How would a prime Olajuwon fare against a prime Duncan? [Archive] - Page 4

TDfan2007

02-04-2015, 02:31 AM

Dream was always the best player on his team during the Finals. Twice in the finals, Duncan has been outplayed by a teammate. Not knocking Tim. The teams he had around him were just better.

Duncan was the Spurs best player in the playoffs both in 2007 and in 2014. In 2007 the Spurs exploited a monumental mismatch at the PG position. Tim played the facilitator/defender role and led the team in blocks, rebounds, and assists. In 2014 Kawhi went apeshit for 3 games, but Timmy was arguably our most consistent player for the series and also played incredible defense.

A doormat for the Bulls? Those Bulls teams featured Michael Jordan, the consensus GOAT. There's no shame in losing to the GOAT. Also, en route to his two titles, Olajuwon went head-to-head against all his great contemporaries, Ewing, Robinson, and Shaq. You can't say the same thing about Duncan.

Who cares if Shaq and Hardaway were young? Shaq averaged 29 pgg and 11 rpg. He actually led the league in scoring. Hardaway averaged 21 ppg and 7 apg. You can't dismiss those guys just b/c they were young. They were still dominant. It's not Olajuwon's fault that Jordan's Bulls couldn't get past them.

Actually, you can. Duncan went through KG in 1999 and 2001, Gasol in 2004, Dirk in 2001, 2003, 2010 and 2014, Rasheed Wallace in the 2005 finals, and Shaq in 1999, 2003, and 2008 (outplaying him in each series, btw). The only great PF/C of his era that he didn't face and defeat in the playoffs was Chris Webber, but Timmy routinely outplayed Webber in their RS meetings.

TP and Manu> Kenny Smith and Mario Ellie FOH :lol

You're vastly overrating Manu and Tony in their 2003 iterations. Manu was just a rookie then and his play was inconsistent at best. Tony was routinely benched for Speedy fucking Claxton and the Spurs almost signed Kidd to replace him that offseason. You're also forgetting that along with those two guys, Hakeem had a 20+ ppg scorer in Drexler by his side in 1995. His 1994 team is comparable to the 2003 Spurs talent-wise though.

Incorrect. Duncan didn't defeat Shaq/Kobe/Lebron. The Spurs defeated the Lakers/Cavs/Heat. Duncan didn't guard any of them head-to-head. Even if it was by design, the fact that Duncan didn't guard Shaq hurts his legacy in discussions like these. If I say something like "Olajuwon could've defended Duncan well", that's a plausible statement because we saw Olajuwon guard Shaq/Ewing/Robinson and do a good job. Plus, you have guys like Elie and Horry saying that Olajuwon was the better player and a superior athlete. Conversely, look at the statement "Duncan could've guarded Olajuwon well". Can you make a good argument to support that statement?

As I stated before, Duncan guarded Shaq when the occasion called for it and did an amazing job during those times.

And I'm not sure what you consider a "good job." Hakeem was constantly in foul trouble trying to guard David in that 1995 series, and it's not like he didn't have ample help. The Rockets doubled David like crazy for just about the entire series. As for his Finals series against Shaq, Shaq averaged 28ppg on almost 60% shooting for that series...

The only one of his contemporaries that he "locked down" was Ewing. The rest of those matchups swung in Dream's favor because of his amazing offensive numbers, not by anything he did defensively.

ambchang

02-04-2015, 07:32 AM

Dream is probably the greatest defensive center of all time. Surely he could check Duncan - without a double team either. He was a monster. Real talk.

Is that why the Rockets had to triple Robinson the entire series?

:cry Hakeem dominated Robinson 1 on 1
:cry Hakeem didn't need any help
:cry Robinson had the same PG Hakeem did, just that the PG was the best PG Robinson ever had but was cut by the Rockets twice as a 3rd string PG
:cry Hakeem was routine first round fodder until he was surrounded by 3 pt shooters and in a system that changed the game, but it was Hakeem carrying everyone to the finals

ambchang

02-04-2015, 07:44 AM

Basketball is about matchups. The Rockets needed more size to beat Seattle. Also, in 1995, Olajuwon was at the top of his game, playing arguably the best basketball the league has ever seen. There was a sizable drop off from 1995 Olajuwon and 1997 Olajuwon.

Wow! So NOW it's about matchups and how Rockets lack size.

But when it comes to Hakeem winning the battle, it was :cry Hakeem went 1 on 5 in every possession and dominated.

Why isn't it that Shawn Kemp beat Hakeem? Oh wait, the Rockets need more size!

The Spurs had all the size they needed when they beat Hakeem, never mind Rodman was jacking up three pointers, leading Horry wide opened for rebounds, Avery Johnson and Del Negro was so bad shooting from outside that the Rockets triple teamed Robinson and every catch the entire series.

You know what that sizable drop off from 1995 to 1997 was? Barkley taking up his shots. Hakeem is a great individual player, one of the best ever, but he would still have to give up shots to other teammates when the situation warrants.

How exactly did that prove your point and disprove mine?

Me: Hakeem would average lower points in today's NBA (ie, the one with less one on one play and more team play). Proof is Sonics in 96
Jamstone: Sonics lost to them in 97
Me: 97 Rockets had Barkley, so it's tougher to zone on Hakeem. BTW, it took 7 games and Hakeem shot a lot less.
You: Sonics lost to them in 97 with Barkley and Willis
Me: He averaged a lot less points and shots, which supports my original statement that he would have lower averages in today's NBA.

I guess Yao wasn't a good example. Let's look at Dwight Howard. For a while, he was a consistent 20/10 guy, and his offensive repertoire is abysmal. If he could average 20/10, why is it so hard to believe that Olajuwon would put up significantly better stats? In your response, be sure to factor in their respective skill-sets.

Because Howard was bigger and better than anyone. He was an athletic marvel who was surrounded by 3 point shooters (blueprint started by, not coincidentally, the Hakeem Rockets). Dwight, at his absolute peak, was a 23/14 player. Hakeem was 28/12 or 24/14. That's a 5 point difference. They aren't even comparable statistics wise. It's like saying Zydrunas Ilgauskas had comparable stats to Dwight because he averaged 17/9 a game in his peak, which is really only 6 points off Dwight's.

And oh, Dwight only did that for one year, he was mostly an 18 to 20 point scorer in his entire career.

BTW 2, Pau Gasol was one of the most skilled player in the low post, yet he never averaged over 21 ppg, and mostly in the 18 ppg range. He plays in the same era as Dwight, but MVPau, despite his skills, averaged less.

ambchang

02-04-2015, 07:47 AM

You give Olajuwon the stability of a franchise Duncan had and let's see how it works. Additionally, since you want to play that game. How about we put Duncan with an aging Clyde Drexler, Robert Horry and Kenny Smith as his supporting cast. :lol

Duncan won with an aging Robinson, rookie Manu and a Parker who was replaced by Speedy Claxton, and took them to a championship, putting up a near quad-doub in the finals.

He also took an aging Robinson, Jaren Jackson and Will Perdue to another championship.

BTW, the 94 championship run > 95 championship run.

djohn2oo8

02-04-2015, 08:14 AM

Duncan won with an aging Robinson, rookie Manu and a Parker who was replaced by Speedy Claxton, and took them to a championship, putting up a near quad-doub in the finals.

He also took an aging Robinson, Jaren Jackson and Will Perdue to another championship.

BTW, the 94 championship run > 95 championship run.

95 championship run they won without HCA in any round. And no other team seeded that low or lower has won.

SupremeGuy

02-04-2015, 08:50 AM

PedoDream had trouble beating DRob basically 1 on 5; so yeah, I don't know what djohn is smoking but it's probably some good shit.

djohn2oo8

02-04-2015, 09:03 AM

PedoDream had trouble beating DRob basically 1 on 5; so yeah, I don't know what djohn is smoking but it's probably some good shit.

D-Rob couldn't hold Dream's jock. Not when it mattered.

ambchang

02-04-2015, 09:10 AM

95 championship run they won without HCA in any round. And no other team seeded that low or lower has won.

That was surely impressive, and a lot has to do with integrating Drexler in the system during the regular season, and the Maxwell incident.

What I meant was from an individual level for Hakeem. The quality of teammates that Hakeem took to the championship wasn't as good as his 95 teammates.

ambchang

02-04-2015, 09:13 AM

D-Rob couldn't hold Dream's jock. Not when it mattered.

Right, D-Rob had trouble with triple teams, while Hakeem was beasting on a Robinson that had to guard him one on one, not to mention recover for Rodman's missed defensive assignments.

Hakeem sure showed Robinson individually when it mattered.

But when Hakeem was held to a bad showing vs. the Sonics, it was because of the poor mean refs and their refusal to call illegal D :cry. It's so unfair.

cantthinkofanything

02-04-2015, 09:35 AM

It's hard to find anyone outside of Spurs fans that takes Duncan over Hakeem. Robert Horry says Olajuwon was the best center he played with hands down.

wekko368

02-04-2015, 10:19 AM

Shaq guarded him for most of the 2nd half. If you watched the whole video, you would've seen that. Duncan was too big/strong for Horry, and too quick for Shaq. And who do you think guarded Shaq when David was out/hurt? There's a video on youtube of the 2002 series against LA, where Bill Walton mentions that Duncan was playing the best defense he'd seen against Shaq in recent memory.

I watched the rest of the video. Shaq guarded Duncan on maybe 5 possessions, and on other possessions, Duncan was guarded by either Horry or Medvedenko.

ambchang

02-04-2015, 10:39 AM

I watched the rest of the video. Shaq guarded Duncan on maybe 5 possessions, and on other possessions, Duncan was guarded by either Horry or Medvedenko.

Shaq vs. Duncan was mostly a marketing ploy.

Most of the time, Horry guarded Duncan with help, and Robinson/Rose guarded Shaq with Duncan as help.

This saves Duncan and Shaq on offense, helps them avoid foul trouble, and allows both to be the last line of defense to help out on drives, and in Duncan's case, close out on pick and rolls.

Shaq was often times asked to guard Duncan in the final quarter, and it came with mixed success. Shaq was effective in the sense that he can easily dislodge Duncan due to his strength, but his defensive techniques are not as strong as Horry, and could be picked and rolled to death (Shaq was one of the worst superstar centres to defend the pick and roll because he doesn't close out on shooters). That said, the Spurs didn't really have any shooters to run the pick and roll (Antonio Daniels, Avery Johnson, an ancient Terry Porter, rookie Parker), so everybody knew the Spurs will use Duncan on the roll, and the PG is just there to pass Duncan the ball, making Duncan MUCH easier to guard.

This changed with the addition of Speedy Claxton (mid rangers and long range twos. 39% of his shots are 2's > 16 feet, and he nails 57% in the regular season. Those numbers became 41% and 49% in the playoffs), and Kerr (long range twos and threes).

Again, this speaks to how ridiculously important it is for a big to have a PG who can shoot from the outside, especially when you play against the Shaq Lakers. Not having a good shooting PG allows the entire defense to collapse on big, and significantly undermines the effectiveness of a pick and roll, which was one of the most important tools in 90s and 00s ball.

Jenks

02-04-2015, 10:50 AM

:lol Robinson admitted to not being able to defend a ROOKIE Tim Duncan. Robinson, the most humble man on earth, said straight up he would beat Timmy in a one on one - and he's absolutely right. Don't fall into the retard/troll trap of pretending 95 was even close to a 1 on 1 series.

wekko368

02-04-2015, 10:58 AM

Wow! So NOW it's about matchups and how Rockets lack size.

But when it comes to Hakeem winning the battle, it was :cry Hakeem went 1 on 5 in every possession and dominated.

Why isn't it that Shawn Kemp beat Hakeem? Oh wait, the Rockets need more size!

Basketball is all about matchups. The Sonics beat the Rockets in 1996. In 1997, the Rockets added Barkley and Kevin Willis and beat the Sonics.

The Spurs had all the size they needed when they beat Hakeem, never mind Rodman was jacking up three pointers, leading Horry wide opened for rebounds, Avery Johnson and Del Negro was so bad shooting from outside that the Rockets triple teamed Robinson and every catch the entire series.

What exactly is your point? Also, if you recall, in 1995, the Rockets traded for Clyde Drexler in the middle of the season. It took some time for them to gel.

Me: Hakeem would average lower points in today's NBA (ie, the one with less one on one play and more team play). Proof is Sonics in 96
Jamstone: Sonics lost to them in 97
Me: 97 Rockets had Barkley, so it's tougher to zone on Hakeem. BTW, it took 7 games and Hakeem shot a lot less.
You: Sonics lost to them in 97 with Barkley and Willis
Me: He averaged a lot less points and shots, which supports my original statement that he would have lower averages in today's NBA.

You're totally ignoring the caliber of teammates. Do you realize how poorly the Rockets' shooters shot? In game 1, Kenny Smith went 0-3, Cassell went 3-12, and Elie went 3-7. In game 2, Smith went 3-11, Cassell went 1-5, and Elie went 2-6. In game 3, Smith shot 8-15, Cassell went 0-4, and Elie went 4-10. In game 4, Smith shot 0-4, Cassell shot 5-16, and Elie shot 5-14.

So no, the Sonics' 1996 victory over the Rockets doesn't support your assertion. In fact, when you look at Olajuwon's stats for games 2, 3, and 4, it hurts your argument.

Because Howard was bigger and better than anyone. He was an athletic marvel who was surrounded by 3 point shooters (blueprint started by, not coincidentally, the Hakeem Rockets). Dwight, at his absolute peak, was a 23/14 player. Hakeem was 28/12 or 24/14. That's a 5 point difference. They aren't even comparable statistics wise. It's like saying Zydrunas Ilgauskas had comparable stats to Dwight because he averaged 17/9 a game in his peak, which is really only 6 points off Dwight's.

And oh, Dwight only did that for one year, he was mostly an 18 to 20 point scorer in his entire career.

First of all, Dwight averaged at least 20pts/10rbs in 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012.

Secondly, you have to look at these comparisons in the proper context. Dwight's peak was 23/14, but he played against historically weak opposition. Olajuwon's peak was 28/12, but he played in the golden era of centers against some of the greatest centers of all-time. If Olajuwon played in Dwight's era, his stats would undoubtedly improve.

Thirdly, Olajuwon was easily a better athlete than Dwight. Look at the way they move. Dwight can run fast and jump high, but his movements are robotic. Olajuwon's were graceful, and he had an infinitely better touch.

BTW 2, Pau Gasol was one of the most skilled player in the low post, yet he never averaged over 21 ppg, and mostly in the 18 ppg range. He plays in the same era as Dwight, but MVPau, despite his skills, averaged less.

Gasol had a weak supporting cast in Memphis, and he was the #2 option in LA.

ambchang

02-04-2015, 12:13 PM

Basketball is all about matchups. The Sonics beat the Rockets in 1996. In 1997, the Rockets added Barkley and Kevin Willis and beat the Sonics.

Not arguing that. In fact, it's pretty obvious.

What exactly is your point? Also, if you recall, in 1995, the Rockets traded for Clyde Drexler in the middle of the season. It took some time for them to gel.

Sarcasm in pointing out the double standards to judge Robinson in one series vs. the Rockets vs. Hakeem in the ones series vs. the Sonics.

You're totally ignoring the caliber of teammates. Do you realize how poorly the Rockets' shooters shot? In game 1, Kenny Smith went 0-3, Cassell went 3-12, and Elie went 3-7. In game 2, Smith went 3-11, Cassell went 1-5, and Elie went 2-6. In game 3, Smith shot 8-15, Cassell went 0-4, and Elie went 4-10. In game 4, Smith shot 0-4, Cassell shot 5-16, and Elie shot 5-14.

So no, the Sonics' 1996 victory over the Rockets doesn't support your assertion. In fact, when you look at Olajuwon's stats for games 2, 3, and 4, it hurts your argument.

My stance is that the caliber of teammates had a HUGE effect on players, which has been my rant about Robinson having Avery Johnson and Vinny Del Negro as his STARTING guards.

Sonics had the speed and length to close out on three point shooters, especially with the shorter three point line, which allowed them to double/triple Hakeem while recovering enough to bother the shooters. This had three effects on Hakeem:
1) He get less shots
2) He shoots worse
3) He turns the ball over more

I am not entirely sure how Game 2 would ever hurt my argument. He shot 8 for 21 for 17 points and 5 TOV in the game. How is that supposed to be rated? A good game? A decent game?

Game 3, he got 12 shots and 7 TOV. He shot well (7-12), and passed great 9 assists, but on an individual basis, it was an average game for him.

Game 4, he got 26 points, but played 50 minutes (since you love to normalize the numbers), and had 4 TOs.

None of those 4 games could be considered good for him. And it was due to the semi-zone defense the Sonics played. Zones are full-fledge legal in today's league, so him playing in today's league would lead to lower numbers.

First of all, Dwight averaged at least 20pts/10rbs in 2008, 2009, 2011, and 2012.

Secondly, you have to look at these comparisons in the proper context. Dwight's peak was 23/14, but he played against historically weak opposition. Olajuwon's peak was 28/12, but he played in the golden era of centers against some of the greatest centers of all-time. If Olajuwon played in Dwight's era, his stats would undoubtedly improve.

Thirdly, Olajuwon was easily a better athlete than Dwight. Look at the way they move. Dwight can run fast and jump high, but his movements are robotic. Olajuwon's were graceful, and he had an infinitely better touch.

I don't know what the point of your first point was. I put in 23/14 and ignored the 20/10 seasons, which actually was to your benefit, but each it's own.

Second, the position is historically weak because of the way the game has changed. Rules are now favouring the use of perimeter players vs. big men, so even capable bigs are being utilized less, which hurts an individual's stats.

Third, Olajuwon was more graceful and much more coordinated, but he is not a better athlete. Besides, being graceful didn't make Rony Seikaly an all-time best big, so the point is moot.

Gasol had a weak supporting cast in Memphis, and he was the #2 option in LA.

How would a weak supporting cast hurt Gasol's individual stats? If anything, it should bolster it, and still only averaged 20 a game.

TDfan2007

02-04-2015, 12:21 PM

I watched the rest of the video. Shaq guarded Duncan on maybe 5 possessions, and on other possessions, Duncan was guarded by either Horry or Medvedenko.

:lol those are just the possessions where Duncan scored on him. Quit being so (hopefully purposefully) obtuse. Either way, your original point is moot.

TDfan2007

02-04-2015, 12:26 PM

Robinson, the most humble man on earth, said straight up he would beat Timmy in a one on one - and he's absolutely right. Don't fall into the retard/troll trap of pretending 95 was even close to a 1 on 1 series.

There are several videos out there, one on the 2003 championship DVD and I believe in the video below, where David admits that Timmy gave him the business during training camp. It's one of the reasons why David gave up the reigns of the offense so readily. Not saying that Timmy could guard David. Neither player would be able to defend the other imo.

wekko368

02-04-2015, 12:41 PM

:lol those are just the possessions where Duncan scored on him. Quit being so (hopefully purposefully) obtuse. Either way, your original point is moot.

LOL. Claiming my point is moot without even refuting it. Nice.

Even other Spurs fans agree that Duncan didn't guard Shaq.

TDfan2007

02-04-2015, 12:50 PM

LOL. Claiming my point is moot without even refuting it. Nice.

Even other Spurs fans agree that Duncan didn't guard Shaq.

Duncan didn't guard Shaq for most of the game to avoid foul trouble. It's the same reason why Shaq didn't guard him for most of the game, and the same reason why the Rockets ROUTINELY doubled David in that playoff series. You don't have your top dog guard the other team's top dog for the whole game if possible (i.e. if someone else can do a comparable job and keep your guy fresher on the offensive end). It's just basic basketball strategy.

You claimed that Duncan never guarded Shaq, which he did, and when he did he did as good a job as possible.

Horse

02-04-2015, 01:28 PM

Simply not true. Go back to their yearly head-to-heads from 1989 through to 1996. David didn't dominate Hakeem. The Spurs dominated the Rockets. But individually, David did not dominate Hakeem. Hakeem generally scored more. David generally was more efficient from the field. Both rebounded well. In fact, year by year, through that 7 year stretch, they were basically even statistically, with a couple seasons where Hakeem really outscored David. But David did not dominate Hakeem outside those two years. That's a complete fallacy.

Both their teams best player, stats close to even. David win all the wins!

wekko368

02-04-2015, 01:29 PM

Sarcasm in pointing out the double standards to judge Robinson in one series vs. the Rockets vs. Hakeem in the ones series vs. the Sonics.

How is it a double standard?

Game 3, he got 12 shots and 7 TOV. He shot well (7-12), and passed great 9 assists, but on an individual basis, it was an average game for him.

None of those 4 games could be considered good for him. And it was due to the semi-zone defense the Sonics played. Zones are full-fledge legal in today's league, so him playing in today's league would lead to lower numbers.

In Game 3, he had 24 pts on 58% shooting, 13 rebounds, 9 assists, 2 steals, 3 blocks, and 7 assists. And you don't think that was a good game for him. The standard you hold Olajuwon to is ridiculous.

In the playoffs, the games slow down and the pressure increases. If a star player is able to maintain his season averages, that's pretty good.

I don't know what the point of your first point was. I put in 23/14 and ignored the 20/10 seasons, which actually was to your benefit, but each it's own.

Second, the position is historically weak because of the way the game has changed. Rules are now favouring the use of perimeter players vs. big men, so even capable bigs are being utilized less, which hurts an individual's stats.

Incorrect. Basketball will always be a big man's game. Look at the draft history. There's a reason why teams will gamble on raw big men. There just weren't that many great centers during Duncan's prime. It's not Duncan's fault, but that was the reality.

Third, Olajuwon was more graceful and much more coordinated, but he is not a better athlete. Besides, being graceful didn't make Rony Seikaly an all-time best big, so the point is moot.

Coordination and grace are forms of athleticism. As a whole, Olajuwon was a significantly better athlete than Dwight Howard.

How would a weak supporting cast hurt Gasol's individual stats? If anything, it should bolster it, and still only averaged 20 a game.

If I know my opponent only has one offensive threat, I'm going to structure my defense to key in on that single threat and force the other guys to beat me. If my opponent has a weak supporting cast, they won't be able to.

Horse

02-04-2015, 01:33 PM

It's hard to find anyone outside of Spurs fans that takes Duncan over Hakeem. Robert Horry says Olajuwon was the best center he played with hands down.

If you want to argue peak, you may have a point but career-wise it's not even close. TD is the man!

wekko368

02-04-2015, 01:37 PM

Duncan didn't guard Shaq for most of the game to avoid foul trouble. It's the same reason why Shaq didn't guard him for most of the game, and the same reason why the Rockets ROUTINELY doubled David in that playoff series. You don't have your top dog guard the other team's top dog for the whole game if possible (i.e. if someone else can do a comparable job and keep your guy fresher on the offensive end). It's just basic basketball strategy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXT6hYTi2G0

Those are Robinson's highlights from game 2 when he got 32 points. As you can see, when Olajuwon guarded Robinson, it was single coverage. Robinson only saw double teams when Olajuwon was on the bench or he drove the lane and the defense collapsed.

Olajuwon was arguably the greatest defensive center of all-time. Not many guys could do a comparable job on defense, and definitely no one on the Rockets could. However, this argument hurts Duncan since you're essentially saying that against Shaq, the defense of a 37 year old David Robinson was on par with that of a 26 year old Duncan.

You claimed that Duncan never guarded Shaq, which he did, and when he did he did as good a job as possible.

Ok, you're right. Duncan did guard Shaq, albeit minimally. Regardless, since it was minimal, that still supports my argument.

cantthinkofanything

02-04-2015, 01:41 PM

If you want to argue peak, you may have a point but career-wise it's not even close. TD is the man!

there's no doubt. I thought the whole discussion was based on peak.

ambchang

02-04-2015, 02:08 PM

How is it a double standard?

Robinson got outplayed - Hakeem owns him
Hakeem got outplayed - Sonics cheated.

I guess Hakeem can not only shatter the laws of mathematics, he is now going to redefine the use of double standards.

In Game 3, he had 24 pts on 58% shooting, 13 rebounds, 9 assists, 2 steals, 3 blocks, and 7 assists. And you don't think that was a good game for him. The standard you hold Olajuwon to is ridiculous.

In the playoffs, the games slow down and the pressure increases. If a star player is able to maintain his season averages, that's pretty good.

Rebounds, steals and blocks have absolutely nothing to do with Sonic's zone defense. In fact, zones, especially poorly run, allow the opposition to get offensive rebounds easier.

Still didn't change the fact that he shot 8 less shots than normal and had 7 TOV.

Incorrect. Basketball will always be a big man's game. Look at the draft history. There's a reason why teams will gamble on raw big men. There just weren't that many great centers during Duncan's prime. It's not Duncan's fault, but that was the reality.

Oh thou great basketball mind, please bestow on me what is correct and what is incorrect, for you, a worshipper of Hakeem, will surely know all there is to know about basketball.

Ignore the years of evidence that rule changes have diminished the effectiveness of centers and is moving the offensive controls over the perimeter players, for the church of Hakeem is not confined by any rules, be it mathematical averages, historical data, or common logic.

Coordination and grace are forms of athleticism. As a whole, Olajuwon was a significantly better athlete than Dwight Howard.

You are just randomly placing additional weight on coordination and grace. Dwight won a slam dunk contest, that's another form of athleticism.

Besides, it's just shown both skills and athleticism are both important in the production of an athlete, I am not sure why you have to be insistent on Hakeem being better at EVERY SINGLE DAMN THING.

I am sure if I tell you my piss is yellower than Hakeem's, you will come in and say Hakeem's piss is the yellowest in human history, that ancient tribes freeze Hakeem piss and trade them as gold bars.

If I know my opponent only has one offensive threat, I'm going to structure my defense to key in on that single threat and force the other guys to beat me. If my opponent has a weak supporting cast, they won't be able to.

This is only true in the playoffs when the opposition have ample time to prepare, and does not explain why Gasol's average dropped after he got better teammates.

It's true for Hakeem as well, you got Barkley, his ppg dropped. He got surrounded by great shooters, his PPG went up. It's not rocket science.

wekko368

02-04-2015, 02:52 PM

Robinson got outplayed - Hakeem owns him
Hakeem got outplayed - Sonics cheated.

I guess Hakeem can not only shatter the laws of mathematics, he is now going to redefine the use of double standards.

That's not even remotely close to being a double standard.

Olajuwon went head to head against Robinson and clearly outplayed him. That's why you can make the statement "Olajuwon owned Robinson".

However, even though Seattle used an illegal zone defense to beat Olajuwon's Rockets, you can't assume that Olajuwon would have trouble against zone defenses if he played today. You have to realize that zone defenses are only as effective as their underlying players. So by saying that Olajuwon would have trouble against modern day zones, you're essentially saying that each current team has defenders on par with the 1996 Sonics.

Oh thou great basketball mind, please bestow on me what is correct and what is incorrect, for you, a worshipper of Hakeem, will surely know all there is to know about basketball.

Ignore the years of evidence that rule changes have diminished the effectiveness of centers and is moving the offensive controls over the perimeter players, for the church of Hakeem is not confined by any rules, be it mathematical averages, historical data, or common logic.

You want years of evidence? Look at the draft history.

2014 - An injured Joel Embiid was drafted #3
2013 - Zeller, Len, and an injured Nerlens Noel were drafted #4,5,6
2012 - Anthony Davis
2011 - Kanter, Valanciunas, and Biyombo were drafted #3,5,7
2010 - Cousins, Udoh, Monroe were drafted #5,6,7

My point is that general managers recognize the important of centers, and as such, they're willing to use high draft picks to gamble on raw/injured centers.

You are just randomly placing additional weight on coordination and grace. Dwight won a slam dunk contest, that's another form of athleticism.

We're talking about basketball. Coordination and grace are extremely important. Without coordination and grace, athleticism becomes limited. Sure, Dwight Howard can run fast and jump high, but have you watched him in the post? Its cringe-worthy, robotic, and one-dimensional. And yet, he was able to average 20/10 multiple times in his career.

It's ridiculous that you think Olajuwon's stats would suffer if he were to play in this era.

Besides, it's just shown both skills and athleticism are both important in the production of an athlete, I am not sure why you have to be insistent on Hakeem being better at EVERY SINGLE DAMN THING.

Because he is.

Spur-Addict

02-04-2015, 03:14 PM

I am sure if I tell you my piss is yellower than Hakeem's, you will come in and say Hakeem's piss is the yellowest in human history, that ancient tribes freeze Hakeem piss and trade them as gold bars.

:rollin

Jenks

02-04-2015, 03:25 PM

There are several videos out there, one on the 2003 championship DVD and I believe in the video below, where David admits that Timmy gave him the business during training camp. It's one of the reasons why David gave up the reigns of the offense so readily. Not saying that Timmy could guard David. Neither player would be able to defend the other imo.Yes, post injury Robinson.

He said himself in no uncertain terms on the Dan Patrick show, in his prime he would beat Duncan 1 on 1, no question, and he's right. In the same interview, he said that if he was starting a team, he'd take Duncan over Jordan. No one loves TD more than the admiral. TD was a better overall player, but there's no way he could take Robinson alone. You missed the early 90's if you believe that.

ambchang

02-04-2015, 03:27 PM

That's not even remotely close to being a double standard.

Olajuwon went head to head against Robinson and clearly outplayed him. That's why you can make the statement "Olajuwon owned Robinson".

Olajuwon didn't go head to head against Robinson. Robinson was CONSTANTLY double, or even triple teamed the entire series, while Robinson had to cover Hakeem 1 on 1, and sometimes have to rotate and cover for Horry who Rodman leaves open time and again.

So now, Hakeem has the power to change history too.

Watch the video.

cvCdFeYKggM

And notice now AJ's defender ALWAYS go under the screen to prevent a Robinson roll.

Hakeem was called for a foul EVERY TIME a double doesn't come soon enough and sends Robinson to the line.

No, but Hakeem dominated Robinson HEAD ON. You are full of shit.

However, even though Seattle used an illegal zone defense to beat Olajuwon's Rockets, you can't assume that Olajuwon would have trouble against zone defenses if he played today. You have to realize that zone defenses are only as effective as their underlying players. So by saying that Olajuwon would have trouble against modern day zones, you're essentially saying that each current team has defenders on par with the 1996 Sonics.

Give it a break will you? Hakeem was contained and it's ILLEGAL. Hakeem dominates and he did it by himself.

Watch the damn video now will you.

And yes, it depends on players. I am not saying Hakeem will average 19/9 in today's NBA, I am saying he will have lower stats. Stop reacting like I just insulted your mother.

You want years of evidence? Look at the draft history.

2014 - An injured Joel Embiid was drafted #3
2013 - Zeller, Len, and an injured Nerlens Noel were drafted #4,5,6
2012 - Anthony Davis
2011 - Kanter, Valanciunas, and Biyombo were drafted #3,5,7
2010 - Cousins, Udoh, Monroe were drafted #5,6,7

Who was drafted 1, 2, and such? Oh, wait, I don't know. Non big men I assume?

Let's look at the draft? Are you kidding me? All of those players, with the exception of Unibrow, SUCK (OK, maybe cousins, if he's not mentally retarded). If anything, it shows that the front office still hasn't caught on and explains why a majority of franchise are poorly run.

Let's look at MVPs shouldn't we. When's the last time a big won an MVP? Garnett in 04. You know when 04 was? That was a decade ago. OK, know what? I will give you Dirk, who won in 07.

My point is that general managers recognize the important of centers, and as such, they're willing to use high draft picks to gamble on raw/injured centers.

No, it shows that GMs who draft high are idiots, because their idiotic actions caused their teams to finish at the bottom of standings and give them high drafting positions. I still can't believe you are using Biyombo as an example of why big men are still useful in today's game. Biyombo, are you freaking kidding me? If anything, it shows that bigs are hyped crazy and the GMs are still thinking it's 1993.

We're talking about basketball. Coordination and grace are extremely important. Without coordination and grace, athleticism becomes limited. Sure, Dwight Howard can run fast and jump high, but have you watched him in the post? Its cringe-worthy, robotic, and one-dimensional. And yet, he was able to average 20/10 multiple times in his career.

It's ridiculous that you think Olajuwon's stats would suffer if he were to play in this era.

And yet MVPau, who is coordinated and graceful averaged less than Dwight Howard in the same era.

It's ridiculous that you think Olajuwon's stats won't suffer if he were to play in this era.

Because he is.

That clears up everything.

Phenomanul

02-04-2015, 03:57 PM

Watch the video.

cvCdFeYKggM

Don't get them to actually see the evidence... you'll shatter their long-held perceptions... (even if erroneous)...

ambchang

02-04-2015, 04:00 PM

Don't get them to actually see the evidence... you'll shatter their long-held perceptions... (even if erroneous)...

It's an illusion I swear. Hakeem was so good and so fast, he appeared as two players on the video when in real life, it was only one player.

Hold on a sec, I have to go sacrifice a few lambs at the alter of Hakeem, for he is a god.

wekko368

02-04-2015, 04:00 PM

Olajuwon didn't go head to head against Robinson. Robinson was CONSTANTLY double, or even triple teamed the entire series, while Robinson had to cover Hakeem 1 on 1, and sometimes have to rotate and cover for Horry who Rodman leaves open time and again.

Watch the video.

And notice now AJ's defender ALWAYS go under the screen to prevent a Robinson roll.

Why wouldn't AJ's defender do that? It's the proper play. Unless you think AJ's perimeter shot was good enough that defenders had to respect it?

And I watched the first few minutes of the video. Single coverage except for collapsing defenses after Robinson had made his move.

Out of curiosity, when the ball-handler penetrates into the paint and multiple defenders collapse, do you consider that to be "double teaming" or "triple teaming"?

Give it a break will you? Hakeem was contained and it's ILLEGAL. Hakeem dominates and he did it by himself.

Why don't you google the 1996 Sonics? They were known for their illegal defense. Prior to the finals, the Bulls talked about it publicly to ensure that the refs were aware of it.

And yes, it depends on players. I am not saying Hakeem will average 19/9 in today's NBA, I am saying he will have lower stats. Stop reacting like I just insulted your mother.

And yet you can't give a single compelling argument to support your theory whereas I've given you several that refute your assertion (weaker era, the success of inferior players).

Who was drafted 1, 2, and such? Oh, wait, I don't know. Non big men I assume?

Let's look at the draft? Are you kidding me? All of those players, with the exception of Unibrow, SUCK (OK, maybe cousins, if he's not mentally retarded). If anything, it shows that the front office still hasn't caught on and explains why a majority of franchise are poorly run.

Nope, it shows that GMs are so aware of the importance of centers that they're willing to risk high draft picks to gamble on raw, unproven bigs.

Let's look at MVPs shouldn't we. When's the last time a big won an MVP? Garnett in 04. You know when 04 was? That was a decade ago. OK, know what? I will give you Dirk, who won in 07.

What's your point? We've already established that this isn't a good era of centers.

No, it shows that GMs who draft high are idiots, because their idiotic actions caused their teams to finish at the bottom of standings and give them high drafting positions. I still can't believe you are using Biyombo as an example of why big men are still useful in today's game. Biyombo, are you freaking kidding me? If anything, it shows that bigs are hyped crazy and the GMs are still thinking it's 1993.

Bigs have that kind of hype b/c its a big man's game. If a GM gambles on a big and is lucky enough to win, that can change the outlook for the entire franchise.

And yet MVPau, who is coordinated and graceful averaged less than Dwight Howard in the same era.

Why is that surprising? Gasol was the #2 option in LA. Howard was the #1 option in Orlando. Plus, Dwight was a better offensive rebounder.

It's ridiculous that you think Olajuwon's stats won't suffer if he were to play in this era.

Well, so far, you haven't given a single compelling argument that supports your assertion.

ambchang

02-04-2015, 04:17 PM

Why wouldn't AJ's defender do that? It's the proper play. Unless you think AJ's perimeter shot was good enough that defenders had to respect it?

Because it shows Robinson is constantly doubled. Get it?

Did you pop a slow pill this morning? I mean, really, doesn't that show Hakeem didn't dominate Robinson 1 to 1? Do I really have to spell everything out?

And I watched the first few minutes of the video. Single coverage except for collapsing defenses after Robinson had made his move.

And Hakeem fouled him every time, then after Hakeem got into foul trouble, they kept double and tripling Robinson. If you decide to just ignore video evidence, I can't help you. I can't force you to watch it Clockwork Orange style.

Out of curiosity, when the ball-handler penetrates into the paint and multiple defenders collapse, do you consider that to be "double teaming" or "triple teaming"?

It's trapping, it depends on the situation. Sometimes the rotations are slow, and it gives the players of the ball the chance to make the shot and also the option of kicking it out.

Why don't you google the 1996 Sonics? They were known for their illegal defense. Prior to the finals, the Bulls talked about it publicly to ensure that the refs were aware of it.

Phil Jackson ref-baiting? Really. Wow! Then it MUST be true. But then, what is the relevance? The point isn't whether Sonics did or didn't play illegal defense, the point is that when Hakeem had a bad series, there are reasons, but when Robinson had a bad series, evidence of the contrary is thrown out the window.

And yet you can't give a single compelling argument to support your theory whereas I've given you several that refute your assertion (weaker era, the success of inferior players).

I gave you an entire series of data, what the hell are you talking about? It shows that a team playing zone defense neutralized Hakeem. And where the hell did that weaker era inferior player crap came from? Why is it a weaker era, why are those players inferior? Who is to say MVPau can beast for 30/15 in 1994? What the hell kind of evidence is that.

I can say this is by far the strongest era of basketball and the players are superior. It is as true as the opposite.

But let's pretend I never stated the rules have changed to benefit perimeter players and minimize the effectiveness of big men, OK. So here it goes, the rules have clearly changed to benefit perimeter players and minimized the effectiveness of big men.

Nope, it shows that GMs are so aware of the importance of centers that they're willing to risk high draft picks to gamble on raw, unproven bigs.

And which of those big men had success?

What's your point? We've already established that this isn't a good era of centers.

Yeah, because the rules have changed to minimize their impact, which would apply the same to Hakeem. I know you think Hakeem defies the laws of physics, but even a basketball god has to comply with the rules of basketball.

Bigs have that kind of hype b/c its a big man's game. If a GM gambles on a big and is lucky enough to win, that can change the outlook for the entire franchise.

Get lucky? Your outlook of how to run a franchise is to gamble and get lucky on high draft picks? Are you insane? You gamble and get lucky with low draft picks, you draft the best available talent with high draft picks, and the GMs that have drafted bigs have failed miserably to do so.

Why is that surprising? Gasol was the #2 option in LA. Howard was the #1 option in Orlando. Plus, Dwight was a better offensive rebounder.

Gasol never played in Memphis?

Well, so far, you haven't given a single compelling argument that supports your assertion.

And you have given plenty, like Hakeem is the best, so he will defy the laws of mathematics.
That Hakeem is "very skilled and athletic", therefore he must be more effective in today's game as he was in the 90s. I mean, I don't even know where to begin here. He was successful in the past, therefore he must become more successful nowadays.
Players are inferior now - says who? Rules changes have clearly minimized their impact.

Very compelling.

Please delete the following when you respond and tell me I haven't provided any evidence.
1) Hakeem struggled in a zone, NBA plays a lot of zone now
2) Rules have changed to benefit perimeter players and to the detriment of big men. Hakeem is a big man.
3) There are longer athletes in today's game that can double/triple an inside player and shoot out to contest 3 pt shooters. Hakeem's peak production was when he had lots of 3 pt shooters around him, so with today's defense, he would be contained more so than in the 90s

spurraider21

02-04-2015, 04:25 PM

1. "Olajuwon never defeated defending champions"
What does Hakeem making the finals have to do with a team in a different conference? Useless argument.

2. "2014"
Who was the best player that series? Wasn't Tim, who again had better teammates.
you keep insisting on comparing their primes but now you're bringing up 37 year old duncan in the finals:lol

cantthinkofanything

02-04-2015, 04:31 PM

shit...this really isn't a debate anywhere other than Spurstalk.
Hakeem was a nightmare to cover. I was thinking that he was clearly the better defender and rebounder and that offensiveness it was close.

22O2lApCBBs

wekko368

02-04-2015, 04:36 PM

Watch the video.

cvCdFeYKggM

It's a slow day at work so I'll humor you.

0:09 - Avery Johnson throws a short pass to his left to Robinson at the top of the key who is single covered by Olajuwon. Robinson immediately drives to his right, and since Avery Johnson is close to him (poor spacing), Kenny Smith is easily able to collapse on Robinson and force him to pass.

0:59 - Robinson gets the ball in the post and is single covered by Olajuwon. Olajuwon forces Robinson to go baseline, and Robinson travels.

1:47 - Robinson catches the ball deep in the paint and is single covered by Olajuwon. Olajuwon fouls him.

2:02 - Robinson catches the ball deep in the paint off a pick and roll with Avery Johnson and Kenny Smith collapses on him. Robinson misses the shot.

2:17 - Robinson catches the ball in the post and is single covered by Olajuwon. Robinson misses the jumper.

3:08 - Robinson catches the ball in the post and is single covered by Olajuwon. Robinson attacks the basket. There is no help defense, and Olajuwon fouls him.

3:30 - Robinson catches the ball in the post, Cassell comes over for the double team and fouls him.

3:54 - Robinson catches the ball 17 feet from the basket and is single covered by Olajuwon. He misses the jumper.

4:25 - Robinson catches the ball in the post. Cassell comes over for the double team and Robinson passes the ball.

5:12 - Robinson catches the ball in the post. K.Smith comes over for the double team and knocks it out of bounds.

5:45 - Robinson catches the ball in the post and is single covered by Olajuwon. He drives to the basket, the defense collapses, and Olajuwon blocks his shot.

6:43 - Robinson catches the ball at the free throw line and is single covered by Olajuwon. He misses the jumper.

7:17 - Robinson catches the ball deep in the paint and is single covered by Olajuwon. He misses the layup.

After this, Olajuwon is taken off Robinson b/c he's in foul trouble. In that entire video, there were only 3 instances of a double team on Robinson.

ambchang

02-04-2015, 04:55 PM

It's a slow day at work so I'll humor you.

0:09 - Avery Johnson throws a short pass to his left to Robinson at the top of the key who is single covered by Olajuwon. Robinson immediately drives to his right, and since Avery Johnson is close to him (poor spacing), Kenny Smith is easily able to collapse on Robinson and force him to pass. so he was doubled.

