Duncan>Hakeem.

[kingmalaki]

The difference is that Duncan was able to win it all with a team that doesn’t have that level of outside shooting in the 99 and 03 team.

The 99 team had Elie (37%), J.Jackson (36%), Elliott (33%) and Kerr (31%). The 03 team had Bowen (44%), S.Smith (33%), S.Jackson (32%), Manu (35%) and Steve Kerr (40%). S.Smith and Kerr are two of the best shooters in their generation. What the heck are you talking about?

And let’s face it, Hakeem dominates the ball on the offensive end, and his passing is mostly to outside shooters rather than cutters, that is why I felt Hakeem was successful with 4 shooters rather than 2 cutters and 2 shooters.

Don’t you dominate the ball more when you have less people on your team that can create their own shot?

Lastly, Parker couldn’t create offense until about 06, before then, he was chided for being a PG with no point.

Parker has always been able to penetrate and create offense for himself. If you are referring to creating offense for others then that is different.

It becomes obvious that we have very different interpretation of what a great 3 pt shooting team is. To me, a team who makes the most 3 pters is obviously a great 3 pt shooting team. A team who can put 4 guys on the floor at the same time without having anyone play out of position is obviously a great three-point shooting team. I never once said that they were exceptionally accurate at it, it was you who derived that and tried to put words in my mouth, and I never appreciate people forcing their definitions and values on me, so please stop doing that.

And again, just because a team relies on the shot more (i.e. takes them more) doesn’t mean they are great at shooting that shot. Duncan is not a great FT shooter because he is one of the league leaders in attempts. Your definition is quite flawed because a team that makes a lot of 3’s isn’t necessarily that good at shooting them…they could just be shooting a lot more than anyone else. Bobbyjoe has already posted the data, showing that the Rockets were average in their %, they just happened to shoot a heck of a lot more because we had a great pivot that had to be doubled and no one else that could really create offense on their own. It really isn’t that complex. Your definition is very flawed.

Because the sample size is ridiculously small. And you are dismissing the fact that there are teams with multiple stars who couldn’t even make the finals. So perhaps there is not a direct 1 to 1 correlation between talent level and team success? And a better team does not necessary translates to better individual players on the team? I thought team USA drove home the point the last few years.

The sample size isn’t small at all. I listed every team to make the Finals since 99…that’s going on a 10 year span. And you are right, more talent doesn’t = better team, but all those teams from the 80’s and 90’s (except the Rockets) had a of a lot of talent and the teamwork/chemistry was great also. The facts show that in this era you don’t need as much talent on each squad to compete.

You can argue Ginobili was playing at a HoF level in 05, he was just as good as Dumars was in the le runs. Josh Howard and Jason Terry were playing like all-stars (choking all-stars, but all-stars nonetheless) in 06. Outside of Game 2 and 6, Shaq outplayed Mourning in every single game, go watch the tapes again.

Wow..did you really say Manu was playing at a HOF level in 05? Did you really say that?

So why isn’t Bill Russell conclusively the best ever? He won 11 les in a league that was stacked full of talent at every single team. How do we know? Because we only looked at the top teams that made the finals and ignored the bottom feeders, just like you and bobbyjoe ignored all the crap teams in the 80s and claimed that there was so much more talent in the late 80s.
Look at the all-star teams, Sleepy Floyd, Rolando Blackman, Tom Chambers, Walter Davis, Alvin Robertson, Joe Barry Carroll, Bill Laimbeer, and Jeff Malone are no better than Sahwn Marion, Mehmet Okur, Josh Howard, Joe Johnson and Caron Butler.

I believe we said the top teams from the 80’s and 90’s (i.e. the ones winning all the les, Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, Bulls, Sixers) had tons of talent on them. It is no surprise that either the Celtics or Lakers were in almost every Finals in the 80’s. Stop twisting words around to suit your argument.

And Bill Russell isn’t considered the GOAT because pundits (except for some here) typically recognize the impact that your teammates and other situations (coaching, era, injuries, whatever) can have on you winning a le. Thank you for discrediting your own 4>2 argument.

Why? For the longest time I've been waiting for someone to throw the clutch factor in there. And no one has.

Say what you want about Houston as a 3pt threat... but during the playoffs in '04 and '05 Houston's bombers were downright clutch (Horry, Elie, Cassell and Smith). I don't think anyone could legitimately argue against it.

Simply put, all those 3pt stats are worthless when one counters with the fact that Houston had one of the clutchest core of 3pt shooters ever assembled on the same floor. They didn't nickname Houston 'Clutch-City' for nothing.

That I agree with completely. Those Rockets teams just would not die. Horry, Cassell, Maxwell, Smith, Elie…those guys all had stones. However, so did guys like Kerr, Elliott, Horry (Spurs version), S.Jackson, J.Jackson, Manu, Elie (Spurs version). We can go for tat naming big shots that players not named Hakeem or Duncan have hit. That’s why the whole 4>2 thing is silly to me, because Hakeem has clearly displayed that he could be a winner when he had help, from day 1.

