If prime Robinson and prime Duncan switched era's

[MaNu4Tres]

Rodman was a main reason the Spurs lost in 1995. The dude quit on the Spurs in game 2 and wasn't the same. He attempted 3 threes the first quarter of game 2 and smiled at the Rockets Bench. He wasn't the same after.

Funny how he got traded a few months later.

[ambchang]

It depends on the presence of Olajuwon. Without him, the Rockets' supporting cast was barely better than Robinson's.

However, if you include Olajuwon into the mix, his teammates as a whole became much better. He elevated everyone's game.

Are you kidding me? Drexler, Cassell, Elie, Horry and Smith are barely better than Rodman, Elliott, Johnson and Del Negro?

Drexler was a 20/7/5 player that year despite being on the downside of his career. Sean Elliott was a 17/5/3.

Cassell, Elie, Horry and Smith knocked down shot after shot after shot. Rodman can't/won't shoot, Johnson couldn't even make it on the Rocket's roster (twice), and Del Negro is, at best, a backup SG on a lottery team.

Drexler is one of the 50 greatest of all time, Cassell, Elie and Horry went on to win championships with other teams, with Elie and Horry playing significant roles. What has Johnson and Del Negro done since? Oh yeah, Avery Johnson knocked down a wide-open 18 footer to clinch a series the Spurs were leading 3-1, and that was the shot of his life. Think about it for a second, a PG had some kind of proof that he can shoot because he nailed down an open 18-footer. If anything, it proves that he couldn't shoot because it became such a big deal. I can nail an open 18-foot jump shot with regularity, most people who play basketball can, but it's a big deal for a starting PG for a championship team. It's almost pukingly funny.

The two supporting casts have nothing in common. Take Hakeem off, the Rockets would probably not make the playoffs, or be first round fodder. Take Robinson off, the Spurs win 20 games instead of 62.

[ambchang]

First of all, since he's a Rocket's fan, its very possible he had the games on VHS and later transferred them to DVD.

I know I have the 94 finals on VHS somewhere.

So remind me, why was I basing the series off of my memory again?

And I didn't ignore any of your points. If you present a point which I haven't already addressed, I'll be happy to respond. It's annoying answering the same thing over and over.

[/quote]

I don’t know, like why Hakeem decide not to score 35 ppg vs. the Lakers in 90, or the Sonics in 96. Was it because Vlade Divacs and Ervin Johnson were such all world defenders that they held Hakeem to 18/19 ppg? I mean, why is that?

Or why the Rockets lost by 22 points in the only game the Spurs outshot the Rockets on 3s. Or why, in the only game the Spurs made a decent number of 3s (9), Robinson made 10 of 15 shots.

Or why Robinson always performed as well, or even better, in the playoffs when he had actual NBA quality guards around him.

Or how you would think the Rockets setting records in 3 pt shooting as a team in 95 has no effect on how Hakeem performed.

[ambchang]

I think it's fair to say supporting players have more open looks and less pressure when their main option is dropping near 40 on a good %, as opposed to one shooting under 50% and scoring less. It's the chicken and the egg argument. Which came first. I think we can all admit that most usually look at the star player getting guys open looks, and not the other way around.

Superstars are superstars because they can get there points on a consistent basis. They, however, would struggle when a whole defense can concentrate strictly on them, and ignore the others. It happened to Robinson in 95 vs. the Rockets and 96 vs. the Jazz, it happened to Shaq in 02 vs. the Spurs, it happened to Hakeem in 90 vs. the Lakers, it happened again to Hakeem in 96 vs. the Sonics. Obviously star players create situations for their players to go off, but if the supporting players are not hitting their shots, there are no incentives for the opposition to guard them, and can thus concentrate strictly on the star player. It is even easier to do so if the star player is a post player, because the operating area is much more concentrated in the paint, and as the central point on the court, the defenders can crowd and spread to outside shooters much quicker than running all over the court. This was the case for Robinson, where his PG can’t shoot, his SG can’t make any open shots or defend, his PF can’t won’t shoot, and the only person who could shoot at all was a SF who would choke 2 FTs at the end of a 1 point game.

But even assuming we go with the supporting cast argument, it was the same cast Robinson had all year. If he brought his typical production (which he didn't), then it may have been a different series because the games were so close. But the fact is that he underperformed, compared to what he gave SA in the regular season. It's not a case of him playing better with his cast playing worse. It's not a case of him seeing doubles that he didn't see earlier on, when he had better production. David underperformed. That in itself didn't lose the series, but it is a fact.

Regular season, or even series to series, are totally different. Not every team has a defender like Olajuwon. Not every team has a SF as quick, long and agile as Robert Horry. Not every team has a defender as feisty as Elie. These players can hound the heck out of any post player. Now compare this to Vinny Del Negro and Rodman. Del Negro can’t guard an ice cream cone, Rodman refused to defend (you have the series, right? Look it up again, where was he when Horry was launching all those open jumpers? Was Rodman anywhere near him?), AJ is undersized, even for a point guard, the only person who can guard anyone was Elliott.

And to answer a question that was posed, one playoff series where Hakeem played Seattle and Houston lost, and his numbers dropped, it's fair to say he had a decrease in production. Conversly, there was another year where he had an increase and still lost (I believe 1993). These arguments would hold more weight if David was in that situation, but he had a decrease, and a huge one in the last 2 games. Again, it's all knotted after 4 games. One center puts up 40 on 60%. The other had a big decrease. I don't see how anyone can argue that big difference in what was given at the center position wasn't the most important aspect of the series. The Spurs were dominant because on most nights David was the best player on the floor, or at least at his position. In the 95 WCFs that was no longer the case and they lost. How is that a hard connection to make?

So why did Hakeem performed so poorly in those series? Let me guess .. hmm … he decided to play worse? Or is it because the opposition defense was able to concentrate all their efforts on him, and dare his supporting players to beat him?

Robinson scored 26ppg on 68% vs. GS in 91 and still lost, why is that? Maybe because the opposition figured they had no centers to control him, and decided to shut down his teammates?

The Spurs were dominant because Robinson carried them to 62 wins on an extremely faulty roster. Teams couldn’t exploit the weaknesses of a team as much as they can in the playoffs because they didn’t have time to prepare for that. Most teams have a game plan, and they stick to it. In the playoffs, teams exploit matchups much better, and the Spurs have no answer for the Rockets.

[ambchang]

You can buy it like I did.

Actually, the link doesn't seem to be working now. Maybe the site is down? It was up in July.

www.pontel.com

Here is the thread from the Rockets board:

Thanks, I know pontel, but their games are just overly expensive.

[BG_Spurs_Fan]

People keep arguing which supporting cast was better in 1995, OK everyone's en led to their opinion, however let's not forget another very important factor - the coaches. Does anyone think of Bob Hill as equal to Rudy T? Because as far as I remember from 14 years ago that's where the biggest discrepency was - we were totally outsmarted on so many levels it's incredible. David gets a lot of stick for this series, but IMO this is totally undeserved and I believe everyone who can remember the actual games would agree.

[kingmalaki]

Apples and oranges... the triangle offense doesn't revolve around a true inside/outside offensive scheme... and technically the Lakers had 2 1/2 stars drawing the attention away from the perimeter... not only Kobe and Gasol...

It's not apples and oranges at all. Ariza get's his open looks because of the attention that other players demand. It's important that he make his open jumpers, but without those stars drawing extra attention, he wouldn't have an open shot to take because he isn't that great at creating his own opportunities. Therefore, the star is more important. This is the first time I have heard anyone argue that a role player was just as important as a star player.

I never said role players were more important... I simply said that the Rockets role players showed up for most of the series... and that the Spurs role players didn't...

