Did hakeem get screwed out of his chance at goat status?

[penbeast0]

I could see a case for Horry with his spacing and defense though Thorpe had the best rep leaguewide that year outside of Hakeem if I remember right.

[falcolombardi]

It was a ideal build but very moderate in overall talent as far as championship teams go (1994 without drexler even more so)

building a team with young robert horry and rookie sam cassel as best teammates is not the toughest ask for a team looking to win rings (1994) regardless of how good the spacing and fit was

If anythingh it shows thst hakeem can floorraise moderate talent to rings/contenders given the right team construction

Best teammates? That's just a silly statement. In 1994, the best teammates were probably Otis Thorpe and Kenny Smith who were among the most efficient players in the league (in part thanks to the attention Hakeem got in the post). Horry at least was a starter but Cassell was 9th in minutes that season and while he played more in the playoffs, he was still just a 6th man.

Fair enough, but regardless would you agree that thorpe/kenny smith are not the most high end wingmen for a championship team?

The point Hakeem winning with relatively pedestrian talent fir a champjonship team remains imo

[70sFan]

Those 2 regular season wins aren't enough to no longer be a similar record. I'll admit the Blazers win looks good but I'm not that high on the Sonics there as they barely had a positive SRS and got swept by the Lakers the round after. The Bulls losing 3-0 to the Celtics meaning MJ can't individually keep pace with Bird sounds like a very faulty argument when you are constantly saying how you can't just take team results and atttribute that 1-1 to a star player. Sure Jordan didn't have the most efficient scoring series but he still had a slightly higher TS% than the Bulls had on average, while putting up 36/7/6/2/2. While not the most reliable stat, it's still telling MJ and Bird only had a 0.2 difference in gamescore (in favor of MJ). I'm not saying 87 is a sweeping statement in favor of Jordan but I'm not seeing this "Hakeem did more with less" narrative that is being thrown around here at all.

I don't say that Jordan wasn't as good as Bird because of losing the series. To me, his performance wasn't that impressive at all, especially given that Celtics team wasn't good defensively anymore that season.

Nothing to disagree on because that's literally not what I said. It's getting a bit annoying how often this is happening now but I can kinda get how this one was confusing. Hakeem would gain the most from having better teammates in 88-90 because that period was the clearest time to me when Hakeem could've gotten significantly better results with even slightly better teammates, I didn't say he had better teammates and underperformed despite it.

Thank you for the claritifcation, I read it quickly on a fly and I didn't get it properly. We agree then.

[Dutchball97]

It was a ideal build but very moderate in overall talent as far as championship teams go (1994 without drexler even more so)

building a team with young robert horry and rookie sam cassel as best teammates is not the toughest ask for a team looking to win rings (1994) regardless of how good the spacing and fit was

If anythingh it shows thst hakeem can floorraise moderate talent to rings/contenders given the right team construction

Best teammates? That's just a silly statement. In 1994, the best teammates were probably Otis Thorpe and Kenny Smith who were among the most efficient players in the league (in part thanks to the attention Hakeem got in the post). Horry at least was a starter but Cassell was 9th in minutes that season and while he played more in the playoffs, he was still just a 6th man.

Fair enough, but regardless would you agree that thorpe/kenny smith are not the most high end wingmen for a championship team?

The point Hakeem winning with relatively pedestrian talent fir a champjonship team remains imo

Hakeem winning without another star is a significant accomplishment in itself but we also have to acknowledge that while the Rockets lacked starpower besides Hakeem, they did have a lot of valuable contributors especially in an era where that wasn't always the case.

[falcolombardi]

Best teammates? That's just a silly statement. In 1994, the best teammates were probably Otis Thorpe and Kenny Smith who were among the most efficient players in the league (in part thanks to the attention Hakeem got in the post). Horry at least was a starter but Cassell was 9th in minutes that season and while he played more in the playoffs, he was still just a 6th man.

Fair enough, but regardless would you agree that thorpe/kenny smith are not the most high end wingmen for a championship team?

