Page 29 of 38 FirstFirst ... 19252627282930313233 ... LastLast
Results 701 to 725 of 943
  1. #701
    Drive for Five! ambchang's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    15,504
    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?

    Hakeem averaged 26.9 points on 20.8 shots, 11 rebs, 3.6 assists, 1.6 stls, 2.9 blks, and 3.4 TOVs a game that season, so yes, they were average and slightly below average.

  2. #702
    Believe.
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Post Count
    194
    Hakeem averaged 26.9 points on 20.8 shots, 11 rebs, 3.6 assists, 1.6 stls, 2.9 blks, and 3.4 TOVs a game that season, so yes, they were average and slightly below average.
    Interesting take. By that logic, in your opinion, would it be fair to say that all of Tim Duncan's games in the 2005 finals were either "average", "slightly below average", or "bad"? Keep in mind that during the regular season, he averaged 33.4 mpg, and in the finals, he averaged 40.7 so you'll have to adjust your expectations.

  3. #703
    leveled up sook's Avatar
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Post Count
    9,632

    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.

  4. #704
    America runs on Duncan! Horse's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    4,405
    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.
    You people forget hakeem only had two really dominant yrs, outside of that David dominated him so Timmy would certainy hold his own.

  5. #705
    Veteran cantthinkofanything's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    14,937
    You people forget hakeem only had two really dominant yrs, outside of that David dominated him so Timmy would certainy hold his own.
    I didn't say he wouldn't hold his own. But I think it's clear that prime Hakeem > prime Duncan.

  6. #706
    Veteran Arcadian's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    8,672
    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.
    Hakeem's peak was limited by age. He was already past his physical peak in the back-to-back le runs, whereas Tim won his back-to-back MVPs in his mid 20s. I'll take 25-yo Duncan over 33-yo Hakeem, easily.

    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.
    No, Duncan was a better passer and playmaker. Not just out of the post but on the break and after the rebound. He's the master of the full-court pass to start a break. He always wanted to be a point forward.

  7. #707
    Veteran cantthinkofanything's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    14,937
    Hakeem's peak was limited by age. He was already past his physical peak in the back-to-back le runs, whereas Tim won his back-to-back MVPs in his mid 20s. I'll take 25-yo Duncan over 33-yo Hakeem, easily.



    No, Duncan was a better passer and playmaker. Not just out of the post but on the break and after the rebound. He's the master of the full-court pass to start a break. He always wanted to be a point forward.

    Those are good points. Especially about the disconnect between HO's prime physical ability and prime bball playing. As to the second, we don't know if Olajuwon would have been the same kind of passer as TD if he'd been placed in that system. Olajuwon had point guard skills (for a big man) as well. I can't remember what it was...some kind of one on one compe ion. But Hakeem had great ball handling ability. Not that it translates into passing but just saying that a system goes a long way to defining the end result of a player. It's been a long time but I'm pretty sure I remember Olajuwon making some slick behind the back passes to cutters.

    Plus, since TD has spent most of his career playing without a PG, many of the playmaking duties fell on his shoulders.

  8. #708
    Believe.
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Post Count
    194
    Hakeem's peak was limited by age. He was already past his physical peak in the back-to-back le runs, whereas Tim won his back-to-back MVPs in his mid 20s. I'll take 25-yo Duncan over 33-yo Hakeem, easily.
    That's an incredibly disingenuous statement. Why are you specifying a 33 year old Olajuwon? That was the 1996-97 season. When people talk about Olajuwon's absolute peak, they're talking about the 93-94 and 94-95 seasons where he was 30 and 31 years old.

    Also, it's incorrect to base a player's athleticism entirely on his age. Even though he was past his physical peak, a 30 year old Olajuwon was still physically superior to a 25 year old Duncan. Mario Elie played with both a 23 year-old Duncan as well as peak Olajuwon, and regarding Duncan/Olajuwon, here's what he said:

    I just think that 'Dream' was more athletic, had a better game on the box and was a better shot blocker. Tim is a great defender. He gets his arms up and he blocks a couple shots, but 'Dream' was an amazing shot blocker. Like you said, he had great hands. He was always hitting the ball away from guys.