But neither did David!!! His production dipped on both sides of the ball that series. Your argument would carry more weight if Robinson's production didn't decrease, but it did. You are trying to give the Rockets role players more credit than Hakeem, and give the Spurs role players more blame than David. The facts are that Hakeem bumped his level of play and his role players made their shots. David's level of play decereased along with his teammates.

BTW Hakeem faced soft double teams when he got them... the Spurs were so noncomittal to their defensive assignments that anyone could hardly call them double teams... that's also the very same reason why taking David off of covering Olojuwon 1v1 made so much sense...

Please stop with the myth that David faced more defensive pressure than Hakeem. I have the games, it isn't true. At the very least, Rocket and Spurs fans will never agree on this issue. But I have the games and it's a myth.

And yes, the Spurs became a poor outside shooting team in the postseason...

Didn't Robinson also shoot worse in that postseason? What Spurs player had a bigger decrease than him in 95 (53% to 45%)?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/1995.html

No.... it's distorted because somehow you think their shots don't tally with the star player's points... that's ummm crazy actually.

No, I just think the star drawing more attention is more importnt that the role player hitting open shots, especially when the star is the pone having the career series. Nice attempt to spin my words though.

which is tantamount to saying what? Don't be so disingenuous.

How does saying he dominated his matchup translate into he is the only reason that they won? It's the main reason. The C matchup was the most important one in the series.

No but he's a big reason why the Rockets had such a big advantage... He averaged over 23 ppg during the first two games... games which the Spurs lost.

Wasn't the series knotted 2-2 after 4 games? That basically means the first 4 games don't matter, because now it's a best of 3 series. Do you agree or disagree?

[kingmalaki]

So why did Hakeem performed so poorly in those series? Let me guess .. hmm … he decided to play worse? Or is it because the opposition defense was able to concentrate all their efforts on him, and dare his supporting players to beat him?

Hakeem struggled with the zone that Seattle used at the time. In later years his defensive efefctiveness was also minimized against the Sonics because they had bigs to camp at the 3 point line to draw Hakeem outside of the paint. He also struggled with Mark Eaton. I have no problem admitting that he didn't perform as well as he did in the regular season, but that's the difference between me and some of the others here. They fail to acknowlege that Robinson also didn't bring it, and are just pointing to his teammates. They need to point to him as well, because he underperformed on both sides of the ball.

The Spurs were dominant because Robinson carried them to 62 wins on an extremely faulty roster. Teams couldn’t exploit the weaknesses of a team as much as they can in the playoffs because they didn’t have time to prepare for that. Most teams have a game plan, and they stick to it. In the playoffs, teams exploit matchups much better, and the Spurs have no answer for the Rockets.

And none of that had anything to do with Robinson having no answer for Hakeem, and from going to a situation to where he was the best player on the court on most nights (on his way to an MVP), to suddenly not being the best player on the court anymore? You don't think that had a major impact?

[wekko368]

Are you kidding me? Drexler, Cassell, Elie, Horry and Smith are barely better than Rodman, Elliott, Johnson and Del Negro?

Drexler was a 20/7/5 player that year despite being on the downside of his career. Sean Elliott was a 17/5/3.

Cassell, Elie, Horry and Smith knocked down shot after shot after shot. Rodman can't/won't shoot, Johnson couldn't even make it on the Rocket's roster (twice), and Del Negro is, at best, a backup SG on a lottery team.

Cassell, Elie, Horry, and Smith can knock down shot after shot? What's your point? How do you suppose they'd get open for all these shots? Remember the premis is that Olajuwon is out of the picture.

The problem with your logic is you think that the Rockets' supporting cast has the same effectiveness without Olajuwon as they do with him.

Consider the Rockets' post presence. Without Olajuwon, they have none (they traded away Thorpe during the season). Without Robinson, the Spurs still arguably have mings and Reid.

And then think about defense. Take away Olajuwon and the Rockets' have absolutely no interior defense, and the rebounding suffers. You guys may not have liked Rodman, but the guy could rebound.

Without Robinson, the Spurs' role players would still be a complete (albeit much weaker team). Without Olajuwon, the Rockets' role players are just pieces of a team.

Drexler is one of the 50 greatest of all time,

Who was not an all star that year and didn't win a le until he settled into a role where he was the secondary star (as opposed to the primary star).

Cassell, Elie and Horry went on to win championships with other teams, with Elie and Horry playing significant roles.

What's your point? They went to teams with Duncan, O'Neal, Kobe, Garnett, Ray Allen, and Pierce. They played similar roles on those teams as they did with the Rockets.

And since when does it make sense to judge a 1995 player by the accomplishments he would achieve during the rest of his career?

What has Johnson and Del Negro done since? Oh yeah, Avery Johnson knocked down a wide-open 18 footer to clinch a series the Spurs were leading 3-1, and that was the shot of his life.

Yup, you're right, Avery did hit a clutch shot.

[wekko368]

I don’t know, like why Hakeem decide not to score 35 ppg vs. the Lakers in 90, or the Sonics in 96. Was it because Vlade Divacs and Ervin Johnson were such all world defenders that they held Hakeem to 18/19 ppg? I mean, why is that?

Like I've repeatedly said, Olajuwon game started rapidly improving in 1990 until he peaked in 1995. It's foolish to take his 1995 production and assume he was capable of the same thing in 1990.

Sonics always got away with illegal defense on Olajuwon.

Or why the Rockets lost by 22 points in the only game the Spurs outshot the Rockets on 3s. Or why, in the only game the Spurs made a decent number of 3s (9), Robinson made 10 of 15 shots.

Don't make it seem like the Spurs shot well from the 3 pt line. That game, they shot 31%. It just so happened that the Rockets' shot 19%. You shouldn't need to ask why a team that runs an inside-out offense lost when they shot 19% from the 3 pt line.

Also Olajuwon had a subpar game.

Or why Robinson always performed as well, or even better, in the playoffs when he had actual NBA quality guards around him.

Robinson performed better when he didn't have to go up against Hakeem Olajuwon.

Or how you would think the Rockets setting records in 3 pt shooting as a team in 95 has no effect on how Hakeem performed.

It's a testament to Olajuwon's dominance that series that he was able to create so many open looks for his teammates.

What you just don't want to admit is that during that series, Olajuwon was unstoppable.

Btw, Pontel doesn't ship to the states.

[ambchang]

Hakeem struggled with the zone that Seattle used at the time. In later years his defensive efefctiveness was also minimized against the Sonics because they had bigs to camp at the 3 point line to draw Hakeem outside of the paint. He also struggled with Mark Eaton. I have no problem admitting that he didn't perform as well as he did in the regular season, but that's the difference between me and some of the others here. They fail to acknowlege that Robinson also didn't bring it, and are just pointing to his teammates. They need to point to him as well, because he underperformed on both sides of the ball.

You honestly saw a difference between what you just said and what I just said? Because "Hakeem struggled with the zone Seattle used at the time" is a statement about the general defensive concepts of the opposition, while "Robinson was outplayed by Hakeem" was a statement dealing strictly with personal battles and ignoring all the other contributing factors.

Overall, David Robinson actually performed quite well against Olajuwon over their careers. With their ups and downs. http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1&p2=olajuha01

To simply sum up the performance and said "Robinson didn't bring it" was an insult to the game of basketball. It's saying that basketball is a game of one on one, and ignoring the team aspects. When two superstars are similar in talent, it figures that the supporting casts would be a deciding factor in any series. The fact that Robinson actually played well in the only game that the Spurs were nailing their 3 pt shots, and the fact that Hakeem had an average/subpar game when the Rockets couldn't make their outside shots (9-24, 20 pts when the Rockets made 3-16 from 3) speaks LOUDLY of the effects of 3 pt shooting on the performance on either superstar.

