings.

Anyone pulling the "look at Robinson's regular season stats" argument is a damn fool. Sure, Duncan's never blocked 4.49 shots per game in a season, but guess what? No one does nowadays. Howard led the league last year at 2.92 blocks per game. The game has evolved, and become more perimeter oriented. That being said, as we've seen before, when he had to carry the team and put up monster numbers, Duncan was more than capable of doing so. If he was selfish, he easily could have had another one or two MVP's (and probably should have anyway, in addition to the multiple DPoY awards he should have won).

I'm not going to argue with you about it...I certainly knew that team was going to win a championship where others had failed, I called it on SpursReprt and here at this forum, I even sent Manu a PM contralating him on winning it, in December, and it had absolutely nothing to do with Duncan playing any better than he had the previous two years, which was already championship level,, at least according to the double teams he was pulling against LA, and that prediction was based entirely on the supporting cast, the majority of it being Manu's play making ability.

That team wasn't the worst Spur Team, it was the best. It's certainly the only one I had no doubts about.

whottt

09-12-2009, 07:09 PM

Coaching RecordGlossary ▪ CSV ▪ PRE
Season Age Lg Tm G W L W-L% W > .500 Finish G Plyf W Plyf L Plyf W-L% Plyf Notes
1986-87 NBA NYK 66 20 46 .303 -13.0 4
1990-91 NBA IND 57 32 25 .561 3.5 5 5 2 3 .400
1991-92 NBA IND 82 40 42 .488 -1.0 4 3 0 3 .000
1992-93 NBA IND 82 41 41 .500 0.0 5 4 1 3 .250
1994-95 NBA SAS 82 62 20 .756 21.0 1 15 9 6 .600
1995-96 NBA SAS 82 59 23 .720 18.0 1 10 5 5 .500
1996-97 NBA SAS 18 3 15 .167 -6.0 6
2005-06 NBA SEA 52 22 30 .423 -4.0 3
2006-07 NBA SEA 82 31 51 .378 -10.0 5
Career NBA 603 310 293 .514 8.5 37 17 20 .459

Bob Hill's coaching record...the only two winning seasons of his career were the two he coached David.

This ignorant fuckstick had David guarding Hakeem by himself and carrying the scoring load. That is an idiot who is doing nothing more than riding a great player as easily proved by the fact that he hasn't done shit before or since.

whottt

09-12-2009, 07:14 PM

John Lucas' coaching record, again, the only winning seasons he had, were the two he coached David:

Coaching RecordGlossary ▪ CSV ▪ PRE
Season Age Lg Tm G W L W-L% W > .500 Finish G Plyf W Plyf L Plyf W-L% Plyf Notes
1992-93 39 NBA SAS 61 39 22 .639 8.5 2 10 5 5 .500
1993-94 40 NBA SAS 82 55 27 .671 14.0 2 4 1 3 .250
1994-95 41 NBA PHI 82 24 58 .293 -17.0 6
1995-96 42 NBA PHI 82 18 64 .220 -23.0 7
2001-02 48 NBA CLE 82 29 53 .354 -12.0 7
2002-03 49 NBA CLE 42 8 34 .190 -13.0 8
Career NBA 431 173 258 .401 -42.5 14 6 8 .429

And he'd never been a coach before that first year he took over in mid-season.

On year, David had 3 coaches in one season, and his team still won 49 games.

HNe did this with crap coaches, and guards who would were cut and waived , and made 1 3 pointer in 19 year 90 playoff game careers, and would not have started for 99% of the teams in the NBA.

AJ was waived by the Rockets., they didn't even make the playoffs the year he played for them.

How good did he do this shit?

He never missed the playoffs, never finished lower than second place in his division...Magic, Bird and Dr.J are the only other players to make that claim...now, I want you to go look at who their fucking teamates and coaches were when they did it.

whottt

09-12-2009, 07:30 PM

David meets Hakeem...Hakeem is the defending champ, he's got Clyde fucking Drexler on his team, a 2 guard that considered the only close to a rival of Jordan, and who had taken Portland to 2 Finals.

David has Vinny Del Negro. A guy who came from Europe when he couldn't hack in the NBA, and who would never start on any team David Robinson wasn't on. At least David had him as a 2 guard this time around, instead of having to use him as PG as he had the year before, when he won 53 games and a scoring title.

Hakeem...he's got Robert Horry. Who would go on to win 5 other fucking rings, playing 3 different positons, and who is actually considered by some to be HOF'er.

David did have Rodman, a DPOY, who also won 5 titles, only Rodman didn't guard anyone in that series, nor he can knock down a clutch 3.

We'll go ahead and call that one a push...what the hell.

Hakeem has got Kenny Smith. The only player to ever be invited to be in a dunk contest and 3 point contest, in the same All Star Game. A guy who lead the Rockets on an 18 game winning steak with Hakeem out due to injury.

He's also got Mario Elie, a guy who would go on to forever alter the chemistry of the Spurs with his toughness, as he won a championship with them.

He's also got Sam Cassell, who actually scored 30 points off the bench in game 5 of this series, which actually beats the career playoff high of both of David's guards...who closed out just about every must win game during the Rockets 2 titles, and would go on to win another title with the Boston Celtics.

Horry - 5 other rings
Cassell - 1 other ring
Elie - 1 other ring
Drexler - 2 other Finals appearances, as the best player on his team. He was also on the Dream Team, and is one of the NBA's 50 greatest players.

David had a starting PG that could not hold down the 3rd string PG spot on the Rockets and was waived by them.

David had Elliott...who made two AS games, but was the guy who was out of position in 89 against Portland costing us a game 7.

He had the Rifleman, who was the only guy that acutally played good enough to win that series.

But either way...Drexler, and his 2 finals appearances without Hakeem, Elie with his one other ring, Cassell with his...

Fuck anyone that says Hakeem beat David with the worse team. You are either an unconscionable liar, or a complete idiot. Either way...you are seriously fucking up the clarity of reality. Stop being the dulling, dimming, gray fog.

TD 21

09-12-2009, 07:34 PM

I'm not going to argue with you about it...I certainly knew that team was going to win a championship where others had failed, I called it on SpursReprt and here at this forum, I even sent Manu a PM contralating him on winning it, in December, and it had absolutely nothing to do with Duncan playing any better than he had the previous two years, which was already championship level,, at least according to the double teams he was pulling against LA, and that prediction was based entirely on the supporting cast, the majority of it being Manu's play making ability.

That team wasn't the worst Spur Team, it was the best. It's certainly the only one I had no doubts about.

Because you know you're wrong. You had no doubts about the Spurs going through the 3-time defending champions, who happened to have arguably 2 of the 3 best players in the game? They were one of the biggest obstacles in league history. Duncan's game went to another level that season. The Spurs even conceded that it had become his team that season, as far as the leadership was concerned. He was bar none the best player in the game, and if not for his historical performance, and a historical defense, that team wouldn't have won the championship. They had good depth, but as I just broke down in detail, it was basically a team without a reliable 2nd scoring option, and no All-Stars on the perimeter. How many teams win championships like that?

whottt

09-12-2009, 07:36 PM

Because you know you're wrong. You had no doubts about the Spurs going through the 3-time defending champions, who happened to have arguably 2 of the 3 best players in the game? They were one of the biggest obstacles in league history. Duncan's game went to another level that season. The Spurs even conceded that it had become his team that season, as far as the leadership was concerned. He was bar none the best player in the game, and if not for his historical performance, and a historical defense, that team wouldn't have won the championship. They had good depth, but as I just broke down in detail, it was basically a team without a reliable 2nd scoring option, and no All-Stars on the perimeter. How many teams win championships like that?

No dickbreath...it's that you're clearly an idiot who doesn't know shit. You think it was the worst team? By all means...go through life believing that. I hope you do. It's what you deserve.

You are a complete fucking idiot if you think that was the worst Spurs team. You also weren't here that season to see my predictions...that is your fucking problem, not mine.

Sounds to me like you were too stupid to see how good it was then, and you still are now. I can't help that you were too stupid to see it and remain so even after the fact.

You are stupid.
It's your problem.
Not mine.
I am not going to argue with you about it.

TD 21

09-12-2009, 08:01 PM

No dickbreath...it's that you're clearly an idiot who doesn't know shit. You think it was the worst team? By all means...go through life believing that. I hope you do. It's what you deserve.

You are a complete fucking idiot if you think that was the worst Spurs team. You also weren't here that season to see my predictions...that is your fucking problem, not mine.

Sounds to me like you were too stupid to see how good it was then, and you still are now. I can't help that you were too stupid to see it and remain so even after the fact.

You are stupid.
It's your problem.
Not mine.
I am not going to argue with you about it.

dickbreathe? What are you, 12? You're all on Robinson's jock about his admiral career, and character (while desperately trying to pass him off as better than Duncan), yet your posts are filled with vulgar, violent, childish language. Good job, hypocrite.

I never called the '03 the "worst team" retard, learn to read, don't just make things up to suit your side of the argument. What I said was they weren't one of the greatest teams of all-time like you're passing them off as. Had they mostly individually been in their prime at once, absolutely, but they weren't. Duncan, Rose, and Claxton, were the only three guys playing at or near their absolute peak.

I don't give a flying fuck what your predictions were, that doesn't mean shit. They were in the mix to begin with, so congratulations genius on picking them. You really went outside the box with that one. The arrogance of you internet wannabe tough guys with 5 million posts is unbelievable.

That was a very good, not great, flawed team, that won by having one of the 8 best players of all-time playing at his peak, by having solid depth, and by playing defense like their lives were on the line.

You're not going to argue (even though you are) because you know full well you're wrong, just like you passing off Robinson as being the "centerpiece" in '99 is wrong. I don't know or care what it is you have against Duncan, but your hatred towards him clouds your judgment.

whottt

09-12-2009, 08:05 PM

dickbreathe? What are you, 12? You're all on Robinson's jock about his admiral career, and character (while desperately trying to pass him off as better than Duncan), yet your posts are filled with vulgar, violent, childish language. Good job, hypocrite.

I never called the '03 the "worst team" retard, learn to read, don't just make things up to suit your side of the argument. What I said was they weren't one of the greatest teams of all-time like you're passing them off as. Had they mostly individually been in their prime at once, absolutely, but they weren't. Duncan, Rose, and Claxton, were the only three guys playing at or near their absolute peak.

I don't give a flying fuck what your predictions were, that doesn't mean shit. They were in the mix to begin with, so congratulations genius on picking them. You really went outside the box with that one. The arrogance of you punks with 5 million posts is unbelievable.

That was a very good, not great, flawed team, that won by having one of the 8 best players of all-time playing at his peak, by having solid depth, and by playing defense like their lives were on the line.

You're not going to argue (even though you are) because you know full well you're wrong, just like you passing off Robinson as being the "centerpiece" in '99 is wrong. I don't know or care what it is you have against Duncan, but your hatred towards him clouds your judgment.

I thought I told you to shut up?

Not interested. Go post at some place without posters who have 5 million posts...what the fuck are you doing here if it bothers you so much?

You are not needed. Especially based on your basketball takes. Disappear and see which one of us is right...

You are on ignore btw. Might as well just accept it. And it's not because you make great arguments, I love great arguments, ask anyone that has seen some of my 5 million posts, but rather it's because you are frustratingly and annoyingly ignorant with ignorant perceptions.

Goodbye.

TD 21

09-12-2009, 08:13 PM

I thought I told you to shut up?

Not interested. Go post at some place without posters who have 5 million posts...what the fuck are you doing here if it bothers you so much?

You are not needed. Especially based on your basketball takes. Disappear and see which one of us is right...

You are on ignore btw. Might as well just accept it. And it's not because you make great arguments, I love great arguments, ask anyone that has seen some of my 5 million posts, but rather it's because you are frustratingly and annoyingly ignorant with ignorant perceptions.

Goodbye.

You are the epitome of what I'm talking about.

I don't care what you're interested in. You don't want to argue (and concede in the process), then do what you say you will, and stop. It doesn't bother me, I don't care what number you have, it's just that you're typical of someone with a high post count on a message board.

Whatever you say. I can't expect you to see things clearly though with your head permanently lodged in Robinson's ass.

whottt

09-12-2009, 08:24 PM

You are the epitome of what I'm talking about.

I don't care what you're interested in. You don't want to argue (and concede in the process), then do what you say you will, and stop. It doesn't bother me, I don't care what number you have, it's just that you're typical of someone with a high post count on a message board.

Whatever you say. I can't expect you to see things clearly though with your head permanently lodged in Robinson's ass.

Says the guy with the TD21 username. You are stupid if you don't realize how great that 2003 Spurs team was. It is the best Spurs championship team, the one that would beat all the others. It's also the only one you could claim had a legitimate chance of dethroning the other dynasties in NBA history(the Jordan Bulls and the Russell Celticts), because it actually did dethrone a dynasty, and it is the only team in history that can truly make that claim. And no matter what you fucking think...Duncan was only guarding one guy, and he wasn't the one pulling double teams off of him by knocking down open threes.

You are actually insulting Duncan far more than I am...because when you give him the credit in the manner in which you do, you are implying that he wasn't as good or good enough in those other seasons.

Me? I think Tim Duncan has been good enough to be the best player on a championship team, every year of his career. I do not think he has ever been the reason we have failed to win.

And I think the exact same thing of David Robinson, except I know one thing, David did what he did, on worse teams, with worse coaches, against the greatest groups of bigmen in NBA history.

And you, and other idiots that in any way intimate that David Robinson was the reason those Spurs teams didn't.....you aren't even a Spur fan. You're a Duncan bandwagoner...that's exactly what you are.

GFY.

wekko368

09-12-2009, 08:30 PM

Hakeem's performance would not have been as great if the Spurs coach had a clue how to defend in the post season. He should have his butt kicked for expecting the guy to carry the offensive load to also be the primary defender on Hakeem. Rodman, who would go on to defend Shaq at times for the Bulls, hardly got anywhere near Hakeem.

Olajuwon would've averaged 50 ppg that series if Rodman had to guard him. Rodman's physical defense would've hindered Shaq, but Olajuwon would've just shot over him every trip down the court with either his jump hook or his fadeaway. Robinson was the logical choice to guard Olajuwon due to his athleticism, height, and length.

THe Rockets didn't ask Hakeem to stop David all by himself

Had Rodman proven himself to be an offensive threat, Olajuwon would've guarded Robinson by himself. Don't forget, he did it the prior year against Ewing.

BTW, when people refute your contentions and you resort to name-calling, you look both ignorant and childish.

whottt

09-12-2009, 08:40 PM

Olajuwon would've averaged 50 ppg that series if Rodman had to guard him.

Maybe...but since average over 30 anyway, perhaps the Spurs would have been served by having their DPOY defend someone who could be stopped, and let Rodman see if he can get into Hakeem's head.

Had you ever watched a basketball game, you would have seen Rodman was able to be effective far beyond his size due to his willingness to be underhanded and use dirty tactics...you would have seen him doing it against Shaq when the Bulls played.

Rodman's physical defense would've hindered Shaq, but Olajuwon would've just shot over him every trip down the court with either his jump hook or his fadeaway. Robinson was the logical choice to guard Olajuwon due to his athleticism, height, and length.

No he wasn't...because Hakeem was going off. That means it was completely stupid to waste him.

You are so fucking stupid it isn't even funny...you would not last 2 second as NBA coach...and you probably wouldn't be as successful as Bob Hill was...who probably would never be that stupid again.

Had Rodman proven himself to be an offensive threat, Olajuwon would've guarded Robinson by himself. Don't forget, he did it the prior year against Ewing.

Patrick Ewing is not David Robinson...

Patrick Ewing is not the guy that as 600 more FTA than Hakeem, in 4 fewer seasons.

BTW, when people refute your contentions and you resort to name-calling, you look both ignorant and childish.

You guys don't refute shit...you brandish stupidity like it is a congressional medal of honor, I call you stupid because you are so and you lack insight and understanding of the game. You are also hopelessly biased in your opinion and your bias influences your argument...my bias is because of the research I did in forming my opinion. I formed my opinion, then came my bias, you had your bias first. And I know for a fact many of the points I am presenting to you in this argument are the first time you have ever been presented with them...while there is not a thing you nor anyone else have said yet that I haven't researched and looked at before in prior arguments.

It's what a great deal of my 5 million posts have been dedicated too. Ask anyone.

IOW, don't let the fact that I find your arguments tedious confuse you and lead you to believe they are in any way challenging or mentally stimulating.

For they absolutely are not.

I am sorry, but saying, you can't count x...is fucking stupid and doesn't refute shit.

TD 21

09-12-2009, 08:43 PM

Says the guy with the TD21 username. You are stupid if you don't realize how great that 2003 Spurs team was. It is the best Spurs championship team, the one that would beat all the others. It's also the only one you could claim had a legitimate chance of dethroning the other dynasties in NBA history(the Jordan Bulls and the Russell Celticts), because it actually did dethrone a dynasty, and it is the only team in history that can truly make that claim. And no matter what you fucking think...Duncan was only guarding one guy, and he wasn't the one pulling double teams off of him by knocking down open threes.

You are actually insulting Duncan far more than I am...because when you give him the credit in the manner in which you do, you are implying that he wasn't as good or good enough in those other seasons.

Me? I think Tim Duncan has been good enough to be the best player on a championship team, every year of his career. I do not think he has ever been the reason we have failed to win.

And I think the exact same thing of David Robinson, except I know one thing, David did what he did, on worse teams, with worse coaches, against the greatest groups of bigmen in NBA history.

And you, and other idiots that in any way intimate that David Robinson was the reason those Spurs teams didn't.....you aren't even a Spur fan. You're a Duncan bandwagoner...that's exactly what you are.

GFY.

Username is irrelevant. I'm only stating fact (except for calling him one of the 8 greatest players of all-time, that's obviously an opinion). You're saying completely irrational things, like Robinson was the "centerpiece" of the '99 team. That '03 team never had a chance to play against any other dynasty though, so what type of thinking is that? Nobody can say for sure what would have happened had they faced Russell's Celtics, Magic/Abdul-Jabbar's Lakers, or Bird's Celtics, because they never had the chance; just like the '99, '05, and '07 teams. This comment proves that you know very little about the game. Duncan wasn't the one draining the open three's, but he was the reason all those players received the open three's. You can always find players to make open three's, but finding big's like Duncan is a little more difficult.

No, I'm not. Obviously you lack basic reading comprehension. What I said was that it was his best season from start to finish, and that his game, overall, went to another level that season. Since then, because of the emergence of Ginobili, and Parker, he hasn't had to carry quite as big a load offensively.

I agree, but that's obvious, because Duncan has been that 4 times, and it conceivably could have been 6.

Find me a single statement where I "intimate" that Robinson was the reason that the Spurs didn't win a championship pre-Duncan. You're just flat out making things up because you're mad that I've proven how stupid you look throughout this entire thread.

By the way, I thought you weren't "arguing", and I'm on the "ignore list" (like I'd give a fuck)? You're too pathetic, and immature for that though. Predictably, you'll carry on, desperately trying to get the last word.

whottt

09-12-2009, 08:48 PM

By the way, I thought you weren't "arguing", and I'm on the "ignore list"

Hey...just because you are too stupid to understand how the ignore works doesn't mean you have "thought" something that is correct. I suggest you stop thinking altogether...because you completely fucking suck at it.

You are on ignore BTW.

(like I'd give a fuck)? You're too pathetic, and immature for that though. Predictably, you'll carry on, desperately trying to get the last word.

So does them mean you are going to fuck off? I'm ready for it when you are. I don't know about you but I find tediousness, tedious. Hurry up.

whottt

09-12-2009, 08:57 PM

TD 21

09-12-2009, 08:58 PM

Hey...just because you are too stupid to understand how the ignore works doesn't mean you have "thought" something that is correct. I suggest you stop thinking altogether...because you completely fucking suck at it.

You are on ignore BTW.

So does them mean you are going to fuck off? I'm ready for it when you are. I don't know about you but I find tediousness, tedious. Hurry up.

Congratulations, you know all of what this message board entails more than I do, and all it took you was an extra 5, 000 posts.

One argument, and you've already shown me that you know very little about basketball. As most do in these situations, you're attempting to veer off topic, or turn this into something personal to try to mask the fact that your argument has been annihilated by me. Too bad I've seen this routine too many times.

I don't know what you're talking about, but if you mean leave the message board because I don't agree with your ignorant, biased interpretation of things, then the answer is a resounding no. If you don't like that, too bad.

wekko368

09-12-2009, 08:59 PM

Maybe...but since average over 30 anyway, perhaps the Spurs would have been served by having their DPOY defend someone who could be stopped, and let Rodman see if he can get into Hakeem's head.

Had you ever watched a basketball game, you would have seen Rodman was able to be effective far beyond his size due to his willingness to be underhanded and use dirty tactics...you would have seen him doing it against Shaq when the Bulls played.

No he wasn't...because Hakeem was going off. That means it was completely stupid to waste him.

You are so fucking stupid it isn't even funny...you would not last 2 second as NBA coach...and you probably wouldn't be as successful as Bob Hill was...who probably would never be that stupid again.

So let me get this straight. Olajuwon torched Robinson. And you think the Spurs would've been better served if they instead used a shorter defender with less length?

Please explain your logic. Don't allude to Shaq b/c Olajuwon and Shaq are very different players.

Patrick Ewing is not David Robinson...

You may refuse to believe it, but Ewing is in the same tier as Robinson, and that's a tier below Olajuwon.

You guys don't refute shit...you brandish stupidity like it is a congressional medal of honor, I call you stupid because you are so and you lack insight and understanding of the game.

How about we both take IQ tests? I'll wager $500 that mine is higher than yours by a standard deviation.

whottt

09-12-2009, 09:02 PM

Yawn. So fucking tedious.

ducks

09-12-2009, 09:03 PM

david>ewing by far

Blackjack

09-12-2009, 09:04 PM

First off, welcome to the board, TD 21. It's nice to see another quality poster added to the mix.:toast

You're calling others on being new fans? Did you just look at the impressive collection of names from the '03 team, and decide it was one of the greatest of all-time?

The truth of the matter is:

Robinson was on his last legs
Bowen was a sub-par offensive player still building his reputation as the best perimeter defensive player in the game
Parker, while talented, was a 20 year old 2nd year point guard who struggled mightily at times
Ginobili, again, while talented, and an established international star, was an NBA rookie still adapting to the NBA game, and being a role player
Jackson was a minimum free agent signing, and a mostly unproven player trying to establish himself in the league
Rose, as solid as he was a both ends of the court, was a mere role player
Claxton, was an injury prone runt, who was also an unestablished player at that point

In conclusion, that team lacked a certifiable 2nd All-Star, a true star-superstar caliber creator on the perimeter, and was mostly filled with past their prime vets (Robinson, Willis, Kerr, Smith, Ferry), or talented, yet erratic young players (Parker, Ginobili, Jackson).

Just look at their playoff record of 16-8. It took Duncan putting up historical numbers (24.7 ppg, 15.4 rpg, 5.3 apg, .529 fg pct, 42.5 mpg, also accounting for 5.98 win shares, the most in a single playoff since that stat has been recorded), and one of the all-time great defenses to overcome their shortcomings.

Pretty on point.:tu

The only thing I'd disagree with is Bowen, who was only lacking the reputation, not the effectiveness.

And to his offensive ineptitude, meh.

He did drop, what? 27 on Kobe?

And I'd also add that, Ginobili battled an ankle injury that prevented the Spurs form truly knowing the kind of player they had or who he'd be at the NBA level.

That team was admittedly in a transition year, as stated by Pop and others prior to the season, with an eye to the following year where they hoped to add another max-type player; some guy named Kidd being the eventual target.

I think Sean Deveney's the guy who sent Don Harris and the rest of SA into an uproar over his `Accidental Champion' piece, when people failed to realize it wasn't a slight, but an acknowledgement of the transition year Pop and others mentioned prior, and even during the season.

Having said that, whottt is completely on point with his recollection of the Houston series and the utter ineptitude of Bob Hill. I'll never forgive that D-Bag for the injustice he did Dave or his sockless, wannabe Riley shtick.

If Dave had Manu during the Rockets reign, it would have been a Spurs reign. Well, they would have won at least one of 'em. Manu would've needed to be healthy and the closer for both teams, and making Manu's health a given isn't all that warranted. --i.e. '06 and '08 --

I've purposely avoided getting into the Duncan v. Robinson debate because absolutely nothing good can come from it. They're my two favorite players of all-time, playing on the only team I've ever been a fan of and there's no way in hell I'd prop one up by demeaning or belittling the other.

As someone with a decent acumen and genuine love of the game, in my most objective of opinions, Duncan is the better player. I have no doubts about that.

I also have no doubts Robinson would've captured a ring prior to Tim's arrival, had he had a prime Manu alongside him.

TD 21

09-12-2009, 09:05 PM

Let's see...

Bruce Bowen didn't lead the NBA in 3 shooting in 2003, though he did in 2002. I guess that means he wasn't a good 3 point shooter that year. Amazingly enough...he looked damn good to me when he dropped 27 points in threes on Kobe.

Steve Kerr didn't lead the league in 3 shooting that year...Amazingly enough, his %700 shooting PCT from 3 in that run, looks pretty fucking good to me.

And I'm sorry stupid....but he was the greatest single season and career 3 shooter, that season as well.

And most certainly Bruce Bowen was All NBA D that year.

Manu was a Euroleage and ELeague finals MVP, already, he had also already kicked a team of All Star NBA players asses off the fucking court with a far less experienced team, earlier that summer. Idiot.

And he was fucking good. I don't give a fuck if he'd been voted to an AS team yet or not.

Tony Parker wasn't good? Funny, he looked pretty fucking good to me holding his own against AS PG's in every series we played except the one against LA...including having a 9 time All NBA D PG begging for help with him.

David Robinson couldn't get it done? Funny, I look at Shaq's totals and they were his playoff lows, exactly like it had been the two previous times Drob guarded him in the post season.

Just shut the fuck up...you didn't refute fucking shit. You're just an idiot.

I guess that one game means he's an offensive dynamo. Never mind the hundreds of otherwise that prove otherwise.

You're so stupid that you don't realize that the primary reason for those guys shooting such good percentages was the amount of open looks they received, courtesy of Duncan. It's basic basketball. Bowen has repeatedly even said that, probably for idiots like you who don't appreciate Duncan's greatness.

Ginobili was an erratic, inconsistent rookie, adjusting to the NBA game, and a lesser role. He was talented, no doubt, but nowhere near as good as he's been since 04-05-present.

I didn't say Parker, or any of these guys, weren't good. But none were legit All-Stars, 2nd scoring options, or elite creators. Not in '03. Big deal if he was quicker than Kidd, Kidd was easily the superior player back then. Parker, like Ginobili, while talented, was erratic, and inconsistent. Claxton played a huge role because of this.

Robinson was on his last legs. He essentially split time with Rose. For sure, he did an admirable job defending the post/interior in general, but he was clearly a complimentary player at that point. Too bad if you can't accept that.

I'm beginning to think you're much younger than I previously had assumed.

TD 21

09-12-2009, 09:10 PM

First off, welcome to the board, TD 21. It's nice to see another quality poster added to the mix.:toast

Pretty on point.:tu

The only thing I'd disagree with is Bowen, who was only lacking the reputation, not the effectiveness.

And to his offensive ineptitude, meh.

He did drop, what? 27 on Kobe?

And I'd also add that, Ginobili battled an ankle injury that prevented the Spurs form truly knowing the kind of player they had or who he'd be at the NBA level.

That team was admittedly in a transition year, as stated by Pop and others prior to the season, with an eye to the following year where they hoped to add another max-type player; some guy named Kidd being the eventual target.

I think Sean Deveney's the guy who sent Don Harris and the rest of SA into an uproar over his `Accidental Champion' piece, when people failed to realize it wasn't a slight, but an acknowledgement of the transition year Pop and others mentioned prior, and even during the season.