  9. #709
    Drive for Five! ambchang's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    15,504
    Interesting take. By that logic, in your opinion, would it be fair to say that all of Tim Duncan's games in the 2005 finals were either "average", "slightly below average", or "bad"? Keep in mind that during the regular season, he averaged 33.4 mpg, and in the finals, he averaged 40.7 so you'll have to adjust your expectations.
    He averaged 20.3 and 11.1 in the regular season, but 20.9 and 14.1 in the series, with FG% below his norm. Most of his games were slightly below average to slightly above average in that series, with one bad game and one good game (coincidentally the choke job in Game 5 that was saved by Horry).

    Yeah, he didn't go nuclear on the best defensive front court in the league at that time (possibly all time), but still played average ball, delivering the championships because *gasp* he had teammates who could nail open jumpers, just like Hakeem had during his championship run. What a freaking coincidence eh?

    Anyways, no, Duncan didn't perform above average in all his series, because if he did, he would have better averages. It's just how math works, and how it was taught when I was grade 4 learning averages.

  10. #710
    Dragon style JamStone's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Post Count
    21,979
    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.
    No it wasn't.

    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.
    Your post spoke nothing, suggested nothing about needing great teammates to help you win. That wasn't the point of your post, let alone the ENTIRE point of your post. Your point was that Hakeem wouldn't be able to dominate the way he did in an era where teams used more zone. That's the reason why I responded in the first place. To what level Hakeem would have or could have dominated offensively in today's NBA would depend greatly on how good the rest of his teammates were, whether having another dominant scorer or having a good number of outside shooters. Teams started using zones or defensive schemes like zones to try to slow down Shaq. He still put up dominant numbers because he had another great scorer and the Lakers surrounded him and Kobe with shooters. Same goes with the Spurs approach to build around Duncan as well, particularly adding more shooters.

    This was not the entire point of your post. Read it again.


    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.
    If a player scores 24-26 points on 58% shooting from the field, it's not average, let alone below average. That's a good scoring game, arguably great. You can't compare it to his regular season averages because his regular season averages are NOT "average." His regular season averages were elite. If Jordan averaged 33 points on 50% during the regular season and he scores 28 points on 11-for-17 shooting from the field in a playoff game, you're not going to say that was a below average game for Jordan. Same with every other player. 20+ points on over 50% from the field is never an average performance. That was a ridiculous attempt to support your "average," "below average" comments. Ridiculous.


    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.
    Hakeem's 1996-97 Regular season: 23.2 PPG, 9.2 RPG, 51.0% FG
    Hakeem's 1997 Seattle series: 21.7 PPG, 12.3 RPG, 57.8% FG

    Why would averaging a point and a half fewer points mean he was performing below average in that 1997 Seattle series? Are you being serious? Really serious? Hakeem put up a couple 30 point games in that series. And the two low scoring outputs he had, he still shot over 50% from the field, and he took fewer shots because his teammates went berzerk from three point range in those games, both wins by the way. Your logic is beyond absurd on this topic. Are you really going to try to suggest that if a player doesn't hit his scoring average from the regular season, no matter what else he does on the court, regardless of his field goal efficiency, it's a below average performance? Is that really what you want to argue?

    Come on, man.

  11. #711
    Dragon style JamStone's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Post Count
    21,979
    You people forget hakeem only had two really dominant yrs, outside of that David dominated him so Timmy would certainy hold his own.
    Simply not true. Go back to their yearly head-to-heads from 1989 through to 1996. David didn't dominate Hakeem. The Spurs dominated the Rockets. But individually, David did not dominate Hakeem. Hakeem generally scored more. David generally was more efficient from the field. Both rebounded well. In fact, year by year, through that 7 year stretch, they were basically even statistically, with a couple seasons where Hakeem really outscored David. But David did not dominate Hakeem outside those two years. That's a complete fallacy.

  12. #712
    Drive for Five! ambchang's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    15,504
    No it wasn't.

    Your post spoke nothing, suggested nothing about needing great teammates to help you win. That wasn't the point of your post, let alone the ENTIRE point of your post. Your point was that Hakeem wouldn't be able to dominate the way he did in an era where teams used more zone. That's the reason why I responded in the first place. To what level Hakeem would have or could have dominated offensively in today's NBA would depend greatly on how good the rest of his teammates were, whether having another dominant scorer or having a good number of outside shooters. Teams started using zones or defensive schemes like zones to try to slow down Shaq. He still put up dominant numbers because he had another great scorer and the Lakers surrounded him and Kobe with shooters. Same goes with the Spurs approach to build around Duncan as well, particularly adding more shooters.