Expecting Robinson to score 35ppg on 60% shooting against a defensive system that has nothing else to worry but to shut him down is unrealistic, to say that he let his team down because he failed to do that shows little to no understanding of the game of basketball.

And none of that had anything to do with Robinson having no answer for Hakeem, and from going to a situation to where he was the best player on the court on most nights (on his way to an MVP), to suddenly not being the best player on the court anymore? You don't think that had a major impact?

Hakeem and Robinson were basically equals in 94 and 95, the two finished neck to neck in MVP voting. Sure, if Robinson can score 35ppg in the series shooting 60% from the floor despite having the whole defensive attention on him, the Spurs would probably win the series despite his supporting casts not doing anything, and that would really speak to how much Robinon is better than Hakeem, because then, Robinson would actually be able to beat Hakeem and the whole Rockets system all by himself, but that is not what I expect, nor is it what people are trying to argue here.

Saying Robinson had no answer for Hakeem, again, filtered this whole argument down to one point, and that is you saying basketball is a 1-1 game, and not a team game. It has been shown time and time again that both Hakeem and Robinson played well when his team shot 3s well, and doesn't when their respectively teams don't.

3 pt shooters DO open up the lane for centers to operate, teams do close out on shooters when they first begin to hit shots. In fact, it's quite simple. If you are a coach, you would dare the outside shooters to shoot 3 pters instead of giving up points in the paint early in the game because 3 pters are a more volatile and higher risk shot. If the shooters prove that they can hit the 3pters, you close out on them because those are worth 3 pts.

The Rocket players have shown throughout the year that they could shoot, and make these shots, it's only natural for the Spurs to close out on them. Watch the tape again, tell me how many times Hakeem is doubled, and how many times Robinson is doubled/tripled throughout the series.

[wekko368]

You honestly saw a difference between what you just said and what I just said? Because "Hakeem struggled with the zone Seattle used at the time" is a statement about the general defensive concepts of the opposition, while "Robinson was outplayed by Hakeem" was a statement dealing strictly with personal battles and ignoring all the other contributing factors.

At the time, zone defense was an illegal defense that should've resulted in technical fouls but was never called.

Overall, David Robinson actually performed quite well against Olajuwon over their careers. With their ups and downs. http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1&p2=olajuha01

Aren't we strictly talking about 1995?

To simply sum up the performance and said "Robinson didn't bring it" was an insult to the game of basketball. It's saying that basketball is a game of one on one, and ignoring the team aspects.

Very well. In the 95 playoffs vs the Rockets, Robinson put up inferior numbers (especially fg%) than he did during the regular season. Feel free to spin that however you like.

When two superstars are similar in talent, it figures that the supporting casts would be a deciding factor in any series.

That's your problem. During the 1995 playoffs, Olajuwon was BY FAR the superior player to Robinson.

The fact that Robinson actually played well in the only game that the Spurs were nailing their 3 pt shots, and the fact that Hakeem had an average/subpar game when the Rockets couldn't make their outside shots (9-24, 20 pts when the Rockets made 3-16 from 3) speaks LOUDLY of the effects of 3 pt shooting on the performance on either superstar.

It shows that when Olajuwon struggles, the entire team struggles. That's how integral he was tot he Rockets.

Expecting Robinson to score 35ppg on 60% shooting against a defensive system that has nothing else to worry but to shut him down is unrealistic, to say that he let his team down because he failed to do that shows little to no understanding of the game of basketball.

No one expected him to put up Olajuwon's numbers. However, I think people did expect him to meet or exceed his regular season number, which is a reasonable thing to expect from the MVP.

Hakeem and Robinson were basically equals in 94 and 95, the two finished neck to neck in MVP voting.

Equals? There's a reason Olajuwon is considered to be a top tier center and Robinson is not. Don't misunderstand me. Robinson would tear the league up today. He was a great center, but Olajuwon was greater.

Saying Robinson had no answer for Hakeem, again, filtered this whole argument down to one point, and that is you saying basketball is a 1-1 game, and not a team game.

Basketball is a game of matchups. Simply put, the Rockets' had an advantage at the center position and they milked it.

If the shooters prove that they can hit the 3pters, you close out on them because those are worth 3 pts.

Wrong. Let's review.

Olajuwon shot 56% that series. The Rockets' as a whole shot 34% from 3pt range. Let's extrapolate.

Let's say that Olajuwon shoots 10 times. At 56% and 2 points per basket, that comes out to 11.2 points.

Now lets say the Rockets shoot 10 3 pointers. At 34% and 3 points per basket, that comes out to 10.2 points.

Are you really telling me that if you were a coach, you'd rather guard the perimeter and save 10.2 points while giving up 11.2 points inside?

[ambchang]

Cassell, Elie, Horry, and Smith can knock down shot after shot? What's your point? How do you suppose they'd get open for all these shots? Remember the premis is that Olajuwon is out of the picture.

Let's see, Drexler was the lead of a very successful trailblazer team that went to the finals twice, Cassell, after leaving Houston, had a very successful stint with the Wolves. Elie and Horry continued to light it up next to great inside players (Shaq/Duncan), and Smith was a 17ppg scorer at Sacramento ... yeah, they can make shots without Hakeem.

Avery Johnson went from a 13 ppg scorer to 10ppg with a worse FG% the year Robinson was hurt, Del Negro went from 15 to 12 with a lower %, Rodman never shot in his life, and Elliott went from an 18ppg to a 12ppg scorer, again, with a lower FG% without Robinson in Detroit ... hmmm ... yeah, there are no differences.

The problem with your logic is you think that the Rockets' supporting cast has the same effectiveness without Olajuwon as they do with him.

Since when have I said that? For someone who was stressing comprehension as much as you do, I would expect you to read a little better than this. The whole premise, from the very beginning, was that the outside shooting allowed the Rockets in install an inside-out system. The Spurs can't do that because there were no outside shooters, and thus lost.

Consider the Rockets' post presence. Without Olajuwon, they have none (they traded away Thorpe during the season). Without Robinson, the Spurs still arguably have mings and Reid.

mings and Reid? Are you serious? Please read up your player history before you further embarrass yourself. That's akin to me saying the Rockets have great inside scoring options in Zan Tabak and Chucky Brown.

And then think about defense. Take away Olajuwon and the Rockets' have absolutely no interior defense, and the rebounding suffers. You guys may not have liked Rodman, but the guy could rebound.

Like how he got outrebounded by Robert Horry even though that was the only thing Rodman was doing? Or how Drexler outrebounded Hakeem in Game 1?

Take away Robinson, and Hakeem scores 60 a game, that's what you said earlier, so Robinson was even more instrumental than Hakeem on defense.

Without Robinson, the Spurs' role players would still be a complete (albeit much weaker team). Without Olajuwon, the Rockets' role players are just pieces of a team.

Like how the Spurs won 20 games without Robinson? Or how Drexler did right before he joined the Rockets? You don't even know what you are talking about anymore, the Spurs without Robinson, has proven to be one of the worst teams in the league.

Who was not an all star that year and didn't win a le until he settled into a role where he was the secondary star (as opposed to the primary star).

This proved that he was not an absolutely fantastic player? Karl Malone didn't win a le, nor did Stockton, I am sure both of them are better than Sean Elliott and Avery Johnson, even when they were starting to decline in production.

What's your point? They went to teams with Duncan, O'Neal, Kobe, Garnett, Ray Allen, and Pierce. They played similar roles on those teams as they did with the Rockets.

It shows that these are the kind of players that can nail shots and help teams win.

And since when does it make sense to judge a 1995 player by the accomplishments he would achieve during the rest of his career?

