How would a prime Olajuwon fare against a prime Duncan?

[Fortune Cookie]

I can't argue with you anymore. You win. You may be dumber than a bag of rocks, but you're the most resilient poster I've ever encountered.

[ambchang]

So I point out that your simplistic arguments don't consider important factors such as players' roles.

And you counter with an argument that doesn't consider consider a player's role (the offensive role of Thorpe vs Drexler).

Sounds about right.

Of course I consider players roles. Having better supporting casts will help relief the pressure of the main guy, thus negatively affecting his stats, but positively affecting team success.

Also, it's noted that you just somehow decided to ignore the Chucky Brown vs. Otis Thorpe vs. Barkley argument when stats just doesn't support any of your hypothesis.

No, I'm not. I'm talking about his help defense. I've been talking about his help defense. Since words don't seem to convey the message, here's a picture (there's a Sonics' player behind Olajuwon and Payton is in front of him):




You're telling me that in the above picture, the help defender's (Gary Payton) man-to-man defensive ability doesn't matter?

Of course it matters. Since when did I say it didn't matter. I am saying Gary Payton earned is reputation as a defender through his exceptional man to man defense. What he can do on the help defense is obviously good, it's just not so good that only a very small percentage of perimeter defenders can replicate in today's game.

Of the top of my head:
Kawhi Leonard
Paul George when healthy
Trevor Ariza
Lebron James
Draymond Green
Danny Green
John Wall
Brandon Knight
Tony Allen
Khris Middleton
Klay Thompson
Jimmy Butler
Jeff Teague
Russell Westbrook
Mike Conley
Eric Bledsoe

Can all provide adequate and effective double teams to bother a post player. Can they do as good a job as Gary Payton? not all of them, but they can do an effective job in a zone situation to limit a skilled low post player, even a prime Olajuwon.

Which translates into a decline of 1.3 points, a decline of 1.7 rebounds, and a decline of 0.5 assist. If you're going to quibble over those drops, then you've already lost.

It make it sound trivial. It's not

[wekko368]

As in Hakeem’s low post inside out? No. Or are you now saying Hakeem was driving and kicking like Steve Nash does. Wait, he was better than Steve Nash in that now, was he?

Your argument was that because an article about "drive & kick" offenses didn't talk about "inside-out" offenses, then inside-out offenses don't have a place in today's game.

What I'm saying is that you're an idiot.

Then why would you talk about how Olajuwon would play in 2003? It has nothing to do with h2h with Duncan, either. Either you admit you are posting in the wrong thread, or shut up about it.

Just because you don't see the connection doesn't mean it's unrelated. Remember, you're an idiot. It's safe to always assume that you're missing something.

2002 & 2003 were arguably Duncan's most impressive years. And when you rate a player's offensive/defensive abilities, you have to take into consideration the level of his opposition. In 2002, Duncan averaged 25.5 ppg on 50.8% shooting. Sure, that's impressive, but who was guarding him? If I can make a compelling argument that prime Olajuwon would've averaged more (with comparable efficiency) in 2002, then that would lead to the argument that prime Olajuwon had a better offensive game than prime Duncan.

I would never had heard of assists if it wasn’t for the great follower of Hakeem’s. What is it? Is it some sort of magical wand Hakeem used to zap his non-believers into oblivion? That said, I saw something called “AST” in the series against the Sonics, and Hakeem averaged 4.25 of them, which about 1 more than his season average. I don’t know what it is, but I hope that increase is enough to offset his 8 points per game drop.

It's hard to get assists when your teammates miss open shots.

So your solution is for me to brainwash myself until I agree with you? Great strategy. Has the church of Hakeem officially evolved into a cult? Do I have to donate all my possessions to the church of Hakeem to prove I am a believer?

Call it what you want, but the reality is that you're ignorant. My solution is for you to get educated. I know it's a lofty goal, but I'm an optimist.

And me talking about Hakeem in today’s game, but not particularly Duncan’s prime is irrelevant? Duncan’s playing in today’s game, he had a prime, we are talking about Hakeem. Seems relevant to me.

If Duncan or Olajuwon are currently in their prime, then today's game is relevant. If they aren't, it's not. I don't know why you're having such a tough time with this.

Oh wait. I do. It's b/c you're an idiot.

You can find some award/stats to validate any of the players I mentioned above.

What combination of awards/stats is as impressive as MVP/FMVP/DPOY in the same year?

Because Pryzbilla is a better defender than Laettner?
Nate Robinson is plenty coordinated, I can see him limiting Hakeem to 12ppg on 38% shooting.

Sounds about right.

So raw that he 30 a game in the playoffs? And I am comparing raw Hakeem to raw Hakeem. Same consistent method.

You really think a late-80's Olajuwon was the same as a 93-95 Olajuwon?

It's pretty clear that you never saw Olajuwon play.

No, I am saying Antonio Davis could guard Hakeem. Of course, you are saying a big slow guy like Smits can limit Hakeem to 6 points while Yao would let Hakeeem go off for half a million.

And the onus is on you to provide support for that statement. And the only support you've offered is that Antonio Davis played in a game when Olajuwon scored 6 points.

I am using stats to show who is the more effective scorer and who I would give the ball to to score if I need 2 points. Noah is no worse than Mutombo.

Something like "more effective scorer" can't be quantified using stats. You have to use your eyes.

Like in my example (the one you conveniently ignored), Dwight Howard has better stats than Motiejunas, but any Rockets fan will tell you that Motiejunas is the more effective scorer. If you needed two points and your options were Howard or Motiejunas, you go with Motiejunas every time.

Similarly, Motumbo was a more effective scorer than Noah is.

Highly relevant, because the point is whether centers are important in today’s game, not whether bad GMs think centers are relevant to today’s game.

Why not? You are talking about GMs that led their teams to the lottery year after year after year, and you are using them as the standard of how a team should be constructed? Besides, your use of high draft picks makes zero sense, players make a difference when they play, not where they are drafted.

You're basically saying that you have a better understanding of modern basketball than the majority of GM's....

And you think the Spurs, Hawks, Wizards, Bulls, Grizzlies, Rockets and Blazers used their bigs to the extent of what the 90s Rockets, Spurs, Knicks, Pacers, Magic and Cavs used theirs?

Nope, current bigs aren't used to the same extent. But current bigs aren't as skilled as Olajuwon/Robinson/Ewing/Shaq.

And yet in a world of 7 billion people, with the increase in popularity of basketball around the world, and with much better scouting and development, there isn’t one single post player in today’s game that is comparable to Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, or even Shaq in today’s game. The reason isn’t that those players don’t exist anymore, is because their roles have diminished.

In case you don't follow basketball, there's a guy named Anthony Davis that's pretty good.

You love to tell me what I do and what I don’t do. Just a reminder, you do not have the same power to govern me like Hakeem does to you.

It's not my fault you don't remember the things you say:

And yet every single example I gave showed an increase in PPG. No, I am not talking about efficiency, I am talking about scoring and strictly scoring.

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

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

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

No I don’t. I wouldn’t consider James Donaldson to be better than Hakeem.

Yeah, you do. That's why you were looking only at ppg while ignoring efficiency.

You love to tell me what I do and what I don’t do.

Why do you like to cherry pick?
Gasol at Memphis – 13, 13.6, 13.4, 12.4, 14.9, 14.5 FGA
Gaso at Lakers – 12.9, 13, 13.7, 14.1, 11.8, 14.8 FGA
Seems pretty even to me (outside of his injury riddled 12/13 season.

I like how I included both FGA and FTA (b/c they're both relevant) and you cherry-picked FGA b/c it supported your argument. FYI, you also ignored pace.

