Bucks: Tim Duncan is the third best player of all time..

[spurraider21]

Raider fans should be banned from discussing races.

im not getting the reference

[djohn2oo8]

Did Hakeem magically became good enough for the playoffs in 86, then somehow took a break for 8 years, then suddenly became good enough for 94 and 95, then wasn't good enough for the playoffs again afterwards?

not good enough for the playoffs with Clyde, Pippen and/or Barkley
greatest PG Robinson played with couldn't even make it as a 3rd string PG for Hakeem

Hakeem upped his performance in the playoffs. David did not. That is a difference.

And to go to show how stupid Amb's arguments are, Clyde and Barkley were well broken down and past their prime, happened to play alot less minutes than Hakeem and they got to the WCF in 97. When Pippen arrived, him and Barkley hated each other. Kinda like when Robinson ran Rodman off with that bible.

[djohn2oo8]

Hakeem did get outplayed by Shawn Kemp one on one though. And how did you figure Ginobili outplayed Duncan in the 05 playoff run? Advanced stats? Because Duncan got more points than Manu (of course rebounds and blks, but those are big man stats).

Guess how Hakeem and Clyde measured up in the 95 playoff run?

Shooting yourself in the foot.
Bird got outplayed by McHale in the 85 playoff run and Cedric Maxwell in 81

Really? Look at the traditional stats. Manu scored 3 less points on 6 less shots than Duncan, while also shooting 43%, (FORTY THREE percent from 3 during those playoffs), with more assists and steals all while coming off the bench for 8 games in the playoffs.

[djohn2oo8]

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...1&p2=robinda01

Robinson won 30 of 12 games:
Comparison (Robinson/Hakeem):
Points: 19.6/21.9
REB: 11.2/11.2
BLK: 3.3/3.4
ASST: 2.9/2.8
STL: 2.2/1.9
TOV: 3.0/2.9
FOULS: 3.4/4.0
FG%: .488/.441
FT%: .717/.768

All keeping in mind Robinson faced Hakeem when he first came in the league as a young buck when Hakeem was already established, and Robinson's prime ended around the time Hakeem ended his prime because of injuries

But then again, this shouldn't be a huge surprise. If Robinson didn't have a PG who made ONE career 3 pter, as opposed to someone who can actually open up the lane, his legacy would be very different. I doubt he'd be able to dominate like Hakeem did in the post season as his game really wasn't a 90s post up game and much more suited to today's game, but his face up game, quickness and general mobility would allow him to dominate today's game. Hakeem would dominate in any era, but I don't think his style would be as conducive today's game as it did in the 90s.

Robinson still won MVP and had a better record, yet proceeded to get curbstomped in the playoffs. EVERY year...That's not a PG issue...How was it a PG issue when he let Dream score 35 PPG on him in one series? Robinson's numbers seemed to be fine in the regular season lol

[K...]

So if I have this right the Lakers rockets fans have the following arguments:

Shaq/Hakeem have higher peaks (a so so argument)

No repeats (an irrelevant argument)

Is this it? Duncan's main argument is that he did it all with the least for the longest. Not a top five most dominant season (see the recent ranking of all time great seasons put his 2003 at number 10)

I basically see a bunch of nonsense rebutting the argument. It's one thing if you find the main Duncan argument unpersuasive, but it's much worse when you spin arguments all over your hands.

[K...]

Robinson still won MVP and had a better record, yet proceeded to get curbstomped in the playoffs. EVERY year...That's not a PG issue...How was it a PG issue when he let Dream score 35 PPG on him in one series? Robinson's numbers seemed to be fine in the regular season lol

Holy all day, team argument being spun into a individual argument! You guys never learn

[djohn2oo8]

, 20 game sample playing against 4 teams. Much like how Drexler led the Rockets in ws in 95 playoffs.

.


Also, Chris paul never approached Duncan in playoffs advanced stats, which you also pointed me to review.

.

Amb laughing at playoffs advanced stats, then trying to use Duncan's as a measuring post. Guy seriously can't stop flip flopping.

