Hakeem Olajuwon or Tim Duncan - Start a franchise

Baller2014 · Post #201 » by **Baller2014** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:16 pm

Frosty did you even read the replies to that post? What is the relevance of any of that post to points we've been making? It has no relevance to the discussion at all. How does the win-loss record over a 10 year period (most of the games after his prime) have any bearing on how strong the Spurs were in 01-03?

Frosty · Post #202 » by **Frosty** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:20 pm

[quote="Jonny Blaze]What championship caliber teams did the Rockets beat in 1994 and 1995?
The answer is none.

These reasons are a large reason why a lot of people (not me) don't respect the Rockets two titles.[/quote]

And what ones did SAS beat during their runs?

99 - None
2003 - Struggling Laker team that was also hit by injury? Dallas team with no Dirk? - None
2005 - Nope, none
2007 - Nope, none
2014 - first year they actually faced stiff competition on their way to the title and the year Duncan was likely the least critical.

And you can't respect a team that goes through Portland, Phoenix, Utah, Knicks, SAS and Orlando. There's no way you respect most of SAS's titles if you keep the same standards.

Baller2014 · Post #203 » by **Baller2014** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:30 pm

I am literally astonished at the above post by Frosty. The Spurs beat no "championship calibre teams?" What? Let's examine how ridiculous that claim is.
-The Pistons literally won the title the previous year. They were the defending champs by definition.
-The 05 and 07 Suns were better than some teams who did win titles
-The 03 Lakers were similarly the 3-time defending champs who, heading into the season, were the favourites (with the Kings). The Lakers were heavy favourites heading into 04 as well (including when the finals began), so the narrative that everyone thought they were washed up in 03 is blatantly false.
-In 99 the Spurs beat the Lakers, a team which included prime Shaq, all-nba Kobe, another all-star in Glen Rice and good role players like prime Horry, Fox, Fisher, etc. That same year they beat the Blazers, who were 1 quarter away from dethroning the 2000 Lakers.

Then of course there are all the years they didn't win a title, but did beat title level teams.

Frosty · Post #204 » by **Frosty** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 12:53 pm

Baller2014 wrote::lol: Frosty did you even read the replies to that post? What is the relevance of any of that post to points we've been making? It has no relevance to the discussion at all. How does the win-loss record over a 10 year period (most of the games after his prime) have any bearing on how strong the Spurs were in 01-03?

He already addressed the quality of the lineup issues earlier. All you rely on is your wild assertions with little reality behind them. You downplay guys like Derek Anderson and I'm not sure if it's willful or ignorant.

As a Spurs fan, I understand the myth fans built up of "oh, if we'd just had Derek Anderson, it would have gone differently!" Nothing would have gone differently, not least of all because Derek Anderson is not even a particularly good player. The Spurs made 100% the right decision to let him leave in free agency, where he quickly faded into obscurity. Derek Anderson was a middle of the pack shooting guard who shot poor percentages and wasn't good on D. He was no loss. You mention Derek Anderson shot "39% from the 3", what you fail to mention is that his FG% that year was 416.

I just use this little piece as example. I tend to lean towards ignorance because you mention him looking "hobbled" vs LA and people usually use the word hobbled to describe an injury limiting movement. In fact it was his shoulder that was dislocated.

You say " what you fail to mention is that his FG% that year was 416" but what you fail to mention is that his TS% that season was higher then Duncan's. Then you say

The Spurs made 100% the right decision to let him leave in free agency, where he quickly faded into obscurity

He didn't get let go. They made him a 4 year/$28 million offer that he turned down because he was fueding with Buford (incoming GM). Spurs upped it to 6 years/$43 million and when they realized he wasn't going to stay they took their only other option and did a sign and trade for Steve Smith

He was a valuable commodity at the time. Injuries hampered him later on.

http://nbatrades.tumblr.com/post/350163 ... nderson-to

You can't bring that stuff in the lane and not expect it to get swatted.....

You keep exagerating things and backing them up with comments you either don't even know are true or just make up to back up your argument.

Frosty · Post #205 » by **Frosty** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:03 pm

Baller2014 wrote:I am literally astonished at the above post by Frosty. The Spurs beat no "championship calibre teams?" What? Let's examine how ridiculous that claim is.
-The Pistons literally won the title the previous year. They were the defending champs by definition.

They were only there because the East sucked. They only beat LA because Kobe decided he was going to beat Detroit.

-The 05 and 07 Suns were better than some teams who did win titles

No, they were a good regular season team with a crappy postseason coach.