Additionally, when ambchang made his original point he was not talking about the same thing you are here (being clutch, or at least it wasn’t mentioned anywhere). He basically looked up some stat that said the Rockets made the most 3’s and tried to build an argument off of it, not realizing that their %’s were just so/so, or that the Spurs le teams have fielded teams with better %’s.

Just a couple of observations:
1) The Rockets were above average in both 94 and 95.

So now above average and great/exceptional mean the same thing?

2) The Rockets led the league in both attempts and makes in both seasons, and it wasn't even close in 95.

Yes, because they shot more. Their % was still not great/exceptional. Again, taking more shots than someone else doesn’t mean you are great at making them

3) For someone who consistently tried to say "4>2" is a faulty argument because we have to look at the situation, all 3 of you certainly aren't looking at the situation in which the Rockets were bombing the out of their opposition with 3s in their championship years.

What situation are we looking at? You are the one making the silly comment that a team with a non-great % was great at making 3’s simply because they shot more of them.

4) The Rockets were less than 3% off the league lead in 95, and 3.5% off in 94 while making almost 3 times the lead league). But they, they were not a great 3 pt shooting team.

And what were the Spurs in their le winning seasons? Bobbyjoe has already posted stats showing that in the Spurs le winning seasons, they were making 3’s at the same % or higher than those Rockets teams. Yes, they did not rely on the 3 point shot as much but that was not your original point…not to mention no need to do so when you have penetrating guards.

Fair enough.

About that video..... I can 'assure' you that more than 80% (a guess of course) of the people that try to discredit Robinson's game never even saw him play prior to his back injury. They can only relate to what they saw after Duncan's arrival to the league - a Robinson at less than 60% - a s of his former self.

Here it is again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KDndD...elated&search=

Before his injury Robinson was:

34 - 11 in head to head matchups vs. Hakeem (including playoffs)
6-1 in head to head matchups vs Shaq (including one near quadruple double)
10-3 in head to head matchups vs Ewing
8-1 in head to head matchups vs Mourning
7-2 in head to head matchups vs Dikembe

Robinson was a great center. I put him in the Karl Malone, Dirk category….great players but they just don’t have “it” (i.e. not great leaders, known for stepping up, etc).

Were they inaccurate? Would you like to show the numbers?

They were accurate but not great/exceptional like you originally said. Maybe we have different opinions of what great is. They were great at hoisting them up….

Otis Thorpe was a great cutter.

Hakeem got to play w/ Thorpe for a majority of his prime years, making them a near Twin Tower.

Thorpe made the all-star team, and was a near all-star many times.

He had giant hands and was great cutting to the basket and getting a pass.

Thorpe played center when Kakeem was injured or in foul trouble.

He also out rebounded Ewing for the Big East rebounding le while in college.

Otis Thorpe was a slightly above average PF. He couldn’t handle the ball at all and really couldn’t create his own shot. The majority of his points came off folks leaving to go help Hakeem. He was also a solid defender..good but not great player (similar to Dale Davis). He was replaced in 95 by a SF playing out of position and Chucky Brown and the Rockets were a better team.

My last post on this topic matter guys. 30 pages is enough…let the season begin already. Someone start another Scola thread or something.

[Galileo]

First 10 Years of NBA Career: Slam Duncan vs. Michael Jordan:

1st Team, All-NBA
Duncan 9
Jordan 7

2nd Team, All-NBA
Duncan 1
Jordan 1

1st Team, All-Defense
Duncan 7
Jordan 6

2nd Team, All-Defense
Duncan 3
Jordan 0

Regular Season MVPs
Duncan 2
Jordan 3

NBA Finals MVPs
Duncan 3
Jordan 3


NBA Championships
Duncan 4
Jordan 3

Average Team Wins
Per 82 Games
Regular Season
Duncan 58
Jordan 49

Playoff Series Win/Loss Record
Duncan 22-5
Jordan 18-7

TV Commercials & Shoe Contracts
Duncan Not many
Jordan A whole bunch

Media Hype

Duncan None

Jordan Way too much

If Duncan is better than Jordan, then Duncan is better than Hakeem!

[mavs>spurs2]

Just a couple of observations:
1) The Rockets were above average in both 94 and 95.
2) The Rockets led the league in both attempts and makes in both seasons, and it wasn't even close in 95.
3) For someone who consistently tried to say "4>2" is a faulty argument because we have to look at the situation, all 3 of you certainly aren't looking at the situation in which the Rockets were bombing the out of their opposition with 3s in their championship years.
4) The Rockets were less than 3% off the league lead in 95, and 3.5% off in 94 while making almost 3 times the lead league). But they, they were not a great 3 pt shooting team.
5) You are just all agreeing that Miller is not as great as Kevin Johnson in 3 pt shooting in 97 despite leaging the league in makes, just because Johnson shot 2.5% better than him.

All facts aside, you said that the rockets were both a great 3 point shooting team, but aren't very accurate. You're an idiot if you can't see the hypocracy in that.

