Reply With Quote
yo, can i just send you a few blanks
I will be more than happy to send you the link (once I find it) of the site that sells game DVDs. A guy posted it on the Rockets board a few months back, around fathers day (when amazon had their sets for like 20). The games are like $14 each.
yo, can i just send you a few blanks
Just wanted to know where you stood.
I think it's fair to say supporting players have more open looks and less pressure when their main option is dropping near 40 on a good %, as opposed to one shooting under 50% and scoring less. It's the chicken and the egg argument. Which came first. I think we can all admit that most usually look at the star player getting guys open looks, and not the other way around.
But even assuming we go with the supporting cast argument, it was the same cast Robinson had all year. If he brought his typical production (which he didn't), then it may have been a different series because the games were so close. But the fact is that he underperformed, compared to what he gave SA in the regular season. It's not a case of him playing better with his cast playing worse. It's not a case of him seeing doubles that he didn't see earlier on, when he had better production. David underperformed. That in itself didn't lose the series, but it is a fact.
And to answer a question that was posed, one playoff series where Hakeem played Seattle and Houston lost, and his numbers dropped, it's fair to say he had a decrease in production. Conversly, there was another year where he had an increase and still lost (I believe 1993). These arguments would hold more weight if David was in that situation, but he had a decrease, and a huge one in the last 2 games. Again, it's all knotted after 4 games. One center puts up 40 on 60%. The other had a big decrease. I don't see how anyone can argue that big difference in what was given at the center position wasn't the most important aspect of the series. The Spurs were dominant because on most nights David was the best player on the floor, or at least at his position. In the 95 WCFs that was no longer the case and they lost. How is that a hard connection to make?
You may see it that way.
I believe the quality of the respective supporting casts is relevant.
Look, I really don't care who "wins" this debate because it comes down to an irreconcilable difference of opinions.
One side believes the squads were basically equal and that Hakeem's dominance over David carried the day.
The other side believes that Hakeem had a decided advantage at the outset that Houston successfully exploited on the way to victory.
As long as there is at least one person on each side, this can go on forever.
Good luck with that.
Sorry for interrupting.
So do I.
I don't believe that. I believe David's teammates played worse, but I also believe he played worse. If he won his matchup like he did on most nights, then I think SA would have won like they did on most nights. The team was built around him being dominant. When that wasn't the case, and his counterparty was the most dominant player, it's not suprising that he lost.
The main thing I see being argued is that folks want to give more credit to roleplayers doing their job, as opposed to the star player having a monster series, whom the offense is built around, and that is getting all of those role players open shots. That is a baffling argument to me.
You can buy it like I did.
Actually, the link doesn't seem to be working now. Maybe the site is down? It was up in July.
www.pontel.com
Here is the thread from the Rockets board:
Actually this whole thread got derailed lol. This was never suppose to be a Hakeem vs David thread. The question was what would you think TD could have done with the Spurs of old and what do you think DRob could have done with the Spurs anew.
No doubt in my mind DRob would have won some championships. The advantage he would have had of better coaching and a better supporting cast is undeniable imo. The defensive schemes put in place when the Spurs were winning championships was superb(and the personnel to back it up too). DRob in his prime was a better defender then Duncan and Duncan is an outstanding defensive player. But DRob was a monster on defense. He had the rebounds Duncan did, but add in the blocks, and he even finished top 10 in steals at some point in his career. He would have been an amazing anchor for the Spurs defense, he was the Spurs anchor for defense in their first 2 championships. The guy was like 36 what does that tell you. Robinson could dish the ball off too, but never really had the luxury to. Well not as much as Duncan did anyways.
Robinson would have dominated games but in a different way. It would have looked different, but I would have no doubt that the outcomes would have been near the same. Thats what I think people have a hard time imagining.
And for all this talk about Robinson having bad playoff games; they were few and far between. Not to mention Duncan has had bad playoff games as well. Albeit he usually bounced back in the next game, but he has had his fair share of bad playoff games. The difference being the newer teams were much more resilient then the older Spurs teams. Chalk it up to experience, mental toughness, or whatever you want, but thats how I see it.