The point Hakeem winning with relatively pedestrian talent fir a champjonship team remains imo

Hakeem winning without another star is a significant accomplishment in itself but we also have to acknowledge that while the Rockets lacked starpower besides Hakeem, they did have a lot of valuable contributors especially in an era where that wasn't always the case.

I would argue the vast majority of title winning teams suppoeting casts have both

stars + great role players so those rockets would still be fairly notable as far as title teams go

[70sFan]

You have stated many times before how Olajuwon had such a good team around him because of their outside shooting, not that I agree.

You should read my post with open mind, instead of accusing me of things I never said. I didn't say that Hakeem had "such a good team". I often say that Houston spacing was critical for Hakeem's success and that it was a perfect fit within the talent he had, but I never said he had "such a good team".

Spurs lost in overtime to Portland in overtime game 7 in 1990 and Portland went to the finals. A little more help and they win against them and likely go to the finals.

So you picked a rookie season from Robinson, when he had far more help than in the mid-90s? It doesn't prove anything.

Barkley hit the game winner in game 6 in 93, with bit more help they probably beat the Suns and go to the finals themselves, maybe beat the Bulls who couldn't stop Robinson.

No, beating Suns would make them facing Sonics (which they likely wouldn't beat) and then Bulls (which they would have little chance at beating).

They probably beat Houston in 95, it was so close, and they win it all.

They'd need much more than Smith to beat Houston in 1995 and they match up significantly worse than Houston to Magic. Robinson would have a lot of problems with Shaq.

Point is ofcourse that Robinson would have had much more success with just a bit better players. Definitely a potential top 5 player.

Any player would have more success with better players, but better teammates don't make you a top 5 player of all-time.

[Dutchball97]

Fair enough, but regardless would you agree that thorpe/kenny smith are not the most high end wingmen for a championship team?

The point Hakeem winning with relatively pedestrian talent fir a champjonship team remains imo

Hakeem winning without another star is a significant accomplishment in itself but we also have to acknowledge that while the Rockets lacked starpower besides Hakeem, they did have a lot of valuable contributors especially in an era where that wasn't always the case.

I would argue the vast majority of title winning teams suppoeting casts have both

stars + great role players so those rockets would still be fairly notable as far as title teams go

That's why I said winning without a star is significant in itself. I simply feel like only focussing on Thorpe and Smith overlooks what 4-7 in the rotation brought to the table compared to some other teams. Even for 94 the Rockets weren't unusually deep. In fact most of the top teams that year like the Sonics, Knicks and Hawks (all division winners) were about as deep, while often having better 2nd and/or 3rd best players too. Looking at the Jazz though you have 27 games from Hornacek being more valuable for them than a full season of anyone besides the 2 stars on the team and the Spurs are like 3-4 deep at best.

In terms of all time championship winning supporting casts the 94 Rockets are one of the weakest but when looking at the 94 play-off teams I'd say the cast was about average. Even within the context of the season it was impressive for Hakeem to lead his team to the title, however I think the context that this wasn't a scrub team either is important when discussing his potential GOAT status.

[penbeast0]

It was a ideal build but very moderate in overall talent as far as championship teams go (1994 without drexler even more so)

building a team with young robert horry and rookie sam cassel as best teammates is not the toughest ask for a team looking to win rings (1994) regardless of how good the spacing and fit was

If anythingh it shows thst hakeem can floorraise moderate talent to rings/contenders given the right team construction

Best teammates? That's just a silly statement. In 1994, the best teammates were probably Otis Thorpe and Kenny Smith who were among the most efficient players in the league (in part thanks to the attention Hakeem got in the post). Horry at least was a starter but Cassell was 9th in minutes that season and while he played more in the playoffs, he was still just a 6th man.

Fair enough, but regardless would you agree that thorpe/kenny smith are not the most high end wingmen for a championship team?

The point Hakeem winning with relatively pedestrian talent fir a champjonship team remains imo

They were solid players but not stars, I certainly agree.

[Owly]

They'd need much more than Smith to beat Houston in 1995 and they match up significantly worse than Houston to Magic. Robinson would have a lot of problems with Shaq.

