Page 37 of 38 FirstFirst ... 27333435363738 LastLast
Results 901 to 925 of 943
  1. #901
    Believe.
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Post Count
    194
    And you are forgetting the mechanism in a drive and kick to break down a zone defense isnít to have a center to do it against another center.
    100% wrong. You break down a zone by exploiting mismatches and forcing the defense to double team. It doesn't matter where the mismatch occurs.

    No arguments over this, just that he is not, and has never exhibited the ability to do so to break down the zone like modern wing players do.
    That's fine. He'd break down the zone by forcing defenders to double team him in the post.

    Same player, related.
    Sorry, but no. You still need to explain how Duncan's current performance is relevant to prime Duncan's performance.

    Define more successful.
    More championships.

    I think heíd have few points and more assists, but then you were arguing that since Davis is averaging 24.5ppg, Hakeem would have averaged more than that, and close to his prime numbers. Which one is it? Will he average the same, more or less points?
    This was my original quote, and both your viewpoint and my original post can be consistent.
    It depends on his teammates. If you surround him with good shooters, he'd average fewer points but more assists. If you surround him with average shooters, he'd average fewer assists but more points.

    You have a bad habit of expecting specific answers for vague questions.

    Hakeem played 31 minutes, both Smits and Dale Davis played only 28 minutes due to foul trouble. It reasons that Antonio Davis, being a primarily defensive player, would have guarded Hakeem, either one on one, or as a help defender to some degree.
    "To some degree"? Seriously? Earlier, you were saying that Davis held Olajuwon to 6 pts. And now that I've decimated your argument, you've backtracked to the point where its now "Antonio Davis would have guarded Olajuwon as a help defender to some degree"?

    You can't win this argument. Move on.

    Thatís not any type of fact. Itís purely subjective, and I donít agree with it.
    You don't agree with it b/c you refuse to watch it b/c you know I'm right.

    I didnít say they have comparable offensive games, I said they have the comparably effective offensive games. My original statement was:
    Quit backtracking and changing your argument. Here's something else you said:

    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.
    Pick and roll lobs and offense rebound points count less than isolation plays now?
    In the context of gauging a player's offensive abilities, absolutely.

    Howard averaged 18.2 ppg for his career, with a career high of 22.9. He had a career Orating of 110, with a high of 113. Motiejunas averages 7.6 with a high of 11.6, with oratings of 105 and 108. Even his per 100 possession highs of 23.2 points and per 36 minute highs of 16.7 points pales in comparison to Howardís (32 and 21.9). Even if you factor in assists, Motiejunas is no where close to as effective as Howard on offense.
    It's pretty clear you're unfamiliar with Howard's game. You seem oblivious to the fact that a sizable portion of his points are a result of teammates creating opportunities for him. You're crediting those points to Howard when they should be credited to the teammate.

    It's laughable that you're arguing Motiejunas/Howard with a Rockets' fan, especially since you're so ignorant about the current Rockets team. How many Rockets games have you watched this season? Probably just the ones on national television.

    But we are talking about Mutombo and Noah now, and we have been specifically talking about being an offensive threat, not a 1on1 player.
    Are you being intentionally obtuse? A player's 1on1 ability directly impacts his level as an offensive threat.

    No I am not, you are confusing skills with better. I am the coach, player A gets me better chances at points even though he doesnít have the skills of player B, I go to player A for points.
    Sorry, but you're wrong. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of Howard's game. You think that his production is a testament to his offensive ability, but it's more of a testament to his teammates'. Howard's offensive ability is comparable to Deandre Jordan's.

    It is what it is, and 10 feet + is mid range. Unless you want to talk about Dirk camping in the paint and violate 3 seconds on his fade away shots.
    Shooting from 10+ feet and playing in the post aren't mutually exclusive. Olajuwon would get the ball in the post and ultimately shoot a fadeaway from 10+ feet. It's the same with Dirk.

    So how would a second fiddle dominate todayís game? Which was my original statement (see quoted above). You talking about losing focus now? You seem to have trouble following the original argument, which all subsequent arguments should relate to.
    I guess it would depend on who the second fiddle is. Shaq's second fiddle in the early 2000's did pretty well once he became the first option.

    He wasnít, with his constant foul trouble and playing half a game.
    When Bynum was an all-star in 2012, he averaged 1.7 fouls per game and 35 mpg.

    And yes, guarding Howard in the finals was a major contribution. It allowed Gasol to preserve his energy for offense.

    And no, we have been talking constantly about how Hakeem wouldnít dominate in todayís game, referring over and over again to his offensive game, and even talking about how todayís bigs provide help on defense and passing, and yet you like to talk about Bynum as a defensive player. Follow your own advice and focus.
    LOL. Once again, you're missing the big picture. I was talking about Bynum as a defensive player in relation to Dwight Howard, who has a limited offensive game. If Bynum were to guard a prime Olajuwon, Olajuwon would destroy him.

    He already is the centerpiece of the offense, and his team sucks.
    This is only his third season, and his team has endured significant injuries.

    And Gasol and Randolph is getting a lot less shots than they would have if they played in the 90s.
    That's b/c they have to share the post with each other. If they played in the 90's, they wouldn't be on the same team, and they would get more shots.

    And the Rockets werenít successful, which leads to the original point of how Hakeem wouldnít be able to dominate in todayís game, because if everything went through him, the team wouldnít be as successful, and if not everything ran though him, he wouldnít put up those phenomenal stats that he did.
    This is an inherently ignorant statement because it implies that Yao and Olajuwon were offensively comparable.

    Well, I agree on the hiatus part, but Itís until the rules change back to big friendly.
    Anthony Davis disagrees.

    Not 3-peat successful though. That style of play would not yield that type of success.


    Is that what your argument has been reduced to? "Not 3-peat successful"?

    Compared to 2001, yeah. The Lakers wouldnít be as successful (15-1, three peats).
    Cherry picking your standards? Pathetic.

    GMs whoís overtly tanking and sucking at their jobs?
    Yep, as well as the ones who have won championships with bigs as major contributors....pretty much every team besides Lebron's championship teams.

    You really want to compare two players to one player? Then add up all the perimeter player shots.
    Go for it. Perimeter player shots relative to post shots.

    Point being? 21.5 is greater than 15?
    The point is that a perimeter player can average a good amount of shots despite playing in a post-oriented offense.

    Whatís your point? That Mutombo in the best game of his career posted up 4 times?
    Best game of his career? That was in his 2nd season....

    Here is another youtube video:

    Noah drive and kicked, shot a (n ugly) 22 footer, posted and passed, drove and passed, faced up and got a sweeping hook, posted up with a lefty hook, drove the lane for layups (both left and right hands), jump hooks, outlet passes, leading the break, pick and rolls, passes to the post, looks way more offensively skilled than Mutombo.
    He's more skilled than I thought (especially his face up game), but he was being guarded by undersized players. In the video I linked, Mutombo was being guarded by 7'1 Bill Cartwright. In your video, Noah was being guarded by 6'10 Chris Andersen and 6'8 Lebron James.

    Yes, 10% and 50% drops are not significant.
    Correct, not when that translates into a decrease of 1.6 fga and a decrease of 0.8 fta.

    Itís a major part of it, spreading the ball around the court, and opening up the offense to allow better spacing is a major reason why the Hawks are much more successful this year than last.
    Ridiculously stupid argument. The Hawks' success has nothing to do with Horford's minor drops in fga/fta.

    A metric that tracks a players output per 100 possessions is taking possessions into account by normalizing it. It was a response to :
    Understood. You originally stated "offensive rating". There are a few different offensive metrics. Later on, you used ORTG. My mistake.

    Nevertheless, it still disproves your argument.

    Such as going into specific games where Davis had high FGAs?
    Nope, when talking about the impact of injured/healthy teammates as it relates to Davis' FGA's, it's perfectly logical to look at his highest FGA games. You were arguing that the presence of Gordon/Holiday would depress Davis' FGAs. However, if several of Davis' highest FGA games came with both Holiday/Gordon, that would refute your argument.

    I donít consider pace to be important in the instance.
    And you would be 100% wrong.

    Then your response would be ďdependsĒ, instead of going around in circles that contradicts your own points.
    My points don't contradict each other. And like I said earlier, if you want a specific answer, you need to ask a specific question.

    As in Hakeem would play a different role in todayís game that doesnít have him shoot 20 FGA a game would reduce his offensive output?
    If Aldridge can average 20 FGA in today's game, why can't Olajuwon?

