How would a prime Olajuwon fare against a prime Duncan?

[wekko368]

So players today do not have athleticism, speed and length? If anything, there's way more of that in today's game than in the past.

Sure they do, but that doesn't automatically mean they're effective defensive players. You're assuming that if current teams chose to ran a zone defense like 1996 Seattle, they'd be as effective as the Sonics were. And that's a horrible assumption.

You know what is illogical? That Hakeem was great in an era when rules benefit bigs would mean that he would be even greater in an era when rules benefit wings.

It's illogical to you because you're being intentionally obtuse. As I've said many times, Olajuwon would be even greater not b/c of the rule changes, but b/c his compe ion would be dramatically inferior.

Secondly, those three shot poorly because of the zone defense that allowed the Sonics to double Hakeem and challenge the shooters at the same time. They shot well in the regular season because the opposition did NOT play zone. Do you think through your arguments before you type them out?

Do you? Imagine the type of defender you're describing. They don't exist in today's game.

I started watching the youtube video you posted of the 1996 WCF game 4.

Here was Kenny Smith's first 3 pt attempt (a miss):



He's about to release the ball, and as you can see, he's wide open.

Shaq and Mourning played till the 00s, so it cuts both ways. Rik Smits was an offensive player and is slow. Divac was a passing big men that is not any better than a Al Horford (worse I'd argue) or a Nikola Vucecic, and you must be kidding about Laettner. Laettner? Really, a career disappointment?

Shaq played till the 00's. By 2003, Mourning had kidney problems.

Rik Smits was 7'4. He was an effective by virtue of his size. Also, since he was a good offensive player, he'd have to make Olajuwon work defensively.

Laettner averaged around 17 ppg in the mid 90's.

In terms of today's bigs, we have Chandler, Jordan, Gasol brothers, Horford, Valaciunas, Dwight, Ant Davis, Drummond, Cousins, Jefferson, Bogut, Noah, Asik, and Lopez.

Nice. You were specifically talking about the centers of 2003 (around Duncan's prime), but once I showed you how garbage they were, you changed your argument to 2013.

I disagree. Once you take off the top, the rest are about even.

LOL. You're clearly not old enough to have watched the centers from the mid 90's.

In the mid 90's, you had Olajuwon, Robinson, Shaq, Ewing, Mutombo, Mourning, Smits.

How many centers in 2003 were better than Rik Smits? Shaq, Mutombo, and Pau Gasol were. Anyone else?

Shaq averaged 28 ppg in the Finals against Hakeem because he was too strong. 2003 Shaq was 40 lbs heavier. You do the math.

The math says that the net advantage clearly goes to Olajuwon. 1995 Olajuwon was already too quick for 1995 Shaq. 1995 Olajuwon would run circles around a 2003 Shaq. Can you imagine the transition game? Don't forget, Olajuwon did run the floor.

Olajuwon would abuse Yao. You're forgetting that Olajuwon had a solid mid-range game. Yao would be forced to continually give Olajuwon open 15 foot jumpers. If Yao tried to contest them, Olajuwon would simply go right around him.

Is that why Hakeem averaged 23.1 ppg vs. the equally lumbering Rik Smits?

It's laughable how bad your logic is. You're saying that just b/c Olajuwon didn't put up monster numbers against Smits, he wouldn't against Yao. Do you realize how much slower and clumsier Yao is compared to Smits?

Explains why Hakeem averaged only 21ppg vs. Antonio Davis (only counting his Houston days), including 6 points in one game. Or how he averaged around 24.8 ppg in his prime vs. Brian Grant (which was basically his average during his prime). So how is he going to put up significantly better stats in today's game again?

First of all, everyone has bad games. Secondly, you pulled that game from 1997, and prime Hakeem is considered to be 1994-1995. In the 3 head to head matchups between the Rockets/Pacers in those years, Olajuwon averaged 30 ppg.

Thirdly, "vs Antonio Davis"? Did you even bother looking at the box score? Antonio Davis came off the bench. Rik Smits was the starting center.

Please remember not to let facts get in your way, it never did in the past.

More so than Mutombo. Even a non offensive center like Noah or Chandler are much better passers than Mutombo ever would be.

If you needed a basket and your only options were Mutombo, Noah, or Tyson Chandler, you go with Mutombo. Every time.

Shaq last won one as a low post force in 02 (06 if you REALLY want to stretch it), Duncan in 07. You can argue MVPau in 10, but since then teams are moving much more towards a passing based offense to combat the use of zones.

Teams will play to their strengths. Right now, not many teams have efficient post players, but there are an abundance of scoring guards. Is there anyone besides Memphis who focuses on a post offense? However, as more bigs develop, we should see more post-oriented offenses.

Yeah, sure, just that Olajuwon is a post and kick guy, and never really been a high post facilitator.

Post and kick will still lead to assists.

Problem is, your point of gambling on high draft picks is an irrelevant tangent. I am having great trouble grasping how that is proving bigs are important especially the list you provided were littered with failures and busts.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it's an irrelevant tangent. The fact that there have been a bunch of failures/busts further proves my point. Since I've already explained it several times very clearly, I'm not going to explain it again. Go back and read.

Yeah, they have to take on more responsibilities. Just like how Kobe averaged 35 ppg vs. 28, or Jordan averaged 37 vs. 30, or Duncan averaging 25 vs. 20, or Robinson averaging 29 vs. 24, or Malone averaging 31 vs. 26, or Barkley averaging 28 vs. 22, or Garnett averaging 24 vs. 18, or Lebron averaging 30 vs. 27, or Pierce averaging 26 vs. 20, or Wade averaging 30 vs. 24, or Isiah averaging 21 vs. 18, or Wilt averaging 50 vs. 24, or Moses averaging 31 vs. 24.

Yeah, I think understand.

Do you?

It's pretty clear that I understand it better than you. If a primary playmaker has a weak supporting cast, his responsibilities increase, but his stats get depressed. His efficiency and percentages go down. His assists go down (by virtue of teammates not making shots).

Look at the big picture.

Show me some examples where players scored more after getting better teammates. Hakeem was pretty much the only exception, and it was because he got better guards who helped open up the paint. Once he got Barkley, he went from 27 to 22.

I think the most obvious example would be Amare Stoudemire after the Suns got Steve Nash. His scoring went from 20.6 to 26. Garnett's scoring went from 23 ppg to 24 ppg (career high) after the Timberwolves acquired Cassell and Sprewell and lost Szczerbiak. Wade's numbers went up after the Heat acquired Shaq. Iverson scored more after the 76ers acquired Mutombo.

Those were competent creators? more capable than Jason Williams, Mike Miller, Bonzi Wells and Shane Battier?

Did you even watch Dwight Howard's Orlando teams? Of course Lewis/Turkoglu/Nelson were competent creators. How do you think the Magic scored points? It obviously wasn't by relying entirely on Howard in the post. Conversely, in their entire careers, Mike Miller and Shane Battier have never been creators.

Dwight Howard had a significantly better supporting cast in Orlando than Pau Gasol did in Memphis. It's laughable that you would claim otherwise.

And teams today do not play a more complex defense than teams did in 95?

They absolutely do. But just b/c it's more complex doesn't mean its more effective. Defenders back then were allowed to be incredibly physical.

You went on about how the starting centers sucked in 03 (which was 12 years ago btw, and not really today), but then you are now dismissing that and say it's team defense, which one is it?

I don't understand your question. Can you be clearer?

And what does having Otis Thorpe had anything to do with Hakeem manhandling the Knicks. Thorpe shot 52 times in the entire series, which was FOURTH on the Rockets.

You compared the defenses of the Knicks and the Sonics and attributed Olajuwon's struggles solely to the Sonics' zone defense.

That's why I pointed out the against the Knicks, the Rockets had Otis Thorpe and were able to win. Against the 1996 Sonics, the Rockets didn't have a legit PF and lost. In 1997, they had a 33 year old Charles Barkley and won.

Athletes today aren't fast, athletic, long and played good team defense? Payton was guarding Hakeem? Wait, why was Payton relevant in this situation again, oh wait, it's the ZONE DEFENSE.

Yep, the Sonics played a zone defense and had guys like Payton, Kemp, and Perkins who made it really effective. By assuming that every team's zone defense would be effective against Olajuwon, you're assuming that every team has players comparable to Payton/Kemp/Perkins. You're also assuming that Olajuwon's perimeter shooters would shoot as poorly as they did against the 1996 Sonics.

No, I am talking about 2013, not 2003. But yeah, I am saying a semi zone vs. Olajuwon is effective means a full-fledged zone would be effective too. But I am not saying Hakeem would average 19ppg in today's game, I am saying that, in his prime, he wouldn't average 28 ppg in today's game.

It depends on the team around him. If you're assuming that he has poor shooters and an inferior PF, then yes, a full-fledged zone would be effective against him.

Yes, because when a drive and kicker is collapsing, the entire defense is drawn towards the basket, with help defenders converging into the basket area, while a double of a big is generally done standing between a big and your man on the perimeter, and your momentum is no drawing you towards the basket. It's very frustrating b/c you seem to have waken up from a coma for 20 years and not basketball during this time.

There you go. Based on your own description, the zone defense leaves an open shooter on the perimeter. The "drive and kick" has more moving parts than the "inside out", but they should both result in an open 3 pointer.

The drive and kick is more prevalent right now because the rules are perimeter player friendly with the use of zones and hand checking.

Please read up on what Stu Jackson aimed to do.

Once again, you think that "drive and kick" and "inside out" are mutually exclusive. They are not. A team's offense is dictated by its personnel.
Look at it this way. Anthony Davis is currently averaging 24.5 ppg, and he's 21 years old. Why is it so difficult for you to believe that a prime Olajuwon wouldn't average more than 28?

[ambchang]

Sure they do, but that doesn't automatically mean they're effective defensive players. You're assuming that if current teams chose to ran a zone defense like 1996 Seattle, they'd be as effective as the Sonics were. And that's a horrible assumption.

No it is not. You are basically saying the only reason Hakeem had a bad series vs. Sonics is because the Sonics had specifically those players. I am saying no, it's about having players who can run an effective zone, which is true for a lot of today's teams because they are legal, and teams have adapted accordingly.

If anything, the teams today would be MORE effective in running the zone because they are legal, and they don' t have to worry stepping on the limits of the rules without breaking them, they can just go out and run them.

It's illogical to you because you're being intentionally obtuse. As I've said many times, Olajuwon would be even greater not b/c of the rule changes, but b/c his compe ion would be dramatically inferior.

And I have shown that Hakeem didn't just magically blow off against inferior defenders in his days. He averaged about the same vs. the terrible ones as opposed to the great ones.

Do you? Imagine the type of defender you're describing. They don't exist in today's game.

I started watching the youtube video you posted of the 1996 WCF game 4.

Here was Kenny Smith's first 3 pt attempt (a miss):



He's about to release the ball, and as you can see, he's wide open.

He got one open shot and missed? The horror! He was hounded the entire freaking series other wise. he didn't just suddenly not shoot well, he, along with the other 2 Rockets didn't shoot well because of defense.

And the type of defender I described, the ones who can cover a lot of ground don't exist? Kawhi Leonard, Paul George, Lebron James, even Durant, Westbrook are all athletic long wings who are great at doubling down low and popping out to challenge open shots. The Spurs have two, even the Rockets have Ariza and Josh Smith. These players are now pretty much on every team.

Shaq played till the 00's. By 2003, Mourning had kidney problems.