Having said that, whottt is completely on point with his recollection of the Houston series and the utter ineptitude of Bob Hill. I'll never forgive that D-Bag for the injustice he did Dave or his sockless, wannabe Riley shtick.

If Dave had Manu during the Rockets reign, it would have been a Spurs reign. Well, they would have won at least one of 'em. Manu would've needed to be healthy and the closer for both teams, and making Manu's health a given isn't all that warranted. --i.e. '06 and '08 --

I've purposely avoided getting into the Duncan v. Robinson debate because absolutely nothing good can come from it. They're my two favorite players of all-time, playing on the only team I've ever been a fan of and there's no way in hell I'd prop one up by demeaning or belittling the other.

As someone with a decent acumen and genuine love of the game, in my most objective of opinions, Duncan is the better player. I have no doubts about that.

I also have no doubts Robinson would've captured a ring prior to Tim's arrival, had he had a prime Manu alongside him.

Thank you.

I never said Bowen was lacking on effectiveness, I said he was not entirely established, still in the midst of building his reputation. That was one game. Overall, Bowen has always been a sub par offensive player. That's not a knock, that's fact.

whottt

09-12-2009, 09:13 PM

So let me get this straight. Olajuwon torched Robinson. And you think the Spurs would've been better served if they instead used a shorter defender with less length?

Yes, because Olajuwon torched Robinson. Since Olajuwon torched Robinson, it was stupid to defend Olajuwon that way. It did not utilize David's defense to the benefit of the team, it also added to fatigue which carried over to the offensive end.

Furthermore, since David was also asked to carry the offensive load, there is a little thing called fouls, if you get enough of them, you will foul out of the game and at that point you will not be able to do anything to help your team.

If you have a man, who is expected to carry the offensive load, it stands to reason that picking up fouls may impede his ability to do so...it also stands to reason that guarding Hakeem is probably the A#1 big guy on that team that could have put those fouls on Robinson....

So what you do then, is fail to stop Hakeem, fatigue your bigman, risk fouling him out of the game and thereby killing your offense, and impede his defensive agressiveness lest he pick up fouls and eliminate any chance whatsoever of his team winning the game.

Do you really need that fucking explained to you? Watch a fucking playoff game sometime.

Intelligent my butthole.

Please explain your logic. Don't allude to Shaq b/c Olajuwon and Shaq are very different players.

Done.

You may refuse to believe it, but Ewing is in the same tier as Robinson, and that's a tier below Olajuwon.

I tell you what slick...why don't you look at their FTA, and tell me they are equal.

Then I want you to know something that you are obviously too stupid to understand...

Those FTA are direct result of these little things called, fouls, and generally a player shooting a lot of FTA means he is drawing a lot of...fouls!

As a general rule, when your team has a bigman that is carrying the team, he's the last guy on your team you want picking them up. So you probably want to do everything in your power to help him in that cause.

It stands to reason that a player that excelled at drawing them, as David Robinson did, as he was a tier above Hakeem and Ewing at drawing them, a fact that can be shoved all the way up your ass should you choose to pursue it...just might have been able to draw some of them on Hakeem, better than Hakeem could draw them on him...and since fouls can lead to a player being no longer allowed on the court, it is the a#1 way to defend him.

How about we both take IQ tests? I'll wager $500 that mine is higher than yours by a standard deviation.
Trust me...you aren't.

Blackjack

09-12-2009, 09:20 PM

Thank you.

I never said Bowen was lacking on effectiveness, I said he was not entirely established, still in the midst of building his reputation. That was one game. Overall, Bowen has always been a sub par offensive player. That's not a knock, that's fact.

Yeah, he always has been a sub-par offensive player but he was pretty much as good as he ever was during that '03 run. He just hadn't established the reputation.

That's all I was saying.

whottt

09-12-2009, 09:24 PM

Thank you.

I never said Bowen was lacking on effectiveness, I said he was not entirely established, still in the midst of building his reputation. That was one game. Overall, Bowen has always been a sub par offensive player. That's not a knock, that's fact.

He lead the NBA in the 3 point shooting the year before...he was ALL NBA D, that year. Idiot.

Phenomanul

09-12-2009, 09:28 PM

wekko368

09-12-2009, 09:52 PM

Yes, because Olajuwon torched Robinson. Since Olajuwon torched Robinson, it was stupid to defend Olajuwon that way. It did not utilize David's defense to the benefit of the team, it also added to fatigue which carried over to the offensive end.

Like I said, if Olajuwon could score 40 on Robinson, imagine how many he'd score on Rodman. Maybe Robinson would've scored an extra 10 ppg, but its irrelevant if Olajuwon was scoring an extra 20 ppg.

Furthermore, since David was also asked to carry the offensive load, there is a little thing called fouls, if you get enough of them, you will foul out of the game and at that point you will not be able to do anything to help your team.

If you have a man, who is expected to carry the offensive load, it stands to reason that picking up fouls may impede his ability to do so...it also stands to reason that guarding Hakeem is probably the A#1 big guy on that team that could have put those fouls on Robinson....

It's rather presumptuous to assume that Robinson would've fouled out Olajuwon, the best defender in the league.

So what you do then, is fail to stop Hakeem, fatigue your bigman, risk fouling him out of the game and thereby killing your offense, and impede his defensive agressiveness lest he pick up fouls and eliminate any chance whatsoever of his team winning the game.

Pretty much....that's why the Rockets were a bad matchup for the Spurs.

Done.

You didn't actually explain why Rodman would have any success guarding Olajuwon...all you said was "done".

I tell you what slick...why don't you look at their FTA, and tell me they are equal.

Then I want you to know something that you are obviously too stupid to understand...

Those FTA are direct result of these little things called, fouls, and generally a player shooting a lot of FTA means he is drawing a lot of...fouls!

I compared Robinson's 1995 postseason and Ewing's 1993 postseason b/c they both played 15 games. And you're right, Robinson shot almost twice as many free throws. But Ewing scored more points with a much better FG%.

As a general rule, when your team has a bigman that is carrying the team, he's the last guy on your team you want picking them up. So you probably want to do everything in your power to help him in that cause.

Understandable, but you need to go with the matchups that give your team the best chance of winning. That's why Olajuwon guarded Ewing in the 1994 finals instead of Thorpe.

It stands to reason that a player that excelled at drawing them, as David Robinson did, as he was a tier above Hakeem and Ewing at drawing them, a fact that can be shoved all the way up your ass should you choose to pursue it...just might have been able to draw some of them on Hakeem, better than Hakeem could draw them on him...and since fouls can lead to a player being no longer allowed on the court, it is the a#1 way to defend him.

It's true that Robinson drew many more fouls than Olajuwon did, but Olajuwon had a refined post game and didn't need to draw fouls to score points. His FG% in the playoffs during the mid 90's was great.

And like I said, Olajuwon was the best defender in the league. It's hard to imagine he would make enough defensive mistakes to get into foul trouble. And even if he were close to getting into foul trouble, he would've played off Robinson and given him the 15 ft jumper (assuming he was still assigned to guard Robinson). Considering that Robinson's fg% was 44.6%, this wouldn't have been a bad option.

whottt

09-12-2009, 10:32 PM

I guess that one game means he's an offensive dynamo. Never mind the hundreds of otherwise that prove otherwise.

You're so stupid that you don't realize that the primary reason for those guys shooting such good percentages was the amount of open looks they received, courtesy of Duncan. It's basic basketball. Bowen has repeatedly even said that, probably for idiots like you who don't appreciate Duncan's greatness.

On the contrary idiot...I'm the one that knows Duncan does that every year(until last year) and what detemines whether not we win more often than not, is whether or not the guy hits them. And because of that I know he had many more guys that did that, than David Robinson...and he had more guys that did it, that year, in that situation, than any other team he has ever played on.

What you are too fucking stupid to understand, is that David Robinson drew more of those than Duncan did. Because he drew more fouls than Duncan did. @2000 more of them as it stands right now.

What you are also likely TOO FUCKING STUPID to understand, although I can't be certain, is that Avery Johnson made 1 3 pointer in 90 FUCKING PLAYOFF GAMES, WHICH IS ROUGHLY 8 FUCKING LESS THAN BRUCE BOWEN MADE IN THAT ONE FUCKING GAME and that is far less of a detriment to removing the player from the bigman's nuts.

OR TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY, 2 LESS THAN NAZR MOHAMMED AND RASHO NESTEROIVCH HAVE MADE.

On the contrary, I realize a great deal, and you are an incomparable, ok well actually you are very comparable now that I think about it, idiot who realizes nothing.

And Bruce Bowen had already lead the NBA in the 3 point shooting.

Who are you trying to convince with your stupid fucking "reputation" statement?

Why don't you just write I am stupid and clueless as whottt says I am on your forehead in neon ink...because you are proving my point 100% with those statements.

You didn't know when Bruce Bowen lead the NBA in 3 shooting, or if you did those synapses weren't firing, and still barely are...it's obvious.

What has that reputation BS got to do with anything other than the fact that you are only capable of discerning who is good, based on what other people say rather than your own eyes.

Which is patently obvious by your absolute cluelessness about how good that team was, then, and now.

Bruce Bowen was younger, he was a better defender then, he was a better shooter then, he kicked Kobe's ass then. And it wasn't just one fucking game either.

How hard is to fucking see what Kobe did to us when Bowen wasn't there? All you had to do was be watching...it was the worst blowout in WCF history.

That's why Bruce Bowen was there...

Ginobili was an erratic, inconsistent rookie, adjusting to the NBA game, and a lesser role. He was talented, no doubt, but nowhere near as good as he's been since 04-05-present.

I don't give a fuck what you think, he bounced a dream team off the court earlier that summer, in Indiana. And he was already a Euroleague MVP...just because you didn't realize how good he was then, doesn't mean the rest of us didn't.

I know I know...he didn't have a "reputation".

There are archives here idiot...dating back to then, why don't you look them up and see who was saying what then.

About that team, about Manu, about Bruce. No "reputation" needed.

I didn't say Parker, or any of these guys, weren't good. But none were legit All-Stars, 2nd scoring options, or elite creators. Not in '03. Big deal if he was quicker than Kidd, Kidd was easily the superior player back then. Parker, like Ginobili, while talented, was erratic, and inconsistent. Claxton played a huge role because of this.

Did you call Jason Kidd not being able to defend him? I sure as hell did.

I get the feeling you'd be doing good to call 2+2 on a Big Chief Notebook.

Maybe if 4 gets a "reputation" you might...but I doubt it.

Robinson was on his last legs. He essentially split time with Rose. For sure, he did an admirable job defending the post/interior in general, but he was clearly a complimentary player at that point. Too bad if you can't accept that.

I'm beginning to think you're much younger than I previously had assumed.

Think what you want, in fact I take that as a compliment. Unfortunately it pretty much hammers home how worhtless and poor your observations are and therefore your opinion and analysis by association...because you are very very wrong.

Also, I am convinced you're an idiot and therefore the idea of us agreeing on anything is one I find extremely repellent....

So thank you.

PS: While you were sitting their like a dumb fucking ass marveling at how Tim Duncan was doing it by himself...some of us were here, in game threads, in chats, keeping track of exactly how many points Shaq was scoring and against whom he was scoring them.

Long before that sort of stat keeping had any sort of well known "rep".

I doubt you've done it now or even thought about doing it, much less 6 years ago.

And for an old broken down man, there was a game where David was fouled out in 14 minutes of play, I want you to look at the boxscore of that game and tell me why is it unlike any of the others...asdide from the obvious FG%.

Hint: It was a loss.

Now then idiot...the following facts have no doubt sent neurons passing through, probably for the first time ever, that much bountiful rarely used virgin massive mass of shit that you call brains.

What have you learned about yourself?

You did not know how good Bruce Bowen was, because he had no reputation.
You did not know how good Manu was because he had no repuation.
You did not know how good Tony Parker was because he had no reputation.
You did not know how important David Robinson was because of his then reputation.
You did not know how effective Steve Kerr was because of his then reputation.

You did not know how good that team was, because it had/has..........no reputation.

This is not my stupidity, it is yours. It is you that judges things on reputations and what people say...not I. It is you that is incapable of analytical thought, not I.

I already knew this about you. I knew it from the second I started arguing with you. You are just now finding this out and likely thinking on a higher level, including selfawareness, than you have been on before.

It can be permanent or it can be temporary...the choice is all yours.

You are welcome.

I suggest you thank me for it, stop acting like you know more about this than me, that you have thought about it more than me, or that you have researched it more than me...

Because you and I both know that you most certainly have not.

That is why you are getting handed to you every time you put your stupid finger to your stupid keyboard and type your stupid sentences. You are in over your head.

Fact.

There is no crime in being stupid, unless you don't realize it and ignore the obvious signs that you are...I sense you struggle with this already, but it's not too late to reverse the course you find yourself on and be able to engage in civil and non-abusive debates with me should you choose...but you must first admit you are stupid, and then make a sincere effort to stop being so.

The first thing you can do...is pull your stupid fucking head out of your stupid fucking ass, and realize there's a lot more to everything, than "reputation".

And you are still on ignore.

whottt

09-12-2009, 11:23 PM

Like I said, if Olajuwon could score 40 on Robinson, imagine how many he'd score on Rodman. Maybe Robinson would've scored an extra 10 ppg, but its irrelevant if Olajuwon was scoring an extra 20 ppg.

It's rather presumptuous to assume that Robinson would've fouled out Olajuwon, the best defender in the league.

Pretty much....that's why the Rockets were a bad matchup for the Spurs.

You didn't actually explain why Rodman would have any success guarding Olajuwon...all you said was "done".

I compared Robinson's 1995 postseason and Ewing's 1993 postseason b/c they both played 15 games. And you're right, Robinson shot almost twice as many free throws. But Ewing scored more points with a much better FG%.

Understandable, but you need to go with the matchups that give your team the best chance of winning. That's why Olajuwon guarded Ewing in the 1994 finals instead of Thorpe.

It's true that Robinson drew many more fouls than Olajuwon did, but Olajuwon had a refined post game and didn't need to draw fouls to score points. His FG% in the playoffs during the mid 90's was great.

And like I said, Olajuwon was the best defender in the league. It's hard to imagine he would make enough defensive mistakes to get into foul trouble. And even if he were close to getting into foul trouble, he would've played off Robinson and given him the 15 ft jumper (assuming he was still assigned to guard Robinson). Considering that Robinson's fg% was 44.6%, this wouldn't have been a bad option.

You must have never seen David Robinson in his prime...

Play off of him indeed.

He wasn't fast enough to guard the Admiral, no one was, and that's why the Admiral drew so many fouls.

Hakeem was pretty good draw at drawing fouls, Robinson was pretty much the best in history at it besides Wilt.

Consider he shot 600 more than Hakeem, in 4 fewer years, then realize his touches and shots were cut in half for the last half of his career and no one fouled him to put him on the line...he's a career 70% FT shooter.

I've already refuted all this stuff...go back and read the first part of the thread.

Rudy T was smart enough to not do that to his bigman....don't tell me you know Hakeem wouldn't have drawn fouls, it's not his call, it's the referees, and if he hadn't...Robinson would have put up some bigger numbers on him.

Teams did not guard David Robinson with one bigman, because no bigman in the league had the speed and quickness to keep up with him.

You could not play off him...what you could do was double team him an foul him and take advantage of the lack of a perimeter game surrounding him...and they can only call one foul at a time, get enough bodies in there and they won't call any....and what's exactly teams could do with AJ and Rodman in there.

Rodman was like Bruce Bowen, with no perimeter game. AJ was like Jacque Vaughn, with no perimeter game.

Drob shot a hell of a lot of FT in that series, way more than Hakeem did. Be glad Hakeem wasn't guarding David...because that Dream Shake can''t do shit when he's on the bench with 3 fouls.

There is no better defense than putting a player on the bench in foul trouble or fouling them out of the game.

TDMVPDPOY

09-12-2009, 11:31 PM

prime duncan would exposed the travelling hakeem in his sleep...

we all know duncan elevate his game in the playoffs, compared to drobs production decrease in the playoffs...

duncans defense man 2 man is better than his help defense which where drob excels in both, but man 2 man defense is more important when your playing against centers who love to shuffle there footwork and pumpfakes...if you follow duncan, he rarelys jump off the ground whether blocking shots or pumpfakes...

his back to the basket offense game is polish then drob...

hence i think duncan would put up a better matchup to hakeem...

wekko368

09-13-2009, 12:36 AM

You must have never seen David Robinson in his prime...

Play off of him indeed.

He wasn't fast enough to guard the Admiral, no one was, and that's why the Admiral drew so many fouls.

That's actually terrible logic. Just because Robinson drew many fouls during his career doesn't necessarily mean he did the same to Olajuwon.

In fact during the entire 94-95 season and postseason, Olajuwon fouled out a grand total of 3 times. Whether you like it or not, the guy was an efficient defender and not as foul prone as you think.

Hakeem was pretty good draw at drawing fouls, Robinson was pretty much the best in history at it besides Wilt.

Entirely irrelevant since we're talking about the specific matchup between Olajuwon and Robinson. There's no use in bringing up Robinson's success against other players and other teams.

Consider he shot 600 more than Hakeem, in 4 fewer years, then realize his touches and shots were cut in half for the last half of his career and no one fouled him to put him on the line...he's a career 70% FT shooter.

Again, this is irrelevant when you're talking about individual matchups between Robinson and Olajuwon. In fact, during regular season play during Robinson's career, Olajuwon faced the Spurs 46 times and fouled out twice. In addition, he didn't foul out in any of the games against the Spurs in the 95 postseason.

I've already refuted all this stuff...go back and read the first part of the thread.

Sorry, you haven't refuted anything.

Rudy T was smart enough to not do that to his bigman....don't tell me you know Hakeem wouldn't have drawn fouls, it's not his call, it's the referees, and if he hadn't...Robinson would have put up some bigger numbers on him.

Hakeem was an efficient defender. History indicates that he wouldn't have come close to being in the foul trouble that you're suggesting.

Teams did not guard David Robinson with one bigman, because no bigman in the league had the speed and quickness to keep up with him.

Except Hakeem Olajuwon...maybe you need to watch that youtube video of the Rockets/Spurs 95 postseason. It shows Olajuwon easily had the speed and quickness to keep up with Robinson.

You could not play off him...what you could do was double team him an foul him and take advantage of the lack of a perimeter game surrounding him...and they can only call one foul at a time, get enough bodies in there and they won't call any....and what's exactly teams could do with AJ and Rodman in there.

So you're blaming the refs for the Spurs loss to the Rockets in 95?

Drob shot a hell of a lot of FT in that series, way more than Hakeem did. Be glad Hakeem wasn't guarding David...because that Dream Shake can''t do shit when he's on the bench with 3 fouls.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYFV06e2blE

Watch this and tell me it wasn't Olajuwon guarding Robinson. Out of curiosity, who do you think was?

TD 21

09-13-2009, 01:09 AM

You're forgetting to add the clutchness factor... Steve Kerr, Jackson, and Ginobili pulled out an amazing game to get past the Mavs that post-season. For that matter you keep forgetting to mention the player they had in Jackson that year... you haven't mentioned him at all... Sure neither Ginobili, Parker or Jackson were All-Stars that year... but they showed up in that post-season (minus Parker's hiccups at the point; not that it mattered since Claxton played more than aptly as his backup)....

I'm not forgetting to add the "clutchness factor", because it goes without saying that that will be there on any championship team. You're right though, I did forget to do a write up on Jackson, but did mention him briefly. Jackson definitely showed up in a big way, but the fact remains that he was a minimum role player who had yet to establish himself entering that season.

On the contrary idiot...I'm the one that knows Duncan does that every year(until last year) and what detemines whether not we win more often than not, is whether or not the guy hits them. And because of that I know he had many more guys that did that, than David Robinson...and he had more guys that did it, that year, in that situation, than any other team he has ever played on.

What you are too fucking stupid to understand, is that David Robinson drew more of those than Duncan did. Because he drew more fouls than Duncan did. @2000 more of them as it stands right now.

What you are also likely TOO FUCKING STUPID to understand, although I can't be certain, is that Avery Johnson made 1 3 pointer in 90 FUCKING PLAYOFF GAMES, WHICH IS ROUGHLY 8 FUCKING LESS THAN BRUCE BOWEN MADE IN THAT ONE FUCKING GAME and that is far less of a detriment to removing the player from the bigman's nuts.

OR TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY, 2 LESS THAN NAZR MOHAMMED AND RASHO NESTEROIVCH HAVE MADE.

On the contrary, I realize a great deal, and you are an incomparable, ok well actually you are very comparable now that I think about it, idiot who realizes nothing.

And Bruce Bowen had already lead the NBA in the 3 point shooting.

Who are you trying to convince with your stupid fucking "reputation" statement?

Why don't you just write I am stupid and clueless as whottt says I am on your forehead in neon ink...because you are proving my point 100% with those statements.

You didn't know when Bruce Bowen lead the NBA in 3 shooting, or if you did those synapses weren't firing, and still barely are...it's obvious.

What has that reputation BS got to do with anything other than the fact that you are only capable of discerning who is good, based on what other people say rather than your own eyes.

Which is patently obvious by your absolute cluelessness about how good that team was, then, and now.

Bruce Bowen was younger, he was a better defender then, he was a better shooter then, he kicked Kobe's ass then. And it wasn't just one fucking game either.

How hard is to fucking see what Kobe did to us when Bowen wasn't there? All you had to do was be watching...it was the worst blowout in WCF history.

That's why Bruce Bowen was there...

I don't give a fuck what you think, he bounced a dream team off the court earlier that summer, in Indiana. And he was already a Euroleague MVP...just because you didn't realize how good he was then, doesn't mean the rest of us didn't.

I know I know...he didn't have a "reputation".

There are archives here idiot...dating back to then, why don't you look them up and see who was saying what then.

About that team, about Manu, about Bruce. No "reputation" needed.

Did you call Jason Kidd not being able to defend him? I sure as hell did.

I get the feeling you'd be doing good to call 2+2 on a Big Chief Notebook.

Maybe if 4 gets a "reputation" you might...but I doubt it.

Think what you want, in fact I take that as a compliment. Unfortunately it pretty much hammers home how worhtless and poor your observations are and therefore your opinion and analysis by association...because you are very very wrong.

Also, I am convinced you're an idiot and therefore the idea of us agreeing on anything is one I find extremely repellent....

So thank you.

PS: While you were sitting their like a dumb fucking ass marveling at how Tim Duncan was doing it by himself...some of us were here, in game threads, in chats, keeping track of exactly how many points Shaq was scoring and against whom he was scoring them.

Long before that sort of stat keeping had any sort of well known "rep".

I doubt you've done it now or even thought about doing it, much less 6 years ago.

And for an old broken down man, there was a game where David was fouled out in 14 minutes of play, I want you to look at the boxscore of that game and tell me why is it unlike any of the others...asdide from the obvious FG%.

Hint: It was a loss.

Now then idiot...the following facts have no doubt sent neurons passing through, probably for the first time ever, that much bountiful rarely used virgin massive mass of shit that you call brains.

What have you learned about yourself?

You did not know how good Bruce Bowen was, because he had no reputation.
You did not know how good Manu was because he had no repuation.
You did not know how good Tony Parker was because he had no reputation.
You did not know how important David Robinson was because of his then reputation.
You did not know how effective Steve Kerr was because of his then reputation.

You did not know how good that team was, because it had/has..........no reputation.

This is not my stupidity, it is yours. It is you that judges things on reputations and what people say...not I. It is you that is incapable of analytical thought, not I.

I already knew this about you. I knew it from the second I started arguing with you. You are just now finding this out and likely thinking on a higher level, including selfawareness, than you have been on before.

It can be permanent or it can be temporary...the choice is all yours.

You are welcome.

I suggest you thank me for it, stop acting like you know more about this than me, that you have thought about it more than me, or that you have researched it more than me...

Because you and I both know that you most certainly have not.

That is why you are getting handed to you every time you put your stupid finger to your stupid keyboard and type your stupid sentences. You are in over your head.

Fact.

There is no crime in being stupid, unless you don't realize it and ignore the obvious signs that you are...I sense you struggle with this already, but it's not too late to reverse the course you find yourself on and be able to engage in civil and non-abusive debates with me should you choose...but you must first admit you are stupid, and then make a sincere effort to stop being so.

The first thing you can do...is pull your stupid fucking head out of your stupid fucking ass, and realize there's a lot more to everything, than "reputation".

And you are still on ignore.

Again, making things up. Where did I say that Duncan doesn't do that every year?

In his prime, Robinson drew more fouls, due to superior length, quickness, and athleticism, but certainly not because he was a more skilled, intelligent, or aggressive player than Duncan. We're talking about '03 here, retard, stay on topic.

You can build up that one game from Bowen all you want, the fact is he was a sub-par offensive player, who's only skill on that end was to make wide open corner three's, mostly off of the doubles Duncan drew. I know full well Bowen led the league in 3 point shooting that year, but that doesn't change the fact that he was a severely limited offensive player.

That team was flawed, no matter how you choose to remember them. They won because Duncan played out of his mind, they made timely open looks, and played tremendous defense, but they rarely won, at least in the playoffs, from thoroughly dismantling the opposition. The '99 and '07 teams were far more dominant throughout their runs. Pop was always on the verge of losing it back then because damn near every game was a roller-coaster.

Bowen didn't exactly hold Bryant down in '03, either. He did about as well as could be expected, but Bryant has always been a thorn in the Spurs side, much like Nowitzki, or Stoudemire.

Ginobili didn't play a ton of minutes, and was mostly an up and down bench player. For sure, he was solid, but he was also erratic, and inconsistent. You need to go back, and review the box scores (or, if you have it, footage). I don't give a fuck what he did as a lead man in the World Championships, he was a mere role player on the '03 Spurs.

Kidd was the best point guard in that series, and the entire league back then, end of story. I don't give a shit if Parker out-quickened him, he was benched a few times in crunch time in favor of journeyman Claxton.

Because I don't agree with some biased, un-knowledgeable, disillusioned fan, I don't have a credible opinion? Or because I'm not in the 5, 000 post club? Those are great reasons.

ONCE AGAIN RETARD BOY, I NEVER SAID DUNCAN DID IT BY HIMSELF. LEARN TO READ. I SAID HE CAME ABOUT AS CLOSE AS ONE CAN COME TO DOING SO, PARTICULARLY CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT HE'S A BIG MAN.

O'Neal was an unstoppable force back then. Not even the almighty Robinson could shut him down. No one could. The man outweighed Duncan by a listed 77 pounds back then, plus had a 2 inch height advantage. What did you want Duncan to do defensively on him? Only guys like Robinson, Divac, and Sabonis, had the slightest bit of success against him, and that was because they either had the girth, length, or a combination of both, to combat him.

I don't give a fuck what type of stats you kept, or if I'm on "ignore"; you want a medal for that?

clubalien

09-13-2009, 01:11 AM

Things david has done that Duncan will never!
1: win a scoring title
2:winning an olympic medal.. david did it in college and was the first dream team... this is the best world wide not just in the NBA that david competed with

Things Tim hasn't done yet. Be a top 50 player. Some of you forget david was honored as a top 50 player in ALL OF NBA history.. Tim probably didn't even make the top 75.

To this day i still don't think tim can even beat david playing one on one.
Tim ofcourse hasn't gotten the honor of being a HoF player. I think i will spot him this one because one day he might.

50>21

wekko368

09-13-2009, 01:28 AM

Things Tim hasn't done yet. Be a top 50 player. Some of you forget david was honored as a top 50 player in ALL OF NBA history.. Tim probably didn't even make the top 75.