    I donít consider them equal, I consider better players as better though. Your one and only example of each contradicts each other. You are basically, better supporting players allow the primary player to put up better stats, except when they donít, which isnít a point.
    And as a result of this short-sighted thinking, you're not considering the varying degrees of "better".

    Raptors were 15th in DRTG that year, middle of the pack. They were horrible on offense though.
    Ok. And what about the other 2 teams that occasionally used zone defense? The Bobcats had the worst DRTG in the league, and the Warriors were #27 out of 30.

    Yeah, and a team that can use zone will be better than the same team that cannot use zone.

    As in when Charles Barkley joined Hakeem and Hakeemís stats decreased?
    It's not an apples to apples comparison. Randolph/Gasol are in their prime. When Hakeem/Barkley played together, they were already past their peaks.

    Thatís not a fact, itís an opinion by looking at a youtube video. I donít agree with it.
    That's b/c you refuse to watch the video. You know that if you watched the videos, you'd be forced to agree with me. No sane person would think that Smits and Yao had comparable mobility/coordination.

    You were saying something about strawman arguments? So what is it this time? All close out are equal, only when they are not?
    How is that a strawman argument? You said that current defenses were more effective, and that a key component of current defenses is closing out on shooter. If that's the difference, then the natural implication is that past defenses didn't close out on shooters.

    I think that current closeouts are comparable with 90's closeouts. If you can offer compelling evidence indicating otherwise, I'd be happy to read it.

    Absolutely taking paragraphs out of context. The primary point is that athletes help close out on shooters and defend in a zone environment, but Bucks struggled because they are young and inexperienced and have trouble with rebounds.
    Not at all. I gave an articulate summary of the relevant paragraphs.

    Still doesn't prove your point that current defensive players close out more effectively than 90's defensive players.

    As of now, the Bucks are 4th in D Rating by heavily defending the ball side and utilizing the zone as a weapon.
    Source? And FYI, all defenses focus on the ball side.

    Great for him, still not scoring points often enough to be a better offensive player than Howard.
    When it comes to gauging a player as an offensive threat, it's not about how many points he scores. It's about how he scores his points. Your inability to comprehend this basic basketball concept speaks volumes about your fundamental understanding of basketball.

  2. #902
    Dragon style JamStone's Avatar
    My Team
    Detroit Pistons
    Post Count
    21,968
    I couldn't find it, and the stats (those that you just ignored) backed me up.

    If you can't find it, then just say so.
    Interesting. I found it just now looking it up. Guess you need to step up your research game.

    But I digress...

    I would like to apologize that if by responding to your response to my post it gave you the impression that I was either interested or willing to engage in the type of long, drawn out, tedious, mind-numbing, back-and-forth ping pong match you are having with wekko368. Please allow me to make something clear. I am not. You have proven that regardless of being right, wrong, or even somewhere in between, you will never stop posting trying to prove your point. I have zero desire to engage with you. That's why I stopped responding to you earlier in this thread. So I will stop you before anything proceeds further. And you are free to say whatever you want about me not offering a rebuttal.

    Don't care.

  3. #903
    Drive for Five! ambchang's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    15,454
    Interesting. I found it just now looking it up. Guess you need to step up your research game.

    But I digress...

    I would like to apologize that if by responding to your response to my post it gave you the impression that I was either interested or willing to engage in the type of long, drawn out, tedious, mind-numbing, back-and-forth ping pong match you are having with wekko368. Please allow me to make something clear. I am not. You have proven that regardless of being right, wrong, or even somewhere in between, you will never stop posting trying to prove your point. I have zero desire to engage with you. That's why I stopped responding to you earlier in this thread. So I will stop you before anything proceeds further. And you are free to say whatever you want about me not offering a rebuttal.

    Don't care.
    You did care, and yet you didn't post.

  4. #904
    Drive for Five! ambchang's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    15,454
    100% wrong. You break down a zone by exploiting mismatches and forcing the defense to double team. It doesn't matter where the mismatch occurs.
    No, you exploit zones by passing to the open man. You are talking about exploiting man to man.
    That's fine. He'd break down the zone by forcing defenders to double team him in the post.
    Allowing players to double better players is the point of zone.
    Sorry, but no. You still need to explain how Duncan's current performance is relevant to prime Duncan's performance.
    Same player.
    More championships.
    This depends on the type of teammates he would have. Saying Hakeem would win more championships in the current NBA in a vacuum has a lot of assumptions. I canít argue pro or con on it.
    It depends on his teammates. If you surround him with good shooters, he'd average fewer points but more assists. If you surround him with average shooters, he'd average fewer assists but more points.
    Agreed.
    You have a bad habit of expecting specific answers for vague questions.
    That wasnít a vague question. It was a specify yes or no question.
    "To some degree"? Seriously? Earlier, you were saying that Davis held Olajuwon to 6 pts. And now that I've decimated your argument, you've backtracked to the point where its now "Antonio Davis would have guarded Olajuwon as a help defender to some degree"?
    Did Antonio Davis not guard Hakeem? He had a hand in holding Hakeem to 6 points a game, and likely a significant hand due to the foul troubles of Smits and Dale Davis.
    You can't win this argument. Move on.
    Neither could you.
    You don't agree with it b/c you refuse to watch it b/c you know I'm right.
    No, I watched it, donít agree. And opinions arenít facts.
    Quit backtracking and changing your argument. Here's something else you said:
    In the context of gauging a player's offensive abilities, absolutely.
    Yes, what was wrong with what I said. If I want a basket in a game situation, I got to Noah. He can score and pass.
    It's pretty clear you're unfamiliar with Howard's game. You seem oblivious to the fact that a sizable portion of his points are a result of teammates creating opportunities for him. You're crediting those points to Howard when they should be credited to the teammate.
    Did he not score two points for the team? A creator of the offense should not get all the credit, the finisher is a significantly important part as well.
    It's laughable that you're arguing Motiejunas/Howard with a Rockets' fan, especially since you're so ignorant about the current Rockets team. How many Rockets games have you watched this season? Probably just the ones on national television.
    NBA league pass ring a bell? And what does being a Rockets fan have anything to do with anything?
    Are you being intentionally obtuse? A player's 1on1 ability directly impacts his level as an offensive threat.
    An ability for a player to finish pick and rolls and get garbage points also directly impact his level as an offensive threat.
    Sorry, but you're wrong. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of Howard's game. You think that his production is a testament to his offensive ability, but it's more of a testament to his teammates'. Howard's offensive ability is comparable to Deandre Jordan's.
    And yet he has consistently produced better numbers than Motiejunas with three different teams, going as far as being the offensive cog on a Finals team in Orlando.
    Shooting from 10+ feet and playing in the post aren't mutually exclusive. Olajuwon would get the ball in the post and ultimately shoot a fadeaway from 10+ feet. It's the same with Dirk.
    True, but Hakeem would finish within 10 feet.
    I guess it would depend on who the second fiddle is. Shaq's second fiddle in the early 2000's did pretty well once he became the first option.
    But was he dominating as a 2nd fiddle?
    When Bynum was an all-star in 2012, he averaged 1.7 fouls per game and 35 mpg.
    When Bynum was providing his significant contribution in the finals, he was averaging 4.2 fouls a game.
    And yes, guarding Howard in the finals was a major contribution. It allowed Gasol to preserve his energy for offense.
    And yet we have been talking about offense all along.
    LOL. Once again, you're missing the big picture. I was talking about Bynum as a defensive player in relation to Dwight Howard, who has a limited offensive game. If Bynum were to guard a prime Olajuwon, Olajuwon would destroy him.
    Another conjecture. Since you are so big on providing facts to back things up, show how prime Hakeem would destroy Bynum.
    This is only his third season, and his team has endured significant injuries.
    Which means that he has to put up more shots that he should.
    That's b/c they have to share the post with each other. If they played in the 90's, they wouldn't be on the same team, and they would get more shots.
    Robinson and Duncan averaged 15 and 16 shots a game with the Spurs, and that was a past his prime Robinson with a Rookie Duncan.
    This is an inherently ignorant statement because it implies that Yao and Olajuwon were offensively comparable.
    Hakeem would take a 1st round fodder team to multiple championships if he replaced Yao? Ooooooo kkkkkkaaaaay.
    Anthony Davis disagrees.
    You define successful as winning championships?