So? Mourning was averaging 16/8/2.5 in as recently as 02. It sort of explained why you chose 03, and not the recent 13, because it's the weakest of the years.

Rik Smits was 7'4. He was an effective by virtue of his size. Also, since he was a good offensive player, he'd have to make Olajuwon work defensively.

Why would Yao Ming be manhandled by Hakeem again?

Laettner averaged around 17 ppg in the mid 90's.

Are we talking about defense here? You think Laettner checked Hakeem well in his days?

Nice. You were specifically talking about the centers of 2003 (around Duncan's prime), but once I showed you how garbage they were, you changed your argument to 2013.

When did I talk about 2003? Quote me. I have said:

...
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.

My original quote that started this storm:

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.

Where you got me saying specifically 2003 is a mystery to me.

LOL. You're clearly not old enough to have watched the centers from the mid 90's.

In the mid 90's, you had Olajuwon, Robinson, Shaq, Ewing, Mutombo, Mourning, Smits.

How many centers in 2003 were better than Rik Smits? Shaq, Mutombo, and Pau Gasol were. Anyone else?

Shaq was about Olajuwon level good in 2003. Duncan was as good and would have faced Hakeem. Divac/Webber combo would > Rik Smits, Gasol was about Mourning level > Smits. yao Ming > Smits.

So in summary:
Shaq/Duncan = Hakeem/Robinson
Divac/Webber/Gasol/Yao matches up with Smits, Ewing, Mutombo , Mourning.

Not that huge of a difference. Sure 1995 group was better, but not by some ridiculous distance.

And no, I was a basketball junkie in the 80s and 90s.

The math says that the net advantage clearly goes to Olajuwon. 1995 Olajuwon was already too quick for 1995 Shaq. 1995 Olajuwon would run circles around a 2003 Shaq. Can you imagine the transition game? Don't forget, Olajuwon did run the floor.

Shaq never ran the floor? He just doesn't run back for defense.

And no, the net advantage was that the Rockets bombed the lights out of the Magic. Shaq was a 3rd year player and hadn't reached his prime yet. Hakeem won't be able to guard prime Shaq one one one, and prime Shaq won't be able to guard Hakeem one on one. It's a two way street.

It's laughable how bad your logic is. You're saying that just b/c Olajuwon didn't put up monster numbers against Smits, he wouldn't against Yao. Do you realize how much slower and clumsier Yao is compared to Smits?

Actually I don't. Yao had pretty good coordination for a guy his size. I am not talking about monster numbers, I am talking about above average numbers (by Hakeem's prime's standards), and they aren't there. I don't have to prove Smits limited Hakeem, all I have to do is to show Smits held Hakeem to his average, which is all Yao had to do in this argument.

But then you came up with this gem yourself.

Rik Smits was 7'4. He was an effective by virtue of his size. Also, since he was a good offensive player, he'd have to make Olajuwon work defensively.

Yao is 7'6". He was an effective (defender) by virtue of his size. Also, since he was a good offensive player, he'd have to make Olajuwon work defensively.

Just look at what you wrote, what you described Smits described Yao perfectly, except Yao was even bigger, and clearly better than Smits. But then in the same response, you contradict yourself. And this isn't your first time. But I am illogical.

First of all, everyone has bad games. Secondly, you pulled that game from 1997, and prime Hakeem is considered to be 1994-1995. In the 3 head to head matchups between the Rockets/Pacers in those years, Olajuwon averaged 30 ppg.

Hakeem averaged 28 ppg in those two years. And in 97, he was still averaging 22. You make it sound like he was finished in 97. Just take out all the games that Hakeem didn't average 30 ppg then, shall we?

Thirdly, "vs Antonio Davis"? Did you even bother looking at the box score? Antonio Davis came off the bench. Rik Smits was the starting center.

Did you watch those games? Antonio Davis tagged team with Smits on Hakeem. Oh wait, I was too young to watch those games, you had photographic memory.

If you needed a basket and your only options were Mutombo, Noah, or Tyson Chandler, you go with Mutombo. Every time.

Are you crazy? Noah would be mind, Mutombo second, then Chandler.

Teams will play to their strengths. Right now, not many teams have efficient post players, but there are an abundance of scoring guards. Is there anyone besides Memphis who focuses on a post offense? However, as more bigs develop, we should see more post-oriented offenses.

Even Memphis is focusing more on the perimeter game despite having the best frontline in the league. Conley is #2 on the team in FGA, Gasol does a lot of high post stuff, and their best low post scorer Z-Bo is third on the team in FGA. That's just the way the rules favour perimeter players.

Post and kick will still lead to assists.

Never argued otherwise.

Just because you don't understand it doesn't mean that it's an irrelevant tangent. The fact that there have been a bunch of failures/busts further proves my point. Since I've already explained it several times very clearly, I'm not going to explain it again. Go back and read.

No it doesn't. GMs drafting players high doesn't mean bigs are important, at all. It just means that GMs are still enamored with bigs who really can't do anything of significance. You can type your "arguments" out a million times, it still doesn't make an ounce of sense.

How would you prove bigs are important with high draft positions and not actual production? If anything it shows GMs fail to understand the importance of wings and continue to draft players of marginal value, further perpetuating the cycle of their teams sucking, which is the first place as to why they have high draft positions.

It's pretty clear that I understand it better than you. If a primary playmaker has a weak supporting cast, his responsibilities increase, but his stats get depressed. His efficiency and percentages go down. His assists go down (by virtue of teammates not making shots).

Look at the big picture.

And yet every single example I gave showed an increase in PPG. No, I am not talking about efficiency, I am talking about scoring and strictly scoring. As for assists, those players did not have their assists affected in any significant ways.

I think the most obvious example would be Amare Stoudemire after the Suns got Steve Nash. His scoring went from 20.6 to 26. Garnett's scoring went from 23 ppg to 24 ppg (career high) after the Timberwolves acquired Cassell and Sprewell and lost Szczerbiak. Wade's numbers went up after the Heat acquired Shaq. Iverson scored more after the 76ers acquired Mutombo.

Nash was the creator, Stoudemire was the recipient. So by that logic, MVPau should have averaged more with Kobe passing him the ball instead of Mike Miller, but it didn't. Not only that, ppg stayed pretty much the same when he was traded to the Knicks, injuries just finished him.

Garnett had a whopping 1ppg increase not because he had better shots, he just shot more. In fact, his shooting percentage and assists dipped, which blew up your assertion that a player would pass more and have better percentage.

Wade numbers went way up after Shaq left and when he had the worst supporting cast ever.

What does Mutombo has to do with Iverson's scoring? iverson's scoring went up, along with TMac, Kobe, Carter and Pierce because the rules changed to disallow hand-checking. Look it up.

Did you even watch Dwight Howard's Orlando teams? Of course Lewis/Turkoglu/Nelson were competent creators. How do you think the Magic scored points? It obviously wasn't by relying entirely on Howard in the post. Conversely, in their entire careers, Mike Miller and Shane Battier have never been creators.

Dwight Howard had a significantly better supporting cast in Orlando than Pau Gasol did in Memphis. It's laughable that you would claim otherwise.

Of course I watched them, and they were feasting off the attention the defenders were giving Dwight, because Dwight was too athletic for the opposition to handle. Lewis was the only creator, Turkoglu and Nelson stunk.

They absolutely do. But just b/c it's more complex doesn't mean its more effective. Defenders back then were allowed to be incredibly physical.

So teams are just running complex plays for the of it.

Coach: Look, team, we would have to put in extra effort for 48 minutes a game, for 82 games a year, plus playoffs running these complex schemes. But I will tell you, they are not effective, I am just running it for fun. They have no impact on the game, except that it tires you guys out and make you guys worse on offense. But I will run it anyways, sounds good?

Team: Great plan coach, we will all just run some random you put in. I know it's about as effective as the other simple plays, but yeah, we will run it.

I don't understand your question. Can you be clearer?

Of course. You went on and on about the importance of having quality centers in today's games, but then suddenly, you talk about the importance of team defense, where you openly admitted that Kemp < Robinson as a defender, but the Sonics is better than the Spurs as a team. So what is the significance of talking about individual players? Shouldn't you be talking about team defense as well?

You compared the defenses of the Knicks and the Sonics and attributed Olajuwon's struggles solely to the Sonics' zone defense.

Yeah, because even YOU admitted Knicks were better defensively than the Sonics. What other reason is there for Olajuwon suffering against the Sonics but not the Knicks, despite the Knicks being the better defensive team? Oh, right, Gary Payton, who was a PG and can double Hakeem easily because of the zone. Right ....

That's why I pointed out the against the Knicks, the Rockets had Otis Thorpe and were able to win. Against the 1996 Sonics, the Rockets didn't have a legit PF and lost. In 1997, they had a 33 year old Charles Barkley and won.

They had a 33 year old Barkley and Hakeem averaged 22ppg that year, significantly less than the 27 ppg he averaged a year ago, so yeah, Hakeem would average less with better teammates in order to beat the zone, thank you.

Yep, the Sonics played a zone defense and had guys like Payton, Kemp, and Perkins who made it really effective. By assuming that every team's zone defense would be effective against Olajuwon, you're assuming that every team has players comparable to Payton/Kemp/Perkins. You're also assuming that Olajuwon's perimeter shooters would shoot as poorly as they did against the 1996 Sonics.

And teams with Duncan/Kawhi/Green, Lebron/Bosh/Wade, Millsap/Horford/Teague, Bogut/Thompson/Green, Dwight/Ariza/Smith, Noah/Gibson/Butler, Sanders/Greek Freak/Knight, Gasol/Conley/Allen, Davis/Osik/Ajinca/Holiday, Ibaka/Westbrook/Durant, Hibbert/George/Hill/West are not athletic enough to run those zones? Again, not saying they will be as effective as the 96 Sonics, but they can run the zone to limit even an all time great post player like Hakeem.

It depends on the team around him. If you're assuming that he has poor shooters and an inferior PF, then yes, a full-fledged zone would be effective against him.

I am assuming the same teams he had throughout his career.

There you go. Based on your own description, the zone defense leaves an open shooter on the perimeter. The "drive and kick" has more moving parts than the "inside out", but they should both result in an open 3 pointer.

Yes, but an inside out 3 pter is easier to recover because the defenders are not moving towards the basket area.

Once again, you think that "drive and kick" and "inside out" are mutually exclusive. They are not. A team's offense is dictated by its personnel.
Look at it this way. Anthony Davis is currently averaging 24.5 ppg, and he's 21 years old. Why is it so difficult for you to believe that a prime Olajuwon wouldn't average more than 28?

No I don't, I think a team can run both, just that having a dominant low post player camping out in the post area will muck up spacing and limit its effectiveness. Having an inside out offense in today's league is difficult, and require phenomenal passing on the perimeter to get open up the defense (no assists for the low post player). Having an inside player camp out in the paint limits movement and cut down on chances of penetration, and is much easier to guard because an inside player moves within the 10 or so feet area around the basket, while a perimeter penetrator attacks the defense from out to the three point line.

a) I think Anthony Davis could be as great as a David Robinson back in the 90s.
b) 24.5ppg is less than 28ppg
c) Ant's teammates suck. He takes on a lot more responsibilities on offense, inflating his numbers.
d) Ant shoot a lot of long twos, which opens up the lanes for his drives. Hakeem's range was mostly up to 15, which doesn't give him the spacing.