So Hakeem just decided to suck in the other series, despite the fact that he played in a similar system and produced similar regular season stats. Because we all know, Hakeem in 95 is worlds different from Hakeem 96, he just decided to play like crap in one series.

It shows that the performance of the same player is affected by many variables in the context of the game, such as offensive and defensive philosophies instead of just whether they decide to "bring it".

Yup, you're right, Avery did hit a clutch shot.

[ambchang]

Like I've repeatedly said, Olajuwon game started rapidly improving in 1990 until he peaked in 1995. It's foolish to take his 1995 production and assume he was capable of the same thing in 1990.

In fact, he decided to keep peaking all the way up to the Sonics series, he was still scoring 26.5ppg on 53.5% vs. the Lakers in the previous round, but he decided to drop off in production against the Sonics. But then again, why would you judge the accomplishment of a player on May 4th, 1996 by the performance of the exact same player in May 2nd 1996?

Another way to look at this is to see how Houston surrounded Hakeem with good outside shooting since 1990. Look at the supporting players, look at the team performance, and look at Hakeem’s performance.

Sonics always got away with illegal defense on Olajuwon.

Really? I thought Hakeem can score 35ppg on 60% whenever he wants, what is a little illegal defense going to do for him? And why would the league allow that to happen?

Don't make it seem like the Spurs shot well from the 3 pt line. That game, they shot 31%. It just so happened that the Rockets' shot 19%. You shouldn't need to ask why a team that runs an inside-out offense lost when they shot 19% from the 3 pt line.

Yeah, the Spurs only shot 31% in that win, vs. 25% in Game 1, 22% in Game 2, 29% in Game 5, and 29% for Game 6. In other words, if the Spurs shoot more than 30% from 3, they win. It’s a shame that Robinson didn’t go out and start shooting and making 3 pters.

And you are right, an inside out team couldn’t win when the team is only shooting 19%, but if Hakeem actually decided to score 43 points in that game and shot better than 38%, his team would win. Hakeem should have done what Robinson failed to do, and that is to score points when his teammates couldn’t make outside shots, but then Hakeem didn’t, just like Robinson.

Also Olajuwon had a subpar game.

Because he felt like it? If Hakeem brought it that game, the Rockets would have been up 3-1, Hakeem is such a failure!

Robinson performed better when he didn't have to go up against Hakeem Olajuwon.

Everyone perform worse against Hakeem, that’s why he’s 1st team all-nba and defensive player of the year.

It's a testament to Olajuwon's dominance that series that he was able to create so many open looks for his teammates.

Robinson created open looks for his teammates, they just couldn’t nail down the shots. Couldn’t help it that Del Negro was shooting 28% in 4th quarter in that series.

What you just don't want to admit is that during that series, Olajuwon was unstoppable.

Of course he was, it’s pretty obvious. It’s impressive to score 35ppg on 60% shooting on one of the best defensive players in the game, even in single coverage, and even if his defender had to go help out on defense.
And why don’t you just admit that players don’t just perform well magically. There are tones of evidence pointing to how Hakeem performed with and without 3 pt shooters. You can continue to stick your head in the sand all you want.

Btw, Pontel doesn't ship to the states.

[ambchang]

At the time, zone defense was an illegal defense that should've resulted in technical fouls but was never called.

I am sorry, I didn’t even realized that you were complaining about unfair refs, that was absolutely classy of you. Instead of admitting to how the best of the players could be slowed down by the appropriate defense, you go out and talk about conspiracy theories.

You should have just straight out said, Hakeem is unstoppable unless the league decides to stop him out.

Aren't we strictly talking about 1995?

We are talking about the reason Hakeem and David had their respective performances. Since you profess to be such an expert in statistics, I would imagine that you would realize that the major variable between 95 and 96 wasn’t Hakeem’s ability (see his regular season stats and 1st round stats), but the way the opponents play him.

Very well. In the 95 playoffs vs the Rockets, Robinson put up inferior numbers (especially fg%) than he did during the regular season. Feel free to spin that however you like.

For a second I thought you were trying to bring any kind of insight. What is there to argue about? I can just look up a stat sheet and noticed that. But that was never what we were arguing, you were arguing that Robinson not bringing it cause the spurs to loose, why are you backing away from the whole point of argument?

That's your problem. During the 1995 playoffs, Olajuwon was BY FAR the superior player to Robinson.

My problem is that Robinson didn’t play as well as Hakeem? Excuse me? I don’t get that.
Why was Olajuwon “BY FAR” the superior player? Why did Hakeem decide not to be “BY FAR the superior player” to Robinson the game neither team couldn’t hit outside shots?

It shows that when Olajuwon struggles, the entire team struggles. That's how integral he was tot he Rockets.

Or in game 1, when Hakeem had an average 27 ppg on 50% shooting, the Rockets still won the game because Drexler scored21 points and grabbed 12rebounds, or how in Game 2 of the 1st round, when Hakeem had another average game, the Rockets nailed 19 of 28 3 pters for a win, or game 1 of the WCSF, when Hakeem scored 18 points on 8-19, the Rockets STILL made 9 3 pters. Not that integral in those games.

No one expected him to put up Olajuwon's numbers. However, I think people did expect him to meet or exceed his regular season number, which is a reasonable thing to expect from the MVP.

Why is it reasonable to expect anything without understanding the full context? I expect Hakeem to score 35ppg on 60% only one year removed from the championship against a team with no good centers, like the Sonics, but that is not a reasonable expectation.

Equals? There's a reason Olajuwon is considered to be a top tier center and Robinson is not. Don't misunderstand me. Robinson would tear the league up today. He was a great center, but Olajuwon was greater.

Between 94 and 95, they were considered equals. If you argue otherwise, you didn’t even follow basketball back then. History has since been rewritten since that one series because people, like yourself, are too simplistic to understand that basketball is actually a team game.

Basketball is a game of matchups. Simply put, the Rockets' had an advantage at the center position and they milked it.

Which also explained why the Rockets continued to double and triple Robinson, while the Spurs singled Hakeem.

Wrong. Let's review.

Olajuwon shot 56% that series. The Rockets' as a whole shot 34% from 3pt range. Let's extrapolate.

Let's say that Olajuwon shoots 10 times. At 56% and 2 points per basket, that comes out to 11.2 points.

Now lets say the Rockets shoot 10 3 pointers. At 34% and 3 points per basket, that comes out to 10.2 points.

Are you really telling me that if you were a coach, you'd rather guard the perimeter and save 10.2 points while giving up 11.2 points inside?

So you are saying that all 11.2 points that was scored inside and the 10.2 points that was scored on 3s were open shots? As much as you like to simplify this to bits that you can handle, that’s not the case. Hakeem scored 56% vs. singles, open looks, and doubles. The outside shooters made 34% on 3s while being either covered or not. When people are drawing more defensive attention, they generally shoot a lower %, but as a coach, you are not privy to these % before the game, you would rather give up two points, single teamed, than to give up 3 pts, wide open.

[wekko368]

Let's see, Drexler was the lead of a very successful trailblazer team that went to the finals twice, Cassell, after leaving Houston, had a very successful stint with the Wolves. Elie and Horry continued to light it up next to great inside players (Shaq/Duncan), and Smith was a 17ppg scorer at Sacramento ... yeah, they can make shots without Hakeem.

In his Portland days, Drexler had all-star teammates of Terry Porter and Kevin Duckworth not to mention very solid players in Jerome Kersey and Buck Williams.

Yes, Cassell had a successful stint in Minnesota where he played alongside Garnett and Sprewell. And again, why are you judging Cassell by accomplishments 9 years in the future? Do you think the 2004 Cassell was the same player as the 1995 Cassell?

And Smith did that in Sacramento b/c there was no one else on the team to shoulder the load. And they were 27-55.