[mavs>spurs2]

God you're an idiot. You've been riding bobbyjoe's coattails this entire thread. The minute someone besides ambchang steps into the thread and points out how freaking stupid and baseless your comments are, you start crying about how ambchang isn't fighting his own battles.

You're on a SPURS BOARD whining about Spurs fans backing each other? I thought I've seen some asnine commentary from Fast Dunk or da_suns_fan, but at least they realize they're trolls. You purport yourself to be a serious poster and you come up with this driveling snot. My God, you are so beaten in this moment. Bobby can at least hold his own in this discussion, meanwhile, have you started your own investment company in DVD rewinders? Weak does not begin to describe your retort.

Just stop posting now. Just stop. You will never say anything that will ever disprove how moronic you are after this.

Who gives a what kind of board i'm on? I haven't seen that insult thrown at any rocket or laker fans in this thread, but maybe your panties are still in a wad because of what happened in 06. That's the only plausible answer I can come up with.

And as for your bobbyjoe bull , I was arguing in this thread before bobbyjoe ever showed up, and the man happens to have some great takes. Don't be mad because he has been kicking ass throughout this thread and I agree with most of what he's said.

I comment about the hypocrasy of the statement "the rockets were a great 3 point shooting team, but they weren't very accurate" and you think its your duty to come to the rescue of your fellow spur fan. Well if you want to do that, at least state something relevant, not the clutch bull you were trying to spew. Yes, that rockets team was clutch, but at the same time they still shot a not so hot 3 point %. What the does that have to do with their 3 point %? God you are a moron

And the best part is now you're telling me to stop posting because i'm such a moron for pointing out the hypocracy of a statement? Nice try, but i'd rather stick around and watch bobbyjoe and others wipe the floor with your ignorant homer ass.

[ambchang]

The 99 team had Elie (37%), J.Jackson (36%), Elliott (33%) and Kerr (31%). The 03 team had Bowen (44%), S.Smith (33%), S.Jackson (32%), Manu (35%) and Steve Kerr (40%). S.Smith and Kerr are two of the best shooters in their generation. What the heck are you talking about?

Hold on, so with the Spurs ranking 19th in 3pt % (which you used as some sort of holy mecca to indicate whether a team is good at 3pt shooting), 24th in makes and 25th in attempts, they are somehow a good 3 pt shooting team?

Don’t you dominate the ball more when you have less people on your team that can create their own shot?

That explains why his assist remained absolutely unchanged, his FGA and FTA went up after Clyde Drexler joined. Or perhaps Hakeem wasn’t absolutely the greatest at everything related to basketball, and he wasn’t all that great with passing (good, not great).

Parker has always been able to penetrate and create offense for himself. If you are referring to creating offense for others then that is different.

And again, just because a team relies on the shot more (i.e. takes them more) doesn’t mean they are great at shooting that shot. Duncan is not a great FT shooter because he is one of the league leaders in attempts. Your definition is quite flawed because a team that makes a lot of 3’s isn’t necessarily that good at shooting them…they could just be shooting a lot more than anyone else. Bobbyjoe has already posted the data, showing that the Rockets were average in their %, they just happened to shoot a heck of a lot more because we had a great pivot that had to be doubled and no one else that could really create offense on their own. It really isn’t that complex. Your definition is very flawed.

Not only does Duncan NOT rely on the FT, he shies away from it. In fact, teams fouled Duncan to send him to the line at the end of the game, much like Shaq. Your analogy would work if teams were leaving the Rockets wide open for 3s because the opposition would benefit from it, but this was clearly not the case.

BTW, Artis Gilmore is the best scorer in the history of the league, just look up his FG%.

The sample size isn’t small at all. I listed every team to make the Finals since 99…that’s going on a 10 year span. And you are right, more talent doesn’t = better team, but all those teams from the 80’s and 90’s (except the Rockets) had a of a lot of talent and the teamwork/chemistry was great also. The facts show that in this era you don’t need as much talent on each squad to compete.

And ever since 99, there were 18 teams that went to the finals.
Spurs 4 times, Lakers 4 times, the Nets 2, the Pistons 2. These 4 teams by itself was 2/3s of the sample you gave, this is not an 18 team sample, it’s more like a 4 team sample.

Wow..did you really say Manu was playing at a HOF level in 05? Did you really say that?

Only when you list Joe Dumars as HoF level in the late 80's.

I believe we said the top teams from the 80’s and 90’s (i.e. the ones winning all the les, Lakers, Celtics, Pistons, Bulls, Sixers) had tons of talent on them. It is no surprise that either the Celtics or Lakers were in almost every Finals in the 80’s. Stop twisting words around to suit your argument.

And Bill Russell isn’t considered the GOAT because pundits (except for some here) typically recognize the impact that your teammates and other situations (coaching, era, injuries, whatever) can have on you winning a le. Thank you for discrediting your own 4>2 argument.