On this specific rather than a stand on the merits of specific arguments, posts and posters ...

Shaq had, from recollection of discussions here a box advantage on Olajuwon IRL in that finals. There are different tools different people use in small samples but my impression was it definitely tilted in that direction.

But on Robinson versus O'Neal especially I would want to know the evidence basis for that claim, because I think with Robinson there is often an assumed cynicism and to my eyes in this case it seems especially so.

My basis is looking at how Robinson did versus Shaq from Shaq's arrival in the league to Robinson's final pre-injury season in '96. '95 slots towards the back-middle of this stretch. It is a small sample, 7 games (two each season, one in '96 due to a Shaq injury). Again people use different tools for small samples, am very happy to discuss further which people favor and why.

The BPM average over these 7 games (not minute weighted) for Robinson is 12.01428571.
The BPM average over these 7 games (not minute weighted) for O'Neal is 0.185714286.
Robinson wins each and every BPM matchup, with the smallest margin margin being 6.1.

Between Robinson seemingly claiming what Shaq felt was his hometown and the numbers here, it's perhaps not surprising Shaq made up falsehoods about Robinson.

Is there a strong evidence basis for your feeling, which seems to run strongly counter to the evidence above?

[Owly]

It was a ideal build but very moderate in overall talent as far as championship teams go (1994 without drexler even more so)

building a team with young robert horry and rookie sam cassel as best teammates is not the toughest ask for a team looking to win rings (1994) regardless of how good the spacing and fit was

If anythingh it shows thst hakeem can floorraise moderate talent to rings/contenders given the right team construction

Best teammates? That's just a silly statement. In 1994, the best teammates were probably Otis Thorpe and Kenny Smith who were among the most efficient players in the league (in part thanks to the attention Hakeem got in the post). Horry at least was a starter but Cassell was 9th in minutes that season and while he played more in the playoffs, he was still just a 6th man.

Think you can argue the efficiency was helped by Hakeem on the Smith side (though for context that's also a Smith providing spacing mutual benefit) ... Thorpe ... it's not like I inimately know their O but on little recollections, general understanding etc Olajuwon to Thorpe doesn't seem a likely pass or a typical double and I think Thorpe scored most off pick and rolls, from running the floor and via the offensive glass. What I've read suggests he did some post ups and had good strength but barring his drop stop, wasn't that effective and he wasn't great at shooting over defenders (could relate to his short arms, though if he could rise up around the rim, his ability to palm the ball made him an efficient finisher and prolific dunker). He got to the line quite a bit too, though in the Houston era especially he was poor from the line. In the late career sample available he seems to show decent 16foot+ shooting (can't speak to sustainability), but circa Houston era I think this was mostly mothballed.

RS, on average, Cassell was third on the point guard depth chart behind Brooks though all three could shoot enough that there must have been some time where notional "points" shared the court given their minutes.

[70sFan]

On this specific rather than a stand on the merits of specific arguments, posts and posters ...

Shaq had, from recollection of discussions here a box advantage on Olajuwon IRL in that finals. There are different tools different people use in small samples but my impression was it definitely tilted in that direction.

But on Robinson versus O'Neal especially I would want to know the evidence basis for that claim, because I think with Robinson there is often an assumed cynicism and to my eyes in this case it seems especially so.

My look at this hypothetical is quite straightforward - we have seen how Spurs defended volume scoring centers surrounded by shooters. Spurs decided to leave Robinson one on one against Hakeem in 1995 WCF. It wasn't a stupid idea, Houston offense wasn't nearly as good as in the other series. Hakeem defended Robinson/Shaq in a different system, he got more help from his teammates. Assuming that SAS would have won the Rockets series playing that way, I'd expect them to continue playing Shaq straight and I doubt it would work better than what Houston did in the finals. So it's not really assumed cynicism with Admiral, I just think it's logical to assume such circumstances.

My basis is looking at how Robinson did versus Shaq from Shaq's arrival in the league to Robinson's final pre-injury season in '96. '95 slots towards the back-middle of this stretch. It is a small sample, 7 games (two each season, one in '96 due to a Shaq injury). Again people use different tools for small samples, am very happy to discuss further which people favor and why.