[djohn2oo8]

So if I have this right the Lakers rockets fans have the following arguments:

Shaq/Hakeem have higher peaks (a so so argument)

No repeats (an irrelevant argument)

Is this it? Duncan's main argument is that he did it all with the least for the longest. Not a top five most dominant season (see the recent ranking of all time great seasons put his 2003 at number 10)

I basically see a bunch of nonsense rebutting the argument. It's one thing if you find the main Duncan argument unpersuasive, but it's much worse when you spin arguments all over your hands.

1. It's not a so/so argument, they both had higher peaks.

2. Repeating is a relevant argument

3. What do you mean the least for the longest?

[K...]

1. It's not a so/so argument, they both had higher peaks.

2. Repeating is a relevant argument

3. What do you mean the least for the longest?

There's no set standard for how long a peak must last to be meaningful. I mean we can all agree Steph curry looked top ten at times but isn't because he sucks in the playoffs.

Spurs fans assume that Duncan's geneous performance > shaq, hakeem peaks. And you know what? Many sports writers agree.

Now you can disagree, but nonsense like repeats isn't the answer. And there won't be a consensus of peak vs longevity.

Repeats are a team issue.. You can't compare the Lakers having two top 20 all times players to any spurs roster. So don't.

[da_suns_fan]

Sure you can, but want to focus on the blemishes, so I will play that game:


Compared to the ones you listed:

Neither did Bird

Duncan beat Hakeem Bird and Magic here.


Shaq was swept 5 times, missed the playoffs twice (off prime, rookie year and 3rd last season), was on wrong end of one of the biggest upsets in NBA history
Hakeem missed the playoffs in his prime (injuries played a big role), was destroyed by the Sonics in his prime and outplayed by Shawn Kemp, perennial first round fodder until the right system was put in place.
Magic massively underwhelmed in 81 and got his coach fired. Lost to the lowest seed in the conference as well. Only reason it wasn't the 8th seed was because the league had 6 playoff teams per conference back in the day. They lost to a sub .500 team in the playoffs in the first round, for Pete's sake.
Bird got murdered by Philly (lower seed) in 80 and 82, swept by a lower seed in 83 (Bucks? Really, Bucks?), and then swept by the Pistons in 89 (Bird couldn't even get them higher than 8th seed).

Unsure how this factors into how you rank NBA players, as the olympics isn't really part of the NBA.



Perhaps you can say the same for every single other player as well.

But they never lost to an eighth seed!

Could you even imagine a team with Shaq, Hakeem, Bird or Magic even close to their respective primes losing to an eighth seed? It wouldnt happen. They were too dominant. Too compe ive. Too aggressive.

Duncan lost to lower seeds time and time again. Hey, it happens. But losing to an eighth seed?

Duncan likes to call himself a forward which is just ridiculous. What, exactly, did he do that centers dont?

He was a center. Played like a center. As tall as a center etc.

But if you compare him to other centers he plummets down the list. Could you even make a case for him being top five? We already established Hakeem and Shaq were clearly better. Kareem was clearly better. Does Duncan's modern accomplishments outweigh Chamberlin or Bill Russel?

So you got:

1) Jordan
2) Lebron
3) Shaq
4) Magic
5) Hakeem
6) Bird
7) Russell
8) Kareem
9) Chamberlin

Does Duncan really deserve the 10th spot over other players from the modern era? Was he really BETTER than Kobe or KG? Its certainly debate-able. I dont really care, but calling him top 3 is just stupid.

[djohn2oo8]

There's no set standard for how long a peak must last to be meaningful. I mean we can all agree Steph curry looked top ten at times but isn't because he sucks in the playoffs.

Spurs fans assume that Duncan's geneous performance > shaq, hakeem peaks. And you know what? Many sports writers agree.

Now you can disagree, but nonsense like repeats isn't the answer. And there won't be a consensus of peak vs longevity.

Repeats are a team issue.. You can't compare the Lakers having two top 20 all times players to any spurs roster. So don't.

1. When you compare peaks, you look at who was more dominant. Shaq and Hakeem were clearly more dominant.

2. Repeats, threepeats generally tell you that those players were dominant for more than just one year. Damn near unstoppable actually. Actually, re ed spur fans may agree with your take, but rational oned admit Shaq and Hakeem's peaks were better. There wasn't anyone who could stop them during their peaks. Duncan was stopped after every run.

3. I like how you say repeats are a team issue when Duncan had a HOF coach and two HOF players around him, to lessen his minutes (His minutes started going down at age 27, while Shaq and Hakeem played heavy minutes into their 30's) to give him a better shot at repeating. Don't give me that .