    This was not the entire point of your post. Read it again.
    Zones neutralize the effectiveness of big men and forces them to utilize their teammates to win. This is how the NBA is played today, and explains why there aren't any dominant classic bigs in the game like they did in the 90s anymore, which means Hakeem would not be able to put those numbers up that he did in the mid 90s.

    So yes, it was the entire point of my post, if a little cryptic.

    And no, it's not to lessen the accomplishments of Hakeem. Gee you guys are sensitive.

    If a player scores 24-26 points on 58% shooting from the field, it's not average, let alone below average. That's a good scoring game, arguably great. You can't compare it to his regular season averages because his regular season averages are NOT "average." His regular season averages were elite. If Jordan averaged 33 points on 50% during the regular season and he scores 28 points on 11-for-17 shooting from the field in a playoff game, you're not going to say that was a below average game for Jordan. Same with every other player. 20+ points on over 50% from the field is never an average performance. That was a ridiculous attempt to support your "average," "below average" comments. Ridiculous.
    Average means his average, not the average of the league, because, newsflash, Hakeem is one of the best big in league history and even his horrible games are above average for other big men.

    Robinson put up 22 and whatever in the 95 series, but I am not calling that an all-star series. He had a subpar series, he had a massively subpar series, just like Hakeem had in the 96 series vs. the Sonics.

    Hakeem's 1996-97 Regular season: 23.2 PPG, 9.2 RPG, 51.0% FG
    Hakeem's 1997 Seattle series: 21.7 PPG, 12.3 RPG, 57.8% FG

    Why would averaging a point and a half fewer points mean he was performing below average in that 1997 Seattle series? Are you being serious? Really serious? Hakeem put up a couple 30 point games in that series. And the two low scoring outputs he had, he still shot over 50% from the field, and he took fewer shots because his teammates went berzerk from three point range in those games, both wins by the way. Your logic is beyond absurd on this topic. Are you really going to try to suggest that if a player doesn't hit his scoring average from the regular season, no matter what else he does on the court, regardless of his field goal efficiency, it's a below average performance? Is that really what you want to argue?

    Come on, man.
    Hey, thanks for ignoring the point about having Barkley and how it opened up the game and make it tougher to zone in on Hakeem.

  13. #713
    Believe.
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Post Count
    194
    He averaged 20.3 and 11.1 in the regular season, but 20.9 and 14.1 in the series, with FG% below his norm. Most of his games were slightly below average to slightly above average in that series, with one bad game and one good game (coincidentally the choke job in Game 5 that was saved by Horry).

    ...

    Anyways, no, Duncan didn't perform above average in all his series, because if he did, he would have better averages. It's just how math works, and how it was taught when I was grade 4 learning averages.
    Why are you ignoring the number of minutes played? There's a reason I specifically brought it up.

    In the regular season, Duncan averaged 20.3 ppg/11.1 rpg in 33.4 mpg.

    In the finals, he averaged 20.9 ppg and 14.1 rpg in 40.7 minutes.

    You can't just ignore his increased usage. This isn't 4th grade math.

    In order to properly apply your logic, you'd have adjust his expected production based on his increased usage and compare it to his regular season stats. And if you do that, then you'd be forced to admit that all of his games were either "average", "slightly below average", or "bad". And if your logic leads you to that conclusion, then there's clearly a flaw in your logic.

  14. #714
    leveled up sook's Avatar
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Post Count
    9,632
    No it wasn't.



    Your post spoke nothing, suggested nothing about needing great teammates to help you win. That wasn't the point of your post, let alone the ENTIRE point of your post. Your point was that Hakeem wouldn't be able to dominate the way he did in an era where teams used more zone. That's the reason why I responded in the first place. To what level Hakeem would have or could have dominated offensively in today's NBA would depend greatly on how good the rest of his teammates were, whether having another dominant scorer or having a good number of outside shooters. Teams started using zones or defensive schemes like zones to try to slow down Shaq. He still put up dominant numbers because he had another great scorer and the Lakers surrounded him and Kobe with shooters. Same goes with the Spurs approach to build around Duncan as well, particularly adding more shooters.