[Killakobe81]

No it is not. You are basically saying the only reason Hakeem had a bad series vs. Sonics is because the Sonics had specifically those players. I am saying no, it's about having players who can run an effective zone, which is true for a lot of today's teams because they are legal, and teams have adapted accordingly.

If anything, the teams today would be MORE effective in running the zone because they are legal, and they don' t have to worry stepping on the limits of the rules without breaking them, they can just go out and run them.




And I have shown that Hakeem didn't just magically blow off against inferior defenders in his days. He averaged about the same vs. the terrible ones as opposed to the great ones.



He got one open shot and missed? The horror! He was hounded the entire freaking series other wise. he didn't just suddenly not shoot well, he, along with the other 2 Rockets didn't shoot well because of defense.

And the type of defender I described, the ones who can cover a lot of ground don't exist? Kawhi Leonard, Paul George, Lebron James, even Durant, Westbrook are all athletic long wings who are great at doubling down low and popping out to challenge open shots. The Spurs have two, even the Rockets have Ariza and Josh Smith. These players are now pretty much on every team.




So? Mourning was averaging 16/8/2.5 in as recently as 02. It sort of explained why you chose 03, and not the recent 13, because it's the weakest of the years.



Why would Yao Ming be manhandled by Hakeem again?



Are we talking about defense here? You think Laettner checked Hakeem well in his days?



When did I talk about 2003? Quote me. I have said:


My original quote that started this storm:



Where you got me saying specifically 2003 is a mystery to me.



Shaq was about Olajuwon level good in 2003. Duncan was as good and would have faced Hakeem. Divac/Webber combo would > Rik Smits, Gasol was about Mourning level > Smits. yao Ming > Smits.

So in summary:
Shaq/Duncan = Hakeem/Robinson
Divac/Webber/Gasol/Yao matches up with Smits, Ewing, Mutombo , Mourning.

Not that huge of a difference. Sure 1995 group was better, but not by some ridiculous distance.

And no, I was a basketball junkie in the 80s and 90s.




Shaq never ran the floor? He just doesn't run back for defense.

And no, the net advantage was that the Rockets bombed the lights out of the Magic. Shaq was a 3rd year player and hadn't reached his prime yet. Hakeem won't be able to guard prime Shaq one one one, and prime Shaq won't be able to guard Hakeem one on one. It's a two way street.



Actually I don't. Yao had pretty good coordination for a guy his size. I am not talking about monster numbers, I am talking about above average numbers (by Hakeem's prime's standards), and they aren't there. I don't have to prove Smits limited Hakeem, all I have to do is to show Smits held Hakeem to his average, which is all Yao had to do in this argument.

But then you came up with this gem yourself.



Yao is 7'6". He was an effective (defender) by virtue of his size. Also, since he was a good offensive player, he'd have to make Olajuwon work defensively.

Just look at what you wrote, what you described Smits described Yao perfectly, except Yao was even bigger, and clearly better than Smits. But then in the same response, you contradict yourself. And this isn't your first time. But I am illogical.



Hakeem averaged 28 ppg in those two years. And in 97, he was still averaging 22. You make it sound like he was finished in 97. Just take out all the games that Hakeem didn't average 30 ppg then, shall we?



Did you watch those games? Antonio Davis tagged team with Smits on Hakeem. Oh wait, I was too young to watch those games, you had photographic memory.




Are you crazy? Noah would be mind, Mutombo second, then Chandler.



Even Memphis is focusing more on the perimeter game despite having the best frontline in the league. Conley is #2 on the team in FGA, Gasol does a lot of high post stuff, and their best low post scorer Z-Bo is third on the team in FGA. That's just the way the rules favour perimeter players.



Never argued otherwise.




No it doesn't. GMs drafting players high doesn't mean bigs are important, at all. It just means that GMs are still enamored with bigs who really can't do anything of significance. You can type your "arguments" out a million times, it still doesn't make an ounce of sense.

How would you prove bigs are important with high draft positions and not actual production? If anything it shows GMs fail to understand the importance of wings and continue to draft players of marginal value, further perpetuating the cycle of their teams sucking, which is the first place as to why they have high draft positions.



And yet every single example I gave showed an increase in PPG. No, I am not talking about efficiency, I am talking about scoring and strictly scoring. As for assists, those players did not have their assists affected in any significant ways.



Nash was the creator, Stoudemire was the recipient. So by that logic, MVPau should have averaged more with Kobe passing him the ball instead of Mike Miller, but it didn't. Not only that, ppg stayed pretty much the same when he was traded to the Knicks, injuries just finished him.

Garnett had a whopping 1ppg increase not because he had better shots, he just shot more. In fact, his shooting percentage and assists dipped, which blew up your assertion that a player would pass more and have better percentage.

Wade numbers went way up after Shaq left and when he had the worst supporting cast ever.

What does Mutombo has to do with Iverson's scoring? iverson's scoring went up, along with TMac, Kobe, Carter and Pierce because the rules changed to disallow hand-checking. Look it up.



Of course I watched them, and they were feasting off the attention the defenders were giving Dwight, because Dwight was too athletic for the opposition to handle. Lewis was the only creator, Turkoglu and Nelson stunk.



So teams are just running complex plays for the of it.

Coach: Look, team, we would have to put in extra effort for 48 minutes a game, for 82 games a year, plus playoffs running these complex schemes. But I will tell you, they are not effective, I am just running it for fun. They have no impact on the game, except that it tires you guys out and make you guys worse on offense. But I will run it anyways, sounds good?

Team: Great plan coach, we will all just run some random you put in. I know it's about as effective as the other simple plays, but yeah, we will run it.



Of course. You went on and on about the importance of having quality centers in today's games, but then suddenly, you talk about the importance of team defense, where you openly admitted that Kemp < Robinson as a defender, but the Sonics is better than the Spurs as a team. So what is the significance of talking about individual players? Shouldn't you be talking about team defense as well?



Yeah, because even YOU admitted Knicks were better defensively than the Sonics. What other reason is there for Olajuwon suffering against the Sonics but not the Knicks, despite the Knicks being the better defensive team? Oh, right, Gary Payton, who was a PG and can double Hakeem easily because of the zone. Right ....



They had a 33 year old Barkley and Hakeem averaged 22ppg that year, significantly less than the 27 ppg he averaged a year ago, so yeah, Hakeem would average less with better teammates in order to beat the zone, thank you.



And teams with Duncan/Kawhi/Green, Lebron/Bosh/Wade, Millsap/Horford/Teague, Bogut/Thompson/Green, Dwight/Ariza/Smith, Noah/Gibson/Butler, Sanders/Greek Freak/Knight, Gasol/Conley/Allen, Davis/Osik/Ajinca/Holiday, Ibaka/Westbrook/Durant, Hibbert/George/Hill/West are not athletic enough to run those zones? Again, not saying they will be as effective as the 96 Sonics, but they can run the zone to limit even an all time great post player like Hakeem.



I am assuming the same teams he had throughout his career.



Yes, but an inside out 3 pter is easier to recover because the defenders are not moving towards the basket area.



No I don't, I think a team can run both, just that having a dominant low post player camping out in the post area will muck up spacing and limit its effectiveness. Having an inside out offense in today's league is difficult, and require phenomenal passing on the perimeter to get open up the defense (no assists for the low post player). Having an inside player camp out in the paint limits movement and cut down on chances of penetration, and is much easier to guard because an inside player moves within the 10 or so feet area around the basket, while a perimeter penetrator attacks the defense from out to the three point line.

a) I think Anthony Davis could be as great as a David Robinson back in the 90s.
b) 24.5ppg is less than 28ppg
c) Ant's teammates suck. He takes on a lot more responsibilities on offense, inflating his numbers.
d) Ant shoot a lot of long twos, which opens up the lanes for his drives. Hakeem's range was mostly up to 15, which doesn't give him the spacing.

Damn, Amb I thought i wa sthe only one that got you to write novel level responses ... =)

[ambchang]

Damn, Amb I thought i wa sthe only one that got you to write novel level responses ... =)

I answer every issue. I don't want skirt any questions or disagreements.

[Killakobe81]

I answer every issue. I don't want skirt any questions or disagreements.

Despite our disagreements from time to time and my refusal to discuss rotator or the Lakers with you right now. I do enjoy our back and forth. I just think you over exaggerate a bit focus on some stuff that cant be proven "leadership skills" or irrelevant off the court stuff.

But when you lock in your one of my faves. We just dont agree on certain and that's OK.

[Arcadian]

Seems like this debate has reached a deadlock. I admire the persistence of those involved, but god damn. At some point you just have to think, "I'm probably never going to persuade this person."

The heatedness of this debate should speak to the greatness of both players in question, though. It's not an easy question in the first place, and there is no clear answer.

[wekko368]

No it is not. You are basically saying the only reason Hakeem had a bad series vs. Sonics is because the Sonics had specifically those players. I am saying no, it's about having players who can run an effective zone, which is true for a lot of today's teams because they are legal, and teams have adapted accordingly.

If anything, the teams today would be MORE effective in running the zone because they are legal, and they don' t have to worry stepping on the limits of the rules without breaking them, they can just go out and run them.

I'm saying that it's a combination of the players the Sonics had, the Rockets poor perimeter shooting, and the Rockets' lack of a good pf.

And yes, your assumption is horrible. You simply can't assume that all teams can run a comparably effective zone. Did you watch the video you posted? Did you notice that Gary Payton was frequently the help defender doubling Olajuwon? Are you honestly saying that any point guard in the league would be able to apply a comparable defensive pressure as a prime Gary Payton?

And it's ridiculous that you attribute the Rockets' poor perimeter shooting to the zone defense. Watch the video. They get PLENTY of open looks. They just miss. And because they kept missing, that allowed the Sonics' defenders to hedge even further.

And I have shown that Hakeem didn't just magically blow off against inferior defenders in his days. He averaged about the same vs. the terrible ones as opposed to the great ones.

Cherry picking games doesn't prove anything.

He got one open shot and missed? The horror! He was hounded the entire freaking series other wise. he didn't just suddenly not shoot well, he, along with the other 2 Rockets didn't shoot well because of defense.

That was the first perimeter shot resulting from a double team on Olajuwon. There were plenty more throughout the game. Shooters miss open shots. It happens. It doesn't mean that the defense was good.

And the type of defender I described, the ones who can cover a lot of ground don't exist? Kawhi Leonard, Paul George, Lebron James, even Durant, Westbrook are all athletic long wings who are great at doubling down low and popping out to challenge open shots. The Spurs have two, even the Rockets have Ariza and Josh Smith. These players are now pretty much on every team.

Imagine what you're saying. You're saying that Westbrook could double-team Olajuwon in the post, and when Olajuwon passes it out to Kenny Smith at the 3pt line, Westbrook would be able to turn his body around, race out to the 3pt line, and contest the shot......all before Kenny Smith can shoot the ball?

Sorry, no. That's not happening.

So? Mourning was averaging 16/8/2.5 in as recently as 02. It sort of explained why you chose 03, and not the recent 13, because it's the weakest of the years.

LOL. I chose 2003 b/c that was the year of Duncan's most impressive championship.

Why would Yao Ming be manhandled by Hakeem again?

Yao Ming is much too slow to guard Olajuwon. Remember the difficulties Yao had guarding Carlos Boozer?

Are we talking about defense here? You think Laettner checked Hakeem well in his days?

No, but I'm looking at the net effect.

When did I talk about 2003? Quote me. I have said:

Where you got me saying specifically 2003 is a mystery to me.