The Celtics of the 60s had tons of talent there, it is no surprise that they won the championship every year. And because 11 of the 13 champions in those years had like 8 HoF on them, it just shows how stack that era was, and that those championships were tougher to get than the ones in the 80’s. That was your argument, only subs uting 60’s with 80’s, and 80’s with 00’s. My point is that you failed to look at the bottom dwellers of the league back then, and that this is not a valid excuse to have Hakeem miss the playoffs despite having Otis Thorpe, Maxwell and Kenny Smith on his team.

Additionally, when ambchang made his original point he was not talking about the same thing you are here (being clutch, or at least it wasn’t mentioned anywhere). He basically looked up some stat that said the Rockets made the most 3’s and tried to build an argument off of it, not realizing that their %’s were just so/so, or that the Spurs le teams have fielded teams with better %’s.

So now above average and great/exceptional mean the same thing?

And I still am arguing that. What is so hard to understand that? They were #1 in the league in makes. They made 646 3pters that year, that is 8 a game for about 24 points. Having a quarter of your offense on one shot doesn’t make you great, right.

Yes, because they shot more. Their % was still not great/exceptional. Again, taking more shots than someone else doesn’t mean you are great at making them



What situation are we looking at? You are the one making the silly comment that a team with a non-great % was great at making 3’s simply because they shot more of them.

I never, ever once said they were particularly accurate at it. They made a lot, and that shot was an integral part of the team offense. I said they were excellent, outstanding, prolific, but never once said they were particularly or exceptionally accurate. You jumped to that conclusion and tried to change what I said.

And what were the Spurs in their le winning seasons? Bobbyjoe has already posted stats showing that in the Spurs le winning seasons, they were making 3’s at the same % or higher than those Rockets teams. Yes, they did not rely on the 3 point shot as much but that was not your original point…not to mention no need to do so when you have penetrating guards.

Quote me, what was my original point. Why would you know what my original point more than myself? For someone who continued in every single post to say that I am twisting words, you sure as is doing a fine job demonstrating how to do it.

Robinson was a great center. I put him in the Karl Malone, Dirk category….great players but they just don’t have “it” (i.e. not great leaders, known for stepping up, etc).

Didn’t you just say something about supporting casts? So what is your criteria? Hakeem couldn’t make the playoffs with a 17/10.5 PF, a 17ppg SG and a 14/7 PG is because he had a crappy supporting cast, yet Robinson not winning it all despite a worse supporting cast is because he didn’t have “it”. You sure are a model of consistency.

They were accurate but not great/exceptional like you originally said. Maybe we have different opinions of what great is. They were great at hoisting them up….

#1 in makes and only 3 % off the top team in accuracy is not exceptional. Sure , I would say Hakeem was a so-so scorer. Sure he averaged 21.8 ppg in his career, but he only shot 51.2%. It was good, but not great. But a guy like James Donaldson is on another plateau, he averaged 8.6 points, but he shot 57.1% from the field! That is almost 6% better than Hakeem (or twice the difference between the Rockets and the league leading team). And no wonder you felt Hakeem > Duncan, Duncan only shot 50.9% for his career, with the % likely to drop when he falls out of his prime.

You know what? You are right, Hakeem > Duncan because he had a 0.3% advantage on FG%, that alone settles it.

[ambchang]

All facts aside, you said that the rockets were both a great 3 point shooting team, but aren't very accurate. You're an idiot if you can't see the hypocracy in that.

What is wrong with that. Iverson is a great scorer, he wasn't particularly accurate at it how is he?
I just found another interesting fact, Larry Bird made 37.6% from 3 pt land for his career, Matt Bullard made 38.4%. Matt Bullard > Larry Bird in 3 pt shooting.

[mavs>spurs2]

What is wrong with that. Iverson is a great scorer, he wasn't particularly accurate at it how is he?
I just found another interesting fact, Larry Bird made 37.6% from 3 pt land for his career, Matt Bullard made 38.4%. Matt Bullard > Larry Bird in 3 pt shooting.

When was the last time you heard Iverson called a great shooter? He can score, but i'll take Steve Kerr in a 3 point contest anyday.

And who care's if Matt Bullard is a slightly better 3 point shooter than Larry Bird? Bird was better than him in every other aspect of basketball. And Bullards % is overrated do to the fact that he was a role player, feeding off open looks created by teammates. Bird was constantly the focus of every defense he faced, meaning all of his shots were more contested.

You do a nice job of throwing facts out there and twisting logic to try to cover up your hypocritical statement. No matter what way you spin it, you cannot be a great 3 point shooter and be an innacurate 3 point shooter. Those two statements conflict with each other, its not a hard concept to understand. Just admit that you were wrong about Hakeem having great 3 point shooters. The fact that they led the league in makes only means that it was part of the coaches plan to bomb away with the shortened 3 point line. , Shaq could lead the league in 3 pointers if he jacked up shot after shot after shot. It wouldn't mean he was a great shooter, he would probably shoot like 5%.

It's more of a testament to how great Hakeem was that he was able to win with teammates who had poor shot selection.