The BPM average over these 7 games (not minute weighted) for Robinson is 12.01428571.
The BPM average over these 7 games (not minute weighted) for O'Neal is 0.185714286.
Robinson wins each and every BPM matchup, with the smallest margin margin being 6.1.

Your inclusion of rookie Shaq is questionable in this discussion, as Shaq was far from a finished product on offense as a rookie. If we compare their 1994-96 h2h numbers, Robinson did very well on offense against Shaq, but that's not what I'm talking about here.

Is there a strong evidence basis for your feeling, which seems to run strongly counter to the evidence above?

To be honest, I don't have anything else other than the combination of these factors:

1. Spurs prefered to defend post players straight.
2. Shaq put up solid numbers against Robinson in 1994-96 period.
3. My eye-test, Robinson was extremely reliant on his physical advantages on both ends of the floor. He could be effective at times versus someone like Shaq, but I don't see him doing a great job consistently for a long period, espiecially when you have the first point in mind. Robinson was a gambler, gamblers didn't do well vs Shaq in general.

[Owly]

On this specific rather than a stand on the merits of specific arguments, posts and posters ...

Shaq had, from recollection of discussions here a box advantage on Olajuwon IRL in that finals. There are different tools different people use in small samples but my impression was it definitely tilted in that direction.

But on Robinson versus O'Neal especially I would want to know the evidence basis for that claim, because I think with Robinson there is often an assumed cynicism and to my eyes in this case it seems especially so.

My look at this hypothetical is quite straightforward - we have seen how Spurs defended volume scoring centers surrounded by shooters. Spurs decided to leave Robinson one on one against Hakeem in 1995 WCF. It wasn't a stupid idea, Houston offense wasn't nearly as good as in the other series. Hakeem defended Robinson/Shaq in a different system, he got more help from his teammates. Assuming that SAS would have won the Rockets series playing that way, I'd expect them to continue playing Shaq straight and I doubt it would work better than what Houston did in the finals. So it's not really assumed cynicism with Admiral, I just think it's logical to assume such circumstances.

My basis is looking at how Robinson did versus Shaq from Shaq's arrival in the league to Robinson's final pre-injury season in '96. '95 slots towards the back-middle of this stretch. It is a small sample, 7 games (two each season, one in '96 due to a Shaq injury). Again people use different tools for small samples, am very happy to discuss further which people favor and why.

The BPM average over these 7 games (not minute weighted) for Robinson is 12.01428571.
The BPM average over these 7 games (not minute weighted) for O'Neal is 0.185714286.
Robinson wins each and every BPM matchup, with the smallest margin margin being 6.1.

Your inclusion of rookie Shaq is questionable in this discussion, as Shaq was far from a finished product on offense as a rookie. If we compare their 1994-96 h2h numbers, Robinson did very well on offense against Shaq, but that's not what I'm talking about here.

Is there a strong evidence basis for your feeling, which seems to run strongly counter to the evidence above?

To be honest, I don't have anything else other than the combination of these factors:

1. Spurs prefered to defend post players straight.
2. Shaq put up solid numbers against Robinson in 1994-96 period.
3. My eye-test, Robinson was extremely reliant on his physical advantages on both ends of the floor. He could be effective at times versus someone like Shaq, but I don't see him doing a great job consistently for a long period, espiecially when you have the first point in mind. Robinson was a gambler, gamblers didn't do well vs Shaq in general.

Hard to tell if you're just responding to an info request or doubling down or at least "defending" the position. Per above I think there is stuff wrong in there or at least that I disagree with. So this may seem combative.


Section 1) All very well in terms of describing a concept. Don't/can't know if it's true (that they defend Olajuwon and Shaq the same way in a series). Doesn't seem to justify "Robinson would have a lot of problems with Shaq", either way. Merely a possible method of defense that might be effective in a team context. Given the nature of the debate and the statement, it doesn't seem like an anti-Robinson point.