Yes, despite better teammates. Just like how having Barkley limited Hakeem’s FGA.

It's pretty sad that you continually ignore the different "roles" of these better teammates.

No, Stoudemire got Steve Nash to create for him. Wade’s number jumped the most when he had the worst teammates in his career. Garnett is the only example, and his ppg went up by 1ppg.

No I didn’t. You are just too stupid to understand. I used Kobe vs. Miller to make fun or you, and yet you have to have me write it out to understand it. Actually, I can’t even say you’d understand it.

Honestly, since you've shown some remarkable stupidity thus far, I really did think you were comparing Kobe and Mike Miller. It seemed like the type of comparison you'd make.

Also, you wanted examples of teammates whose stats improved once they got better teammates. I gave you plenty of valid answers. If you don't like the answers, change the question.

The end of zone? NBA 3 pt shooting is at an all time high, and zone defenses are used every game.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sport...nba/52657598/1
A team playing zone 10% of the time is a lot more than 0% of the time.

That article from 2012 states that the Warriors played the most zone (10.3% of the time). The next were the Bobcats at 9.3% followed by the Raptors at 7.5%. Look at the record/personnel of those teams. Golden State finished with a 23-43 record. Toronto finished with a 23-43 record. The Bobcats finished with a 7-59 record. It's plausible that they resorted to using zone b/c their man-to-man defense sucked and they needed to try something else.

Is that why the Rockets shot 25.7 3PA in 1997 vs. 29.5 in 1996?

What's your point? Inside-out offenses don't always lead to outside shots. Hence the name "inside-out".

Because a quicker shot is a more open one. It matters a whole lot. If your shot allows a split second more for the defense to close it, a defender can challenge a shot much more effectively. Even a Rockets fan know that.

Irrelevant. We're talking about open shots. If a defender is quick enough to challenge a shot, then that shot is no longer "open".

At this point, I'm starting to suspect that English may not be your first language, and as such, you aren't fluent. If that's the case, I apologize for all the insults directed at you. It's a tough language to learn, and I'm sure you'll get there.

[ambchang]

Your argument was that because an article about "drive & kick" offenses didn't talk about "inside-out" offenses, then inside-out offenses don't have a place in today's game.
What I'm saying is that you're an idiot.

No, I didn’t say that. You seem to have a habit of twisting my words and extending specific comments into other parts of an argument. I originally listed out the article to talk about zones influenced the game into a more drive and kick offense because it’s crowding the lane, which means that a low post scoring threat is no longer as effective as it was in the 90s.

Just because you don't see the connection doesn't mean it's unrelated. Remember, you're an idiot. It's safe to always assume that you're missing something.
2002 & 2003 were arguably Duncan's most impressive years. And when you rate a player's offensive/defensive abilities, you have to take into consideration the level of his opposition. In 2002, Duncan averaged 25.5 ppg on 50.8% shooting. Sure, that's impressive, but who was guarding him? If I can make a compelling argument that prime Olajuwon would've averaged more (with comparable efficiency) in 2002, then that would lead to the argument that prime Olajuwon had a better offensive game than prime Duncan.

Yeah, Olajuwon would have averaged more than Duncan than Duncan in 2003, too bad I was talking about today’s game with my comment, a comment you chose to respond to.
And a smart man like you would surely have guessed that Duncan never guarded himself, so Hakeem scoring more against 2003 compe ion has absolutely nothing to do with how prime Hakeem would face Duncan h2h. But you are a genius and I am an idiot, so you will have to explain it to me what you said about has an relevance in how Hakeem would be able to face Duncan.
scoring 6 points vs. Antonio Davis means he will annihilate prime Duncan. Very convincing.

It's hard to get assists when your teammates miss open shots.

It’s hard to make open shots when quick agile athletes come flying at you after doubling the post.

Call it what you want, but the reality is that you're ignorant. My solution is for you to get educated. I know it's a lofty goal, but I'm an optimist.

Hey, another established fact from you! How do you define these things? Do you just say it is and it is? I thought Hakeem was the god, you are just a priest though, so you are supposed to be a messenger, or is this how your religion work?

If Duncan or Olajuwon are currently in their prime, then today's game is relevant. If they aren't, it's not. I don't know why you're having such a tough time with this.

It is relevant because I felt like talking about it. This is the purpose of a forum.
[QUOTE=wekko368;7827319]Oh wait. I do. It's b/c you're an idiot.
Hey, you have definition shown yourself being a genius.
Me: Hakeem is not likely to be as successful in today’s league because of the legalization of zone. Evidence is him playing way below average in the Sonics, which played a semi-zone.
You: Small sample size (as compared to 0 game sample you gave), 2003 bad centers (neither today, and ignoring Hakeem didn’t put up numbers above his average against the bad centers in his prime), his teammates couldn’t nail shots (despite Hakeem getting 9 assists in one game in a loss and ignoring the advances in today’s defenses to specifically limit low post inside-out offenses).

What combination of awards/stats is as impressive as MVP/FMVP/DPOY in the same year?

Say … 6 championships with 6 FMVP, 41ppg in the Finals? Leading the league in scoring 10 times and steals 3 times? 5 MVPs with a DPoY? Three years with 20+ WS? Leadning the league in WS 9 times?
How about 4 MVPs, and 2 FMVPs, leading the league in WS 5 times?
Or 3 straight MVPs?
Or 3 straight FMVPs and dominating the league to a degree where leagues have to foul you intentionally? Warp the roster of your opposition to stock up on unskilled bigs to hack you all game long?

Sounds about right.

Good to know your genius.

You really think a late-80's Olajuwon was the same as a 93-95 Olajuwon?

So Hakeem only has a 2 year prime?

It's pretty clear that you never saw Olajuwon play.

Another gem. Sometimes I think you know me more than I do, internet psychic.

And the onus is on you to provide support for that statement. And the only support you've offered is that Antonio Davis played in a game when Olajuwon scored 6 points.

Hakeem averaging 20 points on 49% shooting vs. Antonio Davis.

Something like "more effective scorer" can't be quantified using stats. You have to use your eyes.

, when no evidence exists, go with the “use your eyes”. In other words, you are wrong and I am right, and if you disagree with me, you are an idiot.
Did I mention you are an idiot?

Like in my example (the one you conveniently ignored), Dwight Howard has better stats than Motiejunas, but any Rockets fan will tell you that Motiejunas is the more effective scorer. If you needed two points and your options were Howard or Motiejunas, you go with Motiejunas every time.

No, Motiejunas is the more skillful scorer. Dwight Howard is more effective since he scores more and has a better %. I want two points, I run a play involving Dwight, not Motiejunas because Dwight is more likely going to score.

Similarly, Motumbo was a more effective scorer than Noah is.

No, you are talking about more skillful, which Mutombo isn’t all that great in either.

You're basically saying that you have a better understanding of modern basketball than the majority of GM's....

No, I am not. I am saying the GMs have shown that drafting big men in hopes of them panning out has failed over and over and over again. I wouldn’t have known if they haven’t failed over and over and over again.

Nope, current bigs aren't used to the same extent. But current bigs aren't as skilled as Olajuwon/Robinson/Ewing/Shaq.

Current bigs are as skilled as Mutombo though, still didn’t stop the Nuggets from force feeding Mutombo to the tune of 10 shots a game because that’s how teams in the 90s scored. A player like Bogut, who is definitely more skillful offensively than Mutombo, gets 9 shots a game, Horford gets 11 with 40% of those coming outside of 10 feet.

In case you don't follow basketball, there's a guy named Anthony Davis that's pretty good.