[Galileo]

A note on Athleticism:

I keep hearing people in this forum say Tim Duncan is not 'athletic'. Well that's a load of BS.

I remember reading my basketball guide back in '95, before the draft, and it said Duncan might have gone # 1 in the '95 NBA draft, had he gone out.

Just so you know, Duncan was only 18 years old during the '95 ACC tournament, and was not yet THE BIG FUNDAMENTAL. This was a tribute to Duncan's athleticism and potential.

A reminder, the first five picks of the '95 draft were:

sophmore Joe Smith

sophmore Antonio McDyse

sophmore Rasheed Wallace

sophmore Jerry Stackhouse

Kevin Garnett

Duncan was TWO years younger than Smith/McDyse/Wallace/Stackhouse, and the same age as Garnett.

So I think this means Duncan was the most athletic player of his time.

[mavs>spurs2]

A note on Athleticism:

I keep hearing people in this forum say Tim Duncan is not 'athletic'. Well that's a load of BS.

I remember reading my basketball guide back in '95, before the draft, and it said Duncan might have gone # 1 in the '95 NBA draft, had he gone out.

Just so you know, Duncan was only 18 years old during the '95 ACC tournament, and was not yet THE BIG FUNDAMENTAL. This was a tribute to Duncan's athleticism and potential.

A reminder, the first five picks of the '95 draft were:

sophmore Joe Smith

sophmore Antonio McDyse

sophmore Rasheed Wallace

sophmore Jerry Stackhouse

Kevin Garnett

Duncan was TWO years younger than Smith/McDyse/Wallace/Stackhouse, and the same age as Garnett.

So I think this means Duncan was the most athletic player of his time.

Me thinks somebody's never seen McDyess pre knee surgury, or heard of Kevin Garnett.

[mavs>spurs2]

McDyess pre surgury was probably the most explosive player this league has ever seen

Even Spur homers will tell you that Duncan isn't very athletic, he's a smart basketball player not an athletic one.

[ambchang]

When was the last time you heard Iverson called a great shooter? He can score, but i'll take Steve Kerr in a 3 point contest anyday.

And who care's if Matt Bullard is a slightly better 3 point shooter than Larry Bird? Bird was better than him in every other aspect of basketball. And Bullards % is overrated do to the fact that he was a role player, feeding off open looks created by teammates. Bird was constantly the focus of every defense he faced, meaning all of his shots were more contested.

You do a nice job of throwing facts out there and twisting logic to try to cover up your hypocritical statement. No matter what way you spin it, you cannot be a great 3 point shooter and be an innacurate 3 point shooter. Those two statements conflict with each other, its not a hard concept to understand. Just admit that you were wrong about Hakeem having great 3 point shooters. The fact that they led the league in makes only means that it was part of the coaches plan to bomb away with the shortened 3 point line. , Shaq could lead the league in 3 pointers if he jacked up shot after shot after shot. It wouldn't mean he was a great shooter, he would probably shoot like 5%.

It's more of a testament to how great Hakeem was that he was able to win with teammates who had poor shot selection.

Why are you putting qualitative arguments around Bullard vs. Bird? Wasn’t the % a be-all-and-end all? Wasn’t the fact that the whole Rockets offense was centred on an inside-out philosophy that relies heavily on 3 pt shooting (with a shortened 3 pt line nonetheless) a qualitative factor that would move them to a great 3 pt shooting team?

And since when are the Rockets “inaccurate”? They were only 3% off of the best team. Wow, a 38% 3pt shooting would be exceptionally accurate, and yet a 35% would now register as inaccurate? This is fantastic.

And no, Hakeem DID have great 3 point shooters, if you haven’t watched how the Rockets bombed the out of the opposing team in the mid-90s, go dig up some tape. See how the other teams struggle to contain Hakeem because once they double him, one of the 3 pt shooters would make them pay.

Hakeem also had the same teammates with the same poor shot selection, and they missed the playoffs! Why would Rudy Tomjonavich all of a sudden as those players to jack up shots …. Perhaps it helped them win!

Lastly, I wonder why Shaq did NOT lead the league in 3PA or 3PM … oh, yeah, because him doing that would be detrimental to team success, but the Rocket’s shooters getting almost 25 ppg for the Rockets with 3 pters opened up the paint for Hakeem to operate.

[Galileo]

Otis Thorpe was a slightly above average PF. He couldn’t handle the ball at all and really couldn’t create his own shot. The majority of his points came off folks leaving to go help Hakeem. He was also a solid defender..good but not great player (similar to Dale Davis). He was replaced in 95 by a SF playing out of position and Chucky Brown and the Rockets were a better team.

Thorpe is very underrated and much better than "slightly above average".

Thorpe was a 20-10 man the year before arriving in Houston and replacing Sampson.