It was a logical assumption b/c the thread is about prime Duncan and prime Olajuwon. Prime Duncan was ~2003.

Shaq was about Olajuwon level good in 2003. Duncan was as good and would have faced Hakeem. Divac/Webber combo would > Rik Smits, Gasol was about Mourning level > Smits. yao Ming > Smits.

So in summary:
Shaq/Duncan = Hakeem/Robinson
Divac/Webber/Gasol/Yao matches up with Smits, Ewing, Mutombo , Mourning.

Not that huge of a difference. Sure 1995 group was better, but not by some ridiculous distance.

And no, I was a basketball junkie in the 80s and 90s.

Divac also played in the mid-90's. I left him out of the list b/c I considered him to be a clear drop-off from Rik Smits. So it's pretty telling that you included him in your list and I intentionally left him off mine. And Chris Webber was a PF. And you added Mourning, who missed the entire season.

And no. 2003 Yao Ming was not better than 1995 Rik Smits. You're grasping at straws here. That was Yao's rookie year!

Shaq never ran the floor? He just doesn't run back for defense.

That's my point. Olajuwon runs back on transition offense. And if Shaq doesn't run back on transition defense, that translates into a lot of freebies for Olajuwon.

And no, the net advantage was that the Rockets bombed the lights out of the Magic. Shaq was a 3rd year player and hadn't reached his prime yet. Hakeem won't be able to guard prime Shaq one one one, and prime Shaq won't be able to guard Hakeem one on one. It's a two way street.

Sure, it's a 2 way street, but a 1995 Olajuwon clearly has the net advantage against a prime Shaq.

Actually I don't. Yao had pretty good coordination for a guy his size. I am not talking about monster numbers, I am talking about above average numbers (by Hakeem's prime's standards), and they aren't there. I don't have to prove Smits limited Hakeem, all I have to do is to show Smits held Hakeem to his average, which is all Yao had to do in this argument.

Go youtube some Rik Smits highlights. And then some Yao Ming highlights. The difference in their movement should be pretty clear.

Yao is 7'6". He was an effective (defender) by virtue of his size. Also, since he was a good offensive player, he'd have to make Olajuwon work defensively.

Yao was an effective defender in the paint b/c of his size. But unlike most centers, Olajuwon could consistently hit the mid-range jumper. That's why Yao wouldn't be able to guard him.

Hakeem averaged 28 ppg in those two years. And in 97, he was still averaging 22. You make it sound like he was finished in 97. Just take out all the games that Hakeem didn't average 30 ppg then, shall we?

No, Olajuwon wasn't finished in 1997. But he clearly wasn't in his prime. And isn't this thread about Olajuwon's prime?

Did you watch those games? Antonio Davis tagged team with Smits on Hakeem. Oh wait, I was too young to watch those games, you had photographic memory.

I don't photographic memory to refute you. Common sense will suffice. In that game, Olajuwon played 31 minutes. Rik Smits played 28 minutes. Antonio Davis played 26 minutes. Dale Davis played 28 minutes. Exactly how are you coming to the conclusion that Antonio Davis played notable minutes guarding Olajuwon?

Are you crazy? Noah would be mind, Mutombo second, then Chandler.

Noah has a horrible jumper and no post game. He's an opportunistic scorer who gets points off offensive rebounds or having teammates set him up. Mutombo was also offensively limited, but he did have a reliable jump hook.

Even Memphis is focusing more on the perimeter game despite having the best frontline in the league. Conley is #2 on the team in FGA, Gasol does a lot of high post stuff, and their best low post scorer Z-Bo is third on the team in FGA. That's just the way the rules favour perimeter players.

Actually, Gasol leads the team in fga with 13.9 per game. Conley and Randolph each average 13.5 fga, but Randolph averages 4.8 ft/game while Conley averages 3.8.

No it doesn't. GMs drafting players high doesn't mean bigs are important, at all. It just means that GMs are still enamored with bigs who really can't do anything of significance. You can type your "arguments" out a million times, it still doesn't make an ounce of sense.

And why are GM's enamored with bigs?

How would you prove bigs are important with high draft positions and not actual production? If anything it shows GMs fail to understand the importance of wings and continue to draft players of marginal value, further perpetuating the cycle of their teams sucking, which is the first place as to why they have high draft positions.

Incorrect. GM's understand that bigs are more impactful than wings. It's amusing that you think you understand the fundamentals of basketball better than the majority of GMs.

And yet every single example I gave showed an increase in PPG. No, I am not talking about efficiency, I am talking about scoring and strictly scoring. As for assists, those players did not have their assists affected in any significant ways.

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

Nash was the creator, Stoudemire was the recipient. So by that logic, MVPau should have averaged more with Kobe passing him the ball instead of Mike Miller, but it didn't. Not only that, ppg stayed pretty much the same when he was traded to the Knicks, injuries just finished him.

Once again, you're ignoring the role Gasol had on the Grizzlies compared to that on the Lakers.

Garnett had a whopping 1ppg increase not because he had better shots, he just shot more. In fact, his shooting percentage and assists dipped, which blew up your assertion that a player would pass more and have better percentage.

Wade numbers went way up after Shaq left and when he had the worst supporting cast ever.

What does Mutombo has to do with Iverson's scoring? iverson's scoring went up, along with TMac, Kobe, Carter and Pierce because the rules changed to disallow hand-checking. Look it up.

Argue them all you want. You asked for examples, and I gave you examples.

Of course I watched them, and they were feasting off the attention the defenders were giving Dwight, because Dwight was too athletic for the opposition to handle. Lewis was the only creator, Turkoglu and Nelson stunk.

So teams are just running complex plays for the of it.

You're forgetting how impactful hand-checking was. When it was disallowed, defenses had to evolve in order to compensate. But the fact that they evolved doesn't mean they're more effective.

Of course. You went on and on about the importance of having quality centers in today's games, but then suddenly, you talk about the importance of team defense, where you openly admitted that Kemp < Robinson as a defender, but the Sonics is better than the Spurs as a team. So what is the significance of talking about individual players? Shouldn't you be talking about team defense as well?

There is still a significant amount of single coverage in today's games.

Yeah, because even YOU admitted Knicks were better defensively than the Sonics. What other reason is there for Olajuwon suffering against the Sonics but not the Knicks, despite the Knicks being the better defensive team? Oh, right, Gary Payton, who was a PG and can double Hakeem easily because of the zone. Right ....

And the Rockets' perimeter shooters missing open shots against the Sonics. And the lack of a solid PF against the Sonics. I started watching that video you posted. Shawn Kemp was doing whatever he wanted against Chucky Brown.

They had a 33 year old Barkley and Hakeem averaged 22ppg that year, significantly less than the 27 ppg he averaged a year ago, so yeah, Hakeem would average less with better teammates in order to beat the zone, thank you.

Once again, you're making the foolish assumption that any zone played by any team would be as effective as that of the 1996 Sonics.

And teams with Duncan/Kawhi/Green, Lebron/Bosh/Wade, Millsap/Horford/Teague, Bogut/Thompson/Green, Dwight/Ariza/Smith, Noah/Gibson/Butler, Sanders/Greek Freak/Knight, Gasol/Conley/Allen, Davis/Osik/Ajinca/Holiday, Ibaka/Westbrook/Durant, Hibbert/George/Hill/West are not athletic enough to run those zones? Again, not saying they will be as effective as the 96 Sonics, but they can run the zone to limit even an all time great post player like Hakeem.

Nope. There's a reason that 3pt shooters are called "zone busters".

Yes, but an inside out 3 pter is easier to recover because the defenders are not moving towards the basket area.

No, b/c the help defender needs to turn around and accelerate to the 3 pt line. And keep in mind that when the defender turns around to face the perimeter, the ball has already been passed out of the post.

a) I think Anthony Davis could be as great as a David Robinson back in the 90s.
b) 24.5ppg is less than 28ppg
c) Ant's teammates suck. He takes on a lot more responsibilities on offense, inflating his numbers.

24.5ppg is less than 28 ppg, but peak Olajuwon is a superior player to current Anthony Davis.

d) Ant shoot a lot of long twos, which opens up the lanes for his drives. Hakeem's range was mostly up to 15, which doesn't give him the spacing.

His range was further than that. It was easily out to 18 feet. He perimeter ability would give him plenty of spacing.

[djohn2oo8]

Yeah, Yao had trouble covering Okur and Boozer who both had jumpshots, and would have trouble with Hakeem's footwork.

[ambchang]

I'm saying that it's a combination of the players the Sonics had, the Rockets poor perimeter shooting, and the Rockets' lack of a good pf.

So Hakeem would have to have great perimeter shooting and a PF of Barkley's caliber for him to be average vs. the Sonics, a Sonics team that has athletic players that are similar to today's players. And because of that PF, Hakeem would average 22ppg vs. his prime of 28ppg. And you are saying Hakeem would be more dominant?

And yes, your assumption is horrible. You simply can't assume that all teams can run a comparably effective zone. Did you watch the video you posted? Did you notice that Gary Payton was frequently the help defender doubling Olajuwon? Are you honestly saying that any point guard in the league would be able to apply a comparable defensive pressure as a prime Gary Payton?

Prime Payton was known for man to man defense, not off the ball help defense. So yes, many players in today's game can replicate what he did doubling a big man.

Again, I am not saying Hakeem would average 19ppg in today's game, I am saying he wouldn't average 28ppg.

And it's ridiculous that you attribute the Rockets' poor perimeter shooting to the zone defense. Watch the video. They get PLENTY of open looks. They just miss. And because they kept missing, that allowed the Sonics' defenders to hedge even further.

I don't agree, they missed because they were challenged on shots. Having players run at you full speed, even just a split second faster than what you are used to, will wreck havoc.

Cherry picking games doesn't prove anything.

I have picked a whole bunch of games. Look at the game logs and h2h games. I am not going to list all 82 games for multiple seasons, but the pattern is that Hakeem didn't magically score dramatically more points vs. weaker players. he scored about the same.

That was the first perimeter shot resulting from a double team on Olajuwon. There were plenty more throughout the game. Shooters miss open shots. It happens. It doesn't mean that the defense was good.

3 shooters don't miss open shots 4 games in a row for no reason. It's because of the defense and the rotations.

Imagine what you're saying. You're saying that Westbrook could double-team Olajuwon in the post, and when Olajuwon passes it out to Kenny Smith at the 3pt line, Westbrook would be able to turn his body around, race out to the 3pt line, and contest the shot......all before Kenny Smith can shoot the ball?

Sorry, no. That's not happening.

Not specific to Hakeem and Westbrook, but a general explanation of how today's defense would help bottle up a low post player.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sport...nba/52657598/1

The next key to beating the zone in half-court sets is universal. Find a versatile player who can dribble, drive or shoot flashing to the middle of the foul line. That forces the zone to collapse on the ballhandler, opening options: an open shot or drive to the basket, shooters on the perimeter or post players down low.

LOL. I chose 2003 b/c that was the year of Duncan's most impressive championship.

Why did you do that? I know the le was Duncan vs. Hakeem, but I wasn't saying that Duncan wouldn't be affected in today's NBA. In fact, I think he wouldn't put up the stats he put up if his prime was 2013.

Yao Ming is much too slow to guard Olajuwon. Remember the difficulties Yao had guarding Carlos Boozer?

I remembered the trouble Rik Smits had guarding any one though.

No, but I'm looking at the net effect.