It shouldn't be that baffling... The 'role' players' effectiveness made Olojuwon dominant and vice versa... But it's partly because those 'role' players are making their shots that the offensive strategy can even thrive... You keep insisting that their execution doesn't make a difference... Like I said yesterday, it's a synergistic dynamic that works only when both components of that offense are contributing...
The portion of the argument that you keep 'glossing over' is that when the outside offense isn't working the post play subsequently suffers... Robinson got his teammates those same open looks you so 'boast' about in Games 1 and 2, but since his teammates couldn't execute proficiently David got crowded much sooner and closer (i.e. the difference between a 'hard' double-team and a 'soft' one - not that you seem to understand). That defensive strategy, applied to teams whose perimeter offense is unproductive, will render any center less effective. Even your untouchable Olojuwon had to suffer through the growing pains of that reality (1987-1992)... Yeah I said it, when Olojuwon didn't have a balanced team helping him out his teams also got bounced from the playoffs... you're fringe distorted understanding of that relationship is what keeps you accepting the fact that 'role' players play a much larger 'role' than you're giving them credit for... But go ahead and keep thinking that Olojuwon single-handedly won Houston's 2 championships... I mean as great as he was he should have won 10 or more championships... Fact of the matter is he couldn't win it all until the cast around him was balanced enough to space him effectively.
BTW I have a real problem referring to Drexler as a 'role' player... the guy averaged over 20 ppg that season while shooting over 50% from the field... I'm sorry David didn't have the luxury of playing alongside another great to help his cause...
edit: Prior to Duncan's arrival of course...
Last edited by Phenomanul; 09-16-2009 at 10:03 PM.
This has been your only worthy contribution to the thread...
Pontel didn't offer that series until recently (according to their site log).
You never did tell me your opinion on the Loyola/Davidson game that I asked you about.
Was Curry more integral to the win or were his teammates?
That's a little steep ($14 each). I thought the amazon set only have the Finals games, and not the ones before.
And please do send the link, I would have to think long and hard about spending $76 on a series that the Spurs ultimately lost.
I hate it when people just ignore my points on things like why did Olajuwon decide not to drop 40 points vs. the Lakers in 90 or Sonics in 96.
I am going to bed now, when I wake up, I will repost those points.
That game is irrelevant with regards to the topic at hand... it's not a best out-of-7 series where the coach is expected to make an adjustment after seeing his strategy fail...
Props to Curry's teammates for actually knocking down their shots though...
The Sonics generally played an illegal defense on Olajuwon that was never called.
Olajuwon in 1995 was a far superior player than Olajuwon in 1990. He improved every year until he peaked in 95. I've already addressed this. I hate when people ask questions, ignore my answers, ask the same questions again, and then accuse me of ignoring their original questions.
It's actually very relevant when you're talking about the importance of star players vs role players.
The coach could've seen that his strategy would fail after a few minutes. He didn't need a best-of-7 game series to determine that.
So because the situation is both relevant and comparable, who was more integral to the win? Curry or his teammates? Its a simple question. Please don't avoid answering again.
That's the baffling part. I have never heard anyone refer to role players making star players dominant. Typically it's looked at the other way, especially since the star players are the ones drawing more defensive attention, and getting the role players open looks. For example, I don't recall anyone saying Trevor Ariza's effectiveness made Kobe Bryant dominant last postseason. In fact, most note that Trevor got wide open looks because of Kobe and Gasol. Granted, he still had to knock his shots down, but you are trying to give the role players just as much credit as the star when they are playing off of the attention the star is receiving (hence their open looks), and that makes no sense.
I never said their execution didn't make a difference. I said the role players are not as important, or more important than the star player. In this case, the star player dropped near 40 a night. What he brought was as consistent as you can get. Additionally, the star player is the focus of the defense and not the role players. Hence him not getting wide open looks, even though they do (because of the attention he demands). This is the first time I have ever heard anyone argue that a role player is worth as much as a star player. I wonder why stars make so much more if that is the case.