[Arcadian]

Tim Duncan would ing destroy Bill Russell in a matchup. He's a modern, better version of him.

He's also been compared with Kareem in a lot of ways. Just the fact that you can compare him to the all-time greats means he is among them. Stop making gy hand-waving arguments where you try to assert your opinion that he "clearly doesn't compare with these other guys." Yes he does, and repeating the opposite won't make it any more true.

[ambchang]

Hakeem upped his performance in the playoffs. David did not. That is a difference.

There are two ways to stop a team with one superstar. You either leave the other guys opened and gang up on the superstar, or you guard the other guys and force the superstar to beat you on his own. What you actually do depends on two things, whether you think the superstar can beat you on his own, and whether the other guys have the ability to step up.

In 88 vs. the Mavs, Hakeem was a total monster because the Mavs realized that they can't really stop Hakeem, so much as well shut down the other guys and let Hakeem get his. And it worked, Mavs won in 4.

Whereas in 90, the Lakers figured that with a swarming defense on Hakeem, they can beat the Rockets. That's why Otis Thorpe was the leading scorer on the Rockets because the lakers were just leaving him open throughout the entire series, letting him grab offensive rebounds and get easy put ins to stop Hakeem. Did Hakeem decide to just step up in 88 and felt, "screw this, I am not going to step up in this series vs. the Lakers"? Of course not. You get what the defensive gives you.

Robinson stepped up just fine when he had Rod Strickland as his teammate in 90 and 91, and then it all started down hill after that, and I wonder why. Oh, how about have Negele Knight as your start PG playing next to Willie Anderson with two steel rods for legs when your opposition has John Stockton and Jeff Hornacek? How about him doing horribly vs. the Nuggets and Rodman would miraculously average double digits that series, with Avery Johnson and Del Negro both playing like they belong in the NBA, then in the next series vs. the Lakers, he would average 30 ppg and his teammates would start to suck again, and then horribly against the Rockets when both Johnson and Del Negro suddenly started to look like NBA players again? You seem to think that Avery Johnson and Del Negro just decided to step up, then not step up, then step up again all in the same playoff run, and Robinson decided to do the opposite. I, on the other hand, remembered it was because how the opposition played, how they left players opened to double/triple Robinson and let players on the Spurs who can't shoot shoot.

And to go to show how stupid Amb's arguments are, Clyde and Barkley were well broken down and past their prime, happened to play alot less minutes than Hakeem and they got to the WCF in 97. When Pippen arrived, him and Barkley hated each other. Kinda like when Robinson ran Rodman off with that bible.

Oh, congratulations on stumbling into the circle of enlightenment, because you finally seemed to realize teammates make a difference. Based on your precious traditional stats, Barkley averaged 19/13.5/5 with Drexler's 18/6/6 in 96-97. The next year, Drexler averaged 18/5/5.5 and Barkley 15/12/3 the next year. The following year, Barkley got 16/12/5 and Pippen 14.5/5/6.5. Do you know which Spurs put up those numbers during Robinson's prime? No one! Elliott, right at the peak of his prime, was the closest, and yet, to you, those guys were not good enough and were broken down the past their prime. Robinson would KILL to have teammates like that during his prime.

Robinson made the WCF with DENNIS RODMAN AND AVERY JOHNSON as his #2 and #3. Would you rather have Rodman and Avery Johnson, or Clyde Drexler and Barkley (although broken down ones)?

Really? Look at the traditional stats. Manu scored 3 less points on 6 less shots than Duncan, while also shooting 43%, (FORTY THREE percent from 3 during those playoffs), with more assists and steals all while coming off the bench for 8 games in the playoffs.

So efficiency matters now? Drexler had a higher shooting efficiency, scored 20ppg on 12 less shots a game. TWELVE! Less fouls, less TO, higher BPM, same VORP, higher WS. Drexler got more assists and steals as well (well, duh, they are guards and are expected to be those things than a Center, right? Oh, wait, not, you just like to cram those numbers in as if Drexler didn't have more assists and steals than Hakeem in the 95 playoff run).