0:59 - Robinson gets the ball in the post and is single covered by Olajuwon. Olajuwon forces Robinson to go baseline, and Robinson travels. agreed

1:47 - Robinson catches the ball deep in the paint and is single covered by Olajuwon. Olajuwon fouls him. Agreed

2:02 - Robinson catches the ball deep in the paint off a pick and roll with Avery Johnson and Kenny Smith collapses on him. Robinson misses the shot. Doubled

2:17 - Robinson catches the ball in the post and is single covered by Olajuwon. Robinson misses the jumper.Robinson also grabbed the rebound, went back up and got fouled.

3:08 - Robinson catches the ball in the post and is single covered by Olajuwon. Robinson attacks the basket. There is no help defense, and Olajuwon fouls him. Foul

3:30 - Robinson catches the ball in the post, Cassell comes over for the double team and fouls him. doubled and fouled.

3:54 - Robinson catches the ball 17 feet from the basket and is single covered by Olajuwon. He misses the jumper. Agreed. But then Cassell was there to cut off any driving lanes and the entire Rockets defense was already collapsing, forcing a jumper. Look at where Horry was at.

4:25 - Robinson catches the ball in the post. Cassell comes over for the double team and Robinson passes the ball. doubled.

5:12 - Robinson catches the ball in the post. K.Smith comes over for the double team and knocks it out of bounds. doubled

5:45 - Robinson catches the ball in the post and is single covered by Olajuwon. He drives to the basket, the defense collapses, and Olajuwon blocks his shot. They had three guys around Robinson.

6:43 - Robinson catches the ball at the free throw line and is single covered by Olajuwon. He misses the jumper. agreed

7:17 - Robinson catches the ball deep in the paint and is single covered by Olajuwon. He misses the layup. There were FOUR ROCKETS IN THE PAINT.

After this, Olajuwon is taken off Robinson b/c he's in foul trouble. In that entire video, there were only 3 instances of a double team on Robinson.[/QUOTE]

That's what you got? I counted 5 doubles, even using your descriptions. Then there are the 4 fouls when Hakeem single covered Robinson, which in any universe is failing to cover a person adequately. Robinson missed two jumpers because the lanes were totally closed, and the defense collapsed twice.

How is that Olajuwon going head to head on Robinson? 13 possessions, 5 doubles, 2 closed lanes, 2 collapsed defense, and 4 fouls. NONE of the single teams were effective, NONE.

wekko368

02-04-2015, 05:27 PM

I gave you an entire series of data, what the hell are you talking about? It shows that a team playing zone defense neutralized Hakeem. And where the hell did that weaker era inferior player crap came from? Why is it a weaker era, why are those players inferior? Who is to say MVPau can beast for 30/15 in 1994? What the hell kind of evidence is that.

The data you provided doesn't support your conclusion. First of all, Olajuwon played well in 2 of the 4 games. But let's pretend that he played poorly all 4 games. That still wouldn't support your assertion that he'd struggle against all zone defenses b/c each zone defense is different (due to differences in personnel).

The only accurate conclusion you can make is that he'd struggle against zone defenses who had players as athletic and defensively capable as Kemp, Payton, McMillan, Perkins, etc...

This is obviously a weaker era for centers. Here's a list of the starting centers in 2003:

Raef Lafrentz/Shawn Bradley
Erick Dampier
Vlade Divac
Shaq
Dan Gadzuric
Pat Garrity
Rasho Nesterovic
Lorenzen Wright
Brad Miller
Derrick Coleman
Kurt Thomas
Amare Stoudemire
Jason Collins
Dale Davis
Tyson Chandler
Greg Ostertag
Theo Ratliff
Jamal Magloire
Sean Rooks
Yao Ming
Tony Battie
Predrag Drobnjak
Brendan Haywood
Zydrunas Ilgauskas
Ben Wallace
Antonio Davis
Brian Grant
Nene Hilario (rookie)

Look at that list of names. Do you honestly think any of them can guard Olajuwon? Conversely, is there anyone that Olajuwon would have trouble guarding?

Yeah, because the rules have changed to minimize their impact, which would apply the same to Hakeem. I know you think Hakeem defies the laws of physics, but even a basketball god has to comply with the rules of basketball.

You think the decline in the production of big men was a result of the rule change. I think the rule change contributed to the decline, but the most important reason is that there just weren't many truly dominant big men.

Get lucky? Your outlook of how to run a franchise is to gamble and get lucky on high draft picks? Are you insane? You gamble and get lucky with low draft picks, you draft the best available talent with high draft picks, and the GMs that have drafted bigs have failed miserably to do so.

Look at the past champions. The Spurs had Duncan, who was a #1 draft pick. The Heat didn't have a dominant big, but they had a transcendent player in Lebron. The Mavericks had Dirk (#9 pick; that was a gamble, especially since he was a foreign player) and Tyson Chandler (#2 pick). The Lakers had Pau Gasol (#3 pick). The Celtics had Garnett (#5 pick straight out of high school; this was also a gamble).

The problem is, GM's nowadays are almost forced to gamble since college athletes are only spending one or two years in college. This means that the big men who enter the draft are particularly raw.

Gasol never played in Memphis?

Look at the supporting casts.

And you have given plenty, like Hakeem is the best, so he will defy the laws of mathematics.
That Hakeem is "very skilled and athletic", therefore he must be more effective in today's game as he was in the 90s. I mean, I don't even know where to begin here. He was successful in the past, therefore he must become more successful nowadays.
Players are inferior now - says who? Rules changes have clearly minimized their impact.

Are you honestly arguing that the center position of this era is not weaker than Olajuwon's era?

Please delete the following when you respond and tell me I haven't provided any evidence.
1) Hakeem struggled in a zone, NBA plays a lot of zone now

Do all NBA teams have defenders of same caliber as Payton, Kemp, McMillan, Perkins, etc...? And actually, even though zone is allowed, it's really not played all that often.

Also, I posted the abysmal shooting number from Elie/Cassell/K.Smith from that series. By saying that Olajuwon would struggle against modern zones, you're also saying that his teammates would shoot as horrible as Elie/Cassell/Smith did. Olajuwon can create all the open looks in the world, but if his shooters aren't hitting their shots, the Rockets are going to lose.

2) Rules have changed to benefit perimeter players and to the detriment of big men. Hakeem is a big man.

Can you clarify which rules specifically would negatively impact Hakeem? I'm not counting zone defense. If Dwight Howard can average 23/14 in a season, there's no reason why Olajuwon, who is superior to Howard in every way, shouldn't exceed those stats.

3) There are longer athletes in today's game that can double/triple an inside player and shoot out to contest 3 pt shooters. Hakeem's peak production was when he had lots of 3 pt shooters around him, so with today's defense, he would be contained more so than in the 90s

This doesn't make any sense at all. As far as I can tell, current champions are shooting tons of 3's. But how can that be? After all, today's longer athletes should be shooting out to contest those shots... :rolleyes

wekko368

02-04-2015, 05:37 PM

How is that Olajuwon going head to head on Robinson? 13 possessions, 5 doubles, 2 closed lanes, 2 collapsed defense, and 4 fouls. NONE of the single teams were effective, NONE.

It sounds like we have different definitions of double-team. When the ball-handler drives towards the basket and the defenses collapses on him, you consider that to be a double-team. I don't.

How were none of the single teams effective? At the 0:59 mark, Robinson is single covered and travels. At the 3:54 mark, he's single covered and misses the jumper. At the 6:43 mark, he's single covered and misses the jumper. At the 7:17 mark, he's single covered and misses the layup.

ambchang

02-05-2015, 02:20 PM

The data you provided doesn't support your conclusion. First of all, Olajuwon played well in 2 of the 4 games. But let's pretend that he played poorly all 4 games. That still wouldn't support your assertion that he'd struggle against all zone defenses b/c each zone defense is different (due to differences in personnel).

He played poorly in one, below average in another, slightly below average in the 3rd, and average in the fourth. I am not pretending squat.

The only accurate conclusion you can make is that he'd struggle against zone defenses who had players as athletic and defensively capable as Kemp, Payton, McMillan, Perkins, etc...

You act like Hakeem never played against Ewing, Oakley, Starks and the Knicks. He flourished, he dominated. The Knicks team was a much better defensive team than the Sonics team. Hakeem faced some of the best defensive teams and defenders thrown at him, he annihilated them all. The only effective one was a zone.

This is obviously a weaker era for centers. Here's a list of the starting centers in 2003:

Raef Lafrentz/Shawn Bradley
Erick Dampier
Vlade Divac
Shaq
Dan Gadzuric
Pat Garrity
Rasho Nesterovic
Lorenzen Wright
Brad Miller
Derrick Coleman
Kurt Thomas
Amare Stoudemire
Jason Collins
Dale Davis
Tyson Chandler
Greg Ostertag
Theo Ratliff
Jamal Magloire
Sean Rooks
Yao Ming
Tony Battie
Predrag Drobnjak
Brendan Haywood
Zydrunas Ilgauskas
Ben Wallace
Antonio Davis
Brian Grant
Nene Hilario (rookie)

Look at that list of names. Do you honestly think any of them can guard Olajuwon? Conversely, is there anyone that Olajuwon would have trouble guarding?

Do you honestly think Shawn Kemp could guard Hakeem? Me neither, but he did.

Just look at the game log of Hakeem in 1995, why did he only score 19 points vs. Derrick Coleman and Benoit Benjamin? 16 points vs. Elden Campbell and Vlade Divac? 15 points vs. Olden Polynice? 15 points vs. Will Perdue? 19 points vs. Sean Rooks? Accord to you, he should be beasting those guys and put up above average numbers, yet he didn't? Why is that? I don't know, because Hakeem actually plays teamballs and don't go on personal rampages when he sees an inferior defender?

You honestly think a list of Benoit Benjamin, Elden Campbell, Olden Polynice, Will perdue and Sean Rooks is that much better than the 95 centers? The only good centers in 95 were Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Daughtery and Mutombo. Hakeem face them about 12 times the entire year. The other 70 games? he play against players that are as bad as any other era.

In 03, Shaq was great (not defensively), Ben Wallace would be a good match against Hakeem, especially with Rasheed, Yao Ming can reasonbly face him off due to size, but would be outquicked, Antonio Davis was a great defender with strength and quickness (along with Dale Davis would be even better, but that's a few years gone), Nene is strong and quick, but not skillful enough defensively, Divac would flop all game, Brian Grant gives up height, but overall, they are about as bad as the group in the 90s.

You think the decline in the production of big men was a result of the rule change. I think the rule change contributed to the decline, but the most important reason is that there just weren't many truly dominant big men.

Great players become great players under any rules and era, it's the second tier guys I am talking about. Mutombo would be too much of an offensive liability to stay on the floor in today's game, Daugherty I can actually see benefiting due to his shooting and passing, but he wouldn't score as much. Dwight would still be great in the 90s, same with Yao, same with Anthony Davis, The focus is away from bigs because they no longer use them the same ways. Hakeem would still be great, I just don't see him putting up 28/14 anymore in today's game, just because his style of play (low post dominant) isn't the way to win games anymore, and if he does more of the facilitation, his numbers would drop. Same would be true for Barkley and Malone.

Look at the past champions. The Spurs had Duncan, who was a #1 draft pick. The Heat didn't have a dominant big, but they had a transcendent player in Lebron. The Mavericks had Dirk (#9 pick; that was a gamble, especially since he was a foreign player) and Tyson Chandler (#2 pick). The Lakers had Pau Gasol (#3 pick). The Celtics had Garnett (#5 pick straight out of high school; this was also a gamble).

The problem is, GM's nowadays are almost forced to gamble since college athletes are only spending one or two years in college. This means that the big men who enter the draft are particularly raw.

Good players got drafted high, but not all high draft picks are good layers.

Lebron is a wing, Wade is a SG, Dirk plays like a SF, Chandler is a defensive anchor who was traded multiple times before he found a good franchise that knows how to use him, Gasol is a passing big and Kobe beside him not to mention stuck in the franchise that drafted him because the team was too stupid to know what to do with him, ditto Garnett.

Duncan, Kobe, Pierce and Wade are the only players who stuck around the team who drafted him and won it all since Jordan. Duncan went to SA because Robinson was injured, which was a one time thing and not a result of a history of incompetent moves, Kobe was drafted 13 and is a SG, not to mention traded to the Lakers which was one of the best organizations that also had Shaq and MVPau, Pierce is a SF who suffered for years until Ainge got a wink wink deal with McHale that landed him Garnett, and Wade is SG who had Shaq and Lebron after smart deals were swung.

In other words, every single instance of franchises benefiting from high draft picks were smart franchises that drafted a wing player (non-big), or Duncan.

Look at the supporting casts.

You don't remember what you are arguing anymore.

You - Dwight has little skills, and he still manages to average 20/10
Me - MVPau has more skills, and he averaged less than that
You - MVPau was a 2nd option
Me - MVPau played for Memphis
You - His support cast suck

What does having a weak supporting cast have to do with him not scoring more? MVPau had Kobe next to him in LA, so he scored less. MVPau had worst teammates next to him, there fore he scored less. You are contradicting yourself. Answer me this. Does having better teammates help you score more or not?

Dwight had bad teammates in Orlando as well, some as bad as Memphis MVPau teammates, he still scored more than MVPau.

Are you honestly arguing that the center position of this era is not weaker than Olajuwon's era?

At the top? Yes, overall? No. It's not like Olajuwon was averaging 40 ppg on the Bill Wennington's and 12ppg on the Robinsons back then. He was putting up similar numbers game after game.

Do all NBA teams have defenders of same caliber as Payton, Kemp, McMillan, Perkins, etc...? And actually, even though zone is allowed, it's really not played all that often.

Perkins was a great defender? Kemp was a better defender than Robinson? Sonics > Knicks defensively? Look at the common thread, zone is the only explanation, and guess what? You admitted to it because you said Hakeem struggled because of ILLEGAL DEFENSE. Go back in your post and read what you wrote.

]Actually, the refs did. Seattle was notorious for continually using illegal defenses throughout games. They basically double teamed Olajuwon w/o the ball and dared the refs to call the illegal defense infractions throughout the game.[/B]

Also, I posted the abysmal shooting number from Elie/Cassell/K.Smith from that series. By saying that Olajuwon would struggle against modern zones, you're also saying that his teammates would shoot as horrible as Elie/Cassell/Smith did. Olajuwon can create all the open looks in the world, but if his shooters aren't hitting their shots, the Rockets are going to lose.

Yes, does that explain why Hakeem had 19ppg in the series?

The thing about zones is that it effectively allows a defense to defend the post off ball and switch back on shooters quickly, which was what the Rockets ran back in the day. The biggest issue is giving up offensive rebounds, and quick passing would break a zone down.

Can you clarify which rules specifically would negatively impact Hakeem? I'm not counting zone defense. If Dwight Howard can average 23/14 in a season, there's no reason why Olajuwon, who is superior to Howard in every way, shouldn't exceed those stats.

Why not count zone? That's the major part of it. Zones forces big men out of the paint because of a crowded inside. Which is why stretch 4s and 5s are so important nowadays because they open up spacing to avoid having these perimeter players drop down the paint, crowd it, and still pop back out to challenge shots.

And you are hanging on to Dwight's one single season like gospel. Dwight is an ultra athletic player, who would average 20/10 in every era. He had one single 23/14 season because SVG designed an entire offense around him to take advantage of his athletic abilities, and he capitalized. To think Hakeem, even under the same system, can average 28 29 points a game for multiple years is insane. There is a HUGE difference between 23 and 29 points a game, huge difference.

This doesn't make any sense at all. As far as I can tell, current champions are shooting tons of 3's. But how can that be? After all, today's longer athletes should be shooting out to contest those shots... :rolleyes

This is very very frustrating as it appears to be clearer and clearer that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the NBA in the 90s differ from the ones in 10s, but yet continue to argue despite that. Today's 3 pointers are based on drive and kick, and a lot of whip passes which are allowed by opening up the paint with spacing. Having an interior player who dominates the post kills that drive and kick (help defender) or the passing (spacing). Hakeem played in that style of inside out 3 point shooting, which is entirely different from the drive and kick threes of today.

Shaq and Duncan used the Hakeem style very well in the 00s, but that was before the league was full of these long and quick 3s and 4s who can switch back and forth on doubles and the perimeter. Dwight had some success in 09, but was ultimately destroyed by the Lakers with guys like Ariza doing a lot of that back of forth switching.

It sounds like we have different definitions of double-team. When the ball-handler drives towards the basket and the defenses collapses on him, you consider that to be a double-team. I don't.

How were none of the single teams effective? At the 0:59 mark, Robinson is single covered and travels. At the 3:54 mark, he's single covered and misses the jumper. At the 6:43 mark, he's single covered and misses the jumper. At the 7:17 mark, he's single covered and misses the layup.

The entire defense collapsed on him, with the entire goal of stopping Robinson and Robinson himself. The reason they were allowed to do this is because the Spurs outside shooters can't shoot, which allowed the Rockets defenders to sag off them and collapse. Every single instance (with the exception of two jumpers) were due to an entire Rockets defense, and yet the myth is that Hakeem destroyed Robinson one on one. it's not true, and the video proved it.

Robinson was fouled FOUR TIMES by Hakeem, and pretty much EVERY TIME he was singled and the help came late. That is not Hakeem destroying Robinson at all, because Hakeem couldn't cover Robinson 1 on 1.

DJB

02-05-2015, 03:27 PM

Agreed. DPOY award in the NBA is not incredibly accurate.

wekko368

02-05-2015, 03:45 PM

He played poorly in one, below average in another, slightly below average in the 3rd, and average in the fourth. I am not pretending squat.

You act like Hakeem never played against Ewing, Oakley, Starks and the Knicks. He flourished, he dominated. The Knicks team was a much better defensive team than the Sonics team. Hakeem faced some of the best defensive teams and defenders thrown at him, he annihilated them all. The only effective one was a zone.

Do you honestly think Shawn Kemp could guard Hakeem? Me neither, but he did.

Repeating the same points over and over and having you ignore them is getting tiresome.

You think that since the 1996 Sonics' zone was effective against Olajuwon, any team that ran a zone defense would be effective against him. That's a fundamentally flawed premise because you're making too many illogical assumptions.

First, you're assuming that every team has players comparable to those on the 1996 Sonics' team. That Sonics team was full of players with athleticism, speed, length, and defensive ability.

Secondly, you're assuming that Hakeem's guards will always shoot horribly against a zone defense. In that series, Elie shot 38% from the field. Kenny Smith shot 33%. Cassell shot 24%. Given that during the regular season, Elie shot 50% from the field, Cassell shot 44% from the field, and Kenny Smith shot 43% from the field, do you really think its possible that those 3 guys would continue to shoot poorly against a zone defense?

You honestly think a list of Benoit Benjamin, Elden Campbell, Olden Polynice, Will perdue and Sean Rooks is that much better than the 95 centers? The only good centers in 95 were Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Daughtery and Mutombo. Hakeem face them about 12 times the entire year. The other 70 games? he play against players that are as bad as any other era.

What about Shaq? Alonzo Mourning? Rik Smits? Vlade Divac? Christian Laettner? And then you had guys like Shawn Bradley and Gheorge Muresan who weren't considered "good" but were effective defenders due to their size.

In 03, Shaq was great (not defensively), Ben Wallace would be a good match against Hakeem, especially with Rasheed, Yao Ming can reasonbly face him off due to size, but would be outquicked, Antonio Davis was a great defender with strength and quickness (along with Dale Davis would be even better, but that's a few years gone), Nene is strong and quick, but not skillful enough defensively, Divac would flop all game, Brian Grant gives up height, but overall, they are about as bad as the group in the 90s.

Incorrect. They are significantly worse.

Olajuwon was already too quick for a 1995 Shaq. A 2003 Shaq was 40 lbs heavier. You do the math.

Olajuwon would abuse Yao. You're forgetting that Olajuwon had a solid mid-range game. Yao would be forced to continually give Olajuwon open 15 foot jumpers. If Yao tried to contest them, Olajuwon would simply go right around him.

Antonio Davis? Briant Grant? A rookie Nene? Against Olajuwon? :lol:lol:lol:lol:lol

Mutombo would be too much of an offensive liability to stay on the floor in today's game

Because today's center position is blessed with a plethora of offensively-capable centers? :lol

Hakeem would still be great, I just don't see him putting up 28/14 anymore in today's game, just because his style of play (low post dominant) isn't the way to win games anymore, and if he does more of the facilitation, his numbers would drop.

Of course you can win championships with low post dominance. Look at Shaq and Duncan.

If Olajuwon facilitated more, his points would drop, but his assist numbers would increase.

In other words, every single instance of franchises benefiting from high draft picks were smart franchises that drafted a wing player (non-big), or Duncan.

It's shocking that you, a fan of the Spurs, would be so ignorant as to the importance of bigs.

Also, you didn't refute my point about GM's gambling high draft picks on raw, unproven bigs. You went off on some irrelevant, rambling tangent.

You don't remember what you are arguing anymore.

You - Dwight has little skills, and he still manages to average 20/10
Me - MVPau has more skills, and he averaged less than that
You - MVPau was a 2nd option
Me - MVPau played for Memphis
You - His support cast suck

What does having a weak supporting cast have to do with him not scoring more?

Do you really not understand the correlation between a weak supporting cast and its impact on the primary playmaker? :rolleyes

MVPau had Kobe next to him in LA, so he scored less. MVPau had worst teammates next to him, there fore he scored less. You are contradicting yourself. Answer me this. Does having better teammates help you score more or not?

Yes, but only if your role stays the same. Pau Gasol had better teammates in LA, but he was the #2 option (as opposed to being the #1 option in Memphis) so its not surprising that his scoring dropped.

Dwight had bad teammates in Orlando as well, some as bad as Memphis MVPau teammates, he still scored more than MVPau.

Seriously? Dwight had Turkoglu, Rashard Lewis, and Jameer Nelson. Each of those guys were individually competent creators. Who did Gasol have in Memphis that was comparable to any of those guys?

Perkins was a great defender? Kemp was a better defender than Robinson? Sonics > Knicks defensively? Look at the common thread, zone is the only explanation, and guess what? You admitted to it because you said Hakeem struggled because of ILLEGAL DEFENSE. Go back in your post and read what you wrote.

Perkins had size and length. Kemp had elite athleticism. Kemp wasn't a better individual defender than Robinson, but the Sonics as a whole played better defense than the Spurs.

I wouldn't say that the Sonics were better than the Knicks defensively, but in 1994, Olajuwon did have a solid PF in Otis Thorpe.

Why not count zone? That's the major part of it. Zones forces big men out of the paint because of a crowded inside. Which is why stretch 4s and 5s are so important nowadays because they open up spacing to avoid having these perimeter players drop down the paint, crowd it, and still pop back out to challenge shots.

Because that would be implying that all zones are equally effective. They aren't. They're only as effective as the individual defenders playing the zone defense. Seattle had guys like Payton, Kemp, McMillan, Perkins, and Hawkins. They were fast, athletic, long, and played a good team defense. And Gary Payton is one of the best defensive point guards of all time.

Just because a 1996 Seattle zone was effective against Olajuwon doesn't mean that a 2003 Portland Trailblazer zone would be comparably effective. And that's what you're trying to imply.

Also, you're forgetting how poorly Elie/Cassell/K.Smith shot against Seattle. There's a reason that proficient 3pt shooters are called "zone busters".

This is very very frustrating as it appears to be clearer and clearer that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how the NBA in the 90s differ from the ones in 10s, but yet continue to argue despite that. Today's 3 pointers are based on drive and kick, and a lot of whip passes which are allowed by opening up the paint with spacing. Having an interior player who dominates the post kills that drive and kick (help defender) or the passing (spacing). Hakeem played in that style of inside out 3 point shooting, which is entirely different from the drive and kick threes of today.

It's very frustrating b/c your points are illogical. You're essentially saying that when a help defender collapses on Olajuwon, and Olajuwon is able to pass it out to a teammate at the 3pt line, that help defender is long/fast enough to contest that 3pt shot. But when a help defender collapses on a driving offensive player who kicks it out to the 3 pt line, that help defender is no longer long/fast enough to contest the 3 pt shot? :rolleyes

What you fail to understand is that both the "drive and kick" and "inside-out" offenses will lead to open 3's. The "drive and kick" is more prevalent b/c right now, there are far more skilled guards than skilled bigs. The "inside-out" offense isn't dead. There just aren't that many bigs who can utilize it. If prime Olajuwon were to play today, his "inside-out" offense would dominate.

davethedope

02-05-2015, 06:39 PM

They won when Jordan was playing baseball.

that wouldve been a hell of a final tho. I can't say the bulls would've won 100% The rockets were like the knicks with an even better center, and the knicks gave those bulls fits.

ambchang

02-06-2015, 10:53 AM

Repeating the same points over and over and having you ignore them is getting tiresome.

You think that since the 1996 Sonics' zone was effective against Olajuwon, any team that ran a zone defense would be effective against him. That's a fundamentally flawed premise because you're making too many illogical assumptions.

First, you're assuming that every team has players comparable to those on the 1996 Sonics' team. That Sonics team was full of players with athleticism, speed, length, and defensive ability.

Secondly, you're assuming that Hakeem's guards will always shoot horribly against a zone defense. In that series, Elie shot 38% from the field. Kenny Smith shot 33%. Cassell shot 24%. Given that during the regular season, Elie shot 50% from the field, Cassell shot 44% from the field, and Kenny Smith shot 43% from the field, do you really think its possible that those 3 guys would continue to shoot poorly against a zone defense?

So players today do not have athleticism, speed and length? If anything, there's way more of that in today's game than in the past.

You know what is illogical? That Hakeem was great in an era when rules benefit bigs would mean that he would be even greater in an era when rules benefit wings.

Secondly, those three shot poorly because of the zone defense that allowed the Sonics to double Hakeem and challenge the shooters at the same time. They shot well in the regular season because the opposition did NOT play zone. Do you think through your arguments before you type them out?

What about Shaq? Alonzo Mourning? Rik Smits? Vlade Divac? Christian Laettner? And then you had guys like Shawn Bradley and Gheorge Muresan who weren't considered "good" but were effective defenders due to their size.

Shaq and Mourning played till the 00s, so it cuts both ways. Rik Smits was an offensive player and is slow. Divac was a passing big men that is not any better than a Al Horford (worse I'd argue) or a Nikola Vucecic, and you must be kidding about Laettner. Laettner? Really, a career disappointment?

In terms of today's bigs, we have Chandler, Jordan, Gasol brothers, Horford, Valaciunas, Dwight, Ant Davis, Drummond, Cousins, Jefferson, Bogut, Noah, Asik, and Lopez.

Ant Davis may have the potential to be a Ewing/Robinson caliber player, but I am arguing the rules are against him, the others are no worse than the Mutombos, Daughters, Davis back in the day (not every single one, but ranked accordingly).

Incorrect. They are significantly worse.

I disagree. Once you take off the top, the rest are about even.

Olajuwon was already too quick for a 1995 Shaq. A 2003 Shaq was 40 lbs heavier. You do the math.

Shaq averaged 28 ppg in the Finals against Hakeem because he was too strong. 2003 Shaq was 40 lbs heavier. You do the math.

Olajuwon would abuse Yao. You're forgetting that Olajuwon had a solid mid-range game. Yao would be forced to continually give Olajuwon open 15 foot jumpers. If Yao tried to contest them, Olajuwon would simply go right around him.

Is that why Hakeem averaged 23.1 ppg vs. the equally lumbering Rik Smits?

[QUOTE=wekko368;7817561]Antonio Davis? Briant Grant? A rookie Nene? Against Olajuwon? :lol:lol:lol:lol:lol
Explains why Hakeem averaged only 21ppg vs. Antonio Davis (only counting his Houston days), including 6 points in one game. Or how he averaged around 24.8 ppg in his prime vs. Brian Grant (which was basically his average during his prime). So how is he going to put up significantly better stats in today's game again?

Please remember not to let facts get in your way, it never did in the past.

Because today's center position is blessed with a plethora of offensively-capable centers? :lol

More so than Mutombo. Even a non offensive center like Noah or Chandler are much better passers than Mutombo ever would be.

Of course you can win championships with low post dominance. Look at Shaq and Duncan.

Shaq last won one as a low post force in 02 (06 if you REALLY want to stretch it), Duncan in 07. You can argue MVPau in 10, but since then teams are moving much more towards a passing based offense to combat the use of zones.

If Olajuwon facilitated more, his points would drop, but his assist numbers would increase.

Yeah, sure, just that Olajuwon is a post and kick guy, and never really been a high post facilitator.

It's shocking that you, a fan of the Spurs, would be so ignorant as to the importance of bigs.

Bigs are important, they are still important as defensive cogs, interior passers, rebounders, screeners and such. They score when the opportunity presents itself, and they facilitate the offense if they are capable (Noah, Duncan, Gasol, Horford), they just aren't the grind it down low bigs of Hakeem's day anymore.

Also, you didn't refute my point about GM's gambling high draft picks on raw, unproven bigs. You went off on some irrelevant, rambling tangent.

Problem is, your point of gambling on high draft picks is an irrelevant tangent. I am having great trouble grasping how that is proving bigs are important especially the list you provided were littered with failures and busts.

Do you really not understand the correlation between a weak supporting cast and its impact on the primary playmaker? :rolleyes

Yeah, they have to take on more responsibilities. Just like how Kobe averaged 35 ppg vs. 28, or Jordan averaged 37 vs. 30, or Duncan averaging 25 vs. 20, or Robinson averaging 29 vs. 24, or Malone averaging 31 vs. 26, or Barkley averaging 28 vs. 22, or Garnett averaging 24 vs. 18, or Lebron averaging 30 vs. 27, or Pierce averaging 26 vs. 20, or Wade averaging 30 vs. 24, or Isiah averaging 21 vs. 18, or Wilt averaging 50 vs. 24, or Moses averaging 31 vs. 24.

Yeah, I think understand.

Do you?

Yes, but only if your role stays the same. Pau Gasol had better teammates in LA, but he was the #2 option (as opposed to being the #1 option in Memphis) so its not surprising that his scoring dropped.

Show me some examples where players scored more after getting better teammates. Hakeem was pretty much the only exception, and it was because he got better guards who helped open up the paint. Once he got Barkley, he went from 27 to 22.

Seriously? Dwight had Turkoglu, Rashard Lewis, and Jameer Nelson. Each of those guys were individually competent creators. Who did Gasol have in Memphis that was comparable to any of those guys?

Those were competent creators? more capable than Jason Williams, Mike Miller, Bonzi Wells and Shane Battier?

Perkins had size and length. Kemp had elite athleticism. Kemp wasn't a better individual defender than Robinson, but the Sonics as a whole played better defense than the Spurs.

I wouldn't say that the Sonics were better than the Knicks defensively, but in 1994, Olajuwon did have a solid PF in Otis Thorpe.

And teams today do not play a more complex defense than teams did in 95? You went on about how the starting centers sucked in 03 (which was 12 years ago btw, and not really today), but then you are now dismissing that and say it's team defense, which one is it?

And what does having Otis Thorpe had anything to do with Hakeem manhandling the Knicks. Thorpe shot 52 times in the entire series, which was FOURTH on the Rockets.

Because that would be implying that all zones are equally effective. They aren't. They're only as effective as the individual defenders playing the zone defense. Seattle had guys like Payton, Kemp, McMillan, Perkins, and Hawkins. They were fast, athletic, long, and played a good team defense. And Gary Payton is one of the best defensive point guards of all time.

Athletes today aren't fast, athletic, long and played good team defense? Payton was guarding Hakeem? Wait, why was Payton relevant in this situation again, oh wait, it's the ZONE DEFENSE.

Just because a 1996 Seattle zone was effective against Olajuwon doesn't mean that a 2003 Portland Trailblazer zone would be comparably effective. And that's what you're trying to imply.

No, I am talking about 2013, not 2003. But yeah, I am saying a semi zone vs. Olajuwon is effective means a full-fledged zone would be effective too. But I am not saying Hakeem would average 19ppg in today's game, I am saying that, in his prime, he wouldn't average 28 ppg in today's game.

Also, you're forgetting how poorly Elie/Cassell/K.Smith shot against Seattle. There's a reason that proficient 3pt shooters are called "zone busters".

Didn't bust anything in 96 now did they. Let me guess why ... hmmm ... because Seattle's zone was quick enough to double Hakeem, cut off his passing lanes, and recover back to the shooters?

m66Q0drgHhw

It's very frustrating b/c your points are illogical. You're essentially saying that when a help defender collapses on Olajuwon, and Olajuwon is able to pass it out to a teammate at the 3pt line, that help defender is long/fast enough to contest that 3pt shot. But when a help defender collapses on a driving offensive player who kicks it out to the 3 pt line, that help defender is no longer long/fast enough to contest the 3 pt shot? :rolleyes

Yes, because when a drive and kicker is collapsing, the entire defense is drawn towards the basket, with help defenders converging into the basket area, while a double of a big is generally done standing between a big and your man on the perimeter, and your momentum is no drawing you towards the basket. It's very frustrating b/c you seem to have waken up from a coma for 20 years and not basketball during this time.

What you fail to understand is that both the "drive and kick" and "inside-out" offenses will lead to open 3's. The "drive and kick" is more prevalent b/c right now, there are far more skilled guards than skilled bigs. The "inside-out" offense isn't dead. There just aren't that many bigs who can utilize it. If prime Olajuwon were to play today, his "inside-out" offense would dominate.

The drive and kick is more prevalent right now because the rules are perimeter player friendly with the use of zones and hand checking.

Please read up on what Stu Jackson aimed to do.
http://www.nba.com/2009/news/features/04/09/stujackson/index.html

NBA.com: Since the hand-checking rule was interpreted differently beginning in the 2004-05 season, the game has opened up. Players are penetrating and the floor is spread. As a result, scoring has risen every season. Was this anticipated back in 2004?

SJ: No. The scoring increase was not our goal. Our objective was to allow for more offensive freedom by not allowing defenders to hand-, forearm- or body-check ball handlers. By doing so, we encouraged more dribble penetration. As players penetrated more, it produced higher quality shots for the ball handler as well as shots for teammates on passes back out to perimeter. When NBA players get higher quality shots -- having more time to shoot -- they tend to make more of them.

NBA.com: Shooting percentages have risen since 2004-05 regardless of location -- at-the-rim shots, short- and deep-mid range and 3-pointers. Does this surprise you, especially the higher percentages from 3-point range?

SJ: It doesn't. With the rule and interpretation changes, it has become more difficult for defenders to defend penetration, cover the entire floor on defensive rotations and recover to shooters. This has provided more time for shooters to ready themselves for quality shots. With more dribble penetration, ball handlers are getting more opportunities at the rim. Additionally, teams now realize the 3-point shot is a great competitive equalizer, so they are taking more; they have improved their skill level on threes and are making them at a higher rate.

wekko368

02-06-2015, 02:25 PM

So players today do not have athleticism, speed and length? If anything, there's way more of that in today's game than in the past.

Sure they do, but that doesn't automatically mean they're effective defensive players. You're assuming that if current teams chose to ran a zone defense like 1996 Seattle, they'd be as effective as the Sonics were. And that's a horrible assumption.

You know what is illogical? That Hakeem was great in an era when rules benefit bigs would mean that he would be even greater in an era when rules benefit wings.

It's illogical to you because you're being intentionally obtuse. As I've said many times, Olajuwon would be even greater not b/c of the rule changes, but b/c his competition would be dramatically inferior.

Secondly, those three shot poorly because of the zone defense that allowed the Sonics to double Hakeem and challenge the shooters at the same time. They shot well in the regular season because the opposition did NOT play zone. Do you think through your arguments before you type them out?

Do you? Imagine the type of defender you're describing. They don't exist in today's game.

I started watching the youtube video you posted of the 1996 WCF game 4.

Here was Kenny Smith's first 3 pt attempt (a miss):

http://i871.photobucket.com/albums/ab277/wekko3141/kenny%20smith.jpg

He's about to release the ball, and as you can see, he's wide open.

Shaq and Mourning played till the 00s, so it cuts both ways. Rik Smits was an offensive player and is slow. Divac was a passing big men that is not any better than a Al Horford (worse I'd argue) or a Nikola Vucecic, and you must be kidding about Laettner. Laettner? Really, a career disappointment?

Shaq played till the 00's. By 2003, Mourning had kidney problems.

Rik Smits was 7'4. He was an effective by virtue of his size. Also, since he was a good offensive player, he'd have to make Olajuwon work defensively.

Laettner averaged around 17 ppg in the mid 90's.

In terms of today's bigs, we have Chandler, Jordan, Gasol brothers, Horford, Valaciunas, Dwight, Ant Davis, Drummond, Cousins, Jefferson, Bogut, Noah, Asik, and Lopez.

Nice. You were specifically talking about the centers of 2003 (around Duncan's prime), but once I showed you how garbage they were, you changed your argument to 2013.

I disagree. Once you take off the top, the rest are about even.

LOL. You're clearly not old enough to have watched the centers from the mid 90's.

In the mid 90's, you had Olajuwon, Robinson, Shaq, Ewing, Mutombo, Mourning, Smits.

How many centers in 2003 were better than Rik Smits? Shaq, Mutombo, and Pau Gasol were. Anyone else?

Shaq averaged 28 ppg in the Finals against Hakeem because he was too strong. 2003 Shaq was 40 lbs heavier. You do the math.

The math says that the net advantage clearly goes to Olajuwon. 1995 Olajuwon was already too quick for 1995 Shaq. 1995 Olajuwon would run circles around a 2003 Shaq. Can you imagine the transition game? Don't forget, Olajuwon did run the floor.

Olajuwon would abuse Yao. You're forgetting that Olajuwon had a solid mid-range game. Yao would be forced to continually give Olajuwon open 15 foot jumpers. If Yao tried to contest them, Olajuwon would simply go right around him.

Is that why Hakeem averaged 23.1 ppg vs. the equally lumbering Rik Smits?

It's laughable how bad your logic is. You're saying that just b/c Olajuwon didn't put up monster numbers against Smits, he wouldn't against Yao. Do you realize how much slower and clumsier Yao is compared to Smits?

Explains why Hakeem averaged only 21ppg vs. Antonio Davis (only counting his Houston days), including 6 points in one game. Or how he averaged around 24.8 ppg in his prime vs. Brian Grant (which was basically his average during his prime). So how is he going to put up significantly better stats in today's game again?

First of all, everyone has bad games. Secondly, you pulled that game from 1997, and prime Hakeem is considered to be 1994-1995. In the 3 head to head matchups between the Rockets/Pacers in those years, Olajuwon averaged 30 ppg.

Thirdly, "vs Antonio Davis"? :lol:lol Did you even bother looking at the box score? Antonio Davis came off the bench. Rik Smits was the starting center.

Please remember not to let facts get in your way, it never did in the past.

:lol:lol:lol:lol

More so than Mutombo. Even a non offensive center like Noah or Chandler are much better passers than Mutombo ever would be.

If you needed a basket and your only options were Mutombo, Noah, or Tyson Chandler, you go with Mutombo. Every time.

Shaq last won one as a low post force in 02 (06 if you REALLY want to stretch it), Duncan in 07. You can argue MVPau in 10, but since then teams are moving much more towards a passing based offense to combat the use of zones.

Teams will play to their strengths. Right now, not many teams have efficient post players, but there are an abundance of scoring guards. Is there anyone besides Memphis who focuses on a post offense? However, as more bigs develop, we should see more post-oriented offenses.

Yeah, sure, just that Olajuwon is a post and kick guy, and never really been a high post facilitator.

Post and kick will still lead to assists.

Problem is, your point of gambling on high draft picks is an irrelevant tangent. I am having great trouble grasping how that is proving bigs are important especially the list you provided were littered with failures and busts.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it's an irrelevant tangent. The fact that there have been a bunch of failures/busts further proves my point. Since I've already explained it several times very clearly, I'm not going to explain it again. Go back and read.

Yeah, they have to take on more responsibilities. Just like how Kobe averaged 35 ppg vs. 28, or Jordan averaged 37 vs. 30, or Duncan averaging 25 vs. 20, or Robinson averaging 29 vs. 24, or Malone averaging 31 vs. 26, or Barkley averaging 28 vs. 22, or Garnett averaging 24 vs. 18, or Lebron averaging 30 vs. 27, or Pierce averaging 26 vs. 20, or Wade averaging 30 vs. 24, or Isiah averaging 21 vs. 18, or Wilt averaging 50 vs. 24, or Moses averaging 31 vs. 24.

Yeah, I think understand.

Do you?

It's pretty clear that I understand it better than you. If a primary playmaker has a weak supporting cast, his responsibilities increase, but his stats get depressed. His efficiency and percentages go down. His assists go down (by virtue of teammates not making shots).

Look at the big picture.

Show me some examples where players scored more after getting better teammates. Hakeem was pretty much the only exception, and it was because he got better guards who helped open up the paint. Once he got Barkley, he went from 27 to 22.

I think the most obvious example would be Amare Stoudemire after the Suns got Steve Nash. His scoring went from 20.6 to 26. Garnett's scoring went from 23 ppg to 24 ppg (career high) after the Timberwolves acquired Cassell and Sprewell and lost Szczerbiak. Wade's numbers went up after the Heat acquired Shaq. Iverson scored more after the 76ers acquired Mutombo.

Those were competent creators? more capable than Jason Williams, Mike Miller, Bonzi Wells and Shane Battier?

Did you even watch Dwight Howard's Orlando teams? Of course Lewis/Turkoglu/Nelson were competent creators. How do you think the Magic scored points? It obviously wasn't by relying entirely on Howard in the post. Conversely, in their entire careers, Mike Miller and Shane Battier have never been creators.

Dwight Howard had a significantly better supporting cast in Orlando than Pau Gasol did in Memphis. It's laughable that you would claim otherwise.

And teams today do not play a more complex defense than teams did in 95?

They absolutely do. But just b/c it's more complex doesn't mean its more effective. Defenders back then were allowed to be incredibly physical.

You went on about how the starting centers sucked in 03 (which was 12 years ago btw, and not really today), but then you are now dismissing that and say it's team defense, which one is it?

I don't understand your question. Can you be clearer?

And what does having Otis Thorpe had anything to do with Hakeem manhandling the Knicks. Thorpe shot 52 times in the entire series, which was FOURTH on the Rockets.