Absolutely wrong. Duncan is easily in the top 20 and I'm being very conservative.

booonkers

09-13-2009, 06:53 AM

it is already widely considered that tim duncan is already in the top ten all time list.
what people tend to forget is that tim duncan helped immensely in the growth of manu and tony as basketball players. he is probably the most unselfish player ever who understood the need to allow other teammates to grow for the greater good of the team. this characteristic is very rare for superstar players. if he could he would carry the team (00-02 years).

kingmalaki

09-13-2009, 09:16 AM

Superstars like David can take teams with crappy supporting casts and get them to the playoffs, but those teams are never able to win a title. That is precisely the difference between the DRob era in the 1990s and the Duncan era in the 2000s. David put up some ridiculous numbers (easily more ridiculous than Duncan's), but because his supporting casts were far inferior it didn't matter. Tim has had some memorable playoff performances, which were made possible by having a great supporting cast that other teams had to worry about.

Since you seem to be having trouble understanding this concept, you can use the 1995 Western Conference Finals as an example. Hakeem Olajuwon played great, but his performance would not have been enough had the Rockets not had Clyde Drexler, Robert Horry, Sam Cassell, Kenny Smith, etc. Those guys opened up so much for Hakeem. They even gave Hakeem the luxury of never having to guard David one-on-one that series. As you know, David did not have that luxury when trying to guard Hakeem.

I understand the concept just fine. You have yet to see me argue that Robinson should have won a title with any of those teams (except for the one in 95). But what you and whott don't seem to get is that during the regular season, the Spurs were winning with those crap supporting casts because his level of play was dominant. At times in the postseason, that wasn't the case because his level of play decreased (someone else already listed the numbers). In the regular season, he was able to win with that cast on most nights because he was the best big man on the court. In the playoffs on 4 occassions, he wasn't able to do that because he got outplayed by other great HOF bigs. You can blame his teammates all you want, but place some blame on David too....that's all I'm saying. In each series against Malone, Barkley and Hakeem.....he got outplayed.

And for the last time, please stop with the 1-1 excuse because I have the tapes and I see Hakeem getting doubled numerous times (how do you think others got their wide open looks), and I see Hakeem on Robinsosn 1-1 often. But even if you get no help guarding your man, if you are an elite defender you shouldn't let him drop 40 a night on you. The main difference in that series was Hakeem's dominance. If Robinson played better defense then the Spurs advance....period.

Edit: And I just wanted to note that I'm not trying to bash David. He was a great player and one of the greatest centers that I ever saw. I recognize that like Hakeem and Ewing, he played with garbage for the majority of his career. I just think his level of play took a dip in the postseason and that his lack of a post game hurt him. When it comes to losing in the postseason, when you recognize that his teammates sucked you also need to recognize that he was getting outplayed by other bigs when it mattered most. Don't absolve him of his share of the blame. That makes a big difference when you compare him to dudes like Duncan or Hakeem, who basically crapped on 3 HOF bigs to get his two titles.

Phenomanul

09-14-2009, 01:13 PM

This dude whotttt carries his post count into arguments like it's some kind of championship banner. Funny thing is, he's getting absolutely destroyed by 2 people with a combined post count of under 100.

:lmao

Still lol @ Jason Kidd being on the Duncan olympic team.

:lmao

Lame take....

Olojuwon's Rockets teams beat their rivals by playing Olojuwon as the workhorse... Ultimately however, is was some pretty legendary shooting by the likes of Cassell, Horry, Smith, Elie and later Drexler which put them over the top...

David never had that game-changing shooter, no one else that could step up to win a critical playoff game. How hard is that to understand people?

In fact, thanks to Duncan's arrival the Spurs have managed to win 4 championships... but let's not forget that each of those championships hinged on plays that had little to do with Duncan's greatness...

In '99 Jaren Jackson went ballistic against the Lakers, and ahem... the run required Elliott's Memorial Day Miracle... you may have heard of it. Oddly enough, this was Elliott's first playoff game-winning shot...

In '03 despite Duncan's grandeur, the Spurs don't get past the Mavs without the game that Steve Kerr pulled out of the hat in game 6. It still doesn't take away the fact that Duncan nearly dropped a Quad-double on the Nets to win a title... If Kerr doesn't have his moment however; the Spurs would have never made it to that round...

In '05 Ginobili simply dominated the post-run competition... David never had a teammate which could play at the level that Ginobili demonstrated during that particular playoff run. EVER! Even guys like Brent Barry outperformed (perhaps not statistically - considering pace of game - but clutchwise) any backcourt teammate of David's during his pre-injury years....

In '07 Parker enjoyed his coming out party... Duncan, as great as always still required his backcourt to open up the floor for him...

Conversely one could make the case that Duncan was at his statistical peak during '01-'02... yet as gargantuan as his numbers were the Spurs still ended up empty handed.

wekko368

09-14-2009, 01:44 PM

Olojuwon's Rockets teams beat their rivals by playing Olojuwon as the workhorse... Ultimately however, is was some pretty legendary shooting by the likes of Cassell, Horry, Smith, Elie and later Drexler which put them over the top...

Ultimately however, is the fact that Olajuwon became a better player during the playoffs.

How do you think those players got their open looks?

David never had that game-changing shooter, no one else that could step up to win a critical playoff game. How hard is that to understand people?

"No one else"? Robinson himself was an inferior player during the postseason (when compared to his regular season).

Look at 1995. His fg% dropped from 53% in the regular season to 44.6% in the playoffs. That's actually a very significant decline. Not to mention he averaged 19.3 shots per game in the playoffs and 18.4 in the regular season. In addition, he averaged 10.5 ft/game in the regular season and 9.9 in the playoffs. Also, his turnovers increased from 2.9/game (regular season) to 3.7/game (playoffs).

Phenomanul

09-14-2009, 04:21 PM

Ultimately however, is the fact that Olajuwon became a better player during the playoffs.

How do you think those players got their open looks?

Not to be trite, but you simply don't understand the game of basketball if you can't see how all of these things are intertwined... Cassell's 30 point performance as a rookie in a tight playoff game had little to do with Olojuwon ''making him better'' or ''giving him open looks,'' than it did with the fact that Cassell was a big stage player. Cassell's performance dwarfed any of Avery's contributions in that series... Both Elie (GM 1) and Horry (GM 2, and GM 5) hit game defining shots in that series. Olojuwon as great as he was did not shoot these shots for his teammates… his teammates came through; unlike Robinson’s.

Conversely, Robinson had little to do with Rodman’s decision to use the series to become a three-point marksman… He shot 4 or 5 three pointers in the series (obviously not making any). Robinson had little to do with the fact that Avery and Del Negro missed most of their wide open looks when the Rockets sagged off of them to double & triple team him.

You seem to think that the ’95 series was solely David vs. Hakeem.

Consider this; as great as Jordan was, he could never take a team of scrubs to the “promised land”.

"No one else"? Robinson himself was an inferior player during the postseason (when compared to his regular season).

Look at 1995. His fg% dropped from 53% in the regular season to 44.6% in the playoffs. That's actually a very significant decline. Not to mention he averaged 19.3 shots per game in the playoffs and 18.4 in the regular season. In addition, he averaged 10.5 ft/game in the regular season and 9.9 in the playoffs. Also, his turnovers increased from 2.9/game (regular season) to 3.7/game (playoffs).

Look at his numbers when he actually had better supporting casts… 90’ Playoffs, ’91 Playoffs, ’92 Playoffs.

wekko368

09-14-2009, 05:23 PM

Not to be trite, but you simply don't understand the game of basketball if you can't see how all of these things are intertwined... Cassell's 30 point performance as a rookie in a tight playoff game had little to do with Olojuwon ''making him better'' or ''giving him open looks,'' than it did with the fact that Cassell was a big stage player.

First of all, I'll assume you're talking about Cassell's 2nd year with the Rockets since he never scored 30 pts in the playoffs as a rookie.

No offense, but you have to understand that the Rockets' offense revolved around Olajuwon. You want to look at Cassell's 30 pt game? Fine. You should also take a look at Olajuwon's stats that game. Olajuwon shot slightly over 63% from the field en route to 42 points and 8 assists.

You really don't think Olajuwon's dominance that game gave Cassell open looks?

Also, it's interesting that for a "big stage player", Cassell only made the all-star team once.

Olojuwon as great as he was did not shoot these shots for his teammates… his teammates came through; unlike Robinson’s.

Let me explain again. Olajuwon was so dominant that series that he forced the other Spurs defenders to help Robinson on defense. This gave open shots to the Rockets' role players.

Conversely, Robinson had little to do with Rodman’s decision to use the series to become a three-point marksman… He shot 4 or 5 three pointers in the series (obviously not making any).

Even though it was foolish, shooting 5 three pointers over 6 games isnt really a big deal. Especially when 3 of them came during one game.

Robinson had little to do with the fact that Avery and Del Negro missed most of their wide open looks when the Rockets sagged off of them to double & triple team him.

Avery shot 54.4% against the Rockets in the 95 playoffs. He shot 52% in the regular season, so he actually increased his production against the Rockets.

Del Negro's fg% decreased about 4% from the season to postseason, so yeah, he shot poorly.

You seem to think that the ’95 series was solely David vs. Hakeem.

Correct...because that the key matchup. Win that matchup and win the series.

Consider this; as great as Jordan was, he could never take a team of scrubs to the “promised land”.

By calling the supporting cast "scrubs", you're saying they're poor players. It's obvious that Jordan would be incapable of winning a title with poor players surrounding him. What exactly is your point?

Look at his numbers when he actually had better supporting casts… 90’ Playoffs, ’91 Playoffs, ’92 Playoffs.

What's the point? Isn't it more relevant to talk about his prime years? Especially his MVP year?

Phenomanul

09-14-2009, 05:55 PM

I won't address the game-winning shot argument because I would be forced to admit the fact that it played a key role in determining the outcome of the '95 Spurs/Rockets series. I'd be forced into admitting that Robinson actually had a weaker playoff supporting cast... rendering my arguments null...

Instead I'll harp on the fact that Cassell was a sophomore when he dominated Avery at the point, I mean geeesh... Phenomanul thought he was a rookie? Please.!. And Rodman taking a passive attitude on defense? That's allowed right? How else are you going to prove to people you can shoot three-pointers, if you're not allowed to roam the perimeter... game-strategy be damned. :rolleyes

Like I said... you simply don't get it.

Sure, Hakeem was great. You don't have to step over David to try and make your point.

kingmalaki

09-14-2009, 06:51 PM

Phenomanul

09-14-2009, 08:32 PM

Phenomanul

You can point to other Rocket players stepped up in the 95 series if you like, and it's true that individual players did step up in different games. However, the one constant in that series was Hakeem dropping near 40 a night. If Robinson played better defense and doesn't allow a man to have a record series against him then the Spurs probably advance. THERE IS NO EXCUSE FOR LETTING A MAN DROP NEAR 40 A NIGHT ON YOU!!!

I agree that Robinson didn't have a good supporting cast for the majority of his career. However, do you deny that his playoff production decreased often?I think it was because of the lack of a post game, but for whatever reason, it dropped. Point to his teammates if you like, but don't forget to point to him too. It's not like his level of play was increasing in the postseason and dudes were just letting him down.

So how did Amare dropping 37 PPG on the Spurs work out for the Suns in '05??? Basketball is a team sport after all...

The games in the 95 series were tight... The series as a whole was weird... I mean, only one home victory in 6 tries? The deciding factor was the fact that none of the Spurs guards could buy 4th quarter buckets in any game (even those they won)... (a little statistical anomaly that wekko368 ignored when using Basketballdatabase game logs to try and prove his points)... If he had actually seen the games he would have known that Del Negro shot something like 28% in the fourth quarters of Games 1-5... Perhaps he would have also known that the Rockets knocked down significantly more three-pointers than the Spurs for the series... Or that the Rockets effectively shifted their strategy in said final quarters by sending 3 players to suffocate Robinson while betting that his teammates would fail to come through... That plan worked to perfection... meanwhile Olojuwon's teammates were dropping daggers left and right when it mattered most... Sure... let's blame that on Robinson.... :rolleyes

All of a sudden one move, Hakeem's dream-shake, epitomized the series in the lazy reporting eyes of BSPN... America ate it up because most Americans seem to find some sickening joy in watching genuinely nice people fall down. And Robinson, the humble sportsmen that he was, never deflected any of the criticisms... His personality, hurt his legacy the most, in this regard...

Now let's return to the Suns/Spurs series in '05 for a moment... the difference in that series was that it was the Spurs' perimeter players who were dropping 3-point bombs on the Suns'... Bowen, Barry, Ginobili, some guy named Horry... all the while this little French man wreaked havoc on the Suns lack of interior defense... But by your logic Amare >>> Duncan. :rollin

wekko368

09-14-2009, 08:37 PM

Like I said... you simply don't get it.

Sure, Hakeem was great. You don't have to step over David to try and make your point.

The funny thing is, you're actually stepping over Olajuwon by trying to make this poor argument. By focusing on supporting casts, you're implying that Olajuwon and Robinson were comparable players, but in that series, Olajuwon was far superior. I'm not trying to "step over" Robinson. That's just the simple truth.

The fact of the matter is, Robinson was a great regular season performer but a good playoff performer. Olajuwon was a great regular season performer but a greater playoff performer. And that's what that series boiled down to.

You can complain all you want about the supporting casts, but in the end, each team was only going to go as far as their centers took them.

And "harping" on the fact that Cassell was a sophmore? Get over yourself. I wrote one sentence pointing out your mistake and you call this "harping".

Phenomanul

09-14-2009, 09:01 PM

The funny thing is, you're actually stepping over Olajuwon by trying to make this poor argument. By focusing on supporting casts, you're implying that Olajuwon and Robinson were comparable players, but in that series, Olajuwon was far superior. I'm not trying to "step over" Robinson. That's just the simple truth.

The fact of the matter is, Robinson was a great regular season performer but a good playoff performer. Olajuwon was a great regular season performer but a greater playoff performer. And that's what that series boiled down to.

You can complain all you want about the supporting casts, but in the end, each team was only going to go as far as their centers took them.

And "harping" on the fact that Cassell was a sophmore? Get over yourself. I wrote one sentence pointing out your mistake and you call this "harping".

A team needs 4 wins to win a playoff series... How does a series with 3 game winning daggers, all by the Rockets no less, not reflect on the supporting casts at all??? :wow Dude... take your blinders off...

Your original argument implied that somehow Olojuwon's greatness willed those game defining shots to go in... Remove Horry or Cassell from the equation and those Rockets teams would have failed in their quest... The fact that you're still trying to convince us that this was somehow Robinson's fault is beyond comprehension... :lol

Again, basketball is a team sport... :lol at you thinking this is about bashing Olojuwon...

wekko368

09-14-2009, 09:30 PM

A team needs 4 wins to win a playoff series... How does a series with 3 game winning daggers, all by the Rockets no less, not reflect on the supporting casts at all??? :wow Dude... take your blinders off...

Can you look at Olajuwon's performance and honestly tell me that he wasn't the centerpiece of the Rockets' offense?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dwR-FKopCKc

There's a video of Horry hitting one of his 3 pointers that series. In the play, Rodman is originally guarding Horry and Robinson is originally guarding Olajuwon. Olajuwon sets a pick for Kenny Smith, and Robinson leaves him to help guard Smith which leaves Olajuwon open. Rodman, seeing that Olajuwon is open, leaves Horry and runs to Olajuwon. Smith passes Horry the ball, and Horry drains the 3 pointer.

In that game, Olajuwon scored 39 pts while shooting 64% from the field. Seems to me that it was Olajuwon's dominance that forced the Spurs' defenders to pay extra attention to him which created open looks for the other Rockets.

Your original argument implied that somehow Olojuwon's greatness willed those game defining shots to go in... Remove Horry or Cassell from the equation and those Rockets teams would have failed in their quest...

Olajuwon's dominance created open looks for his teammates. The Rockets ran a simple inside-out offense.

The fact that you're still trying to convince us that this was somehow Robinson's fault is beyond comprehension... :lol

Robinson allowed Olajuwon to have a monster series. If Robinson isn't to blame, then who is? Referees?

Again, basketball is a team sport... :lol at you thinking this is about bashing Olojuwon...

Well, instead of admitting that Olajuwon was unstoppable that series, you're adamantly stating that his supporting cast was the reason the Rockets won the series.

So yeah, that's bashing Olajuwon.

Phenomanul

09-14-2009, 10:12 PM

Can you look at Olajuwon's performance and honestly tell me that he wasn't the centerpiece of the Rockets' offense?

In that game, Olajuwon scored 39 pts while shooting 64% from the field. Seems to me that it was Olajuwon's dominance that forced the Spurs' defenders to pay extra attention to him which created open looks for the other Rockets.

Olojuwon was a great player... how many times must I say it... What's laughable is the fact that you continue to attribute the loss squarely on Robinson's shoulders while ignoring the impact from all the Rockets players not named Olojuwon.... :lmao

In your eyes Robinson was supposed to be the team's top 1v1 defender, be there simultaneously to cover the weak side, step into every defensive rotation and to boot be able to cover the perimeter... Some conveniently lofty expectations there... Oddly enough, that play you pointed out was completely miffed by Rodman not Robinson...

Olojuwon sure as hell didn't knock down those daggers for his teammates... somehow you fail to grasp the fact that his teammates were the ones that actually executed down the stretch (be it their talent, their clutchness, whatever... they made their shots!!)... those same opportunities created by Robinson's post game resulted in missed buckets by the Spurs' backcourt... And let me let you in on something else... they actually were more open on their attempts than their Rockets counterparts... but somehow because they failed to score this somehow reflects poorly on Robinson???.. flawless logic there Sherlock.

The Rockets ran a simple inside-out offense.

So then a team concept does factor in the offense?? Which is it?

The Spurs couldn't run that offense because outside shots weren't falling... not because Robinson was playing ineffectively inside... when outside shots don't fall the inside game becomes harder to impose... conversely, when those shots do fall the effectiveness of the inside game grows synergetically... that's the dichotic dynamic that played out for both teams... you conveniently praise the scheme while failing to see the subleties that can cause its demise...

Well, instead of admitting that Olajuwon was unstoppable that series, you're adamantly stating that his supporting cast was the reason the Rockets won the series.

So yeah, that's bashing Olajuwon.

Petty semantics... are you that insecure about Olojuwon's legacy???... The man won out... be happy about it... Quit using it as a knock on Robinson; particularly on a week in which his entry to the HoF is being celebrated...

kingmalaki

09-14-2009, 10:14 PM

So how did Amare dropping 37 PPG on the Spurs work out for the Suns in '05??? Basketball is a team sport after all...

IIRC, wasn't the Spurs strategy to stop everyone else and allow Amare to take shots? They won that series 4-1, so in other words letting Amare get off didn't hurt the team too much. You really can't say that about Hakeem in 95. If Robinson plays better defense the Spurs probably win.

The games in 95 were tight, and you are correct that Rockets role players were knocking down important shots. But you fail to acknowledge that in those tight games, the team still ran their offense through Hakeem, and Robinson couldn't stop him. That's also how the Rockets role players kept getting those wide open looks, because the Spurs had to send Robinson help (even though the myth around here is that Robinson went 1-1 all series long). And again, you are absolving Robinson of blame for his decrease in production. The series was knotted 2-2 after 4 games. In game 5, Robinson has 22 pts on 47% (down from his reg season #'s). AJ was 10-15, Elliott was 5-10 and Del negro was 4-9. Hakeem put up 42, 9, 8 and 5 on 63%. Are you really arguing that a guard scoring 30 on 47% (on shots created for him by the way) was more crucial than a center scoring 42 on 63%, against the position where your team is most dominant? In the closeout game the roleplayers didn't show up (outside of AJ), but neither did Robinson (19 ppg on 6-17). Hakeem had 39, 17 and 5 on 63%. His play was the difference.

You are basically trying to say the main difference was role players, and not Hakeem. That's like me saying the main reason the Spurs won in 03 was because Steven Jackson and others hit big 3's, as opposed to Duncan leading the team in basically every category. How does that make any sense?

kingmalaki

09-14-2009, 10:23 PM

In your eyes Robinson was supposed to be the team's top 1v1 defender, be there simultaneously to cover the weak side, step into every defensive rotation and to boot be able to cover the perimeter... Some conveniently lofty expectations there... Oddly enough, that play you pointed out was completely miffed by Rodman not Robinson...

In my eyes, when the seires is knotted at 2-2, the Spurs probably win if Robinson, a great defender, keeps Hakeem from shooting 60% on him in the final 2 games. In my eyes, when the series is knotted at 2-2, the Spurs probably win if Robinson, a career 52% shooter (and 53% that season), doesn't shoot 47% and 35% to closeout the series.

Yes, Robinson's teammates failed him. But if he didn't have a drop in his production, or if he played adequate defense (no excuse to let a man hit 40 on you at over 60%), then the Spurs probably win that series because the games were all tight, as you already mentioned.

Admiral

09-14-2009, 10:24 PM

IIRC, wasn't the Spurs strategy to stop everyone else and allow Amare to take shots? They won that series 4-1, so in other words letting Amare get off didn't hurt the team too much. You really can't say that about Hakeem in 95. If Robinson plays better defense the Spurs probably win.

The games in 95 were tight, and you are correct that Rockets role players were knocking down important shots. But you fail to acknowledge that in those tight games, the team still ran their offense through Hakeem, and Robinson couldn't stop him. That's also how the Rockets role players kept getting those wide open looks, because the Spurs had to send Robinson help (even though the myth around here is that Robinson went 1-1 all series long). And again, you are absolving Robinson of blame for his decrease in production. The series was knotted 2-2 after 4 games. In game 5, Robinson has 22 pts on 47% (down from his reg season #'s). AJ was 10-15, Elliott was 5-10 and Del negro was 4-9. Hakeem put up 42, 9, 8 and 5 on 63%. Are you really arguing that a guard scoring 30 on 47% (on shots created for him by the way) was more crucial than a center scoring 42 on 63%, against the position where your team is most dominant? In the closeout game the roleplayers didn't show up (outside of AJ), but neither did Robinson (19 ppg on 6-17). Hakeem had 39, 17 and 5 on 63%. His play was the difference.

You are basically trying to say the main difference was role players, and not Hakeem. That's like me saying the main reason the Spurs won in 03 was because Steven Jackson and others hit big 3's, as opposed to Duncan leading the team in basically every category. How does that make any sense?

I see your point, but in a tight series the difference almost always comes down to role players making plays. That was true in the Spurs' title runs (especially in 2003), and it was true in the Rockets' back-to-back titles as well.

Nobody is discounting Olajuwon's historic performance. He was truly "in the zone," and he deserves credit for that. And David was certainly responsible for allowing him to have such a dynamic series. However, if David's supporting cast had been better we would've won the series despite that. It shouldn't all fall on David, but somehow it has.

Phenomanul

09-14-2009, 10:32 PM

IIRC, wasn't the Spurs strategy to stop everyone else and allow Amare to take shots? They won that series 4-1, so in other words letting Amare get off didn't hurt the team too much. You really can't say that about Hakeem in 95. If Robinson plays better defense the Spurs probably win.

The games in 95 were tight, and you are correct that Rockets role players were knocking down important shots. But you fail to acknowledge that in those tight games, the team still ran their offense through Hakeem, and Robinson couldn't stop him. That's also how the Rockets role players kept getting those wide open looks, because the Spurs had to send Robinson help (even though the myth around here is that Robinson went 1-1 all series long). And again, you are absolving Robinson of blame for his decrease in production. The series was knotted 2-2 after 4 games. In game 5, Robinson has 22 pts on 47% (down from his reg season #'s). AJ was 10-15, Elliott was 5-10 and Del negro was 4-9. Hakeem put up 42, 9, 8 and 5 on 63%. Are you really arguing that a guard scoring 30 on 47% (on shots created for him by the way) was more crucial than a center scoring 42 on 63%, against the position where your team is most dominant? In the closeout game the roleplayers didn't show up (outside of AJ), but neither did Robinson (19 ppg on 6-17). Hakeem had 39, 17 and 5 on 63%. His play was the difference.

You are basically trying to say the main difference was role players, and not Hakeem. That's like me saying the main reason the Spurs won in 03 was because Steven Jackson and others hit big 3's, as opposed to Duncan leading the team in basically every category. How does that make any sense?

That's not what I'm saying at all... Hakeem was dominant... Game 5 aside, how do game winning daggers by other players not factor into the discussion???

They matter because they allowed Hakeem's team to move on....
They matter because Robinson is routinely blamed for losing the series...
They matter because Robinson's teammates could not do the same, when placed in identical situations...

The only saving grace for your perspective is that the Spurs' strategy sucked royally... They should have put Rodman on Olojuwon to pester him... Olojuwon would have put up amazing numbers regardless... but then that would have freed up Robinson to cover the weak side, and all those cutters to the basket... It would have cast Elliott into a "Bowenesque" role on Cassell, instead of allowing him to torch Avery repeatedly... in this role Robinson would have made an effort to jump out on 3 point shooters... something Rodman failed to do...

This is what the Spurs did in '05 to Amare and Nash...

wekko368

09-14-2009, 10:40 PM

That's not what I'm saying at all...

Actually, that's precisely what you're saying.

The only saving grace for you perspective is that the Spurs' strategy sucked royally... They should have put Rodman on Olojuwon to pester him... Olojuwon would have gotten his...

If the Spurs tried this for the entire series, it's very possible the Rockets would've swept the Spurs and Olajuwon would've averaged over 60 ppg.

Like I said, we all saw how Olajuwon performed offensively against Robinson. Now imagine him against a defender who was shorter and had less length.

Phenomanul

09-14-2009, 10:41 PM

Actually, that's precisely what you're saying.

If the Spurs tried this for the entire series, it's very possible the Rockets would've swept the Spurs and Olajuwon would've averaged over 60 ppg.

Like I said, we all saw how Olajuwon performed offensively against Robinson. Now imagine him against a defender who was shorter and had less length.

Extrapolate much? This confirms your lack of understanding of the game...

wekko368

09-14-2009, 10:45 PM

Extrapolate much? This confirms your lack of understanding of the game...

I would love for you to explain how Rodman, a player that was both shorter and had less length than Robinson, would have more success than him in guarding Olajuwon.

Phenomanul

09-14-2009, 10:49 PM

I would love for you to explain how Rodman, a player that was both shorter and had less length than Robinson, would have more success than him in guarding Olajuwon.

That's kind of the point... he wouldn't have contained him... but he would have pestered the hell out of him and that role would have motivated him to actually play in the series instead of tanking it....

If you see my simultaneous edit above... you'll also see the domino effect that such a strategy would have had on Robinson's defensive effectiveness on the rest of the Rockets' offense...

Afterall that's exactly what worked against the Suns in '05....

wekko368

09-14-2009, 10:54 PM

That's kind of the point... he wouldn't have contained him... but he would have pestered the hell out of him and that role would have motivated him to actually play in the series instead of tanking it....

Please elaborate what you mean by "pester". Rodman was shorter and had less length than Robinson. Can you give a clear explanation as to how he'd be more effective?

Try not to be so vague.

If Rodman were guarding Olajuwon 1v1 the entire series, Robinson's defensive effectiveness would've been minimal. In some of those games, Olajuwon's fg% was more than 60% against Robinson, an elite defender.

And you think it would've been a good strategy to use an inferior defender?

Phenomanul

09-14-2009, 11:14 PM

Please elaborate what you mean by "pester". Rodman was shorter and had less length than Robinson. Can you give a clear explanation as to how he'd be more effective?

Try not to be so vague.

If Rodman were guarding Olajuwon 1v1 the entire series, Robinson's defensive effectiveness would've been minimal. In some of those games, Olajuwon's fg% was more than 60% against Robinson, an elite defender.

And you think it would've been a good strategy to use an inferior defender?

