How would a prime Olajuwon fare against a prime Duncan?

[Horse]

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

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

[wekko368]

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

How is it a double standard?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Horse]

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

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

[wekko368]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[cantthinkofanything]

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

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

[ambchang]

How is it a double standard?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[wekko368]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because he is.

[Spur-Addict]

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

[Jenks]

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

Yes, post injury Robinson.

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

[ambchang]

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

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

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

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

Watch the video.



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

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

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

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

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

Watch the damn video now will you.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Because he is.

That clears up everything.

[Phenomanul]

Watch the video.

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

[ambchang]

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

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

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

[wekko368]

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

Watch the video.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ambchang]

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

Because it shows Robinson is constantly doubled. Get it?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And which of those big men had success?

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

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

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

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

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

Gasol never played in Memphis?

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

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

Very compelling.

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

[spurraider21]

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

2. "2014"
Who was the best player that series? Wasn't Tim, who again had better teammates.

you keep insisting on comparing their primes but now you're bringing up 37 year old duncan in the finals

[cantthinkofanything]

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

[wekko368]

Watch the video.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ambchang]

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

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

so he was doubled.

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

agreed

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

Agreed

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

Doubled

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

Robinson also grabbed the rebound, went back up and got fouled.

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

Foul

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

doubled and fouled.

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

Agreed. But then Cassell was there to cut off any driving lanes and the entire Rockets defense was already collapsing, forcing a jumper. Look at where Horry was at.

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

doubled.

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

doubled

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

They had three guys around Robinson.

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

agreed

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

There were FOUR ROCKETS IN THE PAINT.

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

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

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

[wekko368]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Gasol never played in Memphis?

Look at the supporting casts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[wekko368]

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

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

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

[ambchang]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Look at the supporting casts.

You don't remember what you are arguing anymore.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[DJB]

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

[wekko368]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incorrect. They are significantly worse.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You don't remember what you are arguing anymore.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[davethedope]

They won when Jordan was playing baseball.

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

[ambchang]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Incorrect. They are significantly worse.

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

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

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

[QUOTE=wekko368;7817561]Olajuwon would abuse Yao. You're forgetting that Olajuwon had a solid mid-range game. Yao would be forced to continually give Olajuwon open 15 foot jumpers. If Yao tried to contest them, Olajuwon would simply go right around him.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yeah, I think understand.

Do you?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please read up on what Stu Jackson aimed to do.
http://www.nba.com/2009/news/feature...son/index.html

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

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

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

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