Section 2) Happy to cut rookie Shaq. It was included for maximum sample size.
It doesn't really change the numbers (especially to say we're losing two sevenths of the sample). It's now 12.26 to 1.42 in terms of BPM. Robinson still an all time elite season level. Shaq still entirely pedestrian.

That Robinson does well on the offensive end seems at least relevant to the broader conversation in any case though fwiw it wasn't clear that the notion that he would "have problems" referred only to defense vs Shaq's O (looking back at original context, it still seems a general or overall, non-specific end comment).

Section 3) See I'd dispute that Shaq put up solid numbers versus Robinson. Solid in the sense that Kenyon Martin or Phil Chenier or other slightly better than league average players are solid sure, perhaps good even, I'd have to look closer. For O'Neal though, the passing isn't at a great level to put it gently, the scoring efficiency without checking game by game (just eyeballing each game's averages and the average thereof) seems fine in absolute terms, poor by his own standards. He's below his typical standard on the offensive glass and he isn't preventing Robinson from being a productive defender and likely his typical defensive anchor self by his gravity. Without diving deeper, my sense off the data thus far is Robinson is winning both clashes. Perhaps more on the offensive end (given his 120.4 Offensive Rating for this spell), but defending O'Neal and the Magic too. Different data might go another way.

Individual matchups aren't a big factor in overall player eval for me but I do think how they actually did versus one another would be the best evidence for evaluating that and I do think that this does seem to tilt net very heavily pro-Robinson in absolute terms, in relative terms (both expected to be superstars) or especially where one is framing Robinson to be the one given trouble.

[Snakebites]

I'm not convinced the gap between Hakeem and David Robinson is as big as people think it is, actually.

[falcolombardi]

I'm not convinced the gap between Hakeem and David Robinson is as big as people think it is, actually.

In the playoffs? Robinson is probably the better regular season player

[tsherkin]

I'm not convinced the gap between Hakeem and David Robinson is as big as people think it is, actually.

In the RS, maybe. Definitely not come the playoffs, though; that gap is very large.

[AEnigma]

Had Hakeem not been matched up with Robinson in the postseason — maybe in a world where Robinson again loses out to the Jazz instead — I am sure posters here would use head-to-head regular season numbers to suggest that Robinson would have won that matchup too. I would think by now more of us would be disinclined to extrapolate Robinson’s regular season success directly into the postseason, but evidently the fascination endures.

[tsherkin]

Had Hakeem not been matched up with Robinson in the postseason — maybe in a world where Robinson again loses out to the Jazz instead — I am sure posters here would use head-to-head regular season numbers to suggest that Robinson would have won that matchup too. I would think by now more of us would be disinclined to extrapolate Robinson’s regular season success directly into the postseason, but evidently the fascination endures.

Given his history of postseason drop, I don't know that it would be an effective argument, though.

[Lost92Bricks]

Jordan twice couldn't even get comparative/more talented teams above .500 twice in his Bulls career

That was his rookie and 2nd year though.

[tsherkin]

Jordan twice couldn't even get comparative/more talented teams above .500 twice in his Bulls career

That was his rookie and 2nd year though.

Third, really. He played 18 games, starting 7, in his second season. Then, a garbage 30-win team plus MJ hit the Boston Celtics at literally the apex of their dominance. No one sensible expected the Bulls to do anything against that. 49 and 63 points in each of the first two games and still they couldn't win. They couldn't defend the Celtics to save their lives, and one player can only do so much, no matter how well he is scoring.

[migya]

Had Hakeem not been matched up with Robinson in the postseason — maybe in a world where Robinson again loses out to the Jazz instead — I am sure posters here would use head-to-head regular season numbers to suggest that Robinson would have won that matchup too. I would think by now more of us would be disinclined to extrapolate Robinson’s regular season success directly into the postseason, but evidently the fascination endures.

It has been discussed here before how Robinson was double teamed often by Houston in that series wrote spurs wouldn't double Olajuwon. That factors into the result of that series. It was very close.

Head to head matchups mean as much as a series head to head, why wouldn't it. Same teams.