It says exactly what it means... What Bowen does to guys like Bryant, Allen, Hamilton, Carter... you don't have to stop them, you only have to make them play outside of their comfort zone... Besides Rodman had a habit of getting under people's skin - he was a physical defender when motivated... that's all that was needed...

That switch would have conserved more of Robinson's energy for the offensive end... And defensively; he would have ultimately closed the lane for all other players not named Olojuwon...

Phenomanul

09-14-2009, 11:17 PM

Anyways I don't have time to do this all night... I gotta catch some zzzzzzzzzzzz....

Peace... (nothing personal you know)...

kingmalaki

09-15-2009, 12:09 AM

Olojuwon was a great player... how many times must I say it... What's laughable is the fact that you continue to attribute the loss squarely on Robinson's shoulders while ignoring the impact from all the Rockets players not named Olojuwon.... :lmao

In your eyes Robinson was supposed to be the team's top 1v1 defender, be there simultaneously to cover the weak side, step into every defensive rotation and to boot be able to cover the perimeter... Some conveniently lofty expectations there... Oddly enough, that play you pointed out was completely miffed by Rodman not Robinson...

Olojuwon sure as hell didn't knock down those daggers for his teammates... somehow you fail to grasp the fact that his teammates were the ones that actually executed down the stretch (be it their talent, their clutchness, whatever... they made their shots!!)... those same opportunities created by Robinson's post game resulted in missed buckets by the Spurs' backcourt... And let me let you in on something else... they actually were more open on their attempts than their Rockets counterparts... but somehow because they failed to score this somehow reflects poorly on Robinson???.. flawless logic there Sherlock.

So then a team concept does factor in the offense?? Which is it?

The Spurs couldn't run that offense because outside shots weren't falling... not because Robinson was playing ineffectively inside... when outside shots don't fall the inside game becomes harder to impose... conversely, when those shots do fall the effectiveness of the inside game grows synergetically... that's the dichotic dynamic that played out for both teams... you conveniently praise the scheme while failing to see the subleties that can cause its demise...

Petty semantics... are you that insecure about Olojuwon's legacy???... The man won out... be happy about it... Quit using it as a knock on Robinson; particularly on a week in which his entry to the HoF is being celebrated...

I see your point, but in a tight series the difference almost always comes down to role players making plays. That was true in the Spurs' title runs (especially in 2003), and it was true in the Rockets' back-to-back titles as well.

Nobody is discounting Olajuwon's historic performance. He was truly "in the zone," and he deserves credit for that. And David was certainly responsible for allowing him to have such a dynamic series. However, if David's supporting cast had been better we would've won the series despite that. It shouldn't all fall on David, but somehow it has.

Yes you can say that if the Spurs role players were better, then SA could have won. But can't you also say if Robinson was better (on either side of the ball), then SA could have won? Especially in the last two games, or the elimination game?

howbouthemspurs

09-15-2009, 12:12 AM

that is a hard question!

kingmalaki

09-15-2009, 12:15 AM

It says exactly what it means... What Bowen does to guys like Bryant, Allen, Hamilton, Carter... you don't have to stop them, you only have to make them play outside of their comfort zone... Besides Rodman had a habit of getting under people's skin - he was a physical defender when motivated... that's all that was needed...

That switch would have conserved more of Robinson's energy for the offensive end... And defensively; he would have ultimately closed the lane for all other players not named Olojuwon...

The problem with that comparison is that Hakeem was not a player that was easily rattled. If the Knicks and their thugball style weren't able to get under his skin, then I don't see it working with Rodman. That only works on players who allow themselves to be bothered (i.e. how Artest really doesn't get under Kobe's skin....because Kobe is too smart to fall for that). Rodman is too small to keep Hakeem out of his comfort zone. He can rise over Rodman whenever he likes.

Also, other Rockets weren't really in the lane that much. They gave the ball to Hakeem....either he scored or kicked it out to a 3 point shooter. So you are basically having david Robinson on the perimiter holding Robert Horry behind the 3-point line, and a worse defender holding Hakeem. Not smart.

wekko368

09-15-2009, 12:28 AM

It says exactly what it means... What Bowen does to guys like Bryant, Allen, Hamilton, Carter... you don't have to stop them, you only have to make them play outside of their comfort zone...

It's no wonder that you're getting offended when I allude to the matchup between Olajuwon and Robinson. You're really underestimating almost every facet of Olajuwon's game.

Let's review. Against Rodman, Olajuwon has a height advantage, speed advantage, footwork advantage, and length advantage...not to mention a refined post game game and a good shooting range (~17 ft). The only advantage Rodman has is strength. And you think he could contain Olajuwon...

If you truly believe that, you'd be able to give a better explanation than "he'd pester Olajuwon like Bowen pesters Kobe". Perimeter defense is very different than post defense.

Maybe you're thinking that Rodman's physicality would throw Olajuwon off his game. If so, I'd like to point out that Olajuwon overcame an incredibly physical Knicks team in the 94 finals.

Besides Rodman had a habit of getting under people's skin - he was a physical defender when motivated... that's all that was needed...

After becoming Muslim, can you think of one time where Olajuwon lost his temper on the court or showed any sign of mental weakness?

That switch would have conserved more of Robinson's energy for the offensive end... And defensively; he would have ultimately closed the lane for all other players not named Olojuwon...

I honestly don't know how valid your "Robinson was fatigued" theory is. Maybe other Spurs fans can weigh in on that. He always seemed to be in great shape to me.

ambchang

09-15-2009, 10:39 AM

One thing Rockets fans really have to understand, and I thought that with two championships and so many playoff games over the years that you would have gotten it, is that the playoffs revolves around matchup and exploiting weaknesses.

The 95 Spurs have a large number of weaknesses on their team:
1) The Spurs were a terrible shooting team. Avery Johnson doesn’t have PG range, he doesn’t even have PF range. Vinny Del Degro is a decent stop and pop shooter when he is wide open, but he doesn’t have SG range (3 pt range) when he is remotely being guarded, with the shorter 3-pt line, defenders can close out on him easily after a double team, and he can’t make any shots.
2) Dennis Rodman has always been an offensive liability, Robinson basically has to score his points. Making matters worse, he became a defensive liability by roaming around the lane to grab rebounds the whole series. Robinson didn’t just single cover Olajuwon, he had to attend to guys wide open close to the basket area because Rodman was not doing anything.
3) There are no finishers outside of Robinson and Elliott. Avery Johnson can penetrate the paint, but he can’t finish them to a degree that you had to collapse the paint on him.
4) Defensively, AJ is undersized, Del Negro is slow & undersized, Rodman decides not to play any. Basically, on defense, the Spurs are really having 3.5 people playing defense. (AJ, Elliott, and Robinson, plus half a Del Negro.

The Rockets on the other hand, were difficult to beat because:
1) Olajuwon was a man possessed, he drew in defenders, and any one of his guys on the court can take and make a 3 pter quickly. In fact, in the only game the Spurs outshot the Rockets in 3 pters, the Spurs won in a blowout fashion. Don’t come in and try to tell me that the only matchup was Robinson and Olajuwon; that shows an utter sense of ignorance to the game, as the whole Rockets offense was inside-out.
2) Every single one of the Rockets can play defense, with the exception of maybe Pete Chilcutt, who doesn’t even play that much.

Don’t come in and try to tell me that Clyde Drexler, Robert Horry, Kenny Smith, Mario Elie, and Sam Cassell doesn’t open up the middle for Olajuwon, because they did, and did it very well. The difficulty in guarding the Rockets back then was that if you single Olajuwon, he will score two points, if you double team him, the open man will make a 3, so it’s pick your poison.

And to say that Robinson has the same level of help in the form of Rodman, Vinny Del Negro, and Avery Johnson has got to be a joke. Avery Johnson was the Spurs 3rd best player, and he couldn’t even make the Rockets roster. Elliott choked two FTs in one of the games at home, in GAME 1.

Let’s break down the 3 pters made and results of each game.
Game 1 – Rockets 5, Spurs 2, Rockets won by 1.
Game 2 – Rockets 9, Spurs 4, Rockets won by 10.
Game 3 – Rockets 13, Spurs 9, Spurs won by 5.
Game 4 – Rockets 3, Spurs 4, Spurs won by 22.
Game 5 – Rockets 6, Spurs 2, Rockets won by 21.
Game 6 – Rockets 8, Spurs 2, Rockets won by 5.
Noticed that the only two games the Spurs won were the games that the Rockets didn’t double, triple, or even quadruple the number of 3PMs of the Spurs. And you guys are coming in and trying to say that Olajuwon and Robinson was the only matchup?

EDIT: BTW, do you know how Robinson did the game the Spurs made 9 3pters? He made 10 of 15 shots, scoring 29 points. Do you know why he was able to do that? Maybe because the lanes got wider because he wasn't constantly being doubled and tripled because the Rockets player had to get back on their man.

ambchang

09-15-2009, 10:45 AM

wekko368

09-15-2009, 11:31 AM

And to wekko368, do you know who guarded Olajuwon in the 94 finals? It was Anthony Mason and Charles Oakley, two guys who are about the same height and strength as Rodman.

I youtubed "1994 nba finals" and clicked on the first video I saw. It was the first 3 minutes of game 5. Out of the first 8 Rockets' possessions, Ewing guarded Olajuwon for 7 of them. The only exception occurred when Olajuwon was running the floor in on a fast break and was picked up by Charles Smith.

You know, when I allude to David Robinson (or anyone for that matter), I use statistics or video to back up my contentions. Some of you people are simply making things up and trying to pass them off as fact.

wekko368

09-15-2009, 11:36 AM

One thing Rockets fans really have to understand, and I thought that with two championships and so many playoff games over the years that you would have gotten it, is that the playoffs revolves around matchup and exploiting weaknesses.

Rockets fan understand this. The arguments occur b/c Spurs fans feel the Rockets won b/c the Rockets' supporting cast had a huge advantage over the Spurs' supporting cast whereas Rockets fans feel that they won b/c Olajuwon had a huge advantage over Robinson (for that series).

Any objective fan outside of San Antonio would agree with Rocket fans.

anonoftheinternets

09-15-2009, 11:47 AM

ambchang

09-15-2009, 11:55 AM

I youtubed "1994 nba finals" and clicked on the first video I saw. It was the first 3 minutes of game 5. Out of the first 8 Rockets' possessions, Ewing guarded Olajuwon for 7 of them. The only exception occurred when Olajuwon was running the floor in on a fast break and was picked up by Charles Smith.

You know, when I allude to David Robinson (or anyone for that matter), I use statistics or video to back up my contentions. Some of you people are simply making things up and trying to pass them off as fact.

And instead of watching tidbits of video, I actually watched the series.

While Olajuwon caused most of Ewing's shooting problems, the Knicks sent a squadron of defenders at Olajuwon, the most effective of whom was Anthony Mason, their muscular, 6'7", 250-pound forward. Mason has a résumé that reads like a soldier of fortune's, and a mentality to match. "Have gun, will travel, baby," he says. "I'll take anybody they ask me to—guard, forward, center—and try to lock 'em up. Olajuwon's a great player, but it doesn't matter who I guard. I've played in Turkey, Austria, Venezuela, the CBA, the USBL, West 4th Street Park. I had to travel a long way. It keeps you hungry. You know that you never want to go back."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1005308/index.htm

You know what? there are over 100 possessions per team in every single game. You had 8 and that was supposed to be some kind of significant statistics? Do you even know how statistics work?

I watched some highlights of Jordan, and he dunked in 80% of his shots, does that mean he scored 80% of his points on dunks?

ambchang

09-15-2009, 11:58 AM

Rockets fan understand this. The arguments occur b/c Spurs fans feel the Rockets won b/c the Rockets' supporting cast had a huge advantage over the Spurs' supporting cast whereas Rockets fans feel that they won b/c Olajuwon had a huge advantage over Robinson (for that series).

Any objective fan outside of San Antonio would agree with Rocket fans.

I came up with the statistics to back up the effect of the supporting cast. Saying that a single player won a championship, or even a series by minimizing the contributions of a supporting cast in a team game is extremely funny.

And your objective fan comment has 2 issues:
1) How do you define objective?
2) You didn't come up with statistics like you claimed.

wekko368

09-15-2009, 12:09 PM

some people have actually watched the games rather than youtube clips. We all know how highlights can be very different from actual games. But then again if this was clear cut, it wudnt be very interesting to discuss.

It wasn't a youtube clip. It was the entire game broken into 8 different youtube videos.

I went back and watched pieces of each video. It looks like Ewing stopped guarding Olajuwon when he got into foul trouble (picked up his 3rd foul at the beginning of the 3rd quarter).

wekko368

09-15-2009, 12:19 PM

I came up with the statistics to back up the effect of the supporting cast. Saying that a single player won a championship, or even a series by minimizing the contributions of a supporting cast in a team game is extremely funny.

Of course the Rockets' role players stepped their game up a few notches. That goes without saying. But the key to the series was that Olajuwon's game went up to a whole new level.

And your objective fan comment has 2 issues:
1) How do you define objective?
2) You didn't come up with statistics like you claimed.

An objective person is one with no bias.

Actually, I provided many statistics throughout this thread. Feel free to scroll back and read them.

kingmalaki

09-15-2009, 12:50 PM

And to wekko368, do you know who guarded Olajuwon in the 94 finals? It was Anthony Mason and Charles Oakley, two guys who are about the same height and strength as Rodman.

Do you know why the Knicks stretched the series to 7 games? It wasn’t because Ewing outplayed or matched Olajuwon, it was because players like Starks, Harper, Anthony, Davis, Oakley, Smith, and Mason actually played like NBA players in the series.

Do you know why the Knicks lost game 7? It’s because Starks shot 2 for 18, including 0-11 from 3.

Do you know why Olajuwon didn’t go for 40 a game in that series? It’s not because Ewing was a better defender than Robinson, it’s because his PF, Oakley and Mason, actually decided that defending was more important than grabbing rebounds.

Ewing was the primary defender on Hakeem, not Mason or Oakley. And Hakeem didn't put up 40 a night, but he put up around 27 a night on 50%, even though the average score was in the 80s. He put up over 30% of the Rockets offense. The Spurs series was just a higher scoring one.

Since the series was so tight, do you think it's probable that SA advances if Robinson brings his normal production on either side of the ball in the last two games? The Spurs weren't a great shooting team all season, yet they won when Robinson dominated. He was no longer the best player on the court and that was the main difference. When you go from typically dominating a matchup every night to the opposite, it makes a big difference. It seems like you are deflecting Robinson from his share of the blame for underperforming on both sides of the ball. Giving up 40 a night on a blistering 60% is not acceptable. Shooting 37% on the final game is not acceptable. This is your STAR player!!

kingmalaki

09-15-2009, 12:53 PM

some people have actually watched the games rather than youtube clips. We all know how highlights can be very different from actual games. But then again if this was clear cut, it wudnt be very interesting to discuss.

I have the series on DVD. I don't see how anyone could say Ewing wasn't the primary defender on Hakeem. At times Mason and Oakley got turns on him to give Pat a break, or due to foul concerns.

ambchang

09-15-2009, 01:32 PM

It wasn't a youtube clip. It was the entire game broken into 8 different youtube videos.

I went back and watched pieces of each video. It looks like Ewing stopped guarding Olajuwon when he got into foul trouble (picked up his 3rd foul at the beginning of the 3rd quarter).

You are really confusing me here, in the previous post, you said:

I youtubed "1994 nba finals" and clicked on the first video I saw. It was the first 3 minutes of game 5. Out of the first 8 Rockets' possessions, Ewing guarded Olajuwon for 7 of them. The only exception occurred when Olajuwon was running the floor in on a fast break and was picked up by Charles Smith.

The whole game, broken into 8 different youtube videos, had 8 Rocket's posessions, and Ewing guarded Olajuwon in 7 of them? What? The Rockets scored 15 points in that game, or did they have a lot of 12 point possessions?

ambchang

09-15-2009, 01:34 PM

Of course the Rockets' role players stepped their game up a few notches. That goes without saying. But the key to the series was that Olajuwon's game went up to a whole new level.

The key of the whole series is that the Rockets were simply a better team. I noticed you somehow couldn't see the post where I broke down the results compared to the Rockets vs. Spurs 3 pt shooting.

An objective person is one with no bias.

You find me such a person, and I will give you the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

Actually, I provided many statistics throughout this thread. Feel free to scroll back and read them.

But then again, I was referring to the one where you said "Most" objective people would agree with you.

EDIT: I actually scrolled back and see what kind of grand statistics you came up with, and in most cases, you were basically saying Hakeem scoring a whole lot of points shooting a high % is proof that he is opening up the outside for his shooters.

That's the whole point of the thread, and that is whether Olajuwon going off is a result or a cause of the Rocket's potent 3 pt shooting. You can't use what people are arguing about as some sort of proof.

What I can say though, is that that Rockets team was a great system, and the Lakers and Spurs have since tried to copy and improve on that system.

BTW, I also went check on the Olajuwon foul situation vs. the Spurs in the 95 regular season. In 6 regular season games, Olajuwon had 4+ fouls in 5 of them, including one game where he had to play lower minutes because of foul trouble.

ambchang

09-15-2009, 01:51 PM

Ewing was the primary defender on Hakeem, not Mason or Oakley. And Hakeem didn't put up 40 a night, but he put up around 27 a night on 50%, even though the average score was in the 80s. He put up over 30% of the Rockets offense. The Spurs series was just a higher scoring one.

Perhaps I wasn't making myself clear. I was responding directly to the point where wekko368 asked how Rodman could have guarded Olajuwon, when a taller, stronger Robinson couldn't.

Oakley and Mason was very effective (and effective as in compared to Ewing) despite being shorter and about as strong. A player defending the post could be voracious if he puts his heart to it, Rodman could be such a player if he decided to.

Since the series was so tight, do you think it's probable that SA advances if Robinson brings his normal production on either side of the ball in the last two games? The Spurs weren't a great shooting team all season, yet they won when Robinson dominated. He was no longer the best player on the court and that was the main difference. When you go from typically dominating a matchup every night to the opposite, it makes a big difference. It seems like you are deflecting Robinson from his share of the blame for underperforming on both sides of the ball. Giving up 40 a night on a blistering 60% is not acceptable. Shooting 37% on the final game is not acceptable. This is your STAR player!!

Since the series was so tight, do you think it's probable that SA advances if the spurs supporting casts could actually hit some wide open jumpshots when the Rockets double and triple Robinson? The Rockets had the whole gameplan designed around leaving the Spurs open for open shots and stopping Robinson, and it worked. The only game the Spurs were nailing 3 pters better than the Rockets, the Spurs won by 22 points. The only game where the Spurs shot a decent % from 3, the Spurs won by 5, and Robinson shot 10 for 15. You think that was a coincidence?

You think Rodman deciding not to guard Horry and hang around the basket for rebounds have absolutely no effect on how Robinson guarded Olajuwon? You think Del Negro letting Drexler go past him on every damned drive had no effect on Robinson, especially when he was the only one protecting the paint?

You know what happened the only time a team decided to shut down Olajuwon and let his teammates beat them? The Rockets lost, and Olajuwon scored 18.5 ppg on 44% shooting. You know why they can do that? Because that Houston team shot 11-40 on 3pters in the whole series, and they let a player like Vernon Maxwell outshoot Olajuwon.

In the 95 series, Robinson shot about the same amount of shots as AJ, Elliott, or in some cases Doc Rivers. You know why? Because the Rockets defense was letting them, and it worked. Olajuwon, on the other hand, was shooting far more shots than his teammates, because the Spurs head coach was too stupid to see that single teamming Olajuwon, and leaving Horry open for wide open shots by leaving Rodman in the game is killing the Spurs.

Phenomanul

09-15-2009, 02:04 PM

EDIT: BTW, do you know how Robinson did the game the Spurs made 9 3pters? He made 10 of 15 shots, scoring 29 points. Do you know why he was able to do that? Maybe because the lanes got wider because he wasn't constantly being doubled and tripled because the Rockets player had to get back on their man.

Rockets fans are not going to admit this into the discussion... they come in here blasting about an inside/outside offense and pretend that it only works because the post player makes it work... I have yet to see an unbiased response that admits that the viability of such a scheme also depends on the execution of the perimeter players...

That if the perimeter core doesn't contribute on par... the inside game collapses... when that happens it doesn't matter how great the post player is, the scheme will no longer work...

wekko368

09-15-2009, 03:13 PM

You are really confusing me here, in the previous post, you said:

The whole game, broken into 8 different youtube videos, had 8 Rocket's posessions, and Ewing guarded Olajuwon in 7 of them? What? The Rockets scored 15 points in that game, or did they have a lot of 12 point possessions?

Sorry, I didn't realize my post was so confusing.

The whole game was broken down into 8 different youtube videos. I watched the first video which showed the game introduction as well as the first 3 minutes of play. During those three minutes, the Rockets had the ball 8 times. For 7 of those 8 possessions, Ewing guarded Olajuwon. The exception occurred when Olajuwon ran the floor on a fast break and was picked up by Charles Oakley.

Does that make more sense?

wekko368

09-15-2009, 03:28 PM

The key of the whole series is that the Rockets were simply a better team. I noticed you somehow couldn't see the post where I broke down the results compared to the Rockets vs. Spurs 3 pt shooting.

What's the point? The Rockets' 3 point shooters were generally open because Olajuwon required extra defensive attention. However, there seems to a number of Spurs fans who would rather believe that Horry, Cassell, and K.Smith were playmakers.

You find me such a person, and I will give you the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

Why not go to another team's board and ask them whether they think the 95 Rockets/Spurs series was determined more by the matchup of the supporting casts or the matchup between Olajuwon/Robinson?

But then again, I was referring to the one where you said "Most" objective people would agree with you.

EDIT: I actually scrolled back and see what kind of grand statistics you came up with, and in most cases, you were basically saying Hakeem scoring a whole lot of points shooting a high % is proof that he is opening up the outside for his shooters.

Actually, given the Rockets' style of inside-out play, that should be all the proof you need. Additionally, I gave statistics showing how Robinson's production declined when compared to his regular season numbers.

That's the whole point of the thread, and that is whether Olajuwon going off is a result or a cause of the Rocket's potent 3 pt shooting. You can't use what people are arguing about as some sort of proof.

Use common sense. Why would Spurs' defenders leave their man to help Olajuwon? Obviously, it was because Olajuwon was being dominant.

Can you give me one example in NBA history where a team used long range shooting as a means to create space for their post player?

Also, the Rockets' offense at the time was inside-out....not outside-in.

BTW, I also went check on the Olajuwon foul situation vs. the Spurs in the 95 regular season. In 6 regular season games, Olajuwon had 4+ fouls in 5 of them, including one game where he had to play lower minutes because of foul trouble.

True, he never fouled out. Also, in that one game where he played fewer minutes, he played about the same number of minutes as Robinson.

wekko368

09-15-2009, 03:36 PM

Rockets fans are not going to admit this into the discussion... they come in here blasting about an inside/outside offense and pretend that it only works because the post player makes it work... I have yet to see an unbiased response that admits that the viability of such a scheme also depends on the execution of the perimeter players...

That if the perimeter core doesn't contribute on par... the inside game collapses... when that happens it doesn't matter how great the post player is, the scheme will no longer work...

If you're using a train to transport cargo from Point A to Point B, both the locomotive and the railcars are essential.

But no one in their right mind would say that the railcars are anywhere near as important as the locomotive.

Phenomanul

09-15-2009, 05:03 PM

What's the point? The Rockets' 3 point shooters were generally open because Olajuwon required extra defensive attention. However, there seems to a number of Spurs fans who would rather believe that Horry, Cassell, and K.Smith were playmakers.
ummm... no... we're contending that they were shotmakers... BIG difference. Seems to be the crux of our disagreement.

Why not go to another team's board and ask them whether they think the 95 Rockets/Spurs series was determined more by the matchup of the supporting casts or the matchup between Olajuwon/Robinson?
Other boards or the general NBA community has no incentive for picking that series apart. They simply know the outcome and regurgitate the prevailing theories of how it played out...

This argument is irrelevant.

Actually, given the Rockets' style of inside-out play, that should be all the proof you need. Additionally, I gave statistics showing how Robinson's production declined when compared to his regular season numbers.
Seems to me you didn't watch the series... No one's numbers get better when the other teams guards are sagging off of their men to guard you up close... just ask Wilt Chamberlain. The Rockets help defenders had every reason in the world to leave the Spurs' shooters wide open... Their focus was on crowding Robinson... why do you think he got to the free-throw line so often???

The only valid non-argument you'll get from Spurs' fans is the concession of the egg that Robinson laid in Game 5.

Use common sense. Why would Spurs' defenders leave their man to help Olajuwon? Obviously, it was because Olajuwon was being dominant.
Already been addressed... it's because they were employing the wrong defensive strategy throughout the series... They should have stayed on the perimeter shooters and let Olojuwon get his...

Can you give me one example in NBA history where a team used long range shooting as a means to create space for their post player?

The 1994 Rockets
The 1995 Rockets
The 2001 Lakers
The 2002 Lakers
The 2003 Spurs
The 2008 Magic

Also, the Rockets' offense at the time was inside-out....not outside-in.

Ummm... they are the same damn thing. Ultimately however, the scheme doesn't work if either the inside or outside presence doesn't establish itself. In the lone game that the Spurs were able to establish both the Spurs blew out the Rockets... Robinson shot 66% from the field in that game, and the Spurs doubled their production of 3 point makes. Robinson established his end of the bargain in the first four games... the rest of the Spurs only managed to do so in one of those.... Fortunately for Rockets fans, the Rockets effectively established that offense in every game but one.

Phenomanul

09-15-2009, 05:07 PM

If you're using a train to transport cargo from Point A to Point B, both the locomotive and the railcars are essential.

But no one in their right mind would say that the railcars are anywhere near as important as the locomotive.

Irrelevant metaphor...

My original point still stands... and there's really no way of refuting it. This is Basketball 101 material...

Rockets fans are not going to admit this into the discussion... they come in here blasting about an inside/outside offense and pretend that it only works because the post player makes it work... I have yet to see an unbiased response that admits that the viability of such a scheme also depends on the execution of the perimeter players...

That if the perimeter core doesn't contribute on par (by making shots)... the inside game collapses... when that happens it doesn't matter how great the post player is, the scheme will no longer work...

wekko368

09-15-2009, 05:39 PM

ummm... no... we're contending that they were shotmakers... BIG difference. Seems to be the crux of our disagreement.

Yes, they hit the open shots that were generally created by Olajuwon.

Other boards or the general NBA community has no incentive for picking that series apart. They simply know the outcome and regurgitate the prevailing theories of how it played out...

This argument is irrelevant.

In other words, they'd disagree with you.

The Rockets help defenders had every reason in the world to leave the Spurs' shooters wide open... Their focus was on crowding Robinson... why do you think he got to the free-throw line so often???

Yeah, it was unfortunate for the Spurs. Olajuwon was destroying everyone in his path. If the Spurs tried to double team him, he'd kick it out to a teammate for an open look.

Already been addressed... it's because they were employing the wrong defensive strategy throughout the series... They should have stayed on the perimeter shooters and let Olojuwon get his...

Yes, wrong defensive strategy. You'd rather let Rodman guard Olajuwon and let him average 60 ppg.

The 1994 Rockets
The 1995 Rockets
The 2001 Lakers
The 2002 Lakers
The 2003 Spurs
The 2008 Magic

You think those teams are outside-in? No, No, No, No, No, No.

Ummm... they are the same damn thing. Ultimately however, the scheme doesn't work if either the inside or outside presence doesn't establish itself.

No, inside-out and outside-in are not the same thing. Inside-out is predicated on having a post presence so strong that it demands a double team. The post player then passes it out for an open 3 pt shot. If the double team doesn't come, the post player usually scores.

