Retro Player of the Year 1993-94 UPDATE — Hakeem Olajuwon

[70sFan]

So this is all you can provide for the thread?

Unfortunately I think we all know the answer to that.

I look forward to you providing this same level of scrutiny to all the voters in this thread. Make it your Baller Vow.

You keep saying you care about the discussion and yet it's second thread in a row when you ignore my attempts to discuss with you.

[One_and_Done]

Unfortunately I think we all know the answer to that.

I look forward to you providing this same level of scrutiny to all the voters in this thread. Make it your Baller Vow.

You keep saying you care about the discussion and yet it's second thread in a row when you ignore my attempts to discuss with you.

Not everyone is willing to devote the same amount of time to this exercise, and that's fine. I'm typing this now on my phone while I'm in a meeting in fact; most people have lives. I gave you my reasons earlier. If you're going to complain people aren't posting enough substance, you need to complain about that equally for everyone, or just keep your peace.

[Bad Bart]

How many games does that Spurs team win in 1993-94 without David Robinson? 8? 9? That is one of the worst rosters I've ever seen.

[penbeast0]

Please don't attack posters. If you don't care for their posting styles or content, put them on ignore. You still might have to notice them in quotes but at least someone else will be there first.

And be thankful you aren't a mod; we can't put anyone on ignore

[One_and_Done]

How many games does that Spurs team win in 1993-94 without David Robinson? 8? 9? That is one of the worst rosters I've ever seen.

While it's not relevant to 1994, I'd just note that Rodman is a pretty situational and overrated player, especially when he's not happy. He'd likely be unplayable today.

[eminence]

They'd be bad, but no shot they'd be as bad as that, their 2-5 were all solid (multiple All-NBA players afterall, lol). Ellis capable of scaling his scoring decently well. I'd guess they'd be in the same class of squad as Sacramento.

[One_and_Done]

They'd be bad, but no shot they'd be as bad as that, their 2-5 were all solid (multiple All-NBA players afterall, lol). Ellis capable of scaling his scoring decently well. I'd guess they'd be in the same class of squad as Sacramento.

I don't think the Spurs were a 9 win squad sans D.Rob, but worth noting that Ellis was 33. It's not so much that he didn't make an all-star team this year, as he wasn't good enough to anymore. Ditto Cummings, who was washed.

[AEnigma]

How many games does that Spurs team win in 1993-94 without David Robinson? 8? 9? That is one of the worst rosters I've ever seen.

Rodman is a good player (despite next year’s scapegoating). Provides no scoring but does everything else well.

Dale Ellis is a good shooter and scorer and a fine starter. No longer in his prime, but he has a few more useful years left. He was also on the team last year, so not like that qualifies as a notable decline from what they were.

Willie Anderson is a tolerable starter, and more to the point, in the same role as his first three years with Robinson (before the injuries started derailing his career).

Vinny Del Negro will be the team’s starting shooting guard for the next four seasons. Tolerable enough fifth man.

Agree the roster falls off pretty hard past those four and that the roster overall is completely dependent on Robinson. But the reason they are completely dependent on him (aside from a bad bench) is that the loss of Sean Elliott and Avery Johnson meant they had no one else equipped to create offence. A lot of teams look awful if you take away their superstar big and lead playmaker. Look at the 2003/04 Rockets. That team won 43-45 games with Steve Francis and rookie/sophomore Yao Ming. How much do they win if you took off both?

I am fine for crediting Robinson’s regular season in the context of “the team did not have a real point guard and still managed to be pretty successful,” but the team’s inability to look like a functional roster without Robinson was not unique to Robinson. There were a lot of bigs you could put in his place such that the team would still win 40 games. Do the Nuggets strike you as a particularly impressive roster without Dikembe and Mahmoud? Do the Magic without Shaq and Penny? The Knicks and Rockets both had good backup point guards this year, so not quite the same with them, but similar principle with the 1993 Rockets roster if they did not have Hakeem and Kenny Smith.

[kcktiny]

Where do you think Shaq improved quite significantly?

1. At passing and decision making.

So he threw for more assists in some later seasons. That does not make him a better player. He was a 7' tall 290-300 lb C that scored big inside, rebounded, defended, and blocked shots. Why the heck does he need to be throwing more passes for?

He shot 60% on 2s when just the league average C that season shot only 50% on 2s. He shot better on 2s than all other Cs in the league that year except Oliver Miller, who scored just 9 pts/g. And he did this committing just 2.7 to/g.

The last thing you want is a huge C that was a dominant inside force that shot a very high FG% close to the basket and drew fouls better than all Cs in the league (except DRob) passing off when he is one of the most offensively efficient high scorers in the game.

2. At reading defenses.

Shaq grabbed 384 offensive rebounds that season. That was the most offensive rebounds grabbed by a C in a season in 5 years (Malone 386 in 1988-89). And he grabbed those shooting 60% on 2s, so he was grabbing a lot of his teammates' misses as opposed to his own.