-The 03 Lakers were similarly the 3-time defending champs who, heading into the season, were the favourites (with the Kings). The Lakers were heavy favourites heading into 04 as well (including when the finals began), so the narrative that everyone thought they were washed up in 03 is blatantly false.

2003 Lakers were only favored by default at the beginning of the season, that has no relevance to te mess then were in come playoff time. 2004 Lakers had Payton and Malone added. This gave them a true PF and they weren't tossing Horry out there to get pushed around. Your logic is blatantly weak.

-In 99 the Spurs beat the Lakers, a team which included prime Shaq, all-nba Kobe, another all-star in Glen Rice and good role players like prime Horry, Fox, Fisher, etc. That same year they beat the Blazers, who were 1 quarter away from dethroning the 2000 Lakers.

Then of course there are all the years they didn't win a title, but did beat title level teams.

Neither of those teams were championship teams. Portalnd was a different team in 2000 and I'm not bothering to explain the roster differences you either don't know it or are once again just making arguments that don't have any basis.

Most of the teams Houston faced on their runs would beat any of the teams you listed.

Baller2014 · Post #206 » by **Baller2014** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:14 pm

I talked about Derek Anderson in great depth and explain why he was an overrated player. He was bad on D, and a shot chucker. The idea behind efficiency is that the less shots you take, and the less defensive pressure on you, the higher it ought to be. Duncan is the teams star, who scores over 20ppg, with the other team's defensive system keying in on him. Derek Anderson that year was a 15ppg scorer whose job was mostly to hit open shots Duncan created for him. His 3pt % was good because he was able to do this part of his job half decently, whereas his FG% was bad because when asked to create without Duncan giving him an open shot he was mediocre (like he'd been his whole career). His trivial TS% advantage over Duncan of 0.6% was from less shots, scoring less points, with less defensive pressure on him. Even actively bad players were often able to score efficiently on the Spurs, thanks to Duncan creating so many open looks for them (e.g. S.Smith in 2002 shooting basically a career best). TS% is also a bad tool to compare bigs and guards, because the advantage of bigs doesn't come from shooting 3's or being good FT shooters, and TS% thus naturally favours guards. TS% is better for comparing bigs against each other, or guards against each other, but not bigs v.s guards.

Anyway, Derek Anderson was a run of the mill shooting guard, and after he left the Spurs nobody heard about him again. His 3 highest ppg averages at 17+, 15+ and 13+, and his career average is 12ppg. If it wasn't for his one year on the Spurs nobody would even remember who this guy was, he stood out only because the other backcourt options on the Spurs was beyond horrible (which I also covered in some depth). And he was hurt in the playoffs anyway! He was regarded as having been overpaid, and in retrospect the Spurs are very glad he didn't want to take that contract (not that 6 years and $43 mill was especially extravagant at the time, plenty of worse players got offered bigger contracts).

As to the rest of the support casts, there was a great deal of discussion and evidence cited in regards to said players (their actual performance, their age, how they performed once they left the Spurs, how the market valued them, analysis of their roles, etc). You, and the poster you are citing, provide no response to any of this.

Baller2014 · Post #207 » by **Baller2014** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:32 pm

Frosty wrote:They were only there because the East sucked. They only beat LA because Kobe decided he was going to beat Detroit.

No, the Pistons were genuinely good. They thumped the favoured Lakers, who had won the West, not just because of Kobe's chucking, but because they were better. Their regular season record wasn't a good guide to how strong they were because they acquired Sheed late (then went on a big run with him), but they were a true championship team. Once we are able to look at them with a full season with Sheed and their full cast, in 05 and 06, their combined record v.s the West was 44-16. That is not indicative of a faux title team at all. Then after the Spurs beat the West in 05, the Pistons took them to 7 games. By your logic, there were no title teams in 05 or 04, despite teams winning titles those years. I have no idea what your definition of a title team is then. Obviously Hakeem didn't beat any in 94 or 95, because none of the teams he beat those years ever had won titles (or ever would).

No, they were a good regular season team with a crappy postseason coach.

Try posting a thread on this and see how it goes. Seriously. :nod:

The rest is similarly bizarre. The NBA is a star league, that's been proven time and again, and having multiple stars on one team matters way more than having a bunch of good players. There is almost no historical precedent for 2 stars, both in their primes, as highly regarded as Shaq and Kobe, teaming together. That's why they won 3 titles in a row, on star power. Can anyone remember the name of their 6th man from 00-02? I doubt it. But it didn't matter, because star power of that sort makes good support cast players more or less moot. For you to dismiss it is pretty astonishing.