    This was not the entire point of your post. Read it again.




    If a player scores 24-26 points on 58% shooting from the field, it's not average, let alone below average. That's a good scoring game, arguably great. You can't compare it to his regular season averages because his regular season averages are NOT "average." His regular season averages were elite. If Jordan averaged 33 points on 50% during the regular season and he scores 28 points on 11-for-17 shooting from the field in a playoff game, you're not going to say that was a below average game for Jordan. Same with every other player. 20+ points on over 50% from the field is never an average performance. That was a ridiculous attempt to support your "average," "below average" comments. Ridiculous.




    Hakeem's 1996-97 Regular season: 23.2 PPG, 9.2 RPG, 51.0% FG
    Hakeem's 1997 Seattle series: 21.7 PPG, 12.3 RPG, 57.8% FG

    Why would averaging a point and a half fewer points mean he was performing below average in that 1997 Seattle series? Are you being serious? Really serious? Hakeem put up a couple 30 point games in that series. And the two low scoring outputs he had, he still shot over 50% from the field, and he took fewer shots because his teammates went berzerk from three point range in those games, both wins by the way. Your logic is beyond absurd on this topic. Are you really going to try to suggest that if a player doesn't hit his scoring average from the regular season, no matter what else he does on the court, regardless of his field goal efficiency, it's a below average performance? Is that really what you want to argue?

    Come on, man.
    Damn, when did 08-10' JamStone come back? Couldn't agree more, Amb's poiint is absurd, which is why taking the time out to reply to it deserves a lot of props.

  15. #715
    Drive for Five! ambchang's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    15,504
    Why are you ignoring the number of minutes played? There's a reason I specifically brought it up.

    In the regular season, Duncan averaged 20.3 ppg/11.1 rpg in 33.4 mpg.

    In the finals, he averaged 20.9 ppg and 14.1 rpg in 40.7 minutes.

    You can't just ignore his increased usage. This isn't 4th grade math.

    In order to properly apply your logic, you'd have adjust his expected production based on his increased usage and compare it to his regular season stats. And if you do that, then you'd be forced to admit that all of his games were either "average", "slightly below average", or "bad". And if your logic leads you to that conclusion, then there's clearly a flaw in your logic.
    Because:
    a) Using that logic, Duncan's expected production would be 24.7/13.5, and doesn't change the rest of my post.
    b) I explicitly said he only had an average series, including a bad game, a couple of average games, and one good game in the paragraph you deleted. Point still stands
    c) No, I don't have to say Duncan have above average series every series, because like I said, that would give Duncan higher averages
    d) I didn't do that for Hakeem why would I do that for Duncan? But since you insisted, Hakeem averaged 26.9/10.9 in 38.8 minutes, he played 42.75 minutes in the sonics series, he should have averaged somewhere around 29.6/12 a game, but he only 18.3/9.8 in that series. I suppose the zone limited him more than I thought. Thanks for the insight.

  16. #716
    Drive for Five! ambchang's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    15,504
    Damn, when did 08-10' JamStone come back? Couldn't agree more, Amb's poiint is absurd, which is why taking the time out to reply to it deserves a lot of props.
    08-10 Jamstone likes to argue that a person can maintain an average by exceeding the average in every single series? That's some higher math I haven't learned.

    Please point the way.

  17. #717
    Drive for Five! ambchang's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    15,504
    You know what, sook, weebo, and JamStone, you guys win.

    Hakeem had way above average series in every single series he played in. In fact, every single game he played in his career was above his career average.

    Scratch that, he did one better, every single game he played against was better than his career highs in every single category.

    You thought his career highs were 52 points, 25 rebounds, 12 assists, 8 steals, and 12 blocks? No, he exceeded those numbers in every single game.

    And since he exceeded those numbers EVERY. SINGLE. GAME, it became his new average.

    And since now this is his average, he exceeded that once again and got better numbers every single game than those numbers, and then he got a higher average, and .......

    It goes on and on and on, until Hakeem was so ridiculously good, he shattered the basics of math.