In an outside-in system, the perimeter shooters are so effective that their defenders refuse to leave them which allows the post player to go one on one.

wekko368

09-15-2009, 05:41 PM

Irrelevant metaphor...

My original point still stands... and there's really no way of refuting it. This is Basketball 101 material...

It was actually a great analogy.

Btw, don't quote me and put words in my mouth at the same time.

Phenomanul

09-15-2009, 06:08 PM

Yes, they hit the open shots that were generally created by Olajuwon.

Kenny Smith
Mario Elie
Robert Horry
Sam Cassell

all made their own damn shots... How difficult is that to understand??? Unless of course you are advocating some telekinetic ability Olojuwon had that we didn't know about.

In other words, they'd disagree with you.

Do I care??? Not everyone cares for the truth... they'd rather have a distorted view of reality that the series was played out by only two men. Yeah, real enlightning...

Yeah, it was unfortunate for the Spurs. Olajuwon was destroying everyone in his path. If the Spurs tried to double team him, he'd kick it out to a teammate for an open look.

Which is why you'd rather let Olojuwon get 2... instead of falling behind by 3 more... real smart there, buddy.

Yes, wrong defensive strategy. You'd rather let Rodman guard Olajuwon and let him average 60 ppg.

You'd really think anybody can average 60 ppg for a series??? Especially when Olojuwon never managed to score 60 points in an NBA game for his career (maybe once)... Yeah... again you don't know what you're talking about... This ridiculous notion confirms it.

You think those teams are outside-in? No, No, No, No, No, No.
That settles it... you are being obtuse...

No, inside-out and outside-in are not the same thing. Inside-out is predicated on having a post presence so strong that it demands a double team. The post player then passes it out for an open 3 pt shot. If the double team doesn't come, the post player usually scores.

In an outside-in system, the perimeter shooters are so effective that their defenders refuse to leave them which allows the post player to go one on one.

Both are predicated on the effectiveness of their execution... And the dynamics for one often leads to the other... which is why at the point of execution either a three is released or a layup is taken.... Both Olojuwon and his three point shooters were damn effective in that series...

But... feel free to think it was all about Olojuwon and his telekinetic abilities.... I no longer care to discuss the matter with you.

kingmalaki

09-15-2009, 08:11 PM

Kenny Smith
Mario Elie
Robert Horry
Sam Cassell

all made their own damn shots... How difficult is that to understand??? Unless of course you are advocating some telekinetic ability Olojuwon had that we didn't know about.

He isn't denying that they made their own shots. He is saying they got those open shots because of the attention that Hakeem demanded. You are trying to give more credit to the role players making shots, as opposed to the star who requires a double team to get other guys looks. Sorry, but that makes no sense, especially when every guy you mention, outside of Drexler and maybe Cassell, really wasn't that great at creating their own shots. Like I mentioned earlier, this argument is as silly as me saying the Spurs role players in 2003 made the engine go, as opposed to Duncan who led the team in everything and got those dudes wide open shots because of the attention that he demanded.

As far as deciding who makes the engine go, you go with the player that requires the most attention. Do Elie, Horry, Cassell, or Smith require a double team to contain them? How often do they score when they aren't shooting wide open shots? How in the hell do they get wide open shots in the first place? What player can you not contain 1-1? What player creates open looks for other players? You know the answer to all of these questions. To assert that Hakeem wasn't the player making the system go makes absoultely no sense.

As far as the scheme to contain Robinson....was Robinson not double teamed in the regular season? Did he receive a level of attention in the 95 WCF's that he never had before? The answer to both of those questions is no. He just was facing a dude that he couldn't dominate, and his play suffered. Again, your star player is not supposed to allow a dude to score 40 a night on him on 60% shooting to close a series. Your star player is not supposed to shoot 37% in an elimination game, even when he is being double teames (what stars receive single coverage in the first place????). Will you please address these points, that you keep glossing over.

I am not trying to say all of the blame is on David. You win and lose as a team. But it's silly to sit here and keep saying his teammates let him down when his level of production took a big decrease, while the dude that he was holding had a career series. That makes no sense!!

Which is why you'd rather let Olojuwon get 2... instead of falling behind by 3 more... real smart there, buddy.

No coach would agree with you. A 2 pointer on 60% is worse than a 3 pointer at best, 40%.

Oakley and Mason was very effective (and effective as in compared to Ewing) despite being shorter and about as strong. A player defending the post could be voracious if he puts his heart to it, Rodman could be such a player if he decided to.

How were they that effective? Hakeem put up 27 a night on 50% shooting, and 30% of the teams offense. That's a very good scoring series. I don't see how you can conclude any defender was effective on him.

Since the series was so tight, do you think it's probable that SA advances if the spurs supporting casts could actually hit some wide open jumpshots when the Rockets double and triple Robinson?

Yep, completely possible. However, players did hit shots (Game 6 for example). The Spurs still lost with Robinson playing worse on both sides of the ball (shooting under 50% and giving up 40+ again). So are you saying Robinson received more defensive attention in the 95 WCF then he did during the regular season when he won the MVP?

Admiral

09-15-2009, 09:52 PM

A different twist would be to ask how Tim Duncan would've fared against Hakeem in 1995. My guess is not much better than DRob. Hakeem was just lights out in the postseason that year.

kingmalaki

09-15-2009, 10:51 PM

A different twist would be to ask how Tim Duncan would've fared against Hakeem in 1995. My guess is not much better than DRob. Hakeem was just lights out in the postseason that year.

I think Duncan would have actually done worse on Hakeem, but better against some of those other bigs. I don't see his production taking a dip in the postseason like Robinson's did. That's not to say Robinson was a slouch. I just think Tim was more reliable.

Phenomanul

09-15-2009, 11:29 PM

He isn't denying that they made their own shots. He is saying they got those open shots because of the attention that Hakeem demanded.
I never denied that this is how they got their looks...

You are trying to give more credit to the role players making shots, as opposed to the star who requires a double team to get other guys looks. Sorry, but that makes no sense, especially when every guy you mention, outside of Drexler and maybe Cassell, really wasn't that great at creating their own shots.
Despite all of his greatness, Olojuwon doesn't win the series if Elie doesn't make that 3 point dagger in Game 1... and if Elliott doesn't miss two freethrows at the end of that very game... What makes no sense is your attempt to convince us that these clutch moments are irrelevant.

I don't care if Olojuwon had scored 81 points in that game... the game still came down to a game winner... One which ultimately had to be made by the 'role' player... The dichotomy in your thinking is stupefying...

And how many times must I say it... Olojuwon played out of his mind in that series... but that doesn't take away the fact that he acted like a childish jackass by publically stating that Robinson didn't deserve the MVP award that year...

Like I mentioned earlier, this argument is as silly as me saying the Spurs role players in 2003 made the engine go, as opposed to Duncan who led the team in everything and got those dudes wide open shots because of the attention that he demanded.
Duncan made the Spurs engine go, sure... no one is denying that. Nevertheless, he wouldn't have held the Larry O'Brien trophy that June if Kerr hadn't delivered that amazing moment in Game 6 against the Mavs. Unlike you, I'm willing to credit those players for contributing to that championship run... As Cassell once said, "Rockets fans are an ungrateful bunch..." Now I know why he would say that...

As far as deciding who makes the engine go, you go with the player that requires the most attention. Do Elie, Horry, Cassell, or Smith require a double team to contain them?
Please don't insult my intelligence with such an absurd question... I never implied that they did... though it may have helped if the Spurs had decided to throw some different looks to Cassell in Game 2 of that series...

How often do they score when they aren't shooting wide open shots? How in the hell do they get wide open shots in the first place? What player can you not contain 1-1? What player creates open looks for other players? You know the answer to all of these questions. To assert that Hakeem wasn't the player making the system go makes absoultely no sense.
What I'm saying is that the offensive scheme only worked because the guys outside were knocking down their shots... as shown in Game 4, Robinson had an Olojuwonesque game when his shooters began to knock down their shots...
it's called synergy... Things would have been far more even if this had been the case throughout the series...

As far as the scheme to contain Robinson....was Robinson not double teamed in the regular season? Did he receive a level of attention in the 95 WCF's that he never had before? The answer to both of those questions is no. He just was facing a dude that he couldn't dominate, and his play suffered.
Olojuwon rarely defended Robinson 1v1 in that series... and when he did, Olojuwon picked up fouls. The Spurs should have defended Olojuwon the same way the Rockets defended Robinson... with the other frontcourt players... using Olojuwon only as a help defender on Robinson...

Again, your star player is not supposed to allow a dude to score 40 a night on him on 60% shooting to close a series.
So how that work for Amare Stoudemire and the Phoenix Suns in 2005??? Apparently someone can go off in a series and still lose... the difference was that the Spurs' didn't have Gregg Popovich running the show yet... Popovich would have recognized that guarding Olojuwon with your best offensive weapon was ineffective and detrimental.

Your star player is not supposed to shoot 37% in an elimination game, even when he is being double teamed (what stars receive single coverage in the first place????). Will you please address these points, that you keep glossing over.
I'm not glossing them over... you just keep insisting that only two players played in that series... Look, I've already acknowledged that David played subpar basketball in Game 5... But that game didn't kill them nearly as much as having lost the first two games at home... games in which the Spurs shooters shot a combined 39% from the field... games in which the Spurs second best front court player decided to chuck up three pointers to piss off his coach...

I am not trying to say all of the blame is on David.
Doesn't seem like it... You keep pointing to his subpar outings in Games 5 and 6 as an indication that He alone lost the series...

You win and lose as a team.
You know... I hear you saying it... but I don't believe you understand what that means...

But it's silly to sit here and keep saying his teammates let him down when his level of production took a big decrease,
I can assure you that Olojuwon's production would have decreased similarly if his shooters had missed most of their shots... Oh wait... that kind of happened in Game 4. Fact of the matter is that the Rockets' inside/outside offense worked so effectively because Olojuwon was a great player, but also because the 'role' players you so eagerly dismiss knocked down their shots... Nothing you can say will change that reality.

wekko368

09-16-2009, 01:02 AM

Fact of the matter is that the Rockets' inside/outside offense worked so effectively because Olojuwon was a great player, but also because the 'role' players you so eagerly dismiss knocked down their shots... Nothing you can say will change that reality.

I have to give kudos to you. I'd be ashamed of myself if I clung to this argument for so long. Of course the Rockets don't win unless role players make shots. No team can win unless role players make shots.

The problem with your perception is that you're giving the role players too much credit. You're making it sound like they were equally as important as Olajuwon when they were nowhere close.

What if I told you that the overall fg percentages for Elie, Cassell, Smith, Drexler, and Horry were lower in the Spurs series than they were in the regular season?

To be fair though, Horry and Elie dramatically improved their 3pt%.

Here's a fantastic example for you:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/boxscore?gameId=283302166

Remember that game? Curry came into the game averaging 35 ppg. Loyola decided to double team him exclusively. Curry countered by standing in the corner and allowing his team to play 4 against 3. Davidson eventually won by 30 and Curry didn't score a single point.

In your opinion, who was more integral to the Wildcat win....Curry or the rest of the Davidson Wildcats?

ambchang

09-16-2009, 09:50 AM

What's the point? The Rockets' 3 point shooters were generally open because Olajuwon required extra defensive attention. However, there seems to a number of Spurs fans who would rather believe that Horry, Cassell, and K.Smith were playmakers.

Cassell was most definitely a playmaker, so was Drexler. Elie, Horry and Smith were mostly recipients of passes. But that is beside the point.

It’s obvious that the Rockets built an inside-out offense because of Olajuwon, there really is no point in arguing that. The point is, the Rockets built an inside-out offense by surrounding Olajuwon with fantastic 3-pt shooters who performed under pressure. The Spurs decided to single team Olajuwon throughout the series, let him go off, and hope that the other players don’t kill them, the rationale is that Olajuwon himself can’t score enough by himself to beat a team. This strategy worked in 88 when the Mavs shut down the Rockets cast, and Hakeem went off for 37.5 ppg, shooting 30% of the Rockets FGA. It didn’t work for the Spurs because players like Del Negro can’t guard anybody on the outside, least of which a guy like Drexler, or even guys like Elie, Cassell, or any perimeter players the Rockets put on the floor, because they were either too quick, too strong, or in most cases, BOTH for Del Negro to guard. Then there is Rodman, who left his man wide open for shot after shot after shot.

There are two ways to face a team with a single superstar, one is to let him go off, and shut down everybody else, the other is to shut down the superstar, and dare his supporting cast to beat you. The 95 Spurs did neither, they let Hakeem go off by single teaming him most of the time, but they couldn’t even defend the other guys around him.

Why not go to another team's board and ask them whether they think the 95 Rockets/Spurs series was determined more by the matchup of the supporting casts or the matchup between Olajuwon/Robinson?

Those people are unbiased? The perception has already been made that Robinson is inferior to Olajuwon due to that one series, how were they unbiased? If anything, those people not only are biased, they are also unknowledgeable because they don’t care enough to actually watch that series multiple times.

Actually, given the Rockets' style of inside-out play, that should be all the proof you need. Additionally, I gave statistics showing how Robinson's production declined when compared to his regular season numbers.

You mean like looking it up on a page? That’s some in-depth analysis you have right there. How about look at the years when Robinson really had a guard around him and see how he performed? How about looking at the years when his start point guard was not good enough to make the cut as the 3rd string point guard on the Rockets? Or how his starting shooting guard couldn’t even hang on with the Milwaukee Bucks, or how his best teammate ever, an All-Star SF, struggled in the lone year he was in Detroit, or how many points his multi-colour haired PF scored. How about looking at how the Spurs performed with and without Robinson?

You just don’t seem to get that inside out has TWO components, there is an out. You know what kind of “Out” the Spurs had?

Use common sense. Why would Spurs' defenders leave their man to help Olajuwon? Obviously, it was because Olajuwon was being dominant.

You mean Robinson is dominant too because he was being double and tripled throughout the whole series? You also mean that Olajuwon’s teammates have the ability to knockdown shots? I mean, let me get this straight, are you saying Olajuwon was actually scoring 35ppg in that series despite being double and tripled throughout the playoffs? Are you trying to dismiss that the Rockets of that year set the record of most 3 pters made?

Can you give me one example in NBA history where a team used long range shooting as a means to create space for their post player?

The 94 Rockets, 95 Rockets, any team O’Neal was on from 94 all the way to at least 04, 03 to 07 Spurs. The mid 80’s Lakers team.

I am curious, what other ways do you have for creating space for a post player? Packing the lane with another post player?

Also, the Rockets' offense at the time was inside-out....not outside-in.

Nobody is saying that the Kenny Smiths and Sam Cassells are creating shots for Olajuwon, what everyone is saying is that the Smiths, Elies, Cassells, Drexlers and Horrys are creating a situation where the defending team has to decide whether to stop them or stop Olajuwon.

True, he never fouled out. Also, in that one game where he played fewer minutes, he played about the same number of minutes as Robinson.
But he did get into foul trouble, right?

ambchang

09-16-2009, 10:03 AM

If you're using a train to transport cargo from Point A to Point B, both the locomotive and the railcars are essential.

But no one in their right mind would say that the railcars are anywhere near as important as the locomotive.

Too bad basketball is not a train.

Let me clear this up for you.

The 95 Rockets were an inside-out team, they have a dominant inside player in Olajuwon to make it work. However, they also need shooters to actually make shots for the system to work, or else they would have a situation like the 88 Rockets where Olajuwon could score 37.5 ppg and get kicked out in the 1st round in 4 games because nobody else can score; or they would have a case like the 90 Rockets, where Olajuwon scores 18.3 ppg on 46.9% shooting and have a guy like Otis Thorpe, Vernon Maxwell, and Sleepy Floyd outscore him because there are no one to open up the lanes for Olajuwon, and get kicked out in 4 games in the 1st round.

You honestly think this is a game of one on one when a player decides to take over? Then you would agree that Vlade Divacs is a better defensive player than James Donaldson and David Robinson. In fact, he is twice the defender. But then it’s obvious to those who actually watched the game to know that it was simply the case of different defensive schemes. And those defensive schemes is predicated upon what the Rockets offense can do.

In the case of the 95 Rockets, there is a LOT they could do on offense. They were not a one man wrecking crew, they have dominant inside play by Olajuwon, they have a slashing game in Drexler and Cassell, they have great outside shooting in 4 of the 5 positions. This was a very tough team to beat, and was the blueprint for the dominant 3-peat Lakers, and the Duncan Spurs.

Repeat this after me, basketball is a team game, Olajuwon scored all these points because he was a great player, but also because his teammates allowed him to have the space to score.

kingmalaki

09-16-2009, 10:08 AM

ambchang

09-16-2009, 10:09 AM

kingmalaki

09-16-2009, 10:12 AM

kingmalaki

09-16-2009, 10:16 AM

BTW, I am still waiting some response, or at least acknowledgement, on how Robinson could have shot 10 for 15 the game the Spurs made 9 3 pointers, or in the only game where the Spurs outshot the Rockets in 3 pters (4 to 3), the Spurs won by 22.

I would be all for that argument if Robinson didn't shoot so poorly over the final 2 games. A star can make no field goals and his teammates can hit everything to bail him out (i.e. the Curry example). However, the Spurs were built on David scoring points at a decent percentage. Is it suprising that they lost when his production decreased? Again I ask, weren't the Spurs a not so great long distance shooting team all season? Hasn't David been doubled teamed his entire career? Yet, they still had the #1 seed in 95 right? You are mentioning these things as if they are new occurances. Doesn't it make some sense that the Spurs won in spite of all these things in 95, when Robinson was dominating....and when he was no longer the dominant player on the court and actually putting up worse numbers (much worse shooting wise over the last 2 games), then they lost?

ambchang

09-16-2009, 10:19 AM

Phenomanul

Of course the Rockets dont win without role players making big shots (i.e. the Elie shot that you mentioned). But they also aren't in the game if Hakeem (the high scorer) doesn't keep them in the game, and Elie doesn't have a wide open look without Hakeem's presence. This is what you keep glossing over. The #2 or #3 option on a team is not more important than the #1 option that draws all the attention, and whom the system is based around. That's what you are trying to argue, and it doesn't make sense. A role player is not just as important, or more important than the star, especially not when the star is dropping near 40 over the course of the series, on a great shooting %.

Nobody is saying that the supporting cast is more important than Olajuwon, but without that supporting cast, Olajuwon can’t dominate like he did.

The success of the team is made up of many different components, find me a championship team, and you can almost point to a case where they would not have won a championship without a role player stepping up.

What had been the argument, was that Olajuwon couldn’t possibly have scored 40ppg and still won the series if his supporting casts are not making any shots.

What had been the argument is that if the Spurs had anyone who can actually nail an open shot, Robinson would have either scored more, or the Spurs would have won the series.

And again, I'm not trying to say it's all on David. I'm saying stop blasting his teammates and giving him a pass. The facts are the series was knotted 2-2 after 4 games. Over the next two games, one center had a huge increase in production compared to what he normally gave his team, and the other center had a huge decrease. Those are the facts. Robinsons teammates didn't show up, but neither did he....especially in the last two games. The series was basically 0-0 after 4 games, and the Spurs had homecourt. At that point it's a best of 3 series.
In Game 6, Hakeem had 8 assists along with those 42 points. He got 8 assists because his teammates are making their outside shots. If his teammates were not making their outside shots, the game would have been a lot closer than a 21 point blowout. In that game, Horry had 13 rebounds, outrebounding the supposedly best rebounding player in the history of the league by 1. Sam Cassell, the backup point guard of the Rockets, had 5 more assists than the starting PG of the Spurs. The Rockets had 31 assists to the Spurs 17, but they only made 6 more shots. That points to superior ball movement. Avery Johnson, the guy who couldn’t shoot, had 15 shots in the game, the same as Robinson. Perhaps it’s because Robinson couldn’t get decent shots off because he was doubled and tripled throughout he game.

I am curious to hear your response to the Curry example as well.
Please repeat that, I’ve missed it.

ambchang

09-16-2009, 10:42 AM

ambchang

Can you please stop saying the Rockets decided to double and triple David all series long, while the Sprus always single covered Hakeem? That simply isn't true. I have the games on DVD. Watch the games and you will see Hakeem getting doubled often (how do you think dudes got their wide open looks), and you will also see Hakeem holding David 1-1 often. Both centers were checked 1-1 and doubled in that series. I don't know how this myth got to be so popular on this board, especially when there are plenty of youtube highlights showing Hakeem shaking Robinson out of his boots in 1-1 coverage.

I can’t, because those are the facts. And you personally said it, Olajuwon shook Robinson out of his boots in 1-1 coverage.

Robinson was continuously doubled and tripled.

I would be all for that argument if Robinson didn't shoot so poorly over the final 2 games. A star can make no field goals and his teammates can hit everything to bail him out (i.e. the Curry example). However, the Spurs were built on David scoring points at a decent percentage. Is it suprising that they lost when his production decreased? Again I ask, weren't the Spurs a not so great long distance shooting team all season? Hasn't David been doubled teamed his entire career? Yet, they still had the #1 seed in 95 right? You are mentioning these things as if they are new occurances. Doesn't it make some sense that the Spurs won in spite of all these things in 95, when Robinson was dominating....and when he was no longer the dominant player on the court and actually putting up worse numbers (much worse shooting wise over the last 2 games), then they lost?

And the fact that the team won 62 games spoke to how great Robinson was. The Spurs had multiple holes in their offense, and those were exploited in the playoffs. So what Robinson really should have done is to not score as well in the regular season, tanked the season, and gotten shooters to help him out. So you figured Robinson just somehow decided to miss shots? Did Olajuwon decided to do that against the Lakers in the 90s playoffs?

Robinson doing everything that he could to carry a flawed team to the best record in the league shouldn’t be something that he should be penalized upon, it should be something that speaks to the greatness of him. That 95 team won 59 games the following season after losing one of the supposedly greatest rebounder in the history of the league. But once they lost David Robinson, they won only 20 games. This speaks to how ridiculously flawed the team was.

As for the Rockets, one year removed from the playoffs, they got swept by the Finalist Sonics. Did Olajuwon suddenly decide not to care? Afterall, he scored 26.9 ppg in the regular season, but “only” 22.4 ppg in the playoffs Including 6 points in game 1 on 3-9 shooting. You may argue that Ervin Johnson was such an all world defender that he held Olajuwon to 18.25 ppg on 47.5. Or may Shawn Kemp was such an amazing player that he just killed Olajuwon on every turn. But the truth of the matter is because Seattle employed a fantastic defensive scheme around Hakeem, and allowed the supporting cast to shoot their 3s. It didn’t matter that the Rockets made 9, 13, 11 and 10 3 pters in the game, because the Sonics made 10, 20, 6 and 5 of their own, neutralizing the Rockets outside shooting, and allowing them to crowd the lane on the defensive end.

sam1617

09-16-2009, 10:56 AM

I love how people give David shit for losing to one of the, if not the all-time best C's EVER in Hakeem. Timmy loses to Dirk, and gets dominated by Amare offensively.

And like Ambchang says, the Spurs won 20 games without David. The Spurs without Timmy is still essentially a .500 team, if not a little better. There is no comparison in talent level on those rosters. It was David and Sean against the world, and as much as I love Sean, he's a 5th option on this years Spurs team and a 4th option on our 05 and 07 teams.

ulosturedge

09-16-2009, 12:08 PM

Houston caught fire in there first run to the Championship. No one was stopping them. And if you can't see the disparity in the supporting casts between the 94-95 Spurs/Houston rosters or even between the Robinson era rosters to the Duncan era rosters.. well then your blind. Like it is being said no one wins it ALONE, NO ONE. I mean Magic had Kareem, Isiah had Dumars, MJ had Pippen, Stockton had Malone, KJ had Barkley, Kemp had Payton.. i'm sure there is more. Not to mention some of those names didn't even win a championship. Who was the second best player on Robinson's team? TC? Elliott? That kind of pales in comparison to some of these future hall of famers or proven all-star caliber players.

The second part of the problem is coaching. I can't even count how many piss poor coaches Robinson had to play under. Robinson's best chances to win were under Larry Brown and Bob Hill. Under Larry Brown the team was too young and not ready to step up to the big playoff atmosphere. Under Bob Hill the dude was clueless on making adjustments or anything involving defensive schemes during the playoffs.

In otherwords, a HOF'er still needs a solid supporting cast and good coaching to win championships. Neither of which Robinson had the pleasure of having during his career.

Note: And sorry for the gripe. I just hate the Robinson/Duncan comparisons because their situations were completely different. A ton of people put Duncan on this pedalstool and treat Robinson like he didn't have the will to win or he wasn't good enough. I saw Robinson's entire career growing up and I have nothing but respect for him and everything he did to try and carry mediocre teams(lol) to the championship. He dominated just as much as Duncan did, but just didn't have neither the coaching nor supporting cast to really make legitament runs.

Btw all these Duncan homers didn't even see Robinson play in his prime, if they saw anything it was the butt end of his career which was like a 1/4 of what he really was in his career. Its hard for me even to remember his prime because Championships are what sticks out in my mind the most. When I see old highlight reels it all comes back though..

wekko368

09-16-2009, 12:15 PM

I love how people give David shit for losing to one of the, if not the all-time best C's EVER in Hakeem. Timmy loses to Dirk, and gets dominated by Amare offensively.

Exactly. There's no shame in losing to Olajuwon. He went through all the elite centers in his era.

What I find interesting is that a few posters here refuse to believe it happened. They insist that it was the Rockets' role players that pulled the team to victory. They point to the inadequacies of the the Spurs' supporting cast while ignoring Robinson's own decreased postseason numbers.

Mel_13

09-16-2009, 12:19 PM

Exactly. There's no shame in losing to Olajuwon. He went through all the elite centers in his era.

What I find interesting is that a few posters here refuse to believe it happened. They insist that it was the Rockets' role players that pulled the team to victory

Maybe now you will concede that if Olajuwon and Robinson had played to an absolute standstill, the Rockets still would have won that series because the rest of Olujuwon's team was superior to the rest of Robinson's team.

wekko368

09-16-2009, 12:19 PM

I can’t, because those are the facts. And you personally said it, Olajuwon shook Robinson out of his boots in 1-1 coverage.

Robinson was continuously doubled and tripled.

The guy says he has the games on DVD, and the footage refutes your claims yet you still refuse to admit you're wrong.

Do you actually believe your memory is more accurate than complete game footage?

Phenomanul

09-16-2009, 12:47 PM

The guy says he has the games on DVD, and the footage refutes your claims yet you still refuse to admit you're wrong.

Do you actually believe your memory is more accurate than complete game footage?

Actually I doubt he has the series on DVD...

I acquired game footage of all 6 games (parts of Games 3 and Games 6 are missing) about 7 years ago... ON VHS... after years of searching for the footage no less... the games were recorded when the games first aired by a Rockets fan I befriended in that timeframe... My brother lost the set by loaning them to a friend of his... :bang

Last year prior to Olojuwon's induction into the HoF they re-aired Game 6 for the first time ever since the series played out... Like I said, it takes more than a few statements for his claim to convince me.

If his statement were true then he would have known that the Spurs' shooters shot less than 30% in the fourth quarters of losses.... by his logic however 'role' players don't matter... 'role' players don't grant the spacing for the post player to be effective... Delusional his thinking is (yoda speak)...

Rockets fan needs to be grateful for the fact that the Rockets didn't face the Spurs in the playoffs during Robinson's first two years in the league... when he actually had a 'decent' supporting cast and coaching... I would have added a year to that range but the Rockets didn't even make the playoffs in Robinson's third year... that off-season you all picked up Robert Horry and the following off-season, Sam Cassell; two moves which shifted the tide of power to your favor. Not that you'd understand just how important those acquisitions were given your line of reasoning... :rolleyes

ambchang

09-16-2009, 12:56 PM

Exactly. There's no shame in losing to Olajuwon. He went through all the elite centers in his era.