I posted the stats for Game 5. Most of the role players shot well that game. Robinson did not, and he gave up 40 points on 60% shooting.
And in how many of those cases did his production decrease? In the cases where he did decrease, I have no issue with anyone saying he didn't produce like he did in the regular season, similar to Robinson not producing like he did in the 95 regular season. And you keep mentioning spacing and additional pressure (the common myth here that Hakeem got single coverage while David didn't), yet you fail to answer my question even if we assume that logic is true. Did David not receive this pressure/attention in the regular season? Did the Spurs just suddenly become a poor outside shooting team in the postseason? If the answers are no, then what is the point of even mentioning that? In other words, that's not a valid excuse for his decrease in production. He played with the same team all yr.
I don't think my understanding is distorted because I don't think role players are as important as star players. If that's how you hoenstly feel then I think you are referencing yourself, lol....
I don't believe I have stated that anywhere. I stated that he dominated his matchup, and that was the key matchup to the series.
You are correct that Clyde was a star, but you surely weren't referencing him when you mentioned all the 3 point bombers Houston had. And Drexler has nothing to do with Robinson playing worse on both sides of the ball.
Maybe because David Robinson wasn't on those teams to torch.
In all seriousness, who the knows. He wasn't as refined offensively in 90. He was older in 96 (most of his numbers dropped that season, just slightly). And he always had trouble with Seattle. Your question is basically asking "why didn't player X have the series of his life twice".
The question is very relevant. It is a clear example of the impact a star player can have on others, as far as getting them open looks because of the attention that he demands. Feel free to actually answer it, or at least come up with a better excuse for ignoring it. Even Stevie Wonder can see how the question is relevant when you are discussing if role players are just as important as star players.
Seems to me you've already made up your mind...
Your distorted lenses don't let you see beyond your own viewpoint... but good luck trying to defend the validity of comparing college games against those played by far more talented players in the NBA... Even D-League teams could mop the floor against most Div-I programs...
BTW I didn't address your original post because I thought it was pretty absurd... this simple-minded thinking is the same thinking that has you thinking Olojuwon won those series by himself...
At least you agree that Bob Hill should have changed his defensive strategy half-way through Game 1, we all saw its ineffectiveness... He didn't, even after 6 games, and so here we are...
Like I said, I don't care to discuss this matter with you any longer...
Go ahead and keep thinking that:
----- the '95 Spurs/Rockets series was a series played by only two men,
----- Olojuwon could have averaged 60 ppg over the span of 6 games (playoffs or otherwise... actually yes, against college players)
----- Drexler was simply a 'role' player,
----- the Inside/Outside offensive scheme can work on one leg,
----- the clutchness factor of players can be dismissed from the discussion,
----- that their ability to make shots is a given as long as their post player is GREAT (why even bother practicing... the fact that your center is best ever means he can will your shots to go in with telekinetic powers.
----- spacing isn't essential for the pivot to establish any sort of rhythm inside.
There's not a single player in NBA history who could have stopped Hakeem in the mid 90s. Not one.
Yes, I know what I think. I want to know if you agree with me or not. Obviously, you do. Otherwise, you wouldnt be going to such lengths to avoid the question.
LOL. We're talking about the importance of stars vs role players. Whether or not it was played in college is completely irrelevant. Quit trying to derail the topic.
You didn't address my post b/c you had no rebuttal. I don't blame you. You've spent a lot of time arguing. And what it comes down to is this:
1) You decide that Curry was more integral to the win, and by making this decision, you validate everything I've said thus far.
2) You decide that Curry's teammates were more integral to the win, and by making this decision, you're publicly stating that you're an idiot.
It's a lose-lose situation. No wonder you keep trying to change topics.
Neither would I if I were in your position.
Like I said, the series winner would depend on the individual matchup of the centers.
