If you put Gobert on those 1990's Jazz teams how many titles do you think they end up with?

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Clearly he's a serious upgrade from Olberding/Spencer/Keefe. How much of an upgrade would you say Gobert is on Mark Eaton (who the advanced stat guys have as a much stronger player than my eye test ever did)?

Ostertag. I liked Ostertag but he did not have many fans.

Olberding was a forward for the 1979 through early 1980s Spurs.
Then where did he go? Kansas city Kings?

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Not going to proclaim expertise on the differences and intricacies of the game over eras.

Don't know whether on not man D was more important then.

I am though confident that Manute Bol played a bunch and in Philly and on-off stuff, otoh suggests was circa neutral despite wretchedly awful offense and obvious physical weakness (and high center of gravity) because he was a great rim protector. Shawn Bradley shows an impressive impact profile despite weak box offense ... because he was a great rim protector. Gobert isn't the shot blocker they were but I think you could have a huge impact back then protecting the rim. Raw efficiency would fall in a lower efficiency era, I don't know about relative terms.

Question is how many titles they would win though - so my focus is on how he would do in the playoffs (guarding Shaq in 97/98 for example), not what type of impact profile he has in the regular season. Bol's and Bradley's lackluster man to man defense would have been exposed as well if they played guys like Hakeem and Shaq.

....
Not sure that this follows logically. Jazz have many chances to win, they have to win series versus all types of opponents, is there evidence that the Jazz route would be particularly heavily through high value offensive centers (not saying it necessarily isn't - fwiw there are probably changes from their IRL path with the Gobert upgrade changing RS record). They already have cross-match options with the strength of Malone ... I guess versus '95 Rockets him on Horry isn't optimal though his agility, I've heard, is underrated. More typically at that time even if the center matchup were an issue (not a given) most cross matching would allow him to cover a fairly basket adjacent PF.

And the finals teams went 8-1 versus the Shaq Lakers in the playoffs on their finals trips. I imagine there's some luck there. Still...
In '98 ...
1) It's a sweep
2) it's a comfortable one 416-362, points over the series, 116.1 to 101 per 100 possessions.
3) After a poor first game that contributed a fair chunk towards those differentials LA is winning two of those games in the circa 40mpg Shaq is on the floor.
4) For those 3 games he averages 36ppg on .600 shooting from the field, dragged down only by bad free throw shooting, probably not something Utah centers altered. He's also grabbing 4 offensive rebounds per game. Include g1 and it's 31.8 on .560, 4.3.
His OBPMs go
-5.1
7.3
7.5
13.5
The Jazz victory then in '98, was not won by a superb containment of O'Neal, but through a very efficient offense (and perhaps by limiting other Lakers?). Granted it's not individual matchups in a vacuum but Shaq seems to have been pretty effective.

It's a very clumsy first glance analysis but I'm not sure Bradley wasn't effective versus Olajuwon
Looking at Bradley and Olajuwon playing over half the game in Olajuwon's prime years (94-96) I see 5 games, a small sample, just one measure used etc
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199401080HOU.html
Olajuwon -1.4 OBPM
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199503140PHI.html
Olajuwon -0.6 OBPM
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199503190HOU.html
-2.1 OBPM
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199511220PHI.html
0.7 OBPM
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199601240NJN.html
5.6 OBPM

There is another game where Olajuwon gets a 4.3 OBPM but only 18 minutes of Bradley, so hard to tell what is versus who. Thus whilst I note them as primarily driving defense through rim protection and they aren't the physical archetype you seem to prefer for that time I don't see a clear indication that Olajuwon would "expose" Bradley (his teams seem to have been fairly effective in containing Olajuwon, though it's a small sample and without deeper analysis [requiring footage etc] it would be hard to make strong statements on cause).

Ostertag was one of the better defenders of Shaq. Peak Shaq was putting intentional offensive fouls that would not be called into his offensive moves. Peak Shaq would have fouked out from offensive fouls if he was dealing with 1960s refs and did not get those uncalled offensive fouls out of his moves. Ostertag could take a Shaq shoulder slam without wobbling much and that was important when defending Shaq because if your feet are moving on Shaq’s move after the shoulder slam when Shaq bounces into you again the foul is on you. Shaq supporters say the uncalled offensive fouls by Shaq just partially make up for the uncalled defenders hacking of Shaq.

But the Jazz had to beat the Bulls, not Shaq. For beating the Bulls, blocking Jordan’s drive without fouling Jordan, I think Gobert would be useful and better than Ostertag.

[eminence]

Rampage through the 90s. Those casts were rough and Gobert is a bigtime upgrade on any C the Jazz have ever run out. Dikembe as the closest era equivalent. Perennial #1 seed in the west and now a good matchup with the Bulls (was already a decent matchup, Bulls simply had more talent/better coaching). I’d guess in the range of 5 total rings and being seen as the dominant team of the 90s.

Modern Jazz never make the playoffs with Ostertag and crew in Rudys place

[165bows]

RIP to Felton Spencer who passed away a few days ago. He was a solid player. We like to focus on the stars and all, and I get it, but everybody in the NBA can play. Spencer outdueled some megastars in select games. That’s pretty cool to say that you competed against Robinson and Olajuwon and O’Neal.

As for the thread, they’d be worse. As overrated and borderline useless as Gobert is in this era, he’s be just as useless and overrated in previous eras. Not strong enough to really D up in the post, not mobile enough to stay with the quicker Cs out West. Low-IQ trash offense even in the Optimization Era…what happens in less advanced offensive eras with more physical big man defense, and on a painfully predictable Jazz offense at that?

I don't understand the logic. A great rim protecting big man in an era more advantageous to rim protecting big men. Less perimeter shots less matchup hunting more post play why would t Rudy be more helpful?

Yeah was right there about the Felton Spencer part and then totally lost me. Gobert would have been awesome back then.

[Owly]

Para 2 - you provided regular season stats for Hakeem vs Bradley. But the discussion is about winning titles. The DRob example is just to show that the regular season didn't have any bearing to what happened in the playoffs when teams start exploiting weaknesses.

Para 3 - yes, I've acknowledged the upsides. All I said is Ostertag was a worse man defender[sic]. Gobert would likely be in foul trouble more quickly. Ostertag defended Shaq very well that series and I don't think Gobert can do that.

My last go round on this, because I don't see it being productive.

Para 2: So if your only sample you're going to go off is playoffs then you're going to get tiny samples for nearly every matchup in history (especially post-late 60s expansion). So every matchup will be "what I reckon" regardless of actual RS data if they haven't played in the playoffs or based of a tiny sample if they have. Okay. As I say there's nothing to discuss. I will say don't get making strong unqualified assertions or absolute statements about stuff you have no [that you trust] data on.

para 3 - Fwiw I saw a general, "they get better" is acknowledged. Not sure "the upsides" (plural) including the likely gulf in offensive production/efficiency, particularly in the specific context versus LA as raised here was outlined above, apologies if this was redundant and I missed it, though I don't think it was there.

So all I said here was man to man defense was more important then and that's not something Gobert would be better at for some of those Jazz teams (while acknowledging they'd still be better overall and win multiple championships) - do you think that's inaccurate? Is that making a strong unqualified assertion / absolute statement? I didn't bring up any samples - I merely countered your Bradley data saying that regular season samples are not necessarily an indication of what will happen in the playoffs and there are many examples of that just in the last few years.

As before I'm finished with this but as you are asking me a question and the tone seems okay I'll answer.

The thing I felt was an unqualified statement was "Bol's and Bradley's lackluster man to man defense would have been exposed as well if they played guys like Hakeem and Shaq." That assertion (which is based on no evidence of what actually happened, and is not in any way qualified ("I believe that ...") and is stated in strong terms "lackluster man to man defense would have been exposed". Now per the above I think in one such matchup there is some limited evidence suggesting this is not the case. You don't care about that hence (1) nothing to discuss and (2) "I will say don't get making strong unqualified assertions or absolute statements about stuff you have no [that you trust] data on." (rather than stating, as I believe, I the face of some contrary evidence).

[OhayoKD]

RIP to Felton Spencer who passed away a few days ago. He was a solid player. We like to focus on the stars and all, and I get it, but everybody in the NBA can play. Spencer outdueled some megastars in select games. That’s pretty cool to say that you competed against Robinson and Olajuwon and O’Neal.

As for the thread, they’d be worse. As overrated and borderline useless as Gobert is in this era, he’s be just as useless and overrated in previous eras. Not strong enough to really D up in the post, not mobile enough to stay with the quicker Cs out West. Low-IQ trash offense even in the Optimization Era…what happens in less advanced offensive eras with more physical big man defense, and on a painfully predictable Jazz offense at that?