You compared the defenses of the Knicks and the Sonics and attributed Olajuwon's struggles solely to the Sonics' zone defense.

That's why I pointed out the against the Knicks, the Rockets had Otis Thorpe and were able to win. Against the 1996 Sonics, the Rockets didn't have a legit PF and lost. In 1997, they had a 33 year old Charles Barkley and won.

Athletes today aren't fast, athletic, long and played good team defense? Payton was guarding Hakeem? Wait, why was Payton relevant in this situation again, oh wait, it's the ZONE DEFENSE.

Yep, the Sonics played a zone defense and had guys like Payton, Kemp, and Perkins who made it really effective. By assuming that every team's zone defense would be effective against Olajuwon, you're assuming that every team has players comparable to Payton/Kemp/Perkins. You're also assuming that Olajuwon's perimeter shooters would shoot as poorly as they did against the 1996 Sonics.

No, I am talking about 2013, not 2003. But yeah, I am saying a semi zone vs. Olajuwon is effective means a full-fledged zone would be effective too. But I am not saying Hakeem would average 19ppg in today's game, I am saying that, in his prime, he wouldn't average 28 ppg in today's game.

It depends on the team around him. If you're assuming that he has poor shooters and an inferior PF, then yes, a full-fledged zone would be effective against him.

Yes, because when a drive and kicker is collapsing, the entire defense is drawn towards the basket, with help defenders converging into the basket area, while a double of a big is generally done standing between a big and your man on the perimeter, and your momentum is no drawing you towards the basket. It's very frustrating b/c you seem to have waken up from a coma for 20 years and not basketball during this time.

There you go. Based on your own description, the zone defense leaves an open shooter on the perimeter. The "drive and kick" has more moving parts than the "inside out", but they should both result in an open 3 pointer.

The drive and kick is more prevalent right now because the rules are perimeter player friendly with the use of zones and hand checking.

Please read up on what Stu Jackson aimed to do.

Once again, you think that "drive and kick" and "inside out" are mutually exclusive. They are not. A team's offense is dictated by its personnel.
Look at it this way. Anthony Davis is currently averaging 24.5 ppg, and he's 21 years old. Why is it so difficult for you to believe that a prime Olajuwon wouldn't average more than 28?

ambchang

02-06-2015, 03:42 PM

Sure they do, but that doesn't automatically mean they're effective defensive players. You're assuming that if current teams chose to ran a zone defense like 1996 Seattle, they'd be as effective as the Sonics were. And that's a horrible assumption.

No it is not. You are basically saying the only reason Hakeem had a bad series vs. Sonics is because the Sonics had specifically those players. I am saying no, it's about having players who can run an effective zone, which is true for a lot of today's teams because they are legal, and teams have adapted accordingly.

If anything, the teams today would be MORE effective in running the zone because they are legal, and they don' t have to worry stepping on the limits of the rules without breaking them, they can just go out and run them.

It's illogical to you because you're being intentionally obtuse. As I've said many times, Olajuwon would be even greater not b/c of the rule changes, but b/c his competition would be dramatically inferior.

And I have shown that Hakeem didn't just magically blow off against inferior defenders in his days. He averaged about the same vs. the terrible ones as opposed to the great ones.

Do you? Imagine the type of defender you're describing. They don't exist in today's game.

I started watching the youtube video you posted of the 1996 WCF game 4.

Here was Kenny Smith's first 3 pt attempt (a miss):

http://i871.photobucket.com/albums/ab277/wekko3141/kenny%20smith.jpg

He's about to release the ball, and as you can see, he's wide open.

He got one open shot and missed? The horror! He was hounded the entire freaking series other wise. he didn't just suddenly not shoot well, he, along with the other 2 Rockets didn't shoot well because of defense.

And the type of defender I described, the ones who can cover a lot of ground don't exist? Kawhi Leonard, Paul George, Lebron James, even Durant, Westbrook are all athletic long wings who are great at doubling down low and popping out to challenge open shots. The Spurs have two, even the Rockets have Ariza and Josh Smith. These players are now pretty much on every team.

Shaq played till the 00's. By 2003, Mourning had kidney problems.

So? Mourning was averaging 16/8/2.5 in as recently as 02. It sort of explained why you chose 03, and not the recent 13, because it's the weakest of the years.

Rik Smits was 7'4. He was an effective by virtue of his size. Also, since he was a good offensive player, he'd have to make Olajuwon work defensively.

Why would Yao Ming be manhandled by Hakeem again?

Laettner averaged around 17 ppg in the mid 90's.

Are we talking about defense here? You think Laettner checked Hakeem well in his days?

Nice. You were specifically talking about the centers of 2003 (around Duncan's prime), but once I showed you how garbage they were, you changed your argument to 2013.

When did I talk about 2003? Quote me. I have said:

...
My post said Hakeem would not put up the averages he put up if he played in today's game if he played in today's game because of zone defense, and the Sonics series is an indication of that. He put up below average statistics, ie. statistics he didn't put up in the 90s.

My original quote that started this shit storm:

Hakeem won't be able to dominate like he did in today's game.

He was swarmed to death in the 96 sonics, a team that employed a semi zone.

A full blown zone, which was illegal back in the day but legal now, will limit Hakeem. This also explains why we don't have domjnant bigs anymore. The inside is just too crowded for an inside dominated offense, tipping the advantage to the defense.

Where you got me saying specifically 2003 is a mystery to me.

LOL. You're clearly not old enough to have watched the centers from the mid 90's.

In the mid 90's, you had Olajuwon, Robinson, Shaq, Ewing, Mutombo, Mourning, Smits.

How many centers in 2003 were better than Rik Smits? Shaq, Mutombo, and Pau Gasol were. Anyone else?

Shaq was about Olajuwon level good in 2003. Duncan was as good and would have faced Hakeem. Divac/Webber combo would > Rik Smits, Gasol was about Mourning level > Smits. yao Ming > Smits.

So in summary:
Shaq/Duncan = Hakeem/Robinson
Divac/Webber/Gasol/Yao matches up with Smits, Ewing, Mutombo , Mourning.

Not that huge of a difference. Sure 1995 group was better, but not by some ridiculous distance.

And no, I was a basketball junkie in the 80s and 90s.

The math says that the net advantage clearly goes to Olajuwon. 1995 Olajuwon was already too quick for 1995 Shaq. 1995 Olajuwon would run circles around a 2003 Shaq. Can you imagine the transition game? Don't forget, Olajuwon did run the floor.

Shaq never ran the floor? He just doesn't run back for defense.

And no, the net advantage was that the Rockets bombed the lights out of the Magic. Shaq was a 3rd year player and hadn't reached his prime yet. Hakeem won't be able to guard prime Shaq one one one, and prime Shaq won't be able to guard Hakeem one on one. It's a two way street.

It's laughable how bad your logic is. You're saying that just b/c Olajuwon didn't put up monster numbers against Smits, he wouldn't against Yao. Do you realize how much slower and clumsier Yao is compared to Smits?

Actually I don't. Yao had pretty good coordination for a guy his size. I am not talking about monster numbers, I am talking about above average numbers (by Hakeem's prime's standards), and they aren't there. I don't have to prove Smits limited Hakeem, all I have to do is to show Smits held Hakeem to his average, which is all Yao had to do in this argument.

But then you came up with this gem yourself.

Rik Smits was 7'4. He was an effective by virtue of his size. Also, since he was a good offensive player, he'd have to make Olajuwon work defensively.

Yao is 7'6". He was an effective (defender) by virtue of his size. Also, since he was a good offensive player, he'd have to make Olajuwon work defensively.

Just look at what you wrote, what you described Smits described Yao perfectly, except Yao was even bigger, and clearly better than Smits. But then in the same response, you contradict yourself. And this isn't your first time. But I am illogical.

First of all, everyone has bad games. Secondly, you pulled that game from 1997, and prime Hakeem is considered to be 1994-1995. In the 3 head to head matchups between the Rockets/Pacers in those years, Olajuwon averaged 30 ppg.

Hakeem averaged 28 ppg in those two years. And in 97, he was still averaging 22. You make it sound like he was finished in 97. Just take out all the games that Hakeem didn't average 30 ppg then, shall we?

Thirdly, "vs Antonio Davis"? :lol:lol Did you even bother looking at the box score? Antonio Davis came off the bench. Rik Smits was the starting center.

Did you watch those games? Antonio Davis tagged team with Smits on Hakeem. Oh wait, I was too young to watch those games, you had photographic memory.

:lol:lol:lol:lol

If you needed a basket and your only options were Mutombo, Noah, or Tyson Chandler, you go with Mutombo. Every time.

Are you crazy? Noah would be mind, Mutombo second, then Chandler.

Teams will play to their strengths. Right now, not many teams have efficient post players, but there are an abundance of scoring guards. Is there anyone besides Memphis who focuses on a post offense? However, as more bigs develop, we should see more post-oriented offenses.

Even Memphis is focusing more on the perimeter game despite having the best frontline in the league. Conley is #2 on the team in FGA, Gasol does a lot of high post stuff, and their best low post scorer Z-Bo is third on the team in FGA. That's just the way the rules favour perimeter players.

Post and kick will still lead to assists.

Never argued otherwise.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it's an irrelevant tangent. The fact that there have been a bunch of failures/busts further proves my point. Since I've already explained it several times very clearly, I'm not going to explain it again. Go back and read.

No it doesn't. GMs drafting players high doesn't mean bigs are important, at all. It just means that GMs are still enamored with bigs who really can't do anything of significance. You can type your "arguments" out a million times, it still doesn't make an ounce of sense.

How would you prove bigs are important with high draft positions and not actual production? If anything it shows GMs fail to understand the importance of wings and continue to draft players of marginal value, further perpetuating the cycle of their teams sucking, which is the first place as to why they have high draft positions.

It's pretty clear that I understand it better than you. If a primary playmaker has a weak supporting cast, his responsibilities increase, but his stats get depressed. His efficiency and percentages go down. His assists go down (by virtue of teammates not making shots).

Look at the big picture.

And yet every single example I gave showed an increase in PPG. No, I am not talking about efficiency, I am talking about scoring and strictly scoring. As for assists, those players did not have their assists affected in any significant ways.

I think the most obvious example would be Amare Stoudemire after the Suns got Steve Nash. His scoring went from 20.6 to 26. Garnett's scoring went from 23 ppg to 24 ppg (career high) after the Timberwolves acquired Cassell and Sprewell and lost Szczerbiak. Wade's numbers went up after the Heat acquired Shaq. Iverson scored more after the 76ers acquired Mutombo.

Nash was the creator, Stoudemire was the recipient. So by that logic, MVPau should have averaged more with Kobe passing him the ball instead of Mike Miller, but it didn't. Not only that, ppg stayed pretty much the same when he was traded to the Knicks, injuries just finished him.

Garnett had a whopping 1ppg increase not because he had better shots, he just shot more. In fact, his shooting percentage and assists dipped, which blew up your assertion that a player would pass more and have better percentage.

Wade numbers went way up after Shaq left and when he had the worst supporting cast ever.

What does Mutombo has to do with Iverson's scoring? iverson's scoring went up, along with TMac, Kobe, Carter and Pierce because the rules changed to disallow hand-checking. Look it up.

Did you even watch Dwight Howard's Orlando teams? Of course Lewis/Turkoglu/Nelson were competent creators. How do you think the Magic scored points? It obviously wasn't by relying entirely on Howard in the post. Conversely, in their entire careers, Mike Miller and Shane Battier have never been creators.

Dwight Howard had a significantly better supporting cast in Orlando than Pau Gasol did in Memphis. It's laughable that you would claim otherwise.

Of course I watched them, and they were feasting off the attention the defenders were giving Dwight, because Dwight was too athletic for the opposition to handle. Lewis was the only creator, Turkoglu and Nelson stunk.

They absolutely do. But just b/c it's more complex doesn't mean its more effective. Defenders back then were allowed to be incredibly physical.

So teams are just running complex plays for the hell of it.

Coach: Look, team, we would have to put in extra effort for 48 minutes a game, for 82 games a year, plus playoffs running these complex schemes. But I will tell you, they are not effective, I am just running it for fun. They have no impact on the game, except that it tires you guys out and make you guys worse on offense. But I will run it anyways, sounds good?

Team: Great plan coach, we will all just run some random shit you put in. I know it's about as effective as the other simple plays, but yeah, we will run it.

I don't understand your question. Can you be clearer?

Of course. You went on and on about the importance of having quality centers in today's games, but then suddenly, you talk about the importance of team defense, where you openly admitted that Kemp < Robinson as a defender, but the Sonics is better than the Spurs as a team. So what is the significance of talking about individual players? Shouldn't you be talking about team defense as well?

You compared the defenses of the Knicks and the Sonics and attributed Olajuwon's struggles solely to the Sonics' zone defense.

Yeah, because even YOU admitted Knicks were better defensively than the Sonics. What other reason is there for Olajuwon suffering against the Sonics but not the Knicks, despite the Knicks being the better defensive team? Oh, right, Gary Payton, who was a PG and can double Hakeem easily because of the zone. Right ....

That's why I pointed out the against the Knicks, the Rockets had Otis Thorpe and were able to win. Against the 1996 Sonics, the Rockets didn't have a legit PF and lost. In 1997, they had a 33 year old Charles Barkley and won.

They had a 33 year old Barkley and Hakeem averaged 22ppg that year, significantly less than the 27 ppg he averaged a year ago, so yeah, Hakeem would average less with better teammates in order to beat the zone, thank you.

Yep, the Sonics played a zone defense and had guys like Payton, Kemp, and Perkins who made it really effective. By assuming that every team's zone defense would be effective against Olajuwon, you're assuming that every team has players comparable to Payton/Kemp/Perkins. You're also assuming that Olajuwon's perimeter shooters would shoot as poorly as they did against the 1996 Sonics.

And teams with Duncan/Kawhi/Green, Lebron/Bosh/Wade, Millsap/Horford/Teague, Bogut/Thompson/Green, Dwight/Ariza/Smith, Noah/Gibson/Butler, Sanders/Greek Freak/Knight, Gasol/Conley/Allen, Davis/Osik/Ajinca/Holiday, Ibaka/Westbrook/Durant, Hibbert/George/Hill/West are not athletic enough to run those zones? Again, not saying they will be as effective as the 96 Sonics, but they can run the zone to limit even an all time great post player like Hakeem.

It depends on the team around him. If you're assuming that he has poor shooters and an inferior PF, then yes, a full-fledged zone would be effective against him.

I am assuming the same teams he had throughout his career.

There you go. Based on your own description, the zone defense leaves an open shooter on the perimeter. The "drive and kick" has more moving parts than the "inside out", but they should both result in an open 3 pointer.

Yes, but an inside out 3 pter is easier to recover because the defenders are not moving towards the basket area.

Once again, you think that "drive and kick" and "inside out" are mutually exclusive. They are not. A team's offense is dictated by its personnel.
Look at it this way. Anthony Davis is currently averaging 24.5 ppg, and he's 21 years old. Why is it so difficult for you to believe that a prime Olajuwon wouldn't average more than 28?

No I don't, I think a team can run both, just that having a dominant low post player camping out in the post area will muck up spacing and limit its effectiveness. Having an inside out offense in today's league is difficult, and require phenomenal passing on the perimeter to get open up the defense (no assists for the low post player). Having an inside player camp out in the paint limits movement and cut down on chances of penetration, and is much easier to guard because an inside player moves within the 10 or so feet area around the basket, while a perimeter penetrator attacks the defense from out to the three point line.

a) I think Anthony Davis could be as great as a David Robinson back in the 90s.
b) 24.5ppg is less than 28ppg
c) Ant's teammates suck. He takes on a lot more responsibilities on offense, inflating his numbers.
d) Ant shoot a lot of long twos, which opens up the lanes for his drives. Hakeem's range was mostly up to 15, which doesn't give him the spacing.

Killakobe81

02-06-2015, 03:49 PM

No it is not. You are basically saying the only reason Hakeem had a bad series vs. Sonics is because the Sonics had specifically those players. I am saying no, it's about having players who can run an effective zone, which is true for a lot of today's teams because they are legal, and teams have adapted accordingly.

If anything, the teams today would be MORE effective in running the zone because they are legal, and they don' t have to worry stepping on the limits of the rules without breaking them, they can just go out and run them.

And I have shown that Hakeem didn't just magically blow off against inferior defenders in his days. He averaged about the same vs. the terrible ones as opposed to the great ones.

He got one open shot and missed? The horror! He was hounded the entire freaking series other wise. he didn't just suddenly not shoot well, he, along with the other 2 Rockets didn't shoot well because of defense.

And the type of defender I described, the ones who can cover a lot of ground don't exist? Kawhi Leonard, Paul George, Lebron James, even Durant, Westbrook are all athletic long wings who are great at doubling down low and popping out to challenge open shots. The Spurs have two, even the Rockets have Ariza and Josh Smith. These players are now pretty much on every team.

So? Mourning was averaging 16/8/2.5 in as recently as 02. It sort of explained why you chose 03, and not the recent 13, because it's the weakest of the years.

Why would Yao Ming be manhandled by Hakeem again?

Are we talking about defense here? You think Laettner checked Hakeem well in his days?

When did I talk about 2003? Quote me. I have said:

My original quote that started this shit storm:

Where you got me saying specifically 2003 is a mystery to me.

Shaq was about Olajuwon level good in 2003. Duncan was as good and would have faced Hakeem. Divac/Webber combo would > Rik Smits, Gasol was about Mourning level > Smits. yao Ming > Smits.

So in summary:
Shaq/Duncan = Hakeem/Robinson
Divac/Webber/Gasol/Yao matches up with Smits, Ewing, Mutombo , Mourning.

Not that huge of a difference. Sure 1995 group was better, but not by some ridiculous distance.

And no, I was a basketball junkie in the 80s and 90s.

Shaq never ran the floor? He just doesn't run back for defense.

And no, the net advantage was that the Rockets bombed the lights out of the Magic. Shaq was a 3rd year player and hadn't reached his prime yet. Hakeem won't be able to guard prime Shaq one one one, and prime Shaq won't be able to guard Hakeem one on one. It's a two way street.

Actually I don't. Yao had pretty good coordination for a guy his size. I am not talking about monster numbers, I am talking about above average numbers (by Hakeem's prime's standards), and they aren't there. I don't have to prove Smits limited Hakeem, all I have to do is to show Smits held Hakeem to his average, which is all Yao had to do in this argument.

But then you came up with this gem yourself.

Yao is 7'6". He was an effective (defender) by virtue of his size. Also, since he was a good offensive player, he'd have to make Olajuwon work defensively.

Just look at what you wrote, what you described Smits described Yao perfectly, except Yao was even bigger, and clearly better than Smits. But then in the same response, you contradict yourself. And this isn't your first time. But I am illogical.

Hakeem averaged 28 ppg in those two years. And in 97, he was still averaging 22. You make it sound like he was finished in 97. Just take out all the games that Hakeem didn't average 30 ppg then, shall we?

Did you watch those games? Antonio Davis tagged team with Smits on Hakeem. Oh wait, I was too young to watch those games, you had photographic memory.

Are you crazy? Noah would be mind, Mutombo second, then Chandler.

Even Memphis is focusing more on the perimeter game despite having the best frontline in the league. Conley is #2 on the team in FGA, Gasol does a lot of high post stuff, and their best low post scorer Z-Bo is third on the team in FGA. That's just the way the rules favour perimeter players.

Never argued otherwise.

No it doesn't. GMs drafting players high doesn't mean bigs are important, at all. It just means that GMs are still enamored with bigs who really can't do anything of significance. You can type your "arguments" out a million times, it still doesn't make an ounce of sense.

How would you prove bigs are important with high draft positions and not actual production? If anything it shows GMs fail to understand the importance of wings and continue to draft players of marginal value, further perpetuating the cycle of their teams sucking, which is the first place as to why they have high draft positions.

And yet every single example I gave showed an increase in PPG. No, I am not talking about efficiency, I am talking about scoring and strictly scoring. As for assists, those players did not have their assists affected in any significant ways.

Nash was the creator, Stoudemire was the recipient. So by that logic, MVPau should have averaged more with Kobe passing him the ball instead of Mike Miller, but it didn't. Not only that, ppg stayed pretty much the same when he was traded to the Knicks, injuries just finished him.

Garnett had a whopping 1ppg increase not because he had better shots, he just shot more. In fact, his shooting percentage and assists dipped, which blew up your assertion that a player would pass more and have better percentage.

Wade numbers went way up after Shaq left and when he had the worst supporting cast ever.

What does Mutombo has to do with Iverson's scoring? iverson's scoring went up, along with TMac, Kobe, Carter and Pierce because the rules changed to disallow hand-checking. Look it up.

Of course I watched them, and they were feasting off the attention the defenders were giving Dwight, because Dwight was too athletic for the opposition to handle. Lewis was the only creator, Turkoglu and Nelson stunk.

So teams are just running complex plays for the hell of it.

Coach: Look, team, we would have to put in extra effort for 48 minutes a game, for 82 games a year, plus playoffs running these complex schemes. But I will tell you, they are not effective, I am just running it for fun. They have no impact on the game, except that it tires you guys out and make you guys worse on offense. But I will run it anyways, sounds good?

Team: Great plan coach, we will all just run some random shit you put in. I know it's about as effective as the other simple plays, but yeah, we will run it.

Of course. You went on and on about the importance of having quality centers in today's games, but then suddenly, you talk about the importance of team defense, where you openly admitted that Kemp < Robinson as a defender, but the Sonics is better than the Spurs as a team. So what is the significance of talking about individual players? Shouldn't you be talking about team defense as well?

Yeah, because even YOU admitted Knicks were better defensively than the Sonics. What other reason is there for Olajuwon suffering against the Sonics but not the Knicks, despite the Knicks being the better defensive team? Oh, right, Gary Payton, who was a PG and can double Hakeem easily because of the zone. Right ....

They had a 33 year old Barkley and Hakeem averaged 22ppg that year, significantly less than the 27 ppg he averaged a year ago, so yeah, Hakeem would average less with better teammates in order to beat the zone, thank you.

And teams with Duncan/Kawhi/Green, Lebron/Bosh/Wade, Millsap/Horford/Teague, Bogut/Thompson/Green, Dwight/Ariza/Smith, Noah/Gibson/Butler, Sanders/Greek Freak/Knight, Gasol/Conley/Allen, Davis/Osik/Ajinca/Holiday, Ibaka/Westbrook/Durant, Hibbert/George/Hill/West are not athletic enough to run those zones? Again, not saying they will be as effective as the 96 Sonics, but they can run the zone to limit even an all time great post player like Hakeem.

I am assuming the same teams he had throughout his career.

Yes, but an inside out 3 pter is easier to recover because the defenders are not moving towards the basket area.

No I don't, I think a team can run both, just that having a dominant low post player camping out in the post area will muck up spacing and limit its effectiveness. Having an inside out offense in today's league is difficult, and require phenomenal passing on the perimeter to get open up the defense (no assists for the low post player). Having an inside player camp out in the paint limits movement and cut down on chances of penetration, and is much easier to guard because an inside player moves within the 10 or so feet area around the basket, while a perimeter penetrator attacks the defense from out to the three point line.

a) I think Anthony Davis could be as great as a David Robinson back in the 90s.
b) 24.5ppg is less than 28ppg
c) Ant's teammates suck. He takes on a lot more responsibilities on offense, inflating his numbers.
d) Ant shoot a lot of long twos, which opens up the lanes for his drives. Hakeem's range was mostly up to 15, which doesn't give him the spacing.

Damn, Amb I thought i wa sthe only one that got you to write novel level responses ... =)

ambchang

02-06-2015, 03:51 PM

Damn, Amb I thought i wa sthe only one that got you to write novel level responses ... =)

I answer every issue. I don't want skirt any questions or disagreements.

Killakobe81

02-06-2015, 03:55 PM

I answer every issue. I don't want skirt any questions or disagreements.

Despite our disagreements from time to time and my refusal to discuss rotator or the Lakers with you right now. I do enjoy our back and forth. I just think you over exaggerate a bit focus on some stuff that cant be proven "leadership skills" or irrelevant off the court stuff.

But when you lock in your one of my faves. We just dont agree on certain shit and that's OK.

Arcadian

02-06-2015, 06:22 PM

Seems like this debate has reached a deadlock. I admire the persistence of those involved, but god damn. At some point you just have to think, "I'm probably never going to persuade this person."

The heatedness of this debate should speak to the greatness of both players in question, though. It's not an easy question in the first place, and there is no clear answer.

wekko368

02-06-2015, 06:26 PM

No it is not. You are basically saying the only reason Hakeem had a bad series vs. Sonics is because the Sonics had specifically those players. I am saying no, it's about having players who can run an effective zone, which is true for a lot of today's teams because they are legal, and teams have adapted accordingly.

If anything, the teams today would be MORE effective in running the zone because they are legal, and they don' t have to worry stepping on the limits of the rules without breaking them, they can just go out and run them.

I'm saying that it's a combination of the players the Sonics had, the Rockets poor perimeter shooting, and the Rockets' lack of a good pf.

And yes, your assumption is horrible. You simply can't assume that all teams can run a comparably effective zone. Did you watch the video you posted? Did you notice that Gary Payton was frequently the help defender doubling Olajuwon? Are you honestly saying that any point guard in the league would be able to apply a comparable defensive pressure as a prime Gary Payton?

And it's ridiculous that you attribute the Rockets' poor perimeter shooting to the zone defense. Watch the video. They get PLENTY of open looks. They just miss. And because they kept missing, that allowed the Sonics' defenders to hedge even further.

And I have shown that Hakeem didn't just magically blow off against inferior defenders in his days. He averaged about the same vs. the terrible ones as opposed to the great ones.

Cherry picking games doesn't prove anything.

He got one open shot and missed? The horror! He was hounded the entire freaking series other wise. he didn't just suddenly not shoot well, he, along with the other 2 Rockets didn't shoot well because of defense.

That was the first perimeter shot resulting from a double team on Olajuwon. There were plenty more throughout the game. Shooters miss open shots. It happens. It doesn't mean that the defense was good.

And the type of defender I described, the ones who can cover a lot of ground don't exist? Kawhi Leonard, Paul George, Lebron James, even Durant, Westbrook are all athletic long wings who are great at doubling down low and popping out to challenge open shots. The Spurs have two, even the Rockets have Ariza and Josh Smith. These players are now pretty much on every team.

Imagine what you're saying. You're saying that Westbrook could double-team Olajuwon in the post, and when Olajuwon passes it out to Kenny Smith at the 3pt line, Westbrook would be able to turn his body around, race out to the 3pt line, and contest the shot......all before Kenny Smith can shoot the ball?

Sorry, no. That's not happening.

So? Mourning was averaging 16/8/2.5 in as recently as 02. It sort of explained why you chose 03, and not the recent 13, because it's the weakest of the years.

LOL. I chose 2003 b/c that was the year of Duncan's most impressive championship.

Why would Yao Ming be manhandled by Hakeem again?

Yao Ming is much too slow to guard Olajuwon. Remember the difficulties Yao had guarding Carlos Boozer?

Are we talking about defense here? You think Laettner checked Hakeem well in his days?

No, but I'm looking at the net effect.

When did I talk about 2003? Quote me. I have said:

Where you got me saying specifically 2003 is a mystery to me.

It was a logical assumption b/c the thread is about prime Duncan and prime Olajuwon. Prime Duncan was ~2003.

Shaq was about Olajuwon level good in 2003. Duncan was as good and would have faced Hakeem. Divac/Webber combo would > Rik Smits, Gasol was about Mourning level > Smits. yao Ming > Smits.

So in summary:
Shaq/Duncan = Hakeem/Robinson
Divac/Webber/Gasol/Yao matches up with Smits, Ewing, Mutombo , Mourning.

Not that huge of a difference. Sure 1995 group was better, but not by some ridiculous distance.

And no, I was a basketball junkie in the 80s and 90s.

Divac also played in the mid-90's. I left him out of the list b/c I considered him to be a clear drop-off from Rik Smits. So it's pretty telling that you included him in your list and I intentionally left him off mine. And Chris Webber was a PF. And you added Mourning, who missed the entire season.

And no. 2003 Yao Ming was not better than 1995 Rik Smits. You're grasping at straws here. That was Yao's rookie year!

Shaq never ran the floor? He just doesn't run back for defense.

That's my point. Olajuwon runs back on transition offense. And if Shaq doesn't run back on transition defense, that translates into a lot of freebies for Olajuwon.

And no, the net advantage was that the Rockets bombed the lights out of the Magic. Shaq was a 3rd year player and hadn't reached his prime yet. Hakeem won't be able to guard prime Shaq one one one, and prime Shaq won't be able to guard Hakeem one on one. It's a two way street.

Sure, it's a 2 way street, but a 1995 Olajuwon clearly has the net advantage against a prime Shaq.

Actually I don't. Yao had pretty good coordination for a guy his size. I am not talking about monster numbers, I am talking about above average numbers (by Hakeem's prime's standards), and they aren't there. I don't have to prove Smits limited Hakeem, all I have to do is to show Smits held Hakeem to his average, which is all Yao had to do in this argument.

Go youtube some Rik Smits highlights. And then some Yao Ming highlights. The difference in their movement should be pretty clear.

Yao is 7'6". He was an effective (defender) by virtue of his size. Also, since he was a good offensive player, he'd have to make Olajuwon work defensively.

Yao was an effective defender in the paint b/c of his size. But unlike most centers, Olajuwon could consistently hit the mid-range jumper. That's why Yao wouldn't be able to guard him.

Hakeem averaged 28 ppg in those two years. And in 97, he was still averaging 22. You make it sound like he was finished in 97. Just take out all the games that Hakeem didn't average 30 ppg then, shall we?

No, Olajuwon wasn't finished in 1997. But he clearly wasn't in his prime. And isn't this thread about Olajuwon's prime?

Did you watch those games? Antonio Davis tagged team with Smits on Hakeem. Oh wait, I was too young to watch those games, you had photographic memory.

I don't photographic memory to refute you. Common sense will suffice. In that game, Olajuwon played 31 minutes. Rik Smits played 28 minutes. Antonio Davis played 26 minutes. Dale Davis played 28 minutes. Exactly how are you coming to the conclusion that Antonio Davis played notable minutes guarding Olajuwon?

Are you crazy? Noah would be mind, Mutombo second, then Chandler.

Noah has a horrible jumper and no post game. He's an opportunistic scorer who gets points off offensive rebounds or having teammates set him up. Mutombo was also offensively limited, but he did have a reliable jump hook.

Even Memphis is focusing more on the perimeter game despite having the best frontline in the league. Conley is #2 on the team in FGA, Gasol does a lot of high post stuff, and their best low post scorer Z-Bo is third on the team in FGA. That's just the way the rules favour perimeter players.

Actually, Gasol leads the team in fga with 13.9 per game. Conley and Randolph each average 13.5 fga, but Randolph averages 4.8 ft/game while Conley averages 3.8.

No it doesn't. GMs drafting players high doesn't mean bigs are important, at all. It just means that GMs are still enamored with bigs who really can't do anything of significance. You can type your "arguments" out a million times, it still doesn't make an ounce of sense.

And why are GM's enamored with bigs?

How would you prove bigs are important with high draft positions and not actual production? If anything it shows GMs fail to understand the importance of wings and continue to draft players of marginal value, further perpetuating the cycle of their teams sucking, which is the first place as to why they have high draft positions.

Incorrect. GM's understand that bigs are more impactful than wings. It's amusing that you think you understand the fundamentals of basketball better than the majority of GMs.

And yet every single example I gave showed an increase in PPG. No, I am not talking about efficiency, I am talking about scoring and strictly scoring. As for assists, those players did not have their assists affected in any significant ways.

Who cares about scoring without taking efficiency into consideration? If that's your argument, I concede the point.

Nash was the creator, Stoudemire was the recipient. So by that logic, MVPau should have averaged more with Kobe passing him the ball instead of Mike Miller, but it didn't. Not only that, ppg stayed pretty much the same when he was traded to the Knicks, injuries just finished him.

Once again, you're ignoring the role Gasol had on the Grizzlies compared to that on the Lakers.

Garnett had a whopping 1ppg increase not because he had better shots, he just shot more. In fact, his shooting percentage and assists dipped, which blew up your assertion that a player would pass more and have better percentage.

Wade numbers went way up after Shaq left and when he had the worst supporting cast ever.

What does Mutombo has to do with Iverson's scoring? iverson's scoring went up, along with TMac, Kobe, Carter and Pierce because the rules changed to disallow hand-checking. Look it up.

Argue them all you want. You asked for examples, and I gave you examples.

Of course I watched them, and they were feasting off the attention the defenders were giving Dwight, because Dwight was too athletic for the opposition to handle. Lewis was the only creator, Turkoglu and Nelson stunk.

:lol:lol:lol

So teams are just running complex plays for the hell of it.

You're forgetting how impactful hand-checking was. When it was disallowed, defenses had to evolve in order to compensate. But the fact that they evolved doesn't mean they're more effective.

Of course. You went on and on about the importance of having quality centers in today's games, but then suddenly, you talk about the importance of team defense, where you openly admitted that Kemp < Robinson as a defender, but the Sonics is better than the Spurs as a team. So what is the significance of talking about individual players? Shouldn't you be talking about team defense as well?

There is still a significant amount of single coverage in today's games.

Yeah, because even YOU admitted Knicks were better defensively than the Sonics. What other reason is there for Olajuwon suffering against the Sonics but not the Knicks, despite the Knicks being the better defensive team? Oh, right, Gary Payton, who was a PG and can double Hakeem easily because of the zone. Right ....

And the Rockets' perimeter shooters missing open shots against the Sonics. And the lack of a solid PF against the Sonics. I started watching that video you posted. Shawn Kemp was doing whatever he wanted against Chucky Brown.

They had a 33 year old Barkley and Hakeem averaged 22ppg that year, significantly less than the 27 ppg he averaged a year ago, so yeah, Hakeem would average less with better teammates in order to beat the zone, thank you.

Once again, you're making the foolish assumption that any zone played by any team would be as effective as that of the 1996 Sonics.

And teams with Duncan/Kawhi/Green, Lebron/Bosh/Wade, Millsap/Horford/Teague, Bogut/Thompson/Green, Dwight/Ariza/Smith, Noah/Gibson/Butler, Sanders/Greek Freak/Knight, Gasol/Conley/Allen, Davis/Osik/Ajinca/Holiday, Ibaka/Westbrook/Durant, Hibbert/George/Hill/West are not athletic enough to run those zones? Again, not saying they will be as effective as the 96 Sonics, but they can run the zone to limit even an all time great post player like Hakeem.

Nope. There's a reason that 3pt shooters are called "zone busters".

Yes, but an inside out 3 pter is easier to recover because the defenders are not moving towards the basket area.

No, b/c the help defender needs to turn around and accelerate to the 3 pt line. And keep in mind that when the defender turns around to face the perimeter, the ball has already been passed out of the post.

a) I think Anthony Davis could be as great as a David Robinson back in the 90s.
b) 24.5ppg is less than 28ppg
c) Ant's teammates suck. He takes on a lot more responsibilities on offense, inflating his numbers.

24.5ppg is less than 28 ppg, but peak Olajuwon is a superior player to current Anthony Davis.

d) Ant shoot a lot of long twos, which opens up the lanes for his drives. Hakeem's range was mostly up to 15, which doesn't give him the spacing.

His range was further than that. It was easily out to 18 feet. He perimeter ability would give him plenty of spacing.

djohn2oo8

02-06-2015, 06:45 PM

Yeah, Yao had trouble covering Okur and Boozer who both had jumpshots, and would have trouble with Hakeem's footwork.

ambchang

02-09-2015, 01:14 PM

I'm saying that it's a combination of the players the Sonics had, the Rockets poor perimeter shooting, and the Rockets' lack of a good pf.

So Hakeem would have to have great perimeter shooting and a PF of Barkley's caliber for him to be average vs. the Sonics, a Sonics team that has athletic players that are similar to today's players. And because of that PF, Hakeem would average 22ppg vs. his prime of 28ppg. And you are saying Hakeem would be more dominant?

And yes, your assumption is horrible. You simply can't assume that all teams can run a comparably effective zone. Did you watch the video you posted? Did you notice that Gary Payton was frequently the help defender doubling Olajuwon? Are you honestly saying that any point guard in the league would be able to apply a comparable defensive pressure as a prime Gary Payton?

Prime Payton was known for man to man defense, not off the ball help defense. So yes, many players in today's game can replicate what he did doubling a big man.

Again, I am not saying Hakeem would average 19ppg in today's game, I am saying he wouldn't average 28ppg.

And it's ridiculous that you attribute the Rockets' poor perimeter shooting to the zone defense. Watch the video. They get PLENTY of open looks. They just miss. And because they kept missing, that allowed the Sonics' defenders to hedge even further.

I don't agree, they missed because they were challenged on shots. Having players run at you full speed, even just a split second faster than what you are used to, will wreck havoc.

Cherry picking games doesn't prove anything.

I have picked a whole bunch of games. Look at the game logs and h2h games. I am not going to list all 82 games for multiple seasons, but the pattern is that Hakeem didn't magically score dramatically more points vs. weaker players. he scored about the same.

That was the first perimeter shot resulting from a double team on Olajuwon. There were plenty more throughout the game. Shooters miss open shots. It happens. It doesn't mean that the defense was good.

3 shooters don't miss open shots 4 games in a row for no reason. It's because of the defense and the rotations.

Imagine what you're saying. You're saying that Westbrook could double-team Olajuwon in the post, and when Olajuwon passes it out to Kenny Smith at the 3pt line, Westbrook would be able to turn his body around, race out to the 3pt line, and contest the shot......all before Kenny Smith can shoot the ball?

Sorry, no. That's not happening.

Not specific to Hakeem and Westbrook, but a general explanation of how today's defense would help bottle up a low post player.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/story/2012-01-17/zone-defense-has-found-its-place-in-the-nba/52657598/1

The next key to beating the zone in half-court sets is universal. Find a versatile player who can dribble, drive or shoot flashing to the middle of the foul line. That forces the zone to collapse on the ballhandler, opening options: an open shot or drive to the basket, shooters on the perimeter or post players down low.

LOL. I chose 2003 b/c that was the year of Duncan's most impressive championship.

Why did you do that? I know the title was Duncan vs. Hakeem, but I wasn't saying that Duncan wouldn't be affected in today's NBA. In fact, I think he wouldn't put up the stats he put up if his prime was 2013.

Yao Ming is much too slow to guard Olajuwon. Remember the difficulties Yao had guarding Carlos Boozer?

I remembered the trouble Rik Smits had guarding any one though.

No, but I'm looking at the net effect.

The net effect is that Laettner sucked.

It was a logical assumption b/c the thread is about prime Duncan and prime Olajuwon. Prime Duncan was ~2003.

see above.

Divac also played in the mid-90's. I left him out of the list b/c I considered him to be a clear drop-off from Rik Smits. So it's pretty telling that you included him in your list and I intentionally left him off mine. And Chris Webber was a PF. And you added Mourning, who missed the entire season.

It's like saying Robinson didn't play in the 90s because he missed 1997. Mourning played in the 00s, productive one at that. And no, I am not talking about 2003 in particular.

And no. 2003 Yao Ming was not better than 1995 Rik Smits. You're grasping at straws here. That was Yao's rookie year!

Again, not talking about 2003 in particular. not sure why you have this obsession. Yao, in general > Smits. And Yao didn't even play in today's game.

That's my point. Olajuwon runs back on transition offense. And if Shaq doesn't run back on transition defense, that translates into a lot of freebies for Olajuwon.

Then say he didn't run back on defense. Don't say he didn't run the floor.

Sure, it's a 2 way street, but a 1995 Olajuwon clearly has the net advantage against a prime Shaq.

Prime Shaq led the Lakers to a 3peat. I'd say that is mighty impressive. Shaq's prime would be equal to or greater than Hakeem's prime.

Go youtube some Rik Smits highlights. And then some Yao Ming highlights. The difference in their movement should be pretty clear.

Yeah, Yao was better.

htm7b_saqcs

Yao was an effective defender in the paint b/c of his size. But unlike most centers, Olajuwon could consistently hit the mid-range jumper. That's why Yao wouldn't be able to guard him.

Same would apply to Rik Smits.

No, Olajuwon wasn't finished in 1997. But he clearly wasn't in his prime. And isn't this thread about Olajuwon's prime?

It wasn't his prime because he had to share the paint with Barkley.

I don't photographic memory to refute you. Common sense will suffice. In that game, Olajuwon played 31 minutes. Rik Smits played 28 minutes. Antonio Davis played 26 minutes. Dale Davis played 28 minutes. Exactly how are you coming to the conclusion that Antonio Davis played notable minutes guarding Olajuwon?

They all played similar minutes?

Noah has a horrible jumper and no post game. He's an opportunistic scorer who gets points off offensive rebounds or having teammates set him up. Mutombo was also offensively limited, but he did have a reliable jump hook.

Mutombo had a great jumper and post game? Both of them were just as bad.

Actually, Gasol leads the team in fga with 13.9 per game. Conley and Randolph each average 13.5 fga, but Randolph averages 4.8 ft/game while Conley averages 3.8.

Yeah, still didn't change the fact that perimeter players are taking up more offensive responsibilities, even a team as post dominant as the Grizzlies.

And why are GM's enamored with bigs?

Because the GMs sucked and cause their teams to draft in high spots all the time? Never mind 8 of the 13 lottery picks in the 2014 draft were wing players, including the top 2.

Incorrect. GM's understand that bigs are more impactful than wings. It's amusing that you think you understand the fundamentals of basketball better than the majority of GMs.

And yet the bigs all sucked, the teams that drafted them suck, and that 8 of the last 13 lottery picks in the 2014 draft were wing players? If bigs were important, there would have been a few that made a difference. Problem is, almost all the MVP candidates are wings.

Who cares about scoring without taking efficiency into consideration? If that's your argument, I concede the point.

We are talking about players with worse supporting players put up bigger numbers, and I have shown they do.

Once again, you're ignoring the role Gasol had on the Grizzlies compared to that on the Lakers.

Didn't ignore it, but his numbers actually went DOWN when his teammates were better.

Argue them all you want. You asked for examples, and I gave you examples.

Except those aren't really examples of what I asked for.

:lol:lol:lol

You're forgetting how impactful hand-checking was. When it was disallowed, defenses had to evolve in order to compensate. But the fact that they evolved doesn't mean they're more effective.