The net effect is that Laettner sucked.

It was a logical assumption b/c the thread is about prime Duncan and prime Olajuwon. Prime Duncan was ~2003.

see above.

Divac also played in the mid-90's. I left him out of the list b/c I considered him to be a clear drop-off from Rik Smits. So it's pretty telling that you included him in your list and I intentionally left him off mine. And Chris Webber was a PF. And you added Mourning, who missed the entire season.

It's like saying Robinson didn't play in the 90s because he missed 1997. Mourning played in the 00s, productive one at that. And no, I am not talking about 2003 in particular.

And no. 2003 Yao Ming was not better than 1995 Rik Smits. You're grasping at straws here. That was Yao's rookie year!

Again, not talking about 2003 in particular. not sure why you have this obsession. Yao, in general > Smits. And Yao didn't even play in today's game.

That's my point. Olajuwon runs back on transition offense. And if Shaq doesn't run back on transition defense, that translates into a lot of freebies for Olajuwon.

Then say he didn't run back on defense. Don't say he didn't run the floor.

Sure, it's a 2 way street, but a 1995 Olajuwon clearly has the net advantage against a prime Shaq.

Prime Shaq led the Lakers to a 3peat. I'd say that is mighty impressive. Shaq's prime would be equal to or greater than Hakeem's prime.

Go youtube some Rik Smits highlights. And then some Yao Ming highlights. The difference in their movement should be pretty clear.

Yeah, Yao was better.

Yao was an effective defender in the paint b/c of his size. But unlike most centers, Olajuwon could consistently hit the mid-range jumper. That's why Yao wouldn't be able to guard him.

Same would apply to Rik Smits.

No, Olajuwon wasn't finished in 1997. But he clearly wasn't in his prime. And isn't this thread about Olajuwon's prime?

It wasn't his prime because he had to share the paint with Barkley.

I don't photographic memory to refute you. Common sense will suffice. In that game, Olajuwon played 31 minutes. Rik Smits played 28 minutes. Antonio Davis played 26 minutes. Dale Davis played 28 minutes. Exactly how are you coming to the conclusion that Antonio Davis played notable minutes guarding Olajuwon?

They all played similar minutes?

Noah has a horrible jumper and no post game. He's an opportunistic scorer who gets points off offensive rebounds or having teammates set him up. Mutombo was also offensively limited, but he did have a reliable jump hook.

Mutombo had a great jumper and post game? Both of them were just as bad.

Actually, Gasol leads the team in fga with 13.9 per game. Conley and Randolph each average 13.5 fga, but Randolph averages 4.8 ft/game while Conley averages 3.8.

Yeah, still didn't change the fact that perimeter players are taking up more offensive responsibilities, even a team as post dominant as the Grizzlies.

And why are GM's enamored with bigs?

Because the GMs sucked and cause their teams to draft in high spots all the time? Never mind 8 of the 13 lottery picks in the 2014 draft were wing players, including the top 2.

Incorrect. GM's understand that bigs are more impactful than wings. It's amusing that you think you understand the fundamentals of basketball better than the majority of GMs.

And yet the bigs all sucked, the teams that drafted them suck, and that 8 of the last 13 lottery picks in the 2014 draft were wing players? If bigs were important, there would have been a few that made a difference. Problem is, almost all the MVP candidates are wings.

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

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

Once again, you're ignoring the role Gasol had on the Grizzlies compared to that on the Lakers.

Didn't ignore it, but his numbers actually went DOWN when his teammates were better.

Argue them all you want. You asked for examples, and I gave you examples.

Except those aren't really examples of what I asked for.

You're forgetting how impactful hand-checking was. When it was disallowed, defenses had to evolve in order to compensate. But the fact that they evolved doesn't mean they're more effective.

I remembered, that's why perimeter players are taking on bigger roles because the absence of hand checking allowed the perimeter players to have free reign of the paint, which means that post players are now less critical to the success of the team as compared to the 90s.

And given that defenses have evolved to manage the disappearance of hand-checking, I'd say it's plenty effective.

There is still a significant amount of single coverage in today's games.

With zones being at any team's disposal.

And the Rockets' perimeter shooters missing open shots against the Sonics. And the lack of a solid PF against the Sonics. I started watching that video you posted. Shawn Kemp was doing whatever he wanted against Chucky Brown.

Yeah, because the Rockets didn't run a zone.

Once again, you're making the foolish assumption that any zone played by any team would be as effective as that of the 1996 Sonics.

I never said that, I am saying everything being equal, the same team having zone at their disposal would be more effective than the same team without zone at its disposal, especially when it comes to defending a dominant big like Hakeem.

Nope. There's a reason that 3pt shooters are called "zone busters".

Yeah, with the heavy use of drive and kick penetrators. See the article I linked above.

No, b/c the help defender needs to turn around and accelerate to the 3 pt line. And keep in mind that when the defender turns around to face the perimeter, the ball has already been passed out of the post.

No, defending a 3 pt shooter after doubling a low post scorer and shooting out is way quicker than challenging a 3 pt shooter after being sucked in by a dribble penetrator when all your momentum is carrying you towards the basket.

24.5ppg is less than 28 ppg, but peak Olajuwon is a superior player to current Anthony Davis.

Possibly, we'd never know despite Davis putting up one of the most statistically dominant seasons in the history of the league.

His range was further than that. It was easily out to 18 feet. He perimeter ability would give him plenty of spacing.

Even though it's only the last two seasons of his career, Hakeem only shot 16% of his shots from 16 feet and out, and only connecting on 37% of those shots. If I remember correctly, more of his shots were from outside as he got older, because he no longer had the same amount of quickness as he once did, which is similar to what Duncan has been doing the last few years.

Yeah, Yao had trouble covering Okur and Boozer who both had jumpshots, and would have trouble with Hakeem's footwork.

Again, Rik Smits.

[djohn2oo8]

Lol usuing Rik Smits Yao analogy is laughable as to why you think Yao would slow down Hakeem. Two things. Yao being 7'6 was too slow and uncoordinated. He would have to come out to guard Hakeem's jumper. Too slow and advantage Hakeem. If Yao comes out to guard that, Hakeem drives right past him for two. And two, Yao would resort to taking charges against quicker opponents. A 7'6 NBA center should never resort to taking charges. They should be blocking shots which Yao never did on a consistent basis BECAUSE HE WAS TOO SLOW. Yao would also get out rebounded in crucial moments of the game.

[wekko368]

So Hakeem would have to have great perimeter shooting and a PF of Barkley's caliber for him to be average vs. the Sonics, a Sonics team that has athletic players that are similar to today's players. And because of that PF, Hakeem would average 22ppg vs. his prime of 28ppg. And you are saying Hakeem would be more dominant?

There's a huge difference between "great perimeter shooting" and what Elie/Cassell/K.Smith shot. There's also a huge difference between a 1997 Charles Barkley and a 1996 Chucky Brown.

In 1996 against Seattle, Elie shot 37.8% from the field and 40% from the 3pt line. K.Smith shot 33.3% and 34.8%. Cassell shot 24.3% and 33.3%

In 1997 against Seattle, Elie shot 46.8% and 46.2%. Matt Maloney shot 40.8% and 40.7%. It helps when your perimeter players make their shots.

Prime Payton was known for man to man defense, not off the ball help defense. So yes, many players in today's game can replicate what he did doubling a big man.

This is beyond stupid.

I don't agree, they missed because they were challenged on shots. Having players run at you full speed, even just a split second faster than what you are used to, will wreck havoc.

3 shooters don't miss open shots 4 games in a row for no reason. It's because of the defense and the rotations.

Then you're wrong. You're basically say that open shooters will always hit their shots. Unless you're have a very broad definition of a "challenged" shot, and that could very easily be the case. If I recall, you had a very broad definition of "double-team".

Not specific to Hakeem and Westbrook, but a general explanation of how today's defense would help bottle up a low post player.

http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/sport...nba/52657598/1

It's pretty clear you didn't read the article. It didn't give any explanation whatsoever as to how today's defense would help bottle up a low post player. However, it does say that "Good shooters can quickly get a team out of zone with three-pointers", and that's something I've been constantly repeating.

Why did you do that? I know the le was Duncan vs. Hakeem, but I wasn't saying that Duncan wouldn't be affected in today's NBA. In fact, I think he wouldn't put up the stats he put up if his prime was 2013.

I've already told you why I chose 2003. That was Duncan's most impressive championship, and one of the reasons I think Olajuwon would have success in this era is due to inferior compe ion. That's why I listed Duncan's contemporaries in 2003.

So if prime Duncan were playing today, you don't think he could replicate his 2003 stats? Why not? Zone was allowed in 2003. Why do you think his stats would suffer today?

I remembered the trouble Rik Smits had guarding any one though.

And Yao was much slower and clumsier than Smits. That's why a prime Olajuwon would abuse Yao.

The net effect is that Laettner sucked.

Yep, and he was still better than most of Duncan's 2003 contemporaries.

It's like saying Robinson didn't play in the 90s because he missed 1997. Mourning played in the 00s, productive one at that. And no, I am not talking about 2003 in particular.

Again, not talking about 2003 in particular. not sure why you have this obsession. Yao, in general > Smits. And Yao didn't even play in today's game.

Then what year are you talking about? This thread is about prime Duncan/Olajuwon. It doesn't make any sense to reference a time period in which neither of them are in their primes.

Then say he didn't run back on defense. Don't say he didn't run the floor.

Semantics.

Prime Shaq led the Lakers to a 3peat. I'd say that is mighty impressive. Shaq's prime would be equal to or greater than Hakeem's prime.

Agreed, but Olajuwon's peak was higher. Olajuwon from 1994-1995 was the best I've ever seen anyone play.

Yeah, Yao was better.

Yao may have been a better overall player than Rik Smits, but Smits would do a better job guarding Olajuwon (b/c Smits was more mobile and had better coordination). You can't make a compelling argument otherwise.

It wasn't his prime because he had to share the paint with Barkley.

You may consider 1997 to be Olajuwon's prime, but at that point, most Rockets fans considered him to be on his decline.

They all played similar minutes?

Use some common sense. You're trying to argue that Antonio Davis spent a lot of time guarding Olajuwon (in the game Olajuwon scored 6 pts). However, Rik Smits was the starting center, and he played 28 minutes. Olajuwon played 31 minutes. Even Dale Davis played 28 minutes.

Common sense should tell you that if Antonio Davis did guard Olajuwon, it wasn't long enough to justify this statement:

Explains why Hakeem averaged only 21ppg vs. Antonio Davis (only counting his Houston days), including 6 points in one game.

Mutombo had a great jumper and post game? Both of them were just as bad.

No one said Mutombo had a great jumper or post game. But he did have a reliable jump hook. And he's a better scoring threat than Noah.

Because the GMs sucked and cause their teams to draft in high spots all the time? Never mind 8 of the 13 lottery picks in the 2014 draft were wing players, including the top 2.

And yet the bigs all sucked, the teams that drafted them suck, and that 8 of the last 13 lottery picks in the 2014 draft were wing players?

Look at the pool of available centers in the 2014 draft. Embiid was taken #3 overall, and he had a stress fracture in his foot. The next center taken was at #16. Jusuf Nurkic from Croatia. After that? #43. Walter Tavares from Spain.

It's pretty clear that the reason so few centers were chosen was b/c there were so few available.

If bigs were important, there would have been a few that made a difference. Problem is, almost all the MVP candidates are wings.