Robinson still won MVP and had a better record, yet proceeded to get curbstomped in the playoffs. EVERY year...That's not a PG issue...How was it a PG issue when he let Dream score 35 PPG on him in one series? Robinson's numbers seemed to be fine in the regular season lol

Every year? He was fine individually in 90 and 91, he was fine vs. the Lakers in 95. He was fine vs. Phoenix in 93 and 96.

Dream was dropping 30+ in every series that year, and Robinson was guarding Hakeem and Horry because Rodman just decided to grab rebounds and left his man open for jumper after jumper after jumper.

And of course he was fine in the regular season, because teams do not prepare to the level of a playoff. Hey, Hakeem stunk vs. the Mavs in 90 and then vs. the Sonics, did he just decide to take those two series off?

Amb laughing at playoffs advanced stats, then trying to use Duncan's as a measuring post. Guy seriously can't stop flip flopping.

You were talking about playoffs, so I went playoffs. I am just following your lead.

But they never lost to an eighth seed!

Magic lost to the lowest seed with a sub .500 record.

Could you even imagine a team with Shaq, Hakeem, Bird or Magic even close to their respective primes losing to an eighth seed? It wouldnt happen. They were too dominant. Too compe ive. Too aggressive.

It happened. And they were so compe ive, so dominant, so aggressive that Shaq got swept multiple times, Hakeem missed the playoffs, and Magic lost to a sub .500 team.

Duncan lost to lower seeds time and time again. Hey, it happens. But losing to an eighth seed?

So did Hakeem, so did Magic, so did Bird, so did Shaq.

Duncan likes to call himself a forward which is just ridiculous. What, exactly, did he do that centers dont?

He was a center. Played like a center. As tall as a center etc.

And yet he is better than Shaq, better than Hakeem.

But if you compare him to other centers he plummets down the list. Could you even make a case for him being top five? We already established Hakeem and Shaq were clearly better. Kareem was clearly better. Does Duncan's modern accomplishments outweigh Chamberlin or Bill Russel?

So you got:

1) Jordan
2) Lebron
3) Shaq
4) Magic
5) Hakeem
6) Bird
7) Russell
8) Kareem
9) Chamberlin

Does Duncan really deserve the 10th spot over other players from the modern era? Was he really BETTER than Kobe or KG? Its certainly debate-able. I dont really care, but calling him top 3 is just stupid.

ESPN disagrees with you.

Oh, and bleacherreport, a site that is pretty anti-Spurs over the years, still recognized Duncan's 02-03 season as one of the top 10 seasons of all time. Better than Hakeem's 94, better than Magic and Bird's best. Shaq sits up top, which really gets no arguments from me (May be a Kareem or Jordan peak can compete with that).

http://uproxx.com/dimemag/10-greates...s-nba-history/
Dime magazine ranked Duncan's 02-03 as #7 of all time. Shaq's sit at the top again, Hakeem came in 4th.

[Brazil]

Was he really BETTER than Kobe or KG? Its certainly debate-able.

no it is not debate able

You are such a massive got...

[djohn2oo8]

lol ambchang

1. Robinson generally shot 40% in the playoffs alot of years he made it, that has nothing to do with anybody but David.
2. Rodman turned out to be damn good for the Bulls, not offensively but defensively. That Spurs team was obviously good enough to get homecourt, but are you saying an MVP player shouldn't be expected to carry his team?

Blaming his point guards for David shooting horribly is gold.

3. No, you said playoff advanced stats don't matter for one player, and then said they do for another player. You lost.

[djohn2oo8]

David's FG%, FT%, and PPG generally went down in the playoffs. Guy was a choker plain and simple. His teammates don't have anything to do with him getting about the same number of shots in the playoffs as the regular season (94-95) and his FG% dropping off 9 percent. Yeah, teammates matter, but teammates didn't get in the way of Robinson. His own ty play did.

[ambchang]

lol ambchang

1. Robinson generally shot 40% in the playoffs alot of years he made it, that has nothing to do with anybody but David.

Yes, people shoot lower % when they are triple teamed. But let's not talk in generalities.

From 90 to 96, he shot the following %ages in the playoffs:

.533/.686/injured/.465/.411/.446/.516

So 40's half the time, 50s twice, and 60s once. He normally shoots in the low to mid 50s in the regular season.