    Is that what your argument has been reduced to? "Not 3-peat successful"?
    Define more successful[
    More championships.
    Cherry picking your standards? Pathetic.
    Changing your standards in the same post? Pathetic.
    Yep, as well as the ones who have won championships with bigs as major contributors....pretty much every team besides Lebron's championship teams.
    Traditional bigs who have won a FinalsMVP since 2005 Ö.. none.
    Traditional bigs who have won an MVP since 2003 Ö. None.
    [QUOTE=wekko368;7832823]Go for it. Perimeter player shots relative to post shots.
    This year, the Grizzlies, who are probably (mutually agreed between the two of us) the most post-heavy offense in the league, has 1,797 shots and 647 FTs from post players and 2,618 shots and 616 FTs from wing players, which means that wings launched 59% of the FGA, and 49% of FTs.
    The 1994 Rockets, which is the team that shot, by FAR, the most 3 points in the league that year, have wing players shot 3,804 FGA and 910 FTs, vs. 2,929 FGA and 1,068 FTA. In other words, 56% of FGA from wing players and 46% of FTs.
    And this is comparing the team with the 3rd least 3PA in the league (2015 Grizzlies), to the team with the MOST 3PA in the league (1994 Rockets).
    Even if you want to compare it to 1995 Rockets, which is even MORE dominant on the 3 point shooting front, you are talking about wing players taking 61% of FGA and 53% of FTA. Sure this is more than the Grizzlies, but when you compare that to the team with the most 3PA in todayís game (Coincidentally the Rockets), 77% of FGA and 72% of FTA are by post players. Itís not even close.
    The point is that a perimeter player can average a good amount of shots despite playing in a post-oriented offense.
    Yes, of course. And Ö?
    Best game of his career? That was in his 2nd season....
    Which game was the best game of his career then?
    He's more skilled than I thought (especially his face up game), but he was being guarded by undersized players. In the video I linked, Mutombo was being guarded by 7'1 Bill Cartwright. In your video, Noah was being guarded by 6'10 Chris Andersen and 6'8 Lebron James.
    And? Alonzo Mourning was 6í10Ē Would your rather have Alonzo Mourning guard you are Bill Cartwright guard you? Actually, Hakeem was 6í10Ē.
    Correct, not when that translates into a decrease of 1.6 fga and a decrease of 0.8 fta.
    Itís a huge drop for an individual player.
    Ridiculously stupid argument. The Hawks' success has nothing to do with Horford's minor drops in fga/fta.
    Untrue. It has everything to do with it. By spreading out the offense, the passing lanes and driving lanes open up.
    Understood. You originally stated "offensive rating". There are a few different offensive metrics. Later on, you used ORTG. My mistake.
    Offensive Rating is the same as ORTG. Sorry for being unclear. Not sure what you were referring to earlier.
    Nevertheless, it still disproves your argument.
    Does not.
    [QUOTE=wekko368;7832823]Nope, when talking about the impact of injured/healthy teammates as it relates to Davis' FGA's, it's perfectly logical to look at his highest FGA games. You were arguing that the presence of Gordon/Holiday would depress Davis' FGAs. However, if several of Davis' highest FGA games came with both Holiday/Gordon, that would refute your argument.
    Of the 10 games Holiday missed but Davis played, Davis averaged 18.9 FGA a game, in the games both of them played, Davis averaged 16.7 FGA. In games where all three played, Davis averaged 18.3 FGA. There are no games in which Davis played by both Holiday and Gordon didnít play.
    And you would be 100% wrong.
    Then pull up pace. After so much back and forth, you still havenít pulled anything up.
    My points don't contradict each other. And like I said earlier, if you want a specific answer, you need to ask a specific question.
    Except you did.
    If Aldridge can average 20 FGA in today's game, why can't Olajuwon?
    Because Aldridge shoots 55% of his shot outside of 10 feet.
    And as a result of this short-sighted thinking, you're not considering the varying degrees of "better".
    Itís short sighted because it points out your contradiction.
    Ok. And what about the other 2 teams that occasionally used zone defense? The Bobcats had the worst DRTG in the league, and the Warriors were #27 out of 30.
    They would have been worse without it.
    Yeah, and a team that can use zone will be better than the same team that cannot use zone.
    Exactly.
    It's not an apples to apples comparison. Randolph/Gasol are in their prime. When Hakeem/Barkley played together, they were already past their peaks.
    Players past their peaks cannot put up shots with better teammates? What is the relevance?
    That's b/c you refuse to watch the video. You know that if you watched the videos, you'd be forced to agree with me. No sane person would think that Smits and Yao had comparable mobility/coordination.
    I watched it. Do not agree.
    How is that a strawman argument? You said that current defenses were more effective, and that a key component of current defenses is closing out on shooter. If that's the difference, then the natural implication is that past defenses didn't close out on shooters.
    The current consumption of French fries have increased from the 60s. Therefore, people in the 60s didnít eat fries. Thatís your logic.
    I think that current closeouts are comparable with 90's closeouts. If you can offer compelling evidence indicating otherwise, I'd be happy to read it.
    Tough to come up with it since I donít have a SportsVu subscription, and even if I did they didnít track it back in the 90s. But if we look at the wing spans of win players, we can see that an average PG drafted in 2014 has a wingspan of 6í5.2Ē, SG, 6Ē7.8Ē, SF 6í10.7Ē. This compared to 2000 (donít have 90s numbers) PF 6í3.7Ē, SF 6í8.3Ē, SF 6í9.1Ē. Longer wing spans allow for long reach.
    Not at all. I gave an articulate summary of the relevant paragraphs.
    Still doesn't prove your point that current defensive players close out more effectively than 90's defensive players.
    Source? And FYI, all defenses focus on the ball side.
    Focus and heavily stacking are two different things.
    When it comes to gauging a player as an offensive threat, it's not about how many points he scores. It's about how he scores his points. Your inability to comprehend this basic basketball concept speaks volumes about your fundamental understanding of basketball.
    You are talking about how skilled a person is, it has nothing to do with being a threat. If a player can hang out for offensive rebounds and put backs and scored 25 ppg a game strictly doing that, I am going to keep my man on him, just like the Spurs put Bowen on Marion to neutralize him. Marion was a huge threat, he was just easily neutralized with the right game plan.

  5. #905
    Believe.
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Post Count
    194
    100% wrong. You break down a zone by exploiting mismatches and forcing the defense to double team. It doesn't matter where the mismatch occurs.
    No, you exploit zones by passing to the open man. You are talking about exploiting man to man.
    Ok, you exploit zones by passing to the open man. Why is your man open? Because his defender left him to address a greater offensive threat. Why was there a greater offensive threat? Because a mismatch was exploited.

    Allowing players to double better players is the point of zone.
    Yes, and that would result in an open perimeter shot. And that's why 3 pointers are called "zone busters".

    No matter how many times you want to repeat this, it will never explain how Duncan's current performance is relevant to prime Duncan's performance.

    At this point, it's pretty clear you know they're irrelevant, but you refuse to admit that you're wrong. As such, you're grasping as some ridiculously pathetic straws.

    This depends on the type of teammates he would have. Saying Hakeem would win more championships in the current NBA in a vacuum has a lot of assumptions. I canít argue pro or con on it.
    Yet you can argue that prime Shaq wouldn't 3-peat if he played today?

    At the very least, if Olajuwon played today, his team wouldn't get decimated by drugs.

    That wasnít a vague question. It was a specify yes or no question.
    Yes/no questions can be vague if there are multiple variables within the question (like yours had).

    Look at it this way. X + Y = 0. If I ask you "yes or no....is X > 0?", can you honestly answer either "yes" or "no"?

    Did Antonio Davis not guard Hakeem? He had a hand in holding Hakeem to 6 points a game, and likely a significant hand due to the foul troubles of Smits and Dale Davis.
    Sorry, but you're trying to make a counter intuitive argument (by saying that Davis, who came off the bench, held Olajuwon to 6 points even though Olajuwon/Smits were the starters and played comparable minutes), and all you've been able to prove is that they played in the same game.

    Neither could you.
    I've already won. You made a counter-intuitive claim and were unable to find compelling support.

    Yes, what was wrong with what I said. If I want a basket in a game situation, I got to Noah. He can score and pass.
    Noah can't create his own scoring opportunity as well as Mutombo. Noah's offense is opportunistic, and as such, you can't rely on it. On the other hand, you could tell that Mutombo spent a lot of time practicing his hook shot from the post.