    You thought he was 6'10"? No, he's taller than that, because 6'10" was his average adult height. He grew taller because Hakeem cannot be confined by averages.

    You thought his nickname was "The Dream"? No, that's too average a nickname, he's above that, and he's known as someone that words cannot describe him. Simply uttering his nickname will cause your tongues to burst in flames and your below average children to be cursed forever.

    Happy?

  18. #718
    Believe.
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Post Count
    194
    Because:
    a) Using that logic, Duncan's expected production would be 24.7/13.5, and doesn't change the rest of my post.
    b) I explicitly said he only had an average series, including a bad game, a couple of average games, and one good game in the paragraph you deleted. Point still stands
    No, your point fails. You said Game 5 was a "good" game. However, he played 48 minutes that game. Based on his season averages, if he were to have an "average" game for that many minutes, he would've needed to score 29 pts, grab 16 rebounds, get 4 assists, and block 4 shots. He ended up with 26 pts (11-24 shooting; 4-11 fts), 19 rebounds, 2 assists, and 2 blocks. By your logic, that's arguably a "slightly below average" game.

    My point is that your logic is full of holes.

  19. #719
    Indubitable Super Saiyan Cloud786's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    739
    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.
    Not saying that Avery could spread the floor, but he showed up for the most part in that series. He averaged 16.2 ppg on 54% shooting and 7.5 asts. Elliott averaged 17 and 5 on 46% shooting so Robinson did have some help during that series.

  20. #720
    leveled up sook's Avatar
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Post Count
    9,632
    08-10 Jamstone likes to argue that a person can maintain an average by exceeding the average in every single series? That's some higher math I haven't learned.

    Please point the way.
    It goes back to what you define as average, below average, etc.., and if we're going by what every "sane" individual believes it to be, what you said was absolutely absurd . To make it worse, you tried to justify it.

    Seriously though, wtf man?

    I remember you making some very intelligent posts in the past, one of the few people I take the time out to properly read. That was like koolaid man taking over your computer and having the runs all over the keyboard. I was actually about to type everything out, but it would basically be re-iterating what Jam said.

    Also, I think you may be misunderstanding his post on a fundamental level.
    Last edited by sook; 02-03-2015 at 04:06 PM.

  21. #721
    Drive for Five! ambchang's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    15,504
    No, your point fails. You said Game 5 was a "good" game. However, he played 48 minutes that game. Based on his season averages, if he were to have an "average" game for that many minutes, he would've needed to score 29 pts, grab 16 rebounds, get 4 assists, and block 4 shots. He ended up with 26 pts (11-24 shooting; 4-11 fts), 19 rebounds, 2 assists, and 2 blocks. By your logic, that's arguably a "slightly below average" game.

    My point is that your logic is full of holes.
    Thanks for removing all of my other points. I stayed consistent with my methodology, and didn't take into account minutes originally. You want me to take them into account? Sure, but the overall point still stands that Duncan had an average series. That is the point.

    And while I know you worship at the alter of Hakeem and everything associated with Hakeem is righteous and good, please don't start telling me what my point is, OK? I tend to know what point I was originally making, if you want to argue another point, feel free to do so, please don't force it upon me.

    If you want to, then sure, Duncan had below average games in his entire career.

    Hakeem will annihilate Duncan and eat his children if they meet head to head.

    In fact, Duncan will fail so badly if his prime was in the 90s, he wouldn't even make it to the local YMCA league.

    You happy now?

    My logic isn't full of holes, my logic is that Hakeem had a subpar series vs. the Sonics because he put up below average numbers, and Duncan had an average series vs. the Pistons because he put up average numbers. If you want me to point out below average series for Duncan, I would. I am not blind to the fact that players have below average series because that's what players do, they perform above average sometimes, average sometimes and below average sometimes, even my favourite players do.

  22. #722
    Drive for Five! ambchang's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    15,504
    Not saying that Avery could spread the floor, but he showed up for the most part in that series. He averaged 16.2 ppg on 54% shooting and 7.5 asts. Elliott averaged 17 and 5 on 46% shooting so Robinson did have some help during that series.
    Because the Rockets was leaving Avery Johnson open throughout the entire series. Sure he had an above average series, but his production came at the expense of team spacing and ultimately, success.