Since when have I said that? For someone who was stressing comprehension as much as you do, I would expect you to read a little better than this. The whole premise, from the very beginning, was that the outside shooting allowed the Rockets in install an inside-out system. The Spurs can't do that because there were no outside shooters, and thus lost.

You've been asking which team has a better supporting cast. If you want an objective answer, then you'd have to judge each player on his individual merits and take Olajuwon out of the equation.

However, from the way you've been describing the Rocket's role players, it looks like you think they were all in their primes during 1995.

Your premis is mistaken. I've explained why in prior posts. Go back and look, but I'm sick of repeating myself to you.

mings and Reid? Are you serious? Please read up your player history before you further embarrass yourself. That's akin to me saying the Rockets have great inside scoring options in Zan Tabak and Chucky Brown.

Zan Tabak? He played a total of 5 minutes the entire series. Let's get down to the crux of the matter. Which team would win:

Houston - Drexler, Horry, K.Smith, Brown, Cassell, Chilcutt, Elie, Jones

SA - A. Johnson, Elliott, Rodman, Del Negro, Person, Reid, Anderson, Rivers, mings

I think SA would win due to the fact that Houston has no post presence.

Like how he got outrebounded by Robert Horry even though that was the only thing Rodman was doing?

Rodman averaged 15 rpg that series. Horry averaged 7.2.

No offense, but you can't be this ignorant. There has to be an ulterior motive. What I'm thinking is that maybe you're making these outlandish claims just to see if I'd take the time to check the stats and disprove you.

Take away Robinson, and Hakeem scores 60 a game, that's what you said earlier, so Robinson was even more instrumental than Hakeem on defense.

Actually, the correct inference from that would be "Robinson guarding Olajuwon would be much more effective than Rodman guarding Olajuwon with no help defense."

I like how I make an assertion with qualifiers, and when it gets repeated back to me, the qualifiers are gone.

Like how the Spurs won 20 games without Robinson? Or how Drexler did right before he joined the Rockets? You don't even know what you are talking about anymore, the Spurs without Robinson, has proven to be one of the worst teams in the league.

I'm talking about a 95 Spurs team w/o Robinson vs a 95 Rockets team without Olajuwon.

Nice job spinning my words.

This proved that he was not an absolutely fantastic player? Karl Malone didn't win a le, nor did Stockton, I am sure both of them are better than Sean Elliott and Avery Johnson, even when they were starting to decline in production.

Generally, absolutely fantastic players make all-star teams. Yes, Malone/Stockton are better than Elliott/Johnson. I've never said anything to the contrary.

It shows that these are the kind of players that can nail shots and help teams win.

Agreed. They can nail shots and help teams when there is a dominant post presence to create open shots for role players.

So Hakeem just decided to suck in the other series, despite the fact that he played in a similar system and produced similar regular season stats. Because we all know, Hakeem in 95 is worlds different from Hakeem 96, he just decided to play like crap in one series.

As I've already repeated many times, Seattle got away with playing illegal defense on Olajuwon. This is why the Rockets lost the series.

I'll repeat it so maybe you wont ask the same question again. Seattle got away with playing illegal defense on Olajuwon. This is why the Rockets lost the series.

It shows that the performance of the same player is affected by many variables in the context of the game, such as offensive and defensive philosophies instead of just whether they decide to "bring it".

Actually, there's no valid reason to judge a player by future accomplishments. Ever. By doing so, you're making the erroneous assumption that the current player has the same skill sets as the future player.

[wekko368]

I am sorry, I didn’t even realized that you were complaining about unfair refs, that was absolutely classy of you. Instead of admitting to how the best of the players could be slowed down by the appropriate defense, you go out and talk about conspiracy theories.

Appropriate defense? Back then, it was called "illegal defense".

We are talking about the reason Hakeem and David had their respective performances. Since you profess to be such an expert in statistics, I would imagine that you would realize that the major variable between 95 and 96 wasn’t Hakeem’s ability (see his regular season stats and 1st round stats), but the way the opponents play him.

Yes, playing illegal defense on Olajuwon was very effective.

For a second I thought you were trying to bring any kind of insight. What is there to argue about? I can just look up a stat sheet and noticed that. But that was never what we were arguing, you were arguing that Robinson not bringing it cause the spurs to loose, why are you backing away from the whole point of argument?

I've consistently maintained that the 95 series would be determined by the the battle of the centers.

Both Olajuwon and Robinson had comparable regular season numbers. However, during the series, Olajuwon elevated his game whereas Robinson's numbers declined.

I've never deviated from that stance.

My problem is that Robinson didn’t play as well as Hakeem? Excuse me? I don’t get that.
Why was Olajuwon “BY FAR” the superior player? Why did Hakeem decide not to be “BY FAR the superior player” to Robinson the game neither team couldn’t hit outside shots?

If you expect Olajuwon to have a monster game every single game of the series, you have higher expectations of him than I do.

Go look at the stat sheets. They'll tell you why Olajuwon was by far the superior player that series.

Or in game 1, when Hakeem had an average 27 ppg on 50% shooting, the Rockets still won the game because Drexler scored21 points and grabbed 12rebounds,

Yes, Olajuwon did have a very efficient game.

or how in Game 2 of the 1st round

Unless that first round was played against the Spurs, your point is irrelevant.

Why is it reasonable to expect anything without understanding the full context? I expect Hakeem to score 35ppg on 60% only one year removed from the championship against a team with no good centers, like the Sonics, but that is not a reasonable expectation.

Do you also expect the Sonics to play by the same rules as other teams?

Between 94 and 95, they were considered equals. If you argue otherwise, you didn’t even follow basketball back then. History has since been rewritten since that one series because people, like yourself, are too simplistic to understand that basketball is actually a team game.

They may have been considered equals until 94 when Olajuwon led a cast of above average role players to the le. After that, they were only considered equal by Spurs fans.

I understand that basketball is a team game, but generally, the best teams have the best individual players. Look at the Bulls in the 90's. Aside from Jordan and Pippen, how many players on the 91-93 teams were also on the 96-98 teams?

Which also explained why the Rockets continued to double and triple Robinson, while the Spurs singled Hakeem.

You've been making this "single coverage claim for a while". I know its not the best sample size, but on the highlight reels of that series, it shows Olajuwon scoring points against double and triple teams.

So you are saying that all 11.2 points that was scored inside and the 10.2 points that was scored on 3s were open shots? As much as you like to simplify this to bits that you can handle, that’s not the case. Hakeem scored 56% vs. singles, open looks, and doubles. The outside shooters made 34% on 3s while being either covered or not. When people are drawing more defensive attention, they generally shoot a lower %, but as a coach, you are not privy to these % before the game, you would rather give up two points, single teamed, than to give up 3 pts, wide open.

No, actually you don't. Not at all. If that were the case, there would never be any open 3 point shooters.

That may be one of the most ignorant things I've ever read.

[kingmalaki]

You honestly saw a difference between what you just said and what I just said? Because "Hakeem struggled with the zone Seattle used at the time" is a statement about the general defensive concepts of the opposition, while "Robinson was outplayed by Hakeem" was a statement dealing strictly with personal battles and ignoring all the other contributing factors.

The difference seems to be that I am acknowledging that Hakeem underperformed, and putting his decrease in play on his shoulders, and not on his teammates. I am not solely blaming him for losing that series, just like I'm not solely blaming Robinson for losing in 95. Again, my point is folks are steadily pointing to his teammates dropping the ball, and glossing over the fact that he underperformed on both sides of the ball as well. You can't use his teammates to excuse him from shooting 47% and 37% in the final two games. You can't use his teammates to excuse him for allowing a man to drop 40+ on 60% in the last two games. Yes, you win and lose as a team, but the integral matchup in that series was at the pivot position. David's individual play decreased.