I remembered, that's why perimeter players are taking on bigger roles because the absence of hand checking allowed the perimeter players to have free reign of the paint, which means that post players are now less critical to the success of the team as compared to the 90s.

And given that defenses have evolved to manage the disappearance of hand-checking, I'd say it's plenty effective.

There is still a significant amount of single coverage in today's games.

With zones being at any team's disposal.

And the Rockets' perimeter shooters missing open shots against the Sonics. And the lack of a solid PF against the Sonics. I started watching that video you posted. Shawn Kemp was doing whatever he wanted against Chucky Brown.

Yeah, because the Rockets didn't run a zone.

Once again, you're making the foolish assumption that any zone played by any team would be as effective as that of the 1996 Sonics.

I never said that, I am saying everything being equal, the same team having zone at their disposal would be more effective than the same team without zone at its disposal, especially when it comes to defending a dominant big like Hakeem.

Nope. There's a reason that 3pt shooters are called "zone busters".

Yeah, with the heavy use of drive and kick penetrators. See the article I linked above.

No, b/c the help defender needs to turn around and accelerate to the 3 pt line. And keep in mind that when the defender turns around to face the perimeter, the ball has already been passed out of the post.

No, defending a 3 pt shooter after doubling a low post scorer and shooting out is way quicker than challenging a 3 pt shooter after being sucked in by a dribble penetrator when all your momentum is carrying you towards the basket.

24.5ppg is less than 28 ppg, but peak Olajuwon is a superior player to current Anthony Davis.

Possibly, we'd never know despite Davis putting up one of the most statistically dominant seasons in the history of the league.

His range was further than that. It was easily out to 18 feet. He perimeter ability would give him plenty of spacing.

Even though it's only the last two seasons of his career, Hakeem only shot 16% of his shots from 16 feet and out, and only connecting on 37% of those shots. If I remember correctly, more of his shots were from outside as he got older, because he no longer had the same amount of quickness as he once did, which is similar to what Duncan has been doing the last few years.

Yeah, Yao had trouble covering Okur and Boozer who both had jumpshots, and would have trouble with Hakeem's footwork.

Again, Rik Smits.

djohn2oo8

02-09-2015, 01:37 PM

wekko368

02-09-2015, 02:52 PM

So Hakeem would have to have great perimeter shooting and a PF of Barkley's caliber for him to be average vs. the Sonics, a Sonics team that has athletic players that are similar to today's players. And because of that PF, Hakeem would average 22ppg vs. his prime of 28ppg. And you are saying Hakeem would be more dominant?

There's a huge difference between "great perimeter shooting" and what Elie/Cassell/K.Smith shot. There's also a huge difference between a 1997 Charles Barkley and a 1996 Chucky Brown.

In 1996 against Seattle, Elie shot 37.8% from the field and 40% from the 3pt line. K.Smith shot 33.3% and 34.8%. Cassell shot 24.3% and 33.3%

In 1997 against Seattle, Elie shot 46.8% and 46.2%. Matt Maloney shot 40.8% and 40.7%. It helps when your perimeter players make their shots.

Prime Payton was known for man to man defense, not off the ball help defense. So yes, many players in today's game can replicate what he did doubling a big man.

:lol:lol This is beyond stupid.

I don't agree, they missed because they were challenged on shots. Having players run at you full speed, even just a split second faster than what you are used to, will wreck havoc.

3 shooters don't miss open shots 4 games in a row for no reason. It's because of the defense and the rotations.

Then you're wrong. You're basically say that open shooters will always hit their shots. Unless you're have a very broad definition of a "challenged" shot, and that could very easily be the case. If I recall, you had a very broad definition of "double-team".

Not specific to Hakeem and Westbrook, but a general explanation of how today's defense would help bottle up a low post player.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/story/2012-01-17/zone-defense-has-found-its-place-in-the-nba/52657598/1

It's pretty clear you didn't read the article. It didn't give any explanation whatsoever as to how today's defense would help bottle up a low post player. However, it does say that "Good shooters can quickly get a team out of zone with three-pointers", and that's something I've been constantly repeating.

Why did you do that? I know the title was Duncan vs. Hakeem, but I wasn't saying that Duncan wouldn't be affected in today's NBA. In fact, I think he wouldn't put up the stats he put up if his prime was 2013.

I've already told you why I chose 2003. That was Duncan's most impressive championship, and one of the reasons I think Olajuwon would have success in this era is due to inferior competition. That's why I listed Duncan's contemporaries in 2003.

So if prime Duncan were playing today, you don't think he could replicate his 2003 stats? Why not? Zone was allowed in 2003. Why do you think his stats would suffer today?

I remembered the trouble Rik Smits had guarding any one though.

And Yao was much slower and clumsier than Smits. That's why a prime Olajuwon would abuse Yao.

The net effect is that Laettner sucked.

Yep, and he was still better than most of Duncan's 2003 contemporaries.

It's like saying Robinson didn't play in the 90s because he missed 1997. Mourning played in the 00s, productive one at that. And no, I am not talking about 2003 in particular.

Again, not talking about 2003 in particular. not sure why you have this obsession. Yao, in general > Smits. And Yao didn't even play in today's game.

Then what year are you talking about? This thread is about prime Duncan/Olajuwon. It doesn't make any sense to reference a time period in which neither of them are in their primes.

Then say he didn't run back on defense. Don't say he didn't run the floor.

Semantics.

Prime Shaq led the Lakers to a 3peat. I'd say that is mighty impressive. Shaq's prime would be equal to or greater than Hakeem's prime.

Agreed, but Olajuwon's peak was higher. Olajuwon from 1994-1995 was the best I've ever seen anyone play.

Yeah, Yao was better.

Yao may have been a better overall player than Rik Smits, but Smits would do a better job guarding Olajuwon (b/c Smits was more mobile and had better coordination). You can't make a compelling argument otherwise.

It wasn't his prime because he had to share the paint with Barkley.

You may consider 1997 to be Olajuwon's prime, but at that point, most Rockets fans considered him to be on his decline.

They all played similar minutes?

Use some common sense. You're trying to argue that Antonio Davis spent a lot of time guarding Olajuwon (in the game Olajuwon scored 6 pts). However, Rik Smits was the starting center, and he played 28 minutes. Olajuwon played 31 minutes. Even Dale Davis played 28 minutes.

Common sense should tell you that if Antonio Davis did guard Olajuwon, it wasn't long enough to justify this statement:

Explains why Hakeem averaged only 21ppg vs. Antonio Davis (only counting his Houston days), including 6 points in one game.

Mutombo had a great jumper and post game? Both of them were just as bad.

No one said Mutombo had a great jumper or post game. But he did have a reliable jump hook. And he's a better scoring threat than Noah.

Because the GMs sucked and cause their teams to draft in high spots all the time? Never mind 8 of the 13 lottery picks in the 2014 draft were wing players, including the top 2.

And yet the bigs all sucked, the teams that drafted them suck, and that 8 of the last 13 lottery picks in the 2014 draft were wing players?

Look at the pool of available centers in the 2014 draft. Embiid was taken #3 overall, and he had a stress fracture in his foot. The next center taken was at #16. Jusuf Nurkic from Croatia. After that? #43. Walter Tavares from Spain.

It's pretty clear that the reason so few centers were chosen was b/c there were so few available.

If bigs were important, there would have been a few that made a difference. Problem is, almost all the MVP candidates are wings.

Haven't we already established that this has been a poor era for centers? Even the "good" ones (i.e. Davis, Cousins, Drummond) are on weak teams and are still developing.

Also, you should note that the primary MVP candidates, Curry and Harden, both have centers who were #1 overall picks.

We are talking about players with worse supporting players put up bigger numbers, and I have shown they do.

That's b/c you intentionally ignore efficiency. You probably thought Kobe was having a great season before he got injured.

Didn't ignore it, but his numbers actually went DOWN when his teammates were better.

Yes, because his role changed. He went from a #1 option to a #2 option. Of course his stats went down. Why is that such a difficult concept for you to understand?

Except those aren't really examples of what I asked for.

Except they are.

I remembered, that's why perimeter players are taking on bigger roles because the absence of hand checking allowed the perimeter players to have free reign of the paint, which means that post players are now less critical to the success of the team as compared to the 90s.

And given that defenses have evolved to manage the disappearance of hand-checking, I'd say it's plenty effective.

With zones being at any team's disposal.

Yep, it's at their disposal. They just choose not to use it. And that should tell you all you need to know about the effectiveness of zone defense.

Yeah, because the Rockets didn't run a zone.

You think the reason Shawn Kemp had a good series against the Rockets in 1996 was b/c the Rockets didn't run a zone defense? You don't think it had anything to do with him being guarded by Chucky Brown? :lol:lol

I never said that, I am saying everything being equal, the same team having zone at their disposal would be more effective than the same team without zone at its disposal, especially when it comes to defending a dominant big like Hakeem.

Yes, and you're basing that opinion on the success the 1996 Sonics had against Olajuwon. What you continually fail to understand is that the Sonics' zone was effective due to their personnel.

Yeah, with the heavy use of drive and kick penetrators. See the article I linked above.

Use some common sense. The 1997 Rockets beat the Sonics' zone without using drive and kick penetrators. There's more than 1 way to generate open 3's.

No, defending a 3 pt shooter after doubling a low post scorer and shooting out is way quicker than challenging a 3 pt shooter after being sucked in by a dribble penetrator when all your momentum is carrying you towards the basket.

As usual, you're missing the point. It doesn't matter which way is quicker. What matters is that in both instances, the result is an open perimeter shot.

Possibly, we'd never know despite Davis putting up one of the most statistically dominant seasons in the history of the league.

You're actually saying that peak Olajuwon is not definitively better than current Anthony Davis? You're ridiculously full of shit.

Even though it's only the last two seasons of his career, Hakeem only shot 16% of his shots from 16 feet and out, and only connecting on 37% of those shots. If I remember correctly, more of his shots were from outside as he got older, because he no longer had the same amount of quickness as he once did, which is similar to what Duncan has been doing the last few years.

What cares what Olajuwon did in the last 2 seasons of his career? This thread is about his prime.

sook

02-09-2015, 09:28 PM

How the fuck do you guys have so much time on your hands? I wouldn't even care about winning an argument at this point.

Galileo

02-09-2015, 10:08 PM

As a huge Olajuwon fan who watched all his games for years, I needed a new star after Hakeem faded and turned to Tim Duncan. Both understated dominating big men. I thought Olajuwon was better than Jordan and at east equal to Wilt/Russell/Jabbar.

When Duncan came along, I thought he was equal to Olajuwon except for:

1) Duncan had a better outside shot, mostly because of the bank shot
2) Duncan got into foul trouble much less. Duncan rarely had to leave a game for fouls, Hakeem did.
3) Hakeem was better at steals, that's why he made more fouls.

Advantage Duncan because he lasted longer.

spurraider21

02-09-2015, 10:12 PM

How the fuck do you guys have so much time on your hands? I wouldn't even care about winning an argument at this point.
not everybody here is in grad school :lol

TDfan2007

02-09-2015, 11:24 PM

How the fuck do you guys have so much time on your hands? I wouldn't even care about winning an argument at this point.

:lol I'm thinking the same thing. Gotta hand it to amb. When he starts an argument, he's sure as hell going to try his best to finish it. The last few pages of this thread are about as close as you'll get to seeing a message board version of the unstoppable force-immovable object phenomenon.

TDfan2007

02-09-2015, 11:25 PM

not everybody here is in grad school :lol

I think we've passed grad school levels of time consumption. We're at "do these guys even have jobs?" levels now...

ambchang

02-10-2015, 09:54 AM

Lol usuing Rik Smits Yao analogy is laughable as to why you think Yao would slow down Hakeem. Two things. Yao being 7'6 was too slow and uncoordinated. He would have to come out to guard Hakeem's jumper. Too slow and advantage Hakeem. If Yao comes out to guard that, Hakeem drives right past him for two. And two, Yao would resort to taking charges against quicker opponents. A 7'6 NBA center should never resort to taking charges. They should be blocking shots which Yao never did on a consistent basis BECAUSE HE WAS TOO SLOW. Yao would also get out rebounded in crucial moments of the game.

And none of that would apply to Rik Smits? You talked about all the things Yao can't do (which I agree), but those are the same things Smits couldn't do, and yet he played Hakeem OK.

I know you all think every game Hakeem plays would be better than average, and that Hakeem beasts against everyone, but the fact his, he sometimes plays above average, some times average, and sometimes below average so that he arrives at the average.

Please refer to wiki for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean

ambchang

02-10-2015, 10:34 AM

There's a huge difference between "great perimeter shooting" and what Elie/Cassell/K.Smith shot. There's also a huge difference between a 1997 Charles Barkley and a 1996 Chuck Brown.
In 1996 against Seattle, Elie shot 37.8% from the field and 40% from the 3pt line. K.Smith shot 33.3% and 34.8%. Cassell shot 24.3% and 33.3%
In 1997 against Seattle, Elie shot 46.8% and 46.2%. Matt Maloney shot 40.8% and 40.7%. It helps when your perimeter players make their shots.
It helps when the opposition doesn’t play zone so that they can semi-double and still guard a 3 point shooter.
And this is DIRECTLY contradictory to what you said about players putting up better stats with better teammates, unless you think Chucky Brown > Barkley. Hakeem’s got a great teammate with Barkley in 1997, he should be beasting and put up 35ppg vs. the 27ppg he put up the previous year, but no, his averaged dropped to 22/23 ppg.

:lol:lol This is beyond stupid.
No it’s not. Payton was a great individual defensive player, I never say him as so great a help defender in the low post that nobody would be able to replicate what he does in a zone defense.

Then you're wrong. You're basically say that open shooters will always hit their shots. Unless you're have a very broad definition of a "challenged" shot, and that could very easily be the case. If I recall, you had a very broad definition of "double-team".
No I didn’t. I am saying that given enough opportunities over a period, enough 3 pt shooters will hit their average amount of shots. Those shots were challenged.

It's pretty clear you didn't read the article. It didn't give any explanation whatsoever as to how today's defense would help bottle up a low post player. However, it does say that "Good shooters can quickly get a team out of zone with three-pointers", and that's something I've been constantly repeating.
Yes, the article did say that, but it was specifically talking about how this is based on a drive and kick offense. It never talked about an inside out offense. Which is my point.
[QUOTE=wekko368;7823158]I've already told you why I chose 2003. That was Duncan's most impressive championship, and one of the reasons I think Olajuwon would have success in this era is due to inferior competition. That's why I listed Duncan's contemporaries in 2003.
I said in today’s game, not in Duncan’s prime.

So if prime Duncan were playing today, you don't think he could replicate his 2003 stats? Why not? Zone was allowed in 2003. Why do you think his stats would suffer today?
I don’t actually, he would be more of a passer and facilitator (like what he is doing, well, today). Duncan will likely not average 25 ppg because not every possession is a 4-down.

And Yao was much slower and clumsier than Smits. That's why a prime Olajuwon would abuse Yao.
No he wasn’t. Smits was plenty awkward and clumsy.

Yep, and he was still better than most of Duncan's 2003 contemporaries.
No he’s not.

Then what year are you talking about? This thread is about prime Duncan/Olajuwon. It doesn't make any sense to reference a time period in which neither of them are in their primes.
It makes sense, because this is an open forum. The conversation evolves after some 800 posts. That’s why you are now talking about Smits vs. Yao. Oh great priest of the Church of Olajuwon, may I request your permission to talk about a time period that is not defined by you oh great one.

Semantics.
Sure, which caused confusion.

Agreed, but Olajuwon's peak was higher. Olajuwon from 1994-1995 was the best I've ever seen anyone play.
I had doubts whether you are biased, then you removed all doubt. I can’t force you to see or not see certain things, but prime Shaq, prime Jordan, prime Bird, prime Wilt, prime Jabbar, and prime Lebron were all up there. Hakeem’s prime was great, but I wouldn’t take it over Bird, Jordan, Bird, Wilt or Jabbar, and it’s a toss up with Shaq and Lebron.

Yao may have been a better overall player than Rik Smits, but Smits would do a better job guarding Olajuwon (b/c Smits was more mobile and had better coordination). You can't make a compelling argument otherwise.
Yet this didn’t matter when you are talking about Laettner. I would say Laettner is a better overall player than Joel Przybilla, but the white gorilla would guard Hakeem better.
And even then, I won’t agree that Smits would guard Hakeem better. Mark Eaton would be another example, big slow guy who didn’t necessarily made Hakeem suffer, but held him to season averages.

You may consider 1997 to be Olajuwon's prime, but at that point, most Rockets fans considered him to be on his decline.
Yeah, because he had a better low post scoring teammate who took shots away from him.

Use some common sense. You're trying to argue that Antonio Davis spent a lot of time guarding Olajuwon (in the game Olajuwon scored 6 pts). However, Rik Smits was the starting center, and he played 28 minutes. Olajuwon played 31 minutes. Even Dale Davis played 28 minutes.
Just like how Horry would guard Duncan, or how Malik Rose would guard Shaq. It’s just matchups.

Common sense should tell you that if Antonio Davis did guard Olajuwon, it wasn't long enough to justify this statement:
I disagree.

No one said Mutombo had a great jumper or post game. But he did have a reliable jump hook. And he's a better scoring threat than Noah.
No he’s not.
Mutombo career 11.5 points/36, peak 15.6
Noah career 11.8 points/36, peak 12.9
Not to mention Mutombo plays in a way faster pace with the Nuggets. In terms of Ortg, Mutombo 111, Noah 113.

Look at the pool of available centers in the 2014 draft. Embiid was taken #3 overall, and he had a stress fracture in his foot. The next center taken was at #16. Jusuf Nurkic from Croatia. After that? #43. Walter Tavares from Spain.
It's pretty clear that the reason so few centers were chosen was b/c there were so few available.
Yeah, and they stunk. Which has been verified since.

Haven't we already established that this has been a poor era for centers? Even the "good" ones (i.e. Davis, Cousins, Drummond) are on weak teams and are still developing.
Those teams are bad despite having this huge advantage at center over other teams because centers just aren’t as important as the 90s. Look at the 90s, every single team with a great center was successful. Look at now, it’s no longer the case, and this shows you that centers just are not as important as they once were.
Even if you go with the “today’s centers are not as great” storyline, the difference between the good centers and the bad centers are relatively comparable.

Also, you should note that the primary MVP candidates, Curry and Harden, both have centers who were #1 overall picks.
And both centers have been massive disappointments based on hype. They fill out their roles nicely, and I love Bogut, but they are defensive cogs and pick setters. Conclusion, centers are just not that important in today’s game anymore.

That's b/c you intentionally ignore efficiency. You probably thought Kobe was having a great season before he got injured.
No I don’t. I wouldn’t consider James Donaldson to be better than Hakeem.

Yes, because his role changed. He went from a #1 option to a #2 option. Of course his stats went down. Why is that such a difficult concept for you to understand?
Very difficult, because he got better teammates, his FGA remains similar, and his usage rate was similar, and yet his stats dropped.

Except they are.
I asked for evidence of players getting stats with better teammates, none of the ones you showed was true. Unless, of course, you want to talk about Chucky Brown and Barkley.

Yep, it's at their disposal. They just choose not to use it. And that should tell you all you need to know about the effectiveness of zone defense.
They don’t have to. Zone is a great way to trap dominant low post players. Hakeem’s retired now, and we both know that Hakeem is the greatest low post player of all time, whose skills can warp mathematical definitions, and even time-space continuum.

You think the reason Shawn Kemp had a good series against the Rockets in 1996 was b/c the Rockets didn't run a zone defense? You don't think it had anything to do with him being guarded by Chucky Brown? :lol:lol
Chuck Brown would have done a better job with a zone.

Yes, and you're basing that opinion on the success the 1996 Sonics had against Olajuwon. What you continually fail to understand is that the Sonics' zone was effective due to their personnel.
Of course, the same personnel that are available in many of today’s teams, especially the contenders.
GSW, SAS, CHI, OKC, HOU, ATL, WAS, MIL, MEM, POR, DAL, and NOP all have the personnel to run an effective zone.

Use some common sense. The 1997 Rockets beat the Sonics' zone without using drive and kick penetrators. There's more than 1 way to generate open 3's.
Because the Rockets didn’t use a zone, and Seattle only averaged 22 3pa a game (compared to 29.5 for the Rockets). And no, Sonics used a LOT of drive and kick.

As usual, you're missing the point. It doesn't matter which way is quicker. What matters is that in both instances, the result is an open perimeter shot.
It matters a LOT who his quicker. The quicker one gets back to challenge an open 3 pter more effective.

You're actually saying that peak Olajuwon is not definitively better than current Anthony Davis? You're ridiculously full of shit.
I don’t know, I can’t tell. Given the same circumstances, I actually am not entirely sure.

What cares what Olajuwon did in the last 2 seasons of his career? This thread is about his prime.
Yeah, but it’s an indication of how he normally shoots long range jumpers. While he is adequate, he is not great at it (I know I know, you have to accept Hakeem is not the best at EVERYTHING he does, tough concept, but give it a try).

wekko368

02-10-2015, 01:22 PM

It helps when the opposition doesn’t play zone so that they can semi-double and still guard a 3 point shooter.
And this is DIRECTLY contradictory to what you said about players putting up better stats with better teammates, unless you think Chucky Brown > Barkley. Hakeem’s got a great teammate with Barkley in 1997, he should be beasting and put up 35ppg vs. the 27ppg he put up the previous year, but no, his averaged dropped to 22/23 ppg.

You only think that b/c you're intentionally ignoring crucial parts of my argument. Remember what I said about a player's role? If Olajuwon averaged X alongside Chucky Brown, then of course he's going to average less alongside Charles Barkley? Why? Because Charles Barkley has a much larger role in the offense than Chucky Brown. And that will negatively impact Olajuwon.

Why are you having so much trouble grasping this very simple concept?

No it’s not. Payton was a great individual defensive player, I never say him as so great a help defender in the low post that nobody would be able to replicate what he does in a zone defense.

It's irritating how you're changing your argument. There's a difference between:

"he's wasn't so good that nobody could replicate his effectiveness"

and

"many players could replicate his effectiveness".

And yes, it's a stupid statement. You're basically saying that tons of current guards have Payton's defensive instincts and ability. Also, how can someone be a great individual defender but not a great help defender? It's the same concept.

No I didn’t. I am saying that given enough opportunities over a period, enough 3 pt shooters will hit their average amount of shots. Those shots were challenged.

It's ridiculous that you're talking about "enough opportunities" and "averages" when your entire argument is based on a 4 game sample.

Yes, the article did say that, but it was specifically talking about how this is based on a drive and kick offense. It never talked about an inside out offense. Which is my point.

So an article about drive/kick offenses didn't talk about an inside-out offense?

:wow:wow:wow

I said in today’s game, not in Duncan’s prime.

Then you're in the wrong thread.

I don’t actually, he would be more of a passer and facilitator (like what he is doing, well, today). Duncan will likely not average 25 ppg because not every possession is a 4-down.

Are you aware that there are other ways to generate stats besides points? Ever heard of "assists"?

No he wasn’t. Smits was plenty awkward and clumsy.

You're so full of shit. Go watch some Rik Smits highlights. Then go watch some Yao highlights. If don't think Smits was noticeably faster and better coordinated, watch them again. And again. For however long it takes. Until your mind finally accepts what you're eyes are seeing.

It makes sense, because this is an open forum. The conversation evolves after some 800 posts. That’s why you are now talking about Smits vs. Yao. Oh great priest of the Church of Olajuwon, may I request your permission to talk about a time period that is not defined by you oh great one.

Smits/Yao is still relevant to Olajuwon/Duncan. Smits/Olajuwon played in the same era. Yao/Duncan played in the same era. We were talking about the quality of Olajuwon/Duncan's contemporaries and how it contributed to their stats.

I had doubts whether you are biased, then you removed all doubt. I can’t force you to see or not see certain things, but prime Shaq, prime Jordan, prime Bird, prime Wilt, prime Jabbar, and prime Lebron were all up there. Hakeem’s prime was great, but I wouldn’t take it over Bird, Jordan, Bird, Wilt or Jabbar, and it’s a toss up with Shaq and Lebron.

How many players have won the MVP, DPOY, and FMVP in the same season?

Yet this didn’t matter when you are talking about Laettner. I would say Laettner is a better overall player than Joel Przybilla, but the white gorilla would guard Hakeem better.

Based on what? I said Smits would do a better job guarding Olajuwon than Yao b/c Smits had greater mobility and coordination. Why do you think Przybilla would do a better job than Laettner?

And even then, I won’t agree that Smits would guard Hakeem better. Mark Eaton would be another example, big slow guy who didn’t necessarily made Hakeem suffer, but held him to season averages.

Are you aware that when Olajuwon came into the league, he was incredibly raw? There's a big difference between a late-80's (when Eaton was at his peak) Olajuwon and a 1993-95 Olajuwon.

Just like how Horry would guard Duncan, or how Malik Rose would guard Shaq. It’s just matchups.

Of course Horry guarded Duncan. They were both starters for their respective teams, and they both played PF.

In the game you referenced (when Olajuwon scored 6 pts), Olajuwon started and played 31 minutes. Smits started and played 28 minutes. Dale Davis started and played 28 minutes at PF. Antonio Davis came off the bench. And you've been trying to argue that Antonio Davis held Olajuwon to 6 pts.

You're full of shit.

I disagree.

And as usual, you'd be wrong.

No he’s not.
Mutombo career 11.5 points/36, peak 15.6
Noah career 11.8 points/36, peak 12.9
Not to mention Mutombo plays in a way faster pace with the Nuggets. In terms of Ortg, Mutombo 111, Noah 113.

LOL. You're trying to use stats to determine which player has a better offensive repertoire?

This season, Dwight Howard is averaging 16.3 ppg. Donatas Motiejunas is averaging 11.6 ppg. That doesn't change the fact that Motiejunas has a better offensive repertoire than Howard.

Yeah, and they stunk. Which has been verified since.

Which is irrelevant to the point.

Those teams are bad despite having this huge advantage at center over other teams because centers just aren’t as important as the 90s.

Absolutely wrong. Like I said, there's a reason GM's keep using high draft picks to draft centers who have potential.

You've yet find a reasonable way to rationalize this. Saying the GM's are all "stupid" doesn't work.

Look at the 90s, every single team with a great center was successful. Look at now, it’s no longer the case, and this shows you that centers just are not as important as they once were.

Really? Didn't the Spurs just win a title with Duncan?

Right now, Atlanta has the 2nd best record in the league. Al Horford is their starting center. Washington has Nene/Gortat. Chicago has Noah/Gasol. Those are 3 of the top 4 teams in the east.

In the west, Memphis is the #2 seed. Marc Gasol. The Rockets have Dwight. Portland has Aldridge (I know he's listed at PF, but he's 6'11 and plays in the post. Same difference). Those are 3 of the top 4 teams in the west.

And both centers have been massive disappointments based on hype. They fill out their roles nicely, and I love Bogut, but they are defensive cogs and pick setters. Conclusion, centers are just not that important in today’s game anymore.

Absolutely wrong. Teams have to run their offense based on their personnel. Teams with good post players feature those players. Also, if you watched the Rockets, you'd see that Motiejunas' role in the offense is increasing due to his post game.

No I don’t. I wouldn’t consider James Donaldson to be better than Hakeem.

Yeah, you do. That's why you were looking only at ppg while ignoring efficiency.

Very difficult, because he got better teammates, his FGA remains similar, and his usage rate was similar, and yet his stats dropped.

In his last full season with Memphis, Pau Gasol averaged 14.5 FGA and 6.8 FTA. In his first full season with the Lakers, he averaged 12.9 FGA and 5.5 FTA.

So yes, his stats dropped b/c he had fewer scoring opportunities.

In other news, water is wet, the sky is blue, and you're full of shit.

I asked for evidence of players getting stats with better teammates, none of the ones you showed was true. Unless, of course, you want to talk about Chucky Brown and Barkley.

I gave you multiple examples of players whose stats increased once they got better teammates.

"I think the most obvious example would be Amare Stoudemire after the Suns got Steve Nash. His scoring went from 20.6 to 26. Garnett's scoring went from 23 ppg to 24 ppg (career high) after the Timberwolves acquired Cassell and Sprewell and lost Szczerbiak. Wade's numbers went up after the Heat acquired Shaq. Iverson scored more after the 76ers acquired Mutombo."

You tried to discredit them using trivial arguments, but the fact remains that each of these examples fits your parameters. Do you remember your arguments? Here's a gem:

Nash was the creator, Stoudemire was the recipient. So by that logic, MVPau should have averaged more with Kobe passing him the ball instead of Mike Miller, but it didn't.

You're actually trying to liken the passing game of Steve Nash to Kobe Bryant.

:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol

:lol:lol:lol

You're full of shit.

They don’t have to. Zone is a great way to trap dominant low post players. Hakeem’s retired now, and we both know that Hakeem is the greatest low post player of all time, whose skills can warp mathematical definitions, and even time-space continuum.

Which leads to perimeter, zone-busting 3's. Which leads to the end of zone.

Of course, the same personnel that are available in many of today’s teams, especially the contenders.
GSW, SAS, CHI, OKC, HOU, ATL, WAS, MIL, MEM, POR, DAL, and NOP all have the personnel to run an effective zone.

Sure, some of those teams can run an effective zone. But that doesn't change the fact that zone defenses lead to open 3's, and this era emphasizes 3 point shooting. That's why you don't see zones played more often.

Because the Rockets didn’t use a zone, and Seattle only averaged 22 3pa a game (compared to 29.5 for the Rockets). And no, Sonics used a LOT of drive and kick.

I said the Rockets beat the Sonics' zone without using drive/kick. I'm talking about the Rockets' offense.

It matters a LOT who his quicker. The quicker one gets back to challenge an open 3 pter more effective.

Wrong again. If the end result is an open perimeter shot, it doesn't matter which is quicker.

I don’t know, I can’t tell. Given the same circumstances, I actually am not entirely sure.

You're basically saying that right now, Anthony Davis is playing GOAT level basketball....which has translated into a 27-25 record. :rolleyes:rolleyes

djohn2oo8

02-10-2015, 03:13 PM

Rik Smits was faster and more agile than Yao. Even still, the argument that because Smits did well against Hakeem doesn't mean Yao would. Remember the Stephon Marbury crossover on Yao? Hakeem had handles like that.

ambchang

02-11-2015, 02:51 PM

You only think that b/c you're intentionally ignoring crucial parts of my argument. Remember what I said about a player's role? If Olajuwon averaged X alongside Chucky Brown, then of course he's going to average less alongside Charles Barkley? Why? Because Charles Barkley has a much larger role in the offense than Chucky Brown. And that will negatively impact Olajuwon.
Why are you having so much trouble grasping this very simple concept?
Because you keep on contradicting yourself.
Skilled low post player will dominate today’s game – MVPau scored less than Dwight
MVPau had horrible teammates – He scored less with better teammates
MVPau was the second option with the Lakers, that’s why he scored less – Hakeem scored less with Barkley instead of Chucky Brown
Barkley has a larger role in the offense than Chucky Brown.
So now what? Are you saying the Don Nelsons and Hedo Turkoglus have a smaller offensive role than the Mike Millers and the Shane Battiers, or are you saying Olajuwon was the 2nd option behind Barkley with the Rockets?
Complete this sentence for me: Better teammates will lead to more/less scoring for the lead scorer of the team.

It's irritating how you're changing your argument. There's a difference between:
"he's wasn't so good that nobody could replicate his effectiveness"
and
"many players could replicate his effectiveness".
And yes, it's a stupid statement. You're basically saying that tons of current guards have Payton's defensive instincts and ability. Also, how can someone be a great individual defender but not a great help defender? It's the same concept.
Quite a few players can replicate’s Payton’s ability to double the post. He was great 1 on 1, not one of a kind good doubling the post. And no, defending one on one and being a great help defender are two completely separate concepts. It’s like saying great at scoring means you are a great passer.

It's ridiculous that you're talking about "enough opportunities" and "averages" when your entire argument is based on a 4 game sample.

It is way larger than a zero game sample though. But sure, in the 10 regular season games Hakeem played Seattle in the 94, 95, and 96 seasons (generally considered his prime), he average 26 ppg, 9.5 reb (2.3 oreb) and 3.2 asts in 41.6 minutes per game, great by anyone’s standards, just that in those three years, Hakeem averaged 27.3/11.2(2.6) and 3.7 against every other team in 39.9 minutes a game. Less production in more minutes, looks pretty effective to me.

So an article about drive/kick offenses didn't talk about an inside-out offense?
:wow:wow:wow
As in Hakeem’s low post inside out? No. Or are you now saying Hakeem was driving and kicking like Steve Nash does. Wait, he was better than Steve Nash in that now, was he?

Then you're in the wrong thread.
Then why would you talk about how Olajuwon would play in 2003? It has nothing to do with h2h with Duncan, either. Either you admit you are posting in the wrong thread, or shut up about it.

Are you aware that there are other ways to generate stats besides points? Ever heard of "assists"?
I would never had heard of assists if it wasn’t for the great follower of Hakeem’s. What is it? Is it some sort of magical wand Hakeem used to zap his non-believers into oblivion? That said, I saw something called “AST” in the series against the Sonics, and Hakeem averaged 4.25 of them, which about 1 more than his season average. I don’t know what it is, but I hope that increase is enough to offset his 8 points per game drop.

You're so full of shit. Go watch some Rik Smits highlights. Then go watch some Yao highlights. If don't think Smits was noticeably faster and better coordinated, watch them again. And again. For however long it takes. Until your mind finally accepts what you're eyes are seeing.
So your solution is for me to brainwash myself until I agree with you? Great strategy. Has the church of Hakeem officially evolved into a cult? Do I have to donate all my possessions to the church of Hakeem to prove I am a believer?

Smits/Yao is still relevant to Olajuwon/Duncan. Smits/Olajuwon played in the same era. Yao/Duncan played in the same era. We were talking about the quality of Olajuwon/Duncan's contemporaries and how it contributed to their stats.
And me talking about Hakeem in today’s game, but not particularly Duncan’s prime is irrelevant? Duncan’s playing in today’s game, he had a prime, we are talking about Hakeem. Seems relevant to me.

How many players have won the MVP, DPOY, and FMVP in the same season? You can find some award/stats to validate any of the players I mentioned above.

Based on what? I said Smits would do a better job guarding Olajuwon than Yao b/c Smits had greater mobility and coordination. Why do you think Przybilla would do a better job than Laettner?
Because Pryzbilla is a better defender than Laettner?
Nate Robinson is plenty coordinated, I can see him limiting Hakeem to 12ppg on 38% shooting.

Are you aware that when Olajuwon came into the league, he was incredibly raw? There's a big difference between a late-80's (when Eaton was at his peak) Olajuwon and a 1993-95 Olajuwon.
So raw that he 30 a game in the playoffs? And I am comparing raw Hakeem to raw Hakeem. Same consistent method.

Of course Horry guarded Duncan. They were both starters for their respective teams, and they both played PF.
In the game you referenced (when Olajuwon scored 6 pts), Olajuwon started and played 31 minutes. Smits started and played 28 minutes. Dale Davis started and played 28 minutes at PF. Antonio Davis came off the bench. And you've been trying to argue that Antonio Davis held Olajuwon to 6 pts.
You're full of shit.

No, I am saying Antonio Davis could guard Hakeem. Of course, you are saying a big slow guy like Smits can limit Hakeem to 6 points while Yao would let Hakeeem go off for half a million.

And as usual, you'd be wrong.
You are wrong. About as convincing as you.

LOL. You're trying to use stats to determine which player has a better offensive repertoire?
This season, Dwight Howard is averaging 16.3 ppg. Donatas Motiejunas is averaging 11.6 ppg. That doesn't change the fact that Motiejunas has a better offensive repertoire than Howard.
I am using stats to show who is the more effective scorer and who I would give the ball to to score if I need 2 points. Noah is no worse than Mutombo.

Which is irrelevant to the point.
Highly relevant, because the point is whether centers are important in today’s game, not whether bad GMs think centers are relevant to today’s game.

Absolutely wrong. Like I said, there's a reason GM's keep using high draft picks to draft centers who have potential.
You've yet find a reasonable way to rationalize this. Saying the GM's are all "stupid" doesn't work.
Why not? You are talking about GMs that led their teams to the lottery year after year after year, and you are using them as the standard of how a team should be constructed? Besides, your use of high draft picks makes zero sense, players make a difference when they play, not where they are drafted.

Really? Didn't the Spurs just win a title with Duncan?

Right now, Atlanta has the 2nd best record in the league. Al Horford is their starting center. Washington has Nene/Gortat. Chicago has Noah/Gasol. Those are 3 of the top 4 teams in the east.

In the west, Memphis is the #2 seed. Marc Gasol. The Rockets have Dwight. Portland has Aldridge (I know he's listed at PF, but he's 6'11 and plays in the post. Same difference). Those are 3 of the top 4 teams in the west.
And you think the Spurs, Hawks, Wizards, Bulls, Grizzlies, Rockets and Blazers used their bigs to the extent of what the 90s Rockets, Spurs, Knicks, Pacers, Magic and Cavs used theirs?

Absolutely wrong. Teams have to run their offense based on their personnel. Teams with good post players feature those players. Also, if you watched the Rockets, you'd see that Motiejunas' role in the offense is increasing due to his post game.
And yet in a world of 7 billion people, with the increase in popularity of basketball around the world, and with much better scouting and development, there isn’t one single post player in today’s game that is comparable to Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, or even Shaq in today’s game. The reason isn’t that those players don’t exist anymore, is because their roles have diminished.

Yeah, you do. That's why you were looking only at ppg while ignoring efficiency.
You love to tell me what I do and what I don’t do. Just a reminder, you do not have the same power to govern me like Hakeem does to you.

In his last full season with Memphis, Pau Gasol averaged 14.5 FGA and 6.8 FTA. In his first full season with the Lakers, he averaged 12.9 FGA and 5.5 FTA.

Why do you like to cherry pick?
Gasol at Memphis – 13, 13.6, 13.4, 12.4, 14.9, 14.5 FGA
Gaso at Lakers – 12.9, 13, 13.7, 14.1, 11.8, 14.8 FGA
Seems pretty even to me (outside of his injury riddled 12/13 season.

So yes, his stats dropped b/c he had fewer scoring opportunities.
In other news, water is wet, the sky is blue, and you're full of shit.
Yes, despite better teammates. Just like how having Barkley limited Hakeem’s FGA.

I gave you multiple examples of players whose stats increased once they got better teammates.

"I think the most obvious example would be Amare Stoudemire after the Suns got Steve Nash. His scoring went from 20.6 to 26. Garnett's scoring went from 23 ppg to 24 ppg (career high) after the Timberwolves acquired Cassell and Sprewell and lost Szczerbiak. Wade's numbers went up after the Heat acquired Shaq. Iverson scored more after the 76ers acquired Mutombo."

No, Stoudemire got Steve Nash to create for him. Wade’s number jumped the most when he had the worst teammates in his career. Garnett is the only example, and his ppg went up by 1ppg.

You tried to discredit them using trivial arguments, but the fact remains that each of these examples fits your parameters. Do you remember your arguments? Here's a gem:
You're actually trying to liken the passing game of Steve Nash to Kobe Bryant.
:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol
:lol:lol:lol
You're full of shit.
No I didn’t. You are just too stupid to understand. I used Kobe vs. Miller to make fun or you, and yet you have to have me write it out to understand it. Actually, I can’t even say you’d understand it.

Which leads to perimeter, zone-busting 3's. Which leads to the end of zone.
The end of zone? NBA 3 pt shooting is at an all time high, and zone defenses are used every game.

Sure, some of those teams can run an effective zone. But that doesn't change the fact that zone defenses lead to open 3's, and this era emphasizes 3 point shooting. That's why you don't see zones played more often.
http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/story/2012-01-17/zone-defense-has-found-its-place-in-the-nba/52657598/1
A team playing zone 10% of the time is a hell lot more than 0% of the time.

I said the Rockets beat the Sonics' zone without using drive/kick. I'm talking about the Rockets' offense.
Is that why the Rockets shot 25.7 3PA in 1997 vs. 29.5 in 1996?

Wrong again. If the end result is an open perimeter shot, it doesn't matter which is quicker.
Because a quicker shot is a more open one. It matters a whole lot. If your shot allows a split second more for the defense to close it, a defender can challenge a shot much more effectively. Even a Rockets fan know that.

You're basically saying that right now, Anthony Davis is playing GOAT level basketball....which has translated into a 27-25 record. :rolleyes:rolleyes
Yeah, because bigs just aren’t that important in today’s game. And you are confusing individual brilliance with team suspect. Though these two are related, the play of teammates and the makeup of teams is much more important. The Pelicans have bad supporting players, and their coach is horrible, so the fact that they are above .500 is a miracle in itself.

ambchang

02-11-2015, 02:52 PM

wekko368

02-12-2015, 12:50 AM

Complete this sentence for me: Better teammates will lead to more/less scoring for the lead scorer of the team.

This is an excellent question b/c it shows your fundamental ignorance of the topic at hand.

You fail to realize that there are different calibers of "better teammates".

If you replace 1996 Chucky Brown with Otis Thorpe, I can see Olajuwon's stats improving. However, if you replace Chucky Brown with Charles Barkley, Olajuwon's stats will drop. Both Barkley and Thorpe are upgrades over Chucky Brown, but Thorpe isn't good enough to negatively impact Olajuwon's role. Barkley is.

Quite a few players can replicate’s Payton’s ability to double the post. He was great 1 on 1, not one of a kind good doubling the post. And no, defending one on one and being a great help defender are two completely separate concepts. It’s like saying great at scoring means you are a great passer.

No they aren't. When Olajuwon would have the ball in the post, Payton would double team him. And obviously, he'd use his man-to-man defensive skills in that situation. Honestly, it sounds like you're unfamiliar with how a double-team works.

It is way larger than a zero game sample though. But sure, in the 10 regular season games Hakeem played Seattle in the 94, 95, and 96 seasons (generally considered his prime), he average 26 ppg, 9.5 reb (2.3 oreb) and 3.2 asts in 41.6 minutes per game, great by anyone’s standards, just that in those three years, Hakeem averaged 27.3/11.2(2.6) and 3.7 against every other team in 39.9 minutes a game. Less production in more minutes, looks pretty effective to me.