  23. #723
    Drive for Five! ambchang's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    15,504
    It goes back to what you define as average, below average, etc.., and if we're going by what every "sane" individual believes it to be, what you said was absolutely absurd . To make it worse, you tried to justify it.

    Seriously though, wtf man?

    I remember you making some very intelligent posts in the past, one of the few people I take the time out to properly read. That was like koolaid man taking over your computer and having the runs all over the keyboard. I was actually about to type everything out, but it would basically be re-iterating what Jam said.

    Also, I think you may be misunderstanding his post on a fundamental level.
    I think you may be misunderstanding my post on a fundamental level.

    My post said Hakeem would not put up the averages he put up if he played in today's game if he played in today's game because of zone defense, and the Sonics series is an indication of that. He put up below average statistics, ie. statistics he didn't put up in the 90s.

    Then all these Hakeem fanbois flocks in and try to claim that Hakeem is above averages, and it just boggles my mind.

    What is wrong with saying Hakeem had below average games. What average do you think I would be referring to when I am talking about Hakeem not averaging the same numbers as he would in today's game when compared to his prime in the 90s? Jim McIlvaine's?

  24. #724
    Dragon style JamStone's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Post Count
    21,979
    No sense in going point by point since it appears you're prepared to die on a hill of a terrible argument. I'll just point out why it's terrible.

    In your initial posts to me, you focused primarily on Hakeem's scoring in that 1996 Seattle series to determine what was an "average," "below average," etc. Subsequently, you've tried to amend the argument by suggesting "average to him." It still doesn't make sense. A player doesn't have to hit his regular season scoring average to have an "average" performance in a game. But that's what you're suggesting. A player can be short of his regular season scoring average and still have a good or great game.

    To help illustrate this, let's use this example:

    Player X averages 25 points in the regular season.

    In a playoff game, that player goes 10-for-10 from the field, 3-for-3 from the free throw line for 23 points.


    A perfect, pristine shooting game. Your logic dictates that this particular playoff scoring performance is "slightly below average" because it falls 2 points short of his regular season average. That is exactly what your argument has been. And it sounds ridiculous. The only way he could have an "average" scoring performance is to hit that regular season average of 25 points.

    It's a terrible argument.

  25. #725
    Drive for Five! ambchang's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    15,504
    No sense in going point by point since it appears you're prepared to die on a hill of a terrible argument. I'll just point out why it's terrible.

    In your initial posts to me, you focused primarily on Hakeem's scoring in that 1996 Seattle series to determine what was an "average," "below average," etc. Subsequently, you've tried to amend the argument by suggesting "average to him." It still doesn't make sense. A player doesn't have to hit his regular season scoring average to have an "average" performance in a game. But that's what you're suggesting. A player can be short of his regular season scoring average and still have a good or great game.

    To help illustrate this, let's use this example:

    Player X averages 25 points in the regular season.

    In a playoff game, that player goes 10-for-10 from the field, 3-for-3 from the free throw line for 23 points.


    A perfect, pristine shooting game. Your logic dictates that this particular playoff scoring performance is "slightly below average" because it falls 2 points short of his regular season average. That is exactly what your argument has been. And it sounds ridiculous. The only way he could have an "average" scoring performance is to hit that regular season average of 25 points.

    It's a terrible argument.
    Of course it was average to him, I said he would not put up the stats in today's game because of the zone, and the 96 Sonics series was evidence.

    No where did I ever say anywhere close to Hakeem being a below average player, you and a few Rockets fans was over zealous in protecting Hakeem and jumped to conclusions without clarifying my statements.

    And did Hakeem go 10-10 and 3-3 from the field?

    Oh wait, he average 18/10 on 48% shooting, so he definitely played below average in that series.

    The next year he went 21.7 and 12 vs. the Sonics, being denied the ball the series because of the Sonics zone, not to mention it was tougher for the SOnics to zone because they had to attend to Barkley now.

    Please don't come up with hypotheticals when we are talking about actual numbers, OK?

    As much as you want to, Hakeem didn't ride in on a unicorn that game and looked like Aragon that series. He didn't go invisible after donning a ring and fought gargoyles on his way to victory.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •