They won when Jordan was playing baseball.
Dream at his peak was the best big man ever to pick up a basketball.
They won when Jordan was playing baseball.
- who was better - MJ? Maybe, but Kobe has more range on his jumper.
Truth.com
In 1994. Not their fault Jordan turned the ball over twice to blow the series in Orlando in 1995.
Hakeem won't be able to dominate like he did in today's game.
He was swarmed to death in the 96 sonics, a team that employed a semi zone.
A full blown zone, which was illegal back in the day but legal now, will limit Hakeem. This also explains why we don't have domjnant bigs anymore. The inside is just too crowded for an inside dominated offense, tipping the advantage to the defense.
Who knows, tbh. I hope people remember that Duncan's injury in the early 2000s limited his athleticism immediately. For as great as duncan has been he could of been even better. Now that's insane.
http://m.espn.go.com/nba/story?story...e.com%2F%22%7D
duncan is goat.
people acting like Duncan wasn't one of the best one one on one players in NBA history for a big. From 1999-2007 (especially 99-04) most of the Spurs' offense was predicated on the fact that nobody could guard Timmy one on one. 4down is simply a high post isolation play, and the spurs won 4 championships with that as their bread and butter.
I would've loved to see prime Duncan vs. Prime Hakeem, and I'm not sure who'd come out on top. Matchup for the ages, tbh.
I wonder how a prime Olajuwon would fare against a prime Robinson? My guess is Robinson would score a lot more than the 24ppg he dropped on Hakeem +2 in 95.
Dat 1 on 1
Robinson was outplayed by Hakeem and Hakeem alone.
the Rockets won the series because they had to guard offensive juggernaut Dennis Rodman and sharp shooters Vinny Del Negro and Avery Johnson.
For those are were too young, Del Negro was a worse starting SG than he was a coach.
I was 4 1/2 when that series happened, so everything I know is from youtube/reading about it. From what I saw it looked like David couldn't guard Hakeem (Hakeem gave David the Ibaka treatment and just pump-faked him to death), but we never really got to see much of David going right at Hakeem on the other end. The Rockets clearly had the more talented team on paper and the fact that those Spurs were a top seed is a testament to David's greatness.
I also find it funny that nobody seems to remember Hakeem's 10+ years of playoff failures, but David gets the "choker" label. Strange...
IMO Hakeem was a better player than David, especially for in the postseason, but that series tends to be overblown. If I recall their regular season numbers roll out slightly in David's favor. Hakeem just went nuts for that whole playoffs and nobody could stop him, even a GOAT defender like David.
Hakeem has always been a dominant individual player, and Robinson is just easier to guard in the postseason because he had Avery Johnson as his point guard, a guy who made ONE SINGLE THREE POINTER in his entire playoff career, and a guy known as Vinny Del Negro as his SG. The opposition just collapsed on Robinson during every single post season run, and it works, because they know his guards can't shoot at all. The guys who can shoot are slower than dirt (Chuck Person, Dale Ellis) when they were playing for the Spurs, not to mention that the opposition didn't have to leave them at all because they can double off of Avery Johnson and Vinny Del Negro all damn game. Elliott was really the only guy who can be semi-reliable in the post season, and even he choked two FTs in Game 1.
Robinson would be great in today's NBA.
those guards were bad ... but I think people overestimate and underestimate things to fit their narrative. Not picking on you Amb we are all guilty of this, we are human.
I do agree that David would be the love child poster-boy for anlytic nerds he was Lebron before James without the vision, tbh. Athletic freak chiseled frame even some of the same mental foibles. I give Lebron the edge of course. But David would excell in this NBA due to rule changes and the dearth of big men. He woul be miles better than a healthy Dwight ...
I don't think it's that simple. I think David's style of play had something to do with it too. It's always harder to have playoff success with a jump shooting big, as apposed to a low post big who can draw the defense in further and give his shooters more room. Timmy had a similar team of slow-footed shooters and a PG with no range (rookie/soph Tony), and he gave the 3-peat Lakers everything they could handle, outplaying Shaq in the process.
IIRC, the Spurs didn't have a competent SG in the Robinson/Duncan years until Derek Anderson in 2001, but he ended up getting injured in the playoffs then signing with Portland...
Another note on that 95 series: it definitely didn't help David that he played alongside a psycho version of Rodman, who you literally didn't have to defend outside of 5 feet, and who constantly left Horry open for 3 (Horry hit 6 3s in game 6 IIRC).