    Did he not score two points for the team? A creator of the offense should not get all the credit, the finisher is a significantly important part as well.
    The creator deserves the credit. Look at Chris Paul and DeAndre Jordan. Paul throws a ton of lobs to Jordan, but who is universally considered the engine of that offense? Who deserves the glory?

    NBA league pass ring a bell? And what does being a Rockets fan have anything to do with anything?
    Are you saying you have NBA league pass and you watch the Rockets? Me being a Rockets fan means that I've seen every game this season, and it means that I'm more familiar w/ the Rockets players than you are.

    An ability for a player to finish pick and rolls and get garbage points also directly impact his level as an offensive threat.
    Not really. Otis Thorpe got garbage points and finished pick and rolls. However, since he couldn't consistently create his own shot, he wasn't considered an offensive threat.

    And yet he has consistently produced better numbers than Motiejunas with three different teams, going as far as being the offensive cog on a Finals team in Orlando.
    All the stats in the world don't mean a thing when your argument fails the "eye" test. Like I said before, watch the games. Motiejunas is a much better offensive threat than Howard.

    True, but Hakeem would finish within 10 feet.
    Not when he shot his fadeaways.

    But was he dominating as a 2nd fiddle?
    I've lost track of this tangent. What's your point?

    When Bynum was providing his significant contribution in the finals, he was averaging 4.2 fouls a game.
    Who cares how many fouls he averaged as long as a he was making a significant contribution? Your arguments are getting increasingly weird.

    Another conjecture. Since you are so big on providing facts to back things up, show how prime Hakeem would destroy Bynum.
    Look at how prime Olajuwon destroyed prime Robinson. Robinson simply couldn't guard him, and Robinson was a better defender than Bynum.

    Which means that he has to put up more shots that he should.
    I've only looked at a few of his game logs for his highest FGA games this season. Some of them came with both Gordon and Holiday on the court. So that refutes your argument.

    Robinson and Duncan averaged 15 and 16 shots a game with the Spurs, and that was a past his prime Robinson with a Rookie Duncan.
    Yes, thanks for proving my point. Robinson's FGA decreased when he got a teammate capable of being the centerpiece of an offense.

    Hakeem would take a 1st round fodder team to multiple championships if he replaced Yao? Ooooooo kkkkkkaaaaay.
    Yao was injury prone. He missed the 07-08 playoffs. He broke his foot in the second round of the 08-09 playoffs. And you're talking about replacing him with a GOAT level player (94/95 Olajuwon). Why is it unreasonable to think that they'd win championships?

    Changing your standards in the same post? Pathetic.
    Actually, I didn't change my standards at all. Rather, you're moving the goalposts by talking about 3-peating. In this era, I do think that prime Olajuwon would win more total championships and have a more successful career. I also think that prime Shaq would win more total championships and have a more successful career.

    Traditional bigs who have won a FinalsMVP since 2005 Ö.. none.
    Traditional bigs who have won an MVP since 2003 Ö. None.
    What's your argument now? That a big can only be a major contributor if he wins an MVP or FMVP?

    Also, I like how you moved the goalposts of your argument by adding the word "traditional".

    This year, the Grizzlies, who are probably (mutually agreed between the two of us) the most post-heavy offense in the league, has 1,797 shots and 647 FTs from post players and 2,618 shots and 616 FTs from wing players, which means that wings launched 59% of the FGA, and 49% of FTs.

    The 1994 Rockets, which is the team that shot, by FAR, the most 3 points in the league that year, have wing players shot 3,804 FGA and 910 FTs, vs. 2,929 FGA and 1,068 FTA. In other words, 56% of FGA from wing players and 46% of FTs.
    There's a few things I like to point out that I think you've overlooked.

    First, Zach Randolph has played 44 games. Conley has played 49, and Gasol has played 53. By looking only at total FGA, you're not considering the missed games.

    Secondly, Randolph averages 32.5 mpg and Gasol averages 33.9 mpg. 1994 Olajuwon averaged 41 mpg.

    Thirdly, Matt Bullard was a power forward who could shoot 3 pointers. He was not a wing player.

    Fourthly, you're not considering the game flow. For instance, let's say that Olajuwon gets the ball in the post, gets double teamed, and passes out to a wide open Kenny Smith for the jumper. In that scenario, the offense ran through the post but resulted in a perimeter shot. With the way you've broken it out, that wouldn't be counter as a post play, but it was.

    Which game was the best game of his career then?
    Don't know, don't care.

    And? Alonzo Mourning was 6í10Ē Would your rather have Alonzo Mourning guard you are Bill Cartwright guard you? Actually, Hakeem was 6í10Ē.
    LOL. You're cherry picking DPOY player. Obviously I'd rather be guarded by Cartwright instead of Mourning, but I'd also rather be guarded by Chris Andersen than Bill Cartwright.

    Itís a huge drop for an individual player.
    It's not a huge drop when you go from 14.3 to 12.7 fga and 2.8 to 2.0 fta.

    Untrue. It has everything to do with it. By spreading out the offense, the passing lanes and driving lanes open up.
    You're seriously trying to attribute the Hawks' turnaround to minor drops in Horford's FGA/FTA? Not the change in personnel or offensive strategy, but Horford's drop of 1.6 fga and 0.8 fta?

    Offensive Rating is the same as ORTG. Sorry for being unclear. Not sure what you were referring to earlier.

    Sure it does. When you argue that absences from Holiday/Gordon will increase Davis' FGA, that argument can be refuted if I can prove that some of Davis' highest FGA games came when both Holiday/Gordon were present. And I did.

    Then pull up pace. After so much back and forth, you still havenít pulled anything up.
    You pull it up. It's your argument. I've already pulled up tons of stats to refute your other arguments.

    Because Aldridge shoots 55% of his shot outside of 10 feet.
    Here's Olajuwon's shot chart.

    http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/sho...d.php?t=344443

    Itís short sighted because it points out your contradiction.
    Sorry, it's not a contradiction at all. Because your question has multiple variables, it allows for seemingly contradicting answers. However, that doesn't mean the answers are wrong. You have to look at each answer individually in the context of the question, not relative to other possible answers.

    Players past their peaks cannot put up shots with better teammates? What is the relevance?
    The relevance is that players in their primes can handle a full workload. Players past their primes are more effective when they don't have to.

    I watched it. Do not agree.
    If you want to be willfully ignorant, that's your choice. Frankly, it's not surprising since you enter arguments with a closed mind. No objective sports fan would agree with your argument that Yao and Smits had comparable mobility/coordination.

    Even on his best day, do you think Yao was capable of doing something like this?



    The current consumption of French fries have increased from the 60s. Therefore, people in the 60s didnít eat fries. Thatís your logic.
    Nope, that's a horrible application of my logic. Keep in mind that if you really did understand my logic, we wouldn't be arguing like this, and you wouldn't be wrong so frequently.

    Tough to come up with it since I donít have a SportsVu subscription, and even if I did they didnít track it back in the 90s. But if we look at the wing spans of win players, we can see that an average PG drafted in 2014 has a wingspan of 6í5.2Ē, SG, 6Ē7.8Ē, SF 6í10.7Ē. This compared to 2000 (donít have 90s numbers) PF 6í3.7Ē, SF 6í8.3Ē, SF 6í9.1Ē. Longer wing spans allow for long reach.
    Yes, they allow for a lot of things. But just because you're capable of doing something doesn't mean you actually do it. Look at Stromile Swift.

    Focus and heavily stacking are two different things.
    I'm still waiting for you to prove that current defensive players close out more effectively than 90's defensive players.

    You are talking about how skilled a person is, it has nothing to do with being a threat. If a player can hang out for offensive rebounds and put backs and scored 25 ppg a game strictly doing that, I am going to keep my man on him, just like the Spurs put Bowen on Marion to neutralize him. Marion was a huge threat, he was just easily neutralized with the right game plan.
    Wow. Are you seriously unaware that a player's skill-level correlates to his level of being an offensive threat?