Overall, David Robinson actually performed quite well against Olajuwon over their careers. With their ups and downs. http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1&p2=olajuha01

He did, which further highlights the difference in their levels of play in the 95 WCF's. Hakeem really upped his. David's really dropped.

To simply sum up the performance and said "Robinson didn't bring it" was an insult to the game of basketball. It's saying that basketball is a game of one on one, and ignoring the team aspects. When two superstars are similar in talent, it figures that the supporting casts would be a deciding factor in any series. The fact that Robinson actually played well in the only game that the Spurs were nailing their 3 pt shots, and the fact that Hakeem had an average/subpar game when the Rockets couldn't make their outside shots (9-24, 20 pts when the Rockets made 3-16 from 3) speaks LOUDLY of the effects of 3 pt shooting on the performance on either superstar.

I'm not doing that at all. I'm saying the key matchup was the play at the pivot position. You can say his teammates weren't as good, but you also need to note that his individual play wasn't as good as his counterparts. It wasn't a story of David and Hakeem playing close + Rockets others > Spurs others = loss. It was a story of Hakeem > David, Rockets others > Spurs others = loss. Switch those two around any way you like, but acknowledge that David's individual play decreased. If your argument is that 3-point shooting led to who won games I can go with that. If your argument is that David shot like garbage to close the series because dudes weren't hitting 3-pointers....sorry, I don't buy that one.

Expecting Robinson to score 35ppg on 60% shooting against a defensive system that has nothing else to worry but to shut him down is unrealistic, to say that he let his team down because he failed to do that shows little to no understanding of the game of basketball.

Again, this is a myth. Robinson wasn't receiving any more attention that series than Hakeem. But we aren't going to agree on this matter. Obviously we see different things when we watch the games.

Saying Robinson had no answer for Hakeem, again, filtered this whole argument down to one point, and that is you saying basketball is a 1-1 game, and not a team game. It has been shown time and time again that both Hakeem and Robinson played well when his team shot 3s well, and doesn't when their respectively teams don't.

This argument is flawed. In Game 5, the Spurs only took 7 three pointers. One player took 4 fo those, hitting two. Are you really arguing that Robinson shot 47% that game because 3 other Spurs players took and missed one 3 pointer a piece?

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...505300SAS.html

In Game 6 the Rockets only shot 27% from behind the arc. Hakeem still 39 on 64%. The Spurs again only took seven 3's. Two players hit 1/3 and another player missed his lone attempt. They actually shot better than Houston that game (29%). Yet David only shot 35%.

The Spurs barely took any 3's in the last two games. If Robinson was getting as much attention as you say he was, why would the Spurs only have 7 attempts for the last two games? That doesn't make any sense. The fact is Robinson wasn't receiving that much attention. He was just facing a center he couldn't dominate, and he had a bad final two games shooting the ball.

[Phenomanul]

BTW I purposely interlaced 5 different errors during the course of the discussion from the time you claimed to own the series on DVD... instead of noticing them outright you've argued with me as if those points held merit... By this point I know you haven't recently watched the series, or that you even own it.... I'll let you figure out what those were...

It's not apples and oranges at all. Ariza get's his open looks because of the attention that other players demand. It's important that he make his open jumpers, but without those stars drawing extra attention, he wouldn't have an open shot to take because he isn't that great at creating his own opportunities. Therefore, the star is more important. This is the first time I have heard anyone argue that a role player was just as important as a star player

I'm not stupid, I understood you the first time... However you're the first person I've ever come across who would dare equate the spacing created by one player versus the spacing created by a trio of formidable scorers (Kobe, Gasol and Odom)... Now that is stupid.

But go ahead and spin it around like you've been doing with everything else I've written down...

But neither did David!!! His production dipped on both sides of the ball that series. Your argument would carry more weight if Robinson's production didn't decrease, but it did. You are trying to give the Rockets role players more credit than Hakeem, and give the Spurs role players more blame than David. The facts are that Hakeem bumped his level of play and his role players made their shots. David's level of play decereased along with his teammates.

Maybe I'll have to yell the point because it's one you fail to understand. David's production decreased whenever his shooters could not execute proficiently... Statistically, his worst game of the series was the first one (error one you didn't catch). What the box score doesn't show was that while he was being sent to the line repeatedly in the 4th quarter, his shooters couldn't buy a bucket anymore... 'till that point Elliott and Avery had contributed admirably to the the scoreboard... come 4th Q, their well dried up because Rudy T. made a brilliant adjustment... Even after all of that, the Spurs were ahead with a chance to make it a two possesion game... Elliott choked at the line missing two free-throws, Elie drilled a dagger (on a pass from Cassell)... Rockets win.

Olojuwon only scored 27 points in that game, and he didn't score any of his team's last 10 to close the game out, he did miss three shots in that span though... Ohhh... but Rocket fan comes in here saying this victory rests solely on the shoulders of Olojuwon and the loss solely on Robinson...

Aside from that game, and the low FG% in Game 6, David showed up statistically to the same averages he had against the Rockets up to that point in his career... Obviously, however, those averages aren't identical to the numbers he posted during the regular season against the rest of the league... the fact that you are holding him to those particular set of numbers shows your lazy approach to evaluating (or knocking) his production. Look no one's denying that Olojuwon wasn't one of David's greatest adversaries, or that his numbers against him weren't lower... Robinson's averages against the Rockets always hovered around ~20 ppg and 10 rpg... this series was nothing new to those numbers...

One big difference this time around was the fact that Olojuwon had a 20 point scorer at his side... So important was Drexler to their offense that he led the Rockets in win-shares that post-season (Drexler ac ulated 3.1 vs. Olojuwon's 2.9). Olojuwon also had Horry, and Cassell who increased on their regular season production... And players like Elie who could be counted on when the game was on the line... Or players like Kenny Smith who established a then NBA Finals record of 7 three-pointers in one game to beat the Magic in Game 1 of that year's Finals Series. Actually in that very game the Rockets were down by 20 midway through the 2nd Q... Olojuwon goes to the bench after picking up his 3rd foul and the Rockets were able to make a game defining run - with Olojuwon on the bench and Drexler leading the way... so clearly, it isn't all about Olojuwon.

Please stop with the myth that David faced more defensive pressure than Hakeem. I have the games, it isn't true. At the very least, Rocket and Spurs fans will never agree on this issue. But I have the games and it's a myth.

Now you are just lying. If Hakeem had seen the hard double teams Robinson saw throughout the series he would have drawn way more fouls... the game tape doesn't show that, and the box-scores don't agree with you.

Didn't Robinson also shoot worse in that postseason? What Spurs player had a bigger decrease than him in 95 (53% to 45%)?

Every Spurs fan in here has already acknowledged why his performance decreased... No one is saying that it didn't... You don't seem to get it though. You keep insisting that it was Robinson's fault alone rather than admiting that Houston's defensive strategy against the Spurs played a big part... You still don't seem to understand how that dynamic plays out do you... And like I mentioned earlier, Robinson's numbers against the Rockets were where they had always been...

No, I just think the star drawing more attention is more important that the role player hitting open shots, especially when the star is the one having the career series. Nice attempt to spin my words though.

Olojuwon took 68 more shot attempts in that series than Robinson... If the production of the role players weren't important how is it that they managed to set a record for three pointers made? If their production weren't important how come two of the games (error 2 you didn't catch) came down to game defining jumpers??? If their production weren't important how come a loss is attained whenever the Spurs' starting 1, 2, and 3 only manage a combined 22 points for a game (Game 2)??? You seem to think that's all on David.

How does saying he dominated his matchup translate into he is the only reason that they won? It's the main reason. The C matchup was the most important one in the series.