Assuming Rodman guarded Olajuwon nonstop and the Spurs didn't give help defense, I think it's very plausible that Olajuwon averages 60 ppg.----- Olojuwon could have averaged 60 ppg over the span of 6 games (playoffs or otherwise... actually yes, against college players
I based this theory on the fact that Olajuwon put up incredible numbers against Robinson, and would likely do better against Rodman (who was shorter and had less length than Robinson).
You countered this by saying that Rodman would "pester" Olajuwon into an inferior performance...and you refused to elaborate on "pester". All you said was that Rodman would do what "Bowen does to Kobe" while disregarding the fact that perimeter defense is much different than post defense.
Drexler was above a role player, but below a star (didn't make the all-star team that year). His career was clearly on its decline. Not to mention, he was not a good 3 point shooter.
IMO, he and Sean Elliott played similar roles.
Not really sure what you're talking about here. One leg?
I've never dismissed it. As I've repeatedly stated, the Rockets' role players knocked down open shots that were usually created by Olajuwon.
You're just being childish now. Telekinetic?
All I'm saying is that a great post player will create open looks for his teammates. Keep in mind that these are professional basketball players, and there's a good chance they'll make wide open jumpers....especially if that's what they've been doing all season long.
Could you elaborate more on this? Defensive spacing? Offensive spacing?
Apples and oranges... the triangle offense doesn't revolve around a true inside/outside offensive scheme... and technically the Lakers had 2 1/2 stars drawing the attention away from the perimeter... not only Kobe and Gasol...
I never said role players were more important... I simply said that the Rockets role players showed up for most of the series... and that the Spurs role players didn't... the one game they did, David laid an egg... but by that point he was shouldering way too much of a load... but hey, continue to single out that particular game as the microcosm for the whole series...
Hakeem got swept once in that span and lost two other series 3-1... ultimately though his teams didn't advance...
BTW Hakeem faced soft double teams when he got them... the Spurs were so noncomittal to their defensive assignments that anyone could hardly call them double teams... that's also the very same reason why taking David off of covering Olojuwon 1v1 made so much sense...
And yes, the Spurs became a poor outside shooting team in the postseason... that may be news to you... but us Spurs fans had to deal with that reality for several years... Too bad we didn't have a Cassell or an Horry on our team... at least we would have acknowleged their contributions...
No.... it's distorted because somehow you think their shots don't tally with the star player's points... that's ummm crazy actually.
which is tantamount to saying what? Don't be so disingenuous.
That's because 3pt shooting wasn't his primary weapon... he was the slasher that got by Del Negro at will...
No but he's a big reason why the Rockets had such a big advantage... He averaged over 23 ppg during the first two games... games which the Spurs lost.
Actually, its not apples and oranges. You're talking about role players vs stars. The triangle may not be an inside-out offense, but Kobe and Gasol still creating open looks for teammates.
And technically, if a player is considered half a star, then he's not a star.
Yes, that's true. The Rockets' role players were more consistent than the Spurs' role players. However, this was secondary to Olajuwon vastly outplaying Robinson.I never said role players were more important... I simply said that the Rockets role players showed up for most of the series... and that the Spurs role players didn't... the one game they did, David laid an egg... but by that point he was shouldering way too much of a load... but hey, continue to single out that particular game as the microcosm for the whole series...
And since he got swept, he improved his game every year until he peaked in 1995.
Like I said, as well as Olajuwon did against Robinson, he would have absolutely destroyed anyone else on the Spurs roster regardless how much he might have been "pestered".
So now Rocket fans don't acknowledge Cassell/Horry's contributions? Let me get this straight. I write "Cassell and Horry hit timely shots that were generally created by Olajuwon. These shots were important, but the main reason the Rockets won was due to Olajuwon's performance."
And you read "Cassell and Horry had nothing to do with the Rockets' success."
Reading comprehension ftw!!!
He's saying that in regards to importance, star players and role players aren't equal.
It appears as if you interpreted that as "a dunk by Olajuwon has a different value than a dunk by Horry".
You know what a bigger reason was? The 34 ppg that Olajuwon averaged during those same two games.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