  6. #906
    Drive for Five! ambchang's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    15,454
    Ok, you exploit zones by passing to the open man. Why is your man open? Because his defender left him to address a greater offensive threat. Why was there a greater offensive threat? Because a mismatch was exploited.
    And a post-up inside out offense would allow the defense to recover quickly.
    Yes, and that would result in an open perimeter shot. And that's why 3 pointers are called "zone busters".
    Not when they are being contested quickly with the more complex defenses and longer quicker athletes.
    No matter how many times you want to repeat this, it will never explain how Duncan's current performance is relevant to prime Duncan's performance.
    Itís the same person.
    At this point, it's pretty clear you know they're irrelevant, but you refuse to admit that you're wrong. As such, you're grasping as some ridiculously pathetic straws.
    Thanks for letting me know what I wanted to post. You read my mind better than I could.
    Yet you can argue that prime Shaq wouldn't 3-peat if he played today?
    With that Lakers team? No.
    Will the Rockets, with that team, repeat in todayís game? No, especially with those shorter three point lines in the 2nd year.
    At the very least, if Olajuwon played today, his team wouldn't get decimated by drugs.
    You have the Lakers to thank for that. You stand in the way of Magic and Kareem, the league will take you out. Funny how the only two teams that were really affected by the drug suspensions were the two biggest threat to the Lakers in the West at that time (Rockets and Mavs). The league loved that Celtic-Lakers rivalry.
    Yes/no questions can be vague if there are multiple variables within the question (like yours had).
    It can be when you want to avoid answering.
    Look at it this way. X + Y = 0. If I ask you "yes or no....is X > 0?", can you honestly answer either "yes" or "no"?
    Iíd be able to say it depends instead of saying z = 0.
    Sorry, but you're trying to make a counter intuitive argument (by saying that Davis, who came off the bench, held Olajuwon to 6 points even though Olajuwon/Smits were the starters and played comparable minutes), and all you've been able to prove is that they played in the same game.
    Both Smits and Dale were in foul trouble.
    I've already won. You made a counter-intuitive claim and were unable to find compelling support.
    You have always won in every single internet pissing match. Nothing spells out victory quite like the self-proclaimed ones.
    Noah can't create his own scoring opportunity as well as Mutombo. Noah's offense is opportunistic, and as such, you can't rely on it. On the other hand, you could tell that Mutombo spent a lot of time practicing his hook shot from the post.
    Robinson spent a lot of time practicing his as well, it still sucked.
    The creator deserves the credit. Look at Chris Paul and DeAndre Jordan. Paul throws a ton of lobs to Jordan, but who is universally considered the engine of that offense? Who deserves the glory?
    Whoís throwing lobs to Noah?
    Are you saying you have NBA league pass and you watch the Rockets? Me being a Rockets fan means that I've seen every game this season, and it means that I'm more familiar w/ the Rockets players than you are.
    I put a German Sheppard and have him watch all the Rockets games, practice and post game interviews. Will he be more familiar w/ the Rockets players than you are?
    Not really. Otis Thorpe got garbage points and finished pick and rolls. However, since he couldn't consistently create his own shot, he wasn't considered an offensive threat.
    This one showed GREAT knowledge of Rockets players.
    All the stats in the world don't mean a thing when your argument fails the "eye" test. Like I said before, watch the games. Motiejunas is a much better offensive threat than Howard.
    Hakeem is so good he broke the law of averages. You are so good your eye test rules all. It explains why you have won so many arguments and self proclaimed so many victories, internet Viking.
    Not when he shot his fadeaways.
    He jumped back from 10 feet?
    I've lost track of this tangent. What's your point?
    Youíve lost track of a lot of stuff, didnít stop you from arguing before.
    Who cares how many fouls he averaged as long as a he was making a significant contribution? Your arguments are getting increasingly weird.
    And you would consider that he was dominating more than his regular season?
    Look at how prime Olajuwon destroyed prime Robinson. Robinson simply couldn't guard him, and Robinson was a better defender than Bynum.
    Not when Robinson had to guard Horry at the same time.
    I've only looked at a few of his game logs for his highest FGA games this season. Some of them came with both Gordon and Holiday on the court. So that refutes your argument.
    I have shown you the numbers, so that refutes your point. Oh wait, you like the eye test.
    Yes, thanks for proving my point. Robinson's FGA decreased when he got a teammate capable of being the centerpiece of an offense.
    Yes, two career threatening injuries had nothing to do with it.
    And no, I said better teammates negatively affect your stats because you share the load, you were the one blaming Hakeemís failure in the Sonics series on Chucky Brown.
    Yao was injury prone. He missed the 07-08 playoffs. He broke his foot in the second round of the 08-09 playoffs. And you're talking about replacing him with a GOAT level player (94/95 Olajuwon). Why is it unreasonable to think that they'd win championships?
    I forgot, Hakeem invented the wheel, fire powder, the light bulb, the modern automobile, and the smart phone all in one afternoon. Not to mentioned he made cold fusion successful just by squeezing hydrogen atoms together.
    Actually, I didn't change my standards at all. Rather, you're moving the goalposts by talking about 3-peating. In this era, I do think that prime Olajuwon would win more total championships and have a more successful career. I also think that prime Shaq would win more total championships and have a more successful career.
    So Anthony Davis is a failure. Any successful dominating bigs in todayís game?
    What's your argument now? That a big can only be a major contributor if he wins an MVP or FMVP?
    That a position integral to the success of a team would have been the most valuable player in the league either over the course of a season or in an important series at least once in 10 years.
    Also, I like how you moved the goalposts of your argument by adding the word "traditional".
    My fault. I never realized you are so brilliant to mix up Dirkís game with Hakeemís game just because they are both 7 footers. Itís apparent to every normal human being out there, but not so to a genius like you.
    There's a few things I like to point out that I think you've overlooked.
    First, Zach Randolph has played 44 games. Conley has played 49, and Gasol has played 53. By looking only at total FGA, you're not considering the missed games.
    Gasol and Randolph averaged 48.5 games, Conley played 49. It averaged out.
    Secondly, Randolph averages 32.5 mpg and Gasol averages 33.9 mpg. 1994 Olajuwon averaged 41 mpg.
    Doesnít matter if we have already established the Grizzlies the MOST post focused offense in the league.
    Thirdly, Matt Bullard was a power forward who could shoot 3 pointers. He was not a wing player.
    I categorized him as a wing. You know, I actually watched the games.
    Fourthly, you're not considering the game flow. For instance, let's say that Olajuwon gets the ball in the post, gets double teamed, and passes out to a wide open Kenny Smith for the jumper. In that scenario, the offense ran through the post but resulted in a perimeter shot. With the way you've broken it out, that wouldn't be counter as a post play, but it was.
    This would apply to both the Rockets and the Grizzlies, so in the grand scheme of things, it averages out.
    Don't know, don't care.
    Of course you donít.
    LOL. You're cherry picking DPOY player. Obviously I'd rather be guarded by Cartwright instead of Mourning, but I'd also rather be guarded by Chris Andersen than Bill Cartwright.
    You listed height as the argument, I used height as the argument.
    It's not a huge drop when you go from 14.3 to 12.7 fga and 2.8 to 2.0 fta.
    Looks pretty big to me.
    You're seriously trying to attribute the Hawks' turnaround to minor drops in Horford's FGA/FTA? Not the change in personnel or offensive strategy, but Horford's drop of 1.6 fga and 0.8 fta?
    Yes. Itís a change in their offensive philosophy that allowed the Hawks to open up the motion offense. Youíve been watching all the Hawkís game too? Maybe thatís not important though, didnít stop you from opining on Noahís game when you have barely seen it.
    Sure it does. When you argue that absences from Holiday/Gordon will increase Davis' FGA, that argument can be refuted if I can prove that some of Davis' highest FGA games came when both Holiday/Gordon were present. And I did.
    Aberration. Averages tell a more complete story. Itís like saying the Oscars are dominated by Caucasian main actor, and then you pulled out Denzel Washington to ďdisproveĒ the point.
    You pull it up. It's your argument. I've already pulled up tons of stats to refute your other arguments.
    Pace as an exception is your argument. You introduced that argument, so you go and prove that pace is relevant.
    Great, he shot 25% of this shots at the rim, and 49% in the paint. 51% from ďmid range, which seems to be anywhere between 6 to 16 feet.
    Sorry, it's not a contradiction at all. Because your question has multiple variables, it allows for seemingly contradicting answers. However, that doesn't mean the answers are wrong. You have to look at each answer individually in the context of the question, not relative to other possible answers.
    And yet they are not compatible.
    The relevance is that players in their primes can handle a full workload. Players past their primes are more effective when they don't have to.
    Players at any stage in their career will benefit with a lighter work load, but will negatively affect their stats.
    If you want to be willfully ignorant, that's your choice. Frankly, it's not surprising since you enter arguments with a closed mind. No objective sports fan would agree with your argument that Yao and Smits had comparable mobility/coordination.
    Even on his best day, do you think Yao was capable of doing something like this?
    You mean like this?