Thorpe:

1989 16.7 points/game , 9.6 rebounds, 54% FG percent, 82 games

1990 17.7 9.0 55% 82

1991 17.5 10.3 56% 82

1992 17.3 10.5 59% 82 (all-star)

1993 12.8 8.2 56% 72

1994 14.0 10.6 56% 82

1995 13.3 8.9 56% 36

Thorpe also average over 3 offensive rebounds per game all 6 1/2 seasons w/ Hakeem.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/...thorpot01.html

Just compare this to what Duncan had for big man help in years 5 to 10 of his career.

And Hakeem had Sampson before Thorpe, and Drexler/Barkley/Pippen after Thorpe.

Thorpe played 17 years in the NBA, including his prime with Olajuwon.

The fact is, Duncan is a better basketball player than Hakeem, and if Duncan had a consistent big man to help with the rebounding, like Thorpe, the Spurs would win the NBA le practically every year until Duncan is an old man.

[mavs>spurs2]

Why are you putting qualitative arguments around Bullard vs. Bird? Wasn’t the % a be-all-and-end all? Wasn’t the fact that the whole Rockets offense was centred on an inside-out philosophy that relies heavily on 3 pt shooting (with a shortened 3 pt line nonetheless) a qualitative factor that would move them to a great 3 pt shooting team?

And since when are the Rockets “inaccurate”? They were only 3% off of the best team. Wow, a 38% 3pt shooting would be exceptionally accurate, and yet a 35% would now register as inaccurate? This is fantastic.

And no, Hakeem DID have great 3 point shooters, if you haven’t watched how the Rockets bombed the out of the opposing team in the mid-90s, go dig up some tape. See how the other teams struggle to contain Hakeem because once they double him, one of the 3 pt shooters would make them pay.

Hakeem also had the same teammates with the same poor shot selection, and they missed the playoffs! Why would Rudy Tomjonavich all of a sudden as those players to jack up shots …. Perhaps it helped them win!

Lastly, I wonder why Shaq did NOT lead the league in 3PA or 3PM … oh, yeah, because him doing that would be detrimental to team success, but the Rocket’s shooters getting almost 25 ppg for the Rockets with 3 pters opened up the paint for Hakeem to operate.

Since you made these two statements:

To me, a team who makes the most 3 pters is obviously a great 3 pt shooting team

Ok, so since the Rockets made the most 3 pointers that year you think they were a great 3 point shooting team, fair enough.

I never once said that they were exceptionally accurate at it, it was you who derived that and tried to put words in my mouth.

Wait a minute, here you are backpeddling saying "you never said they were accurate at it"

How can you be a great 3 point shooting team but at the same time not be accurate at it? You must be insane if you can't see the contradiction here.

What happened is you threw out there that Hakeem had all these great shooters, without looking deeper into it first. Then when other posters come up with evidence stating otherwise, the backpeddling begins. Sometimes it's ok to admit your own mistakes, we all make them and its only a message board. Pathetic

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

It could also be said that you probably suck more s than I do.

Amazing how just because I agree with everyone outside of San Antonio, all the sudden I have an agenda.




My opinion may not change anyones mind, but the FACTS and evidence presented by myself, bobbyjoe, and several others tell the story.

WTF, what are you like in 8th grade. Look little man, bobbyjoe and others have atleast brought compelling though biased takes on this thread. They atleast put some thought into what they're debating on, rather then ride on someone else's coattails. I understand that your season ended in less then a desired outcome, but maybe you ought to concern yourself with your _allas Mavs and maybe this year they'll get out of the first round. Other then slobbing on bobbyjoes knob you haven't actually brought anything of merit. You've been weighed, measured and found lacking.

And GTFO with this alleged facts and evidence as I doubt that EVERYONE outside of San Antonio agrees with you.

[ambchang]

Since you made these two statements:



Ok, so since the Rockets made the most 3 pointers that year you think they were a great 3 point shooting team, fair enough.



Wait a minute, here you are backpeddling saying "you never said they were accurate at it"

How can you be a great 3 point shooting team but at the same time not be accurate at it? You must be insane if you can't see the contradiction here.

What happened is you threw out there that Hakeem had all these great shooters, without looking deeper into it first. Then when other posters come up with evidence stating otherwise, the backpeddling begins. Sometimes it's ok to admit your own mistakes, we all make them and its only a message board. Pathetic

Umm ... so I said the Rockets were a great 3 pt shooting team, then I said I never stated they were particularly accurate, but the fact that they made a lot of them made a them a great 3 pt shooting team, so what is the problem?
Aren't you just stating something that has been said a million times before? It's not like you stumbled in the circle of enlightenment.
Read this for the 8th time:
1) The Rockets were a great 3pt shooting team in 94 and 95.
2) THe reason they were great was because they were #1 in makes, and bombed the crap out of all the other teams that doubled Hakeem.
3) The Rockets whole offense was around inside out, with 3pters being an integral part of it. The reason they were able to do that was because they had great shooters at 4 positions, and backups as well.
Rehashing an old point that was made by other posters long ago does not qualify as being constructive, however, continually avoiding questions like "Why is Bird a better 3 pt shooter than Matt Bullard when 3pt% is all you care about?" is.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

[QUOTE=kingmalaki]

I don’t think he, or anyone else in the pro Hakeem camp is saying 4 les in today’s day don’t mean squat. Is there really a need to twist folks words around?