Haven't we already established that this has been a poor era for centers? Even the "good" ones (i.e. Davis, Cousins, Drummond) are on weak teams and are still developing.

Also, you should note that the primary MVP candidates, Curry and Harden, both have centers who were #1 overall picks.

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

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

Didn't ignore it, but his numbers actually went DOWN when his teammates were better.

Yes, because his role changed. He went from a #1 option to a #2 option. Of course his stats went down. Why is that such a difficult concept for you to understand?

Except those aren't really examples of what I asked for.

Except they are.

I remembered, that's why perimeter players are taking on bigger roles because the absence of hand checking allowed the perimeter players to have free reign of the paint, which means that post players are now less critical to the success of the team as compared to the 90s.

And given that defenses have evolved to manage the disappearance of hand-checking, I'd say it's plenty effective.

With zones being at any team's disposal.

Yep, it's at their disposal. They just choose not to use it. And that should tell you all you need to know about the effectiveness of zone defense.

Yeah, because the Rockets didn't run a zone.

You think the reason Shawn Kemp had a good series against the Rockets in 1996 was b/c the Rockets didn't run a zone defense? You don't think it had anything to do with him being guarded by Chucky Brown?

I never said that, I am saying everything being equal, the same team having zone at their disposal would be more effective than the same team without zone at its disposal, especially when it comes to defending a dominant big like Hakeem.

Yes, and you're basing that opinion on the success the 1996 Sonics had against Olajuwon. What you continually fail to understand is that the Sonics' zone was effective due to their personnel.

Yeah, with the heavy use of drive and kick penetrators. See the article I linked above.

Use some common sense. The 1997 Rockets beat the Sonics' zone without using drive and kick penetrators. There's more than 1 way to generate open 3's.

No, defending a 3 pt shooter after doubling a low post scorer and shooting out is way quicker than challenging a 3 pt shooter after being sucked in by a dribble penetrator when all your momentum is carrying you towards the basket.

As usual, you're missing the point. It doesn't matter which way is quicker. What matters is that in both instances, the result is an open perimeter shot.

Possibly, we'd never know despite Davis putting up one of the most statistically dominant seasons in the history of the league.

You're actually saying that peak Olajuwon is not definitively better than current Anthony Davis? You're ridiculously full of .

Even though it's only the last two seasons of his career, Hakeem only shot 16% of his shots from 16 feet and out, and only connecting on 37% of those shots. If I remember correctly, more of his shots were from outside as he got older, because he no longer had the same amount of quickness as he once did, which is similar to what Duncan has been doing the last few years.

What cares what Olajuwon did in the last 2 seasons of his career? This thread is about his prime.

[sook]

How the do you guys have so much time on your hands? I wouldn't even care about winning an argument at this point.

[Galileo]

As a huge Olajuwon fan who watched all his games for years, I needed a new star after Hakeem faded and turned to Tim Duncan. Both understated dominating big men. I thought Olajuwon was better than Jordan and at east equal to Wilt/Russell/Jabbar.

When Duncan came along, I thought he was equal to Olajuwon except for:

1) Duncan had a better outside shot, mostly because of the bank shot
2) Duncan got into foul trouble much less. Duncan rarely had to leave a game for fouls, Hakeem did.
3) Hakeem was better at steals, that's why he made more fouls.

Advantage Duncan because he lasted longer.

[spurraider21]

How the do you guys have so much time on your hands? I wouldn't even care about winning an argument at this point.

not everybody here is in grad school

[TDfan2007]

How the do you guys have so much time on your hands? I wouldn't even care about winning an argument at this point.

I'm thinking the same thing. Gotta hand it to amb. When he starts an argument, he's sure as going to try his best to finish it. The last few pages of this thread are about as close as you'll get to seeing a message board version of the unstoppable force-immovable object phenomenon.

[TDfan2007]

not everybody here is in grad school

I think we've passed grad school levels of time consumption. We're at "do these guys even have jobs?" levels now...

[ambchang]

Lol usuing Rik Smits Yao analogy is laughable as to why you think Yao would slow down Hakeem. Two things. Yao being 7'6 was too slow and uncoordinated. He would have to come out to guard Hakeem's jumper. Too slow and advantage Hakeem. If Yao comes out to guard that, Hakeem drives right past him for two. And two, Yao would resort to taking charges against quicker opponents. A 7'6 NBA center should never resort to taking charges. They should be blocking shots which Yao never did on a consistent basis BECAUSE HE WAS TOO SLOW. Yao would also get out rebounded in crucial moments of the game.

And none of that would apply to Rik Smits? You talked about all the things Yao can't do (which I agree), but those are the same things Smits couldn't do, and yet he played Hakeem OK.

I know you all think every game Hakeem plays would be better than average, and that Hakeem beasts against everyone, but the fact his, he sometimes plays above average, some times average, and sometimes below average so that he arrives at the average.

Please refer to wiki for reference: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mean

[ambchang]

There's a huge difference between "great perimeter shooting" and what Elie/Cassell/K.Smith shot. There's also a huge difference between a 1997 Charles Barkley and a 1996 Chuck Brown.
In 1996 against Seattle, Elie shot 37.8% from the field and 40% from the 3pt line. K.Smith shot 33.3% and 34.8%. Cassell shot 24.3% and 33.3%
In 1997 against Seattle, Elie shot 46.8% and 46.2%. Matt Maloney shot 40.8% and 40.7%. It helps when your perimeter players make their shots.

It helps when the opposition doesn’t play zone so that they can semi-double and still guard a 3 point shooter.
And this is DIRECTLY contradictory to what you said about players putting up better stats with better teammates, unless you think Chucky Brown > Barkley. Hakeem’s got a great teammate with Barkley in 1997, he should be beasting and put up 35ppg vs. the 27ppg he put up the previous year, but no, his averaged dropped to 22/23 ppg.

This is beyond stupid.

No it’s not. Payton was a great individual defensive player, I never say him as so great a help defender in the low post that nobody would be able to replicate what he does in a zone defense.

Then you're wrong. You're basically say that open shooters will always hit their shots. Unless you're have a very broad definition of a "challenged" shot, and that could very easily be the case. If I recall, you had a very broad definition of "double-team".

No I didn’t. I am saying that given enough opportunities over a period, enough 3 pt shooters will hit their average amount of shots. Those shots were challenged.
[QUOTE=wekko368;7823158]It's pretty clear you didn't read the article. It didn't give any explanation whatsoever as to how today's defense would help bottle up a low post player. However, it does say that "Good shooters can quickly get a team out of zone with three-pointers", and that's something I've been constantly repeating.
Yes, the article did say that, but it was specifically talking about how this is based on a drive and kick offense. It never talked about an inside out offense. Which is my point.

I've already told you why I chose 2003. That was Duncan's most impressive championship, and one of the reasons I think Olajuwon would have success in this era is due to inferior compe ion. That's why I listed Duncan's contemporaries in 2003.

I said in today’s game, not in Duncan’s prime.

So if prime Duncan were playing today, you don't think he could replicate his 2003 stats? Why not? Zone was allowed in 2003. Why do you think his stats would suffer today?

I don’t actually, he would be more of a passer and facilitator (like what he is doing, well, today). Duncan will likely not average 25 ppg because not every possession is a 4-down.

And Yao was much slower and clumsier than Smits. That's why a prime Olajuwon would abuse Yao.

No he wasn’t. Smits was plenty awkward and clumsy.

Yep, and he was still better than most of Duncan's 2003 contemporaries.

No he’s not.

Then what year are you talking about? This thread is about prime Duncan/Olajuwon. It doesn't make any sense to reference a time period in which neither of them are in their primes.

It makes sense, because this is an open forum. The conversation evolves after some 800 posts. That’s why you are now talking about Smits vs. Yao. Oh great priest of the Church of Olajuwon, may I request your permission to talk about a time period that is not defined by you oh great one.

Semantics.

Sure, which caused confusion.

Agreed, but Olajuwon's peak was higher. Olajuwon from 1994-1995 was the best I've ever seen anyone play.

I had doubts whether you are biased, then you removed all doubt. I can’t force you to see or not see certain things, but prime Shaq, prime Jordan, prime Bird, prime Wilt, prime Jabbar, and prime Lebron were all up there. Hakeem’s prime was great, but I wouldn’t take it over Bird, Jordan, Bird, Wilt or Jabbar, and it’s a toss up with Shaq and Lebron.

Yao may have been a better overall player than Rik Smits, but Smits would do a better job guarding Olajuwon (b/c Smits was more mobile and had better coordination). You can't make a compelling argument otherwise.

Yet this didn’t matter when you are talking about Laettner. I would say Laettner is a better overall player than Joel Przybilla, but the white gorilla would guard Hakeem better.
And even then, I won’t agree that Smits would guard Hakeem better. Mark Eaton would be another example, big slow guy who didn’t necessarily made Hakeem suffer, but held him to season averages.

You may consider 1997 to be Olajuwon's prime, but at that point, most Rockets fans considered him to be on his decline.

Yeah, because he had a better low post scoring teammate who took shots away from him.

Use some common sense. You're trying to argue that Antonio Davis spent a lot of time guarding Olajuwon (in the game Olajuwon scored 6 pts). However, Rik Smits was the starting center, and he played 28 minutes. Olajuwon played 31 minutes. Even Dale Davis played 28 minutes.

Just like how Horry would guard Duncan, or how Malik Rose would guard Shaq. It’s just matchups.

Common sense should tell you that if Antonio Davis did guard Olajuwon, it wasn't long enough to justify this statement:

I disagree.

No one said Mutombo had a great jumper or post game. But he did have a reliable jump hook. And he's a better scoring threat than Noah.

No he’s not.
Mutombo career 11.5 points/36, peak 15.6
Noah career 11.8 points/36, peak 12.9
Not to mention Mutombo plays in a way faster pace with the Nuggets. In terms of Ortg, Mutombo 111, Noah 113.

Look at the pool of available centers in the 2014 draft. Embiid was taken #3 overall, and he had a stress fracture in his foot. The next center taken was at #16. Jusuf Nurkic from Croatia. After that? #43. Walter Tavares from Spain.
It's pretty clear that the reason so few centers were chosen was b/c there were so few available.

Yeah, and they stunk. Which has been verified since.

Haven't we already established that this has been a poor era for centers? Even the "good" ones (i.e. Davis, Cousins, Drummond) are on weak teams and are still developing.

Those teams are bad despite having this huge advantage at center over other teams because centers just aren’t as important as the 90s. Look at the 90s, every single team with a great center was successful. Look at now, it’s no longer the case, and this shows you that centers just are not as important as they once were.
Even if you go with the “today’s centers are not as great” storyline, the difference between the good centers and the bad centers are relatively comparable.

Also, you should note that the primary MVP candidates, Curry and Harden, both have centers who were #1 overall picks.

And both centers have been massive disappointments based on hype. They fill out their roles nicely, and I love Bogut, but they are defensive cogs and pick setters. Conclusion, centers are just not that important in today’s game anymore.

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

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

Yes, because his role changed. He went from a #1 option to a #2 option. Of course his stats went down. Why is that such a difficult concept for you to understand?

Very difficult, because he got better teammates, his FGA remains similar, and his usage rate was similar, and yet his stats dropped.

Except they are.

I asked for evidence of players getting stats with better teammates, none of the ones you showed was true. Unless, of course, you want to talk about Chucky Brown and Barkley.

Yep, it's at their disposal. They just choose not to use it. And that should tell you all you need to know about the effectiveness of zone defense.