Compare that to Hakeem, from 85 to 99 (not sure which ones I should go for because he had a longer prime):
.477/.530/.615/.571/.519/.443/missed/.578/.517/.519/.537/.510/.590/.394/.426

40's or lower 4 times
50s 9 times
60s once

Definitely better %, but then again, Hakeem shot .443 when he was swarmed.

2. Rodman turned out to be damn good for the Bulls, not offensively but defensively. That Spurs team was obviously good enough to get homecourt, but are you saying an MVP player shouldn't be expected to carry his team?

Bulls needed interior defense. Spurs needed scoring, and more specifically, outside shooting.

No, MVPs are not expected to "carry" his team to a le. In fact, MVPs carrying his teams to the finals is not the norm.

Blaming his point guards for David shooting horribly is gold.

Because it is true. Guess where Hakeem went when Avery Johnson was his 3rd string point guard? Oh, he got bounced out the first round 4 straight times, averaging 18.3ppg on .443 shooting in one year, and 22ppg the next. But even then, he had guys like Kenny Smith and Vernon Maxwell opening up the floor for him, you know, guys who made 11 3pters in 3 games in 91, and Vernon Maxwell and Sleepy FLoyd who made 11 3pters in 4 games in 90.

Compare that to the Spurs starting guards.
90 - 2 3PM in 10 games
91 - 2 in 4
92 - Robinson injured
93 - 2 in 10 (Willie Anderson made 6 coming off the bench)
94 - 3 in 4
95 - 9 in 15
96 - 16 in 10 (all by Vinny Del Negro because he was wide opened the entire playoffs. Avery Johnson couldn't even hit ONE despite how opened he was).

Now guess how many 3s Hakeem's starting backcourt made in the 94 and 95 runs?
94 - 79 3PM in 23 games, and another 34 by Horry
95 - 76 in 22 games, and another 44 by Horry.

But you and only you would think that a good 3 pt shooting team won't open the floor for their center. Let's say I am defending the Spurs. I see Negro and Avery Johnson, one guy 27 three pointers in 1,054 regular season games, on .145 shooting. Yes, you got that right, 14.5% 3 pt shooting. That's 14.5%. With 1 out of 18 attempts in his entire playoff career

The other guy made 243 in 771 games in the regular season, on 36% shooting.

They have this center who averages 24 to 30 points a game, pretty much all in the paint. Hmmm ... guess what I am going to do? I will cram the middle and let those losers take threes all day, especially the guy who shoots 14.5% in his career.

Then you have this other team, 664 3PM over 737 games on 40% shooting, and another guy 1256 3PM on 855 games on 32% shooting, or a guy who at that point was the 2nd best shooting guard of all time, 827 3pm over 1024 games on 32% shooting. Hmmmm ... oh, then there is this SF with 795 3PM in 1107 on 34% shooting, but they also have this crazy center who dominates. I don't know how to guard them, really, you double/triple the man in the middle, and they nail 3 pointers all over your face, you single team this guy, and he gets two points. I guess I will guard the three pointers because they are worth one point more.

You are the only person I know who didn't think 3 pt shooting would open up the lane.

3. No, you said playoff advanced stats don't matter for one player, and then said they do for another player. You lost.

I was following your lead. You said you want to talk about playoff stats, and I used playoff advanced stats. Simple as that.

[ambchang]

David's FG%, FT%, and PPG generally went down in the playoffs. Guy was a choker plain and simple. His teammates don't have anything to do with him getting about the same number of shots in the playoffs as the regular season (94-95) and his FG% dropping off 9 percent. Yeah, teammates matter, but teammates didn't get in the way of Robinson. His own ty play did.

See above.

You can say Robinson is easier to defend due to his reliance on FTs and his face up game, vs. those of Hakeem, which is really much harder to guard against even with game planning. i will give you that. But to say a player did worse because he is a choker is just plain ignorant, especially when presented with streams of evidence of how the opposition can just collapse on Robinson and take him out.

Really, did Robinson just somehow decide not to choke vs. the Phoenix all those years, or was it because Phoenix was ill equipped to defend Robinson, so they shut down the perimeter to win both series? Did Robinson decide to choke against the Jazz, or did the Jazz decide that it is easier to let Avery Johnson and Sean Elliott beat them because they have the personnel to handle Robinson?