Yeah, and he’s still only getting 17.2 FGA a game this season, with about 40% of his shots coming from outside of 10 feet. Hakeem gets 20+ shots in his prime (no stats on the shooting), Robinson gets 20, Ewing gets around 20, and Shaq gets 18 to 20 for 10 years in a row. The center position changed, and shot attempts pretty much confirmed it.

It's not my fault you don't remember the things you say:
I like how I included both FGA and FTA (b/c they're both relevant) and you cherry-picked FGA b/c it supported your argument. FYI, you also ignored pace.

I was talking about you telling me my intention of ignoring efficiency. And no, I didn’t ignore pace, I just don’t want to talk about it because it involves a lot of work.

It's pretty sad that you continually ignore the different "roles" of these better teammates.

So better teammates help the main guy’s stats, only when they don’t.

Honestly, since you've shown some remarkable stupidity thus far, I really did think you were comparing Kobe and Mike Miller. It seemed like the type of comparison you'd make.
Also, you wanted examples of teammates whose stats improved once they got better teammates. I gave you plenty of valid answers. If you don't like the answers, change the question.

You failed to even understand comparisons, and I am the one who showed remarkable stupidity? Great logic!

That article from 2012 states that the Warriors played the most zone (10.3% of the time). The next were the Bobcats at 9.3% followed by the Raptors at 7.5%. Look at the record/personnel of those teams. Golden State finished with a 23-43 record. Toronto finished with a 23-43 record. The Bobcats finished with a 7-59 record. It's plausible that they resorted to using zone b/c their man-to-man defense sucked and they needed to try something else.

Yeah, and it helped.

What's your point? Inside-out offenses don't always lead to outside shots. Hence the name "inside-out".

So they shot less from 3 and won vs. the same team.

Irrelevant. We're talking about open shots. If a defender is quick enough to challenge a shot, then that shot is no longer "open".

That’s my point. Current defenses will decrease open shots because they close in quicker. The way to combat that is suck in the defense with drive and kick.

At this point, I'm starting to suspect that English may not be your first language, and as such, you aren't fluent. If that's the case, I apologize for all the insults directed at you. It's a tough language to learn, and I'm sure you'll get there.

At this point, I’m starting to suspect that using your brain may not be your first actions, and as such, you aren’t strong at it. If that’s the case, I apologize for all the insults directed at you because they are no longer insults, they are simply observations. It’s an easy thing to do, and I am sure you’ll get there.

[ambchang]

Anyways, wekko368, to summarize your points.

"I am right, you are an idiot" - I can't really argue with that.
"Stats are irrelevant, you have to trust your eyes" - Can't argue with that either.
"GMs are always right, despite the fact they lead their teams to the lottery year after year" - Great point
"Hakeem's the best at everything with regards to basketball, and even most things that are not related to basketball" - I heard he was a great goalie, and he's quite a painter too, but I can't agree that he's the greatest at everything.

[wekko368]

No, I didn’t say that. You seem to have a habit of twisting my words and extending specific comments into other parts of an argument. I originally listed out the article to talk about zones influenced the game into a more drive and kick offense because it’s crowding the lane, which means that a low post scoring threat is no longer as effective as it was in the 90s.

Why don't you quote the portion of the article that says this? The closest thing I can find is:

The next key to beating the zone in half-court sets is universal. Find a versatile player who can dribble, drive or shoot flashing to the middle of the foul line. That forces the zone to collapse on the ballhandler, opening options

But the preceding statement doesn't support your summary of the article, especially since Olajuwon is one of the most versatile players of all-time.

Yeah, Olajuwon would have averaged more than Duncan than Duncan in 2003, too bad I was talking about today’s game with my comment, a comment you chose to respond to.

Today's game/compe ion is irrelevant to the topic of the thread. It sounds like you've resorted to using strawman arguments.

And a smart man like you would surely have guessed that Duncan never guarded himself, so Hakeem scoring more against 2003 compe ion has absolutely nothing to do with how prime Hakeem would face Duncan h2h. But you are a genius and I am an idiot, so you will have to explain it to me what you said about has an relevance in how Hakeem would be able to face Duncan.

It goes to their respective scoring ability. If Olajuwon can score more effectively than Duncan against the same compe ion, then you can argue that Olajuwon's scoring ability is greater than Duncan's.

Also, I'm not a genius. You're clearly an idiot, but I'm not a genius. Maybe I am, relative to you, but to the average person, I'm not.

scoring 6 points vs. Antonio Davis means he will annihilate prime Duncan. Very convincing.

Yeah, you cling to that argument.

It’s hard to make open shots when quick agile athletes come flying at you after doubling the post.

No it's not. Want to know why? Because you're open.

Hey, another established fact from you! How do you define these things? Do you just say it is and it is? I thought Hakeem was the god, you are just a priest though, so you are supposed to be a messenger, or is this how your religion work?

I'm not establishing any facts. They've already been established. It's not my fault you continually make arguments that are easily refuted by facts. If you want to argue that Rik Smits and Yao had comparable mobility, speed, and coordination, that's fine. But since they obviously don't, you shouldn't get so upset when people rightfully call you an idiot.

It is relevant because I felt like talking about it. This is the purpose of a forum.

Oh wait. I do. It's b/c you're an idiot.
Hey, you have definition shown yourself being a genius.
Me: Hakeem is not likely to be as successful in today’s league because of the legalization of zone. Evidence is him playing way below average in the Sonics, which played a semi-zone.
You: Small sample size (as compared to 0 game sample you gave), 2003 bad centers (neither today, and ignoring Hakeem didn’t put up numbers above his average against the bad centers in his prime), his teammates couldn’t nail shots (despite Hakeem getting 9 assists in one game in a loss and ignoring the advances in today’s defenses to specifically limit low post inside-out offenses).

Yep, those are all legitimate counterarguments. You forgot the counterargument that you're incorrectly assuming that every team has players comparable to the 1996 Sonics (in terms of size, athleticism, defensive abilities).

Say … 6 championships with 6 FMVP, 41ppg in the Finals? Leading the league in scoring 10 times and steals 3 times? 5 MVPs with a DPoY? Three years with 20+ WS? Leadning the league in WS 9 times?
How about 4 MVPs, and 2 FMVPs, leading the league in WS 5 times?
Or 3 straight MVPs?
Or 3 straight FMVPs and dominating the league to a degree where leagues have to foul you intentionally? Warp the roster of your opposition to stock up on unskilled bigs to hack you all game long?

LOL. I said "in the same year". And I also specified Olajuwon's peak from 1994-1995. Olajuwon's 1994 season is arguably one of the greatest single seasons anyone has ever had. MVP, FMVP, and DPOY in the same year.

So Hakeem only has a 2 year prime?

It depends on how you want to define "prime". Olajuwon was a bunch for a ton of seasons, but he was clearly at his best in 1994/1995.

Another gem. Sometimes I think you know me more than I do, internet psychic.

Can you blame me for questioning whether or not you've seen Olajuwon play? You've said some ridiculously inaccurate things about him.

Hakeem averaging 20 points on 49% shooting vs. Antonio Davis.

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that.

, when no evidence exists, go with the “use your eyes”. In other words, you are wrong and I am right, and if you disagree with me, you are an idiot.
Did I mention you are an idiot?

No, Motiejunas is the more skillful scorer. Dwight Howard is more effective since he scores more and has a better %. I want two points, I run a play involving Dwight, not Motiejunas because Dwight is more likely going to score.

And that's why your logic is flawed.

If given the choice between a Dwight iso and a Motiejunas iso, you go with Motiejunas every time. And you know this, but you can't bring yourself to admit that I'm right. That's why you said "a play involving Dwight". In other words, you're bringing another player into the scenario when my original scenario involved only Dwight and Motiejunas.