    Or this:
    I mean, just no coordination on those post up turn arounds, you just had to be big, thatís whey Gheorge Muresan pulled out the same moves.

    Nope, that's a horrible application of my logic. Keep in mind that if you really did understand my logic, we wouldn't be arguing like this, and you wouldn't be wrong so frequently.
    Me saying current defenses were more effective = me saying past defenses didnít close out on shooters. Itís the exact same faulty logic.
    Yes, they allow for a lot of things. But just because you're capable of doing something doesn't mean you actually do it. Look at Stromile Swift.
    Again, one specific player. We are talking about a general trend, and if the assumption is that, the league, in general, have a general level average skills for all players, then longer players will provide better defensive coverage.
    I'm still waiting for you to prove that current defensive players close out more effectively than 90's defensive players.
    Already answered above. And also, as you would like to say, the eye test.
    Itís just convenient that my stance have to be proven by hard facts and stats, and yet yours is all eye test rules all. Oh wait, it depends, right?
    Wow. Are you seriously unaware that a player's skill-level correlates to his level of being an offensive threat?
    See, this is another application of your logic. My ďitĒ in the ďitĒ has nothing to do with it applies to the statement of how skilled a person is, not the skill itself. My argument is that you talking about how skilled a person is is not related to how big of a threat a person is, they are two different arguments.

  7. #907
    Believe.
    My Team
    Houston Rockets
    Post Count
    194
    And a post-up inside out offense would allow the defense to recover quickly.

    Not when they are being contested quickly with the more complex defenses and longer quicker athletes.
    LOL. You keep using the same weak argument while providing little to no support. The Memphis Grizzlies use a post-up inside out offense, and they have the 3rd best record in the league. Why can't all these complex defenses with longer, quicker athletes stop the Grizzlies?

    Itís the same person.
    That doesn't mean that every stage in a player's career is relevant to each other. When looking at Olajuwon's peak, would it make any sense to look at his year in Toronto? Of course not. Only an idiot would think that.

    Thanks for letting me know what I wanted to post. You read my mind better than I could.
    Sure thing. I'm glad I was able to clear things up for you. You seem fairly confused most of the time.

    It can be when you want to avoid answering.

    Iíd be able to say it depends instead of saying z = 0.
    So there you go. Because of the nature of the question (multiple variables), you weren't able to give a "yes/no" answer to a "yes/no" question. Do you now understand why I wasn't able to give a yes/no answer to your multi-variable question?

    Both Smits and Dale were in foul trouble.
    They each finished the game with 4 fouls.

    Regarding this particular tangent, you can't win. Like I said earlier, your assertion is counter-intuitive, and you're not going to be able to come up with an argument compelling enough to compensate.

    You remind me of Kobe fans who claim that he's better than Jordan.

    You have always won in every single internet pissing match. Nothing spells out victory quite like the self-proclaimed ones.
    It helps that in this particular internet pissing match, my opponent is an idiot.

    Robinson spent a lot of time practicing his as well, it still sucked.
    What's your point? Robinson and Mutombo are two different players. What works for one may not work for the other (and vice versa).

    Whoís throwing lobs to Noah?
    You're confusing the arguments. We were talking about Noah/Mutombo in the context of who was the better individual scorer. We were talking about lobs in the context of Howard/Motiejunas (a scorer's value when his scoring opportunities are created by his teammates). Try not to mix up the arguments.

    I put a German Sheppard and have him watch all the Rockets games, practice and post game interviews. Will he be more familiar w/ the Rockets players than you are?
    Just because you and your dog have a comparable intellect doesn't mean that it rivals that of normal people. Remember, you're an idiot.

    This one showed GREAT knowledge of Rockets players.
    You think Otis Thorpe could consistently create his own shots?

    He jumped back from 10 feet?
    Yep, go watch his highlights.

    Youíve lost track of a lot of stuff, didnít stop you from arguing before.
    It's hard to follow your argument when your responses get shorter and shorter. At that point, you're posting to keep the argument alive as opposed to proving your point.

    And you would consider that he was dominating more than his regular season?
    Nope, he was injured in the playoffs.

    Not when Robinson had to guard Horry at the same time.
    So now you're saying that Robinson guarded both Olajuwon and Horry at the same time? Ridiculous. Go watch the videos. Robinson simply couldn't guard Olajuwon in that series.

    I have shown you the numbers, so that refutes your point. Oh wait, you like the eye test.
    My numbers were more compelling.

    Yes, two career threatening injuries had nothing to do with it.
    They weren't nearly as impactful as Duncan's arrival.

    And no, I said better teammates negatively affect your stats because you share the load, you were the one blaming Hakeemís failure in the Sonics series on Chucky Brown.
    That statement isn't necessarily true. That's why I compared Otis Thorpe to Chucky Brown. Thorpe is better than Brown, but not good enough that he would negatively impact Olajuwon's stats. In fact, his presence might improve Olajuwon's stats since Thorpe was a much better rebounder than Brown (leading to more Rockets' possessions).

    Yao was injury prone. He missed the 07-08 playoffs. He broke his foot in the second round of the 08-09 playoffs. And you're talking about replacing him with a GOAT level player (94/95 Olajuwon). Why is it unreasonable to think that they'd win championships?
    I forgot, Hakeem invented the wheel, fire powder, the light bulb, the modern automobile, and the smart phone all in one afternoon. Not to mentioned he made cold fusion successful just by squeezing hydrogen atoms together.
    Nice. You know you can't win this argument so you're trying to deflect. You're an idiot.

    So Anthony Davis is a failure. Any successful dominating bigs in todayís game?
    Why don't you consider Anthony Davis to be a successful dominating big?

    That a position integral to the success of a team would have been the most valuable player in the league either over the course of a season or in an important series at least once in 10 years.
    Bigs are integral to the success of a team. I've already established that by citing the bigs who contributed to recent championships. Why are you defining "integral" in the context of MVP or FMVP? It seems like you're cherry picking your parameters, especially when you construct your parameters to intentionally exclude Nowitzki.

    Also, I've been talking about the dearth of dominant big men in today's game. And because such a dearth exists, it's not surprising that there haven't been any recent MVP/FMVP who were bigs.

    My fault. I never realized you are so brilliant to mix up Dirkís game with Hakeemís game just because they are both 7 footers. Itís apparent to every normal human being out there, but not so to a genius like you.
    I didn't mix up their games. Both of them utilized a fadeaway from the post. And I'm not a genius. Well, compared to you I am, but not to normal people.

    Gasol and Randolph averaged 48.5 games, Conley played 49. It averaged out.
    It's improper to flip back and forth between gross numbers and averages in the same argument.

    I categorized him as a wing. You know, I actually watched the games.
    Yes, I know you categorized him as a wing. That was incorrect. Matt Bullard was not a wing.

    You listed height as the argument, I used height as the argument.
    I pointed out the height disparity between Bill Cartwright and Chris Andersen. It's irrelevant to bring up anyone else.

    Looks pretty big to me.
    Well, considering the fact that you're an idiot, that's not surprising.

    Yes. Itís a change in their offensive philosophy that allowed the Hawks to open up the motion offense. Youíve been watching all the Hawkís game too? Maybe thatís not important though, didnít stop you from opining on Noahís game when you have barely seen it.
    You're confusing correlation with causation.

    The motion offense led to a slight decrease in Horford's FGA. Horford's slight decrease in FGA did not lead to the motion offense (which you earlier claimed).

    Aberration. Averages tell a more complete story. Itís like saying the Oscars are dominated by Caucasian main actor, and then you pulled out Denzel Washington to ďdisproveĒ the point.
    Except it happened more than once.

    Pace as an exception is your argument. You introduced that argument, so you go and prove that pace is relevant.
    Pace has always been relevant, and it was improperly excluded from your argument. I don't care if you include it or not, but if you don't, your failure to include it will undermine your argument.

    Great, he shot 25% of this shots at the rim, and 49% in the paint. 51% from ďmid range, which seems to be anywhere between 6 to 16 feet.
    So if you're going to argue that Olajuwon's post game only led to shots less than 10 feet from the rim, you have a lot of work ahead of you.