One which was exploited by Houston's overall defensive strategy... not because somehow David failed to show up. There's a difference. You simple-minded perspective is your undoing.

Wasn't the series knotted 2-2 after 4 games? That basically means the first 4 games don't matter, because now it's a best of 3 series. Do you agree or disagree?

So the fact that one of those games ultimately came down to a dagger by Horry, one which you are so eager to dismiss, plays no part in the story?

The fact that you solely point to Olojuwon's monster numbers in the closeout games as an indication that he alone manhandled the series is still rather disingenuous on your part. Your clutchest player came through... and you simply don't care to take that into account.

Kobe had a monster series against Orlando last year... it still doesn't take away the fact that Fisher hit the series' 2 biggest shots... Tell me role players don't matter... please.

You know, one other thing... If you don't like what we have to say... feel free to leave. THIS IS A SPURS FORUM after all... And.... you're not really convincing me of anything... other than the fact that we are all stubborn.

[wekko368]

BTW I purposely interlaced 5 different errors during the course of the discussion from the time you claimed to own the series on DVD... instead of noticing them outright you've argued with me as if those points held merit... By this point I know you haven't recently watched the series, or that you even own it.... I'll let you figure out what those were...

It might be plausible to deduce that he hasn't recently watched the series. It's downright idiotic to deduce that he doesn't own it.

These intentional errors you keep making...do they include the continual misspelling of Olajuwon's name?

I'm not stupid, I understood you the first time... However you're the first person I've ever come across who would dare equate the spacing created by one player versus the spacing created by a trio of formidable scorers (Kobe, Gasol and Odom)... Now that is stupid.

The point is that stars generate open looks for role players. That's undeniably true.

And since when has Odom been considered a "formidable scorer"?

Maybe I'll have to yell the point because it's one you fail to understand. David's production decreased whenever his shooters could not execute proficiently... Statistically, his worst game of the series was the first one (error one you didn't catch). What the box score doesn't show was that while he was being sent to the line repeatedly in the 4th quarter, his shooters couldn't buy a bucket anymore... 'till that point Elliott and Avery had contributed admirably to the the scoreboard...

So based on the bolded segment, Elliott and Avery played great the first 3 periods. And according to the italicized/underlined segment, if his shooters could execute proficiently, Robinson would also be productive.

So it stands to reason that for the first three quarters, Robinson should've had high productivity. However, for the game, he shot 5-17 from the field and 11-16 from the line. These stats are remarkably unproductive.

It looks like your own example disproved your premis.

I don't want to disappoint you, but I'm going to stop here. You've been wrong about almost everything. And you still haven't given me and answer on my Curry example.

[polandprzem]

holy smokes

10 pages of long posts and i got into this thread now.

I've read some ambchang posts and he makes great points as usuall. Well accually he brings the facts on a golden plate. they look great.

[ambchang]

In his Portland days, Drexler had all-star teammates of Terry Porter and Kevin Duckworth not to mention very solid players in Jerome Kersey and Buck Williams.

Yes, Cassell had a successful stint in Minnesota where he played alongside Garnett and Sprewell. And again, why are you judging Cassell by accomplishments 9 years in the future? Do you think the 2004 Cassell was the same player as the 1995 Cassell?

And Smith did that in Sacramento b/c there was no one else on the team to shoulder the load. And they were 27-55.

But none of this changed the fact that these players could score without Hakeem, right?

Also, why are you brining teammates in play, they don’t matter! What’s wrong with you, Drexler scored all those points and had the success that he had because he decided to take over games, not because of his teammates. Are you nuts? Why would teammates matter all of a sudden?

You've been asking which team has a better supporting cast. If you want an objective answer, then you'd have to judge each player on his individual merits and take Olajuwon out of the equation.

However, from the way you've been describing the Rocket's role players, it looks like you think they were all in their primes during 1995.

Since when have I said they were right during their primes? But does it matter, them not even being in their primes was better than the Spurs role players who were in their primes. I would take a 95 Drexler over a 95 Elliott 100 out of a 100 times, and that is given that Elliott is my 3rd favourite Spur of all time, and that being the closest match-up. I would take a 95 Cassell over a 95 Avery Johnson 100 out of 100 times, and that is with Cassell being a starting instead of a backup point guard. I would take a 95 Horry over a 95 Rodman 100 out of 100 times. It’s not even up for debate.

Your premis is mistaken. I've explained why in prior posts. Go back and look, but I'm sick of repeating myself to you.

You saying that an inside-outside system was driven solely by the inside game? Keep on riding that one engine train of yours then. Because I am sure it’s called an inside-out system is called that because nobody can hit an outside shot.

Zan Tabak? He played a total of 5 minutes the entire series. Let's get down to the crux of the matter. Which team would win:

Do you want to look up how many minutes mings played?

Houston - Drexler, Horry, K.Smith, Brown, Cassell, Chilcutt, Elie, Jones

SA - A. Johnson, Elliott, Rodman, Del Negro, Person, Reid, Anderson, Rivers, mings

I think SA would win due to the fact that Houston has no post presence.

You think so? You think a team with Drexler on it would win less than 20 games? What are you basing that on? What kind of post presence did the Spurs have? mings with a busted knee? Reid, who never was much of a presence his entire career? mings averagd 15ppg / 36 minutes that year, and Reid 13, Zan Tabak averaged 15 and Chucky Brown 11. That’s the “inside presence” you are talking about. You don’t even have a clue as to what you are talking about.

And why would a team having no post presence not win? According to you, a team with Steve Nash, Reggie Miller, Clyde Drexler, Dirk Nowitzki and Mehmet Okur, all in their primes would lose to a team headed by mings and Reid, because the first team “has no post presence”.

Rodman averaged 15 rpg that series. Horry averaged 7.2.

So? It would be helpful if the team with the higher rebounding total would win the games, but too bad they were counting the scores.

No offense, but you can't be this ignorant. There has to be an ulterior motive. What I'm thinking is that maybe you're making these outlandish claims just to see if I'd take the time to check the stats and disprove you.

Check game 5, the pivotal game where the Spurs lost by 21 points.

Actually, the correct inference from that would be "Robinson guarding Olajuwon would be much more effective than Rodman guarding Olajuwon with no help defense."

I like how I make an assertion with qualifiers, and when it gets repeated back to me, the qualifiers are gone.

You mean how you like watching people play in vacuums? What do you even mean by no help defense? Did Robinson get lots of help defense? What help defense are you talking about?

The original argument was that Rodman should have guarded Hakeem instead of Robinson, you went out and said that given Rodman was smaller and weaker (arguable) than Robinson, Hakeem would have dropped 60 on him. The original argument never said Rodman should guard Hakeem with no help defense whatsoever. But then, that argument somehow evaporated when it was shown that an even shorter Anthony Mason was the most effective player guarding Hakeem.

I'm talking about a 95 Spurs team w/o Robinson vs a 95 Rockets team without Olajuwon.

Nice job spinning my words.

So your argument to support your point was the point you are trying to make to begin with? There are no variables in your arguments. How can you objectively look into the person’s performance without the supporting cast when the only data you have is his performance with the supporting cast? You can only argue that Hakeem with his supporting cast vastly outplayed Robinson with the Spurs supporting cast, you can’t go and say Hakeem is better than Robinson.

Generally, absolutely fantastic players make all-star teams. Yes, Malone/Stockton are better than Elliott/Johnson. I've never said anything to the contrary.

Drexler is better than Elliott as well.

Agreed. They can nail shots and help teams when there is a dominant post presence to create open shots for role players.

Of course. But then Cassell can nail shots with Garnett as his “post presence”, and Kenny Smith can still nail shots with nothing around him.

As I've already repeated many times, Seattle got away with playing illegal defense on Olajuwon. This is why the Rockets lost the series.