What I find interesting is that a few posters here refuse to believe it happened. They insist that it was the Rockets' role players that pulled the team to victory. They point to the inadequacies of the the Spurs' supporting cast while ignoring Robinson's own decreased postseason numbers.

Quotes please.

If anything I actually read gems suggesting that the Spurs lost because Robinson didn't pull through.

ambchang

09-16-2009, 12:58 PM

The guy says he has the games on DVD, and the footage refutes your claims yet you still refuse to admit you're wrong.

Do you actually believe your memory is more accurate than complete game footage?

There is only one copy of that series on DVD in the entire universe, with no other medium, and kingmalaki holds that copy.

Thanks for ignoring all the other points you can't answer.

ambchang

09-16-2009, 12:59 PM

Come to think of it, I wouldn't mind a copy of that series on DVD, kingmalaki, can you burn me a copy? VHS sucks, and I am trying to get rid of that hunk of junk.

wekko368

09-16-2009, 04:54 PM

Maybe now you will concede that if Olajuwon and Robinson had played to an absolute standstill, the Rockets still would have won that series because the rest of Olujuwon's team was superior to the rest of Robinson's team.

The only game where Olajuwon and Robinson played to an absolute standstill was game 4, and the Spurs won.

wekko368

09-16-2009, 04:58 PM

There is only one copy of that series on DVD in the entire universe, with no other medium, and kingmalaki holds that copy.

Thanks for ignoring all the other points you can't answer.

First of all, since he's a Rocket's fan, its very possible he had the games on VHS and later transferred them to DVD.

I know I have the 94 finals on VHS somewhere.

And I didn't ignore any of your points. If you present a point which I haven't already addressed, I'll be happy to respond. It's annoying answering the same thing over and over.

Mel_13

09-16-2009, 05:10 PM

The only game where Olajuwon and Robinson played to an absolute standstill was game 4, and the Spurs won.

Since you have chosen to avoid the question posed, I will rephrase.

You have gone on for several days and pages in an attempt to prove a point you believe to be self-evident.

I'm not challenging you on that issue, you have enough debate partners there.

I'm simply asking you to concede what also seems self-evident, that the Rockets roster minus Hakeem was superior to Spurs roster minus David.

Do you agree or disagree?

wekko368

09-16-2009, 05:25 PM

Since you have chosen to avoid the question posed, I will rephrase.

I'm not avoiding anything. You gave a hypothetical situation with your expected result. Game 4 was an actual game that adhered to your parameters and had the opposite result.

I'm simply asking you to concede what also seems self-evident, that the Rockets roster minus Hakeem was superior to Spurs roster minus David.

Do you agree or disagree?

I agree to the point that if each team's role players had to play 10 games against each other, I think the Rockets role players would win either 5 or 6 of the games.

When you think about the individual matchups, its really not as self-evident as you might think.

Mel_13

09-16-2009, 05:37 PM

I agree to the point that if each team's role players had to play 10 games against each other, I think the Rockets role players would win either 5 or 6 of the games.

So your contention is that Hakeem's supporting cast was barely better than David's, if at all?

wekko368

09-16-2009, 05:42 PM

So your contention is that Hakeem's supporting cast was barely better than David's, if at all?

It depends on the presence of Olajuwon. Without him, the Rockets' supporting cast was barely better than Robinson's.

However, if you include Olajuwon into the mix, his teammates as a whole became much better. He elevated everyone's game.

kingmalaki

09-16-2009, 05:47 PM

Come to think of it, I wouldn't mind a copy of that series on DVD, kingmalaki, can you burn me a copy? VHS sucks, and I am trying to get rid of that hunk of junk.

I will be more than happy to send you the link (once I find it) of the site that sells game DVDs. A guy posted it on the Rockets board a few months back, around fathers day (when amazon had their sets for like 20). The games are like $14 each.

Bandwagon Spurs Fan

09-16-2009, 05:53 PM

Mel_13

09-16-2009, 06:05 PM

kingmalaki

09-16-2009, 06:06 PM

So your contention is that Hakeem's supporting cast was barely better than David's, if at all?

I think it's fair to say supporting players have more open looks and less pressure when their main option is dropping near 40 on a good %, as opposed to one shooting under 50% and scoring less. It's the chicken and the egg argument. Which came first. I think we can all admit that most usually look at the star player getting guys open looks, and not the other way around.

But even assuming we go with the supporting cast argument, it was the same cast Robinson had all year. If he brought his typical production (which he didn't), then it may have been a different series because the games were so close. But the fact is that he underperformed, compared to what he gave SA in the regular season. It's not a case of him playing better with his cast playing worse. It's not a case of him seeing doubles that he didn't see earlier on, when he had better production. David underperformed. That in itself didn't lose the series, but it is a fact.

And to answer a question that was posed, one playoff series where Hakeem played Seattle and Houston lost, and his numbers dropped, it's fair to say he had a decrease in production. Conversly, there was another year where he had an increase and still lost (I believe 1993). These arguments would hold more weight if David was in that situation, but he had a decrease, and a huge one in the last 2 games. Again, it's all knotted after 4 games. One center puts up 40 on 60%. The other had a big decrease. I don't see how anyone can argue that big difference in what was given at the center position wasn't the most important aspect of the series. The Spurs were dominant because on most nights David was the best player on the floor, or at least at his position. In the 95 WCFs that was no longer the case and they lost. How is that a hard connection to make?

Mel_13

09-16-2009, 06:46 PM

I think it's fair to say supporting players have more open looks and less pressure when their main option is dropping near 40 on a good %, as opposed to one shooting under 50% and scoring less. It's the chicken and the egg argument. Which came first.

You may see it that way.

I believe the quality of the respective supporting casts is relevant.

Look, I really don't care who "wins" this debate because it comes down to an irreconcilable difference of opinions.

One side believes the squads were basically equal and that Hakeem's dominance over David carried the day.

The other side believes that Hakeem had a decided advantage at the outset that Houston successfully exploited on the way to victory.

As long as there is at least one person on each side, this can go on forever.

Good luck with that.

Sorry for interrupting.

kingmalaki

09-16-2009, 06:56 PM

You may see it that way.

I believe the quality of the respective supporting casts is relevant.

So do I.

One side believes the squads were basically equal and that Hakeem's dominance over David carried the day.

I don't believe that. I believe David's teammates played worse, but I also believe he played worse. If he won his matchup like he did on most nights, then I think SA would have won like they did on most nights. The team was built around him being dominant. When that wasn't the case, and his counterparty was the most dominant player, it's not suprising that he lost.

The main thing I see being argued is that folks want to give more credit to roleplayers doing their job, as opposed to the star player having a monster series, whom the offense is built around, and that is getting all of those role players open shots. That is a baffling argument to me.

kingmalaki

09-16-2009, 07:03 PM

yo, can i just send you a few blanks

You can buy it like I did.

Actually, the link doesn't seem to be working now. Maybe the site is down? It was up in July.

www.pontel.com

Here is the thread from the Rockets board:

ulosturedge

09-16-2009, 07:38 PM

Actually this whole thread got derailed lol. This was never suppose to be a Hakeem vs David thread. The question was what would you think TD could have done with the Spurs of old and what do you think DRob could have done with the Spurs anew.

No doubt in my mind DRob would have won some championships. The advantage he would have had of better coaching and a better supporting cast is undeniable imo. The defensive schemes put in place when the Spurs were winning championships was superb(and the personnel to back it up too). DRob in his prime was a better defender then Duncan and Duncan is an outstanding defensive player. But DRob was a monster on defense. He had the rebounds Duncan did, but add in the blocks, and he even finished top 10 in steals at some point in his career. He would have been an amazing anchor for the Spurs defense, shit he was the Spurs anchor for defense in their first 2 championships. The guy was like 36 what does that tell you. Robinson could dish the ball off too, but never really had the luxury to. Well not as much as Duncan did anyways.

Robinson would have dominated games but in a different way. It would have looked different, but I would have no doubt that the outcomes would have been near the same. Thats what I think people have a hard time imagining.

And for all this talk about Robinson having bad playoff games; they were few and far between. Not to mention Duncan has had bad playoff games as well. Albeit he usually bounced back in the next game, but he has had his fair share of bad playoff games. The difference being the newer teams were much more resilient then the older Spurs teams. Chalk it up to experience, mental toughness, or whatever you want, but thats how I see it.

Phenomanul

09-16-2009, 08:36 PM

So do I.

I don't believe that. I believe David's teammates played worse, but I also believe he played worse. If he won his matchup like he did on most nights, then I think SA would have won like they did on most nights. The team was built around him being dominant. When that wasn't the case, and his counterparty was the most dominant player, it's not suprising that he lost.

The main thing I see being argued is that folks want to give more credit to roleplayers doing their job, as opposed to the star player having a monster series, whom the offense is built around, and that is getting all of those role players open shots. That is a baffling argument to me.

It shouldn't be that baffling... The 'role' players' effectiveness made Olojuwon dominant and vice versa... But it's partly because those 'role' players are making their shots that the offensive strategy can even thrive... You keep insisting that their execution doesn't make a difference... Like I said yesterday, it's a synergistic dynamic that works only when both components of that offense are contributing...

The portion of the argument that you keep 'glossing over' is that when the outside offense isn't working the post play subsequently suffers... Robinson got his teammates those same open looks you so 'boast' about in Games 1 and 2, but since his teammates couldn't execute proficiently David got crowded much sooner and closer (i.e. the difference between a 'hard' double-team and a 'soft' one - not that you seem to understand). That defensive strategy, applied to teams whose perimeter offense is unproductive, will render any center less effective. Even your untouchable Olojuwon had to suffer through the growing pains of that reality (1987-1992)... Yeah I said it, when Olojuwon didn't have a balanced team helping him out his teams also got bounced from the playoffs... you're fringe distorted understanding of that relationship is what keeps you accepting the fact that 'role' players play a much larger 'role' than you're giving them credit for... But go ahead and keep thinking that Olojuwon single-handedly won Houston's 2 championships... I mean as great as he was he should have won 10 or more championships... Fact of the matter is he couldn't win it all until the cast around him was balanced enough to space him effectively.

BTW I have a real problem referring to Drexler as a 'role' player... the guy averaged over 20 ppg that season while shooting over 50% from the field... I'm sorry David didn't have the luxury of playing alongside another great to help his cause...

edit: Prior to Duncan's arrival of course...

Phenomanul

09-16-2009, 08:44 PM

You can buy it like I did.

Actually, the link doesn't seem to be working now. Maybe the site is down? It was up in July.

www.pontel.com

Here is the thread from the Rockets board:

This has been your only worthy contribution to the thread... :toast

Pontel didn't offer that series until recently (according to their site log).

wekko368

09-16-2009, 10:16 PM

It shouldn't be that baffling... The 'role' players' effectiveness made Olojuwon dominant and vice versa... But it's partly because those 'role' players are making their shots that the offensive strategy can even thrive... You keep insisting that their execution doesn't make a difference... Like I said yesterday, it's a synergistic dynamic that works only when both components of that offense are contributing...

You never did tell me your opinion on the Loyola/Davidson game that I asked you about.

Was Curry more integral to the win or were his teammates?

ambchang

09-16-2009, 10:18 PM

I will be more than happy to send you the link (once I find it) of the site that sells game DVDs. A guy posted it on the Rockets board a few months back, around fathers day (when amazon had their sets for like 20). The games are like $14 each.

That's a little steep ($14 each). I thought the amazon set only have the Finals games, and not the ones before.
And please do send the link, I would have to think long and hard about spending $76 on a series that the Spurs ultimately lost.

ambchang

09-16-2009, 10:20 PM

Phenomanul

09-16-2009, 10:34 PM

You never did tell me your opinion on the Loyola/Davidson game that I asked you about.

Was Curry more integral to the win or were his teammates?

That game is irrelevant with regards to the topic at hand... it's not a best out-of-7 series where the coach is expected to make an adjustment after seeing his strategy fail...

Props to Curry's teammates for actually knocking down their shots though...

wekko368

09-16-2009, 10:37 PM

I hate it when people just ignore my points on things like why did Olajuwon decide not to drop 40 points vs. the Lakers in 90 or Sonics in 96.

I am going to bed now, when I wake up, I will repost those points.

The Sonics generally played an illegal defense on Olajuwon that was never called.

Olajuwon in 1995 was a far superior player than Olajuwon in 1990. He improved every year until he peaked in 95. I've already addressed this. I hate when people ask questions, ignore my answers, ask the same questions again, and then accuse me of ignoring their original questions.

wekko368

09-16-2009, 10:39 PM

That game is irrelevant with regards to the topic at hand... it's not a best out-of-7 series where the coach is expected to make an adjustment after seeing his strategy fail...

Props to Curry's teammates for actually knocking down their shots though...

It's actually very relevant when you're talking about the importance of star players vs role players.

The coach could've seen that his strategy would fail after a few minutes. He didn't need a best-of-7 game series to determine that.

So because the situation is both relevant and comparable, who was more integral to the win? Curry or his teammates? Its a simple question. Please don't avoid answering again.

kingmalaki

09-17-2009, 12:27 AM

It shouldn't be that baffling... The 'role' players' effectiveness made Olojuwon dominant and vice versa...

That's the baffling part. I have never heard anyone refer to role players making star players dominant. Typically it's looked at the other way, especially since the star players are the ones drawing more defensive attention, and getting the role players open looks. For example, I don't recall anyone saying Trevor Ariza's effectiveness made Kobe Bryant dominant last postseason. In fact, most note that Trevor got wide open looks because of Kobe and Gasol. Granted, he still had to knock his shots down, but you are trying to give the role players just as much credit as the star when they are playing off of the attention the star is receiving (hence their open looks), and that makes no sense.

But it's partly because those 'role' players are making their shots that the offensive strategy can even thrive... You keep insisting that their execution doesn't make a difference... Like I said yesterday, it's a synergistic dynamic that works only when both components of that offense are contributing...

I never said their execution didn't make a difference. I said the role players are not as important, or more important than the star player. In this case, the star player dropped near 40 a night. What he brought was as consistent as you can get. Additionally, the star player is the focus of the defense and not the role players. Hence him not getting wide open looks, even though they do (because of the attention he demands). This is the first time I have ever heard anyone argue that a role player is worth as much as a star player. I wonder why stars make so much more if that is the case.

The portion of the argument that you keep 'glossing over' is that when the outside offense isn't working the post play subsequently suffers

I posted the stats for Game 5. Most of the role players shot well that game. Robinson did not, and he gave up 40 points on 60% shooting.

Yeah I said it, when Olojuwon didn't have a balanced team helping him out his teams also got bounced from the playoffs...

And in how many of those cases did his production decrease? In the cases where he did decrease, I have no issue with anyone saying he didn't produce like he did in the regular season, similar to Robinson not producing like he did in the 95 regular season. And you keep mentioning spacing and additional pressure (the common myth here that Hakeem got single coverage while David didn't), yet you fail to answer my question even if we assume that logic is true. Did David not receive this pressure/attention in the regular season? Did the Spurs just suddenly become a poor outside shooting team in the postseason? If the answers are no, then what is the point of even mentioning that? In other words, that's not a valid excuse for his decrease in production. He played with the same team all yr.

you're fringe distorted understanding of that relationship is what keeps you accepting the fact that 'role' players play a much larger 'role' than you're giving them credit for...

I don't think my understanding is distorted because I don't think role players are as important as star players. If that's how you hoenstly feel then I think you are referencing yourself, lol....

But go ahead and keep thinking that Olojuwon single-handedly won Houston's 2 championships

I don't believe I have stated that anywhere. I stated that he dominated his matchup, and that was the key matchup to the series.

BTW I have a real problem referring to Drexler as a 'role' player... the guy averaged over 20 ppg that season while shooting over 50% from the field... I'm sorry David didn't have the luxury of playing alongside another great to help his cause...

edit: Prior to Duncan's arrival of course...

You are correct that Clyde was a star, but you surely weren't referencing him when you mentioned all the 3 point bombers Houston had. And Drexler has nothing to do with Robinson playing worse on both sides of the ball.

kingmalaki

09-17-2009, 12:31 AM

I hate it when people just ignore my points on things like why did Olajuwon decide not to drop 40 points vs. the Lakers in 90 or Sonics in 96.

I am going to bed now, when I wake up, I will repost those points.

Maybe because David Robinson wasn't on those teams to torch. :lol

In all seriousness, who the hell knows. He wasn't as refined offensively in 90. He was older in 96 (most of his numbers dropped that season, just slightly). And he always had trouble with Seattle. Your question is basically asking "why didn't player X have the series of his life twice".

kingmalaki

09-17-2009, 12:32 AM

That game is irrelevant with regards to the topic at hand... it's not a best out-of-7 series where the coach is expected to make an adjustment after seeing his strategy fail...

Props to Curry's teammates for actually knocking down their shots though...

The question is very relevant. It is a clear example of the impact a star player can have on others, as far as getting them open looks because of the attention that he demands. Feel free to actually answer it, or at least come up with a better excuse for ignoring it. Even Stevie Wonder can see how the question is relevant when you are discussing if role players are just as important as star players.

Phenomanul

09-17-2009, 12:33 AM

It's actually very relevant when you're talking about the importance of star players vs role players.

The coach could've seen that his strategy would fail after a few minutes. He didn't need a best-of-7 game series to determine that.

So because the situation is both relevant and comparable, who was more integral to the win? Curry or his teammates? Its a simple question. Please don't avoid answering again.

Seems to me you've already made up your mind...

Your distorted lenses don't let you see beyond your own viewpoint... but good luck trying to defend the validity of comparing college games against those played by far more talented players in the NBA... Even D-League teams could mop the floor against most Div-I programs...

BTW I didn't address your original post because I thought it was pretty absurd... this simple-minded thinking is the same thinking that has you thinking Olojuwon won those series by himself... :rollin

At least you agree that Bob Hill should have changed his defensive strategy half-way through Game 1, we all saw its ineffectiveness... He didn't, even after 6 games, and so here we are...

Like I said, I don't care to discuss this matter with you any longer...

Go ahead and keep thinking that:

----- the '95 Spurs/Rockets series was a series played by only two men,
----- Olojuwon could have averaged 60 ppg over the span of 6 games (playoffs or otherwise... actually yes, against college players :wakeup)
----- Drexler was simply a 'role' player,
----- the Inside/Outside offensive scheme can work on one leg,
----- the clutchness factor of players can be dismissed from the discussion,
----- that their ability to make shots is a given as long as their post player is GREAT (why even bother practicing... the fact that your center is best ever means he can will your shots to go in with telekinetic powers.
----- spacing isn't essential for the pivot to establish any sort of rhythm inside.

Cry Havoc

09-17-2009, 12:57 AM

There's not a single player in NBA history who could have stopped Hakeem in the mid 90s. Not one.

wekko368

09-17-2009, 01:06 AM

Seems to me you've already made up your mind...

Yes, I know what I think. I want to know if you agree with me or not. Obviously, you do. Otherwise, you wouldnt be going to such lengths to avoid the question.

Your distorted lenses don't let you see beyond your own viewpoint... but good luck trying to defend the validity of comparing college games against those played by far more talented players in the NBA... Even D-League teams could mop the floor against most Div-I programs...

LOL. We're talking about the importance of stars vs role players. Whether or not it was played in college is completely irrelevant. Quit trying to derail the topic.

BTW I didn't address your original post because I thought it was pretty absurd...

You didn't address my post b/c you had no rebuttal. I don't blame you. You've spent a lot of time arguing. And what it comes down to is this:

1) You decide that Curry was more integral to the win, and by making this decision, you validate everything I've said thus far.

2) You decide that Curry's teammates were more integral to the win, and by making this decision, you're publicly stating that you're an idiot.

It's a lose-lose situation. No wonder you keep trying to change topics.

Like I said, I don't care to discuss this matter with you any longer...

Neither would I if I were in your position.

Go ahead and keep thinking that:

----- the '95 Spurs/Rockets series was a series played by only two men,

Like I said, the series winner would depend on the individual matchup of the centers.

----- Olojuwon could have averaged 60 ppg over the span of 6 games (playoffs or otherwise... actually yes, against college players :wakeup)

Assuming Rodman guarded Olajuwon nonstop and the Spurs didn't give help defense, I think it's very plausible that Olajuwon averages 60 ppg.

I based this theory on the fact that Olajuwon put up incredible numbers against Robinson, and would likely do better against Rodman (who was shorter and had less length than Robinson).

You countered this by saying that Rodman would "pester" Olajuwon into an inferior performance...and you refused to elaborate on "pester". All you said was that Rodman would do what "Bowen does to Kobe" while disregarding the fact that perimeter defense is much different than post defense.

----- Drexler was simply a 'role' player,

Drexler was above a role player, but below a star (didn't make the all-star team that year). His career was clearly on its decline. Not to mention, he was not a good 3 point shooter.

IMO, he and Sean Elliott played similar roles.

----- the Inside/Outside offensive scheme can work on one leg,

Not really sure what you're talking about here. One leg?

----- the clutchness factor of players can be dismissed from the discussion,

I've never dismissed it. As I've repeatedly stated, the Rockets' role players knocked down open shots that were usually created by Olajuwon.

----- that their ability to make shots is a given as long as their post player is GREAT (why even bother practicing... the fact that your center is best ever means he can will your shots to go in with telekinetic powers.

You're just being childish now. Telekinetic?

All I'm saying is that a great post player will create open looks for his teammates. Keep in mind that these are professional basketball players, and there's a good chance they'll make wide open jumpers....especially if that's what they've been doing all season long.

----- spacing isn't essential for the pivot to establish any sort of rhythm inside.

Could you elaborate more on this? Defensive spacing? Offensive spacing?

Phenomanul

09-17-2009, 01:29 AM

That's the baffling part. I have never heard anyone refer to role players making star players dominant. Typically it's looked at the other way, especially since the star players are the ones drawing more defensive attention, and getting the role players open looks. For example, I don't recall anyone saying Trevor Ariza's effectiveness made Kobe Bryant dominant last postseason. In fact, most note that Trevor got wide open looks because of Kobe and Gasol. Granted, he still had to knock his shots down, but you are trying to give the role players just as much credit as the star when they are playing off of the attention the star is receiving (hence their open looks), and that makes no sense.

Apples and oranges... the triangle offense doesn't revolve around a true inside/outside offensive scheme... and technically the Lakers had 2 1/2 stars drawing the attention away from the perimeter... not only Kobe and Gasol...

I never said their execution didn't make a difference. I said the role players are not as important, or more important than the star player. In this case, the star player dropped near 40 a night. What he brought was as consistent as you can get. Additionally, the star player is the focus of the defense and not the role players. Hence him not getting wide open looks, even though they do (because of the attention he demands). This is the first time I have ever heard anyone argue that a role player is worth as much as a star player. I wonder why stars make so much more if that is the case.

I posted the stats for Game 5. Most of the role players shot well that game. Robinson did not, and he gave up 40 points on 60% shooting.

I never said role players were more important... I simply said that the Rockets role players showed up for most of the series... and that the Spurs role players didn't... the one game they did, David laid an egg... but by that point he was shouldering way too much of a load... but hey, continue to single out that particular game as the microcosm for the whole series... :rolleyes

And in how many of those cases did his production decrease? In the cases where he did decrease, I have no issue with anyone saying he didn't produce like he did in the regular season, similar to Robinson not producing like he did in the 95 regular season. And you keep mentioning spacing and additional pressure (the common myth here that Hakeem got single coverage while David didn't), yet you fail to answer my question even if we assume that logic is true. Did David not receive this pressure/attention in the regular season? Did the Spurs just suddenly become a poor outside shooting team in the postseason? If the answers are no, then what is the point of even mentioning that? In other words, that's not a valid excuse for his decrease in production. He played with the same team all yr.

Hakeem got swept once in that span and lost two other series 3-1... ultimately though his teams didn't advance...

BTW Hakeem faced soft double teams when he got them... the Spurs were so noncomittal to their defensive assignments that anyone could hardly call them double teams... that's also the very same reason why taking David off of covering Olojuwon 1v1 made so much sense...

And yes, the Spurs became a poor outside shooting team in the postseason... that may be news to you... but us Spurs fans had to deal with that reality for several years... Too bad we didn't have a Cassell or an Horry on our team... at least we would have acknowleged their contributions...

I don't think my understanding is distorted because I don't think role players are as important as star players. If that's how you hoenstly feel then I think you are referencing yourself, lol....

No.... it's distorted because somehow you think their shots don't tally with the star player's points... that's ummm crazy actually.

I don't believe I have stated that anywhere. I stated that he dominated his matchup, and that was the key matchup to the series.

which is tantamount to saying what? Don't be so disingenuous.

You are correct that Clyde was a star, but you surely weren't referencing him when you mentioned all the 3 point bombers Houston had.

That's because 3pt shooting wasn't his primary weapon... he was the slasher that got by Del Negro at will...

And Drexler has nothing to do with Robinson playing worse on both sides of the ball.

No but he's a big reason why the Rockets had such a big advantage... He averaged over 23 ppg during the first two games... games which the Spurs lost.

Phenomanul

09-17-2009, 01:40 AM

:blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah

wekko368

09-17-2009, 01:54 AM

Apples and oranges... the triangle offense doesn't revolve around a true inside/outside offensive scheme... and technically the Lakers had 2 1/2 stars drawing the attention away from the perimeter... not only Kobe and Gasol...

Actually, its not apples and oranges. You're talking about role players vs stars. The triangle may not be an inside-out offense, but Kobe and Gasol still creating open looks for teammates.

And technically, if a player is considered half a star, then he's not a star.

I never said role players were more important... I simply said that the Rockets role players showed up for most of the series... and that the Spurs role players didn't... the one game they did, David laid an egg... but by that point he was shouldering way too much of a load... but hey, continue to single out that particular game as the microcosm for the whole series... :rolleyes

Yes, that's true. The Rockets' role players were more consistent than the Spurs' role players. However, this was secondary to Olajuwon vastly outplaying Robinson.

Hakeem got swept once in that span and lost two other series 3-1... ultimately though his teams didn't advance...

And since he got swept, he improved his game every year until he peaked in 1995.

BTW Hakeem faced soft double teams when he got them... the Spurs were so noncomittal to their defensive assignments that anyone could hardly call them double teams... that's also the very same reason why taking David off of covering Olojuwon 1v1 made so much sense...

Like I said, as well as Olajuwon did against Robinson, he would have absolutely destroyed anyone else on the Spurs roster regardless how much he might have been "pestered".

And yes, the Spurs became a poor outside shooting team in the postseason... that may be news to you... but us Spurs fans had to deal with that reality for several years... Too bad we didn't have a Cassell or an Horry on our team... at least we would have acknowleged their contributions...

So now Rocket fans don't acknowledge Cassell/Horry's contributions? Let me get this straight. I write "Cassell and Horry hit timely shots that were generally created by Olajuwon. These shots were important, but the main reason the Rockets won was due to Olajuwon's performance."

And you read "Cassell and Horry had nothing to do with the Rockets' success."

Reading comprehension ftw!!!

No.... it's distorted because somehow you think their shots don't tally with the star player's points... that's ummm crazy actually.

He's saying that in regards to importance, star players and role players aren't equal.

It appears as if you interpreted that as "a dunk by Olajuwon has a different value than a dunk by Horry".

No but he's a big reason why the Rockets had such a big advantage... He averaged over 23 ppg during the first two games... games which the Spurs lost.

You know what a bigger reason was? The 34 ppg that Olajuwon averaged during those same two games.

MaNu4Tres

09-17-2009, 02:28 AM

Rodman was a main reason the Spurs lost in 1995. The dude quit on the Spurs in game 2 and wasn't the same. He attempted 3 threes the first quarter of game 2 and smiled at the Rockets Bench. He wasn't the same after.