No, you are talking about more skillful, which Mutombo isn’t all that great in either.

Semantics. If I need a basket and my only options are Mutombo or Noah, I go with Mutombo every time.

No, I am not. I am saying the GMs have shown that drafting big men in hopes of them panning out has failed over and over and over again. I wouldn’t have known if they haven’t failed over and over and over again.

Yeah, you are. Especially when you look at the draft positions of the big men from recent championship teams.

2014 - Duncan (1st pick)
2011 - Nowitzki (9th pick), Chandler (2nd pick)
2010 - Gasol (3rd pick), Bynum (10th pick)
2009 - Gasol (3rd pick), Bynum (10th pick)
2008 - Garnett (5th pick)
2007 - Duncan (1st pick)
2006 - Shaq (1st pick)
2005 - Duncan (1st pick)
2004 - Wallace (4th pick)
2003 - Duncan (1st pick), Robinson (1st pick)
2002 - Shaq (1st pick)
2001 - Shaq (1st pick)

Your problem is that you're only looking at the GM's who gambled and lost. You need to look at the GM's who gambled and won. And look at guys like Tyson Chandler. He was drafted by Chicago and bounced around a few teams before landing in Dallas where he turned out to be a game-changer. Even though it ultimately didn't benefit Chicago, they did gamble on a raw high-school prospect who turned out to be pretty good.

Current bigs are as skilled as Mutombo though, still didn’t stop the Nuggets from force feeding Mutombo to the tune of 10 shots a game because that’s how teams in the 90s scored.

On the 1992 Nuggets team, Reggie Williams averaged 16 fga. Mutombo averaged 12. Mark Macon averaged 12. Greg Anderson averaged 10. Abdul Rauf averaged 10. Winston Garland averaged 10.

On the 1993 Nuggets team, Abdul Rauf averaged 17 fga. Williams averaged 15. LaPhonso Ellis averaged 12. Mutombo averaged 10. Macon, Robert Pack, and Marcus Liberty each averaged 8 fga.

Can you clarify how you think teams in the 90's scored?

A player like Bogut, who is definitely more skillful offensively than Mutombo, gets 9 shots a game, Horford gets 11 with 40% of those coming outside of 10 feet.

What's your point? Also, it's disingenuous to use career averages. At this point, who cares what Al Horford did as a rookie? This year, he's averaging 12.7 fga. Last year, he averaged 14.5.

Yeah, and he’s still only getting 17.2 FGA a game this season, with about 40% of his shots coming from outside of 10 feet. Hakeem gets 20+ shots in his prime (no stats on the shooting), Robinson gets 20, Ewing gets around 20, and Shaq gets 18 to 20 for 10 years in a row. The center position changed, and shot attempts pretty much confirmed it.

Do you realize you're comparing the primes of Olajuwon/Robinson/Ewing/Shaq to a 3rd year Anthony Davis? His FGA have increased each year as he continues to improve. In Robinson's 3rd year, he averaged 16 fga. Olajuwon averaged 18. Ewing averaged 14.

I was talking about you telling me my intention of ignoring efficiency. And no, I didn’t ignore pace, I just don’t want to talk about it because it involves a lot of work.

FYI, "don't want to talk about it" = "ignore".

So better teammates help the main guy’s stats, only when they don’t.

When you give ambiguous question, you get ambiguous answers.

Yeah, and it helped.

Based on what? 3 of the worst teams occasionally used zone defense, and you think that supports your argument?

That’s my point. Current defenses will decrease open shots because they close in quicker. The way to combat that is suck in the defense with drive and kick.

So the post player gets double teamed and passes it out to the perimeter. You really think the help defender will be able to turn around, accelerate, and close out on the perimeter shooter before the shooter can release the ball? And you think that the defender will have the body control to stop on a dime to prevent fouling the shooter?

Sorry, no.

At this point, I’m starting to suspect that using your brain may not be your first actions, and as such, you aren’t strong at it. If that’s the case, I apologize for all the insults directed at you because they are no longer insults, they are simply observations. It’s an easy thing to do, and I am sure you’ll get there.

Good effort, but this is really a pathetic attempt.

[diego]

not really interested in getting into this discussion, but I came up on this article and it is tangentially related:

The Plot to Kill the Slam Dunk
The Plot to Kill the Slam Dunk

[excerpt]
Even though Chamberlain turned pro after his junior year, basketball's ongoing height crisis was nearing its apex. The sport was too easy, too dull. To many, it just felt wrong. "Point Orgies May Hurt Hoop Sport," declared the Salt Lake Tribune in 1957. "A basket has become so cheap nowadays that the fans have nothing left to cheer about," Bill Sharman of the Boston Celtics said in 1960. Height had made such a mockery of the game that some coaches were resorting to counter-mockery. Nobody listened to his suggestion to raise the hoop to 14 feet—no, really—so for one game in 1955, Los Angeles State coach Sax Elliott had his team wear lifts, adding as much as six inches of height. The opposing coach, Utah's Jack Gardner, agreed the sport had gotten "boring." "Basketball fans get more enjoyment from watching a five-man game," rather than just a relentless effort to feed the big man, he told the New York Times the following year. Yet the game's popularity grew alongside its players. That same year, NBA commissioner Maurice Podoloff said, "I doubt that any other sport could stand this type of criticism of its basic foundations. Basketball, however, flourishes."

Nevertheless, the rim wasn't the only fix people had in mind. Some other common suggestions: no backboard, a convex backboard, a 20-inch distance between backboard and rim, a smaller basket, a bigger ball, a smaller ball, a two dribble limit, a height limit, a 1-point zone near the basket, a no-scoring zone near the basket, and a foot cap that, like a salary cap, would allow a team to divide 30 feet among the five players on the floor (believe it or not, this idea actually came up often).

None of these came to fruition, but the NCAA rules committee didn't exactly shy from drastic measures. In 1967, after a year of watching UCLA's Lew Alcindor dominate, they banned the dunk. They'd failed to contain Russell and Wilt, but the next great center wouldn't have it so easy. Alcindor didn't mince words about the prohibition, which he saw as driven less by compe ive concerns than cultural ones. America was changing in the 1960s, and desegregation and the Civil Rights movement meant that the racial makeup of college basketball was changing as well.

"The dunk is one of basketball's great crowd pleasers," he said, "and there is no good reason to give it up except that this and other ******s were running away with the sport."

As for the rest of the discussion, IMO there are a ton of other factors beyond rule changes like pace, roles, development etc. I think its pretty well agreed upon that hakeem had a great peak and a so so career. Duncan had a great peak and a great career. Head to head, prime vs prime I think hakeem would play Tim very well, and just might have been quick enough to win the matchup. They are both very well rounded players adept at playing the game within the game. Overall there's no question Tim is the better player.

I dont agree that big men are less important today. I think theres less of them, because since bird/magic/Jordan being a wing became more attractive. 15-20 years ago guys like dirk and durant bulk up to bang in the post instead of mastering fadeaways. Bottom line, big men can do very important things that guards cant like rebound, protect the rim, set screens etc. Scoring is only a part of the game. Zone defense and the 3 pointer give teams a way to take the edge off a team that plays inside or create the space to play inside, but points in the paint and rebounds will always be more important, otherwise the 3 ptr and the zone likely wouldnt exist; outside of the heat, i dont think any team has won without a big man giving them those points in the paint and rebounds, but Lebron was able to deliver that from the SF/PF. Also, if you want to compare the centers of one era to another, dont just look at the top, more importantly look at the bottom. Maybe the top is similar, but if the scrubs are scrubbier ... I dont see how anyone could argue that todays big men are as good as the 90s crop.