I don't understand the logic. A great rim protecting big man in an era more advantageous to rim protecting big men. Less perimeter shots less matchup hunting more post play why would t Rudy be more helpful?

Yeah was right there about the Felton Spencer part and then totally lost me. Gobert would have been awesome back then.

Definitely an improvement that would lead to some titles, but I think people are overestimating the level of improvement. I believe man to man defense was more important against centers in the 90s and Ostertag for example was a stronger man defender than Rudy - he defended Shaq better than Rudy would be able to. But maybe playing in the 90s causes Rudy to focus on getting bigger/stronger rather than spending time working on his agility - hard to say. Rudy is also not going to maintain the same level of offensive efficiency that he has today - 80+% of his shots are at the rim and 60+% of those are dunks. That's not going to be his shot profile in the 90s.

Not going to proclaim expertise on the differences and intricacies of the game over eras.

Don't know whether on not man D was more important then.

I am though confident that Manute Bol played a bunch and in Philly and on-off stuff, otoh suggests was circa neutral despite wretchedly awful offense and obvious physical weakness (and high center of gravity) because he was a great rim protector. Shawn Bradley shows an impressive impact profile despite weak box offense ... because he was a great rim protector. Gobert isn't the shot blocker they were but I think you could have a huge impact back then protecting the rim. Raw efficiency would fall in a lower efficiency era, I don't know about relative terms.

Yeah...I don't know about Gobert having some deficit here as a man defender. Beyond an exceptional physical profile(similar dimensions as deke, similarly sturdy, and significantly more mobile/fluid), Gobert has actually done exceptionally well against an incredible diverse collection of bigs(source: Matchup Data from NBA.com):

BAM without gobert
20 points per 36 on
0.607 TS
BAM vs gobert
Vs Gobert
30 points on 38% TS

33.75 on 38% ts vs Gobert

-22% TS

35 min

EMBID
38 min
54 points per 36 on 47% TS
Vs 30 points per 36 on 61% TS

-14% TS

Giannis
18 min
144 points per 36 on 59% TS
Vs 31 points per 36 on .621% TS
-3% TS

DAVIS
38 min
63 points per 36 on .487% TS
VS
60% TS on 27 per 36
-11% TS

Embid, a guy on par with anyone in the post(excepting Shaq and Wilt) sees his efficiency plummet(never mind his unusual range)

So does GOAT-level Vertical Spacer Davis

And as a bonus we have passing-big Bam getting utterly demolished.

Ironically, the player who does the best is the one I imagine posters here would expect to do the worst(might be worth reconsidering how well you think putting some big strong big-man(without 3 good/elite perimeter defenders to support) works against an incredibly fluid and agile freight train("momentum" is a big perk of being able to function as a primary ball-handler)).

Still, while Gobert cannot completely stop Giannis(someone who cooks the "stronger" Embid 1 v 1), he does slow him, and he obliterates the other comers(well, besides the one with goat-level(for bigs) three-point shooting/range).

Don't have the data on hand, but IIRC, he slows Jokic too.

Needless to say, Gobert is broken in the 90's. Defensively the only real competition is Hakeem and maaaaaaaybe Robinson. And ofc he's actually pretty nice on the offensive side for a defensive specialist with the screen-setting/rolling threat(again, fluidity helps).

Jazz get waaaay better.

[70sFan]

Needless to say, Gobert is broken in the 90's. Defensively the only real competition is Hakeem and maaaaaaaybe Robinson.

Mutombo and Ewing existed back then...

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

Needless to say, Gobert is broken in the 90's. Defensively the only real competition is Hakeem and maaaaaaaybe Robinson.

Mutombo and Ewing existed back then...

Rik Smits was bit soft when it came to physical stuff but he was a good shot blockers.
Marcus Camby had a couple good yers in the 1990s. Ostertag was a stronger poor man’s Gobert.
Ratleff was good.
If I thought hard enough I could think of more people.
Gobert would be more important in the 1990s but he would not be better than Dikembe and he woukd not stand out from the pack of rim protectors as much in the 1990s.

[jazzfan1971]

0-6 probably. Would have made them a dynasty type team IMHO. Probably close to 3 with plenty of upside and downside. It's hard to win a title.