They don’t have to. Zone is a great way to trap dominant low post players. Hakeem’s retired now, and we both know that Hakeem is the greatest low post player of all time, whose skills can warp mathematical definitions, and even time-space continuum.

You think the reason Shawn Kemp had a good series against the Rockets in 1996 was b/c the Rockets didn't run a zone defense? You don't think it had anything to do with him being guarded by Chucky Brown?

Chuck Brown would have done a better job with a zone.

Yes, and you're basing that opinion on the success the 1996 Sonics had against Olajuwon. What you continually fail to understand is that the Sonics' zone was effective due to their personnel.

Of course, the same personnel that are available in many of today’s teams, especially the contenders.
GSW, SAS, CHI, OKC, HOU, ATL, WAS, MIL, MEM, POR, DAL, and NOP all have the personnel to run an effective zone.

Use some common sense. The 1997 Rockets beat the Sonics' zone without using drive and kick penetrators. There's more than 1 way to generate open 3's.

Because the Rockets didn’t use a zone, and Seattle only averaged 22 3pa a game (compared to 29.5 for the Rockets). And no, Sonics used a LOT of drive and kick.

As usual, you're missing the point. It doesn't matter which way is quicker. What matters is that in both instances, the result is an open perimeter shot.

It matters a LOT who his quicker. The quicker one gets back to challenge an open 3 pter more effective.

You're actually saying that peak Olajuwon is not definitively better than current Anthony Davis? You're ridiculously full of .

I don’t know, I can’t tell. Given the same cir stances, I actually am not entirely sure.

What cares what Olajuwon did in the last 2 seasons of his career? This thread is about his prime.

Yeah, but it’s an indication of how he normally shoots long range jumpers. While he is adequate, he is not great at it (I know I know, you have to accept Hakeem is not the best at EVERYTHING he does, tough concept, but give it a try).

[wekko368]

It helps when the opposition doesn’t play zone so that they can semi-double and still guard a 3 point shooter.
And this is DIRECTLY contradictory to what you said about players putting up better stats with better teammates, unless you think Chucky Brown > Barkley. Hakeem’s got a great teammate with Barkley in 1997, he should be beasting and put up 35ppg vs. the 27ppg he put up the previous year, but no, his averaged dropped to 22/23 ppg.

You only think that b/c you're intentionally ignoring crucial parts of my argument. Remember what I said about a player's role? If Olajuwon averaged X alongside Chucky Brown, then of course he's going to average less alongside Charles Barkley? Why? Because Charles Barkley has a much larger role in the offense than Chucky Brown. And that will negatively impact Olajuwon.

Why are you having so much trouble grasping this very simple concept?

No it’s not. Payton was a great individual defensive player, I never say him as so great a help defender in the low post that nobody would be able to replicate what he does in a zone defense.

It's irritating how you're changing your argument. There's a difference between:

"he's wasn't so good that nobody could replicate his effectiveness"

and

"many players could replicate his effectiveness".

And yes, it's a stupid statement. You're basically saying that tons of current guards have Payton's defensive instincts and ability. Also, how can someone be a great individual defender but not a great help defender? It's the same concept.

No I didn’t. I am saying that given enough opportunities over a period, enough 3 pt shooters will hit their average amount of shots. Those shots were challenged.

It's ridiculous that you're talking about "enough opportunities" and "averages" when your entire argument is based on a 4 game sample.

Yes, the article did say that, but it was specifically talking about how this is based on a drive and kick offense. It never talked about an inside out offense. Which is my point.

So an article about drive/kick offenses didn't talk about an inside-out offense?

I said in today’s game, not in Duncan’s prime.

Then you're in the wrong thread.

I don’t actually, he would be more of a passer and facilitator (like what he is doing, well, today). Duncan will likely not average 25 ppg because not every possession is a 4-down.

Are you aware that there are other ways to generate stats besides points? Ever heard of "assists"?

No he wasn’t. Smits was plenty awkward and clumsy.

You're so full of . Go watch some Rik Smits highlights. Then go watch some Yao highlights. If don't think Smits was noticeably faster and better coordinated, watch them again. And again. For however long it takes. Until your mind finally accepts what you're eyes are seeing.

It makes sense, because this is an open forum. The conversation evolves after some 800 posts. That’s why you are now talking about Smits vs. Yao. Oh great priest of the Church of Olajuwon, may I request your permission to talk about a time period that is not defined by you oh great one.

Smits/Yao is still relevant to Olajuwon/Duncan. Smits/Olajuwon played in the same era. Yao/Duncan played in the same era. We were talking about the quality of Olajuwon/Duncan's contemporaries and how it contributed to their stats.

I had doubts whether you are biased, then you removed all doubt. I can’t force you to see or not see certain things, but prime Shaq, prime Jordan, prime Bird, prime Wilt, prime Jabbar, and prime Lebron were all up there. Hakeem’s prime was great, but I wouldn’t take it over Bird, Jordan, Bird, Wilt or Jabbar, and it’s a toss up with Shaq and Lebron.

How many players have won the MVP, DPOY, and FMVP in the same season?

Yet this didn’t matter when you are talking about Laettner. I would say Laettner is a better overall player than Joel Przybilla, but the white gorilla would guard Hakeem better.

Based on what? I said Smits would do a better job guarding Olajuwon than Yao b/c Smits had greater mobility and coordination. Why do you think Przybilla would do a better job than Laettner?

And even then, I won’t agree that Smits would guard Hakeem better. Mark Eaton would be another example, big slow guy who didn’t necessarily made Hakeem suffer, but held him to season averages.

Are you aware that when Olajuwon came into the league, he was incredibly raw? There's a big difference between a late-80's (when Eaton was at his peak) Olajuwon and a 1993-95 Olajuwon.

Just like how Horry would guard Duncan, or how Malik Rose would guard Shaq. It’s just matchups.

Of course Horry guarded Duncan. They were both starters for their respective teams, and they both played PF.

In the game you referenced (when Olajuwon scored 6 pts), Olajuwon started and played 31 minutes. Smits started and played 28 minutes. Dale Davis started and played 28 minutes at PF. Antonio Davis came off the bench. And you've been trying to argue that Antonio Davis held Olajuwon to 6 pts.

You're full of .

I disagree.

And as usual, you'd be wrong.

No he’s not.
Mutombo career 11.5 points/36, peak 15.6
Noah career 11.8 points/36, peak 12.9
Not to mention Mutombo plays in a way faster pace with the Nuggets. In terms of Ortg, Mutombo 111, Noah 113.

LOL. You're trying to use stats to determine which player has a better offensive repertoire?

This season, Dwight Howard is averaging 16.3 ppg. Donatas Motiejunas is averaging 11.6 ppg. That doesn't change the fact that Motiejunas has a better offensive repertoire than Howard.

Yeah, and they stunk. Which has been verified since.

Which is irrelevant to the point.

Those teams are bad despite having this huge advantage at center over other teams because centers just aren’t as important as the 90s.

Absolutely wrong. Like I said, there's a reason GM's keep using high draft picks to draft centers who have potential.

You've yet find a reasonable way to rationalize this. Saying the GM's are all "stupid" doesn't work.

Look at the 90s, every single team with a great center was successful. Look at now, it’s no longer the case, and this shows you that centers just are not as important as they once were.

Really? Didn't the Spurs just win a le with Duncan?

Right now, Atlanta has the 2nd best record in the league. Al Horford is their starting center. Washington has Nene/Gortat. Chicago has Noah/Gasol. Those are 3 of the top 4 teams in the east.

In the west, Memphis is the #2 seed. Marc Gasol. The Rockets have Dwight. Portland has Aldridge (I know he's listed at PF, but he's 6'11 and plays in the post. Same difference). Those are 3 of the top 4 teams in the west.

And both centers have been massive disappointments based on hype. They fill out their roles nicely, and I love Bogut, but they are defensive cogs and pick setters. Conclusion, centers are just not that important in today’s game anymore.

Absolutely wrong. Teams have to run their offense based on their personnel. Teams with good post players feature those players. Also, if you watched the Rockets, you'd see that Motiejunas' role in the offense is increasing due to his post game.

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

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

Very difficult, because he got better teammates, his FGA remains similar, and his usage rate was similar, and yet his stats dropped.

In his last full season with Memphis, Pau Gasol averaged 14.5 FGA and 6.8 FTA. In his first full season with the Lakers, he averaged 12.9 FGA and 5.5 FTA.

So yes, his stats dropped b/c he had fewer scoring opportunities.

In other news, water is wet, the sky is blue, and you're full of .

I asked for evidence of players getting stats with better teammates, none of the ones you showed was true. Unless, of course, you want to talk about Chucky Brown and Barkley.

I gave you multiple examples of players whose stats increased once they got better teammates.

"I think the most obvious example would be Amare Stoudemire after the Suns got Steve Nash. His scoring went from 20.6 to 26. Garnett's scoring went from 23 ppg to 24 ppg (career high) after the Timberwolves acquired Cassell and Sprewell and lost Szczerbiak. Wade's numbers went up after the Heat acquired Shaq. Iverson scored more after the 76ers acquired Mutombo."

You tried to discredit them using trivial arguments, but the fact remains that each of these examples fits your parameters. Do you remember your arguments? Here's a gem:

Nash was the creator, Stoudemire was the recipient. So by that logic, MVPau should have averaged more with Kobe passing him the ball instead of Mike Miller, but it didn't.

You're actually trying to liken the passing game of Steve Nash to Kobe Bryant.





You're full of .

They don’t have to. Zone is a great way to trap dominant low post players. Hakeem’s retired now, and we both know that Hakeem is the greatest low post player of all time, whose skills can warp mathematical definitions, and even time-space continuum.

Which leads to perimeter, zone-busting 3's. Which leads to the end of zone.

Of course, the same personnel that are available in many of today’s teams, especially the contenders.
GSW, SAS, CHI, OKC, HOU, ATL, WAS, MIL, MEM, POR, DAL, and NOP all have the personnel to run an effective zone.

Sure, some of those teams can run an effective zone. But that doesn't change the fact that zone defenses lead to open 3's, and this era emphasizes 3 point shooting. That's why you don't see zones played more often.

Because the Rockets didn’t use a zone, and Seattle only averaged 22 3pa a game (compared to 29.5 for the Rockets). And no, Sonics used a LOT of drive and kick.

I said the Rockets beat the Sonics' zone without using drive/kick. I'm talking about the Rockets' offense.

It matters a LOT who his quicker. The quicker one gets back to challenge an open 3 pter more effective.

Wrong again. If the end result is an open perimeter shot, it doesn't matter which is quicker.

I don’t know, I can’t tell. Given the same cir stances, I actually am not entirely sure.

You're basically saying that right now, Anthony Davis is playing GOAT level basketball....which has translated into a 27-25 record.

[djohn2oo8]

Rik Smits was faster and more agile than Yao. Even still, the argument that because Smits did well against Hakeem doesn't mean Yao would. Remember the Stephon Marbury crossover on Yao? Hakeem had handles like that.

[ambchang]

You only think that b/c you're intentionally ignoring crucial parts of my argument. Remember what I said about a player's role? If Olajuwon averaged X alongside Chucky Brown, then of course he's going to average less alongside Charles Barkley? Why? Because Charles Barkley has a much larger role in the offense than Chucky Brown. And that will negatively impact Olajuwon.
Why are you having so much trouble grasping this very simple concept?