Funny how he got traded a few months later.

ambchang

09-17-2009, 08:55 AM

It depends on the presence of Olajuwon. Without him, the Rockets' supporting cast was barely better than Robinson's.

However, if you include Olajuwon into the mix, his teammates as a whole became much better. He elevated everyone's game.

Are you kidding me? Drexler, Cassell, Elie, Horry and Smith are barely better than Rodman, Elliott, Johnson and Del Negro?

Drexler was a 20/7/5 player that year despite being on the downside of his career. Sean Elliott was a 17/5/3.

Cassell, Elie, Horry and Smith knocked down shot after shot after shot. Rodman can't/won't shoot, Johnson couldn't even make it on the Rocket's roster (twice), and Del Negro is, at best, a backup SG on a lottery team.

Drexler is one of the 50 greatest of all time, Cassell, Elie and Horry went on to win championships with other teams, with Elie and Horry playing significant roles. What has Johnson and Del Negro done since? Oh yeah, Avery Johnson knocked down a wide-open 18 footer to clinch a series the Spurs were leading 3-1, and that was the shot of his life. Think about it for a second, a PG had some kind of proof that he can shoot because he nailed down an open 18-footer. If anything, it proves that he couldn't shoot because it became such a big deal. I can nail an open 18-foot jump shot with regularity, most people who play basketball can, but it's a big deal for a starting PG for a championship team. It's almost pukingly funny.

The two supporting casts have nothing in common. Take Hakeem off, the Rockets would probably not make the playoffs, or be first round fodder. Take Robinson off, the Spurs win 20 games instead of 62.

ambchang

09-17-2009, 08:59 AM

First of all, since he's a Rocket's fan, its very possible he had the games on VHS and later transferred them to DVD.

I know I have the 94 finals on VHS somewhere.

So remind me, why was I basing the series off of my memory again?

And I didn't ignore any of your points. If you present a point which I haven't already addressed, I'll be happy to respond. It's annoying answering the same thing over and over.[/quote]

I don’t know, like why Hakeem decide not to score 35 ppg vs. the Lakers in 90, or the Sonics in 96. Was it because Vlade Divacs and Ervin Johnson were such all world defenders that they held Hakeem to 18/19 ppg? I mean, why is that?

Or why the Rockets lost by 22 points in the only game the Spurs outshot the Rockets on 3s. Or why, in the only game the Spurs made a decent number of 3s (9), Robinson made 10 of 15 shots.

Or why Robinson always performed as well, or even better, in the playoffs when he had actual NBA quality guards around him.

Or how you would think the Rockets setting records in 3 pt shooting as a team in 95 has no effect on how Hakeem performed.

ambchang

09-17-2009, 09:20 AM

I think it's fair to say supporting players have more open looks and less pressure when their main option is dropping near 40 on a good %, as opposed to one shooting under 50% and scoring less. It's the chicken and the egg argument. Which came first. I think we can all admit that most usually look at the star player getting guys open looks, and not the other way around.

Superstars are superstars because they can get there points on a consistent basis. They, however, would struggle when a whole defense can concentrate strictly on them, and ignore the others. It happened to Robinson in 95 vs. the Rockets and 96 vs. the Jazz, it happened to Shaq in 02 vs. the Spurs, it happened to Hakeem in 90 vs. the Lakers, it happened again to Hakeem in 96 vs. the Sonics. Obviously star players create situations for their players to go off, but if the supporting players are not hitting their shots, there are no incentives for the opposition to guard them, and can thus concentrate strictly on the star player. It is even easier to do so if the star player is a post player, because the operating area is much more concentrated in the paint, and as the central point on the court, the defenders can crowd and spread to outside shooters much quicker than running all over the court. This was the case for Robinson, where his PG can’t shoot, his SG can’t make any open shots or defend, his PF can’t won’t shoot, and the only person who could shoot at all was a SF who would choke 2 FTs at the end of a 1 point game.

But even assuming we go with the supporting cast argument, it was the same cast Robinson had all year. If he brought his typical production (which he didn't), then it may have been a different series because the games were so close. But the fact is that he underperformed, compared to what he gave SA in the regular season. It's not a case of him playing better with his cast playing worse. It's not a case of him seeing doubles that he didn't see earlier on, when he had better production. David underperformed. That in itself didn't lose the series, but it is a fact.

Regular season, or even series to series, are totally different. Not every team has a defender like Olajuwon. Not every team has a SF as quick, long and agile as Robert Horry. Not every team has a defender as feisty as Elie. These players can hound the heck out of any post player. Now compare this to Vinny Del Negro and Rodman. Del Negro can’t guard an ice cream cone, Rodman refused to defend (you have the series, right? Look it up again, where was he when Horry was launching all those open jumpers? Was Rodman anywhere near him?), AJ is undersized, even for a point guard, the only person who can guard anyone was Elliott.

And to answer a question that was posed, one playoff series where Hakeem played Seattle and Houston lost, and his numbers dropped, it's fair to say he had a decrease in production. Conversly, there was another year where he had an increase and still lost (I believe 1993). These arguments would hold more weight if David was in that situation, but he had a decrease, and a huge one in the last 2 games. Again, it's all knotted after 4 games. One center puts up 40 on 60%. The other had a big decrease. I don't see how anyone can argue that big difference in what was given at the center position wasn't the most important aspect of the series. The Spurs were dominant because on most nights David was the best player on the floor, or at least at his position. In the 95 WCFs that was no longer the case and they lost. How is that a hard connection to make?
So why did Hakeem performed so poorly in those series? Let me guess .. hmm … he decided to play worse? Or is it because the opposition defense was able to concentrate all their efforts on him, and dare his supporting players to beat him?

Robinson scored 26ppg on 68% vs. GS in 91 and still lost, why is that? Maybe because the opposition figured they had no centers to control him, and decided to shut down his teammates?

The Spurs were dominant because Robinson carried them to 62 wins on an extremely faulty roster. Teams couldn’t exploit the weaknesses of a team as much as they can in the playoffs because they didn’t have time to prepare for that. Most teams have a game plan, and they stick to it. In the playoffs, teams exploit matchups much better, and the Spurs have no answer for the Rockets.

ambchang

09-17-2009, 09:22 AM

You can buy it like I did.

Actually, the link doesn't seem to be working now. Maybe the site is down? It was up in July.

www.pontel.com

Here is the thread from the Rockets board:

Thanks, I know pontel, but their games are just overly expensive.

BG_Spurs_Fan

09-17-2009, 09:43 AM

People keep arguing which supporting cast was better in 1995, OK everyone's entitled to their opinion, however let's not forget another very important factor - the coaches. Does anyone think of Bob Hill as equal to Rudy T? Because as far as I remember from 14 years ago that's where the biggest discrepency was - we were totally outsmarted on so many levels it's incredible. David gets a lot of stick for this series, but IMO this is totally undeserved and I believe everyone who can remember the actual games would agree.

kingmalaki

09-17-2009, 10:51 AM

Apples and oranges... the triangle offense doesn't revolve around a true inside/outside offensive scheme... and technically the Lakers had 2 1/2 stars drawing the attention away from the perimeter... not only Kobe and Gasol...

It's not apples and oranges at all. Ariza get's his open looks because of the attention that other players demand. It's important that he make his open jumpers, but without those stars drawing extra attention, he wouldn't have an open shot to take because he isn't that great at creating his own opportunities. Therefore, the star is more important. This is the first time I have heard anyone argue that a role player was just as important as a star player.

I never said role players were more important... I simply said that the Rockets role players showed up for most of the series... and that the Spurs role players didn't...

But neither did David!!! His production dipped on both sides of the ball that series. Your argument would carry more weight if Robinson's production didn't decrease, but it did. You are trying to give the Rockets role players more credit than Hakeem, and give the Spurs role players more blame than David. The facts are that Hakeem bumped his level of play and his role players made their shots. David's level of play decereased along with his teammates.

BTW Hakeem faced soft double teams when he got them... the Spurs were so noncomittal to their defensive assignments that anyone could hardly call them double teams... that's also the very same reason why taking David off of covering Olojuwon 1v1 made so much sense...

Please stop with the myth that David faced more defensive pressure than Hakeem. I have the games, it isn't true. At the very least, Rocket and Spurs fans will never agree on this issue. But I have the games and it's a myth.

And yes, the Spurs became a poor outside shooting team in the postseason...

Didn't Robinson also shoot worse in that postseason? What Spurs player had a bigger decrease than him in 95 (53% to 45%)?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/1995.html

No.... it's distorted because somehow you think their shots don't tally with the star player's points... that's ummm crazy actually.

No, I just think the star drawing more attention is more importnt that the role player hitting open shots, especially when the star is the pone having the career series. Nice attempt to spin my words though.

which is tantamount to saying what? Don't be so disingenuous.

How does saying he dominated his matchup translate into he is the only reason that they won? It's the main reason. The C matchup was the most important one in the series.

No but he's a big reason why the Rockets had such a big advantage... He averaged over 23 ppg during the first two games... games which the Spurs lost.

Wasn't the series knotted 2-2 after 4 games? That basically means the first 4 games don't matter, because now it's a best of 3 series. Do you agree or disagree?

kingmalaki

09-17-2009, 11:00 AM

So why did Hakeem performed so poorly in those series? Let me guess .. hmm … he decided to play worse? Or is it because the opposition defense was able to concentrate all their efforts on him, and dare his supporting players to beat him?

Hakeem struggled with the zone that Seattle used at the time. In later years his defensive efefctiveness was also minimized against the Sonics because they had bigs to camp at the 3 point line to draw Hakeem outside of the paint. He also struggled with Mark Eaton. I have no problem admitting that he didn't perform as well as he did in the regular season, but that's the difference between me and some of the others here. They fail to acknowlege that Robinson also didn't bring it, and are just pointing to his teammates. They need to point to him as well, because he underperformed on both sides of the ball.

The Spurs were dominant because Robinson carried them to 62 wins on an extremely faulty roster. Teams couldn’t exploit the weaknesses of a team as much as they can in the playoffs because they didn’t have time to prepare for that. Most teams have a game plan, and they stick to it. In the playoffs, teams exploit matchups much better, and the Spurs have no answer for the Rockets.

And none of that had anything to do with Robinson having no answer for Hakeem, and from going to a situation to where he was the best player on the court on most nights (on his way to an MVP), to suddenly not being the best player on the court anymore? You don't think that had a major impact?

wekko368

09-17-2009, 11:03 AM

Are you kidding me? Drexler, Cassell, Elie, Horry and Smith are barely better than Rodman, Elliott, Johnson and Del Negro?

Drexler was a 20/7/5 player that year despite being on the downside of his career. Sean Elliott was a 17/5/3.

Cassell, Elie, Horry and Smith knocked down shot after shot after shot. Rodman can't/won't shoot, Johnson couldn't even make it on the Rocket's roster (twice), and Del Negro is, at best, a backup SG on a lottery team.

Cassell, Elie, Horry, and Smith can knock down shot after shot? What's your point? How do you suppose they'd get open for all these shots? Remember the premis is that Olajuwon is out of the picture.

The problem with your logic is you think that the Rockets' supporting cast has the same effectiveness without Olajuwon as they do with him.

Consider the Rockets' post presence. Without Olajuwon, they have none (they traded away Thorpe during the season). Without Robinson, the Spurs still arguably have Cummings and Reid.

And then think about defense. Take away Olajuwon and the Rockets' have absolutely no interior defense, and the rebounding suffers. You guys may not have liked Rodman, but the guy could rebound.

Without Robinson, the Spurs' role players would still be a complete (albeit much weaker team). Without Olajuwon, the Rockets' role players are just pieces of a team.

Drexler is one of the 50 greatest of all time,

Who was not an all star that year and didn't win a title until he settled into a role where he was the secondary star (as opposed to the primary star).

Cassell, Elie and Horry went on to win championships with other teams, with Elie and Horry playing significant roles.

What's your point? They went to teams with Duncan, O'Neal, Kobe, Garnett, Ray Allen, and Pierce. They played similar roles on those teams as they did with the Rockets.

And since when does it make sense to judge a 1995 player by the accomplishments he would achieve during the rest of his career?

What has Johnson and Del Negro done since? Oh yeah, Avery Johnson knocked down a wide-open 18 footer to clinch a series the Spurs were leading 3-1, and that was the shot of his life.

Yup, you're right, Avery did hit a clutch shot.

wekko368

09-17-2009, 11:16 AM

I don’t know, like why Hakeem decide not to score 35 ppg vs. the Lakers in 90, or the Sonics in 96. Was it because Vlade Divacs and Ervin Johnson were such all world defenders that they held Hakeem to 18/19 ppg? I mean, why is that?

Like I've repeatedly said, Olajuwon game started rapidly improving in 1990 until he peaked in 1995. It's foolish to take his 1995 production and assume he was capable of the same thing in 1990.

Sonics always got away with illegal defense on Olajuwon.

Or why the Rockets lost by 22 points in the only game the Spurs outshot the Rockets on 3s. Or why, in the only game the Spurs made a decent number of 3s (9), Robinson made 10 of 15 shots.

Don't make it seem like the Spurs shot well from the 3 pt line. That game, they shot 31%. It just so happened that the Rockets' shot 19%. You shouldn't need to ask why a team that runs an inside-out offense lost when they shot 19% from the 3 pt line.

Also Olajuwon had a subpar game.

Or why Robinson always performed as well, or even better, in the playoffs when he had actual NBA quality guards around him.

Robinson performed better when he didn't have to go up against Hakeem Olajuwon.

Or how you would think the Rockets setting records in 3 pt shooting as a team in 95 has no effect on how Hakeem performed.

It's a testament to Olajuwon's dominance that series that he was able to create so many open looks for his teammates.

What you just don't want to admit is that during that series, Olajuwon was unstoppable.

Btw, Pontel doesn't ship to the states.

ambchang

09-17-2009, 11:43 AM

Hakeem struggled with the zone that Seattle used at the time. In later years his defensive efefctiveness was also minimized against the Sonics because they had bigs to camp at the 3 point line to draw Hakeem outside of the paint. He also struggled with Mark Eaton. I have no problem admitting that he didn't perform as well as he did in the regular season, but that's the difference between me and some of the others here. They fail to acknowlege that Robinson also didn't bring it, and are just pointing to his teammates. They need to point to him as well, because he underperformed on both sides of the ball.

You honestly saw a difference between what you just said and what I just said? Because "Hakeem struggled with the zone Seattle used at the time" is a statement about the general defensive concepts of the opposition, while "Robinson was outplayed by Hakeem" was a statement dealing strictly with personal battles and ignoring all the other contributing factors.

Overall, David Robinson actually performed quite well against Olajuwon over their careers. With their ups and downs. http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=robinda01&p2=olajuha01

To simply sum up the performance and said "Robinson didn't bring it" was an insult to the game of basketball. It's saying that basketball is a game of one on one, and ignoring the team aspects. When two superstars are similar in talent, it figures that the supporting casts would be a deciding factor in any series. The fact that Robinson actually played well in the only game that the Spurs were nailing their 3 pt shots, and the fact that Hakeem had an average/subpar game when the Rockets couldn't make their outside shots (9-24, 20 pts when the Rockets made 3-16 from 3) speaks LOUDLY of the effects of 3 pt shooting on the performance on either superstar.

Expecting Robinson to score 35ppg on 60% shooting against a defensive system that has nothing else to worry but to shut him down is unrealistic, to say that he let his team down because he failed to do that shows little to no understanding of the game of basketball.

And none of that had anything to do with Robinson having no answer for Hakeem, and from going to a situation to where he was the best player on the court on most nights (on his way to an MVP), to suddenly not being the best player on the court anymore? You don't think that had a major impact?

Hakeem and Robinson were basically equals in 94 and 95, the two finished neck to neck in MVP voting. Sure, if Robinson can score 35ppg in the series shooting 60% from the floor despite having the whole defensive attention on him, the Spurs would probably win the series despite his supporting casts not doing anything, and that would really speak to how much Robinon is better than Hakeem, because then, Robinson would actually be able to beat Hakeem and the whole Rockets system all by himself, but that is not what I expect, nor is it what people are trying to argue here.

Saying Robinson had no answer for Hakeem, again, filtered this whole argument down to one point, and that is you saying basketball is a 1-1 game, and not a team game. It has been shown time and time again that both Hakeem and Robinson played well when his team shot 3s well, and doesn't when their respectively teams don't.

3 pt shooters DO open up the lane for centers to operate, teams do close out on shooters when they first begin to hit shots. In fact, it's quite simple. If you are a coach, you would dare the outside shooters to shoot 3 pters instead of giving up points in the paint early in the game because 3 pters are a more volatile and higher risk shot. If the shooters prove that they can hit the 3pters, you close out on them because those are worth 3 pts.

The Rocket players have shown throughout the year that they could shoot, and make these shots, it's only natural for the Spurs to close out on them. Watch the tape again, tell me how many times Hakeem is doubled, and how many times Robinson is doubled/tripled throughout the series.

wekko368

09-17-2009, 12:11 PM

You honestly saw a difference between what you just said and what I just said? Because "Hakeem struggled with the zone Seattle used at the time" is a statement about the general defensive concepts of the opposition, while "Robinson was outplayed by Hakeem" was a statement dealing strictly with personal battles and ignoring all the other contributing factors.

At the time, zone defense was an illegal defense that should've resulted in technical fouls but was never called.

Overall, David Robinson actually performed quite well against Olajuwon over their careers. With their ups and downs. http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=robinda01&p2=olajuha01

Aren't we strictly talking about 1995?

To simply sum up the performance and said "Robinson didn't bring it" was an insult to the game of basketball. It's saying that basketball is a game of one on one, and ignoring the team aspects.

Very well. In the 95 playoffs vs the Rockets, Robinson put up inferior numbers (especially fg%) than he did during the regular season. Feel free to spin that however you like.

When two superstars are similar in talent, it figures that the supporting casts would be a deciding factor in any series.

That's your problem. During the 1995 playoffs, Olajuwon was BY FAR the superior player to Robinson.

The fact that Robinson actually played well in the only game that the Spurs were nailing their 3 pt shots, and the fact that Hakeem had an average/subpar game when the Rockets couldn't make their outside shots (9-24, 20 pts when the Rockets made 3-16 from 3) speaks LOUDLY of the effects of 3 pt shooting on the performance on either superstar.

It shows that when Olajuwon struggles, the entire team struggles. That's how integral he was tot he Rockets.

Expecting Robinson to score 35ppg on 60% shooting against a defensive system that has nothing else to worry but to shut him down is unrealistic, to say that he let his team down because he failed to do that shows little to no understanding of the game of basketball.

No one expected him to put up Olajuwon's numbers. However, I think people did expect him to meet or exceed his regular season number, which is a reasonable thing to expect from the MVP.

Hakeem and Robinson were basically equals in 94 and 95, the two finished neck to neck in MVP voting.

Equals? There's a reason Olajuwon is considered to be a top tier center and Robinson is not. Don't misunderstand me. Robinson would tear the league up today. He was a great center, but Olajuwon was greater.

Saying Robinson had no answer for Hakeem, again, filtered this whole argument down to one point, and that is you saying basketball is a 1-1 game, and not a team game.

Basketball is a game of matchups. Simply put, the Rockets' had an advantage at the center position and they milked it.

If the shooters prove that they can hit the 3pters, you close out on them because those are worth 3 pts.

Wrong. Let's review.

Olajuwon shot 56% that series. The Rockets' as a whole shot 34% from 3pt range. Let's extrapolate.

Let's say that Olajuwon shoots 10 times. At 56% and 2 points per basket, that comes out to 11.2 points.

Now lets say the Rockets shoot 10 3 pointers. At 34% and 3 points per basket, that comes out to 10.2 points.

Are you really telling me that if you were a coach, you'd rather guard the perimeter and save 10.2 points while giving up 11.2 points inside?

ambchang

09-17-2009, 12:14 PM

Cassell, Elie, Horry, and Smith can knock down shot after shot? What's your point? How do you suppose they'd get open for all these shots? Remember the premis is that Olajuwon is out of the picture.

Let's see, Drexler was the lead of a very successful trailblazer team that went to the finals twice, Cassell, after leaving Houston, had a very successful stint with the Wolves. Elie and Horry continued to light it up next to great inside players (Shaq/Duncan), and Smith was a 17ppg scorer at Sacramento ... yeah, they can make shots without Hakeem.

Avery Johnson went from a 13 ppg scorer to 10ppg with a worse FG% the year Robinson was hurt, Del Negro went from 15 to 12 with a lower %, Rodman never shot in his life, and Elliott went from an 18ppg to a 12ppg scorer, again, with a lower FG% without Robinson in Detroit ... hmmm ... yeah, there are no differences.

The problem with your logic is you think that the Rockets' supporting cast has the same effectiveness without Olajuwon as they do with him.

Since when have I said that? For someone who was stressing comprehension as much as you do, I would expect you to read a little better than this. The whole premise, from the very beginning, was that the outside shooting allowed the Rockets in install an inside-out system. The Spurs can't do that because there were no outside shooters, and thus lost.

Consider the Rockets' post presence. Without Olajuwon, they have none (they traded away Thorpe during the season). Without Robinson, the Spurs still arguably have Cummings and Reid.

Cummings and Reid? Are you serious? Please read up your player history before you further embarrass yourself. That's akin to me saying the Rockets have great inside scoring options in Zan Tabak and Chucky Brown.

And then think about defense. Take away Olajuwon and the Rockets' have absolutely no interior defense, and the rebounding suffers. You guys may not have liked Rodman, but the guy could rebound.

Like how he got outrebounded by Robert Horry even though that was the only thing Rodman was doing? Or how Drexler outrebounded Hakeem in Game 1?

Take away Robinson, and Hakeem scores 60 a game, that's what you said earlier, so Robinson was even more instrumental than Hakeem on defense.

Without Robinson, the Spurs' role players would still be a complete (albeit much weaker team). Without Olajuwon, the Rockets' role players are just pieces of a team.

Like how the Spurs won 20 games without Robinson? Or how Drexler did right before he joined the Rockets? You don't even know what you are talking about anymore, the Spurs without Robinson, has proven to be one of the worst teams in the league.

Who was not an all star that year and didn't win a title until he settled into a role where he was the secondary star (as opposed to the primary star).

This proved that he was not an absolutely fantastic player? Karl Malone didn't win a title, nor did Stockton, I am sure both of them are better than Sean Elliott and Avery Johnson, even when they were starting to decline in production.

What's your point? They went to teams with Duncan, O'Neal, Kobe, Garnett, Ray Allen, and Pierce. They played similar roles on those teams as they did with the Rockets.

It shows that these are the kind of players that can nail shots and help teams win.

And since when does it make sense to judge a 1995 player by the accomplishments he would achieve during the rest of his career?

So Hakeem just decided to suck in the other series, despite the fact that he played in a similar system and produced similar regular season stats. Because we all know, Hakeem in 95 is worlds different from Hakeem 96, he just decided to play like crap in one series.

It shows that the performance of the same player is affected by many variables in the context of the game, such as offensive and defensive philosophies instead of just whether they decide to "bring it".

Yup, you're right, Avery did hit a clutch shot.

ambchang

09-17-2009, 12:37 PM

Like I've repeatedly said, Olajuwon game started rapidly improving in 1990 until he peaked in 1995. It's foolish to take his 1995 production and assume he was capable of the same thing in 1990.
In fact, he decided to keep peaking all the way up to the Sonics series, he was still scoring 26.5ppg on 53.5% vs. the Lakers in the previous round, but he decided to drop off in production against the Sonics. But then again, why would you judge the accomplishment of a player on May 4th, 1996 by the performance of the exact same player in May 2nd 1996?

Another way to look at this is to see how Houston surrounded Hakeem with good outside shooting since 1990. Look at the supporting players, look at the team performance, and look at Hakeem’s performance.

Sonics always got away with illegal defense on Olajuwon.

Really? I thought Hakeem can score 35ppg on 60% whenever he wants, what is a little illegal defense going to do for him? And why would the league allow that to happen?

Don't make it seem like the Spurs shot well from the 3 pt line. That game, they shot 31%. It just so happened that the Rockets' shot 19%. You shouldn't need to ask why a team that runs an inside-out offense lost when they shot 19% from the 3 pt line.
Yeah, the Spurs only shot 31% in that win, vs. 25% in Game 1, 22% in Game 2, 29% in Game 5, and 29% for Game 6. In other words, if the Spurs shoot more than 30% from 3, they win. It’s a shame that Robinson didn’t go out and start shooting and making 3 pters.

And you are right, an inside out team couldn’t win when the team is only shooting 19%, but if Hakeem actually decided to score 43 points in that game and shot better than 38%, his team would win. Hakeem should have done what Robinson failed to do, and that is to score points when his teammates couldn’t make outside shots, but then Hakeem didn’t, just like Robinson.

Also Olajuwon had a subpar game.

Because he felt like it? If Hakeem brought it that game, the Rockets would have been up 3-1, Hakeem is such a failure!

Robinson performed better when he didn't have to go up against Hakeem Olajuwon.

Everyone perform worse against Hakeem, that’s why he’s 1st team all-nba and defensive player of the year.

It's a testament to Olajuwon's dominance that series that he was able to create so many open looks for his teammates.

Robinson created open looks for his teammates, they just couldn’t nail down the shots. Couldn’t help it that Del Negro was shooting 28% in 4th quarter in that series.

What you just don't want to admit is that during that series, Olajuwon was unstoppable.

Of course he was, it’s pretty obvious. It’s impressive to score 35ppg on 60% shooting on one of the best defensive players in the game, even in single coverage, and even if his defender had to go help out on defense.
And why don’t you just admit that players don’t just perform well magically. There are tones of evidence pointing to how Hakeem performed with and without 3 pt shooters. You can continue to stick your head in the sand all you want.

Btw, Pontel doesn't ship to the states.

ambchang

09-17-2009, 12:58 PM

At the time, zone defense was an illegal defense that should've resulted in technical fouls but was never called.

I am sorry, I didn’t even realized that you were complaining about unfair refs, that was absolutely classy of you. Instead of admitting to how the best of the players could be slowed down by the appropriate defense, you go out and talk about conspiracy theories.

You should have just straight out said, Hakeem is unstoppable unless the league decides to stop him out.

Aren't we strictly talking about 1995?

We are talking about the reason Hakeem and David had their respective performances. Since you profess to be such an expert in statistics, I would imagine that you would realize that the major variable between 95 and 96 wasn’t Hakeem’s ability (see his regular season stats and 1st round stats), but the way the opponents play him.

Very well. In the 95 playoffs vs the Rockets, Robinson put up inferior numbers (especially fg%) than he did during the regular season. Feel free to spin that however you like.

For a second I thought you were trying to bring any kind of insight. What is there to argue about? I can just look up a stat sheet and noticed that. But that was never what we were arguing, you were arguing that Robinson not bringing it cause the spurs to loose, why are you backing away from the whole point of argument?

That's your problem. During the 1995 playoffs, Olajuwon was BY FAR the superior player to Robinson.
My problem is that Robinson didn’t play as well as Hakeem? Excuse me? I don’t get that.
Why was Olajuwon “BY FAR” the superior player? Why did Hakeem decide not to be “BY FAR the superior player” to Robinson the game neither team couldn’t hit outside shots?

It shows that when Olajuwon struggles, the entire team struggles. That's how integral he was tot he Rockets.
Or in game 1, when Hakeem had an average 27 ppg on 50% shooting, the Rockets still won the game because Drexler scored21 points and grabbed 12rebounds, or how in Game 2 of the 1st round, when Hakeem had another average game, the Rockets nailed 19 of 28 3 pters for a win, or game 1 of the WCSF, when Hakeem scored 18 points on 8-19, the Rockets STILL made 9 3 pters. Not that integral in those games.