Did Hakeem felt like choking vs. the Mavs in 90? Did he just quit vs. Seattle in 96? or is it because those teams were filled with the right personnel and devised the game plan specifically to stop Hakeem, feeling that is the best way to defeat the Rockets?

Robinson shot .708 from the line in the playoffs vs. .732 in the regular season, with more games played later in the career in the playoffs where he shot worse from the FT line. He shot 87% vs. the Warriors in 92, did he decide not to choke that series? he shot 81% in the 95 playoff run? Why is that?

[ambchang]

Oh, and djohn2oo8, good call dropping the Barkley, Pippen and Drexler were washed up and sucked so Hakeem couldn't lead their sorry butts to multiple les angle, when it was shown that they were better players than Robinson ever had in his prime.

Props.

[djohn2oo8]

See above.

You can say Robinson is easier to defend due to his reliance on FTs and his face up game, vs. those of Hakeem, which is really much harder to guard against even with game planning. i will give you that. But to say a player did worse because he is a choker is just plain ignorant, especially when presented with streams of evidence of how the opposition can just collapse on Robinson and take him out.

Really, did Robinson just somehow decide not to choke vs. the Phoenix all those years, or was it because Phoenix was ill equipped to defend Robinson, so they shut down the perimeter to win both series? Did Robinson decide to choke against the Jazz, or did the Jazz decide that it is easier to let Avery Johnson and Sean Elliott beat them because they have the personnel to handle Robinson?

Did Hakeem felt like choking vs. the Mavs in 90? Did he just quit vs. Seattle in 96? or is it because those teams were filled with the right personnel and devised the game plan specifically to stop Hakeem, feeling that is the best way to defeat the Rockets?

Robinson shot .708 from the line in the playoffs vs. .732 in the regular season, with more games played later in the career in the playoffs where he shot worse from the FT line. He shot 87% vs. the Warriors in 92, did he decide not to choke that series? he shot 81% in the 95 playoff run? Why is that?

His playoff numbers are even less impressive when you factor in who the few big offensive series(statistically) came against.

1 was the 1990 Nuggets who defined the run and gun style.

27.7 ppg, 59.3 FG%, 63 TS% (pace in the series was 108.8)

The next series vs Portland he was down to 22.9 ppg on 50.4 FG%/55.8 TS%

Not bad, but not great and among the better series from his prime.

His playoff numbers also benefited from the run and gun early 90's West when he faced the Run TMC Warriors. When you see his numbers, you'll think he dominated.

25.8 ppg, 68.6 FG%, 76 TS%

But watch the series and not only will you see that he wasn't taking over those games, but you'll hear the commentators mention that his numbers seemed quiet. And then keep in mind that the Warriors were the 5th worst defensive team in the entire league and that Robinson's 55 win Spurs lost to the 44 win Warriors.

In fact, it was very normal for stars to put up huge numbers against the Warriors of this era. And this is one of the cases where the numbers look a lot better than the impact, as evidenced by him losing in 4 games to a team that won 11 fewer games.

The 3rd big playoff series offensively came against the '96 Suns when he averaged 30 ppg on 55.6 FG%/62 TS%, but similar to Golden State in '91, Phoenix was the 7th worst defensive team in the entire league(in a league with several expansion teams), and the worst in the entire playoffs. You'll see the drop vs Utah in that same playoffs.

And then there are these other series from Robinson's '90-'96 prime.

1993 1st round vs Portland- 19.3 ppg, 42.6 FG%, 48.7 TS%
1994 1st round vs Utah- 20 ppg, 41.1 FG%, 47.1 TS%
1995 1st round vs Denver- 19 ppg, 42.9 FG%, 49.3 TS%
1996 semifinals vs Utah- 19.3 ppg, 47.5 FG%, 52.6 TS%

Shows you that he was never as good of a scorer as his regular season numbers suggest. Choker.

[djohn2oo8]

Yes, people shoot lower % when they are triple teamed. But let's not talk in generalities.

From 90 to 96, he shot the following %ages in the playoffs:

.533/.686/injured/.465/.411/.446/.516

So 40's half the time, 50s twice, and 60s once. He normally shoots in the low to mid 50s in the regular season.