Frosty · Post #208 » by **Frosty** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:35 pm

Baller2014 wrote:
Frosty wrote:
No, they were a good regular season team with a crappy postseason coach.

Try posting a thread on this and see how it goes. Seriously.

You seriously think anyone is going to back D'Antoni. I mean besides you of course. :lol:

Baller2014 · Post #209 » by **Baller2014** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:38 pm

This has nothing to do with Mike D, and everything to do with you downplaying an awesome team for your own purposes. The Suns would certainly have been good enough to win titles some years.

Frosty · Post #210 » by **Frosty** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 1:49 pm

Baller2014 wrote:This has nothing to do with Mike D, and everything to do with you downplaying an awesome team for your own purposes. The Suns would certainly have been good enough to win titles some years.

How can it possibly not have anything to do with Mike D when the part I pointed out was how bad of a coach he was?

I'll pass on responding to anything else you post although the TS% thing is really attractive.

microfib4thewin · Post #211 » by **microfib4thewin** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 2:48 pm

Not sure how the Spurs being a 44 win team without Duncan really says anything when they are a 58 win team with him. Why can we not assume that the Rockets were on average a 40 win team and Hakeem only makes them a 44 win team between 87-92? Looking over the arguments that have been presented thus far it is getting harder to believe that Hakeem's team went nowhere only because of crap supporting cast.

Jonny Blaze · Post #212 » by **Jonny Blaze** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 3:14 pm

Frosty wrote:[quote="Jonny Blaze]What championship caliber teams did the Rockets beat in 1994 and 1995?
The answer is none.

These reasons are a large reason why a lot of people (not me) don't respect the Rockets two titles.[/quote]

And what ones did SAS beat during their runs?

99 - None
2003 - Struggling Laker team that was also hit by injury? Dallas team with no Dirk? - None
2005 - Nope, none
2007 - Nope, none
2014 - first year they actually faced stiff competition on their way to the title and the year Duncan was likely the least critical.

And you can't respect a team that goes through Portland, Phoenix, Utah, Knicks, SAS and Orlando. There's no way you respect most of SAS's titles if you keep the same standards.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

" And you can't respect a team that goes through Portland, Phoenix, Utah, Knicks, SAS and Orlando. There's no way you respect most of SAS's titles if you keep the same standards"

Im sorry my man....I am telling you the reasons why the average person(not me) on the street does not respect the Rockets titles.

The Rockets didn't play anyone that great in 1994 or 1995. They didn't beat any championship caliber teams.

Lets break down how many NBA titles and immediate Finals appearances the teams the Rockets beat

1994
Portland- 0 NBA titles. 1 Finals appearance in 1992
Phoenix Suns-0 NBA titles. 1 Finals appearance in 1993
Utah Jazz-0 NBA titles.
New York Knicks- 0 NBA titles. 1 Finals appearance in 1994

1995
Utah Jazz- See above- 0 NBA titles. 2 Finals appearances in 1997 and 1998
Phoenix Suns- 0 NBA titles. 1 Finals Appearance in 1993
San Antonio- 0 NBA titles. 0 Finals Appearances. This would of course change in 1999 after drafting Tim Duncan.
Orlando- 0 NBA titles. 1 Finals appearance in 1995.

The Rockets didn't beat a single team that ever won an NBA title. The teams they beat were not considered great playoff teams.

San Antonio defeated the Shaq/Kobe Lakers in 1999. The Lakers would go on to win the next three NBA Champions.
The Shaq/Kobe Lakers were stopped in 2003 by the Spurs again.
The Lakers would go back to the Finals in 2004.
The Spurs stopped the Lakers from potentially going to the Finals 6 years in a row.

San Antonio defeated the defending NBA Champion Spurs in 2005.
They defeated the Mavs the year before they won the title in 2011.

In 2014 They just demolished the 2x NBA champion Miami Heat.

Brooklyn_34 · Post #213 » by **Brooklyn_34** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:15 pm

Masigond wrote:Those guys are talking peak Hakeem when he finally had improved his passing and when he was playing better in the flow of a team's offense. Most Duncan supporters had admitted that this version of Olajuwon is superior to Duncan. He finally managed to transfer his superior individual talent (greater than Duncan's. Noone disputes that) to truly improving his team.
But he wasn't doing so for some years of his career while Duncan was quite the same player for a decade and from the get-go. And as this Duncan might be better for your team than early 90s' Hakeem, they prefer to start a franchise with TD. Or at least I do, that is.