[djohn2oo8]

not really interested in getting into this discussion, but I came up on this article and it is tangentially related:



As for the rest of the discussion, IMO there are a ton of other factors beyond rule changes like pace, roles, development etc. I think its pretty well agreed upon that hakeem had a great peak and a so so career. Duncan had a great peak and a great career. Head to head, prime vs prime I think hakeem would play Tim very well, and just might have been quick enough to win the matchup. They are both very well rounded players adept at playing the game within the game. Overall there's no question Tim is the better player.

I dont agree that big men are less important today. I think theres less of them, because since bird/magic/Jordan being a wing became more attractive. 15-20 years ago guys like dirk and durant bulk up to bang in the post instead of mastering fadeaways. Bottom line, big men can do very important things that guards cant like rebound, protect the rim, set screens etc. Scoring is only a part of the game. Zone defense and the 3 pointer give teams a way to take the edge off a team that plays inside or create the space to play inside, but points in the paint and rebounds will always be more important, otherwise the 3 ptr and the zone likely wouldnt exist; outside of the heat, i dont think any team has won without a big man giving them those points in the paint and rebounds, but Lebron was able to deliver that from the SF/PF. Also, if you want to compare the centers of one era to another, dont just look at the top, more importantly look at the bottom. Maybe the top is similar, but if the scrubs are scrubbier ... I dont see how anyone could argue that todays big men are as good as the 90s crop.

Hakeem had more than a so so career. Tim had a better organization.

[diego]

i meant in the sense that his first years he was rawer, and he declined faster, in comparison to duncan its so-so, in comparison to 98% of players its great

[ambchang]

Why don't you quote the portion of the article that says this? The closest thing I can find is:
But the preceding statement doesn't support your summary of the article, especially since Olajuwon is one of the most versatile players of all-time.

Hakeem is a player “who can dribble, drive or shoot flashing to the middle of the foul line”, that sounds like a wing player to me.

Today's game/compe ion is irrelevant to the topic of the thread. It sounds like you've resorted to using strawman arguments.

Quote me in saying that my comment on Olajuwon won’t be as successful in today’s game is relevant to the topic of the thread, and quote somewhere that says every comment has to be relevant to the topic of the thread.

It goes to their respective scoring ability. If Olajuwon can score more effectively than Duncan against the same compe ion, then you can argue that Olajuwon's scoring ability is greater than Duncan's.

According to you, this is not the topic at hand, it’s about h2h, not against compe ion.

Also, I'm not a genius. You're clearly an idiot, but I'm not a genius. Maybe I am, relative to you, but to the average person, I'm not.

According to you, this is not the topic at hand, it’s about h2h, not against compe ion.

Yeah, you cling to that argument.

As opposed to you clinging on to saying every comment has to be exactly according to the topic of a thread.

No it's not. Want to know why? Because you're open.

According to you, this is not the topic at hand, it’s about h2h, not against compe ion.

I'm not establishing any facts. They've already been established. It's not my fault you continually make arguments that are easily refuted by facts. If you want to argue that Rik Smits and Yao had comparable mobility, speed, and coordination, that's fine. But since they obviously don't, you shouldn't get so upset when people rightfully call you an idiot.

How is that established fact? Any numbers to back that up? Any quotes?
According to Draft Express: http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Yao-Ming-3615/

Has good footwork and overall mobility for his size in the half-court, but doesn’t run the floor terribly well. Not in the best shape, and probably shouldn’t play many more minutes than he already does in the regular season. Surprisingly coordinated for a player of his size.

It's not my fault you continually make arguments that are easily refuted by facts

Great use of facts in your arguments! If you put out more emoticons, it will become even MORE factual.

Yep, those are all legitimate counterarguments. You forgot the counterargument that you're incorrectly assuming that every team has players comparable to the 1996 Sonics (in terms of size, athleticism, defensive abilities).

Not every, but a significantly larger number, which would affect Hakeem’s numbers negatively. I have already listed some, and I noted that you tend to ignore the NBA has moved into a league with longer quicker wing players as compared to the 90s.

LOL. I said "in the same year". And I also specified Olajuwon's peak from 1994-1995. Olajuwon's 1994 season is arguably one of the greatest single seasons anyone has ever had. MVP, FMVP, and DPOY in the same year.

I said peak, I never said a same year. If you want to go with one year peaks, sure, Hakeem had one of the greatest season in the history of the league. In terms of prime? I’d take Jordan, Shaq, Wilt, maybe Lebron and Bird over him.
The greatest season Hakeem ever had was during’s Jordan’s “retirement” as well.

It depends on how you want to define "prime". Olajuwon was a bunch for a ton of seasons, but he was clearly at his best in 1994/1995.

Early Hakeem was more athletic, defensive monster. He took on a larger offensive role during 94/95, with the Rockets running essentially everything through him, and using strong three point shooting to open up the lane for him. Was earlier Hakeem better? Hard to say, the offense wasn’t the same, and he was taking on an even bigger defensive role, while the lane wasn’t as open for him to operate.

Can you blame me for questioning whether or not you've seen Olajuwon play? You've said some ridiculously inaccurate things about him.

Such as what? That he isn’t the best in every single thing?

Yeah, you keep telling yourself that.

He didn’t? Where are your established facts?

And that's why your logic is flawed.
If given the choice between a Dwight iso and a Motiejunas iso, you go with Motiejunas every time. And you know this, but you can't bring yourself to admit that I'm right. That's why you said "a play involving Dwight". In other words, you're bringing another player into the scenario when my original scenario involved only Dwight and Motiejunas.

Why do you have to play iso when the game was played 5 on 5? Is the topic about Hakeem and Duncan 1 on 1 instead of h2h now?

Semantics. If I need a basket and my only options are Mutombo or Noah, I go with Mutombo every time.

Yeah, that’s up to you, stats told me Noah got a better chance of getting me two points.

Yeah, you are. Especially when you look at the draft positions of the big men from recent championship teams.
2014 - Duncan (1st pick)
2011 - Nowitzki (9th pick), Chandler (2nd pick)
2010 - Gasol (3rd pick), Bynum (10th pick)
2009 - Gasol (3rd pick), Bynum (10th pick)
2008 - Garnett (5th pick)
2007 - Duncan (1st pick)
2006 - Shaq (1st pick)
2005 - Duncan (1st pick)
2004 - Wallace (4th pick)
2003 - Duncan (1st pick), Robinson (1st pick)
2002 - Shaq (1st pick)
2001 - Shaq (1st pick)

The 2014 Spurs was one of the most open and equal offensive team since the mid 70s Knicks or Blazers (Waiting for you to say it was actually the 95 Rockets was actually more equal, because Hakeem was on it). Duncan played a huge role, and most definitely one of the centerpieces, but it’s obvious Kawhi, wing passing, perimeter defense and outside shooting were as important, if not more important.
Nowitzki’s game is about as non-big. When I am saying big, I am talking about low-post bigs. I thought that was implied.
Gasol, by your definition, was a 2nd fiddle. I don’t necessarily agree with that, but hey, you define the facts.
Bynum played 29 and 30 minutes a game in the two seasons, and wasn’t even a major contributor in the 2009 playoffs. Before you twist my words to say that I said bigs do not play in the league anymore, I didn’t. I said bigs are not as important in today’s game as they were in the 90s. You still play big men.
Garnett was sharing the load with Pierce, and was clearly past his prime. This was one of the earlier super teams that was just more talented than anywhere else at multiple positions, not just PF.
06 Heat was mostly Wade. Actually, Wade took people by surprise, and was one of the first superstars to benefit from these new rules. Not too many people saw him as becoming anywhere as dominant as he became when he was drafted. His outside shooting was/is suspect, but people didn’t count on the new rules to open up the lanes as much as it did for Wade to penetrate and get crazy amounts of FTs.
07 and 05 Spurs were anchored by Duncan, but Duncan was reducing his offensive role. His usage rate was on the downward trend, going from the peak of around 29 to 30% to 27 to 28%. The emergency of Ginobili and Parker helped a lot as well. In fact, after 07, Popovich had a very obvious transition to a more open and perimeter focused offense. It didn’t prove fruitful for a long time, but eventually morphed into the 2013/14 Spurs.
04 – Billups drove that engine.
03 and before – Still a low post league. In fact, the league didn’t really see a major transition to a more perimeter offense until around 2010 or so. It’s not like these things just switch in a season.