Less production? Seriously? A decline of 1.3 points? A decline of 1.7 rebounds? A decline of 0.5 assists per game? Seriously? That's what you're using to prove that a zone defense was effective against him? Minor decreases from his elite averages? Seriously? And not just that, you're using that to prove that ANY TEAM's zone defense would be effective against him?

I can't argue with you anymore. You win. You may be dumber than a bag of rocks, but you're the most resilient poster I've ever encountered.

ambchang

02-12-2015, 09:47 AM

This is an excellent question b/c it shows your fundamental ignorance of the topic at hand.

You fail to realize that there are different calibers of "better teammates".

If you replace 1996 Chucky Brown with Otis Thorpe, I can see Olajuwon's stats improving. However, if you replace Chucky Brown with Charles Barkley, Olajuwon's stats will drop. Both Barkley and Thorpe are upgrades over Chucky Brown, but Thorpe isn't good enough to negatively impact Olajuwon's role. Barkley is.

And yet Hakeem averaged 27.3 ppg with Thorpe playing next to him, but 27.8 and 26.9 the next two seasons with Chucky Brown playing next to him.

Thorpe played his last game with the Rockets Feb 8, 1995, Chucky Brown started getting significant minutes Feb 14, 1995.
Prior to the Thorpe trade, Hakeem was averaging 28.1 on 50.4% shooting and 3.4 assists.
During the time when Thorpe was traded and before Brown got any meaningful minutes (2 games only), Hakeem averaged 30 on 68% shooting and 4 assists.
After Brown started to get significant minutes, Hakeem averaged 27.3 on 53% shooting and 3.7 assists.

The difference in that 0.8 points was due to a drop from 21.8FGA to 21.0 FGA, which was attributed more towards the addition of Clyde (see better teammates lead to less shots, and thus points), and his efficiency actually went up.

No they aren't. When Olajuwon would have the ball in the post, Payton would double team him. And obviously, he'd use his man-to-man defensive skills in that situation. Honestly, it sounds like you're unfamiliar with how a double-team works.
Accurately reading a double team and playing man to man defense are two different things. You are now talking about Payton's low post defense vs. perimeter defense, which is an even bigger difference. Bird was actually a decent help defender, but he was horrible on man to man. Athleticism plays a much bigger role in man to man, but anticipation is more important in help defense. In fact, the entire concept of zone defense is to hide weak man to man defenders with using multiple people to rotate and utilize help defense.

Less production? Seriously? A decline of 1.3 points? A decline of 1.7 rebounds? A decline of 0.5 assists per game? Seriously? That's what you're using to prove that a zone defense was effective against him? Minor decreases from his elite averages? Seriously? And not just that, you're using that to prove that ANY TEAM's zone defense would be effective against him?

I can't argue with you anymore. You win. You may be dumber than a bag of rocks, but you're the most resilient poster I've ever encountered.

5% decline in ppg, 15% decline in rebounds, and another 15% in assists is not important. Got you.

wekko368

02-12-2015, 10:05 AM

The difference in that 0.8 points was due to a drop from 21.8FGA to 21.0 FGA, which was attributed more towards the addition of Clyde (see better teammates lead to less shots, and thus points), and his efficiency actually went up.

So I point out that your simplistic arguments don't consider important factors such as players' roles.

And you counter with an argument that doesn't consider consider a player's role (the offensive role of Thorpe vs Drexler).

Sounds about right.

Accurately reading a double team and playing man to man defense are two different things. You are now talking about Payton's low post defense vs. perimeter defense, which is an even bigger difference. Bird was actually a decent help defender, but he was horrible on man to man. Athleticism plays a much bigger role in man to man, but anticipation is more important in help defense. In fact, the entire concept of zone defense is to hide weak man to man defenders with using multiple people to rotate and utilize help defense.

No, I'm not. I'm talking about his help defense. I've been talking about his help defense. Since words don't seem to convey the message, here's a picture (there's a Sonics' player behind Olajuwon and Payton is in front of him):

http://i871.photobucket.com/albums/ab277/wekko3141/payton.jpg

You're telling me that in the above picture, the help defender's (Gary Payton) man-to-man defensive ability doesn't matter?

5% decline in ppg, 15% decline in rebounds, and another 15% in assists is not important. Got you.

Which translates into a decline of 1.3 points, a decline of 1.7 rebounds, and a decline of 0.5 assist. If you're going to quibble over those drops, then you've already lost.

Fortune Cookie

02-12-2015, 11:09 AM

I can't argue with you anymore. You win. You may be dumber than a bag of rocks, but you're the most resilient poster I've ever encountered.

http://i.imgur.com/WcjQ4AN.jpg?1

ambchang

02-12-2015, 12:42 PM

So I point out that your simplistic arguments don't consider important factors such as players' roles.

And you counter with an argument that doesn't consider consider a player's role (the offensive role of Thorpe vs Drexler).

Sounds about right.

Of course I consider players roles. Having better supporting casts will help relief the pressure of the main guy, thus negatively affecting his stats, but positively affecting team success.

Also, it's noted that you just somehow decided to ignore the Chucky Brown vs. Otis Thorpe vs. Barkley argument when stats just doesn't support any of your hypothesis.

No, I'm not. I'm talking about his help defense. I've been talking about his help defense. Since words don't seem to convey the message, here's a picture (there's a Sonics' player behind Olajuwon and Payton is in front of him):

http://i871.photobucket.com/albums/ab277/wekko3141/payton.jpg

You're telling me that in the above picture, the help defender's (Gary Payton) man-to-man defensive ability doesn't matter?

Of course it matters. Since when did I say it didn't matter. I am saying Gary Payton earned is reputation as a defender through his exceptional man to man defense. What he can do on the help defense is obviously good, it's just not so good that only a very small percentage of perimeter defenders can replicate in today's game.

Of the top of my head:
Kawhi Leonard
Paul George when healthy
Trevor Ariza
Lebron James
Draymond Green
Danny Green
John Wall
Brandon Knight
Tony Allen
Khris Middleton
Klay Thompson
Jimmy Butler
Jeff Teague
Russell Westbrook
Mike Conley
Eric Bledsoe

Can all provide adequate and effective double teams to bother a post player. Can they do as good a job as Gary Payton? not all of them, but they can do an effective job in a zone situation to limit a skilled low post player, even a prime Olajuwon.

Which translates into a decline of 1.3 points, a decline of 1.7 rebounds, and a decline of 0.5 assist. If you're going to quibble over those drops, then you've already lost.

It make it sound trivial. It's not

wekko368

02-12-2015, 01:37 PM

As in Hakeem’s low post inside out? No. Or are you now saying Hakeem was driving and kicking like Steve Nash does. Wait, he was better than Steve Nash in that now, was he?

Your argument was that because an article about "drive & kick" offenses didn't talk about "inside-out" offenses, then inside-out offenses don't have a place in today's game.

What I'm saying is that you're an idiot.

Then why would you talk about how Olajuwon would play in 2003? It has nothing to do with h2h with Duncan, either. Either you admit you are posting in the wrong thread, or shut up about it.

Just because you don't see the connection doesn't mean it's unrelated. Remember, you're an idiot. It's safe to always assume that you're missing something.

2002 & 2003 were arguably Duncan's most impressive years. And when you rate a player's offensive/defensive abilities, you have to take into consideration the level of his opposition. In 2002, Duncan averaged 25.5 ppg on 50.8% shooting. Sure, that's impressive, but who was guarding him? If I can make a compelling argument that prime Olajuwon would've averaged more (with comparable efficiency) in 2002, then that would lead to the argument that prime Olajuwon had a better offensive game than prime Duncan.

I would never had heard of assists if it wasn’t for the great follower of Hakeem’s. What is it? Is it some sort of magical wand Hakeem used to zap his non-believers into oblivion? That said, I saw something called “AST” in the series against the Sonics, and Hakeem averaged 4.25 of them, which about 1 more than his season average. I don’t know what it is, but I hope that increase is enough to offset his 8 points per game drop.

It's hard to get assists when your teammates miss open shots.

So your solution is for me to brainwash myself until I agree with you? Great strategy. Has the church of Hakeem officially evolved into a cult? Do I have to donate all my possessions to the church of Hakeem to prove I am a believer?

Call it what you want, but the reality is that you're ignorant. My solution is for you to get educated. I know it's a lofty goal, but I'm an optimist.

And me talking about Hakeem in today’s game, but not particularly Duncan’s prime is irrelevant? Duncan’s playing in today’s game, he had a prime, we are talking about Hakeem. Seems relevant to me.

If Duncan or Olajuwon are currently in their prime, then today's game is relevant. If they aren't, it's not. I don't know why you're having such a tough time with this.

Oh wait. I do. It's b/c you're an idiot.

You can find some award/stats to validate any of the players I mentioned above.

What combination of awards/stats is as impressive as MVP/FMVP/DPOY in the same year?

Because Pryzbilla is a better defender than Laettner?
Nate Robinson is plenty coordinated, I can see him limiting Hakeem to 12ppg on 38% shooting.

Sounds about right.

So raw that he 30 a game in the playoffs? And I am comparing raw Hakeem to raw Hakeem. Same consistent method.

You really think a late-80's Olajuwon was the same as a 93-95 Olajuwon?

It's pretty clear that you never saw Olajuwon play.

No, I am saying Antonio Davis could guard Hakeem. Of course, you are saying a big slow guy like Smits can limit Hakeem to 6 points while Yao would let Hakeeem go off for half a million.

And the onus is on you to provide support for that statement. And the only support you've offered is that Antonio Davis played in a game when Olajuwon scored 6 points. :lol

I am using stats to show who is the more effective scorer and who I would give the ball to to score if I need 2 points. Noah is no worse than Mutombo.

Something like "more effective scorer" can't be quantified using stats. You have to use your eyes.

Like in my example (the one you conveniently ignored), Dwight Howard has better stats than Motiejunas, but any Rockets fan will tell you that Motiejunas is the more effective scorer. If you needed two points and your options were Howard or Motiejunas, you go with Motiejunas every time.

Similarly, Motumbo was a more effective scorer than Noah is.

Highly relevant, because the point is whether centers are important in today’s game, not whether bad GMs think centers are relevant to today’s game.

Why not? You are talking about GMs that led their teams to the lottery year after year after year, and you are using them as the standard of how a team should be constructed? Besides, your use of high draft picks makes zero sense, players make a difference when they play, not where they are drafted.

You're basically saying that you have a better understanding of modern basketball than the majority of GM's....

And you think the Spurs, Hawks, Wizards, Bulls, Grizzlies, Rockets and Blazers used their bigs to the extent of what the 90s Rockets, Spurs, Knicks, Pacers, Magic and Cavs used theirs?

Nope, current bigs aren't used to the same extent. But current bigs aren't as skilled as Olajuwon/Robinson/Ewing/Shaq.

And yet in a world of 7 billion people, with the increase in popularity of basketball around the world, and with much better scouting and development, there isn’t one single post player in today’s game that is comparable to Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, or even Shaq in today’s game. The reason isn’t that those players don’t exist anymore, is because their roles have diminished.

In case you don't follow basketball, there's a guy named Anthony Davis that's pretty good.

You love to tell me what I do and what I don’t do. Just a reminder, you do not have the same power to govern me like Hakeem does to you.

It's not my fault you don't remember the things you say:

And yet every single example I gave showed an increase in PPG. No, I am not talking about efficiency, I am talking about scoring and strictly scoring. Who cares about scoring without taking efficiency into consideration? If that's your argument, I concede the point.We are talking about players with worse supporting players put up bigger numbers, and I have shown they do.That's b/c you intentionally ignore efficiency. You probably thought Kobe was having a great season before he got injured.No I don’t. I wouldn’t consider James Donaldson to be better than Hakeem. Yeah, you do. That's why you were looking only at ppg while ignoring efficiency.You love to tell me what I do and what I don’t do.

Why do you like to cherry pick?
Gasol at Memphis – 13, 13.6, 13.4, 12.4, 14.9, 14.5 FGA
Gaso at Lakers – 12.9, 13, 13.7, 14.1, 11.8, 14.8 FGA
Seems pretty even to me (outside of his injury riddled 12/13 season.

I like how I included both FGA and FTA (b/c they're both relevant) and you cherry-picked FGA b/c it supported your argument. FYI, you also ignored pace.

Yes, despite better teammates. Just like how having Barkley limited Hakeem’s FGA.

It's pretty sad that you continually ignore the different "roles" of these better teammates.

No, Stoudemire got Steve Nash to create for him. Wade’s number jumped the most when he had the worst teammates in his career. Garnett is the only example, and his ppg went up by 1ppg.

No I didn’t. You are just too stupid to understand. I used Kobe vs. Miller to make fun or you, and yet you have to have me write it out to understand it. Actually, I can’t even say you’d understand it.

Honestly, since you've shown some remarkable stupidity thus far, I really did think you were comparing Kobe and Mike Miller. It seemed like the type of comparison you'd make.

Also, you wanted examples of teammates whose stats improved once they got better teammates. I gave you plenty of valid answers. If you don't like the answers, change the question.

The end of zone? NBA 3 pt shooting is at an all time high, and zone defenses are used every game.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sports/basketball/nba/story/2012-01-17/zone-defense-has-found-its-place-in-the-nba/52657598/1
A team playing zone 10% of the time is a hell lot more than 0% of the time.

That article from 2012 states that the Warriors played the most zone (10.3% of the time). The next were the Bobcats at 9.3% followed by the Raptors at 7.5%. Look at the record/personnel of those teams. Golden State finished with a 23-43 record. Toronto finished with a 23-43 record. The Bobcats finished with a 7-59 record. It's plausible that they resorted to using zone b/c their man-to-man defense sucked and they needed to try something else.

Is that why the Rockets shot 25.7 3PA in 1997 vs. 29.5 in 1996?

What's your point? Inside-out offenses don't always lead to outside shots. Hence the name "inside-out".

Because a quicker shot is a more open one. It matters a whole lot. If your shot allows a split second more for the defense to close it, a defender can challenge a shot much more effectively. Even a Rockets fan know that.

Irrelevant. We're talking about open shots. If a defender is quick enough to challenge a shot, then that shot is no longer "open".

At this point, I'm starting to suspect that English may not be your first language, and as such, you aren't fluent. If that's the case, I apologize for all the insults directed at you. It's a tough language to learn, and I'm sure you'll get there.

ambchang

02-13-2015, 10:28 AM

Your argument was that because an article about "drive & kick" offenses didn't talk about "inside-out" offenses, then inside-out offenses don't have a place in today's game.
What I'm saying is that you're an idiot.

No, I didn’t say that. You seem to have a habit of twisting my words and extending specific comments into other parts of an argument. I originally listed out the article to talk about zones influenced the game into a more drive and kick offense because it’s crowding the lane, which means that a low post scoring threat is no longer as effective as it was in the 90s.

Just because you don't see the connection doesn't mean it's unrelated. Remember, you're an idiot. It's safe to always assume that you're missing something.
2002 & 2003 were arguably Duncan's most impressive years. And when you rate a player's offensive/defensive abilities, you have to take into consideration the level of his opposition. In 2002, Duncan averaged 25.5 ppg on 50.8% shooting. Sure, that's impressive, but who was guarding him? If I can make a compelling argument that prime Olajuwon would've averaged more (with comparable efficiency) in 2002, then that would lead to the argument that prime Olajuwon had a better offensive game than prime Duncan.
Yeah, Olajuwon would have averaged more than Duncan than Duncan in 2003, too bad I was talking about today’s game with my comment, a comment you chose to respond to.
And a smart man like you would surely have guessed that Duncan never guarded himself, so Hakeem scoring more against 2003 competition has absolutely nothing to do with how prime Hakeem would face Duncan h2h. But you are a genius and I am an idiot, so you will have to explain it to me what you said about has an relevance in how Hakeem would be able to face Duncan.
:lol scoring 6 points vs. Antonio Davis means he will annihilate prime Duncan. Very convincing.

It's hard to get assists when your teammates miss open shots.
It’s hard to make open shots when quick agile athletes come flying at you after doubling the post.

Call it what you want, but the reality is that you're ignorant. My solution is for you to get educated. I know it's a lofty goal, but I'm an optimist.
Hey, another established fact from you! How do you define these things? Do you just say it is and it is? I thought Hakeem was the god, you are just a priest though, so you are supposed to be a messenger, or is this how your religion work?

If Duncan or Olajuwon are currently in their prime, then today's game is relevant. If they aren't, it's not. I don't know why you're having such a tough time with this.
It is relevant because I felt like talking about it. This is the purpose of a forum.

Oh wait. I do. It's b/c you're an idiot.
Hey, you have definition shown yourself being a genius.
Me: Hakeem is not likely to be as successful in today’s league because of the legalization of zone. Evidence is him playing way below average in the Sonics, which played a semi-zone.
You: Small sample size (as compared to 0 game sample you gave), 2003 bad centers (neither today, and ignoring Hakeem didn’t put up numbers above his average against the bad centers in his prime), his teammates couldn’t nail shots (despite Hakeem getting 9 assists in one game in a loss and ignoring the advances in today’s defenses to specifically limit low post inside-out offenses).

[QUOTE=wekko368;7827319]What combination of awards/stats is as impressive as MVP/FMVP/DPOY in the same year? Say … 6 championships with 6 FMVP, 41ppg in the Finals? Leading the league in scoring 10 times and steals 3 times? 5 MVPs with a DPoY? Three years with 20+ WS? Leadning the league in WS 9 times?
How about 4 MVPs, and 2 FMVPs, leading the league in WS 5 times?
Or 3 straight MVPs?
Or 3 straight FMVPs and dominating the league to a degree where leagues have to foul you intentionally? Warp the roster of your opposition to stock up on unskilled bigs to hack you all game long?

Sounds about right.
Good to know your genius.

You really think a late-80's Olajuwon was the same as a 93-95 Olajuwon?
So Hakeem only has a 2 year prime?

It's pretty clear that you never saw Olajuwon play.
Another gem. Sometimes I think you know me more than I do, internet psychic.

And the onus is on you to provide support for that statement. And the only support you've offered is that Antonio Davis played in a game when Olajuwon scored 6 points. :lol
:lol Hakeem averaging 20 points on 49% shooting vs. Antonio Davis.

Something like "more effective scorer" can't be quantified using stats. You have to use your eyes.

:lol, when no evidence exists, go with the “use your eyes”. In other words, you are wrong and I am right, and if you disagree with me, you are an idiot.
Did I mention you are an idiot?

Like in my example (the one you conveniently ignored), Dwight Howard has better stats than Motiejunas, but any Rockets fan will tell you that Motiejunas is the more effective scorer. If you needed two points and your options were Howard or Motiejunas, you go with Motiejunas every time.
No, Motiejunas is the more skillful scorer. Dwight Howard is more effective since he scores more and has a better %. I want two points, I run a play involving Dwight, not Motiejunas because Dwight is more likely going to score.

Similarly, Motumbo was a more effective scorer than Noah is.
No, you are talking about more skillful, which Mutombo isn’t all that great in either.

You're basically saying that you have a better understanding of modern basketball than the majority of GM's....
No, I am not. I am saying the GMs have shown that drafting big men in hopes of them panning out has failed over and over and over again. I wouldn’t have known if they haven’t failed over and over and over again.

Nope, current bigs aren't used to the same extent. But current bigs aren't as skilled as Olajuwon/Robinson/Ewing/Shaq.
Current bigs are as skilled as Mutombo though, still didn’t stop the Nuggets from force feeding Mutombo to the tune of 10 shots a game because that’s how teams in the 90s scored. A player like Bogut, who is definitely more skillful offensively than Mutombo, gets 9 shots a game, Horford gets 11 with 40% of those coming outside of 10 feet.

In case you don't follow basketball, there's a guy named Anthony Davis that's pretty good.
Yeah, and he’s still only getting 17.2 FGA a game this season, with about 40% of his shots coming from outside of 10 feet. Hakeem gets 20+ shots in his prime (no stats on the shooting), Robinson gets 20, Ewing gets around 20, and Shaq gets 18 to 20 for 10 years in a row. The center position changed, and shot attempts pretty much confirmed it.

It's not my fault you don't remember the things you say:
I like how I included both FGA and FTA (b/c they're both relevant) and you cherry-picked FGA b/c it supported your argument. FYI, you also ignored pace.
I was talking about you telling me my intention of ignoring efficiency. And no, I didn’t ignore pace, I just don’t want to talk about it because it involves a lot of work.

It's pretty sad that you continually ignore the different "roles" of these better teammates.
So better teammates help the main guy’s stats, only when they don’t.

Honestly, since you've shown some remarkable stupidity thus far, I really did think you were comparing Kobe and Mike Miller. It seemed like the type of comparison you'd make.
Also, you wanted examples of teammates whose stats improved once they got better teammates. I gave you plenty of valid answers. If you don't like the answers, change the question.
You failed to even understand comparisons, and I am the one who showed remarkable stupidity? Great logic!

That article from 2012 states that the Warriors played the most zone (10.3% of the time). The next were the Bobcats at 9.3% followed by the Raptors at 7.5%. Look at the record/personnel of those teams. Golden State finished with a 23-43 record. Toronto finished with a 23-43 record. The Bobcats finished with a 7-59 record. It's plausible that they resorted to using zone b/c their man-to-man defense sucked and they needed to try something else.
Yeah, and it helped.

What's your point? Inside-out offenses don't always lead to outside shots. Hence the name "inside-out".
So they shot less from 3 and won vs. the same team.

Irrelevant. We're talking about open shots. If a defender is quick enough to challenge a shot, then that shot is no longer "open".
That’s my point. Current defenses will decrease open shots because they close in quicker. The way to combat that is suck in the defense with drive and kick.

At this point, I'm starting to suspect that English may not be your first language, and as such, you aren't fluent. If that's the case, I apologize for all the insults directed at you. It's a tough language to learn, and I'm sure you'll get there.
At this point, I’m starting to suspect that using your brain may not be your first actions, and as such, you aren’t strong at it. If that’s the case, I apologize for all the insults directed at you because they are no longer insults, they are simply observations. It’s an easy thing to do, and I am sure you’ll get there.

ambchang

02-13-2015, 10:30 AM

Anyways, wekko368, to summarize your points.

"I am right, you are an idiot" - I can't really argue with that.
"Stats are irrelevant, you have to trust your eyes" - Can't argue with that either.
"GMs are always right, despite the fact they lead their teams to the lottery year after year" - Great point
"Hakeem's the best at everything with regards to basketball, and even most things that are not related to basketball" - I heard he was a great goalie, and he's quite a painter too, but I can't agree that he's the greatest at everything.

wekko368

02-13-2015, 12:52 PM

No, I didn’t say that. You seem to have a habit of twisting my words and extending specific comments into other parts of an argument. I originally listed out the article to talk about zones influenced the game into a more drive and kick offense because it’s crowding the lane, which means that a low post scoring threat is no longer as effective as it was in the 90s.

Why don't you quote the portion of the article that says this? The closest thing I can find is:

The next key to beating the zone in half-court sets is universal. Find a versatile player who can dribble, drive or shoot flashing to the middle of the foul line. That forces the zone to collapse on the ballhandler, opening options

But the preceding statement doesn't support your summary of the article, especially since Olajuwon is one of the most versatile players of all-time.

Yeah, Olajuwon would have averaged more than Duncan than Duncan in 2003, too bad I was talking about today’s game with my comment, a comment you chose to respond to.

Today's game/competition is irrelevant to the topic of the thread. It sounds like you've resorted to using strawman arguments.

And a smart man like you would surely have guessed that Duncan never guarded himself, so Hakeem scoring more against 2003 competition has absolutely nothing to do with how prime Hakeem would face Duncan h2h. But you are a genius and I am an idiot, so you will have to explain it to me what you said about has an relevance in how Hakeem would be able to face Duncan.

It goes to their respective scoring ability. If Olajuwon can score more effectively than Duncan against the same competition, then you can argue that Olajuwon's scoring ability is greater than Duncan's.

Also, I'm not a genius. You're clearly an idiot, but I'm not a genius. Maybe I am, relative to you, but to the average person, I'm not.

:lol scoring 6 points vs. Antonio Davis means he will annihilate prime Duncan. Very convincing.

Yeah, you cling to that argument.

It’s hard to make open shots when quick agile athletes come flying at you after doubling the post.

No it's not. Want to know why? Because you're open.

Hey, another established fact from you! How do you define these things? Do you just say it is and it is? I thought Hakeem was the god, you are just a priest though, so you are supposed to be a messenger, or is this how your religion work?

I'm not establishing any facts. They've already been established. It's not my fault you continually make arguments that are easily refuted by facts. If you want to argue that Rik Smits and Yao had comparable mobility, speed, and coordination, that's fine. But since they obviously don't, you shouldn't get so upset when people rightfully call you an idiot.

It is relevant because I felt like talking about it. This is the purpose of a forum.

:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol

:rolleyes

Oh wait. I do. It's b/c you're an idiot.
Hey, you have definition shown yourself being a genius.
Me: Hakeem is not likely to be as successful in today’s league because of the legalization of zone. Evidence is him playing way below average in the Sonics, which played a semi-zone.
You: Small sample size (as compared to 0 game sample you gave), 2003 bad centers (neither today, and ignoring Hakeem didn’t put up numbers above his average against the bad centers in his prime), his teammates couldn’t nail shots (despite Hakeem getting 9 assists in one game in a loss and ignoring the advances in today’s defenses to specifically limit low post inside-out offenses).

Yep, those are all legitimate counterarguments. You forgot the counterargument that you're incorrectly assuming that every team has players comparable to the 1996 Sonics (in terms of size, athleticism, defensive abilities).

Say … 6 championships with 6 FMVP, 41ppg in the Finals? Leading the league in scoring 10 times and steals 3 times? 5 MVPs with a DPoY? Three years with 20+ WS? Leadning the league in WS 9 times?
How about 4 MVPs, and 2 FMVPs, leading the league in WS 5 times?
Or 3 straight MVPs?
Or 3 straight FMVPs and dominating the league to a degree where leagues have to foul you intentionally? Warp the roster of your opposition to stock up on unskilled bigs to hack you all game long?

LOL. I said "in the same year". And I also specified Olajuwon's peak from 1994-1995. Olajuwon's 1994 season is arguably one of the greatest single seasons anyone has ever had. MVP, FMVP, and DPOY in the same year.

So Hakeem only has a 2 year prime?

It depends on how you want to define "prime". Olajuwon was a bunch for a ton of seasons, but he was clearly at his best in 1994/1995.

Another gem. Sometimes I think you know me more than I do, internet psychic.

Can you blame me for questioning whether or not you've seen Olajuwon play? You've said some ridiculously inaccurate things about him.

:lol Hakeem averaging 20 points on 49% shooting vs. Antonio Davis.

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that.

:lol, when no evidence exists, go with the “use your eyes”. In other words, you are wrong and I am right, and if you disagree with me, you are an idiot.
Did I mention you are an idiot?

No, Motiejunas is the more skillful scorer. Dwight Howard is more effective since he scores more and has a better %. I want two points, I run a play involving Dwight, not Motiejunas because Dwight is more likely going to score.

And that's why your logic is flawed.

If given the choice between a Dwight iso and a Motiejunas iso, you go with Motiejunas every time. And you know this, but you can't bring yourself to admit that I'm right. That's why you said "a play involving Dwight". In other words, you're bringing another player into the scenario when my original scenario involved only Dwight and Motiejunas.

No, you are talking about more skillful, which Mutombo isn’t all that great in either.

Semantics. If I need a basket and my only options are Mutombo or Noah, I go with Mutombo every time.

No, I am not. I am saying the GMs have shown that drafting big men in hopes of them panning out has failed over and over and over again. I wouldn’t have known if they haven’t failed over and over and over again.

Yeah, you are. Especially when you look at the draft positions of the big men from recent championship teams.

2014 - Duncan (1st pick)
2011 - Nowitzki (9th pick), Chandler (2nd pick)
2010 - Gasol (3rd pick), Bynum (10th pick)
2009 - Gasol (3rd pick), Bynum (10th pick)
2008 - Garnett (5th pick)
2007 - Duncan (1st pick)
2006 - Shaq (1st pick)
2005 - Duncan (1st pick)
2004 - Wallace (4th pick)
2003 - Duncan (1st pick), Robinson (1st pick)
2002 - Shaq (1st pick)
2001 - Shaq (1st pick)

Your problem is that you're only looking at the GM's who gambled and lost. You need to look at the GM's who gambled and won. And look at guys like Tyson Chandler. He was drafted by Chicago and bounced around a few teams before landing in Dallas where he turned out to be a game-changer. Even though it ultimately didn't benefit Chicago, they did gamble on a raw high-school prospect who turned out to be pretty good.

Current bigs are as skilled as Mutombo though, still didn’t stop the Nuggets from force feeding Mutombo to the tune of 10 shots a game because that’s how teams in the 90s scored.

On the 1992 Nuggets team, Reggie Williams averaged 16 fga. Mutombo averaged 12. Mark Macon averaged 12. Greg Anderson averaged 10. Abdul Rauf averaged 10. Winston Garland averaged 10.

On the 1993 Nuggets team, Abdul Rauf averaged 17 fga. Williams averaged 15. LaPhonso Ellis averaged 12. Mutombo averaged 10. Macon, Robert Pack, and Marcus Liberty each averaged 8 fga.

Can you clarify how you think teams in the 90's scored?

A player like Bogut, who is definitely more skillful offensively than Mutombo, gets 9 shots a game, Horford gets 11 with 40% of those coming outside of 10 feet.

What's your point? Also, it's disingenuous to use career averages. At this point, who cares what Al Horford did as a rookie? This year, he's averaging 12.7 fga. Last year, he averaged 14.5.

Yeah, and he’s still only getting 17.2 FGA a game this season, with about 40% of his shots coming from outside of 10 feet. Hakeem gets 20+ shots in his prime (no stats on the shooting), Robinson gets 20, Ewing gets around 20, and Shaq gets 18 to 20 for 10 years in a row. The center position changed, and shot attempts pretty much confirmed it.

Do you realize you're comparing the primes of Olajuwon/Robinson/Ewing/Shaq to a 3rd year Anthony Davis? His FGA have increased each year as he continues to improve. In Robinson's 3rd year, he averaged 16 fga. Olajuwon averaged 18. Ewing averaged 14.

I was talking about you telling me my intention of ignoring efficiency. And no, I didn’t ignore pace, I just don’t want to talk about it because it involves a lot of work.

FYI, "don't want to talk about it" = "ignore".

So better teammates help the main guy’s stats, only when they don’t.

When you give ambiguous question, you get ambiguous answers.

Yeah, and it helped.

Based on what? 3 of the worst teams occasionally used zone defense, and you think that supports your argument? :lol

That’s my point. Current defenses will decrease open shots because they close in quicker. The way to combat that is suck in the defense with drive and kick.

So the post player gets double teamed and passes it out to the perimeter. You really think the help defender will be able to turn around, accelerate, and close out on the perimeter shooter before the shooter can release the ball? And you think that the defender will have the body control to stop on a dime to prevent fouling the shooter?

Sorry, no.

At this point, I’m starting to suspect that using your brain may not be your first actions, and as such, you aren’t strong at it. If that’s the case, I apologize for all the insults directed at you because they are no longer insults, they are simply observations. It’s an easy thing to do, and I am sure you’ll get there.

:lol Good effort, but this is really a pathetic attempt.

diego

02-13-2015, 01:27 PM

not really interested in getting into this discussion, but I came up on this article (https://sports.vice.com/article/the-plot-to-kill-the-slam-dunk) and it is tangentially related:

The Plot to Kill the Slam Dunk
The Plot to Kill the Slam Dunk

[excerpt]
Even though Chamberlain turned pro after his junior year, basketball's ongoing height crisis was nearing its apex. The sport was too easy, too dull. To many, it just felt wrong. "Point Orgies May Hurt Hoop Sport," declared the Salt Lake Tribune in 1957. "A basket has become so cheap nowadays that the fans have nothing left to cheer about," Bill Sharman of the Boston Celtics said in 1960. Height had made such a mockery of the game that some coaches were resorting to counter-mockery. Nobody listened to his suggestion to raise the hoop to 14 feet—no, really—so for one game in 1955, Los Angeles State coach Sax Elliott had his team wear lifts, adding as much as six inches of height. The opposing coach, Utah's Jack Gardner, agreed the sport had gotten "boring." "Basketball fans get more enjoyment from watching a five-man game," rather than just a relentless effort to feed the big man, he told the New York Times the following year. Yet the game's popularity grew alongside its players. That same year, NBA commissioner Maurice Podoloff said, "I doubt that any other sport could stand this type of criticism of its basic foundations. Basketball, however, flourishes."

Nevertheless, the rim wasn't the only fix people had in mind. Some other common suggestions: no backboard, a convex backboard, a 20-inch distance between backboard and rim, a smaller basket, a bigger ball, a smaller ball, a two dribble limit, a height limit, a 1-point zone near the basket, a no-scoring zone near the basket, and a foot cap that, like a salary cap, would allow a team to divide 30 feet among the five players on the floor (believe it or not, this idea actually came up often).

None of these came to fruition, but the NCAA rules committee didn't exactly shy from drastic measures. In 1967, after a year of watching UCLA's Lew Alcindor dominate, they banned the dunk. They'd failed to contain Russell and Wilt, but the next great center wouldn't have it so easy. Alcindor didn't mince words about the prohibition, which he saw as driven less by competitive concerns than cultural ones. America was changing in the 1960s, and desegregation and the Civil Rights movement meant that the racial makeup of college basketball was changing as well.

"The dunk is one of basketball's great crowd pleasers," he said, "and there is no good reason to give it up except that this and other ******s were running away with the sport."

As for the rest of the discussion, IMO there are a ton of other factors beyond rule changes like pace, roles, development etc. I think its pretty well agreed upon that hakeem had a great peak and a so so career. Duncan had a great peak and a great career. Head to head, prime vs prime I think hakeem would play Tim very well, and just might have been quick enough to win the matchup. They are both very well rounded players adept at playing the game within the game. Overall there's no question Tim is the better player.

I dont agree that big men are less important today. I think theres less of them, because since bird/magic/Jordan being a wing became more attractive. 15-20 years ago guys like dirk and durant bulk up to bang in the post instead of mastering fadeaways. Bottom line, big men can do very important things that guards cant like rebound, protect the rim, set screens etc. Scoring is only a part of the game. Zone defense and the 3 pointer give teams a way to take the edge off a team that plays inside or create the space to play inside, but points in the paint and rebounds will always be more important, otherwise the 3 ptr and the zone likely wouldnt exist; outside of the heat, i dont think any team has won without a big man giving them those points in the paint and rebounds, but Lebron was able to deliver that from the SF/PF. Also, if you want to compare the centers of one era to another, dont just look at the top, more importantly look at the bottom. Maybe the top is similar, but if the scrubs are scrubbier ... I dont see how anyone could argue that todays big men are as good as the 90s crop.

djohn2oo8

02-13-2015, 02:12 PM

not really interested in getting into this discussion, but I came up on this article (https://sports.vice.com/article/the-plot-to-kill-the-slam-dunk) and it is tangentially related:

As for the rest of the discussion, IMO there are a ton of other factors beyond rule changes like pace, roles, development etc. I think its pretty well agreed upon that hakeem had a great peak and a so so career. Duncan had a great peak and a great career. Head to head, prime vs prime I think hakeem would play Tim very well, and just might have been quick enough to win the matchup. They are both very well rounded players adept at playing the game within the game. Overall there's no question Tim is the better player.

I dont agree that big men are less important today. I think theres less of them, because since bird/magic/Jordan being a wing became more attractive. 15-20 years ago guys like dirk and durant bulk up to bang in the post instead of mastering fadeaways. Bottom line, big men can do very important things that guards cant like rebound, protect the rim, set screens etc. Scoring is only a part of the game. Zone defense and the 3 pointer give teams a way to take the edge off a team that plays inside or create the space to play inside, but points in the paint and rebounds will always be more important, otherwise the 3 ptr and the zone likely wouldnt exist; outside of the heat, i dont think any team has won without a big man giving them those points in the paint and rebounds, but Lebron was able to deliver that from the SF/PF. Also, if you want to compare the centers of one era to another, dont just look at the top, more importantly look at the bottom. Maybe the top is similar, but if the scrubs are scrubbier ... I dont see how anyone could argue that todays big men are as good as the 90s crop.

Hakeem had more than a so so career. Tim had a better organization.

diego

02-13-2015, 02:29 PM

i meant in the sense that his first years he was rawer, and he declined faster, in comparison to duncan its so-so, in comparison to 98% of players its great

ambchang

02-13-2015, 03:03 PM

Why don't you quote the portion of the article that says this? The closest thing I can find is:
But the preceding statement doesn't support your summary of the article, especially since Olajuwon is one of the most versatile players of all-time.
Hakeem is a player “who can dribble, drive or shoot flashing to the middle of the foul line”, that sounds like a wing player to me.

Today's game/competition is irrelevant to the topic of the thread. It sounds like you've resorted to using strawman arguments.
Quote me in saying that my comment on Olajuwon won’t be as successful in today’s game is relevant to the topic of the thread, and quote somewhere that says every comment has to be relevant to the topic of the thread.

It goes to their respective scoring ability. If Olajuwon can score more effectively than Duncan against the same competition, then you can argue that Olajuwon's scoring ability is greater than Duncan's.
According to you, this is not the topic at hand, it’s about h2h, not against competition.

Also, I'm not a genius. You're clearly an idiot, but I'm not a genius. Maybe I am, relative to you, but to the average person, I'm not.
According to you, this is not the topic at hand, it’s about h2h, not against competition.

Yeah, you cling to that argument.
As opposed to you clinging on to saying every comment has to be exactly according to the topic of a thread.

No it's not. Want to know why? Because you're open.
According to you, this is not the topic at hand, it’s about h2h, not against competition.

I'm not establishing any facts. They've already been established. It's not my fault you continually make arguments that are easily refuted by facts. If you want to argue that Rik Smits and Yao had comparable mobility, speed, and coordination, that's fine. But since they obviously don't, you shouldn't get so upset when people rightfully call you an idiot.
How is that established fact? Any numbers to back that up? Any quotes?
According to Draft Express: http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Yao-Ming-3615/

Has good footwork and overall mobility for his size in the half-court, but doesn’t run the floor terribly well. Not in the best shape, and probably shouldn’t play many more minutes than he already does in the regular season. Surprisingly coordinated for a player of his size.

:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol

:rolleyes

It's not my fault you continually make arguments that are easily refuted by facts

Great use of facts in your arguments! If you put out more emoticons, it will become even MORE factual.

Yep, those are all legitimate counterarguments. You forgot the counterargument that you're incorrectly assuming that every team has players comparable to the 1996 Sonics (in terms of size, athleticism, defensive abilities).
Not every, but a significantly larger number, which would affect Hakeem’s numbers negatively. I have already listed some, and I noted that you tend to ignore the NBA has moved into a league with longer quicker wing players as compared to the 90s.

LOL. I said "in the same year". And I also specified Olajuwon's peak from 1994-1995. Olajuwon's 1994 season is arguably one of the greatest single seasons anyone has ever had. MVP, FMVP, and DPOY in the same year.
I said peak, I never said a same year. If you want to go with one year peaks, sure, Hakeem had one of the greatest season in the history of the league. In terms of prime? I’d take Jordan, Shaq, Wilt, maybe Lebron and Bird over him.
The greatest season Hakeem ever had was during’s Jordan’s “retirement” as well.

It depends on how you want to define "prime". Olajuwon was a bunch for a ton of seasons, but he was clearly at his best in 1994/1995.
Early Hakeem was more athletic, defensive monster. He took on a larger offensive role during 94/95, with the Rockets running essentially everything through him, and using strong three point shooting to open up the lane for him. Was earlier Hakeem better? Hard to say, the offense wasn’t the same, and he was taking on an even bigger defensive role, while the lane wasn’t as open for him to operate.

Can you blame me for questioning whether or not you've seen Olajuwon play? You've said some ridiculously inaccurate things about him.
Such as what? That he isn’t the best in every single thing?

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that.
He didn’t? Where are your established facts?

And that's why your logic is flawed.
If given the choice between a Dwight iso and a Motiejunas iso, you go with Motiejunas every time. And you know this, but you can't bring yourself to admit that I'm right. That's why you said "a play involving Dwight". In other words, you're bringing another player into the scenario when my original scenario involved only Dwight and Motiejunas.
Why do you have to play iso when the game was played 5 on 5? Is the topic about Hakeem and Duncan 1 on 1 instead of h2h now?

Semantics. If I need a basket and my only options are Mutombo or Noah, I go with Mutombo every time.
Yeah, that’s up to you, stats told me Noah got a better chance of getting me two points.

Yeah, you are. Especially when you look at the draft positions of the big men from recent championship teams.
2014 - Duncan (1st pick)
2011 - Nowitzki (9th pick), Chandler (2nd pick)
2010 - Gasol (3rd pick), Bynum (10th pick)
2009 - Gasol (3rd pick), Bynum (10th pick)
2008 - Garnett (5th pick)
2007 - Duncan (1st pick)
2006 - Shaq (1st pick)
2005 - Duncan (1st pick)
2004 - Wallace (4th pick)
2003 - Duncan (1st pick), Robinson (1st pick)
2002 - Shaq (1st pick)
2001 - Shaq (1st pick)
The 2014 Spurs was one of the most open and equal offensive team since the mid 70s Knicks or Blazers (Waiting for you to say it was actually the 95 Rockets was actually more equal, because Hakeem was on it). Duncan played a huge role, and most definitely one of the centerpieces, but it’s obvious Kawhi, wing passing, perimeter defense and outside shooting were as important, if not more important.
Nowitzki’s game is about as non-big. When I am saying big, I am talking about low-post bigs. I thought that was implied.
Gasol, by your definition, was a 2nd fiddle. I don’t necessarily agree with that, but hey, you define the facts.
Bynum played 29 and 30 minutes a game in the two seasons, and wasn’t even a major contributor in the 2009 playoffs. Before you twist my words to say that I said bigs do not play in the league anymore, I didn’t. I said bigs are not as important in today’s game as they were in the 90s. You still play big men.
Garnett was sharing the load with Pierce, and was clearly past his prime. This was one of the earlier super teams that was just more talented than anywhere else at multiple positions, not just PF.
06 Heat was mostly Wade. Actually, Wade took people by surprise, and was one of the first superstars to benefit from these new rules. Not too many people saw him as becoming anywhere as dominant as he became when he was drafted. His outside shooting was/is suspect, but people didn’t count on the new rules to open up the lanes as much as it did for Wade to penetrate and get crazy amounts of FTs.
07 and 05 Spurs were anchored by Duncan, but Duncan was reducing his offensive role. His usage rate was on the downward trend, going from the peak of around 29 to 30% to 27 to 28%. The emergency of Ginobili and Parker helped a lot as well. In fact, after 07, Popovich had a very obvious transition to a more open and perimeter focused offense. It didn’t prove fruitful for a long time, but eventually morphed into the 2013/14 Spurs.
04 – Billups drove that engine.
03 and before – Still a low post league. In fact, the league didn’t really see a major transition to a more perimeter offense until around 2010 or so. It’s not like these things just switch in a season.