Because you keep on contradicting yourself.
Skilled low post player will dominate today’s game – MVPau scored less than Dwight
MVPau had horrible teammates – He scored less with better teammates
MVPau was the second option with the Lakers, that’s why he scored less – Hakeem scored less with Barkley instead of Chucky Brown
Barkley has a larger role in the offense than Chucky Brown.
So now what? Are you saying the Don Nelsons and Hedo Turkoglus have a smaller offensive role than the Mike Millers and the Shane Battiers, or are you saying Olajuwon was the 2nd option behind Barkley with the Rockets?
Complete this sentence for me: Better teammates will lead to more/less scoring for the lead scorer of the team.

It's irritating how you're changing your argument. There's a difference between:
"he's wasn't so good that nobody could replicate his effectiveness"
and
"many players could replicate his effectiveness".
And yes, it's a stupid statement. You're basically saying that tons of current guards have Payton's defensive instincts and ability. Also, how can someone be a great individual defender but not a great help defender? It's the same concept.

Quite a few players can replicate’s Payton’s ability to double the post. He was great 1 on 1, not one of a kind good doubling the post. And no, defending one on one and being a great help defender are two completely separate concepts. It’s like saying great at scoring means you are a great passer.

It's ridiculous that you're talking about "enough opportunities" and "averages" when your entire argument is based on a 4 game sample.

It is way larger than a zero game sample though. But sure, in the 10 regular season games Hakeem played Seattle in the 94, 95, and 96 seasons (generally considered his prime), he average 26 ppg, 9.5 reb (2.3 oreb) and 3.2 asts in 41.6 minutes per game, great by anyone’s standards, just that in those three years, Hakeem averaged 27.3/11.2(2.6) and 3.7 against every other team in 39.9 minutes a game. Less production in more minutes, looks pretty effective to me.

So an article about drive/kick offenses didn't talk about an inside-out offense?

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

Then you're in the wrong thread.

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

Are you aware that there are other ways to generate stats besides points? Ever heard of "assists"?

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

You're so full of . Go watch some Rik Smits highlights. Then go watch some Yao highlights. If don't think Smits was noticeably faster and better coordinated, watch them again. And again. For however long it takes. Until your mind finally accepts what you're eyes are seeing.

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

Smits/Yao is still relevant to Olajuwon/Duncan. Smits/Olajuwon played in the same era. Yao/Duncan played in the same era. We were talking about the quality of Olajuwon/Duncan's contemporaries and how it contributed to their stats.

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

How many players have won the MVP, DPOY, and FMVP in the same season?

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

Based on what? I said Smits would do a better job guarding Olajuwon than Yao b/c Smits had greater mobility and coordination. Why do you think Przybilla would do a better job than Laettner?

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

Are you aware that when Olajuwon came into the league, he was incredibly raw? There's a big difference between a late-80's (when Eaton was at his peak) Olajuwon and a 1993-95 Olajuwon.

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

Of course Horry guarded Duncan. They were both starters for their respective teams, and they both played PF.
In the game you referenced (when Olajuwon scored 6 pts), Olajuwon started and played 31 minutes. Smits started and played 28 minutes. Dale Davis started and played 28 minutes at PF. Antonio Davis came off the bench. And you've been trying to argue that Antonio Davis held Olajuwon to 6 pts.
You're full of .

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

And as usual, you'd be wrong.

You are wrong. About as convincing as you.

LOL. You're trying to use stats to determine which player has a better offensive repertoire?
This season, Dwight Howard is averaging 16.3 ppg. Donatas Motiejunas is averaging 11.6 ppg. That doesn't change the fact that Motiejunas has a better offensive repertoire than Howard.

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

Which is irrelevant to the point.

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

Absolutely wrong. Like I said, there's a reason GM's keep using high draft picks to draft centers who have potential.
You've yet find a reasonable way to rationalize this. Saying the GM's are all "stupid" doesn't work.

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

Really? Didn't the Spurs just win a le with Duncan?

Right now, Atlanta has the 2nd best record in the league. Al Horford is their starting center. Washington has Nene/Gortat. Chicago has Noah/Gasol. Those are 3 of the top 4 teams in the east.

In the west, Memphis is the #2 seed. Marc Gasol. The Rockets have Dwight. Portland has Aldridge (I know he's listed at PF, but he's 6'11 and plays in the post. Same difference). Those are 3 of the top 4 teams in the west.

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

Absolutely wrong. Teams have to run their offense based on their personnel. Teams with good post players feature those players. Also, if you watched the Rockets, you'd see that Motiejunas' role in the offense is increasing due to his post game.

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

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

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

In his last full season with Memphis, Pau Gasol averaged 14.5 FGA and 6.8 FTA. In his first full season with the Lakers, he averaged 12.9 FGA and 5.5 FTA.

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

So yes, his stats dropped b/c he had fewer scoring opportunities.
In other news, water is wet, the sky is blue, and you're full of .

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

I gave you multiple examples of players whose stats increased once they got better teammates.

"I think the most obvious example would be Amare Stoudemire after the Suns got Steve Nash. His scoring went from 20.6 to 26. Garnett's scoring went from 23 ppg to 24 ppg (career high) after the Timberwolves acquired Cassell and Sprewell and lost Szczerbiak. Wade's numbers went up after the Heat acquired Shaq. Iverson scored more after the 76ers acquired Mutombo."

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

You tried to discredit them using trivial arguments, but the fact remains that each of these examples fits your parameters. Do you remember your arguments? Here's a gem:
You're actually trying to liken the passing game of Steve Nash to Kobe Bryant.


You're full of .

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

Which leads to perimeter, zone-busting 3's. Which leads to the end of zone.

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

Sure, some of those teams can run an effective zone. But that doesn't change the fact that zone defenses lead to open 3's, and this era emphasizes 3 point shooting. That's why you don't see zones played more often.

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

I said the Rockets beat the Sonics' zone without using drive/kick. I'm talking about the Rockets' offense.

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

Wrong again. If the end result is an open perimeter shot, it doesn't matter which is quicker.

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

You're basically saying that right now, Anthony Davis is playing GOAT level basketball....which has translated into a 27-25 record.

Yeah, because bigs just aren’t that important in today’s game. And you are confusing individual brilliance with team suspect. Though these two are related, the play of teammates and the makeup of teams is much more important. The Pelicans have bad supporting players, and their coach is horrible, so the fact that they are above .500 is a miracle in itself.

[ambchang]

Rik Smits was faster and more agile than Yao. Even still, the argument that because Smits did well against Hakeem doesn't mean Yao would. Remember the Stephon Marbury crossover on Yao? Hakeem had handles like that.

So Marbury would have trouble crossing over Rik Smits?

[wekko368]

Complete this sentence for me: Better teammates will lead to more/less scoring for the lead scorer of the team.

This is an excellent question b/c it shows your fundamental ignorance of the topic at hand.

You fail to realize that there are different calibers of "better teammates".

If you replace 1996 Chucky Brown with Otis Thorpe, I can see Olajuwon's stats improving. However, if you replace Chucky Brown with Charles Barkley, Olajuwon's stats will drop. Both Barkley and Thorpe are upgrades over Chucky Brown, but Thorpe isn't good enough to negatively impact Olajuwon's role. Barkley is.

Quite a few players can replicate’s Payton’s ability to double the post. He was great 1 on 1, not one of a kind good doubling the post. And no, defending one on one and being a great help defender are two completely separate concepts. It’s like saying great at scoring means you are a great passer.

No they aren't. When Olajuwon would have the ball in the post, Payton would double team him. And obviously, he'd use his man-to-man defensive skills in that situation. Honestly, it sounds like you're unfamiliar with how a double-team works.

It is way larger than a zero game sample though. But sure, in the 10 regular season games Hakeem played Seattle in the 94, 95, and 96 seasons (generally considered his prime), he average 26 ppg, 9.5 reb (2.3 oreb) and 3.2 asts in 41.6 minutes per game, great by anyone’s standards, just that in those three years, Hakeem averaged 27.3/11.2(2.6) and 3.7 against every other team in 39.9 minutes a game. Less production in more minutes, looks pretty effective to me.

Less production? Seriously? A decline of 1.3 points? A decline of 1.7 rebounds? A decline of 0.5 assists per game? Seriously? That's what you're using to prove that a zone defense was effective against him? Minor decreases from his elite averages? Seriously? And not just that, you're using that to prove that ANY TEAM's zone defense would be effective against him?

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

[ambchang]

This is an excellent question b/c it shows your fundamental ignorance of the topic at hand.

You fail to realize that there are different calibers of "better teammates".

If you replace 1996 Chucky Brown with Otis Thorpe, I can see Olajuwon's stats improving. However, if you replace Chucky Brown with Charles Barkley, Olajuwon's stats will drop. Both Barkley and Thorpe are upgrades over Chucky Brown, but Thorpe isn't good enough to negatively impact Olajuwon's role. Barkley is.

And yet Hakeem averaged 27.3 ppg with Thorpe playing next to him, but 27.8 and 26.9 the next two seasons with Chucky Brown playing next to him.

Thorpe played his last game with the Rockets Feb 8, 1995, Chucky Brown started getting significant minutes Feb 14, 1995.
Prior to the Thorpe trade, Hakeem was averaging 28.1 on 50.4% shooting and 3.4 assists.
During the time when Thorpe was traded and before Brown got any meaningful minutes (2 games only), Hakeem averaged 30 on 68% shooting and 4 assists.
After Brown started to get significant minutes, Hakeem averaged 27.3 on 53% shooting and 3.7 assists.

The difference in that 0.8 points was due to a drop from 21.8FGA to 21.0 FGA, which was attributed more towards the addition of Clyde (see better teammates lead to less shots, and thus points), and his efficiency actually went up.

No they aren't. When Olajuwon would have the ball in the post, Payton would double team him. And obviously, he'd use his man-to-man defensive skills in that situation. Honestly, it sounds like you're unfamiliar with how a double-team works.

Accurately reading a double team and playing man to man defense are two different things. You are now talking about Payton's low post defense vs. perimeter defense, which is an even bigger difference. Bird was actually a decent help defender, but he was horrible on man to man. Athleticism plays a much bigger role in man to man, but anticipation is more important in help defense. In fact, the entire concept of zone defense is to hide weak man to man defenders with using multiple people to rotate and utilize help defense.

Less production? Seriously? A decline of 1.3 points? A decline of 1.7 rebounds? A decline of 0.5 assists per game? Seriously? That's what you're using to prove that a zone defense was effective against him? Minor decreases from his elite averages? Seriously? And not just that, you're using that to prove that ANY TEAM's zone defense would be effective against him?

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

5% decline in ppg, 15% decline in rebounds, and another 15% in assists is not important. Got you.

[wekko368]

The difference in that 0.8 points was due to a drop from 21.8FGA to 21.0 FGA, which was attributed more towards the addition of Clyde (see better teammates lead to less shots, and thus points), and his efficiency actually went up.

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

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

Sounds about right.

Accurately reading a double team and playing man to man defense are two different things. You are now talking about Payton's low post defense vs. perimeter defense, which is an even bigger difference. Bird was actually a decent help defender, but he was horrible on man to man. Athleticism plays a much bigger role in man to man, but anticipation is more important in help defense. In fact, the entire concept of zone defense is to hide weak man to man defenders with using multiple people to rotate and utilize help defense.

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




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

5% decline in ppg, 15% decline in rebounds, and another 15% in assists is not important. Got you.

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