Your problem is that you're only looking at the GM's who gambled and lost. You need to look at the GM's who gambled and won. And look at guys like Tyson Chandler. He was drafted by Chicago and bounced around a few teams before landing in Dallas where he turned out to be a game-changer. Even though it ultimately didn't benefit Chicago, they did gamble on a raw high-school prospect who turned out to be pretty good.

No doubt he was important, but he’s a role player who is important in defense, rebounding and setting picks. That’s what bigs are used for primarily in today’s league. If the big can shoot from 20 feet and pass, even better. But they are now just a part of the offense instead of THE offense like the 90s.

On the 1992 Nuggets team, Reggie Williams averaged 16 fga. Mutombo averaged 12. Mark Macon averaged 12. Greg Anderson averaged 10. Abdul Rauf averaged 10. Winston Garland averaged 10.

On the 1993 Nuggets team, Abdul Rauf averaged 17 fga. Williams averaged 15. LaPhonso Ellis averaged 12. Mutombo averaged 10. Macon, Robert Pack, and Marcus Liberty each averaged 8 fga.
Can you clarify how you think teams in the 90's scored?

That means Mutombo sucked on offense, but the Nuggets still forced fed him the ball.

What's your point? Also, it's disingenuous to use career averages. At this point, who cares what Al Horford did as a rookie? This year, he's averaging 12.7 fga. Last year, he averaged 14.5.

Mutombo averaged 11.5 his rookie season. I actually wanted to pare it down because using absolute peak is misleading. But if you prefer.
Notice how the Hawks are so much more dangerous with Horford averaging less shots. And since you want to talk about teammates, last year, Horford and Millsap took 28.6 FGA a game, this year, they combined for 25.1 FGA, with the rest of the shots going to the wing players. It opens up the Hawks offense, and their ORTG jumped from 18th to the league to 6th in the league.
Teams with the best offensive ratings have a heavy perimeter presence (Clippers, Blazers, Mavs, Rockets, Heat, Spurs, OKC, Suns, Raptors, GSW). Do they still have inside players? Sure, just that they don’t dominate the shot charts like they did in the 90s, like how Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, and Shaq would shoot 20 times a game.

Do you realize you're comparing the primes of Olajuwon/Robinson/Ewing/Shaq to a 3rd year Anthony Davis? His FGA have increased each year as he continues to improve. In Robinson's 3rd year, he averaged 16 fga. Olajuwon averaged 18. Ewing averaged 14.

Yeah, their respective teams also became much more successful by having them shoot the ball more in the 90s. That strategy is not working out so well in today’s game, where the Pelicans are doing quite poorly despite how well Davis is doing.

FYI, "don't want to talk about it" = "ignore".

You just brought up pace, what am I supposed to have done? Read your mind and predict that you want to talk about pace? You pull up the stats and let’s debate.

When you give ambiguous question, you get ambiguous answers.

FYI, “ambiguous answers” = “I don’t know what I am talking about”.

Based on what? 3 of the worst teams occasionally used zone defense, and you think that supports your argument?

10% of their defense is occasional? That’s actually quite a bit. It allowed the bad teams to compete in games.

So the post player gets double teamed and passes it out to the perimeter. You really think the help defender will be able to turn around, accelerate, and close out on the perimeter shooter before the shooter can release the ball? And you think that the defender will have the body control to stop on a dime to prevent fouling the shooter?

With an effective zone defense and longer athletes? Sure.
http://www.nba.com/2015/news/feature...ame-is-played/

The post game is essentially one-on-one basketball. It used to be side-isos, two-man game or post-up. It was basically two-man game on the side or post-up and you couldn't do much about it. The current game has reduced that. You still have some of that but not nearly to the degree we used to.

Any complaints about a plodding game where big men wrestled under the basket all night and the ball was dumped inside for behemoths to battle it out every night has, for the most part, given way to a small-ball revolution. While that style may not be the preferred style of traditionalists, it has blossomed in the global basketball consciousness.

Sometimes it's just a small game, where everybody is between 6-8 and 6-4 or somewhere in between. And there's a lot of switching on defense and shooting on the other end. That's where the game has changed quite a bit. Back 18 years ago, you didn't see all of this small-ball stuff. Everybody had a low-post big man. Now everybody has a small-ball lineup. You look at a team like the Hawks and their bigs are great, but they rarely post up. They are spread out on the perimeter, and you have to be able to match that.

Stotts traces the roots of the current game back to rules changes from a generation ago, changes that allow freedom of movement for an offensive player. Those rules changes have opened up the floor and allowed for a more free-flowing approach by teams willing to embrace and change with the times.

I think what we see today is the culmination of those rule changes. It's been gradual, but all the intent of those rules, which at the time were groundbreaking and controversial. 'Ooh, they're going to play zone.' The intent, to add freedom of movement and more skill to the game, it's had that effect over time. You see more skilled big men at both positions, at the [power forward] and [center]. You see teams play Durant or LeBron at the four. The effect of those rule changes has made the game what it is.

Also, read http://accelphysio.ca/yj/201501/a_Wh..._90s_NBA_.html Not that I am saying what this says is gospel, but it pretty much summarizes why bigs are taking on a lesser role than 90s basketball.

Sorry, no.

Where are your facts?

Good effort, but this is really a pathetic attempt.

Is this a fact now?

[Killakobe81]

not choosing sides but glad to see Amb get in to it with someone else ...

[JamStone]

i meant in the sense that his first years he was rawer, and he declined faster, in comparison to duncan its so-so, in comparison to 98% of players its great

Nothing about Hakeem's career is so-so, relative to Duncan's career or not.

It's ridiculous to suggest as much.

Can't believe I just posted again in this thread...

[Killakobe81]

Nothing about Hakeem's career is so-so, relative to Duncan's career or not.

It's ridiculous to suggest as much.

Can't believe I just posted again in this thread...

LOL and I agree ...

[wekko368]

Hakeem is a player “who can dribble, drive or shoot flashing to the middle of the foul line”, that sounds like a wing player to me.

Yes, Olajuwon was capable of dribbling, driving, and shooting. It's statements like these that make me question whether or not you've ever watched Olajuwon play. You really should youtube some of his highlights.

Quote me in saying that my comment on Olajuwon won’t be as successful in today’s game is relevant to the topic of the thread, and quote somewhere that says every comment has to be relevant to the topic of the thread.

Generally, when you make comments irrelevant to the topic at hand, they're dismissed. And when you try to make arguments irrelevant to the topic at hand, they're called "strawman" arguments and dismissed.

According to you, this is not the topic at hand, it’s about h2h, not against compe ion.

According to you, this is not the topic at hand, it’s about h2h, not against compe ion.

It's all related. When you speculate about h2h matchups, you're basing it on how each player performed in their prime. And how they performed in their prime depends on the level of compe ion in their prime. See? Related.