Your problem is that you're only looking at the GM's who gambled and lost. You need to look at the GM's who gambled and won. And look at guys like Tyson Chandler. He was drafted by Chicago and bounced around a few teams before landing in Dallas where he turned out to be a game-changer. Even though it ultimately didn't benefit Chicago, they did gamble on a raw high-school prospect who turned out to be pretty good.
No doubt he was important, but he’s a role player who is important in defense, rebounding and setting picks. That’s what bigs are used for primarily in today’s league. If the big can shoot from 20 feet and pass, even better. But they are now just a part of the offense instead of THE offense like the 90s.

On the 1992 Nuggets team, Reggie Williams averaged 16 fga. Mutombo averaged 12. Mark Macon averaged 12. Greg Anderson averaged 10. Abdul Rauf averaged 10. Winston Garland averaged 10.

On the 1993 Nuggets team, Abdul Rauf averaged 17 fga. Williams averaged 15. LaPhonso Ellis averaged 12. Mutombo averaged 10. Macon, Robert Pack, and Marcus Liberty each averaged 8 fga.
Can you clarify how you think teams in the 90's scored?
That means Mutombo sucked on offense, but the Nuggets still forced fed him the ball.

What's your point? Also, it's disingenuous to use career averages. At this point, who cares what Al Horford did as a rookie? This year, he's averaging 12.7 fga. Last year, he averaged 14.5.
Mutombo averaged 11.5 his rookie season. I actually wanted to pare it down because using absolute peak is misleading. But if you prefer.
Notice how the Hawks are so much more dangerous with Horford averaging less shots. And since you want to talk about teammates, last year, Horford and Millsap took 28.6 FGA a game, this year, they combined for 25.1 FGA, with the rest of the shots going to the wing players. It opens up the Hawks offense, and their ORTG jumped from 18th to the league to 6th in the league.
Teams with the best offensive ratings have a heavy perimeter presence (Clippers, Blazers, Mavs, Rockets, Heat, Spurs, OKC, Suns, Raptors, GSW). Do they still have inside players? Sure, just that they don’t dominate the shot charts like they did in the 90s, like how Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, and Shaq would shoot 20 times a game.

Do you realize you're comparing the primes of Olajuwon/Robinson/Ewing/Shaq to a 3rd year Anthony Davis? His FGA have increased each year as he continues to improve. In Robinson's 3rd year, he averaged 16 fga. Olajuwon averaged 18. Ewing averaged 14.
Yeah, their respective teams also became much more successful by having them shoot the ball more in the 90s. That strategy is not working out so well in today’s game, where the Pelicans are doing quite poorly despite how well Davis is doing.

FYI, "don't want to talk about it" = "ignore".
You just brought up pace, what am I supposed to have done? Read your mind and predict that you want to talk about pace? You pull up the stats and let’s debate.

When you give ambiguous question, you get ambiguous answers.
FYI, “ambiguous answers” = “I don’t know what I am talking about”.

Based on what? 3 of the worst teams occasionally used zone defense, and you think that supports your argument? :lol
10% of their defense is occasional? That’s actually quite a bit. It allowed the bad teams to compete in games.

So the post player gets double teamed and passes it out to the perimeter. You really think the help defender will be able to turn around, accelerate, and close out on the perimeter shooter before the shooter can release the ball? And you think that the defender will have the body control to stop on a dime to prevent fouling the shooter?
With an effective zone defense and longer athletes? Sure.
http://www.nba.com/2015/news/features/sekou_smith/02/10/rise-of-guards-james-harden-stephen-curry-tony-parker-chris-paul-changing-way-nba-game-is-played/

The post game is essentially one-on-one basketball. It used to be side-isos, two-man game or post-up. It was basically two-man game on the side or post-up and you couldn't do much about it. The current game has reduced that. You still have some of that but not nearly to the degree we used to.

Any complaints about a plodding game where big men wrestled under the basket all night and the ball was dumped inside for behemoths to battle it out every night has, for the most part, given way to a small-ball revolution. While that style may not be the preferred style of traditionalists, it has blossomed in the global basketball consciousness.

Sometimes it's just a small game, where everybody is between 6-8 and 6-4 or somewhere in between. And there's a lot of switching on defense and shooting on the other end. That's where the game has changed quite a bit. Back 18 years ago, you didn't see all of this small-ball stuff. Everybody had a low-post big man. Now everybody has a small-ball lineup. You look at a team like the Hawks and their bigs are great, but they rarely post up. They are spread out on the perimeter, and you have to be able to match that.

Stotts traces the roots of the current game back to rules changes from a generation ago, changes that allow freedom of movement for an offensive player. Those rules changes have opened up the floor and allowed for a more free-flowing approach by teams willing to embrace and change with the times.

I think what we see today is the culmination of those rule changes. It's been gradual, but all the intent of those rules, which at the time were groundbreaking and controversial. 'Ooh, they're going to play zone.' The intent, to add freedom of movement and more skill to the game, it's had that effect over time. You see more skilled big men at both positions, at the [power forward] and [center]. You see teams play Durant or LeBron at the four. The effect of those rule changes has made the game what it is.
Also, read http://accelphysio.ca/yj/201501/a_What_s_the_difference_between_today_s_NBA_and_80 s_to_early_90s_NBA_.html Not that I am saying what this says is gospel, but it pretty much summarizes why bigs are taking on a lesser role than 90s basketball.

Sorry, no.
Where are your facts?

:lol Good effort, but this is really a pathetic attempt.
Is this a fact now?

Killakobe81

02-13-2015, 04:16 PM

not choosing sides but glad to see Amb get in to it with someone else ...

JamStone

02-13-2015, 04:37 PM

i meant in the sense that his first years he was rawer, and he declined faster, in comparison to duncan its so-so, in comparison to 98% of players its great

Nothing about Hakeem's career is so-so, relative to Duncan's career or not.

It's ridiculous to suggest as much.

Can't believe I just posted again in this thread...

Killakobe81

02-13-2015, 04:58 PM

Nothing about Hakeem's career is so-so, relative to Duncan's career or not.

It's ridiculous to suggest as much.

Can't believe I just posted again in this thread...

LOL and I agree ...

wekko368

02-13-2015, 06:30 PM

Hakeem is a player “who can dribble, drive or shoot flashing to the middle of the foul line”, that sounds like a wing player to me.

Yes, Olajuwon was capable of dribbling, driving, and shooting. It's statements like these that make me question whether or not you've ever watched Olajuwon play. You really should youtube some of his highlights.

Quote me in saying that my comment on Olajuwon won’t be as successful in today’s game is relevant to the topic of the thread, and quote somewhere that says every comment has to be relevant to the topic of the thread.

Generally, when you make comments irrelevant to the topic at hand, they're dismissed. And when you try to make arguments irrelevant to the topic at hand, they're called "strawman" arguments and dismissed.

According to you, this is not the topic at hand, it’s about h2h, not against competition.

According to you, this is not the topic at hand, it’s about h2h, not against competition.

It's all related. When you speculate about h2h matchups, you're basing it on how each player performed in their prime. And how they performed in their prime depends on the level of competition in their prime. See? Related.

Like I said before, just b/c you can't see the connection doesn't mean they aren't connected.

How is that established fact? Any numbers to back that up? Any quotes?
According to Draft Express: http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Yao-Ming-3615/

Go youtube game footage of Yao and Smits. The difference in their mobility/coordination will be obvious. That's more compelling than any quote/stats you can find.

Not every, but a significantly larger number, which would affect Hakeem’s numbers negatively. I have already listed some, and I noted that you tend to ignore the NBA has moved into a league with longer quicker wing players as compared to the 90s.

I ignored it b/c it's irrelevant. We weren't talking about the average guard in the 90's. We were talking specifically about the 1996 Sonics and Gary Payton. You've already said that you think many guards today could be defensively comparable (in terms of help defense) to Gary Payton. I didn't see any point in arguing that b/c we're so far apart on that matter.

I said peak, I never said a same year. If you want to go with one year peaks, sure, Hakeem had one of the greatest season in the history of the league. In terms of prime? I’d take Jordan, Shaq, Wilt, maybe Lebron and Bird over him.

The greatest season Hakeem ever had was during’s Jordan’s “retirement” as well.

So what? Do you think Jordan's Bulls could've beaten the Rockets? They couldn't handle quick, elite centers. From 1991-1993, both the Spurs and Rockets had a 5-1 record against the Bulls.

Such as what? That he isn’t the best in every single thing?

You just questioned Olajuwon's ability to dribble and drive. And you wonder why I question whether or not you've seen Olajuwon play?

He didn’t? Where are your established facts?

Where are yours? You're the one who make that ridiculous claim. The onus is on you to prove it. Also, since Olajuwon and Smits both started and played comparable minutes, the logical assumption is that they spent most of their minutes guarding each other. If you're going to say otherwise, you need to at least make a compelling argument. So far, all you've been able to come up with is "they both played in the same game".

Why do you have to play iso when the game was played 5 on 5? Is the topic about Hakeem and Duncan 1 on 1 instead of h2h now?

Because that's how I framed the question. Remember, I said that Mutombo was a greater offensive threat than Noah. You disagreed and cited their stats. However, you incorrectly correlated stats with offensive ability. That's why I gave you the scenario involving Howard/Motiejunas. It illustrated your flawed logic.

Also, this thread has always included a 1on1 component.

Yeah, that’s up to you, stats told me Noah got a better chance of getting me two points.

That's b/c you're misusing the stats.

Nowitzki’s game is about as non-big. When I am saying big, I am talking about low-post bigs. I thought that was implied.

Nowitzki isn't purely a perimeter player. He also plays in the low-post. That's where he shoots his one-legged fadeaway.

Gasol, by your definition, was a 2nd fiddle. I don’t necessarily agree with that, but hey, you define the facts.

Ok? What's your point? He was a 2nd fiddle, but that doesn't change the fact that he was drafted early and eventually played a major role on a championship team.

Bynum played 29 and 30 minutes a game in the two seasons, and wasn’t even a major contributor in the 2009 playoffs. Before you twist my words to say that I said bigs do not play in the league anymore, I didn’t. I said bigs are not as important in today’s game as they were in the 90s. You still play big men.

Yeah, guarding Dwight Howard wasn't a major contribution. :rolleyes

Garnett was sharing the load with Pierce, and was clearly past his prime. This was one of the earlier super teams that was just more talented than anywhere else at multiple positions, not just PF.

He was still good enough to be the DPOY.

06 Heat was mostly Wade.

Yeah, it's not like Shaq was All-NBA first team, right?

All in all, you're missing the point. Bigs are still the most important position in the league. You can argue all you want that it's changing, but the fact remains that the majority of recent championship teams have had a star big.

No doubt he was important, but he’s a role player who is important in defense, rebounding and setting picks. That’s what bigs are used for primarily in today’s league. If the big can shoot from 20 feet and pass, even better. But they are now just a part of the offense instead of THE offense like the 90s.

That's b/c there's a lack of skilled bigs. Look at Memphis. Gasol and Randolph lead the team in FGA/game and FTA/game. If a team has a skilled big, they utilize him.

That means Mutombo sucked on offense, but the Nuggets still forced fed him the ball.

So in 1993, when Mutombo had the 4th highest FGA on the team, you call that "force feeding" him the ball? :lol

Notice how the Hawks are so much more dangerous with Horford averaging less shots.

So much more dangerous? Horford is currently averaging 12.7 fga and 2 fta. He was injured most of last season. In 2013, he averaged 14.3 fga and 2.8 fta. You're attributing the Hawks' success to a decrease of 1.6 fga and 0.8 fta?

What about Josh Smith's departure? The acquisition of Paul Millsap?

And since you want to talk about teammates, last year, Horford and Millsap took 28.6 FGA a game, this year, they combined for 25.1 FGA, with the rest of the shots going to the wing players. It opens up the Hawks offense, and their ORTG jumped from 18th to the league to 6th in the league.

Horford played 29 games last season, and it was Millsap's first year with the team. It's foolish to use last season for comparative purposes.

Teams with the best offensive ratings have a heavy perimeter presence (Clippers, Blazers, Mavs, Rockets, Heat, Spurs, OKC, Suns, Raptors, GSW). Do they still have inside players? Sure, just that they don’t dominate the shot charts like they did in the 90s, like how Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, and Shaq would shoot 20 times a game.

That's a moot point. Teams that run their offenses through their bigs naturally have lower offensive ratings. It slows the game down which leads to fewer possessions.

Yeah, their respective teams also became much more successful by having them shoot the ball more in the 90s. That strategy is not working out so well in today’s game, where the Pelicans are doing quite poorly despite how well Davis is doing.

LOL. Are you aware that Jrue Holiday has been injured with a stress reaction? The Pelicans have played 53 games. Holiday has missed 16 games. Eric Gordon has missed 21 games.

In all seriousness, here's what you need to do. When you formulate an argument, don't just post it. You should first look to see if there are any mitigating circumstances that would invalidate your argument.

You just brought up pace, what am I supposed to have done? Read your mind and predict that you want to talk about pace? You pull up the stats and let’s debate.

Nope, you're supposed to use as much relevant information as you can when constructing an argument. For instance, when you're comparing the FGA of different players, you need to consider how many shots each team takes.

FYI, “ambiguous answers” = “I don’t know what I am talking about”.

Sorry, but no. It was a poorly phrased question that showed a fundamental ignorance about basketball.

You continually fail to understand that there are varying degrees of "better teammates".

The 1995 Rockets started Chucky Brown at PF. Both prime Otis Thorpe and prime Tim Duncan are better players than Chucky Brown. However, replacing Brown with Tim Duncan will have a significantly different impact than replacing him with Otis Thorpe.

If you want a specific answer, ask a specific question.

10% of their defense is occasional? That’s actually quite a bit. It allowed the bad teams to compete in games.

And how did that work out for them? Go ahead and post their records.

With an effective zone defense and longer athletes? Sure.
http://www.nba.com/2015/news/features/sekou_smith/02/10/rise-of-guards-james-harden-stephen-curry-tony-parker-chris-paul-changing-way-nba-game-is-played/

Also, read http://accelphysio.ca/yj/201501/a_What_s_the_difference_between_today_s_NBA_and_80 s_to_early_90s_NBA_.html Not that I am saying what this says is gospel, but it pretty much summarizes why bigs are taking on a lesser role than 90s basketball.

You can't win this argument. The Memphis Grizzlies run an inside-out offense b/c they have skilled big men. They disprove your theory.

Where are your facts?

You're the one arguing that current defenses will close in quicker. The onus is on you to prove that. And fyi, simple raw physical measurements don't prove it.

diego

02-13-2015, 09:38 PM

Nothing about Hakeem's career is so-so, relative to Duncan's career or not.

It's ridiculous to suggest as much.

Can't believe I just posted again in this thread...

Clearly I chose poor wording, but duncan has hakeem beat in several measures, be it all nba, all defensive team, MVPs, all star selections, advanced stats, as well as team success- and hakeem struggled with foul trouble early on, whereas duncan came into the league more polished. Is it really arguable that duncan hasnt already had a better career than hakeem (and like I said in my earlier clarification, most NBA players)? Head to head in their primes I already stated I think olajuwon might have been quick enough to get the better of duncan, its more difficult to see any clear advantage for duncan vs hakeem. but overall for their careers I dont think there is any question duncan's is superior, regardless of ring count.

JamStone

02-13-2015, 10:04 PM

Serious question. Are you old enough to have watched Hakeem in the late 80s thru the mid 90s?

I think sometimes these discussions end up being a product of posters looking up stats or youtube clips or old articles to form an opinion or support an argument. And if that's the case it's sometimes difficult to sway that person's opinion. I don't know if you're old enough or not. That's why I'm asking. It would give me a better idea of where you're coming from. And it's not to discredit your opinion or argument. I just want to know.

I'm one if the older posters on here. I'm almost 40. I grew up watching Hakeem in his prime. I've watched Tim's entire career. Tim has had a more consistently successful career. I don't think anyone would argue. Part of that is the winning and the titles. And while individual players can be a big part of that, winning and championships rely and depend heavily on an entire team not just one player. If you compare Hakeem and Tim individually as players, I take Hakeem 10 times out of 10 times through the first 12 years of each of their respective careers. I think Hakeem was better through the first 12. Hakeem was better offensively and defensively imo. And he was more athletic. Tim was the better winner. And as I've said before in this thread, for those couple of years at his peak, Hakeem was the greatest and most complete big man to have ever played the game.

I don't have a horse in this race. I'm not and never was a Rockets fan. I'm not a Spurs fan. So take my opinion how you want to.

sook

02-14-2015, 04:05 AM

not choosing sides but glad to see Amb get in to it with someone else ...
I remember arguing back and forth with wekko on clutchfans way back, nothing closely resembling this of course, but he can deff. go further than amb. I have my money on him, he'll be the last one standing in these 1hr level crafted posts.

z0sa

02-14-2015, 04:50 AM

Olajuwon was a better player AT HIS PEAK. That is it. That is all. His peak barely even lasted and it was permanently asterisked by MJs retirement. Duncan, from start to near finish, is the better player. Less asterisks (which are bullshit but fair game in this day and age), many more titles, far longer reign at the top and in opponent's mentalities. If you want a prime vs prime contest, Duncan may lose. But a silly microcosm is all that is.

benefactor

02-14-2015, 07:59 AM

djohn2oo8

02-14-2015, 09:23 AM

Ignignokt

02-14-2015, 12:09 PM

djohn2oo8

02-14-2015, 12:57 PM

JamStone

02-14-2015, 01:23 PM

Sure, you can make the same argument, you give Robinson thorpe, horry, cassell, smith, drexler, horry and you'd have Robinson pounding a pink sock on Hakeem with him having no shooters like del negro, ****** and avery lol..

That series:

Houston minus Hakeem: 41.2% FG, 34.4% 3PT
San Antonio minus David: 45.1% FG, 32.9% 3PT

Hakeem: 35.3 PPG, 56% FG
David: 23.8 PPG, 35.2% FG

Don't blame David's teammates too much or credit Hakeem's teammates too much. In that particular series, the difference was and always will be the two centers. In fact, Avery Johnson shot almost 55% from the field in that series. He had a great scoring series despite not being a long distance threat. Also, Otis Thorpe didn't play in that series. He was involved in the trade to bring Drexler to Houston. Shit, the Rockets were starting Pete Chilcutt at PF the first few games of that series then played small ball after that. Cassell shot 34% from the field, Kenny Smith 41% from the field that series.

It's easy 20 years later to try to misrepresent the facts to make an argument. That series was always about Hakeem v. David. And the most telling part of that series were games 5 and 6 after the series got tied up 2-2. From that point, in those final two deciding games, Hakeem dropped 81 points on 64% shooting on D-Rob while Robinson countered with 41 points on 41% shooting. Don't go blaming Del Negro and Avery. Hakeem just dropped a funky disrespectful load all over David for that particular series. That's all.

djohn2oo8

02-14-2015, 03:17 PM

Olajuwon never defeated defending champions of the previous year

Yes he did. 84-85 Lakers won it all. Beat them in 86.

:lol ezau

Killakobe81

02-14-2015, 09:00 PM

That series:

Houston minus Hakeem: 41.2% FG, 34.4% 3PT
San Antonio minus David: 45.1% FG, 32.9% 3PT

Hakeem: 35.3 PPG, 56% FG
David: 23.8 PPG, 35.2% FG

Don't blame David's teammates too much or credit Hakeem's teammates too much. In that particular series, the difference was and always will be the two centers. In fact, Avery Johnson shot almost 55% from the field in that series. He had a great scoring series despite not being a long distance threat. Also, Otis Thorpe didn't play in that series. He was involved in the trade to bring Drexler to Houston. Shit, the Rockets were starting Pete Chilcutt at PF the first few games of that series then played small ball after that. Cassell shot 34% from the field, Kenny Smith 41% from the field that series.

It's easy 20 years later to try to misrepresent the facts to make an argument. That series was always about Hakeem v. David. And the most telling part of that series were games 5 and 6 after the series got tied up 2-2. From that point, in those final two deciding games, Hakeem dropped 81 points on 64% shooting on D-Rob while Robinson countered with 41 points on 41% shooting. Don't go blaming Del Negro and Avery. Hakeem just dropped a funky disrespectful load all over David for that particular series. That's all.

Damn. Jam drops the mic

Ignignokt

02-15-2015, 03:45 PM

Ignignokt

02-15-2015, 03:54 PM

I mean Jam Stone has a case if they were playing H.O.R.S.E.

Otherwise, i'd like for him to tell me that that the defensive schemes for both teams were the same for the guards and centers. lol

baseline bum

02-15-2015, 03:59 PM

baseline bum

02-15-2015, 04:01 PM

Damn. Jam drops the mic

Looks like he dropped his college algebra class too soon too tbh

djohn2oo8

02-15-2015, 04:17 PM

JamStone

02-15-2015, 05:11 PM

lol those are because of the lopsided wins they got in Houston against Houston.

These stats have to be put in context. The spurs guards were left more wide open, and they were daring them to shoot. San Antonio couldn't allow for that, since houston had better perimeter shooting.

I'll go game by game:

GM 1 Houston wins
Houston minus Hakeem: 24-for-61 FG (39.3%), 5-for-16 3PT (31.3%)
San Antonio minus David: 28-for-61 FG (45.9%), 2-for-8 3PT (25%)

GM 2 Houston wins
HMH: 24-for-49 FG (49%), 9-for-19 3PT (47.4%)
SMD: 27-for-68 FG (39.7%), 4-for-18 3PT (22.2%)

GM 3 San Antonio wins
HMH: 20-for-48 FG (41.6%), 12-for-28 3PT (42.9%)
SMD: 26-for-60 FG (43.3%), 9-for-19 3PT (47.4%)

GM 4 San Antonio wins
HMH: 21-for-53 FG (39.6%), 3-for-16 3PT (18.8%)
SMD: 33-for-78 FG (42.3%), 4-for-12 3PT (33%)

GM 5 Houston wins
HMH: 21-for-51 FG (41.2%), 6-for-17 3PT (35.3%)
SMD: 27-for-55 FG (49.1%), 2-for-6 3PT (33%)

GM 6 Houston wins
HMH: 21-for-56 FG (37.5%), 8-for-29 3PT (27.6%)
SMD: 30-for-57 FG (52.6%), 2-for-7 3PT (28.6%)

Game 2 was the only game the Rockets supporting cast definitely outperformed the Spurs supporting cast.

It wasn't just the games 3 and 4 Spurs wins. With the exception of game 4, David's teammates outperformed Hakeem's teammates from the floor. The three point percentages were not much different. The difference was the much greater number of three point attempts Houston took. In that sense, yes, Hakeem's teammates (particularly Horry and Smith for a few games, but surprisingly not Drexler or Cassell) did space the floor more for Hakeem. The reality however was that all those three point attempts made for a bunch of misses and low FG shooting. While a number of the Spurs players did score well. In fact, look at particular games 5 and 6 where Hakeem destroyed David and how David's teammates scored the ball from the field.

Now take the top 3 secondary players for each team:

Houston (Drexler, Horry, Smith): 86-for-200 FG (43%), 30-for-86 3PT (34.9%), 40.8 PPG
San Antonio (Sean, Avery, Del Negro): 106-for-218 FG (48.6%), 10-for-27 3PT (37%), 44.5 PPG

Games 3 and 4 did not skew the overall series numbers the way you think they did.

Where are you getting this bullshit from? 35%? Robinson shot 45% in the 1995 WCF.

You are correct. I made a mistake. I double checked the other numbers to make sure I didn't make other mistakes. The other numbers should be accurate. It does show David wasn't as bad shooting the ball. He did have a pair of games where he shot the ball very well. Then 3 games where he shot under 40%, including a 5-for-17 (29%) game in game 1. But yes I made a mistake and I apologize. The point remains the same. Hakeem severely outplayed David in the series. And if you go game by game, as far as scoring goes, Hakeem whooped David every game with the exception of game 4.

And just for shits and giggles, this exercise of adding a collection of numbers (like points) and then dividing that number by another number (like number of games) is simple arithmetic, not algebra. I made a poor arithmetic mistake. It doesn't take algebra to add numbers and use division.

baseline bum

02-15-2015, 05:43 PM

Oh good, I thought it took PDEs and harmonic analysis to compute shooting percentages

Ignignokt

02-15-2015, 06:23 PM

Still, Hakeem's teammates shot worse than David's. Rockets' 3 point shooting wasn't a big advantage that series like you make it seem. Dream just shitted on Robinson's legacy.

I know you be like

BUT THE PERCENTAGES

THE PERCENTAGES

OOGA BOOGA!!

but the reason san anto shot better was because they were left wide open and houston focused their d on stopping robinson. It was the opposite for the spurs, they didn't double hakeem and focused equally on both the post and perimeter.

Ignignokt

02-15-2015, 06:42 PM

What proves my point is that Houston shot on average 2x more three point shots than the spurs. The spurs didn't attempt that many shots because the fact is that they didn't rely on the 3, and were not solid from it. Most of the shots from the spurs came from inside the arch and on fast breaks. The spurs were more of a run and gun team, they scored more on transition.

Ignignokt

02-15-2015, 06:48 PM

shots from 3pt range

Hou: 125
SA:70

Shots made from 3pt range
Hou:43
SA:23

So Hou shot 34% from 3 and SA 32% but they made twice more 3's.

Ignignokt

02-15-2015, 06:54 PM

The reason the FG% is more skewed in san antonios favor is because Houston shot almost twice as many shots from 3.

JamStone

02-15-2015, 07:24 PM

baseline bum

02-15-2015, 08:08 PM

Why do people give Robinson so much shit for losing to Olajuwon? Ewing's the one who actually shot 36% in his series against Hakeem. Robinson got outplayed pretty badly, but he didn't completely shit the bed like Ewing did against a far inferior Rockets team whose second best player was Vernon Maxwell.

ambchang

02-17-2015, 06:32 PM

Yes, Olajuwon was capable of dribbling, driving, and shooting. It's statements like these that make me question whether or not you've ever watched Olajuwon play. You really should youtube some of his highlights.
Didn’t have to, I watched him regularly during his prime. And no, as skilled as he was, he’s not a guard, and cannot play like a guard, especially that of today’s wing players.

Generally, when you make comments irrelevant to the topic at hand, they're dismissed. And when you try to make arguments irrelevant to the topic at hand, they're called "strawman" arguments and dismissed.
No, that was a comment, not an argument. A strawman argument has to be an argument. I have never heard of strawman comments.

It's all related. When you speculate about h2h matchups, you're basing it on how each player performed in their prime. And how they performed in their prime depends on the level of competition in their prime. See? Related.
Like I said before, just b/c you can't see the connection doesn't mean they aren't connected.
Then Duncan playing in today’s game when he’s out of prime is related to him playing in his prime is related to the topic. See? Related.

Go youtube game footage of Yao and Smits. The difference in their mobility/coordination will be obvious. That's more compelling than any quote/stats you can find.
Like I said before, just b/c you can’t see the similarities doesn’t mean they aren’t similar.

I ignored it b/c it's irrelevant. We weren't talking about the average guard in the 90's. We were talking specifically about the 1996 Sonics and Gary Payton. You've already said that you think many guards today could be defensively comparable (in terms of help defense) to Gary Payton. I didn't see any point in arguing that b/c we're so far apart on that matter.
Then the entire point of the back and forth is moot, because I clearly said in my off-hand comment that Hakeem wouldn’t be as successful in TODAY’s game as he was in the 90s, and obviously, a huge part of that has to deal with the today’s guards (wings) and defense.

So what? Do you think Jordan's Bulls could've beaten the Rockets? They couldn't handle quick, elite centers. From 1991-1993, both the Spurs and Rockets had a 5-1 record against the Bulls.
I actually don’t, I actually think the Rockets would beat the Bulls rather easily even if Jordan was there. I actually think the Bulls wouldn’t make the finals 8 years in a row because the team would burn out. But in the historical context, it does raise questions.

You just questioned Olajuwon's ability to dribble and drive. And you wonder why I question whether or not you've seen Olajuwon play?
As well as the wings of today? Yes, I don’t think Hakeem would be able to dribble and drive to the capacity of today’s wings, even average ones.

Where are yours? You're the one who make that ridiculous claim. The onus is on you to prove it. Also, since Olajuwon and Smits both started and played comparable minutes, the logical assumption is that they spent most of their minutes guarding each other. If you're going to say otherwise, you need to at least make a compelling argument. So far, all you've been able to come up with is "they both played in the same game".
I listed the games. I don’t have archives, but I remember Antonio Davis guarding Hakeem in those games.
You still haven’t listed any facts to support your claim that Smits is much more agile and mobile than Yao.

Because that's how I framed the question. Remember, I said that Mutombo was a greater offensive threat than Noah. You disagreed and cited their stats. However, you incorrectly correlated stats with offensive ability. That's why I gave you the scenario involving Howard/Motiejunas. It illustrated your flawed logic.
You said something about strawman arguments earlier?
Numbers clearly show that Noah and Mutombo are comparable, and no, Howard is the better offensive player, Matiejunas is the more skilled. There are huge differences between the two. Rony Seikaly was a more skilled offensive player than Shaq, but Shaq is a million times better an offensive player than Seikaly ever was.

Also, this thread has always included a 1on1 component.
Why?

That's b/c you're misusing the stats.
Explain. I would say you have trouble distinguishing between better offensive player with more skilled offensive player.

Nowitzki isn't purely a perimeter player. He also plays in the low-post. That's where he shoots his one-legged fadeaway.
And yet only 24.9% of his shots come within 10 feet of the basket.

Ok? What's your point? He was a 2nd fiddle, but that doesn't change the fact that he was drafted early and eventually played a major role on a championship team.
Hakeem would be used as a second fiddle now? How is that relevant to the topic, something you are so anal about?

Yeah, guarding Dwight Howard wasn't a major contribution. :rolleyes
:lol How, but playing 23 minutes a game and putting up 4.2 fouls a game? Sure he was a great defender in that series, which is consistent with what I said a big man in today’s game is primarily used for, but he wasn’t the type of player to have the offense go through him.

He was still good enough to be the DPOY.
I am not sure if you understand my point, I am not saying bigs are useless in todays’ game, I am saying bigs are having a far more diminished role in today’s game, and a huge part of that is on the offensive end. I recalled saying earlier that bigs are now more important in the defensive cog, facilitator and high post passing role. The years or running an offense through a big in the low blocks is dead because it stifles ball movement and allow teams to defend you much more effectively, and a large part due to the zone.

Yeah, it's not like Shaq was All-NBA first team, right?
Because the rest of the centers are even worse? It’s like call Jamaal Magloire an allstar.

All in all, you're missing the point. Bigs are still the most important position in the league. You can argue all you want that it's changing, but the fact remains that the majority of recent championship teams have had a star big.
This is the part I disagree with, bigs are no longer the most important position in the league. It’s very important from a defensive and passing perspective, but the league has changed the rules to tip the advantage to wing players.

That's b/c there's a lack of skilled bigs. Look at Memphis. Gasol and Randolph lead the team in FGA/game and FTA/game. If a team has a skilled big, they utilize him.
With Conley shooting about the same as them. In the 90s, the FGA would tip more towards the bigs and Conley would’ve gotten less shots.

So in 1993, when Mutombo had the 4th highest FGA on the team, you call that "force feeding" him the ball? :lol
Yeah, he shouldn’t even be getting the ball. Mutombo was horrible offensively. Just like how Noah is 7th on his team in FGA with a comparably bad offensive game. Also notice how bad those Nuggets were on offense.

So much more dangerous? Horford is currently averaging 12.7 fga and 2 fta. He was injured most of last season. In 2013, he averaged 14.3 fga and 2.8 fta. You're attributing the Hawks' success to a decrease of 1.6 fga and 0.8 fta?
That’s more than 10% decrease in FGA and almost a 50% decrease in FTA. That’s significant.

What about Josh Smith's departure? The acquisition of Paul Millsap?
Horford played 29 games last season, and it was Millsap's first year with the team. It's foolish to use last season for comparative purposes.
Of course, it’s a huge deal, no question. Having an offensively flexible big like Millsap, who can shoot with great consistency from 16+ is a huge asset, as opposed to having Smith the chucker.

That's a moot point. Teams that run their offenses through their bigs naturally have lower offensive ratings. It slows the game down which leads to fewer possessions.
ORTGs actually take into account possessions.

LOL. Are you aware that Jrue Holiday has been injured with a stress reaction? The Pelicans have played 53 games. Holiday has missed 16 games. Eric Gordon has missed 21 games.
They both suck, and great that they missed games because they would have taken shots away from Davis, which would undermine your point.

In all seriousness, here's what you need to do. When you formulate an argument, don't just post it. You should first look to see if there are any mitigating circumstances that would invalidate your argument.
Great advice. I will take it into consideration.
I have some advice for you too, me not stating something doesn’t mean I disagree with it.

Nope, you're supposed to use as much relevant information as you can when constructing an argument. For instance, when you're comparing the FGA of different players, you need to consider how many shots each team takes.
Then state those numbers. You want to say pace is a contributor I should have taken, then show the pace.

Sorry, but no. It was a poorly phrased question that showed a fundamental ignorance about basketball.
You continually fail to understand that there are varying degrees of "better teammates".
The 1995 Rockets started Chucky Brown at PF. Both prime Otis Thorpe and prime Tim Duncan are better players than Chucky Brown. However, replacing Brown with Tim Duncan will have a significantly different impact than replacing him with Otis Thorpe.
If you want a specific answer, ask a specific question.
It was specific, and your answer is it depends despite you earlier, clearly stated that a primary player having better players will lead to better stats. You stated it, I didn’t.
But now, you are arguing otherwise, saying switching Brown for Barkley caused Olajuwon’s numbers to dipped. You are contradicting yourself. So you are either incorrect in one instance, or incorrect in another (well, or incorrect in both).

And how did that work out for them? Go ahead and post their records.
You already did. And the Raptors stunk that year because they couldn’t score, not because they couldn’t defend. (GSW was another story though).
And just because they sucked didn’t mean they didn’t benefit from it, they were playing against other teams that can use the zone as well.

You can't win this argument. The Memphis Grizzlies run an inside-out offense b/c they have skilled big men. They disprove your theory.
And both of their skilled bigs are averaging less than 14 shots a game, as opposed to skilled bigs in the 90s that shot 20 a game.

You're the one arguing that current defenses will close in quicker. The onus is on you to prove that. And fyi, simple raw physical measurements don't prove it.
Ahh .. the tried and true you said it so you have to prove it, all I have to say is no I don’t agree as if you have never stated anything in the thread like Smits > Yao with nothing to back it up. Boils down to it, it really a coward’s way out, but regardless.
http://www.quora.com/2012-13-NBA-Season/What-makes-Coach-Tom-Thibodeaus-defense-so-good
Thibodeau’s defense has been copied and used a few seasons, and one of the major things is to close down on the shooters, same with Popovich’s defense.
Also an article about how the Bucks is utilizing length and athleticism to cover more ground.
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/milwaukees-makeover-how-the-bucks-decided-to-buckle-down-and-play-for-the-future/

ambchang

02-17-2015, 06:51 PM

Right, but the only two games where there was a big difference in three pointers made were games 2 and 6. And even in each of those games, those three pointers made were offset by the two pointers made by the Spurs.

Game 2: Houston makes 5 more three pointers (15 more points), San Antonio makes 8 more two pointers (16 more points)
Game 6: Houston makes 6 more three pointers (18 more points), San Antonio makes 15 more two pointers (30 more points)

You can add game 5 as well, Houston 12 more points on three pointers, San Antonio 20 more points in two pointers. In every single game of the series, any advantage Houston got in more points by made three pointers, San Antonio countered by scoring more points on made two pointers. The advantage you think was there is a facade. Now that's not to say there isn't some mental advantage or momentum swing by big three pointers made. But it didn't end up being the difference. We know where the difference in the series came from. The center position.

And this began with your notion that David's supporting cast couldn't shoot. Fact is, David's supporting cast actually scored more and at a more efficient rate than Hakeem's cast. No, they didn't have quite the three point threats Hakeem had. But, they weren't the reason the Spurs lost. Hakeem was dropping an efficient 40 points every other game. He completely outplayed David. This is not news to anybody.

Can't find too many detailed videos on youtube, but this is what I found:

cvCdFeYKggM
Ghf6dbag-Tk

The reason the numbers were somewhat similar was because the Spurs shooters were left wide open time after time as the Rockets were crowding Robinson all game long (watch the videos). On defense, the Spurs were neither doubling Hakeem nor guarding their man, when they finally forced Hakeem to pass, they would leave the Rockets shooters wide opened for shots. It was frustrating to watch.

Over the course of the series, the Rockets shot 44 for 127 from three, the spurs 23 from 72. In other words, the Spurs shot and made about half of what the Rockets made, and you don't think that had an impact on spacing, which allowed the Rockets to crowd Robinson? Avery Johnson taking 79 shots itself is a problem, because the Rockets were leaving him wide open the entire game. This is the guy who proved to everyone he can shoot because he nailed a wide opened 15 footer against the Knicks. You and I can nail a wide open 15 footer.

Overall, obviously the Spurs supporting casts would score more than the Rockets supporting casts, because the Spurs were running singles on Hakeem, and the Rockets were doubling and tripling Robinson all series long. That's the function of the defenses played.

You want more proof robinson was doubled and tripled throughout? He shot 71 FTA in the series, with the next most Elliott at 29. Hakeem had 29 fouls in the series (expected, because he is the primary defender on Robinson), and yet other players like Drexler (21), Cassell (20), elie (20), Horry (10), and Jones (19) all fouled at an extremely high rate as well. It possibly couldn't have been them fouling their man, because Eliott only shot 29 FTs the entire series (that's less than 5 a game), and nobody else even had more than 20FTas. Other than Jones, the other 4 Rockets with high foul rates were largely perimeter players, and the only logical conclusion is that they picked up the fouls by doubling Robinson (also based on what I recalled).

So no, the defenses were entirely different, and the Spurs players SHOULD shoot better than the Rockets players, and they only did it, but marginally so.

JamStone

02-17-2015, 07:26 PM

Can't find too many detailed videos on youtube, but this is what I found:

cvCdFeYKggM
Ghf6dbag-Tk

The reason the numbers were somewhat similar was because the Spurs shooters were left wide open time after time as the Rockets were crowding Robinson all game long (watch the videos). On defense, the Spurs were neither doubling Hakeem nor guarding their man, when they finally forced Hakeem to pass, they would leave the Rockets shooters wide opened for shots. It was frustrating to watch.

Over the course of the series, the Rockets shot 44 for 127 from three, the spurs 23 from 72. In other words, the Spurs shot and made about half of what the Rockets made, and you don't think that had an impact on spacing, which allowed the Rockets to crowd Robinson? Avery Johnson taking 79 shots itself is a problem, because the Rockets were leaving him wide open the entire game. This is the guy who proved to everyone he can shoot because he nailed a wide opened 15 footer against the Knicks. You and I can nail a wide open 15 footer.

Overall, obviously the Spurs supporting casts would score more than the Rockets supporting casts, because the Spurs were running singles on Hakeem, and the Rockets were doubling and tripling Robinson all series long. That's the function of the defenses played.

You want more proof robinson was doubled and tripled throughout? He shot 71 FTA in the series, with the next most Elliott at 29. Hakeem had 29 fouls in the series (expected, because he is the primary defender on Robinson), and yet other players like Drexler (21), Cassell (20), elie (20), Horry (10), and Jones (19) all fouled at an extremely high rate as well. It possibly couldn't have been them fouling their man, because Eliott only shot 29 FTs the entire series (that's less than 5 a game), and nobody else even had more than 20FTas. Other than Jones, the other 4 Rockets with high foul rates were largely perimeter players, and the only logical conclusion is that they picked up the fouls by doubling Robinson (also based on what I recalled).

So no, the defenses were entirely different, and the Spurs players SHOULD shoot better than the Rockets players, and they only did it, but marginally so.

Go find game 6 clips.

It's convenient you post only game 1. After Hakeem kept dropping 40 points on close to 60% shooting, you think the Spurs kept playing him the same way? If you find game 6 clips, you'll see not only is Hakeem double teamed most of the time, they often threw 3 defenders at him and he still scored. Game 1 doesn't tell you much because early on in a playoff series is the feeling out process and teams adjust depending on what happens those first few games.

ambchang

02-17-2015, 08:25 PM

Go find game 6 clips.

It's convenient you post only game 1. After Hakeem kept dropping 40 points on close to 60% shooting, you think the Spurs kept playing him the same way? If you find game 6 clips, you'll see not only is Hakeem double teamed most of the time, they often threw 3 defenders at him and he still scored. Game 1 doesn't tell you much because early on in a playoff series is the feeling out process and teams adjust depending on what happens those first few games.

Post the clips then.
I also posted stats that strongly support my memory.

Brazil

02-17-2015, 08:32 PM

Hakeem dominated that serie against David... Never understood Spurs fans trying to spin dat shit tbh... I mean being dominated by the big who had the most 3/4 years dominant of any big in recent history is nothing to ashamed of. David had an amazing career and btw some amazing peak years. Hakeem was just in another world that year. Props to him, David got his ring later.

Brazil

02-17-2015, 08:32 PM

Robinson moved on, Spurs fans should do the same :lol

JamStone

02-18-2015, 12:06 AM

Post the clips then.
I also posted stats that strongly support my memory.