    Sorry, it's not a contradiction at all. Because your question has multiple variables, it allows for seemingly contradicting answers. However, that doesn't mean the answers are wrong. You have to look at each answer individually in the context of the question, not relative to other possible answers.
    And yet they are not compatible.
    Do you see why it's easy to get lost in your arguments? Because you post nonsense responses like this. How does your reply make sense in the context of my post?

    Players at any stage in their career will benefit with a lighter work load, but will negatively affect their stats.
    Why do you insist on comparing a player's peak years with his post-peak years? A player in his peak doesn't need as much help as he does later in his career.

    You mean like this?
    LOL. You really think those are comparable in terms of mobility and coordination? Smits used an up and under move to fake out his defender and create his shot. Yao lumbered in the paint and created his shot by slowly rising above the defense. Smits has noticeably better coordination and mobility.

    Me saying current defenses were more effective = me saying past defenses didnít close out on shooters. Itís the exact same faulty logic.
    You said current defenses were more effective b/c they emphasize closing out on shooter. That implies that past defenses didn't emphasize on closing out on shooters. That's why your statement was illogical.

    Again, one specific player. We are talking about a general trend, and if the assumption is that, the league, in general, have a general level average skills for all players, then longer players will provide better defensive coverage.
    Seriously? I can name a ton of players whose athletic gifts didn't amount to much.

    Already answered above. And also, as you would like to say, the eye test.
    Itís just convenient that my stance have to be proven by hard facts and stats, and yet yours is all eye test rules all. Oh wait, it depends, right?
    Already answered above? You mean when you talked about assumptions?

    The only time I referenced the "eye test" is when you said that Rik Smits and Yao Ming had comparable mobility/coordination.

    See, this is another application of your logic. My ďitĒ in the ďitĒ has nothing to do with it applies to the statement of how skilled a person is, not the skill itself. My argument is that you talking about how skilled a person is is not related to how big of a threat a person is, they are two different arguments.
    A player's skill level directly translates into his level as an offensive threat. Steph Curry can effortlessly make 3 pointers at a high percentage. That's one of his skills. As a result, he becomes an offensive threat when he's within 25 feet of the basket.

  8. #908
    Drive for Five! ambchang's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    15,454
    LOL. You keep using the same weak argument while providing little to no support. The Memphis Grizzlies use a post-up inside out offense, and they have the 3rd best record in the league. Why can't all these complex defenses with longer, quicker athletes stop the Grizzlies?
    This thing is coming to no end, so I am putting on my wekko368 hat, and respond to question like you do.
    The eye test
    That doesn't mean that every stage in a player's career is relevant to each other. When looking at Olajuwon's peak, would it make any sense to look at his year in Toronto? Of course not. Only an idiot would think that.
    2014 Duncan is not 2000 Hakeem. Only an idiot would think that.
    Sure thing. I'm glad I was able to clear things up for you. You seem fairly confused most of the time.
    Thank you sir. You can read my mind, thinking that I was confused, and yet can know exactly what I was thinking.
    So there you go. Because of the nature of the question (multiple variables), you weren't able to give a "yes/no" answer to a "yes/no" question. Do you now understand why I wasn't able to give a yes/no answer to your multi-variable question?
    And yet you gave definitive answers. Which later were contradictory to your other assertions.
    They each finished the game with 4 fouls.
    4 fouls after playing 31 minutes of the game is foul trouble.
    Regarding this particular tangent, you can't win. Like I said earlier, your assertion is counter-intuitive, and you're not going to be able to come up with an argument compelling enough to compensate.
    I can always use the eye test. It looked right.
    You remind me of Kobe fans who claim that he's better than Jordan.
    You remind me of Hakeem fans who claim he invented basketball.
    It helps that in this particular internet pissing match, my opponent is an idiot.
    Very convincing argument. Thinking Hakeem cannot do every single thing = idiot. Gotcha.



    What's your point? Robinson and Mutombo are two different players. What works for one may not work for the other (and vice versa).
    Point being practicing a lot does not mean a player is particular good at said skills. I am surprised that your superior Hakeem granted intellect couldn’t tie those two dots together.
    You're confusing the arguments. We were talking about Noah/Mutombo in the context of who was the better individual scorer. We were talking about lobs in the context of Howard/Motiejunas (a scorer's value when his scoring opportunities are created by his teammates). Try not to mix up the arguments.
    And yet you were the one who pulled out the Dwight/Motiejunas comparisons with regards to Noah Mutombo comparisons. If they are not related, you just introduced a totally pointless and irrelevant argument, which is basically what you have been doing all along.
    Just because you and your dog have a comparable intellect doesn't mean that it rivals that of normal people. Remember, you're an idiot.
    Hey, you just claimed my dog is more familiar with the Rockets players than you do. Not me. I am particularly flummoxed by someone who self pro-claimed to be dumber than a dog calling other people idiots. It’s either a very very smart dog we are talking about here, or we are talking about you, and my dog isn’t really that particularly smart.
    You think Otis Thorpe could consistently create his own shots?
    Yes.
    Yep, go watch his highlights.
    I did.
    It's hard to follow your argument when your responses get shorter and shorter. At that point, you're posting to keep the argument alive as opposed to proving your point.
    But you have a superior intellect of a genius dog, and you can clarify my points when I am confused. You should be able to pinpoint exactly what I am thinking without me even writing a thing.
    Nope, he was injured in the playoffs.
    So he was dominate while in foul trouble, and injured in the playoffs. Bravo.
    So now you're saying that Robinson guarded both Olajuwon and Horry at the same time? Ridiculous. Go watch the videos. Robinson simply couldn't guard Olajuwon in that series.
    In some cases. Rodman wasn’t guarding anyone as he was going for rebounds all series long. Robinson obviously didn’t guard Hakeem that well, he averaged 35 a game.
    My numbers were more compelling.
    Compelling != meaningful.
    They weren't nearly as impactful as Duncan's arrival.
    and Kobe’s numbers went down not because of multiple career threatening injuries, it’s because of the arrival of Swaggy P.
    BTW, I am in the camp saying better teammates lead to lower numbers but better team accomplishments, so really, there’s nothing to argue about.
    *Snicker* Robinson’s numbers went down mostly because of Duncan’s arrival and not because of two career threatening injuries* Do you do stand up by any chance? I would pay to see you perform live.
    [QUOTE=wekko368;7841278]That statement isn't necessarily true. That's why I compared Otis Thorpe to Chucky Brown. Thorpe is better than Brown, but not good enough that he would negatively impact Olajuwon's stats. In fact, his presence might improve Olajuwon's stats since Thorpe was a much better rebounder than Brown (leading to more Rockets' possessions).
    I agree, because everything has exceptions, but Thorpe/Brown isn’t one of them.
    Nice. You know you can't win this argument so you're trying to deflect. You're an idiot.
    Explain me to you train of thought, deflecting = being an idiot? Wouldn’t idiots be too idiotic to deflect?
    And no, Hakeem wouldn’t be able to pull that 08 Rockets to win a championship. Chuck Hayes isn’t that much better than Chucky Brown, and Bonzi Wells will be useless with Hakeem in the blocks. Same with Scola.
    Why don't you consider Anthony Davis to be a successful dominating big?
    You didn’t consider him to be a successful dominating big.
    Define more successful
    More championships.
    Bigs are integral to the success of a team. I've already established that by citing the bigs who contributed to recent championships. Why are you defining "integral" in the context of MVP or FMVP? It seems like you're cherry picking your parameters, especially when you construct your parameters to intentionally exclude Nowitzki.
    Dirk plays like Hakeem now. Point is traditional bigs are no longer utilized in the same way as the 90s. What about MVP voting? Wings have been dominating the MVP votes for years.
    Pulling in Dirk as some kind of proof that Hakeem would be as successful in today’s game as he was back in the 90s defies logic, even by your standards.
    Also, I've been talking about the dearth of dominant big men in today's game. And because such a dearth exists, it's not surprising that there haven't been any recent MVP/FMVP who were bigs.
    Even dominating bigs like Davis is having trouble getting his team to much playoff success. The only one who has any level of team success being a dominant big was Dwight Howard and Tim Duncan. And Duncan had a plethora of wings around him, where as Dwight’s team was a flash in the pan.
    I didn't mix up their games. Both of them utilized a fadeaway from the post. And I'm not a genius. Well, compared to you I am, but not to normal people.
    I have a fadeaway too, am I a dominant big?
    Oh, you sure are a genius, genius amongst German Sheppards.
    It's improper to flip back and forth between gross numbers and averages in the same argument.
    It’s improper to compare 2 players aggregate total to one persons on a 15 man roster.
    Yes, I know you categorized him as a wing. That was incorrect. Matt Bullard was not a wing.
    If I categorized him as a post player, it would actually strengthen my argument and weakens yours. So at the end of it, it changed nothing. I was actually giving you a handicap and you didn’t even realize it.
    I pointed out the height disparity between Bill Cartwright and Chris Andersen. It's irrelevant to bring up anyone else.
    And the disparity is irrelevant to anything else.
    Well, considering the fact that you're an idiot, that's not surprising.
    15% is not big, gotcha.
    You're confusing correlation with causation.
    The motion offense led to a slight decrease in Horford's FGA. Horford's slight decrease in FGA did not lead to the motion offense (which you earlier claimed).
    Hmmm … which means that taking the ball away from the post and opening up the offense leads to more team success.
    Except it happened more than once.
    List the top 10.
    Pace has always been relevant, and it was improperly excluded from your argument. I don't care if you include it or not, but if you don't, your failure to include it will undermine your argument.
    No it doesn’t.
    So if you're going to argue that Olajuwon's post game only led to shots less than 10 feet from the rim, you have a lot of work ahead of you.
    When did I say only?
    Do you see why it's easy to get lost in your arguments? Because you post nonsense responses like this. How does your reply make sense in the context of my post?
    You couldn’t see how it’s relevant? Hold on, I will ask my dog to explain it to you. He gets it.
    Why do you insist on comparing a player's peak years with his post-peak years? A player in his peak doesn't need as much help as he does later in his career.
    But they still need help.
    LOL. You really think those are comparable in terms of mobility and coordination? Smits used an up and under move to fake out his defender and create his shot. Yao lumbered in the paint and created his shot by slowly rising above the defense. Smits has noticeably better coordination and mobility.
    LOL. You really think those are not comparable in terms of mobility and coordination? Smits mechanically used a fake to launch a shot underneath his defender, while Yao used his skills to split the double and finished a graceful fadeaway. They both have similar coordination and mobility
    You said current defenses were more effective b/c they emphasize closing out on shooter. That implies that past defenses didn't emphasize on closing out on shooters. That's why your statement was illogical.
    Yes, because in basketball, you either close out on every single possession or you do not close out. You are such a brilliant person. I am sure you use Nobel Prizes as paperweights at home.
    Seriously? I can name a ton of players whose athletic gifts didn't amount to much.
    I can too. Didn’t make the rest of the statement you ignored disappear though.
    Already answered above? You mean when you talked about assumptions?
    You can use your eye tests depending on the situation. I feel like I am you already … wait. Hakeem rocks, he’s the greatest human being ever, Hakeem created the earth, sun and moon!
    Now, I am you.
    The only time I referenced the "eye test" is when you said that Rik Smits and Yao Ming had comparable mobility/coordination.
    Hey, if that’s good enough for one argument, it should be good enough for all.
    A player's skill level directly translates into his level as an offensive threat. Steph Curry can effortlessly make 3 pointers at a high percentage. That's one of his skills. As a result, he becomes an offensive threat when he's within 25 feet of the basket.
    Getting an offensive rebound and putting the ball back in the basket, or catching and finishing lobs are skills too.