Compare that to Hakeem, from 85 to 99 (not sure which ones I should go for because he had a longer prime):
.477/.530/.615/.571/.519/.443/missed/.578/.517/.519/.537/.510/.590/.394/.426

40's or lower 4 times
50s 9 times
60s once

Definitely better %, but then again, Hakeem shot .443 when he was swarmed.



Bulls needed interior defense. Spurs needed scoring, and more specifically, outside shooting.

No, MVPs are not expected to "carry" his team to a le. In fact, MVPs carrying his teams to the finals is not the norm.



Because it is true. Guess where Hakeem went when Avery Johnson was his 3rd string point guard? Oh, he got bounced out the first round 4 straight times, averaging 18.3ppg on .443 shooting in one year, and 22ppg the next. But even then, he had guys like Kenny Smith and Vernon Maxwell opening up the floor for him, you know, guys who made 11 3pters in 3 games in 91, and Vernon Maxwell and Sleepy FLoyd who made 11 3pters in 4 games in 90.

Compare that to the Spurs starting guards.
90 - 2 3PM in 10 games
91 - 2 in 4
92 - Robinson injured
93 - 2 in 10 (Willie Anderson made 6 coming off the bench)
94 - 3 in 4
95 - 9 in 15
96 - 16 in 10 (all by Vinny Del Negro because he was wide opened the entire playoffs. Avery Johnson couldn't even hit ONE despite how opened he was).

Now guess how many 3s Hakeem's starting backcourt made in the 94 and 95 runs?
94 - 79 3PM in 23 games, and another 34 by Horry
95 - 76 in 22 games, and another 44 by Horry.

But you and only you would think that a good 3 pt shooting team won't open the floor for their center. Let's say I am defending the Spurs. I see Negro and Avery Johnson, one guy 27 three pointers in 1,054 regular season games, on .145 shooting. Yes, you got that right, 14.5% 3 pt shooting. That's 14.5%. With 1 out of 18 attempts in his entire playoff career

The other guy made 243 in 771 games in the regular season, on 36% shooting.

They have this center who averages 24 to 30 points a game, pretty much all in the paint. Hmmm ... guess what I am going to do? I will cram the middle and let those losers take threes all day, especially the guy who shoots 14.5% in his career.

Then you have this other team, 664 3PM over 737 games on 40% shooting, and another guy 1256 3PM on 855 games on 32% shooting, or a guy who at that point was the 2nd best shooting guard of all time, 827 3pm over 1024 games on 32% shooting. Hmmmm ... oh, then there is this SF with 795 3PM in 1107 on 34% shooting, but they also have this crazy center who dominates. I don't know how to guard them, really, you double/triple the man in the middle, and they nail 3 pointers all over your face, you single team this guy, and he gets two points. I guess I will guard the three pointers because they are worth one point more.

You are the only person I know who didn't think 3 pt shooting would open up the lane.



I was following your lead. You said you want to talk about playoff stats, and I used playoff advanced stats. Simple as that.

Not reading any of that due to the simple fact amb doesn't know that 3 point shooters don't open up the floor for the center, the center opens up the floor for the 3 point shooters to get open shots

[djohn2oo8]

Olajuwon: In our system, we knew that our strength was inside and that teams would try to guard me one-on-one. So it was our responsibility to force them to double-team. When they double-teamed, we had to spread the court with our shooters. So my job was to establish that inside game so that the outside guys could do their jobs: extend the court, make the 3-pointers.
But the problem was that if I didn't do my job and don't force them to double-team me, then my teammates all were affected. So the point was to make them pay by establishing that. So you have to have a single player with that ability to make the other teams pay. And there are some teams and coaches who will say, "Let him go one-on-one." We would change our game plan then to go inside, just to force them to double-team.

Amb. Guess David couldn't open up the floor in the playoffs

[spurraider21]

david didnt have shooters that could capitalize... so the defense never had to respect them. the inside-out strategy doesn't work when the "out" isn't respected

[Brazil]

david didnt have shooters that could capitalize... so the defense never had to respect them. the inside-out strategy doesn't work when the "out" isn't respected

you won't convince them with this... those two clowns like their robinson is clown narrative

[djohn2oo8]

david didnt have shooters that could capitalize... so the defense never had to respect them. the inside-out strategy doesn't work when the "out" isn't respected

Why would it matter if the defense had to respect them if Robinson was getting doubled and tripled? There would be open shots anyway.