But according to your logic on Robinson, if Hakeem can score 35ppg on 60% in that series, the Rockets win. The primary reason the Spurs lost is because Robinson was outplayed by Hakeem, by the same logic, the primary reason the Rockets lost in 96 to the Sonics was because Hakeem was outplayed by Shawn Kemp.

I'll repeat it so maybe you wont ask the same question again. Seattle got away with playing illegal defense on Olajuwon. This is why the Rockets lost the series.

Why did the league not call it. You know what? I feel like saying the sole reason the Spurs lost was because the referees were shaving points. Better yet, there was a murder conspiracy, if Robinson actually shot a decent % in that series, NBA goons will murder his family and skin his dog.

Actually, there's no valid reason to judge a player by future accomplishments. Ever. By doing so, you're making the erroneous assumption that the current player has the same skill sets as the future player.

Or even game to game by your logic. Hakeem played well in the 96 regular season, almost as well as in 95. He played well in the 1st round, so why did he suffer against the Sonics?
Oh, right, illegal defense. When it applies to Hakeem, it’s a reason, it’s an excuse for everyone else.

EDIT: Had totally screwed up quoting, changed that.

[kingmalaki]

BTW I purposely interlaced 5 different errors during the course of the discussion from the time you claimed to own the series on DVD... instead of noticing them outright you've argued with me as if those points held merit... By this point I know you haven't recently watched the series, or that you even own it.... I'll let you figure out what those were...

And what errors would these be?

I'm not stupid, I understood you the first time... However you're the first person I've ever come across who would dare equate the spacing created by one player versus the spacing created by a trio of formidable scorers (Kobe, Gasol and Odom)... Now that is stupid.

So now you are saying Robinson received worse spacing in the 95 WCF's than he did in the 95 regular season? If you are blaming his teammates for his inability to be as effective or a scorer, please explain why this issue didn't arise during the regular season. He had the same teammates. Additionally, as I asked in another post, if he had such limited space then why did the Spurs attempt so few 3 pointers in Games 5 & 6?

Maybe I'll have to yell the point because it's one you fail to understand. David's production decreased whenever his shooters could not execute proficiently...

That's not true. He shot 47% in game 5 (a decrease), even though the majority of his role players had a good fg% that game. Please explain that. Also, what does his teammates shooting have to do with him giving up 40 points on 60%, since you claim he had 1-1 coverage? You aren't supposed to give up 40 on 60%.

Statistically, his worst game of the series was the first one (error one you didn't catch).

I believe I have stated on numerous occassions that the series was tied 2-2 after 4 games, did I not? At that point it's a best of 3 series, is it not?

Aside from that game, and the low FG% in Game 6, David showed up statistically to the same averages he had against the Rockets up to that point in his career...

David typically gave up near 40 points to Hakeem? Haven't I been saying he had a decrease in his level of play on BOTH sides of the ball? And how can you say aside from Game 6...it was the elimination game!!!!

so clearly, it isn't all about Olojuwon.

I don't believe I ever stated it was all on David, or all about Hakeem. Feel free to provide that post.

Now you are just lying. If Hakeem had seen the hard double teams Robinson saw throughout the series he would have drawn way more fouls... the game tape doesn't show that, and the box-scores don't agree with you.

The box scores do agree with me. If Robinson was receiving that much attention, then why did the Spurs shoot so few 3 pointers to close the series?

You keep insisting that it was Robinson's fault alone rather than admiting that Houston's defensive strategy against the Spurs played a big part...

Please show me where I said it was all David's fault. I can provide numerous posts that say the exact opposite.

If the production of the role players weren't important how is it that they managed to set a record for three pointers made?

I think you need to learn the difference between someone noting that role player play isn't important, and them noting that role player play isn't more important that superstar play, especially superstar play that gets them open looks. But even assuming your logic is corect, you are giving more/equal credit to a dude hitting a game winning jumper (i.e. Horry in game one, his lone field goal), as opposed to Hakeem hitting 27 on 50% shooting? Umm.....ok......

One which was exploited by Houston's overall defensive strategy... not because somehow David failed to show up. There's a difference. You simple-minded perspective is your undoing.

Yes, because the myth around here is that David was swarmed 24/7 while Hakeem got 1-1 coverage all series long.

So the fact that one of those games ultimately came down to a dagger by Horry, one which you are so eager to dismiss, plays no part in the story?

That dagger was irrevelant by game 5 because the series was knotted. The advantage from that dagger was gone. This is a series, not a win all game.

The fact that you solely point to Olojuwon's monster numbers in the closeout games as an indication that he alone manhandled the series is still rather disingenuous on your part. Your clutchest player came through... and you simply don't care to take that into account.

I point to Hakeem's numbers to show how he dominated his matchup. I point to David's numbers to show how his play decreased. I don't think I ever said the win or loss was all on either player. But I'll be glad to see you show me where I said that.

Kobe had a monster series against Orlando last year... it still doesn't take away the fact that Fisher hit the series' 2 biggest shots... Tell me role players don't matter... please.

Role players don't matter AS MUCH AS the star players. That logic shouldn't be this hard to comprehend. That's why roleplayers don't make as much. That's why they aren't doubleteamed, etc.

[Phenomanul]

[Phenomanul]

The box scores do agree with me. If Robinson was receiving that much attention, then why did the Spurs shoot so few 3 pointers to close the series?

That's the point ambchang and I have been trying to get across... the Rockets were built around getting inside points from Olajuwon and 3 pointers from most every one else...

Aside from Elliott and Person on old legs, Avery, the primary ball-handler wasn't a three point threat... Vinny was no where near consistent taking this shot either... i.e. it was far easier to sag off of them because their game didn't revolve around standing behind the three point line... nor did they pose a menace when they did... But hey, you seem to know how those Spurs teams were constructed... RIGHT...

Their biggest help in that department came from the guy who is now coaching the Celtics... In fact, Doc Rivers was a huge reason why the Spurs were able to blow the Rockets out in Game 4. Unlike you, I'm willing to recognize that their contributions matter.

Please show me where I said it was all David's fault. I can provide numerous posts that say the exact opposite.

Semantics... you said it outright in your first post in this thread.

I think you need to learn the difference between someone noting that role player play isn't important, and them noting that role player play isn't more important that superstar play, especially superstar play that gets them open looks. But even assuming your logic is corect, you are giving more/equal credit to a dude hitting a game winning jumper (i.e. Horry in game one, his lone field goal), as opposed to Hakeem hitting 27 on 50% shooting? Umm.....ok......

I think we've established that in your mind Olajowon was 80% responsible for the series win and every body contributed only 20%.

I feel the breakdown is more like 50% Olojuwon, 25% Drexler and Cassell, 20% Horry, Elie and Smith, 5% everyone else. So yes, the remainder of the team gets equal footing... unless of course you're telling me clutchness is irrelevant.

Yes, because the myth around here is that David was swarmed 24/7 while Hakeem got 1-1 coverage all series long.

Hyperbole again??? Hakeem didn't see hard double teams... David did. The one or two lone instances per game that Olajuwon faced a hard double does not reflect the fact that those were the looks he got all series long. David on the other hand saw hard doubles the entire freaking series, minus the same outlier cases where he didn't.

That dagger was irrevelant by game 5 because the series was knotted. The advantage from that dagger was gone. This is a series, not a win all game.

What??? I'm referring to the series clinching dagger in Game 6... try and keep up.

Role players don't matter AS MUCH AS the star players. That logic shouldn't be this hard to comprehend. That's why roleplayers don't make as much. That's why they aren't doubleteamed, etc.

Teams are built around stars... Houston had two. San Antonio had one. Role players, however, help you win championships... Houston had championship caliber role players, San Antonio didn't... end of story.