How's that for reading defenses? Knowing where to be and then getting there to grab all those offensive rebounds. Shaq was awfully quick when he was young. And he never grabbed more than 336 offensive rebounds in any later season, and even that is some 12%-13% less than 384.

3. At off-ball movement.

Come again? This is a 290-300 lb C we are talking about, dominant inside scorer and the Magic's best shot blocker/rebounder. Well over 90% of his time on the floor he was within the FT lane extended whether on offense or defense, and that includes running up and down the floor.

4. At limiting stupid fouls.

Try again.

In 1993-94 he committed just 4.2 PF/48min. Among the 41 Cs that year that played 1000+ minutes, that was the 5th lowest/best rate of fouls committed. The last thing Shaq was doing in 1993-94 was committing stupid fouls.

The next decade (with Orlando and the Lakers) he committed 4.3 PF/48min.

5. At scoring in isolation.

You under the impression Shaq was taking his man off the dribble far more in later seasons? As a 7-0, 290/300 lb C he's always been dependent on entry passes. Yes he could grab a occasional defensive rebound and dribble the length of the court for a slam. But I don't recall Shaquille O'Neal often taking his man off the dribble from top of the key with a couple of dribble moves to the basket.

6. At dealing with double teams.

And just how are you measuring this?

7. At limiting turnovers.

You just making this stuff up? Shaq committed just 2.7 to/g in 1993-94. The next decade he committed 2.6-2.9 to/g every season. As a matter of fact, he played 40 min/g in 1993-94 committing just 2.7 to/g, and the only other seasons he played as much as 40 min/g (1999-00 and 2000-01) he committed 2.8 and 2.9 to/g.

So I guess you are just making this stuff up.

Shaq had awesome individual numbers in the RS but little team results to speak of.

Orlando had a record of 50-32 in 1993-94. The 4 previous seasons they won just 18, 31, 21, and 41 games. That's 50 wins in just the 5th season for an expansion team.

Charlotte did not win 50 games in a season until their 7th season in the league, Dallas until their 7th season, Miami until their 9th season, and Toronto until their 21st season in the league.

So on the contrary leading an expansion team to 50 wins in just their 5th season was excellent team results.

[Bad Bart]

How many games does that Spurs team win in 1993-94 without David Robinson? 8? 9? That is one of the worst rosters I've ever seen.

Rodman is a good player (despite next year’s scapegoating). Provides no scoring but does everything else well.

Dale Ellis is a good shooter and scorer and a fine starter. No longer in his prime, but he has a few more useful years left. He was also on the team last year, so not like that qualifies as a notable decline from what they were.

Willie Anderson is a tolerable starter, and more to the point, in the same role as his first three years with Robinson (before the injuries started derailing his career).

Vinny Del Negro will be the team’s starting shooting guard for the next four seasons. Tolerable enough fifth man.

Agree the roster falls off pretty hard past those four and that the roster overall is completely dependent on Robinson. But the reason they are completely dependent on him (aside from a bad bench) is that the loss of Sean Elliott and Avery Johnson meant they had no one else equipped to create offence. A lot of teams look awful if you take away their superstar big and lead playmaker. Look at the 2003/04 Rockets. That team won 43-45 games with Steve Francis and rookie/sophomore Yao Ming. How much do they win if you took off both?

I am fine for crediting Robinson’s regular season in the context of “the team did not have a real point guard and still managed to be pretty successful,” but the team’s inability to look like a functional roster without Robinson was not unique to Robinson. There were a lot of bigs you could put in his place such that the team would still win 40 games. Do the Nuggets strike you as a particularly impressive roster without Dikembe and Mahmoud? Do the Magic without Shaq and Penny? The Knicks and Rockets both had good backup point guards this year, so not quite the same with them, but similar principle with the 1993 Rockets roster if they did not have Hakeem and Kenny Smith.

This isn't really about David Robinson, although he does benefit from this exercise, I'm genuinely flabbergasted at the roster. Dale Ellis was the second leading scorer at 15.2 points per game, the next player after that was Willie Anderson at 11.9, which was his last season ever in double digits. During the series versus the Jazz only Ellis cleared double digits besides Robinson at 10.5. The next highest scorer was someone named Negele Knight at 9.3. And I know you think the four players you listed aren't that bad, but I still can't imagine a team of Ellis, Anderson, Del Negro, Rodman and a league average center with that same bench winning more than 15 games.

I feel a lot better about Kenny Smith, Mad Max, Horry and Thorpe, plus Cassell and Elie. Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott are at least an interesting duo, and I think could win at least 30 games with the rest of that supporting cast. The Knicks roster is veritable All Star team in comparison to the Spurs. Nuggets had some interesting pieces in Rodney Rogers, Bison Dele and LaPhonso Ellis plus Robert Pack and Reggie Williams.