Like I said before, just b/c you can't see the connection doesn't mean they aren't connected.

How is that established fact? Any numbers to back that up? Any quotes?
According to Draft Express: http://www.draftexpress.com/profile/Yao-Ming-3615/

Go youtube game footage of Yao and Smits. The difference in their mobility/coordination will be obvious. That's more compelling than any quote/stats you can find.

Not every, but a significantly larger number, which would affect Hakeem’s numbers negatively. I have already listed some, and I noted that you tend to ignore the NBA has moved into a league with longer quicker wing players as compared to the 90s.

I ignored it b/c it's irrelevant. We weren't talking about the average guard in the 90's. We were talking specifically about the 1996 Sonics and Gary Payton. You've already said that you think many guards today could be defensively comparable (in terms of help defense) to Gary Payton. I didn't see any point in arguing that b/c we're so far apart on that matter.

I said peak, I never said a same year. If you want to go with one year peaks, sure, Hakeem had one of the greatest season in the history of the league. In terms of prime? I’d take Jordan, Shaq, Wilt, maybe Lebron and Bird over him.

The greatest season Hakeem ever had was during’s Jordan’s “retirement” as well.

So what? Do you think Jordan's Bulls could've beaten the Rockets? They couldn't handle quick, elite centers. From 1991-1993, both the Spurs and Rockets had a 5-1 record against the Bulls.

Such as what? That he isn’t the best in every single thing?

You just questioned Olajuwon's ability to dribble and drive. And you wonder why I question whether or not you've seen Olajuwon play?

He didn’t? Where are your established facts?

Where are yours? You're the one who make that ridiculous claim. The onus is on you to prove it. Also, since Olajuwon and Smits both started and played comparable minutes, the logical assumption is that they spent most of their minutes guarding each other. If you're going to say otherwise, you need to at least make a compelling argument. So far, all you've been able to come up with is "they both played in the same game".

Why do you have to play iso when the game was played 5 on 5? Is the topic about Hakeem and Duncan 1 on 1 instead of h2h now?

Because that's how I framed the question. Remember, I said that Mutombo was a greater offensive threat than Noah. You disagreed and cited their stats. However, you incorrectly correlated stats with offensive ability. That's why I gave you the scenario involving Howard/Motiejunas. It illustrated your flawed logic.

Also, this thread has always included a 1on1 component.

Yeah, that’s up to you, stats told me Noah got a better chance of getting me two points.

That's b/c you're misusing the stats.

Nowitzki’s game is about as non-big. When I am saying big, I am talking about low-post bigs. I thought that was implied.

Nowitzki isn't purely a perimeter player. He also plays in the low-post. That's where he shoots his one-legged fadeaway.

Gasol, by your definition, was a 2nd fiddle. I don’t necessarily agree with that, but hey, you define the facts.

Ok? What's your point? He was a 2nd fiddle, but that doesn't change the fact that he was drafted early and eventually played a major role on a championship team.

Bynum played 29 and 30 minutes a game in the two seasons, and wasn’t even a major contributor in the 2009 playoffs. Before you twist my words to say that I said bigs do not play in the league anymore, I didn’t. I said bigs are not as important in today’s game as they were in the 90s. You still play big men.

Yeah, guarding Dwight Howard wasn't a major contribution.

Garnett was sharing the load with Pierce, and was clearly past his prime. This was one of the earlier super teams that was just more talented than anywhere else at multiple positions, not just PF.

He was still good enough to be the DPOY.

06 Heat was mostly Wade.

Yeah, it's not like Shaq was All-NBA first team, right?

All in all, you're missing the point. Bigs are still the most important position in the league. You can argue all you want that it's changing, but the fact remains that the majority of recent championship teams have had a star big.

No doubt he was important, but he’s a role player who is important in defense, rebounding and setting picks. That’s what bigs are used for primarily in today’s league. If the big can shoot from 20 feet and pass, even better. But they are now just a part of the offense instead of THE offense like the 90s.

That's b/c there's a lack of skilled bigs. Look at Memphis. Gasol and Randolph lead the team in FGA/game and FTA/game. If a team has a skilled big, they utilize him.

That means Mutombo sucked on offense, but the Nuggets still forced fed him the ball.

So in 1993, when Mutombo had the 4th highest FGA on the team, you call that "force feeding" him the ball?

Notice how the Hawks are so much more dangerous with Horford averaging less shots.

So much more dangerous? Horford is currently averaging 12.7 fga and 2 fta. He was injured most of last season. In 2013, he averaged 14.3 fga and 2.8 fta. You're attributing the Hawks' success to a decrease of 1.6 fga and 0.8 fta?

What about Josh Smith's departure? The acquisition of Paul Millsap?

And since you want to talk about teammates, last year, Horford and Millsap took 28.6 FGA a game, this year, they combined for 25.1 FGA, with the rest of the shots going to the wing players. It opens up the Hawks offense, and their ORTG jumped from 18th to the league to 6th in the league.

Horford played 29 games last season, and it was Millsap's first year with the team. It's foolish to use last season for comparative purposes.

Teams with the best offensive ratings have a heavy perimeter presence (Clippers, Blazers, Mavs, Rockets, Heat, Spurs, OKC, Suns, Raptors, GSW). Do they still have inside players? Sure, just that they don’t dominate the shot charts like they did in the 90s, like how Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, and Shaq would shoot 20 times a game.

That's a moot point. Teams that run their offenses through their bigs naturally have lower offensive ratings. It slows the game down which leads to fewer possessions.

Yeah, their respective teams also became much more successful by having them shoot the ball more in the 90s. That strategy is not working out so well in today’s game, where the Pelicans are doing quite poorly despite how well Davis is doing.

LOL. Are you aware that Jrue Holiday has been injured with a stress reaction? The Pelicans have played 53 games. Holiday has missed 16 games. Eric Gordon has missed 21 games.

In all seriousness, here's what you need to do. When you formulate an argument, don't just post it. You should first look to see if there are any mitigating cir stances that would invalidate your argument.

You just brought up pace, what am I supposed to have done? Read your mind and predict that you want to talk about pace? You pull up the stats and let’s debate.

Nope, you're supposed to use as much relevant information as you can when constructing an argument. For instance, when you're comparing the FGA of different players, you need to consider how many shots each team takes.

FYI, “ambiguous answers” = “I don’t know what I am talking about”.

Sorry, but no. It was a poorly phrased question that showed a fundamental ignorance about basketball.

You continually fail to understand that there are varying degrees of "better teammates".

The 1995 Rockets started Chucky Brown at PF. Both prime Otis Thorpe and prime Tim Duncan are better players than Chucky Brown. However, replacing Brown with Tim Duncan will have a significantly different impact than replacing him with Otis Thorpe.

If you want a specific answer, ask a specific question.

10% of their defense is occasional? That’s actually quite a bit. It allowed the bad teams to compete in games.

And how did that work out for them? Go ahead and post their records.

With an effective zone defense and longer athletes? Sure.
http://www.nba.com/2015/news/feature...ame-is-played/

Also, read http://accelphysio.ca/yj/201501/a_Wh..._90s_NBA_.html Not that I am saying what this says is gospel, but it pretty much summarizes why bigs are taking on a lesser role than 90s basketball.

You can't win this argument. The Memphis Grizzlies run an inside-out offense b/c they have skilled big men. They disprove your theory.

Where are your facts?

You're the one arguing that current defenses will close in quicker. The onus is on you to prove that. And fyi, simple raw physical measurements don't prove it.

[diego]

Nothing about Hakeem's career is so-so, relative to Duncan's career or not.

It's ridiculous to suggest as much.

Can't believe I just posted again in this thread...