Read some of the previous posts, and words are being twisted on both sides, so don't get all holier then thou on us. Just saying....

Folks are simply saying you can’t mention the les without including all of the other factors in your analysis

Bull! Why does that even factor into the equation? The only folks saying that it has to be brought up are you pro-hakeem folks on this thread. I think you'll agree with me, I've never ever seen a sports record book or any internet sports web site that has a disclaimer for any of the NBA championships won. I've never heard John Q. Casualfan or Joe Hardcorefan talk about current or past championship teams by qualifying that they won because Jordan, or the Showtime Lakers or Wilt did not compete against them. I think you guys may be the ones guilty of twisting words and stats to suit your argument.

(the era won, the compe ion faced, the supporting talent, etc). I would be just as silly to say Horry > Malone or Horry > Barkley because Horry has 7 rings. Further analysis would show me that Horry was a roleplayer while the other dudes weren’t, or that the other dudes carried their squads and lost to a dynasty while Horry’s teams beat worse teams in the Finals. It isn’t as simple as 7 > 6, or whatever.

If the Spurs are guilty of playing in a watered down league, and Duncan doesn't have the mandatory 2 HOF's playing alongside him, isn't it amazing what Tim has accomplished playing on essentially different rosters every year since 1999. Please don't tell me that DRob 99-2003 was the same DRob of 1995. Please don't tell me that a 20 year old french guard or a first year Manu were the superior talents that Hakeem didn't have. Tony and Manu were not the impact players they are today until 2005 and 2007.

[ambchang]

Last year, the Bulls were a better 3pt shooting team than the Warriors because they had a better percentage. I don't really care that they made 280 less 3pters.

[mavs>spurs2]

WTF, what are you like in 8th grade. Look little man, bobbyjoe and others have atleast brought compelling though biased takes on this thread. They atleast put some thought into what they're debating on, rather then ride on someone else's coattails. I understand that your season ended in less then a desired outcome, but maybe you ought to concern yourself with your _allas Mavs and maybe this year they'll get out of the first round. Other then slobbing on bobbyjoes knob you haven't actually brought anything of merit. You've been weighed, measured and found lacking.

And GTFO with this alleged facts and evidence as I doubt that EVERYONE outside of San Antonio agrees with you.

Who's in 8th grade?

And i've brought alot more to this thread than you or mr contadictory ambchang over here, who's latest genius idea is that great 3 point shooters shoot a low %

[mavs>spurs2]

Umm ... so I said the Rockets were a great 3 pt shooting team, then I said I never stated they were particularly accurate, but the fact that they made a lot of them made a them a great 3 pt shooting team, so what is the problem?
Aren't you just stating something that has been said a million times before? It's not like you stumbled in the circle of enlightenment.
Read this for the 8th time:
1) The Rockets were a great 3pt shooting team in 94 and 95.
2) THe reason they were great was because they were #1 in makes, and bombed the crap out of all the other teams that doubled Hakeem.
3) The Rockets whole offense was around inside out, with 3pters being an integral part of it. The reason they were able to do that was because they had great shooters at 4 positions, and backups as well.
Rehashing an old point that was made by other posters long ago does not qualify as being constructive, however, continually avoiding questions like "Why is Bird a better 3 pt shooter than Matt Bullard when 3pt% is all you care about?" is.

Quit trying to bury your mistake under a ton of meaningless facts.

You have been backpeddling so fast ever since your idea that the rockets were a great 3 point shooting team was shot down with facts, that i can't even keep up.

Just man up, admit your mistake, and carry on with the discussion

And go back and read where I explained to you why Bird was a better 3 point shooter than Matt Bullard.

First of all, we are talking about less than a % difference with these two, keep in mind. Now I see that your trying to come up with clever ways to use my own logic against me, but this wasn't a good choice on your part.

Larry Bird was constantly the focus of every defense. He was usually guarded by the opposing teams best perimeter defender and his shots were well contested because he was a superstar and people knew the damage he could do. Matt Bullard on the other hand, was just a spot up shooter who benefitted from kick outs from Hakeem drawing double teams. His main skill and job during his time in this league was to spread the floor and make open 3 pointers, benefitting from the open looks that his teammates created. Creating your own shots is alot harder than benefitting from another superstar doing drawing double teams. If you left Larry Bird open and focused on everyone else, his 3 point % would be alot higher than 38%.

[mavs>spurs2]

Purposely misquoting and putting words in someones mouth is the universal sign for waving the white flag

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

[QUOTE=bobbyjoe]

AmbChang makes the point that teams had to focus on this more because the Rockets shot so many of them. That is fair enough, but like you said the downside to that was that until the 1995 trade with Drexler, Houston lacked any player who could consistently create his own shot, compared to the Spurs.