  9. #909
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    920

  10. #910
    Veteran mojorizen7's Avatar
    My Team
    Phoenix Suns
    Post Count
    1,841
    That top 6 looks fine except for D.Robinson in there at #5. Especially odd because he's above Olajuwon which is ridiculous IMO.

  11. #911
    絶対領域が大好きなんだよ baseline bum's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    83,561
    Uh oh, dog whistle to 95 Rocket fan.

  12. #912
    Veteran cantthinkofanything's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    14,937
    That top 6 looks fine except for D.Robinson in there at #5. Especially odd because he's above Olajuwon which is ridiculous IMO.
    Yeah, I thought the same thing.

    But of the top 6, if I'm starting a team and get to pick one of those guys in their prime, I think I might pick Hakeem at #1. Assuming you don't get to go back in time and assume they all use the same training methods.

  13. #913
    Believe.
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    920
    That top 6 looks fine except for D.Robinson in there at #5. Especially odd because he's above Olajuwon which is ridiculous IMO.
    Mmm hmm, because of one playoff series. Robinson is 30-12 lifetime vs Hakeem.

  14. #914
    Believe. KobeOwnsDuncan's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Post Count
    1,472
    this thread

  15. #915
    Grab 'em by the pussy Splits's Avatar
    My Team
    San Antonio Spurs
    Post Count
    23,816
    Hard to recall the prime of Hakeem, all that's left are memories of his humiliating play at the end.

    Tim Duncan, take heed, old man.
    Duncan beasting on defense, leading the best defensive team in the league to one of the best seasons in NBA history

    "take heed"

    "old man" 6 years ago, yet still going strong

    this Post-Pau Post-4-4 got

  16. #916
    notthewordsofonewhokneels Thread's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Post Count
    53,736
    Duncan beasting on defense, leading the best defensive team in the league to one of the best seasons in NBA history

    "take heed"

    "old man" 6 years ago, yet still going strong

    this Post-Pau Post-4-4 got
    Old 19.2.

  17. #917
    EAT IT!!! Kawhitstorm's Avatar
    My Team
    Toronto Raptors
    Post Count
    17,729
    Just watch Akeem getting worked by old ass Kareem:


  18. #918
    Executive Mitch's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Post Count
    6,473
    Just watch Akeem getting worked by old ass Kareem:

    Kareem > Hakeem >> Duncan, it's understandable.

  19. #919
    Believe. KobeOwnsDuncan's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Post Count
    1,472
    Didnt Jim get his ass roasted by Amare to the tune of 37.5 and 9 on 55% shooting?

  20. #920
    EAT IT!!! Kawhitstorm's Avatar
    My Team
    Toronto Raptors
    Post Count
    17,729
    Why do people give Robinson so much for losing to Olajuwon? Ewing's the one who actually shot 36% in his series against Hakeem. Robinson got outplayed pretty badly, but he didn't completely the bed like Ewing did against a far inferior Rockets team whose second best player was Vernon Maxwell.
    Ewing WASN'T the MVP of the league in '94 (it was Hakeem who was also DPOY) & Ewing was already on a decline b/c of his numerous lower extremity injuries since his rookie season. Ewing also set the blocks record in that series so he wasn't getting steam rolled. The Rockets frontline was also more gritty in '94 w/ Thorpe playing alongside Hakeem.

  21. #921
    EAT IT!!! Kawhitstorm's Avatar
    My Team
    Toronto Raptors
    Post Count
    17,729
    Kareem > Hakeem >> Duncan, it's understandable.
    Kareem got steam rolled by Moses so I guess: Moses > Kareem/Hakeem

    McHale also gave the Rockets twin towers "dat work" in the '86 Finals.

  22. #922
    EAT IT!!! Kawhitstorm's Avatar
    My Team
    Toronto Raptors
    Post Count
    17,729
    Didnt Jim get his ass roasted by Amare to the tune of 37.5 and 9 on 55% shooting?
    Amare was playing center & Nazr was the center on the 2005 Spurs. Tim shut Marion down to the tune of 8 pts on 39% shooting.

  23. #923
    Executive Mitch's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Post Count
    6,473
    Kareem got steam rolled by Moses so I guess: Moses > Kareem/Hakeem

    McHale also gave the twin tower "dat work" in the '86 Finals.
    Kareem has 6 and a repeat, you don't expect to get handed when you're great but it happens.

    You do, however, expect Kareem to make Hakeem his .

  24. #924
    EAT IT!!! Kawhitstorm's Avatar
    My Team
    Toronto Raptors
    Post Count
    17,729
    Kareem has 6 and a repeat, you don't expect to get handed when you're great but it happens.

    You do, however, expect Kareem to make Hakeem his .
    Kareem vs. Moses: 0-2 w/ Magic

  25. #925
    Executive Mitch's Avatar
    My Team
    Los Angeles Lakers
    Post Count
    6,473
    Kareem vs. Moses: 0-2 w/ Magic
    Moses: 1 & done

    Kareem: 6


Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

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

Posting Permissions

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