No. I will not. You seem particularly adept at spending hours of mindless research for your messageboard machinations. I'm certain you are well educated on how to use youtube and its search feature. Simply type in any number of permutations of "spurs," "rockets," "1995," "wcf," and "game 6" and find the clips yourself. You found clips of game 1. I'm confident in your ability to find clips of game 6.

wekko368

02-18-2015, 02:16 AM

Didn’t have to, I watched him regularly during his prime. And no, as skilled as he was, he’s not a guard, and cannot play like a guard, especially that of today’s wing players.

You don't understand the foundation of your own argument. What's the purpose of having dribbling/driving skills? It's to attack the basket and break down the defense. Of course Olajuwon's dribbling/driving skills are nowhere near those of a guard, but you're forgetting that he's a center being guarded by other centers.

His dribbling/driving skills were easily good enough to go past his defender and force the defense to collapse.

Then Duncan playing in today’s game when he’s out of prime is related to him playing in his prime is related to the topic. See? Related.

Sorry, but no. All you've done is state the two things you're trying to compare. That doesn't make them related to the topic.

If you think it's related, you need to explain how current Duncan's performance is relevant to prime Duncan's performance.

Then the entire point of the back and forth is moot, because I clearly said in my off-hand comment that Hakeem wouldn’t be as successful in TODAY’s game as he was in the 90s, and obviously, a huge part of that has to deal with the today’s guards (wings) and defense.

I think that if Olajuwon played today, he's have fewer points but more assists. I also think that he'd have a much more successful career.

I listed the games. I don’t have archives, but I remember Antonio Davis guarding Hakeem in those games.

Who cares if you listed the games. All that does is prove they played in the same game. It also says that Olajuwon started and Davis came off the bench. I'm sure that at some point, Davis did guard Olajuwon, but the onus is on you to prove that he guarded Olajuwon often enough to support your argument.

You still haven’t listed any facts to support your claim that Smits is much more agile and mobile than Yao.

Sure I did. I told you go to youtuble and watch their highlights.

Numbers clearly show that Noah and Mutombo are comparable,

Numbers clearly show that Noah and Mutombo have comparable stats. You're incorrectly interpreting them as saying that Noah and Mutombo have comparable offensive games.

and no, Howard is the better offensive player, Matiejunas is the more skilled. There are huge differences between the two. Rony Seikaly was a more skilled offensive player than Shaq, but Shaq is a million times better an offensive player than Seikaly ever was.

100% wrong. Motiejunas is more skilled than Howard AND the better offensive player. Look at how they get their points. Motiejunas gets a lot of isolation plays in the post, and he's capable of stretching the defense by hitting 3 pointers. Dwight's points come from offensive rebounds and pick & roll lobs. In other words, Dwight's teammates are creating opportunities for him.

Why?

This thread has always had a 1on1 component. I don't know why, but it has. If you don't believe me, go back and read.

Explain. I would say you have trouble distinguishing between better offensive player with more skilled offensive player.

You're correlating stats with ability. That's how you're misusing them.

And yet only 24.9% of his shots come within 10 feet of the basket.

That's not surprising. His one-legged fadeaway in the post will usually take him beyong 10 feet from the basket.

Hakeem would be used as a second fiddle now? How is that relevant to the topic, something you are so anal about?

You need to improve your focus. You're losing track of your arguments. However, since they're pathetic arguments anyway, you're not losing much.

I said Gasol was the 2nd fiddle, but that doesn't change the fact that he was drafted early and eventually played a major role on a championship team. I was proving that GM's aren't stupid when they use high draft picks on bigs.

:lol How, but playing 23 minutes a game and putting up 4.2 fouls a game? Sure he was a great defender in that series, which is consistent with what I said a big man in today’s game is primarily used for, but he wasn’t the type of player to have the offense go through him.

I never said anything to the contrary. In case you're wondering, there's a perfect example of a strawman argument. However, you're still wrong. He eventually became proficient enough in the post to be the center of an offense. He even made the all-star team, but he got injured and never recovered.

You originally said he wasn't a major contributor in the 2009 playoffs. I pointed out that guarding Dwight Howard was a major contribution.

I am not sure if you understand my point, I am not saying bigs are useless in todays’ game, I am saying bigs are having a far more diminished role in today’s game, and a huge part of that is on the offensive end.

I understand your point, but it's wrong. You base your opinion based on the dearth of offensively gifted big men. I base my opinion on the nature of the game. Memphis runs the bulk of their offense through the post (M.Gasol/Randolph). Look at Anthony Davis. As good as he is now, he's only in his 3rd year. You don't think he'll be good enough to be the centerpiece of an offense?

I recalled saying earlier that bigs are now more important in the defensive cog, facilitator and high post passing role.

That's simply because there haven't been many offensively skilled bigs. But by virtue of their size, they're still effective defensively. When Yao was playing, the Rockets ran their offense through him.

The years or running an offense through a big in the low blocks is dead because it stifles ball movement and allow teams to defend you much more effectively, and a large part due to the zone.

Nope, it's not dead. It's on hiatus, waiting for a big who is skilled enough to be the centerpiece of an offense.

The last time Shaq made an all-star team, it was 2009 and he was 36 years old. He averaged 18 ppg and was named to the all-nba 3rd team. Do you really think that a prime Shaq would have trouble in today's game?

Because the rest of the centers are even worse? It’s like call Jamaal Magloire an allstar

Ok, so what's your argument? That the crop of centers in the league in 2006 was so bad that a 33 year old Shaq was named to the all-nba 1st team by default? But if a prime Shaq were to play in 2006, he'd struggle?

This is the part I disagree with, bigs are no longer the most important position in the league. It’s very important from a defensive and passing perspective, but the league has changed the rules to tip the advantage to wing players.

That's fine. But you should realize that since the drafting tendencies of most GM's disagree with you, you're probably wrong.

With Conley shooting about the same as them. In the 90s, the FGA would tip more towards the bigs and Conley would’ve gotten less shots.

Conley shoots about the same as them individually. But both Gasol and Randolph both play in the post so about 27 fga comes from a post-oriented offense.

In 1995, Olajuwon averaged 21.5 fga and 7.5 fta. Drexler averaged 15 fga and 5.5 fta. In 1994, Olajuwon averaged 21.2 fga and 6.8 fta. Maxwell averaged 13 fga and 2.5 fta.

Yeah, he shouldn’t even be getting the ball. Mutombo was horrible offensively. Just like how Noah is 7th on his team in FGA with a comparably bad offensive game. Also notice how bad those Nuggets were on offense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX89ijwRFV8

Here you go. In case you don't want to watch it, Mutombo got the ball in the post 4 times. He had 3 hook shots and an up and under move.

That’s more than 10% decrease in FGA and almost a 50% decrease in FTA. That’s significant.

1.6 fga decrease. 0.8 decrease in fta. Sorry, that's not significant. Once again, you're looking at things out of context.

Of course, it’s a huge deal, no question. Having an offensively flexible big like Millsap, who can shoot with great consistency from 16+ is a huge asset, as opposed to having Smith the chucker.

Ok, then don't attribute the Hawks' success to Horford averaging less shots.

ORTGs actually take into account possessions.

They actually don't. A player's ORTG is based on production per 100 possessions.

They both suck, and great that they missed games because they would have taken shots away from Davis, which would undermine your point.

Not necessarily. Some of Davis' highest FGA games this season have come with both Holiday and Gordon playing.

I have some advice for you too, me not stating something doesn’t mean I disagree with it.

Of course not. But by failing to consider mitigating circumstances, you're missing out on the big picture. And that will undermine your argument.

Then state those numbers. You want to say pace is a contributor I should have taken, then show the pace.

It's your argument, not mine. If you want to make the argument, then consider pace.

It was specific, and your answer is it depends despite you earlier, clearly stated that a primary player having better players will lead to better stats. You stated it, I didn’t.

No, your question wasn't specific. Not even close. Not all "better" players are "better" to the same degree.

And I'm pretty sure that I said something about "roles" which you ignored. That makes a big difference.

But now, you are arguing otherwise, saying switching Brown for Barkley caused Olajuwon’s numbers to dipped. You are contradicting yourself. So you are either incorrect in one instance, or incorrect in another (well, or incorrect in both).

I haven't changed my argument at all. You think all better players are equal. I don't, because I understand that if a teammate is good enough, it'll change the dynamic of the offense. That's why I gave you the Chucky Brown/Otis Thorpe/Tim Duncan scenario.

You already did. And the Raptors stunk that year because they couldn’t score, not because they couldn’t defend. (GSW was another story though).

:lol So 3 of the worst teams in the league had poor records not because of their poor defense, but because of their poor offense?

And just because they sucked didn’t mean they didn’t benefit from it, they were playing against other teams that can use the zone as well.

Yeah....there's a difference between a team that "can use zone" and a team that "uses zone".

And both of their skilled bigs are averaging less than 14 shots a game, as opposed to skilled bigs in the 90s that shot 20 a game.

Memphis has 2 offensively skilled bigs. Teams in the 90's had 1. Look at the aggregate.

Ahh .. the tried and true you said it so you have to prove it, all I have to say is no I don’t agree as if you have never stated anything in the thread like Smits > Yao with nothing to back it up.

I've told you to go to youtube and look it up. But it's pretty clear you refuse to do that b/c you know I'm right.

Boils down to it, it really a coward’s way out, but regardless.
http://www.quora.com/2012-13-NBA-Season/What-makes-Coach-Tom-Thibodeaus-defense-so-good
Thibodeau’s defense has been copied and used a few seasons, and one of the major things is to close down on the shooters, same with Popovich’s defense.

So you're saying defenses in the 90's didn't close out on shooters?

:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol

Also an article about how the Bucks is utilizing length and athleticism to cover more ground.
http://grantland.com/the-triangle/milwaukees-makeover-how-the-bucks-decided-to-buckle-down-and-play-for-the-future/

You have a tendency of not reading the articles you link. As a result, you're unaware that they don't support your argument.

Here are the relevant paragraphs from the article:

Kidd is banking on the Bucks’ wing players being long and athletic enough to help inside and rush back out in time to thwart any open shot. Cross-court passes hang in the air awhile, after all.

“If we weren’t as long as we are, we probably wouldn’t play like this,” Kidd says. “But with our length, any long passes should give us time to recover.”

It might not work as well with Jerryd Bayless or Jared Dudley, but it’s perfect for long-armed menaces like Antetokounmpo and Parker.

Parker has looked uncomfortable defending in space, and Antetokounmpo is still green; the Bucks have allowed a disastrous 108.1 points per 100 possessions with both young phenoms on the floor, a mark that would rank 27th overall, per NBA.com.

So in summation, you asserted that players from this era would be able to double team the ball handler and then close out on open shooters faster than in the 90's. And as support, you provided an article that says that Milwaukee tries to do this with a rookie Jabari Parker and a 2nd year Antetokounmpo (using a rookie and 2nd year player to make an argument about "this era" is weak). And the article further states that although Milwaukee tries to run a defense that relies on their athleticism, they are still one of the worst defensive teams in the NBA while playing the league's 3rd easiest schedule.

All in all, I'm not quite sure it supports your argument. However, it supports my argument about Motiejunas. Here's an excerpt:

James Harden is a legit MVP candidate, but don’t sleep on Motiejunas, shooting 50 percent and holding the fort at both big-man positions for the red-hot Rockets as Dwight Howard and Terrence Jones nurse injuries.

Motiejunas has shot 28-of-47 (60 percent) on post-ups, per Synergy, and he’s straight clowning guys with a tricky array of pump fakes, up-and-unders, and hooks he can unleash with either hand. Houston is playing through Motiejunas — think about that! — at times when Harden rests.

Infinite_limit

02-18-2015, 02:17 AM

If you removed the backboard, Duncan would be fkd!

benefactor

02-18-2015, 06:56 AM

Robinson moved on, Spurs fans should do the same :lol
I don't think they have it in them.:lol

ambchang

02-18-2015, 02:43 PM

No. I will not. You seem particularly adept at spending hours of mindless research for your messageboard machinations. I'm certain you are well educated on how to use youtube and its search feature. Simply type in any number of permutations of "spurs," "rockets," "1995," "wcf," and "game 6" and find the clips yourself. You found clips of game 1. I'm confident in your ability to find clips of game 6.

I couldn't find it, and the stats (those that you just ignored) backed me up.

If you can't find it, then just say so.

ambchang

02-18-2015, 03:47 PM

You don't understand the foundation of your own argument. What's the purpose of having dribbling/driving skills? It's to attack the basket and break down the defense. Of course Olajuwon's dribbling/driving skills are nowhere near those of a guard, but you're forgetting that he's a center being guarded by other centers.
And you are forgetting the mechanism in a drive and kick to break down a zone defense isn’t to have a center to do it against another center.

His dribbling/driving skills were easily good enough to go past his defender and force the defense to collapse.
No arguments over this, just that he is not, and has never exhibited the ability to do so to break down the zone like modern wing players do.

Sorry, but no. All you've done is state the two things you're trying to compare. That doesn't make them related to the topic.
If you think it's related, you need to explain how current Duncan's performance is relevant to prime Duncan's performance.
Same player, related.

I think that if Olajuwon played today, he's have fewer points but more assists. I also think that he'd have a much more successful career.
Define more successful.
I think he’d have few points and more assists, but then you were arguing that since Davis is averaging 24.5ppg, Hakeem would have averaged more than that, and close to his prime numbers. Which one is it? Will he average the same, more or less points?
This was my original quote, and both your viewpoint and my original post can be consistent.

Hakeem won't be able to dominate like he did in today's game.
He was swarmed to death in the 96 sonics, a team that employed a semi zone.
A full blown zone, which was illegal back in the day but legal now, will limit Hakeem. This also explains why we don't have domjnant bigs anymore. The inside is just too crowded for an inside dominated offense, tipping the advantage to the defense.

Who cares if you listed the games. All that does is prove they played in the same game. It also says that Olajuwon started and Davis came off the bench. I'm sure that at some point, Davis did guard Olajuwon, but the onus is on you to prove that he guarded Olajuwon often enough to support your argument.
Hakeem played 31 minutes, both Smits and Dale Davis played only 28 minutes due to foul trouble. It reasons that Antonio Davis, being a primarily defensive player, would have guarded Hakeem, either one on one, or as a help defender to some degree.

Sure I did. I told you go to youtuble and watch their highlights.
That’s not any type of fact. It’s purely subjective, and I don’t agree with it.

Numbers clearly show that Noah and Mutombo have comparable stats. You're incorrectly interpreting them as saying that Noah and Mutombo have comparable offensive games.
I didn’t say they have comparable offensive games, I said they have the comparably effective offensive games. My original statement was:

More so than Mutombo. Even a non offensive center like Noah or Chandler are much better passers than Mutombo ever would be.

100% wrong. Motiejunas is more skilled than Howard AND the better offensive player. Look at how they get their points. Motiejunas gets a lot of isolation plays in the post, and he's capable of stretching the defense by hitting 3 pointers. Dwight's points come from offensive rebounds and pick & roll lobs. In other words, Dwight's teammates are creating opportunities for him.
Pick and roll lobs and offense rebound points count less than isolation plays now?
Howard averaged 18.2 ppg for his career, with a career high of 22.9. He had a career Orating of 110, with a high of 113. Motiejunas averages 7.6 with a high of 11.6, with oratings of 105 and 108. Even his per 100 possession highs of 23.2 points and per 36 minute highs of 16.7 points pales in comparison to Howard’s (32 and 21.9). Even if you factor in assists, Motiejunas is no where close to as effective as Howard on offense.

This thread has always had a 1on1 component. I don't know why, but it has. If you don't believe me, go back and read.
But we are talking about Mutombo and Noah now, and we have been specifically talking about being an offensive threat, not a 1on1 player.

You're correlating stats with ability. That's how you're misusing them.
No I am not, you are confusing skills with better. I am the coach, player A gets me better chances at points even though he doesn’t have the skills of player B, I go to player A for points.

That's not surprising. His one-legged fadeaway in the post will usually take him beyong 10 feet from the basket.
It is what it is, and 10 feet + is mid range. Unless you want to talk about Dirk camping in the paint and violate 3 seconds on his fade away shots.

You need to improve your focus. You're losing track of your arguments. However, since they're pathetic arguments anyway, you're not losing much.
I said Gasol was the 2nd fiddle, but that doesn't change the fact that he was drafted early and eventually played a major role on a championship team. I was proving that GM's aren't stupid when they use high draft picks on bigs.
So how would a second fiddle dominate today’s game? Which was my original statement (see quoted above). You talking about losing focus now? You seem to have trouble following the original argument, which all subsequent arguments should relate to.

I never said anything to the contrary. In case you're wondering, there's a perfect example of a strawman argument. However, you're still wrong. He eventually became proficient enough in the post to be the center of an offense. He even made the all-star team, but he got injured and never recovered.
He wasn’t, with his constant foul trouble and playing half a game. And no, we have been talking constantly about how Hakeem wouldn’t dominate in today’s game, referring over and over again to his offensive game, and even talking about how today’s bigs provide help on defense and passing, and yet you like to talk about Bynum as a defensive player. Follow your own advice and focus.

You originally said he wasn't a major contributor in the 2009 playoffs. I pointed out that guarding Dwight Howard was a major contribution.
Yes, with his 4.2 fouls a game.

I understand your point, but it's wrong. You base your opinion based on the dearth of offensively gifted big men. I base my opinion on the nature of the game. Memphis runs the bulk of their offense through the post (M.Gasol/Randolph). Look at Anthony Davis. As good as he is now, he's only in his 3rd year. You don't think he'll be good enough to be the centerpiece of an offense?
He already is the centerpiece of the offense, and his team sucks.
And Gasol and Randolph is getting a lot less shots than they would have if they played in the 90s.

That's simply because there haven't been many offensively skilled bigs. But by virtue of their size, they're still effective defensively. When Yao was playing, the Rockets ran their offense through him.
And the Rockets weren’t successful, which leads to the original point of how Hakeem wouldn’t be able to dominate in today’s game, because if everything went through him, the team wouldn’t be as successful, and if not everything ran though him, he wouldn’t put up those phenomenal stats that he did.

Nope, it's not dead. It's on hiatus, waiting for a big who is skilled enough to be the centerpiece of an offense.
Well, I agree on the hiatus part, but It’s until the rules change back to big friendly.

The last time Shaq made an all-star team, it was 2009 and he was 36 years old. He averaged 18 ppg and was named to the all-nba 3rd team. Do you really think that a prime Shaq would have trouble in today's game?
Not 3-peat successful though. That style of play would not yield that type of success.

Ok, so what's your argument? That the crop of centers in the league in 2006 was so bad that a 33 year old Shaq was named to the all-nba 1st team by default? But if a prime Shaq were to play in 2006, he'd struggle?
Compared to 2001, yeah. The Lakers wouldn’t be as successful (15-1, three peats).

That's fine. But you should realize that since the drafting tendencies of most GM's disagree with you, you're probably wrong.
GMs who’s overtly tanking and sucking at their jobs?

Conley shoots about the same as them individually. But both Gasol and Randolph both play in the post so about 27 fga comes from a post-oriented offense.
You really want to compare two players to one player? Then add up all the perimeter player shots.

]In 1995, Olajuwon averaged 21.5 fga and 7.5 fta. Drexler averaged 15 fga and 5.5 fta. In 1994, Olajuwon averaged 21.2 fga and 6.8 fta. Maxwell averaged 13 fga and 2.5 fta.
Point being? 21.5 is greater than 15?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lX89ijwRFV8
Here you go. In case you don't want to watch it, Mutombo got the ball in the post 4 times. He had 3 hook shots and an up and under move.
What’s your point? That Mutombo in the best game of his career posted up 4 times? Here is another youtube video:
0JGAVnRmKxk
Noah drive and kicked, shot a (n ugly) 22 footer, posted and passed, drove and passed, faced up and got a sweeping hook, posted up with a lefty hook, drove the lane for layups (both left and right hands), jump hooks, outlet passes, leading the break, pick and rolls, passes to the post, looks way more offensively skilled than Mutombo.

1.6 fga decrease. 0.8 decrease in fta. Sorry, that's not significant. Once again, you're looking at things out of context.
Yes, 10% and 50% drops are not significant.

Ok, then don't attribute the Hawks' success to Horford averaging less shots.
It’s a major part of it, spreading the ball around the court, and opening up the offense to allow better spacing is a major reason why the Hawks are much more successful this year than last.

They actually don't. A player's ORTG is based on production per 100 possessions.
A metric that tracks a players output per 100 possessions is taking possessions into account by normalizing it. It was a response to :

That's a moot point. Teams that run their offenses through their bigs naturally have lower offensive ratings. It slows the game down which leads to fewer possessions.
Orating already normalized it.

Not necessarily. Some of Davis' highest FGA games this season have come with both Holiday and Gordon playing.
Sample size.

Of course not. But by failing to consider mitigating circumstances, you're missing out on the big picture. And that will undermine your argument.
Such as going into specific games where Davis had high FGAs?

It's your argument, not mine. If you want to make the argument, then consider pace.
I don’t consider pace to be important in the instance.

No, your question wasn't specific. Not even close. Not all "better" players are "better" to the same degree.
Then your response would be “depends”, instead of going around in circles that contradicts your own points.

And I'm pretty sure that I said something about "roles" which you ignored. That makes a big difference.
As in Hakeem would play a different role in today’s game that doesn’t have him shoot 20 FGA a game would reduce his offensive output?

I haven't changed my argument at all. You think all better players are equal. I don't, because I understand that if a teammate is good enough, it'll change the dynamic of the offense. That's why I gave you the Chucky Brown/Otis Thorpe/Tim Duncan scenario.
I don’t consider them equal, I consider better players as better though. Your one and only example of each contradicts each other. You are basically, better supporting players allow the primary player to put up better stats, except when they don’t, which isn’t a point.

:lol So 3 of the worst teams in the league had poor records not because of their poor defense, but because of their poor offense?
Raptors were 15th in DRTG that year, middle of the pack. They were horrible on offense though.

Yeah....there's a difference between a team that "can use zone" and a team that "uses zone".
Yeah, and a team that can use zone will be better than the same team that cannot use zone.

Memphis has 2 offensively skilled bigs. Teams in the 90's had 1. Look at the aggregate.
As in when Charles Barkley joined Hakeem and Hakeem’s stats decreased?

I've told you to go to youtube and look it up. But it's pretty clear you refuse to do that b/c you know I'm right.
That’s not a fact, it’s an opinion by looking at a youtube video. I don’t agree with it.

So you're saying defenses in the 90's didn't close out on shooters?
:lol:lol:lol:lol:lol
You were saying something about strawman arguments? So what is it this time? All close out are equal, only when they are not?

You have a tendency of not reading the articles you link. As a result, you're unaware that they don't support your argument.
Here are the relevant paragraphs from the article:

So in summation, you asserted that players from this era would be able to double team the ball handler and then close out on open shooters faster than in the 90's. And as support, you provided an article that says that Milwaukee tries to do this with a rookie Jabari Parker and a 2nd year Antetokounmpo (using a rookie and 2nd year player to make an argument about "this era" is weak). And the article further states that although Milwaukee tries to run a defense that relies on their athleticism, they are still one of the worst defensive teams in the NBA while playing the league's 3rd easiest schedule.
Absolutely taking paragraphs out of context. The primary point is that athletes help close out on shooters and defend in a zone environment, but Bucks struggled because they are young and inexperienced and have trouble with rebounds.

Overloading one side of the floor leaves the other side bare, and the Bucks are vulnerable to smart passing teams that can swing the ball ahead of Milwaukee’s rotating defenders. But that’s the point: Kidd is banking on the Bucks’ wing players being long and athletic enough to help inside and rush back out in time to thwart any open shot. Cross-court passes hang in the air awhile, after all.
“If we weren’t as long as we are, we probably wouldn’t play like this,” Kidd says. “But with our length, any long passes should give us time to recover.”
It might not work as well with Jerryd Bayless or Jared Dudley, but it’s perfect for long-armed menaces like Antetokounmpo and Parker.
When things are rolling, those arms will find their way into passing lanes for steals and deflections that ignite a deadly transition attack. Only three teams have forced turnovers more often than Milwaukee, a big reason the young Bucks rank eighth in points allowed per possession.
There will be growing pains, of course. Parker has looked uncomfortable defending in space, and Antetokounmpo is still green; the Bucks have allowed a disastrous 108.1 points per 100 possessions with both young phenoms on the floor, a mark that would rank 27th overall, per NBA.com.
Teams are killing Milwaukee on the offensive glass. Parker is a minus rebounder at power forward, and small-ball lineups featuring Antetokounmpo in that spot have predictably struggled. Sanders has never been a great defensive rebounder; he jumps and reaches instead of boxing out, and he can occasionally leap himself out of position chasing blocked shots.
Sending help defenders flying all over the court will sometimes leave mismatched pairings, with a small Milwaukee player battling a bulky center for rebounds.
The Bucks also have played the league’s third-easiest schedule. They will slip back, though with Charlotte, New York, and Detroit playing such catastrophically bad basketball, it may take real work for Milwaukee to fall out of the playoff picture.

As of now, the Bucks are 4th in D Rating by heavily defending the ball side and utilizing the zone as a weapon.

All in all, I'm not quite sure it supports your argument. However, it supports my argument about Motiejunas. Here's an excerpt:

Great for him, still not scoring points often enough to be a better offensive player than Howard.

wekko368

02-18-2015, 06:05 PM

And you are forgetting the mechanism in a drive and kick to break down a zone defense isn’t to have a center to do it against another center.

100% wrong. You break down a zone by exploiting mismatches and forcing the defense to double team. It doesn't matter where the mismatch occurs.

No arguments over this, just that he is not, and has never exhibited the ability to do so to break down the zone like modern wing players do.

That's fine. He'd break down the zone by forcing defenders to double team him in the post.

Same player, related.

Sorry, but no. You still need to explain how Duncan's current performance is relevant to prime Duncan's performance.

Define more successful.

More championships.

I think he’d have few points and more assists, but then you were arguing that since Davis is averaging 24.5ppg, Hakeem would have averaged more than that, and close to his prime numbers. Which one is it? Will he average the same, more or less points?
This was my original quote, and both your viewpoint and my original post can be consistent.

It depends on his teammates. If you surround him with good shooters, he'd average fewer points but more assists. If you surround him with average shooters, he'd average fewer assists but more points.

You have a bad habit of expecting specific answers for vague questions.

Hakeem played 31 minutes, both Smits and Dale Davis played only 28 minutes due to foul trouble. It reasons that Antonio Davis, being a primarily defensive player, would have guarded Hakeem, either one on one, or as a help defender to some degree.

"To some degree"? Seriously? Earlier, you were saying that Davis held Olajuwon to 6 pts. And now that I've decimated your argument, you've backtracked to the point where its now "Antonio Davis would have guarded Olajuwon as a help defender to some degree"?

You can't win this argument. Move on.

That’s not any type of fact. It’s purely subjective, and I don’t agree with it.

You don't agree with it b/c you refuse to watch it b/c you know I'm right.

I didn’t say they have comparable offensive games, I said they have the comparably effective offensive games. My original statement was:

Quit backtracking and changing your argument. Here's something else you said:

If you needed a basket and your only options were Mutombo, Noah, or Tyson Chandler, you go with Mutombo. Every time.Are you crazy? Noah would be mind, Mutombo second, then Chandler.

Pick and roll lobs and offense rebound points count less than isolation plays now?

In the context of gauging a player's offensive abilities, absolutely.

Howard averaged 18.2 ppg for his career, with a career high of 22.9. He had a career Orating of 110, with a high of 113. Motiejunas averages 7.6 with a high of 11.6, with oratings of 105 and 108. Even his per 100 possession highs of 23.2 points and per 36 minute highs of 16.7 points pales in comparison to Howard’s (32 and 21.9). Even if you factor in assists, Motiejunas is no where close to as effective as Howard on offense.

It's pretty clear you're unfamiliar with Howard's game. You seem oblivious to the fact that a sizable portion of his points are a result of teammates creating opportunities for him. You're crediting those points to Howard when they should be credited to the teammate.

It's laughable that you're arguing Motiejunas/Howard with a Rockets' fan, especially since you're so ignorant about the current Rockets team. How many Rockets games have you watched this season? Probably just the ones on national television.

But we are talking about Mutombo and Noah now, and we have been specifically talking about being an offensive threat, not a 1on1 player.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? A player's 1on1 ability directly impacts his level as an offensive threat.

No I am not, you are confusing skills with better. I am the coach, player A gets me better chances at points even though he doesn’t have the skills of player B, I go to player A for points.

Sorry, but you're wrong. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of Howard's game. You think that his production is a testament to his offensive ability, but it's more of a testament to his teammates'. Howard's offensive ability is comparable to Deandre Jordan's.

It is what it is, and 10 feet + is mid range. Unless you want to talk about Dirk camping in the paint and violate 3 seconds on his fade away shots.

Shooting from 10+ feet and playing in the post aren't mutually exclusive. Olajuwon would get the ball in the post and ultimately shoot a fadeaway from 10+ feet. It's the same with Dirk.

So how would a second fiddle dominate today’s game? Which was my original statement (see quoted above). You talking about losing focus now? You seem to have trouble following the original argument, which all subsequent arguments should relate to.

I guess it would depend on who the second fiddle is. Shaq's second fiddle in the early 2000's did pretty well once he became the first option.

He wasn’t, with his constant foul trouble and playing half a game.

When Bynum was an all-star in 2012, he averaged 1.7 fouls per game and 35 mpg.

And yes, guarding Howard in the finals was a major contribution. It allowed Gasol to preserve his energy for offense.

And no, we have been talking constantly about how Hakeem wouldn’t dominate in today’s game, referring over and over again to his offensive game, and even talking about how today’s bigs provide help on defense and passing, and yet you like to talk about Bynum as a defensive player. Follow your own advice and focus.

LOL. Once again, you're missing the big picture. I was talking about Bynum as a defensive player in relation to Dwight Howard, who has a limited offensive game. If Bynum were to guard a prime Olajuwon, Olajuwon would destroy him.

He already is the centerpiece of the offense, and his team sucks.

This is only his third season, and his team has endured significant injuries.

And Gasol and Randolph is getting a lot less shots than they would have if they played in the 90s.

That's b/c they have to share the post with each other. If they played in the 90's, they wouldn't be on the same team, and they would get more shots.

And the Rockets weren’t successful, which leads to the original point of how Hakeem wouldn’t be able to dominate in today’s game, because if everything went through him, the team wouldn’t be as successful, and if not everything ran though him, he wouldn’t put up those phenomenal stats that he did.

This is an inherently ignorant statement because it implies that Yao and Olajuwon were offensively comparable.

Well, I agree on the hiatus part, but It’s until the rules change back to big friendly.

Anthony Davis disagrees.

Not 3-peat successful though. That style of play would not yield that type of success.

:lol:lol:lol:lol

Is that what your argument has been reduced to? "Not 3-peat successful"? :lol:lol

Compared to 2001, yeah. The Lakers wouldn’t be as successful (15-1, three peats).

Cherry picking your standards? Pathetic.

GMs who’s overtly tanking and sucking at their jobs?

Yep, as well as the ones who have won championships with bigs as major contributors....pretty much every team besides Lebron's championship teams.

You really want to compare two players to one player? Then add up all the perimeter player shots.

Go for it. Perimeter player shots relative to post shots.

Point being? 21.5 is greater than 15?

The point is that a perimeter player can average a good amount of shots despite playing in a post-oriented offense.

What’s your point? That Mutombo in the best game of his career posted up 4 times?

Best game of his career? That was in his 2nd season....

Here is another youtube video:
0JGAVnRmKxk
Noah drive and kicked, shot a (n ugly) 22 footer, posted and passed, drove and passed, faced up and got a sweeping hook, posted up with a lefty hook, drove the lane for layups (both left and right hands), jump hooks, outlet passes, leading the break, pick and rolls, passes to the post, looks way more offensively skilled than Mutombo.

He's more skilled than I thought (especially his face up game), but he was being guarded by undersized players. In the video I linked, Mutombo was being guarded by 7'1 Bill Cartwright. In your video, Noah was being guarded by 6'10 Chris Andersen and 6'8 Lebron James.

Yes, 10% and 50% drops are not significant.

Correct, not when that translates into a decrease of 1.6 fga and a decrease of 0.8 fta.

It’s a major part of it, spreading the ball around the court, and opening up the offense to allow better spacing is a major reason why the Hawks are much more successful this year than last.

Ridiculously stupid argument. The Hawks' success has nothing to do with Horford's minor drops in fga/fta.

A metric that tracks a players output per 100 possessions is taking possessions into account by normalizing it. It was a response to :

Understood. You originally stated "offensive rating". There are a few different offensive metrics. Later on, you used ORTG. My mistake.

Sample size.

Nevertheless, it still disproves your argument.

Such as going into specific games where Davis had high FGAs?

Nope, when talking about the impact of injured/healthy teammates as it relates to Davis' FGA's, it's perfectly logical to look at his highest FGA games. You were arguing that the presence of Gordon/Holiday would depress Davis' FGAs. However, if several of Davis' highest FGA games came with both Holiday/Gordon, that would refute your argument.

I don’t consider pace to be important in the instance.

And you would be 100% wrong.

Then your response would be “depends”, instead of going around in circles that contradicts your own points.

My points don't contradict each other. And like I said earlier, if you want a specific answer, you need to ask a specific question.

As in Hakeem would play a different role in today’s game that doesn’t have him shoot 20 FGA a game would reduce his offensive output?

If Aldridge can average 20 FGA in today's game, why can't Olajuwon?

I don’t consider them equal, I consider better players as better though. Your one and only example of each contradicts each other. You are basically, better supporting players allow the primary player to put up better stats, except when they don’t, which isn’t a point.

And as a result of this short-sighted thinking, you're not considering the varying degrees of "better".

Raptors were 15th in DRTG that year, middle of the pack. They were horrible on offense though.

Ok. And what about the other 2 teams that occasionally used zone defense? The Bobcats had the worst DRTG in the league, and the Warriors were #27 out of 30.

Yeah, and a team that can use zone will be better than the same team that cannot use zone.

As in when Charles Barkley joined Hakeem and Hakeem’s stats decreased?

It's not an apples to apples comparison. Randolph/Gasol are in their prime. When Hakeem/Barkley played together, they were already past their peaks.

That’s not a fact, it’s an opinion by looking at a youtube video. I don’t agree with it.

That's b/c you refuse to watch the video. You know that if you watched the videos, you'd be forced to agree with me. No sane person would think that Smits and Yao had comparable mobility/coordination.

You were saying something about strawman arguments? So what is it this time? All close out are equal, only when they are not?

How is that a strawman argument? You said that current defenses were more effective, and that a key component of current defenses is closing out on shooter. If that's the difference, then the natural implication is that past defenses didn't close out on shooters.

I think that current closeouts are comparable with 90's closeouts. If you can offer compelling evidence indicating otherwise, I'd be happy to read it.

Absolutely taking paragraphs out of context. The primary point is that athletes help close out on shooters and defend in a zone environment, but Bucks struggled because they are young and inexperienced and have trouble with rebounds.

Not at all. I gave an articulate summary of the relevant paragraphs.

Still doesn't prove your point that current defensive players close out more effectively than 90's defensive players.

As of now, the Bucks are 4th in D Rating by heavily defending the ball side and utilizing the zone as a weapon.

Source? And FYI, all defenses focus on the ball side.

Great for him, still not scoring points often enough to be a better offensive player than Howard.

When it comes to gauging a player as an offensive threat, it's not about how many points he scores. It's about how he scores his points. Your inability to comprehend this basic basketball concept speaks volumes about your fundamental understanding of basketball.

JamStone

02-18-2015, 06:28 PM

I couldn't find it, and the stats (those that you just ignored) backed me up.

If you can't find it, then just say so.

Interesting. I found it just now looking it up. Guess you need to step up your research game.

But I digress...

I would like to apologize that if by responding to your response to my post it gave you the impression that I was either interested or willing to engage in the type of long, drawn out, tedious, mind-numbing, back-and-forth ping pong match you are having with wekko368. Please allow me to make something clear. I am not. You have proven that regardless of being right, wrong, or even somewhere in between, you will never stop posting trying to prove your point. I have zero desire to engage with you. That's why I stopped responding to you earlier in this thread. So I will stop you before anything proceeds further. And you are free to say whatever you want about me not offering a rebuttal.

Don't care.

ambchang

02-19-2015, 12:07 PM

Interesting. I found it just now looking it up. Guess you need to step up your research game.

But I digress...

I would like to apologize that if by responding to your response to my post it gave you the impression that I was either interested or willing to engage in the type of long, drawn out, tedious, mind-numbing, back-and-forth ping pong match you are having with wekko368. Please allow me to make something clear. I am not. You have proven that regardless of being right, wrong, or even somewhere in between, you will never stop posting trying to prove your point. I have zero desire to engage with you. That's why I stopped responding to you earlier in this thread. So I will stop you before anything proceeds further. And you are free to say whatever you want about me not offering a rebuttal.

Don't care.

You did care, and yet you didn't post.

ambchang

02-19-2015, 01:28 PM

100% wrong. You break down a zone by exploiting mismatches and forcing the defense to double team. It doesn't matter where the mismatch occurs.
No, you exploit zones by passing to the open man. You are talking about exploiting man to man.

That's fine. He'd break down the zone by forcing defenders to double team him in the post.
Allowing players to double better players is the point of zone.

Sorry, but no. You still need to explain how Duncan's current performance is relevant to prime Duncan's performance.
Same player.

More championships.
This depends on the type of teammates he would have. Saying Hakeem would win more championships in the current NBA in a vacuum has a lot of assumptions. I can’t argue pro or con on it.

It depends on his teammates. If you surround him with good shooters, he'd average fewer points but more assists. If you surround him with average shooters, he'd average fewer assists but more points.
Agreed.

You have a bad habit of expecting specific answers for vague questions.
That wasn’t a vague question. It was a specify yes or no question.

"To some degree"? Seriously? Earlier, you were saying that Davis held Olajuwon to 6 pts. And now that I've decimated your argument, you've backtracked to the point where its now "Antonio Davis would have guarded Olajuwon as a help defender to some degree"?
Did Antonio Davis not guard Hakeem? He had a hand in holding Hakeem to 6 points a game, and likely a significant hand due to the foul troubles of Smits and Dale Davis.

You can't win this argument. Move on.
Neither could you.

You don't agree with it b/c you refuse to watch it b/c you know I'm right.
No, I watched it, don’t agree. And opinions aren’t facts.

Quit backtracking and changing your argument. Here's something else you said:
In the context of gauging a player's offensive abilities, absolutely.
Yes, what was wrong with what I said. If I want a basket in a game situation, I got to Noah. He can score and pass.

It's pretty clear you're unfamiliar with Howard's game. You seem oblivious to the fact that a sizable portion of his points are a result of teammates creating opportunities for him. You're crediting those points to Howard when they should be credited to the teammate.
Did he not score two points for the team? A creator of the offense should not get all the credit, the finisher is a significantly important part as well.

It's laughable that you're arguing Motiejunas/Howard with a Rockets' fan, especially since you're so ignorant about the current Rockets team. How many Rockets games have you watched this season? Probably just the ones on national television.
NBA league pass ring a bell? And what does being a Rockets fan have anything to do with anything?

Are you being intentionally obtuse? A player's 1on1 ability directly impacts his level as an offensive threat.
An ability for a player to finish pick and rolls and get garbage points also directly impact his level as an offensive threat.

Sorry, but you're wrong. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of Howard's game. You think that his production is a testament to his offensive ability, but it's more of a testament to his teammates'. Howard's offensive ability is comparable to Deandre Jordan's.
And yet he has consistently produced better numbers than Motiejunas with three different teams, going as far as being the offensive cog on a Finals team in Orlando.

Shooting from 10+ feet and playing in the post aren't mutually exclusive. Olajuwon would get the ball in the post and ultimately shoot a fadeaway from 10+ feet. It's the same with Dirk.
True, but Hakeem would finish within 10 feet.

I guess it would depend on who the second fiddle is. Shaq's second fiddle in the early 2000's did pretty well once he became the first option.
But was he dominating as a 2nd fiddle?

When Bynum was an all-star in 2012, he averaged 1.7 fouls per game and 35 mpg.
When Bynum was providing his significant contribution in the finals, he was averaging 4.2 fouls a game.

And yes, guarding Howard in the finals was a major contribution. It allowed Gasol to preserve his energy for offense.
And yet we have been talking about offense all along.

LOL. Once again, you're missing the big picture. I was talking about Bynum as a defensive player in relation to Dwight Howard, who has a limited offensive game. If Bynum were to guard a prime Olajuwon, Olajuwon would destroy him.
Another conjecture. Since you are so big on providing facts to back things up, show how prime Hakeem would destroy Bynum.

This is only his third season, and his team has endured significant injuries.
Which means that he has to put up more shots that he should.

That's b/c they have to share the post with each other. If they played in the 90's, they wouldn't be on the same team, and they would get more shots.
Robinson and Duncan averaged 15 and 16 shots a game with the Spurs, and that was a past his prime Robinson with a Rookie Duncan.

This is an inherently ignorant statement because it implies that Yao and Olajuwon were offensively comparable.
Hakeem would take a 1st round fodder team to multiple championships if he replaced Yao? Ooooooo kkkkkkaaaaay.

Anthony Davis disagrees.
You define successful as winning championships?

:lol:lol:lol:lol
Is that what your argument has been reduced to? "Not 3-peat successful"? :lol:lol

Define more successful[
More championships.

Cherry picking your standards? Pathetic.
Changing your standards in the same post? Pathetic.

Yep, as well as the ones who have won championships with bigs as major contributors....pretty much every team besides Lebron's championship teams.
Traditional bigs who have won a FinalsMVP since 2005 ….. none.
Traditional bigs who have won an MVP since 2003 …. None.

Go for it. Perimeter player shots relative to post shots.
This year, the Grizzlies, who are probably (mutually agreed between the two of us) the most post-heavy offense in the league, has 1,797 shots and 647 FTs from post players and 2,618 shots and 616 FTs from wing players, which means that wings launched 59% of the FGA, and 49% of FTs.
The 1994 Rockets, which is the team that shot, by FAR, the most 3 points in the league that year, have wing players shot 3,804 FGA and 910 FTs, vs. 2,929 FGA and 1,068 FTA. In other words, 56% of FGA from wing players and 46% of FTs.
And this is comparing the team with the 3rd least 3PA in the league (2015 Grizzlies), to the team with the MOST 3PA in the league (1994 Rockets).
Even if you want to compare it to 1995 Rockets, which is even MORE dominant on the 3 point shooting front, you are talking about wing players taking 61% of FGA and 53% of FTA. Sure this is more than the Grizzlies, but when you compare that to the team with the most 3PA in today’s game (Coincidentally the Rockets), 77% of FGA and 72% of FTA are by post players. It’s not even close.
[QUOTE=wekko368;7832823]The point is that a perimeter player can average a good amount of shots despite playing in a post-oriented offense.
Yes, of course. And …?