The Spurs do rely on the 3 less than the old Rockets teams but the flipside is they have 2 offensive creators aside from Duncan in Parker and Ginobili. Hakeem only had one of these in his career with Clyde and that was on the backside of his career.

Tony and Manu weren't the consistant offensive creators until 2005 and 2007. Who did we have in 99 and 2003? Here's a hint, no one.

Saying Hakeem only succeeded with a specific makeup glosses over the fact that he led a team with some clear deficiencies to a le. Ditto for Duncan in 2003. That Spurs cast was flawed aside Duncan although the 2005 and 2007 casts have been very strong thanks to Manu and Parker developing.

It may snow, I agree with you. But tell the complete story. Again in 2005 the Spurs had a revamped roster. Tony did not make the all star roster until 2006 and it's a good thing because 2006 was an injury plagued year for Manu. He was selected as an all star reserve in 2005.

I think any GM would make the tradeoff of having more offensive creativity to having 4 guys aside from your dominant big all capable of hitting the 3 at a decent clip.

Constructing a team around a dominant post player, would you rather have 4 players who could all hit an open 3, or 2-3 players who were strong 3 point shooters and 2 other guards who could create shots for themselves and others? I would say any GM picks the latter scenario which is the one Duncan has benefitted from the past few years.

Again tell the whole story, while Hakeem didn't have a pure slasher in 94 (Clyde arrived in 95) it's not like the cupboard was bare:

Otis Thorpe 14 pts
Vernon Maxwell 13.6 pts
Kenny Smith 11.6 pts
Chris Jent 10.3 pts
Robert Horry 9.9 pts
Mario Elie 9.3 pts
Sam Cassell 6.7 pts

Not your Showtime Lakers, but it's not like the roster was devoid of talent. Solid role players. No more, no less.

[Demo Dick Marcinko]

Who's in 8th grade?

And i've brought alot more to this thread than you or mr contadictory ambchang over here, who's latest genius idea is that great 3 point shooters shoot a low %

Sorry little man, but you have an over inflated opinion of yourself. I caught ambchang's message eons before it will ever dawn on you. If you shoot more threes, and thereby make more threes (think sheer numbers and timely clutch threes here) then that is a great thing, no? Afterall the total threes made represented a large chunk of the rockets total offensive output. He's already given you the numbers and percentages, but don't let the facts get in the way.

[mavs>spurs2]

Sorry little man, but you have an over inflated opinion of yourself. I caught ambchang's message eons before it will ever dawn on you. If you shoot more threes, and thereby make more threes (think sheer numbers and timely clutch threes here) then that is a great thing, no? Afterall the total threes made represented a large chunk of the rockets total offensive output. He's already given you the numbers and percentages, but don't let the facts get in the way.

Little man? It's pretty funny how you have to try to belittle others to feel better about yourself after getting your ass handed to you time and time again.

No matter how many 3s the rockets shot or how much of a chunk of their total offense came from 3s, the fact is they still ever so slightly above the league average.

http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/articles/stats95/hou95.txt

94-95 Rockets shot .368 from 3

http://www.rawbw.com/~deano/articles...95/tmstats.txt

That year they shot worse than:


Charlotte
Chicago
Cleveland
Indiana
Miami
Orlando
Philadelphia
San Antonio
Seattle
Utah

And exactly the same as Boston and New York

Far from being a "great" 3 point shooting team

It seems you're having trouble grasping the concept of simple mathematics and percentages. Any team can jack up a bunch of 3's, but the % of those 3's that they hit will determine whether or not they are good shooters. Nobody is disputing that the Rockets shot alot of 3 pointers that year. But to say that Hakeem had all these awesome 3 point shooters is the most absurd lie i've ever seen in all of message boards. They were a decent 3 point shooting team that made a living off of Hakeem's ability to draw double teams.

Tim Duncan could hit the same amount of 3's as Dirk if he shot twice as many. Dirk's % would still be much higher and anyone with half a brain would know who was the better shooter.

[Cry Havoc]

Quit trying to bury your mistake under a ton of meaningless facts.

You have been backpeddling so fast ever since your idea that the rockets were a great 3 point shooting team was shot down with facts, that i can't even keep up.

Just man up, admit your mistake, and carry on with the discussion

Well, if they sucked at three point shooting, and had absolutely no penetrators or skilled offensive players, that kind shoots to the theory that the mid-90s were still the glory days of the NBA and took a fantastic team loaded with talent to win, doesn't it? Therefore, why are we discussing how Duncan's 4 les means less now due to the watered down talent in the league?

Amazing the double standard you guys set. Really.

[mavs>spurs2]

Well, if they sucked at three point shooting, and had absolutely no penetrators or skilled offensive players, that kind shoots to the theory that the mid-90s were still the glory days of the NBA and took a fantastic team loaded with talent to win, doesn't it? Therefore, why are we discussing how Duncan's 4 les means less now due to the watered down talent in the league?

Amazing the double standard you guys set. Really.

Explain to me how they sucked at 3 point shooting and had no skilled players

Or were you just talking out of your ass again?