Well said.

I liken this to two students in a class--one of whom gets mostly gets in the low 80s but has a few exams where he gets 95s and 98s. One exam, he got a 99. And this exam was an extremely difficult one.

The other student is almost always between 85-89. He gets in the low 90s a few times though (91 and 93). But he really doesn't stray too much from 85-89 range.

The first student would obviously be Hakeem and the second would be Tim.

AMW27 · Post #214 » by **AMW27** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:21 pm

People love to bring up how Duncan was fortunate to land in San Antonio. Its more like San Antonio was fortunate to land him. Had they not got him in 1997 what would that have meant for them going forward? Their history is altered. Popavich legacy may be different.

JordansBulls · Post #215 » by **JordansBulls** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:40 pm

Frosty wrote:[quote="Jonny Blaze]What championship caliber teams did the Rockets beat in 1994 and 1995?
The answer is none.

These reasons are a large reason why a lot of people (not me) don't respect the Rockets two titles.[/quote]

And what ones did SAS beat during their runs?

99 - None
2003 - Struggling Laker team that was also hit by injury? Dallas team with no Dirk? - None
2005 - Nope, none
2007 - Nope, none
2014 - first year they actually faced stiff competition on their way to the title and the year Duncan was likely the least critical.

And you can't respect a team that goes through Portland, Phoenix, Utah, Knicks, SAS and Orlando. There's no way you respect most of SAS's titles if you keep the same standards.[/quote]

I'm sorry but you gotta give them credit at least for 2003 and 2014 beating teams that were the defending champs with it's best players still around.

Frosty · Post #216 » by **Frosty** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 4:51 pm

Jonny Blaze wrote:The Rockets didn't play anyone that great in 1994 or 1995. They didn't beat any championship caliber teams.

Lets break down how many NBA titles and immediate Finals appearances the teams the Rockets beat

1994
Portland- 0 NBA titles. 1 Finals appearance in 1992
Phoenix Suns-0 NBA titles. 1 Finals appearance in 1993
Utah Jazz-0 NBA titles.
New York Knicks- 0 NBA titles. 1 Finals appearance in 1994

1995
Utah Jazz- See above- 0 NBA titles. 2 Finals appearances in 1997 and 1998
Phoenix Suns- 0 NBA titles. 1 Finals Appearance in 1993
San Antonio- 0 NBA titles. 0 Finals Appearances. This would of course change in 1999 after drafting Tim Duncan.
Orlando- 0 NBA titles. 1 Finals appearance in 1995.

By that logic there were no championship caliber teams in the Finals that year because Chicago was out, yet if Chicago made it they would be championship caliber regardless of their roster. I certainly don't agree but at least you have a standard to judge them.

The Rockets didn't beat a single team that ever won an NBA title. The teams they beat were not considered great playoff teams.

San Antonio defeated the Shaq/Kobe Lakers in 1999. The Lakers would go on to win the next three NBA Champions.

Ok wait, now 1999 Lakers are championship caliber even though they hadn't won anything. Forget their roster additions or the carousel of coaches that eventually landed with Phil. Crap you lost me on your first example.

The Shaq/Kobe Lakers were stopped in 2003 by the Spurs again.
The Lakers would go back to the Finals in 2004.
The Spurs stopped the Lakers from potentially going to the Finals 6 years in a row.

San Antonio defeated the defending NBA Champion Spurs in 2005.
They defeated the Mavs the year before they won the title in 2011.

In 2014 They just demolished the 2x NBA champion Miami Heat.

Sounds like you feel contender means a team has to have won a title either the year before or after. Regardless of roster or circumstance.

I define it differently. I base it on the quality of their team that year and the injury situation at the time. Your model is much simpler though I'll give you that.

Frosty · Post #217 » by **Frosty** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 5:01 pm

JordansBulls wrote:
Frosty wrote:[quote="Jonny Blaze]What championship caliber teams did the Rockets beat in 1994 and 1995?
The answer is none.

These reasons are a large reason why a lot of people (not me) don't respect the Rockets two titles.[/quote]

And what ones did SAS beat during their runs?

99 - None
2003 - Struggling Laker team that was also hit by injury? Dallas team with no Dirk? - None
2005 - Nope, none
2007 - Nope, none
2014 - first year they actually faced stiff competition on their way to the title and the year Duncan was likely the least critical.