Best game of his career? That was in his 2nd season....
Which game was the best game of his career then?

He's more skilled than I thought (especially his face up game), but he was being guarded by undersized players. In the video I linked, Mutombo was being guarded by 7'1 Bill Cartwright. In your video, Noah was being guarded by 6'10 Chris Andersen and 6'8 Lebron James.
And? Alonzo Mourning was 6’10” Would your rather have Alonzo Mourning guard you are Bill Cartwright guard you? Actually, Hakeem was 6’10”.

Correct, not when that translates into a decrease of 1.6 fga and a decrease of 0.8 fta.
It’s a huge drop for an individual player.

Ridiculously stupid argument. The Hawks' success has nothing to do with Horford's minor drops in fga/fta.
Untrue. It has everything to do with it. By spreading out the offense, the passing lanes and driving lanes open up.

Understood. You originally stated "offensive rating". There are a few different offensive metrics. Later on, you used ORTG. My mistake.
Offensive Rating is the same as ORTG. Sorry for being unclear. Not sure what you were referring to earlier.

Nevertheless, it still disproves your argument.
Does not.

Nope, when talking about the impact of injured/healthy teammates as it relates to Davis' FGA's, it's perfectly logical to look at his highest FGA games. You were arguing that the presence of Gordon/Holiday would depress Davis' FGAs. However, if several of Davis' highest FGA games came with both Holiday/Gordon, that would refute your argument.
Of the 10 games Holiday missed but Davis played, Davis averaged 18.9 FGA a game, in the games both of them played, Davis averaged 16.7 FGA. In games where all three played, Davis averaged 18.3 FGA. There are no games in which Davis played by both Holiday and Gordon didn’t play.
[QUOTE=wekko368;7832823]And you would be 100% wrong.
Then pull up pace. After so much back and forth, you still haven’t pulled anything up.

My points don't contradict each other. And like I said earlier, if you want a specific answer, you need to ask a specific question.
Except you did.

If Aldridge can average 20 FGA in today's game, why can't Olajuwon?
Because Aldridge shoots 55% of his shot outside of 10 feet.

And as a result of this short-sighted thinking, you're not considering the varying degrees of "better".
It’s short sighted because it points out your contradiction.

Ok. And what about the other 2 teams that occasionally used zone defense? The Bobcats had the worst DRTG in the league, and the Warriors were #27 out of 30.
They would have been worse without it.

Yeah, and a team that can use zone will be better than the same team that cannot use zone.
Exactly.

It's not an apples to apples comparison. Randolph/Gasol are in their prime. When Hakeem/Barkley played together, they were already past their peaks.
Players past their peaks cannot put up shots with better teammates? What is the relevance?

That's b/c you refuse to watch the video. You know that if you watched the videos, you'd be forced to agree with me. No sane person would think that Smits and Yao had comparable mobility/coordination.
I watched it. Do not agree.

How is that a strawman argument? You said that current defenses were more effective, and that a key component of current defenses is closing out on shooter. If that's the difference, then the natural implication is that past defenses didn't close out on shooters.
The current consumption of French fries have increased from the 60s. Therefore, people in the 60s didn’t eat fries. That’s your logic.

I think that current closeouts are comparable with 90's closeouts. If you can offer compelling evidence indicating otherwise, I'd be happy to read it.
Tough to come up with it since I don’t have a SportsVu subscription, and even if I did they didn’t track it back in the 90s. But if we look at the wing spans of win players, we can see that an average PG drafted in 2014 has a wingspan of 6’5.2”, SG, 6”7.8”, SF 6’10.7”. This compared to 2000 (don’t have 90s numbers) PF 6’3.7”, SF 6’8.3”, SF 6’9.1”. Longer wing spans allow for long reach.

Not at all. I gave an articulate summary of the relevant paragraphs.
Still doesn't prove your point that current defensive players close out more effectively than 90's defensive players.
Source? And FYI, all defenses focus on the ball side.
Focus and heavily stacking are two different things.

When it comes to gauging a player as an offensive threat, it's not about how many points he scores. It's about how he scores his points. Your inability to comprehend this basic basketball concept speaks volumes about your fundamental understanding of basketball.
You are talking about how skilled a person is, it has nothing to do with being a threat. If a player can hang out for offensive rebounds and put backs and scored 25 ppg a game strictly doing that, I am going to keep my man on him, just like the Spurs put Bowen on Marion to neutralize him. Marion was a huge threat, he was just easily neutralized with the right game plan.

wekko368

02-20-2015, 05:58 PM

100% wrong. You break down a zone by exploiting mismatches and forcing the defense to double team. It doesn't matter where the mismatch occurs. No, you exploit zones by passing to the open man. You are talking about exploiting man to man.

Ok, you exploit zones by passing to the open man. Why is your man open? Because his defender left him to address a greater offensive threat. Why was there a greater offensive threat? Because a mismatch was exploited.

Allowing players to double better players is the point of zone.

Yes, and that would result in an open perimeter shot. And that's why 3 pointers are called "zone busters".

Same player.

No matter how many times you want to repeat this, it will never explain how Duncan's current performance is relevant to prime Duncan's performance.

At this point, it's pretty clear you know they're irrelevant, but you refuse to admit that you're wrong. As such, you're grasping as some ridiculously pathetic straws.

This depends on the type of teammates he would have. Saying Hakeem would win more championships in the current NBA in a vacuum has a lot of assumptions. I can’t argue pro or con on it.

Yet you can argue that prime Shaq wouldn't 3-peat if he played today?

At the very least, if Olajuwon played today, his team wouldn't get decimated by drugs.

That wasn’t a vague question. It was a specify yes or no question.

Yes/no questions can be vague if there are multiple variables within the question (like yours had).

Look at it this way. X + Y = 0. If I ask you "yes or no....is X > 0?", can you honestly answer either "yes" or "no"?

Did Antonio Davis not guard Hakeem? He had a hand in holding Hakeem to 6 points a game, and likely a significant hand due to the foul troubles of Smits and Dale Davis.

Sorry, but you're trying to make a counter intuitive argument (by saying that Davis, who came off the bench, held Olajuwon to 6 points even though Olajuwon/Smits were the starters and played comparable minutes), and all you've been able to prove is that they played in the same game.

Neither could you.

I've already won. You made a counter-intuitive claim and were unable to find compelling support.

Yes, what was wrong with what I said. If I want a basket in a game situation, I got to Noah. He can score and pass.

Noah can't create his own scoring opportunity as well as Mutombo. Noah's offense is opportunistic, and as such, you can't rely on it. On the other hand, you could tell that Mutombo spent a lot of time practicing his hook shot from the post.

Did he not score two points for the team? A creator of the offense should not get all the credit, the finisher is a significantly important part as well.

The creator deserves the credit. Look at Chris Paul and DeAndre Jordan. Paul throws a ton of lobs to Jordan, but who is universally considered the engine of that offense? Who deserves the glory?

NBA league pass ring a bell? And what does being a Rockets fan have anything to do with anything?

Are you saying you have NBA league pass and you watch the Rockets? Me being a Rockets fan means that I've seen every game this season, and it means that I'm more familiar w/ the Rockets players than you are.

An ability for a player to finish pick and rolls and get garbage points also directly impact his level as an offensive threat.

Not really. Otis Thorpe got garbage points and finished pick and rolls. However, since he couldn't consistently create his own shot, he wasn't considered an offensive threat.

And yet he has consistently produced better numbers than Motiejunas with three different teams, going as far as being the offensive cog on a Finals team in Orlando.

All the stats in the world don't mean a thing when your argument fails the "eye" test. Like I said before, watch the games. Motiejunas is a much better offensive threat than Howard.

True, but Hakeem would finish within 10 feet.

Not when he shot his fadeaways.

But was he dominating as a 2nd fiddle?

I've lost track of this tangent. What's your point?

When Bynum was providing his significant contribution in the finals, he was averaging 4.2 fouls a game.

Who cares how many fouls he averaged as long as a he was making a significant contribution? Your arguments are getting increasingly weird.

Another conjecture. Since you are so big on providing facts to back things up, show how prime Hakeem would destroy Bynum.

Look at how prime Olajuwon destroyed prime Robinson. Robinson simply couldn't guard him, and Robinson was a better defender than Bynum.

Which means that he has to put up more shots that he should.

I've only looked at a few of his game logs for his highest FGA games this season. Some of them came with both Gordon and Holiday on the court. So that refutes your argument.

Robinson and Duncan averaged 15 and 16 shots a game with the Spurs, and that was a past his prime Robinson with a Rookie Duncan.

Yes, thanks for proving my point. Robinson's FGA decreased when he got a teammate capable of being the centerpiece of an offense.

Hakeem would take a 1st round fodder team to multiple championships if he replaced Yao? Ooooooo kkkkkkaaaaay.

Yao was injury prone. He missed the 07-08 playoffs. He broke his foot in the second round of the 08-09 playoffs. And you're talking about replacing him with a GOAT level player (94/95 Olajuwon). Why is it unreasonable to think that they'd win championships?

Changing your standards in the same post? Pathetic.

Actually, I didn't change my standards at all. Rather, you're moving the goalposts by talking about 3-peating. In this era, I do think that prime Olajuwon would win more total championships and have a more successful career. I also think that prime Shaq would win more total championships and have a more successful career.

Traditional bigs who have won a FinalsMVP since 2005 ….. none.
Traditional bigs who have won an MVP since 2003 …. None.

What's your argument now? That a big can only be a major contributor if he wins an MVP or FMVP?

Also, I like how you moved the goalposts of your argument by adding the word "traditional".

This year, the Grizzlies, who are probably (mutually agreed between the two of us) the most post-heavy offense in the league, has 1,797 shots and 647 FTs from post players and 2,618 shots and 616 FTs from wing players, which means that wings launched 59% of the FGA, and 49% of FTs.

The 1994 Rockets, which is the team that shot, by FAR, the most 3 points in the league that year, have wing players shot 3,804 FGA and 910 FTs, vs. 2,929 FGA and 1,068 FTA. In other words, 56% of FGA from wing players and 46% of FTs.

There's a few things I like to point out that I think you've overlooked.

First, Zach Randolph has played 44 games. Conley has played 49, and Gasol has played 53. By looking only at total FGA, you're not considering the missed games.

Secondly, Randolph averages 32.5 mpg and Gasol averages 33.9 mpg. 1994 Olajuwon averaged 41 mpg.

Thirdly, Matt Bullard was a power forward who could shoot 3 pointers. He was not a wing player.

Fourthly, you're not considering the game flow. For instance, let's say that Olajuwon gets the ball in the post, gets double teamed, and passes out to a wide open Kenny Smith for the jumper. In that scenario, the offense ran through the post but resulted in a perimeter shot. With the way you've broken it out, that wouldn't be counter as a post play, but it was.

Which game was the best game of his career then?

Don't know, don't care.

And? Alonzo Mourning was 6’10” Would your rather have Alonzo Mourning guard you are Bill Cartwright guard you? Actually, Hakeem was 6’10”.

LOL. You're cherry picking DPOY player. Obviously I'd rather be guarded by Cartwright instead of Mourning, but I'd also rather be guarded by Chris Andersen than Bill Cartwright.

It’s a huge drop for an individual player.

It's not a huge drop when you go from 14.3 to 12.7 fga and 2.8 to 2.0 fta.

Untrue. It has everything to do with it. By spreading out the offense, the passing lanes and driving lanes open up.

You're seriously trying to attribute the Hawks' turnaround to minor drops in Horford's FGA/FTA? Not the change in personnel or offensive strategy, but Horford's drop of 1.6 fga and 0.8 fta?

Offensive Rating is the same as ORTG. Sorry for being unclear. Not sure what you were referring to earlier.

Does not.

Sure it does. When you argue that absences from Holiday/Gordon will increase Davis' FGA, that argument can be refuted if I can prove that some of Davis' highest FGA games came when both Holiday/Gordon were present. And I did.

Then pull up pace. After so much back and forth, you still haven’t pulled anything up.

You pull it up. It's your argument. I've already pulled up tons of stats to refute your other arguments.

Because Aldridge shoots 55% of his shot outside of 10 feet.

Here's Olajuwon's shot chart.

http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=344443

It’s short sighted because it points out your contradiction.

Sorry, it's not a contradiction at all. Because your question has multiple variables, it allows for seemingly contradicting answers. However, that doesn't mean the answers are wrong. You have to look at each answer individually in the context of the question, not relative to other possible answers.

Players past their peaks cannot put up shots with better teammates? What is the relevance?

The relevance is that players in their primes can handle a full workload. Players past their primes are more effective when they don't have to.

I watched it. Do not agree.
If you want to be willfully ignorant, that's your choice. Frankly, it's not surprising since you enter arguments with a closed mind. No objective sports fan would agree with your argument that Yao and Smits had comparable mobility/coordination.

Even on his best day, do you think Yao was capable of doing something like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZZr4DTtkt0

The current consumption of French fries have increased from the 60s. Therefore, people in the 60s didn’t eat fries. That’s your logic.

Nope, that's a horrible application of my logic. Keep in mind that if you really did understand my logic, we wouldn't be arguing like this, and you wouldn't be wrong so frequently.

Tough to come up with it since I don’t have a SportsVu subscription, and even if I did they didn’t track it back in the 90s. But if we look at the wing spans of win players, we can see that an average PG drafted in 2014 has a wingspan of 6’5.2”, SG, 6”7.8”, SF 6’10.7”. This compared to 2000 (don’t have 90s numbers) PF 6’3.7”, SF 6’8.3”, SF 6’9.1”. Longer wing spans allow for long reach.

Yes, they allow for a lot of things. But just because you're capable of doing something doesn't mean you actually do it. Look at Stromile Swift.

Focus and heavily stacking are two different things.

I'm still waiting for you to prove that current defensive players close out more effectively than 90's defensive players.

You are talking about how skilled a person is, it has nothing to do with being a threat. If a player can hang out for offensive rebounds and put backs and scored 25 ppg a game strictly doing that, I am going to keep my man on him, just like the Spurs put Bowen on Marion to neutralize him. Marion was a huge threat, he was just easily neutralized with the right game plan.

Wow. Are you seriously unaware that a player's skill-level correlates to his level of being an offensive threat?

ambchang

02-23-2015, 11:52 AM

Ok, you exploit zones by passing to the open man. Why is your man open? Because his defender left him to address a greater offensive threat. Why was there a greater offensive threat? Because a mismatch was exploited.
And a post-up inside out offense would allow the defense to recover quickly.

Yes, and that would result in an open perimeter shot. And that's why 3 pointers are called "zone busters".
Not when they are being contested quickly with the more complex defenses and longer quicker athletes.

No matter how many times you want to repeat this, it will never explain how Duncan's current performance is relevant to prime Duncan's performance.
It’s the same person.

At this point, it's pretty clear you know they're irrelevant, but you refuse to admit that you're wrong. As such, you're grasping as some ridiculously pathetic straws.
Thanks for letting me know what I wanted to post. You read my mind better than I could.

Yet you can argue that prime Shaq wouldn't 3-peat if he played today?
With that Lakers team? No.
Will the Rockets, with that team, repeat in today’s game? No, especially with those shorter three point lines in the 2nd year.

At the very least, if Olajuwon played today, his team wouldn't get decimated by drugs.
You have the Lakers to thank for that. You stand in the way of Magic and Kareem, the league will take you out. Funny how the only two teams that were really affected by the drug suspensions were the two biggest threat to the Lakers in the West at that time (Rockets and Mavs). The league loved that Celtic-Lakers rivalry.

Yes/no questions can be vague if there are multiple variables within the question (like yours had).
It can be when you want to avoid answering.

Look at it this way. X + Y = 0. If I ask you "yes or no....is X > 0?", can you honestly answer either "yes" or "no"?
I’d be able to say it depends instead of saying z = 0.

Sorry, but you're trying to make a counter intuitive argument (by saying that Davis, who came off the bench, held Olajuwon to 6 points even though Olajuwon/Smits were the starters and played comparable minutes), and all you've been able to prove is that they played in the same game.
Both Smits and Dale were in foul trouble.

I've already won. You made a counter-intuitive claim and were unable to find compelling support.
You have always won in every single internet pissing match. Nothing spells out victory quite like the self-proclaimed ones.

Noah can't create his own scoring opportunity as well as Mutombo. Noah's offense is opportunistic, and as such, you can't rely on it. On the other hand, you could tell that Mutombo spent a lot of time practicing his hook shot from the post.
Robinson spent a lot of time practicing his as well, it still sucked.

The creator deserves the credit. Look at Chris Paul and DeAndre Jordan. Paul throws a ton of lobs to Jordan, but who is universally considered the engine of that offense? Who deserves the glory?
Who’s throwing lobs to Noah?

Are you saying you have NBA league pass and you watch the Rockets? Me being a Rockets fan means that I've seen every game this season, and it means that I'm more familiar w/ the Rockets players than you are.
I put a German Sheppard and have him watch all the Rockets games, practice and post game interviews. Will he be more familiar w/ the Rockets players than you are?

Not really. Otis Thorpe got garbage points and finished pick and rolls. However, since he couldn't consistently create his own shot, he wasn't considered an offensive threat.
This one showed GREAT knowledge of Rockets players. :lol

All the stats in the world don't mean a thing when your argument fails the "eye" test. Like I said before, watch the games. Motiejunas is a much better offensive threat than Howard.
:lol Hakeem is so good he broke the law of averages. You are so good your eye test rules all. It explains why you have won so many arguments and self proclaimed so many victories, internet Viking.

Not when he shot his fadeaways.
He jumped back from 10 feet?

I've lost track of this tangent. What's your point?
You’ve lost track of a lot of stuff, didn’t stop you from arguing before.

Who cares how many fouls he averaged as long as a he was making a significant contribution? Your arguments are getting increasingly weird.
And you would consider that he was dominating more than his regular season?

Look at how prime Olajuwon destroyed prime Robinson. Robinson simply couldn't guard him, and Robinson was a better defender than Bynum.
Not when Robinson had to guard Horry at the same time.

I've only looked at a few of his game logs for his highest FGA games this season. Some of them came with both Gordon and Holiday on the court. So that refutes your argument.
I have shown you the numbers, so that refutes your point. Oh wait, you like the eye test.

Yes, thanks for proving my point. Robinson's FGA decreased when he got a teammate capable of being the centerpiece of an offense.
Yes, two career threatening injuries had nothing to do with it.
And no, I said better teammates negatively affect your stats because you share the load, you were the one blaming Hakeem’s failure in the Sonics series on Chucky Brown.

Yao was injury prone. He missed the 07-08 playoffs. He broke his foot in the second round of the 08-09 playoffs. And you're talking about replacing him with a GOAT level player (94/95 Olajuwon). Why is it unreasonable to think that they'd win championships?
I forgot, Hakeem invented the wheel, fire powder, the light bulb, the modern automobile, and the smart phone all in one afternoon. Not to mentioned he made cold fusion successful just by squeezing hydrogen atoms together.

Actually, I didn't change my standards at all. Rather, you're moving the goalposts by talking about 3-peating. In this era, I do think that prime Olajuwon would win more total championships and have a more successful career. I also think that prime Shaq would win more total championships and have a more successful career.
So Anthony Davis is a failure. Any successful dominating bigs in today’s game?

What's your argument now? That a big can only be a major contributor if he wins an MVP or FMVP?
That a position integral to the success of a team would have been the most valuable player in the league either over the course of a season or in an important series at least once in 10 years.

Also, I like how you moved the goalposts of your argument by adding the word "traditional".
My fault. I never realized you are so brilliant to mix up Dirk’s game with Hakeem’s game just because they are both 7 footers. It’s apparent to every normal human being out there, but not so to a genius like you.

There's a few things I like to point out that I think you've overlooked.

First, Zach Randolph has played 44 games. Conley has played 49, and Gasol has played 53. By looking only at total FGA, you're not considering the missed games.
Gasol and Randolph averaged 48.5 games, Conley played 49. It averaged out.

Secondly, Randolph averages 32.5 mpg and Gasol averages 33.9 mpg. 1994 Olajuwon averaged 41 mpg.
Doesn’t matter if we have already established the Grizzlies the MOST post focused offense in the league.

Thirdly, Matt Bullard was a power forward who could shoot 3 pointers. He was not a wing player.
I categorized him as a wing. You know, I actually watched the games.

Fourthly, you're not considering the game flow. For instance, let's say that Olajuwon gets the ball in the post, gets double teamed, and passes out to a wide open Kenny Smith for the jumper. In that scenario, the offense ran through the post but resulted in a perimeter shot. With the way you've broken it out, that wouldn't be counter as a post play, but it was.
This would apply to both the Rockets and the Grizzlies, so in the grand scheme of things, it averages out.

Don't know, don't care.
Of course you don’t.

LOL. You're cherry picking DPOY player. Obviously I'd rather be guarded by Cartwright instead of Mourning, but I'd also rather be guarded by Chris Andersen than Bill Cartwright.
You listed height as the argument, I used height as the argument.

It's not a huge drop when you go from 14.3 to 12.7 fga and 2.8 to 2.0 fta.
Looks pretty big to me.

You're seriously trying to attribute the Hawks' turnaround to minor drops in Horford's FGA/FTA? Not the change in personnel or offensive strategy, but Horford's drop of 1.6 fga and 0.8 fta?
Yes. It’s a change in their offensive philosophy that allowed the Hawks to open up the motion offense. You’ve been watching all the Hawk’s game too? Maybe that’s not important though, didn’t stop you from opining on Noah’s game when you have barely seen it.

Sure it does. When you argue that absences from Holiday/Gordon will increase Davis' FGA, that argument can be refuted if I can prove that some of Davis' highest FGA games came when both Holiday/Gordon were present. And I did.
Aberration. Averages tell a more complete story. It’s like saying the Oscars are dominated by Caucasian main actor, and then you pulled out Denzel Washington to “disprove” the point.

You pull it up. It's your argument. I've already pulled up tons of stats to refute your other arguments.
Pace as an exception is your argument. You introduced that argument, so you go and prove that pace is relevant.

Here's Olajuwon's shot chart.
http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=344443
Great, he shot 25% of this shots at the rim, and 49% in the paint. 51% from “mid range, which seems to be anywhere between 6 to 16 feet.

Sorry, it's not a contradiction at all. Because your question has multiple variables, it allows for seemingly contradicting answers. However, that doesn't mean the answers are wrong. You have to look at each answer individually in the context of the question, not relative to other possible answers.
And yet they are not compatible.

The relevance is that players in their primes can handle a full workload. Players past their primes are more effective when they don't have to.
Players at any stage in their career will benefit with a lighter work load, but will negatively affect their stats.

If you want to be willfully ignorant, that's your choice. Frankly, it's not surprising since you enter arguments with a closed mind. No objective sports fan would agree with your argument that Yao and Smits had comparable mobility/coordination.
Even on his best day, do you think Yao was capable of doing something like this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZZr4DTtkt0
You mean like this?
9ywOZiX-3Io
Or this:
RoH3piZ_sjsm__saue5q8w I mean, just no coordination on those post up turn arounds, you just had to be big, that’s whey Gheorge Muresan pulled out the same moves.
LmozLb72frI

Nope, that's a horrible application of my logic. Keep in mind that if you really did understand my logic, we wouldn't be arguing like this, and you wouldn't be wrong so frequently.
Me saying current defenses were more effective = me saying past defenses didn’t close out on shooters. It’s the exact same faulty logic.

Yes, they allow for a lot of things. But just because you're capable of doing something doesn't mean you actually do it. Look at Stromile Swift.
Again, one specific player. We are talking about a general trend, and if the assumption is that, the league, in general, have a general level average skills for all players, then longer players will provide better defensive coverage.

I'm still waiting for you to prove that current defensive players close out more effectively than 90's defensive players.
Already answered above. And also, as you would like to say, the eye test.
It’s just convenient that my stance have to be proven by hard facts and stats, and yet yours is all eye test rules all. Oh wait, it depends, right?

Wow. Are you seriously unaware that a player's skill-level correlates to his level of being an offensive threat?
See, this is another application of your logic. My “it” in the “it” has nothing to do with it applies to the statement of how skilled a person is, not the skill itself. My argument is that you talking about how skilled a person is is not related to how big of a threat a person is, they are two different arguments.

wekko368

02-23-2015, 01:30 PM

And a post-up inside out offense would allow the defense to recover quickly.

Not when they are being contested quickly with the more complex defenses and longer quicker athletes.

LOL. You keep using the same weak argument while providing little to no support. The Memphis Grizzlies use a post-up inside out offense, and they have the 3rd best record in the league. Why can't all these complex defenses with longer, quicker athletes stop the Grizzlies?

It’s the same person.

That doesn't mean that every stage in a player's career is relevant to each other. When looking at Olajuwon's peak, would it make any sense to look at his year in Toronto? Of course not. Only an idiot would think that.

Thanks for letting me know what I wanted to post. You read my mind better than I could.

Sure thing. I'm glad I was able to clear things up for you. You seem fairly confused most of the time.

It can be when you want to avoid answering.

I’d be able to say it depends instead of saying z = 0.

So there you go. Because of the nature of the question (multiple variables), you weren't able to give a "yes/no" answer to a "yes/no" question. Do you now understand why I wasn't able to give a yes/no answer to your multi-variable question?

Both Smits and Dale were in foul trouble.

They each finished the game with 4 fouls.

Regarding this particular tangent, you can't win. Like I said earlier, your assertion is counter-intuitive, and you're not going to be able to come up with an argument compelling enough to compensate.

You remind me of Kobe fans who claim that he's better than Jordan.

You have always won in every single internet pissing match. Nothing spells out victory quite like the self-proclaimed ones.

It helps that in this particular internet pissing match, my opponent is an idiot.

Robinson spent a lot of time practicing his as well, it still sucked.

What's your point? Robinson and Mutombo are two different players. What works for one may not work for the other (and vice versa).

Who’s throwing lobs to Noah?

You're confusing the arguments. We were talking about Noah/Mutombo in the context of who was the better individual scorer. We were talking about lobs in the context of Howard/Motiejunas (a scorer's value when his scoring opportunities are created by his teammates). Try not to mix up the arguments.

I put a German Sheppard and have him watch all the Rockets games, practice and post game interviews. Will he be more familiar w/ the Rockets players than you are?

Just because you and your dog have a comparable intellect doesn't mean that it rivals that of normal people. Remember, you're an idiot.

This one showed GREAT knowledge of Rockets players. :lol

You think Otis Thorpe could consistently create his own shots?

He jumped back from 10 feet?

Yep, go watch his highlights.

You’ve lost track of a lot of stuff, didn’t stop you from arguing before.

It's hard to follow your argument when your responses get shorter and shorter. At that point, you're posting to keep the argument alive as opposed to proving your point.

And you would consider that he was dominating more than his regular season?

Nope, he was injured in the playoffs.

Not when Robinson had to guard Horry at the same time.

So now you're saying that Robinson guarded both Olajuwon and Horry at the same time? Ridiculous. Go watch the videos. Robinson simply couldn't guard Olajuwon in that series.

I have shown you the numbers, so that refutes your point. Oh wait, you like the eye test.

My numbers were more compelling.

Yes, two career threatening injuries had nothing to do with it.

They weren't nearly as impactful as Duncan's arrival.

And no, I said better teammates negatively affect your stats because you share the load, you were the one blaming Hakeem’s failure in the Sonics series on Chucky Brown.

That statement isn't necessarily true. That's why I compared Otis Thorpe to Chucky Brown. Thorpe is better than Brown, but not good enough that he would negatively impact Olajuwon's stats. In fact, his presence might improve Olajuwon's stats since Thorpe was a much better rebounder than Brown (leading to more Rockets' possessions).

Yao was injury prone. He missed the 07-08 playoffs. He broke his foot in the second round of the 08-09 playoffs. And you're talking about replacing him with a GOAT level player (94/95 Olajuwon). Why is it unreasonable to think that they'd win championships?I forgot, Hakeem invented the wheel, fire powder, the light bulb, the modern automobile, and the smart phone all in one afternoon. Not to mentioned he made cold fusion successful just by squeezing hydrogen atoms together.

Nice. You know you can't win this argument so you're trying to deflect. You're an idiot.

So Anthony Davis is a failure. Any successful dominating bigs in today’s game?

Why don't you consider Anthony Davis to be a successful dominating big?

That a position integral to the success of a team would have been the most valuable player in the league either over the course of a season or in an important series at least once in 10 years.

Bigs are integral to the success of a team. I've already established that by citing the bigs who contributed to recent championships. Why are you defining "integral" in the context of MVP or FMVP? It seems like you're cherry picking your parameters, especially when you construct your parameters to intentionally exclude Nowitzki.

Also, I've been talking about the dearth of dominant big men in today's game. And because such a dearth exists, it's not surprising that there haven't been any recent MVP/FMVP who were bigs.

My fault. I never realized you are so brilliant to mix up Dirk’s game with Hakeem’s game just because they are both 7 footers. It’s apparent to every normal human being out there, but not so to a genius like you.

I didn't mix up their games. Both of them utilized a fadeaway from the post. And I'm not a genius. Well, compared to you I am, but not to normal people.

Gasol and Randolph averaged 48.5 games, Conley played 49. It averaged out.

It's improper to flip back and forth between gross numbers and averages in the same argument.

I categorized him as a wing. You know, I actually watched the games.

Yes, I know you categorized him as a wing. That was incorrect. Matt Bullard was not a wing.

You listed height as the argument, I used height as the argument.

I pointed out the height disparity between Bill Cartwright and Chris Andersen. It's irrelevant to bring up anyone else.

Looks pretty big to me.

Well, considering the fact that you're an idiot, that's not surprising.

Yes. It’s a change in their offensive philosophy that allowed the Hawks to open up the motion offense. You’ve been watching all the Hawk’s game too? Maybe that’s not important though, didn’t stop you from opining on Noah’s game when you have barely seen it.

You're confusing correlation with causation.

The motion offense led to a slight decrease in Horford's FGA. Horford's slight decrease in FGA did not lead to the motion offense (which you earlier claimed).

Aberration. Averages tell a more complete story. It’s like saying the Oscars are dominated by Caucasian main actor, and then you pulled out Denzel Washington to “disprove” the point.

Except it happened more than once.

Pace as an exception is your argument. You introduced that argument, so you go and prove that pace is relevant.

Pace has always been relevant, and it was improperly excluded from your argument. I don't care if you include it or not, but if you don't, your failure to include it will undermine your argument.

Great, he shot 25% of this shots at the rim, and 49% in the paint. 51% from “mid range, which seems to be anywhere between 6 to 16 feet.

So if you're going to argue that Olajuwon's post game only led to shots less than 10 feet from the rim, you have a lot of work ahead of you.

Sorry, it's not a contradiction at all. Because your question has multiple variables, it allows for seemingly contradicting answers. However, that doesn't mean the answers are wrong. You have to look at each answer individually in the context of the question, not relative to other possible answers.And yet they are not compatible.

Do you see why it's easy to get lost in your arguments? Because you post nonsense responses like this. How does your reply make sense in the context of my post?

Players at any stage in their career will benefit with a lighter work load, but will negatively affect their stats.

Why do you insist on comparing a player's peak years with his post-peak years? A player in his peak doesn't need as much help as he does later in his career.

You mean like this?
9ywOZiX-3Io

LOL. You really think those are comparable in terms of mobility and coordination? Smits used an up and under move to fake out his defender and create his shot. Yao lumbered in the paint and created his shot by slowly rising above the defense. Smits has noticeably better coordination and mobility.

Me saying current defenses were more effective = me saying past defenses didn’t close out on shooters. It’s the exact same faulty logic.

You said current defenses were more effective b/c they emphasize closing out on shooter. That implies that past defenses didn't emphasize on closing out on shooters. That's why your statement was illogical.

Again, one specific player. We are talking about a general trend, and if the assumption is that, the league, in general, have a general level average skills for all players, then longer players will provide better defensive coverage.

Seriously? I can name a ton of players whose athletic gifts didn't amount to much.

Already answered above. And also, as you would like to say, the eye test.
It’s just convenient that my stance have to be proven by hard facts and stats, and yet yours is all eye test rules all. Oh wait, it depends, right?

Already answered above? You mean when you talked about assumptions?

The only time I referenced the "eye test" is when you said that Rik Smits and Yao Ming had comparable mobility/coordination.

See, this is another application of your logic. My “it” in the “it” has nothing to do with it applies to the statement of how skilled a person is, not the skill itself. My argument is that you talking about how skilled a person is is not related to how big of a threat a person is, they are two different arguments.

A player's skill level directly translates into his level as an offensive threat. Steph Curry can effortlessly make 3 pointers at a high percentage. That's one of his skills. As a result, he becomes an offensive threat when he's within 25 feet of the basket.

ambchang

02-25-2015, 01:51 PM

LOL. You keep using the same weak argument while providing little to no support. The Memphis Grizzlies use a post-up inside out offense, and they have the 3rd best record in the league. Why can't all these complex defenses with longer, quicker athletes stop the Grizzlies?
This thing is coming to no end, so I am putting on my wekko368 hat, and respond to question like you do.
The eye test

That doesn't mean that every stage in a player's career is relevant to each other. When looking at Olajuwon's peak, would it make any sense to look at his year in Toronto? Of course not. Only an idiot would think that.
2014 Duncan is not 2000 Hakeem. Only an idiot would think that.

Sure thing. I'm glad I was able to clear things up for you. You seem fairly confused most of the time.
Thank you sir. You can read my mind, thinking that I was confused, and yet can know exactly what I was thinking.

So there you go. Because of the nature of the question (multiple variables), you weren't able to give a "yes/no" answer to a "yes/no" question. Do you now understand why I wasn't able to give a yes/no answer to your multi-variable question?
And yet you gave definitive answers. Which later were contradictory to your other assertions.

They each finished the game with 4 fouls.
4 fouls after playing 31 minutes of the game is foul trouble.

Regarding this particular tangent, you can't win. Like I said earlier, your assertion is counter-intuitive, and you're not going to be able to come up with an argument compelling enough to compensate.
I can always use the eye test. It looked right.

You remind me of Kobe fans who claim that he's better than Jordan.
You remind me of Hakeem fans who claim he invented basketball.

It helps that in this particular internet pissing match, my opponent is an idiot.
Very convincing argument. Thinking Hakeem cannot do every single thing = idiot. Gotcha.

What's your point? Robinson and Mutombo are two different players. What works for one may not work for the other (and vice versa).
Point being practicing a lot does not mean a player is particular good at said skills. I am surprised that your superior Hakeem granted intellect couldn’t tie those two dots together.

You're confusing the arguments. We were talking about Noah/Mutombo in the context of who was the better individual scorer. We were talking about lobs in the context of Howard/Motiejunas (a scorer's value when his scoring opportunities are created by his teammates). Try not to mix up the arguments.
And yet you were the one who pulled out the Dwight/Motiejunas comparisons with regards to Noah Mutombo comparisons. If they are not related, you just introduced a totally pointless and irrelevant argument, which is basically what you have been doing all along.

Just because you and your dog have a comparable intellect doesn't mean that it rivals that of normal people. Remember, you're an idiot.
Hey, you just claimed my dog is more familiar with the Rockets players than you do. Not me. I am particularly flummoxed by someone who self pro-claimed to be dumber than a dog calling other people idiots. It’s either a very very smart dog we are talking about here, or we are talking about you, and my dog isn’t really that particularly smart.

You think Otis Thorpe could consistently create his own shots?
Yes.

Yep, go watch his highlights.
I did.

It's hard to follow your argument when your responses get shorter and shorter. At that point, you're posting to keep the argument alive as opposed to proving your point.
But you have a superior intellect of a genius dog, and you can clarify my points when I am confused. You should be able to pinpoint exactly what I am thinking without me even writing a thing.

Nope, he was injured in the playoffs.
So he was dominate while in foul trouble, and injured in the playoffs. Bravo.

So now you're saying that Robinson guarded both Olajuwon and Horry at the same time? Ridiculous. Go watch the videos. Robinson simply couldn't guard Olajuwon in that series.
In some cases. Rodman wasn’t guarding anyone as he was going for rebounds all series long. Robinson obviously didn’t guard Hakeem that well, he averaged 35 a game.

My numbers were more compelling.
Compelling != meaningful.

They weren't nearly as impactful as Duncan's arrival.
:lol and Kobe’s numbers went down not because of multiple career threatening injuries, it’s because of the arrival of Swaggy P.
BTW, I am in the camp saying better teammates lead to lower numbers but better team accomplishments, so really, there’s nothing to argue about.
*Snicker* Robinson’s numbers went down mostly because of Duncan’s arrival and not because of two career threatening injuries* Do you do stand up by any chance? I would pay to see you perform live.

That statement isn't necessarily true. That's why I compared Otis Thorpe to Chucky Brown. Thorpe is better than Brown, but not good enough that he would negatively impact Olajuwon's stats. In fact, his presence might improve Olajuwon's stats since Thorpe was a much better rebounder than Brown (leading to more Rockets' possessions).
I agree, because everything has exceptions, but Thorpe/Brown isn’t one of them.

Nice. You know you can't win this argument so you're trying to deflect. You're an idiot.
Explain me to you train of thought, deflecting = being an idiot? Wouldn’t idiots be too idiotic to deflect?
And no, Hakeem wouldn’t be able to pull that 08 Rockets to win a championship. Chuck Hayes isn’t that much better than Chucky Brown, and Bonzi Wells will be useless with Hakeem in the blocks. Same with Scola.

Why don't you consider Anthony Davis to be a successful dominating big?
You didn’t consider him to be a successful dominating big.

[quote=ambchang]Define more successful
More championships.

Bigs are integral to the success of a team. I've already established that by citing the bigs who contributed to recent championships. Why are you defining "integral" in the context of MVP or FMVP? It seems like you're cherry picking your parameters, especially when you construct your parameters to intentionally exclude Nowitzki.
Dirk plays like Hakeem now. Point is traditional bigs are no longer utilized in the same way as the 90s. What about MVP voting? Wings have been dominating the MVP votes for years.
Pulling in Dirk as some kind of proof that Hakeem would be as successful in today’s game as he was back in the 90s defies logic, even by your standards.

Also, I've been talking about the dearth of dominant big men in today's game. And because such a dearth exists, it's not surprising that there haven't been any recent MVP/FMVP who were bigs.
Even dominating bigs like Davis is having trouble getting his team to much playoff success. The only one who has any level of team success being a dominant big was Dwight Howard and Tim Duncan. And Duncan had a plethora of wings around him, where as Dwight’s team was a flash in the pan.

I didn't mix up their games. Both of them utilized a fadeaway from the post. And I'm not a genius. Well, compared to you I am, but not to normal people.
:lol I have a fadeaway too, am I a dominant big?
Oh, you sure are a genius, genius amongst German Sheppards.

It's improper to flip back and forth between gross numbers and averages in the same argument.
It’s improper to compare 2 players aggregate total to one persons on a 15 man roster.

Yes, I know you categorized him as a wing. That was incorrect. Matt Bullard was not a wing.
If I categorized him as a post player, it would actually strengthen my argument and weakens yours. So at the end of it, it changed nothing. I was actually giving you a handicap and you didn’t even realize it.

I pointed out the height disparity between Bill Cartwright and Chris Andersen. It's irrelevant to bring up anyone else.
And the disparity is irrelevant to anything else.

Well, considering the fact that you're an idiot, that's not surprising.
15% is not big, gotcha.

You're confusing correlation with causation.
The motion offense led to a slight decrease in Horford's FGA. Horford's slight decrease in FGA did not lead to the motion offense (which you earlier claimed).
Hmmm … which means that taking the ball away from the post and opening up the offense leads to more team success.

Except it happened more than once.
List the top 10.

Pace has always been relevant, and it was improperly excluded from your argument. I don't care if you include it or not, but if you don't, your failure to include it will undermine your argument.
No it doesn’t.

So if you're going to argue that Olajuwon's post game only led to shots less than 10 feet from the rim, you have a lot of work ahead of you.
When did I say only?

Do you see why it's easy to get lost in your arguments? Because you post nonsense responses like this. How does your reply make sense in the context of my post?
You couldn’t see how it’s relevant? Hold on, I will ask my dog to explain it to you. He gets it.

Why do you insist on comparing a player's peak years with his post-peak years? A player in his peak doesn't need as much help as he does later in his career.
But they still need help.

LOL. You really think those are comparable in terms of mobility and coordination? Smits used an up and under move to fake out his defender and create his shot. Yao lumbered in the paint and created his shot by slowly rising above the defense. Smits has noticeably better coordination and mobility.
LOL. You really think those are not comparable in terms of mobility and coordination? Smits mechanically used a fake to launch a shot underneath his defender, while Yao used his skills to split the double and finished a graceful fadeaway. They both have similar coordination and mobility

You said current defenses were more effective b/c they emphasize closing out on shooter. That implies that past defenses didn't emphasize on closing out on shooters. That's why your statement was illogical.
Yes, because in basketball, you either close out on every single possession or you do not close out. You are such a brilliant person. I am sure you use Nobel Prizes as paperweights at home.

Seriously? I can name a ton of players whose athletic gifts didn't amount to much.
I can too. Didn’t make the rest of the statement you ignored disappear though.

Already answered above? You mean when you talked about assumptions?
You can use your eye tests depending on the situation. I feel like I am you already … wait. Hakeem rocks, he’s the greatest human being ever, Hakeem created the earth, sun and moon!
Now, I am you.

The only time I referenced the "eye test" is when you said that Rik Smits and Yao Ming had comparable mobility/coordination.
Hey, if that’s good enough for one argument, it should be good enough for all.

A player's skill level directly translates into his level as an offensive threat. Steph Curry can effortlessly make 3 pointers at a high percentage. That's one of his skills. As a result, he becomes an offensive threat when he's within 25 feet of the basket.
Getting an offensive rebound and putting the ball back in the basket, or catching and finishing lobs are skills too.