Clearly I chose poor wording, but duncan has hakeem beat in several measures, be it all nba, all defensive team, MVPs, all star selections, advanced stats, as well as team success- and hakeem struggled with foul trouble early on, whereas duncan came into the league more polished. Is it really arguable that duncan hasnt already had a better career than hakeem (and like I said in my earlier clarification, most NBA players)? Head to head in their primes I already stated I think olajuwon might have been quick enough to get the better of duncan, its more difficult to see any clear advantage for duncan vs hakeem. but overall for their careers I dont think there is any question duncan's is superior, regardless of ring count.

[JamStone]

Serious question. Are you old enough to have watched Hakeem in the late 80s thru the mid 90s?

I think sometimes these discussions end up being a product of posters looking up stats or youtube clips or old articles to form an opinion or support an argument. And if that's the case it's sometimes difficult to sway that person's opinion. I don't know if you're old enough or not. That's why I'm asking. It would give me a better idea of where you're coming from. And it's not to discredit your opinion or argument. I just want to know.

I'm one if the older posters on here. I'm almost 40. I grew up watching Hakeem in his prime. I've watched Tim's entire career. Tim has had a more consistently successful career. I don't think anyone would argue. Part of that is the winning and the les. And while individual players can be a big part of that, winning and championships rely and depend heavily on an entire team not just one player. If you compare Hakeem and Tim individually as players, I take Hakeem 10 times out of 10 times through the first 12 years of each of their respective careers. I think Hakeem was better through the first 12. Hakeem was better offensively and defensively imo. And he was more athletic. Tim was the better winner. And as I've said before in this thread, for those couple of years at his peak, Hakeem was the greatest and most complete big man to have ever played the game.

I don't have a horse in this race. I'm not and never was a Rockets fan. I'm not a Spurs fan. So take my opinion how you want to.

[sook]

not choosing sides but glad to see Amb get in to it with someone else ...

I remember arguing back and forth with wekko on clutchfans way back, nothing closely resembling this of course, but he can deff. go further than amb. I have my money on him, he'll be the last one standing in these 1hr level crafted posts.

[z0sa]

Olajuwon was a better player AT HIS PEAK. That is it. That is all. His peak barely even lasted and it was permanently asterisked by MJs retirement. Duncan, from start to near finish, is the better player. Less asterisks (which are bull but fair game in this day and age), many more les, far longer reign at the top and in opponent's mentalities. If you want a prime vs prime contest, Duncan may lose. But a silly microcosm is all that is.

[benefactor]

Serious question. Are you old enough to have watched Hakeem in the late 80s thru the mid 90s?

I think sometimes these discussions end up being a product of posters looking up stats or youtube clips or old articles to form an opinion or support an argument. And if that's the case it's sometimes difficult to sway that person's opinion. I don't know if you're old enough or not. That's why I'm asking. It would give me a better idea of where you're coming from. And it's not to discredit your opinion or argument. I just want to know.

I'm one if the older posters on here. I'm almost 40. I grew up watching Hakeem in his prime. I've watched Tim's entire career. Tim has had a more consistently successful career. I don't think anyone would argue. Part of that is the winning and the les. And while individual players can be a big part of that, winning and championships rely and depend heavily on an entire team not just one player. If you compare Hakeem and Tim individually as players, I take Hakeem 10 times out of 10 times through the first 12 years of each of their respective careers. I think Hakeem was better through the first 12. Hakeem was better offensively and defensively imo. And he was more athletic. Tim was the better winner. And as I've said before in this thread, for those couple of years at his peak, Hakeem was the greatest and most complete big man to have ever played the game.

I don't have a horse in this race. I'm not and never was a Rockets fan. I'm not a Spurs fan. So take my opinion how you want to.

Just read my mind as I was scrolling through the endless walls of takes in this thread. I graduated in '96...and even as a Spurs fan, there is no scenario where I take peak Duncan over peak Dream.

[djohn2oo8]

Olajuwon was a better player AT HIS PEAK. That is it. That is all. His peak barely even lasted and it was permanently asterisked by MJs retirement. Duncan, from start to near finish, is the better player. Less asterisks (which are bull but fair game in this day and age), many more les, far longer reign at the top and in opponent's mentalities. If you want a prime vs prime contest, Duncan may lose. But a silly microcosm is all that is.

les are a team accomplishment. 2005 being a prime example, where Tim shot 41% against Detroit.

[Ignignokt]

Sure, you can make the same argument, you give Robinson thorpe, horry, cassell, smith, drexler, horry and you'd have Robinson pounding a pink sock on Hakeem with him having no shooters like del negro, ****** and avery lol..

[djohn2oo8]

Sure, you can make the same argument, you give Robinson thorpe, horry, cassell, smith, drexler, horry and you'd have Robinson pounding a pink sock on Hakeem with him having no shooters like del negro, ****** and avery lol..

Except Robinson was soft in the playoffs. Great regular season player.

[JamStone]

Sure, you can make the same argument, you give Robinson thorpe, horry, cassell, smith, drexler, horry and you'd have Robinson pounding a pink sock on Hakeem with him having no shooters like del negro, ****** and avery lol..

That series:

Houston minus Hakeem: 41.2% FG, 34.4% 3PT
San Antonio minus David: 45.1% FG, 32.9% 3PT

Hakeem: 35.3 PPG, 56% FG
David: 23.8 PPG, 35.2% FG

Don't blame David's teammates too much or credit Hakeem's teammates too much. In that particular series, the difference was and always will be the two centers. In fact, Avery Johnson shot almost 55% from the field in that series. He had a great scoring series despite not being a long distance threat. Also, Otis Thorpe didn't play in that series. He was involved in the trade to bring Drexler to Houston. , the Rockets were starting Pete Chilcutt at PF the first few games of that series then played small ball after that. Cassell shot 34% from the field, Kenny Smith 41% from the field that series.

It's easy 20 years later to try to misrepresent the facts to make an argument. That series was always about Hakeem v. David. And the most telling part of that series were games 5 and 6 after the series got tied up 2-2. From that point, in those final two deciding games, Hakeem dropped 81 points on 64% shooting on D-Rob while Robinson countered with 41 points on 41% shooting. Don't go blaming Del Negro and Avery. Hakeem just dropped a funky disrespectful load all over David for that particular series. That's all.

[djohn2oo8]

Olajuwon never defeated defending champions of the previous year

Yes he did. 84-85 Lakers won it all. Beat them in 86.

ezau

[Killakobe81]

That series:

Houston minus Hakeem: 41.2% FG, 34.4% 3PT
San Antonio minus David: 45.1% FG, 32.9% 3PT

Hakeem: 35.3 PPG, 56% FG
David: 23.8 PPG, 35.2% FG

Don't blame David's teammates too much or credit Hakeem's teammates too much. In that particular series, the difference was and always will be the two centers. In fact, Avery Johnson shot almost 55% from the field in that series. He had a great scoring series despite not being a long distance threat. Also, Otis Thorpe didn't play in that series. He was involved in the trade to bring Drexler to Houston. , the Rockets were starting Pete Chilcutt at PF the first few games of that series then played small ball after that. Cassell shot 34% from the field, Kenny Smith 41% from the field that series.

It's easy 20 years later to try to misrepresent the facts to make an argument. That series was always about Hakeem v. David. And the most telling part of that series were games 5 and 6 after the series got tied up 2-2. From that point, in those final two deciding games, Hakeem dropped 81 points on 64% shooting on D-Rob while Robinson countered with 41 points on 41% shooting. Don't go blaming Del Negro and Avery. Hakeem just dropped a funky disrespectful load all over David for that particular series. That's all.

Damn. Jam drops the mic