Tough call. Dream was an absolute beast at his peak, but Duncan was no slouch either. I think it'd be pretty even, maybe give a slight edge to Dream because Duncan's peak was limited by his knee.
Every year the Spurs rang they had shooters.
03 Jackson and Kerr were shooting lights out in certain games. Obviously duncan was a huge part of it.
And robinson wawa driving big. He led the league in dunks multiple years before shaq showed up.
This is a bad take, imo. A zone can be effective against anyone if that one player doesn't have good enough teammates around him. The effectiveness of a zone depends greatly on the balance of the opposing team's offense. Teams could double Shaq, plus shade two other defenders on him, but if Shaq has another good offensive teammate like Kobe plus three point shooters, the zone breaks down. Same thing can be said of a guy like LeBron. Put LeBron on a team and he gets doubled and tripled with the defensive bigs sunk in the paint all the time, he'll struggle and his team won't have much success. Surround him with another guy who can create like Wade when it essentially becomes 4-on-3 and guys who can hit open jumpers, it's a different story. It compromises the defense and how much the off ball defenders can help and collapse. It opens up holes in the defense. There's not one individual player in the history of the NBA who can destroy a zone if he doesn't have good enough teammates. Not Hakeem, not Duncan, not Shaq, not LeBron, not Mike, not Magic or Bird, not Wilt. In that vein, it's not that Hakeem couldn't dominate in today's game because more team's implement the zone. It depends how good his (or any player's) teammates are to give him more true one-on-one iso situations.
And regardless, you can't really use the 96 Sonics as a great example because of one horrible game by Hakeem. Yes, the Sonics swept the Rockets that post season. And yes, Hakeem struggled in game 1 and was not efficient in game 2. But after that game 1, he still averaged 22 points on over 50% shooting. If that's struggling, the standard to which he is held is crazy. Look at the following 1997 playoffs, same Seattle team assuming they were still using zone on Hakeem. Hakeem again averaged about 22 points on over 50% shooting, only this time the Rockets won the series. If you're going to contend 1 or 2 bad playoff games by Hakeem suggests he would struggle in today's game, I think it's more than reaching. He adjusted as that 1996 series went along. The Rockets just lost. He had no issue with that "semi zone" in 1997 against the Sonics. It's a real reach.
And others in this thread have also talked about Duncan not biting on Hakeem's pump fakes. But Hakeem wasn't only the "dream shake." He wasn't a one trick pony on offense. He could power step. He had a fade-away. He had a baby hook. He also had a regular midrange jumper. In fact, perhaps other than Karl Malone and before Dirk came along, Hakeem had one of the best midrange jumpers of any big in the league. He wasn't just the dream shake. That wasn't his only weapon.
For a couple of years in those mid 1990s in his prime, Hakeem was the greatest and most complete big man to ever play the game. Ever.
yeah. as much as I'd like to pick TD, I don't think it's even close. Hakeem could do everything that Tim did and then some. With more physicality. I don't know what the stats say but anyone who actually watched Hakeem play would also have to pick him if they're being objective.
Having great teammates will help you win? Great take! And guess what? That's the entire point of my post! Robinson struggles mightily in the playoffs when he had Avery Johnson as his PG. Look at how he did when he had Rod Strickland as his point.
And no, Hakeem didn't just have one bad game vs. the Sonics, he had an entire subpar series in a clean four game sweep. 3-6 for 9 points in Game 1, 8-21 for 17 points in Game 2, 7-12 for 24 points in Game 3 and 11-19 for 26 points in Game 4. He only had one average game, one slightly below average game, one bad game, and one horrible game in the series.
The next season, he average 21.7 ppg vs. the Sonics, which is lower than both his season and playoff averages. And yes, the point of the zone is to force the ball out of his hands, and it took seven games + a newly added Charles Barkley to win. To note, Barkley relieved a lot of pressure on Hakeem. Barkley definitely stopped the ball, and had to force the ball out of Hakeem at times, but he was another point of attack for the Rockets.
Game 3: 24 pts (7-12 shooting; 10-11 ft), 13 rbs, 9 ast, 2 stl, 3 blk, 7 turnovers.
Game 4: 26 pts (11-19 shooting, 4-8 ft), 6 rbs, 3 ast, 1 st, 4 turnovers.
"Average" and "slightly below average" game?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)