And you can't respect a team that goes through Portland, Phoenix, Utah, Knicks, SAS and Orlando. There's no way you respect most of SAS's titles if you keep the same standards.[/quote][/quote]
I'm sorry but you gotta give them credit at least for 2003 and 2014 beating teams that were the defending champs with it's best players still around.[/quote]

I did give them credit for 2014.

2003 was a shadow of the former Laker squad. Barely squeaked out 50 wins. They had no depth. Infighting. Lost Fox for the playoffs before SAS. Their backup SF sprained his ankle. And Kobe was playing with an injury that needed off season room service. I mean surgery. This wasn't a strong team, people just thought they were going to flip a mythical switch.

Jonny Blaze · Post #218 » by **Jonny Blaze** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 8:41 pm

Frosty wrote:
JordansBulls wrote:
Frosty wrote:[quote="Jonny Blaze]What championship caliber teams did the Rockets beat in 1994 and 1995?
The answer is none.

These reasons are a large reason why a lot of people (not me) don't respect the Rockets two titles.[/quote]

And what ones did SAS beat during their runs?

99 - None
2003 - Struggling Laker team that was also hit by injury? Dallas team with no Dirk? - None
2005 - Nope, none
2007 - Nope, none
2014 - first year they actually faced stiff competition on their way to the title and the year Duncan was likely the least critical.

And you can't respect a team that goes through Portland, Phoenix, Utah, Knicks, SAS and Orlando. There's no way you respect most of SAS's titles if you keep the same standards.[/quote][/quote]
I'm sorry but you gotta give them credit at least for 2003 and 2014 beating teams that were the defending champs with it's best players still around.[/quote][/quote][/quote]

I did give them credit for 2014.

2003 was a shadow of the former Laker squad. Barely squeaked out 50 wins. They had no depth. Infighting. Lost Fox for the playoffs before SAS. Their backup SF sprained his ankle. And Kobe was playing with an injury that needed off season room service. I mean surgery. This wasn't a strong team, people just thought they were going to flip a mythical switch.[/quote]

Yet this same Lakers team went back to the Finals the very next year.

If the Lakers beat the Spurs in 2003 they are huge favorites over the Mavs and Nets to win the NBA title.

That's what we mean by championship caliber teams.

You can't say that about any of the teams that Houston beat. They were all perennial underachievers in the playoffs.

None of those teams the Rockets beat ever won a title.

E-Balla · Post #219 » by **E-Balla** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 9:08 pm

Jonny Blaze wrote:Yet this same Lakers team went back to the Finals the very next year.

If the Lakers beat the Spurs in 2003 they are huge favorites over the Mavs and Nets to win the NBA title.

That's what we mean by championship caliber teams.

You can't say that about any of the teams that Houston beat. They were all perennial underachievers in the playoffs.

None of those teams the Rockets beat ever won a title.

Well all the teams San Antonio beat would've lost to the 90's Bulls too.

The Rockets beat the 94 Knicks (best defense of the modern era) and the 95 Magic (led by the MVP runner up in 95, the 3rd MVP runner up in 96, and one of the top 5 third wheels ever). Those are 2 great teams to beat with a pretty crappy supporting cast and outside of the Suns I think they'd beat any team the Spurs beat in those years even counting this year where the Spurs beat OKC without Serge twice before they came back and made it a series.

Jonny Blaze · Post #220 » by **Jonny Blaze** » Tue Jun 24, 2014 9:12 pm

GC Pantalones wrote:
Jonny Blaze wrote:Yet this same Lakers team went back to the Finals the very next year.

If the Lakers beat the Spurs in 2003 they are huge favorites over the Mavs and Nets to win the NBA title.

That's what we mean by championship caliber teams.

You can't say that about any of the teams that Houston beat. They were all perennial underachievers in the playoffs.

None of those teams the Rockets beat ever won a title.

Well all the teams San Antonio beat would've lost to the 90's Bulls too.

The Rockets beat the 94 Knicks (best defense of the modern era) and the 95 Magic (led by the MVP runner up in 95, the 3rd MVP runner up in 96, and one of the top 5 third wheels ever). Those are 2 great teams to beat with a pretty crappy supporting cast and outside of the Suns I think they'd beat any team the Spurs beat in those years even counting this year where the Spurs beat OKC without Serge twice before they came back and made it a series.

The 1994 New York Knicks and the 1995 Orlando Magic were not great teams. In the sense of comparing them to teams that make the Finals.

How many other years did those teams ever make the Finals?

The answer is zero.

The 90's New York Knicks were the bad boy Pistons without the talent.

The Rockets were a championship caliber team. None of the teams they beat were championship caliber.