No one expected him to put up Olajuwon's numbers. However, I think people did expect him to meet or exceed his regular season number, which is a reasonable thing to expect from the MVP.

Why is it reasonable to expect anything without understanding the full context? I expect Hakeem to score 35ppg on 60% only one year removed from the championship against a team with no good centers, like the Sonics, but that is not a reasonable expectation.

Equals? There's a reason Olajuwon is considered to be a top tier center and Robinson is not. Don't misunderstand me. Robinson would tear the league up today. He was a great center, but Olajuwon was greater.
Between 94 and 95, they were considered equals. If you argue otherwise, you didn’t even follow basketball back then. History has since been rewritten since that one series because people, like yourself, are too simplistic to understand that basketball is actually a team game.

Basketball is a game of matchups. Simply put, the Rockets' had an advantage at the center position and they milked it.

Which also explained why the Rockets continued to double and triple Robinson, while the Spurs singled Hakeem.

Wrong. Let's review.

Olajuwon shot 56% that series. The Rockets' as a whole shot 34% from 3pt range. Let's extrapolate.

Let's say that Olajuwon shoots 10 times. At 56% and 2 points per basket, that comes out to 11.2 points.

Now lets say the Rockets shoot 10 3 pointers. At 34% and 3 points per basket, that comes out to 10.2 points.

Are you really telling me that if you were a coach, you'd rather guard the perimeter and save 10.2 points while giving up 11.2 points inside?
So you are saying that all 11.2 points that was scored inside and the 10.2 points that was scored on 3s were open shots? As much as you like to simplify this to bits that you can handle, that’s not the case. Hakeem scored 56% vs. singles, open looks, and doubles. The outside shooters made 34% on 3s while being either covered or not. When people are drawing more defensive attention, they generally shoot a lower %, but as a coach, you are not privy to these % before the game, you would rather give up two points, single teamed, than to give up 3 pts, wide open.

wekko368

09-17-2009, 01:02 PM

Let's see, Drexler was the lead of a very successful trailblazer team that went to the finals twice, Cassell, after leaving Houston, had a very successful stint with the Wolves. Elie and Horry continued to light it up next to great inside players (Shaq/Duncan), and Smith was a 17ppg scorer at Sacramento ... yeah, they can make shots without Hakeem.

In his Portland days, Drexler had all-star teammates of Terry Porter and Kevin Duckworth not to mention very solid players in Jerome Kersey and Buck Williams.

Yes, Cassell had a successful stint in Minnesota where he played alongside Garnett and Sprewell. And again, why are you judging Cassell by accomplishments 9 years in the future? Do you think the 2004 Cassell was the same player as the 1995 Cassell?

And Smith did that in Sacramento b/c there was no one else on the team to shoulder the load. And they were 27-55.

Since when have I said that? For someone who was stressing comprehension as much as you do, I would expect you to read a little better than this. The whole premise, from the very beginning, was that the outside shooting allowed the Rockets in install an inside-out system. The Spurs can't do that because there were no outside shooters, and thus lost.

You've been asking which team has a better supporting cast. If you want an objective answer, then you'd have to judge each player on his individual merits and take Olajuwon out of the equation.

However, from the way you've been describing the Rocket's role players, it looks like you think they were all in their primes during 1995.

Your premis is mistaken. I've explained why in prior posts. Go back and look, but I'm sick of repeating myself to you.

Cummings and Reid? Are you serious? Please read up your player history before you further embarrass yourself. That's akin to me saying the Rockets have great inside scoring options in Zan Tabak and Chucky Brown.

Zan Tabak? He played a total of 5 minutes the entire series. Let's get down to the crux of the matter. Which team would win:

Houston - Drexler, Horry, K.Smith, Brown, Cassell, Chilcutt, Elie, Jones

SA - A. Johnson, Elliott, Rodman, Del Negro, Person, Reid, Anderson, Rivers, Cummings

I think SA would win due to the fact that Houston has no post presence.

Like how he got outrebounded by Robert Horry even though that was the only thing Rodman was doing?

Rodman averaged 15 rpg that series. Horry averaged 7.2.

No offense, but you can't be this ignorant. There has to be an ulterior motive. What I'm thinking is that maybe you're making these outlandish claims just to see if I'd take the time to check the stats and disprove you.

Take away Robinson, and Hakeem scores 60 a game, that's what you said earlier, so Robinson was even more instrumental than Hakeem on defense.

Actually, the correct inference from that would be "Robinson guarding Olajuwon would be much more effective than Rodman guarding Olajuwon with no help defense."

I like how I make an assertion with qualifiers, and when it gets repeated back to me, the qualifiers are gone.

Like how the Spurs won 20 games without Robinson? Or how Drexler did right before he joined the Rockets? You don't even know what you are talking about anymore, the Spurs without Robinson, has proven to be one of the worst teams in the league.

I'm talking about a 95 Spurs team w/o Robinson vs a 95 Rockets team without Olajuwon.

Nice job spinning my words.

This proved that he was not an absolutely fantastic player? Karl Malone didn't win a title, nor did Stockton, I am sure both of them are better than Sean Elliott and Avery Johnson, even when they were starting to decline in production.

Generally, absolutely fantastic players make all-star teams. Yes, Malone/Stockton are better than Elliott/Johnson. I've never said anything to the contrary.

It shows that these are the kind of players that can nail shots and help teams win.

Agreed. They can nail shots and help teams when there is a dominant post presence to create open shots for role players.

So Hakeem just decided to suck in the other series, despite the fact that he played in a similar system and produced similar regular season stats. Because we all know, Hakeem in 95 is worlds different from Hakeem 96, he just decided to play like crap in one series.

As I've already repeated many times, Seattle got away with playing illegal defense on Olajuwon. This is why the Rockets lost the series.

I'll repeat it so maybe you wont ask the same question again. Seattle got away with playing illegal defense on Olajuwon. This is why the Rockets lost the series.

It shows that the performance of the same player is affected by many variables in the context of the game, such as offensive and defensive philosophies instead of just whether they decide to "bring it".

Actually, there's no valid reason to judge a player by future accomplishments. Ever. By doing so, you're making the erroneous assumption that the current player has the same skill sets as the future player.

wekko368

09-17-2009, 01:15 PM

I am sorry, I didn’t even realized that you were complaining about unfair refs, that was absolutely classy of you. Instead of admitting to how the best of the players could be slowed down by the appropriate defense, you go out and talk about conspiracy theories.

Appropriate defense? Back then, it was called "illegal defense".

We are talking about the reason Hakeem and David had their respective performances. Since you profess to be such an expert in statistics, I would imagine that you would realize that the major variable between 95 and 96 wasn’t Hakeem’s ability (see his regular season stats and 1st round stats), but the way the opponents play him.

Yes, playing illegal defense on Olajuwon was very effective.

For a second I thought you were trying to bring any kind of insight. What is there to argue about? I can just look up a stat sheet and noticed that. But that was never what we were arguing, you were arguing that Robinson not bringing it cause the spurs to loose, why are you backing away from the whole point of argument?

I've consistently maintained that the 95 series would be determined by the the battle of the centers.

Both Olajuwon and Robinson had comparable regular season numbers. However, during the series, Olajuwon elevated his game whereas Robinson's numbers declined.

I've never deviated from that stance.

My problem is that Robinson didn’t play as well as Hakeem? Excuse me? I don’t get that.
Why was Olajuwon “BY FAR” the superior player? Why did Hakeem decide not to be “BY FAR the superior player” to Robinson the game neither team couldn’t hit outside shots?

If you expect Olajuwon to have a monster game every single game of the series, you have higher expectations of him than I do.

Go look at the stat sheets. They'll tell you why Olajuwon was by far the superior player that series.

Or in game 1, when Hakeem had an average 27 ppg on 50% shooting, the Rockets still won the game because Drexler scored21 points and grabbed 12rebounds,

Yes, Olajuwon did have a very efficient game.

or how in Game 2 of the 1st round

Unless that first round was played against the Spurs, your point is irrelevant.

Why is it reasonable to expect anything without understanding the full context? I expect Hakeem to score 35ppg on 60% only one year removed from the championship against a team with no good centers, like the Sonics, but that is not a reasonable expectation.

Do you also expect the Sonics to play by the same rules as other teams?

Between 94 and 95, they were considered equals. If you argue otherwise, you didn’t even follow basketball back then. History has since been rewritten since that one series because people, like yourself, are too simplistic to understand that basketball is actually a team game.

They may have been considered equals until 94 when Olajuwon led a cast of above average role players to the title. After that, they were only considered equal by Spurs fans.

I understand that basketball is a team game, but generally, the best teams have the best individual players. Look at the Bulls in the 90's. Aside from Jordan and Pippen, how many players on the 91-93 teams were also on the 96-98 teams?

Which also explained why the Rockets continued to double and triple Robinson, while the Spurs singled Hakeem.

You've been making this "single coverage claim for a while". I know its not the best sample size, but on the highlight reels of that series, it shows Olajuwon scoring points against double and triple teams.

So you are saying that all 11.2 points that was scored inside and the 10.2 points that was scored on 3s were open shots? As much as you like to simplify this to bits that you can handle, that’s not the case. Hakeem scored 56% vs. singles, open looks, and doubles. The outside shooters made 34% on 3s while being either covered or not. When people are drawing more defensive attention, they generally shoot a lower %, but as a coach, you are not privy to these % before the game, you would rather give up two points, single teamed, than to give up 3 pts, wide open.

No, actually you don't. Not at all. If that were the case, there would never be any open 3 point shooters.

That may be one of the most ignorant things I've ever read.

kingmalaki

09-17-2009, 01:17 PM

You honestly saw a difference between what you just said and what I just said? Because "Hakeem struggled with the zone Seattle used at the time" is a statement about the general defensive concepts of the opposition, while "Robinson was outplayed by Hakeem" was a statement dealing strictly with personal battles and ignoring all the other contributing factors.

The difference seems to be that I am acknowledging that Hakeem underperformed, and putting his decrease in play on his shoulders, and not on his teammates. I am not solely blaming him for losing that series, just like I'm not solely blaming Robinson for losing in 95. Again, my point is folks are steadily pointing to his teammates dropping the ball, and glossing over the fact that he underperformed on both sides of the ball as well. You can't use his teammates to excuse him from shooting 47% and 37% in the final two games. You can't use his teammates to excuse him for allowing a man to drop 40+ on 60% in the last two games. Yes, you win and lose as a team, but the integral matchup in that series was at the pivot position. David's individual play decreased.

Overall, David Robinson actually performed quite well against Olajuwon over their careers. With their ups and downs. http://www.basketball-reference.com/fc/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&p1=robinda01&p2=olajuha01

He did, which further highlights the difference in their levels of play in the 95 WCF's. Hakeem really upped his. David's really dropped.

To simply sum up the performance and said "Robinson didn't bring it" was an insult to the game of basketball. It's saying that basketball is a game of one on one, and ignoring the team aspects. When two superstars are similar in talent, it figures that the supporting casts would be a deciding factor in any series. The fact that Robinson actually played well in the only game that the Spurs were nailing their 3 pt shots, and the fact that Hakeem had an average/subpar game when the Rockets couldn't make their outside shots (9-24, 20 pts when the Rockets made 3-16 from 3) speaks LOUDLY of the effects of 3 pt shooting on the performance on either superstar.

I'm not doing that at all. I'm saying the key matchup was the play at the pivot position. You can say his teammates weren't as good, but you also need to note that his individual play wasn't as good as his counterparts. It wasn't a story of David and Hakeem playing close + Rockets others > Spurs others = loss. It was a story of Hakeem > David, Rockets others > Spurs others = loss. Switch those two around any way you like, but acknowledge that David's individual play decreased. If your argument is that 3-point shooting led to who won games I can go with that. If your argument is that David shot like garbage to close the series because dudes weren't hitting 3-pointers....sorry, I don't buy that one.

Expecting Robinson to score 35ppg on 60% shooting against a defensive system that has nothing else to worry but to shut him down is unrealistic, to say that he let his team down because he failed to do that shows little to no understanding of the game of basketball.

Again, this is a myth. Robinson wasn't receiving any more attention that series than Hakeem. But we aren't going to agree on this matter. Obviously we see different things when we watch the games.

Saying Robinson had no answer for Hakeem, again, filtered this whole argument down to one point, and that is you saying basketball is a 1-1 game, and not a team game. It has been shown time and time again that both Hakeem and Robinson played well when his team shot 3s well, and doesn't when their respectively teams don't.

This argument is flawed. In Game 5, the Spurs only took 7 three pointers. One player took 4 fo those, hitting two. Are you really arguing that Robinson shot 47% that game because 3 other Spurs players took and missed one 3 pointer a piece?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199505300SAS.html

In Game 6 the Rockets only shot 27% from behind the arc. Hakeem still 39 on 64%. The Spurs again only took seven 3's. Two players hit 1/3 and another player missed his lone attempt. They actually shot better than Houston that game (29%). Yet David only shot 35%.

The Spurs barely took any 3's in the last two games. If Robinson was getting as much attention as you say he was, why would the Spurs only have 7 attempts for the last two games? That doesn't make any sense. The fact is Robinson wasn't receiving that much attention. He was just facing a center he couldn't dominate, and he had a bad final two games shooting the ball.

Phenomanul

09-17-2009, 02:44 PM

BTW I purposely interlaced 5 different errors during the course of the discussion from the time you claimed to own the series on DVD... instead of noticing them outright you've argued with me as if those points held merit... By this point I know you haven't recently watched the series, or that you even own it.... I'll let you figure out what those were...

It's not apples and oranges at all. Ariza get's his open looks because of the attention that other players demand. It's important that he make his open jumpers, but without those stars drawing extra attention, he wouldn't have an open shot to take because he isn't that great at creating his own opportunities. Therefore, the star is more important. This is the first time I have heard anyone argue that a role player was just as important as a star player

I'm not stupid, I understood you the first time... However you're the first person I've ever come across who would dare equate the spacing created by one player versus the spacing created by a trio of formidable scorers (Kobe, Gasol and Odom)... Now that is stupid.

But go ahead and spin it around like you've been doing with everything else I've written down...

But neither did David!!! His production dipped on both sides of the ball that series. Your argument would carry more weight if Robinson's production didn't decrease, but it did. You are trying to give the Rockets role players more credit than Hakeem, and give the Spurs role players more blame than David. The facts are that Hakeem bumped his level of play and his role players made their shots. David's level of play decereased along with his teammates.

Maybe I'll have to yell the point because it's one you fail to understand. David's production decreased whenever his shooters could not execute proficiently... Statistically, his worst game of the series was the first one (error one you didn't catch). What the box score doesn't show was that while he was being sent to the line repeatedly in the 4th quarter, his shooters couldn't buy a bucket anymore... 'till that point Elliott and Avery had contributed admirably to the the scoreboard... come 4th Q, their well dried up because Rudy T. made a brilliant adjustment... Even after all of that, the Spurs were ahead with a chance to make it a two possesion game... Elliott choked at the line missing two free-throws, Elie drilled a dagger (on a pass from Cassell)... Rockets win.

Olojuwon only scored 27 points in that game, and he didn't score any of his team's last 10 to close the game out, he did miss three shots in that span though... Ohhh... but Rocket fan comes in here saying this victory rests solely on the shoulders of Olojuwon and the loss solely on Robinson... :rolleyes

Aside from that game, and the low FG% in Game 6, David showed up statistically to the same averages he had against the Rockets up to that point in his career... Obviously, however, those averages aren't identical to the numbers he posted during the regular season against the rest of the league... the fact that you are holding him to those particular set of numbers shows your lazy approach to evaluating (or knocking) his production. Look no one's denying that Olojuwon wasn't one of David's greatest adversaries, or that his numbers against him weren't lower... Robinson's averages against the Rockets always hovered around ~20 ppg and 10 rpg... this series was nothing new to those numbers...

One big difference this time around was the fact that Olojuwon had a 20 point scorer at his side... So important was Drexler to their offense that he led the Rockets in win-shares that post-season :wow (Drexler accumulated 3.1 vs. Olojuwon's 2.9). Olojuwon also had Horry, and Cassell who increased on their regular season production... And players like Elie who could be counted on when the game was on the line... Or players like Kenny Smith who established a then NBA Finals record of 7 three-pointers in one game to beat the Magic in Game 1 of that year's Finals Series. Actually in that very game the Rockets were down by 20 midway through the 2nd Q... Olojuwon goes to the bench after picking up his 3rd foul and the Rockets were able to make a game defining run - with Olojuwon on the bench and Drexler leading the way... so clearly, it isn't all about Olojuwon.

Please stop with the myth that David faced more defensive pressure than Hakeem. I have the games, it isn't true. At the very least, Rocket and Spurs fans will never agree on this issue. But I have the games and it's a myth.

Now you are just lying. If Hakeem had seen the hard double teams Robinson saw throughout the series he would have drawn way more fouls... the game tape doesn't show that, and the box-scores don't agree with you.

Didn't Robinson also shoot worse in that postseason? What Spurs player had a bigger decrease than him in 95 (53% to 45%)?

Every Spurs fan in here has already acknowledged why his performance decreased... No one is saying that it didn't... You don't seem to get it though. You keep insisting that it was Robinson's fault alone rather than admiting that Houston's defensive strategy against the Spurs played a big part... You still don't seem to understand how that dynamic plays out do you... And like I mentioned earlier, Robinson's numbers against the Rockets were where they had always been...

No, I just think the star drawing more attention is more important that the role player hitting open shots, especially when the star is the one having the career series. Nice attempt to spin my words though.
Olojuwon took 68 more shot attempts in that series than Robinson... If the production of the role players weren't important how is it that they managed to set a record for three pointers made? If their production weren't important how come two of the games (error 2 you didn't catch) came down to game defining jumpers??? If their production weren't important how come a loss is attained whenever the Spurs' starting 1, 2, and 3 only manage a combined 22 points for a game (Game 2)??? You seem to think that's all on David.

How does saying he dominated his matchup translate into he is the only reason that they won? It's the main reason. The C matchup was the most important one in the series.
One which was exploited by Houston's overall defensive strategy... not because somehow David failed to show up. There's a difference. You simple-minded perspective is your undoing.

Wasn't the series knotted 2-2 after 4 games? That basically means the first 4 games don't matter, because now it's a best of 3 series. Do you agree or disagree?

So the fact that one of those games ultimately came down to a dagger by Horry, one which you are so eager to dismiss, plays no part in the story?

The fact that you solely point to Olojuwon's monster numbers in the closeout games as an indication that he alone manhandled the series is still rather disingenuous on your part. Your clutchest player came through... and you simply don't care to take that into account.

Kobe had a monster series against Orlando last year... it still doesn't take away the fact that Fisher hit the series' 2 biggest shots... Tell me role players don't matter... please.

You know, one other thing... If you don't like what we have to say... feel free to leave. THIS IS A SPURS FORUM after all... And.... you're not really convincing me of anything... other than the fact that we are all stubborn.

wekko368

09-17-2009, 03:15 PM

polandprzem

09-17-2009, 03:16 PM

holy smokes

10 pages of long posts and i got into this thread now.

I've read some ambchang posts and he makes great points as usuall. Well accually he brings the facts on a golden plate. they look great.

ambchang

09-17-2009, 03:36 PM

In his Portland days, Drexler had all-star teammates of Terry Porter and Kevin Duckworth not to mention very solid players in Jerome Kersey and Buck Williams.

Yes, Cassell had a successful stint in Minnesota where he played alongside Garnett and Sprewell. And again, why are you judging Cassell by accomplishments 9 years in the future? Do you think the 2004 Cassell was the same player as the 1995 Cassell?

And Smith did that in Sacramento b/c there was no one else on the team to shoulder the load. And they were 27-55.

But none of this changed the fact that these players could score without Hakeem, right?

Also, why are you brining teammates in play, they don’t matter! What’s wrong with you, Drexler scored all those points and had the success that he had because he decided to take over games, not because of his teammates. Are you nuts? Why would teammates matter all of a sudden?

You've been asking which team has a better supporting cast. If you want an objective answer, then you'd have to judge each player on his individual merits and take Olajuwon out of the equation.

However, from the way you've been describing the Rocket's role players, it looks like you think they were all in their primes during 1995.

Since when have I said they were right during their primes? But does it matter, them not even being in their primes was better than the Spurs role players who were in their primes. I would take a 95 Drexler over a 95 Elliott 100 out of a 100 times, and that is given that Elliott is my 3rd favourite Spur of all time, and that being the closest match-up. I would take a 95 Cassell over a 95 Avery Johnson 100 out of 100 times, and that is with Cassell being a starting instead of a backup point guard. I would take a 95 Horry over a 95 Rodman 100 out of 100 times. It’s not even up for debate.

Your premis is mistaken. I've explained why in prior posts. Go back and look, but I'm sick of repeating myself to you.

You saying that an inside-outside system was driven solely by the inside game? Keep on riding that one engine train of yours then. Because I am sure it’s called an inside-out system is called that because nobody can hit an outside shot.

Zan Tabak? He played a total of 5 minutes the entire series. Let's get down to the crux of the matter. Which team would win:
Do you want to look up how many minutes Cummings played?

Houston - Drexler, Horry, K.Smith, Brown, Cassell, Chilcutt, Elie, Jones

SA - A. Johnson, Elliott, Rodman, Del Negro, Person, Reid, Anderson, Rivers, Cummings

I think SA would win due to the fact that Houston has no post presence.
You think so? You think a team with Drexler on it would win less than 20 games? What are you basing that on? What kind of post presence did the Spurs have? Cummings with a busted knee? Reid, who never was much of a presence his entire career? Cummings averagd 15ppg / 36 minutes that year, and Reid 13, Zan Tabak averaged 15 and Chucky Brown 11. That’s the “inside presence” you are talking about. You don’t even have a clue as to what you are talking about.

And why would a team having no post presence not win? According to you, a team with Steve Nash, Reggie Miller, Clyde Drexler, Dirk Nowitzki and Mehmet Okur, all in their primes would lose to a team headed by Cummings and Reid, because the first team “has no post presence”.

Rodman averaged 15 rpg that series. Horry averaged 7.2. So? It would be helpful if the team with the higher rebounding total would win the games, but too bad they were counting the scores.

No offense, but you can't be this ignorant. There has to be an ulterior motive. What I'm thinking is that maybe you're making these outlandish claims just to see if I'd take the time to check the stats and disprove you.
Check game 5, the pivotal game where the Spurs lost by 21 points.

Actually, the correct inference from that would be "Robinson guarding Olajuwon would be much more effective than Rodman guarding Olajuwon with no help defense."

I like how I make an assertion with qualifiers, and when it gets repeated back to me, the qualifiers are gone.

You mean how you like watching people play in vacuums? What do you even mean by no help defense? Did Robinson get lots of help defense? What help defense are you talking about?

The original argument was that Rodman should have guarded Hakeem instead of Robinson, you went out and said that given Rodman was smaller and weaker (arguable) than Robinson, Hakeem would have dropped 60 on him. The original argument never said Rodman should guard Hakeem with no help defense whatsoever. But then, that argument somehow evaporated when it was shown that an even shorter Anthony Mason was the most effective player guarding Hakeem.

I'm talking about a 95 Spurs team w/o Robinson vs a 95 Rockets team without Olajuwon.

Nice job spinning my words.

So your argument to support your point was the point you are trying to make to begin with? There are no variables in your arguments. How can you objectively look into the person’s performance without the supporting cast when the only data you have is his performance with the supporting cast? You can only argue that Hakeem with his supporting cast vastly outplayed Robinson with the Spurs supporting cast, you can’t go and say Hakeem is better than Robinson.

Generally, absolutely fantastic players make all-star teams. Yes, Malone/Stockton are better than Elliott/Johnson. I've never said anything to the contrary.
Drexler is better than Elliott as well.

Agreed. They can nail shots and help teams when there is a dominant post presence to create open shots for role players.
Of course. But then Cassell can nail shots with Garnett as his “post presence”, and Kenny Smith can still nail shots with nothing around him.

As I've already repeated many times, Seattle got away with playing illegal defense on Olajuwon. This is why the Rockets lost the series.

But according to your logic on Robinson, if Hakeem can score 35ppg on 60% in that series, the Rockets win. The primary reason the Spurs lost is because Robinson was outplayed by Hakeem, by the same logic, the primary reason the Rockets lost in 96 to the Sonics was because Hakeem was outplayed by Shawn Kemp.

I'll repeat it so maybe you wont ask the same question again. Seattle got away with playing illegal defense on Olajuwon. This is why the Rockets lost the series.

Why did the league not call it. You know what? I feel like saying the sole reason the Spurs lost was because the referees were shaving points. Better yet, there was a murder conspiracy, if Robinson actually shot a decent % in that series, NBA goons will murder his family and skin his dog.

Actually, there's no valid reason to judge a player by future accomplishments. Ever. By doing so, you're making the erroneous assumption that the current player has the same skill sets as the future player.
Or even game to game by your logic. Hakeem played well in the 96 regular season, almost as well as in 95. He played well in the 1st round, so why did he suffer against the Sonics?
Oh, right, illegal defense. When it applies to Hakeem, it’s a reason, it’s an excuse for everyone else.

EDIT: Had totally screwed up quoting, changed that.

kingmalaki

09-17-2009, 03:40 PM

Phenomanul

09-17-2009, 03:41 PM

:blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah :blah

Phenomanul

09-17-2009, 04:04 PM

The box scores do agree with me. If Robinson was receiving that much attention, then why did the Spurs shoot so few 3 pointers to close the series?

That's the point ambchang and I have been trying to get across... the Rockets were built around getting inside points from Olajuwon and 3 pointers from most every one else...

Aside from Elliott and Person on old legs, Avery, the primary ball-handler wasn't a three point threat... Vinny was no where near consistent taking this shot either... i.e. it was far easier to sag off of them because their game didn't revolve around standing behind the three point line... nor did they pose a menace when they did... But hey, you seem to know how those Spurs teams were constructed... RIGHT... :rolleyes

Their biggest help in that department came from the guy who is now coaching the Celtics... In fact, Doc Rivers was a huge reason why the Spurs were able to blow the Rockets out in Game 4. Unlike you, I'm willing to recognize that their contributions matter.

Please show me where I said it was all David's fault. I can provide numerous posts that say the exact opposite.
Semantics... you said it outright in your first post in this thread.

I think you need to learn the difference between someone noting that role player play isn't important, and them noting that role player play isn't more important that superstar play, especially superstar play that gets them open looks. But even assuming your logic is corect, you are giving more/equal credit to a dude hitting a game winning jumper (i.e. Horry in game one, his lone field goal), as opposed to Hakeem hitting 27 on 50% shooting? Umm.....ok......

I think we've established that in your mind Olajowon was 80% responsible for the series win and every body contributed only 20%.

I feel the breakdown is more like 50% Olojuwon, 25% Drexler and Cassell, 20% Horry, Elie and Smith, 5% everyone else. So yes, the remainder of the team gets equal footing... unless of course you're telling me clutchness is irrelevant.

Yes, because the myth around here is that David was swarmed 24/7 while Hakeem got 1-1 coverage all series long. Hyperbole again??? Hakeem didn't see hard double teams... David did. The one or two lone instances per game that Olajuwon faced a hard double does not reflect the fact that those were the looks he got all series long. David on the other hand saw hard doubles the entire freaking series, minus the same outlier cases where he didn't.

That dagger was irrevelant by game 5 because the series was knotted. The advantage from that dagger was gone. This is a series, not a win all game.
What??? I'm referring to the series clinching dagger in Game 6... try and keep up.

Role players don't matter AS MUCH AS the star players. That logic shouldn't be this hard to comprehend. That's why roleplayers don't make as much. That's why they aren't doubleteamed, etc.
Teams are built around stars... Houston had two. San Antonio had one. Role players, however, help you win championships... Houston had championship caliber role players, San Antonio didn't... end of story.