[OhayoKD]

How many games does that Spurs team win in 1993-94 without David Robinson? 8? 9? That is one of the worst rosters I've ever seen.

Rodman is a good player (despite next year’s scapegoating). Provides no scoring but does everything else well.

Dale Ellis is a good shooter and scorer and a fine starter. No longer in his prime, but he has a few more useful years left. He was also on the team last year, so not like that qualifies as a notable decline from what they were.

Willie Anderson is a tolerable starter, and more to the point, in the same role as his first three years with Robinson (before the injuries started derailing his career).

Vinny Del Negro will be the team’s starting shooting guard for the next four seasons. Tolerable enough fifth man.

Agree the roster falls off pretty hard past those four and that the roster overall is completely dependent on Robinson. But the reason they are completely dependent on him (aside from a bad bench) is that the loss of Sean Elliott and Avery Johnson meant they had no one else equipped to create offence. A lot of teams look awful if you take away their superstar big and lead playmaker. Look at the 2003/04 Rockets. That team won 43-45 games with Steve Francis and rookie/sophomore Yao Ming. How much do they win if you took off both?

I am fine for crediting Robinson’s regular season in the context of “the team did not have a real point guard and still managed to be pretty successful,” but the team’s inability to look like a functional roster without Robinson was not unique to Robinson. There were a lot of bigs you could put in his place such that the team would still win 40 games. Do the Nuggets strike you as a particularly impressive roster without Dikembe and Mahmoud? Do the Magic without Shaq and Penny? The Knicks and Rockets both had good backup point guards this year, so not quite the same with them, but similar principle with the 1993 Rockets roster if they did not have Hakeem and Kenny Smith.

This isn't really about David Robinson, although he does benefit from this exercise, I'm genuinely flabbergasted at the roster. Dale Ellis was the second leading scorer at 15.2 points per game, the next player after that was Willie Anderson at 11.9, which was his last season ever in double digits. During the series versus the Jazz only Ellis cleared double digits besides Robinson at 10.5. The next highest scorer was someone named Negele Knight at 9.3. And I know you think the four players you listed aren't that bad, but I still can't imagine a team of Ellis, Anderson, Del Negro, Rodman and a league average center with that same bench winning more than 15 games.

I think "look at the ppg of the teammates of a player who takes a high-volume of shots and is a limited creator" isn't a great way to assess supporting casts tbh.

[LA Bird]

For Mutombo, most people might only think of the 1st round upset and consider it a fluke but he was great the entire year. If we look at regular season impact numbers,

Mutombo: +5.5 on, -8.8 off, +14.3 net
O'Neal: +5.5 on, -2.2 off, +7.7 net
Pippen: +5.5 on, -1.6 off, +7.0 net

Mutombo is hanging with top 4 MVP candidates in on-court team performance despite playing with far worse teammates. The Nuggets were the youngest team in the league and besides Mutombo, nobody ever made All Star or All Defense in their career. They were also the worst 3pt shooting team in the league by percentage and second worst by volume. Denver's RS win record was mediocre but it's not because of Mutombo.

In the playoffs, the Nuggets faced the Sonics in round 1. This is a team which:
- Fell one game short of the Finals the previous year
- Had the best SRS by a clear margin (+2.2 over second, +3.6 over third)
- Was #2 on offense behind only Barkley/KJ Suns
- Went 17-2 heading into the playoffs (losing to Nuggets and Suns).

Mutombo delivered arguably the greatest non-Russell defensive series ever and shut down the entire Sonics team while averaging a record 6.2 blocks. Kemp, who was otherwise a good postseason scorer during his All Star prime (20 ppg on 61% TS), was held to only 15 ppg on 44% TS. For full disclosure, the Sonics internal problems after the Payton/Pierce fight at G2 halftime probably helped but the Nuggets also had a competitive series with the Jazz the next round too. They forced a G7 and lost by a much closer margin than Robinson Spurs did. While a second round exit might not seem like much, only Hakeem/Ewing/Malone/Reggie advanced further and Miller didn't actually have a good series to push the Pacers into the Conference Finals (18.5 points on 53.3% TS).

I have not finalized my order yet but Mutombo has a very strong top 5 case for me. He's not a scorer but neither was Thurmond who still placed highly in the past despite his offensive limitations.

[OhayoKD]

For Mutombo, most people might only think of the 1st round upset and consider it a fluke but he was great the entire year. If we look at regular season impact numbers,

Mutombo: +5.5 on, -8.8 off, +14.3 net
O'Neal: +5.5 on, -2.2 off, +7.7 net
Pippen: +5.5 on, -1.6 off, +7.0 net

Mutombo is hanging with top 4 MVP candidates in on-court team performance despite playing with far worse teammates. The Nuggets were the youngest team in the league and besides Mutombo, nobody ever made All Star or All Defense in their career. They were also the worst 3pt shooting team in the league by percentage and second worst by volume. Denver's RS win record was mediocre but it's not because of Mutombo.

In the playoffs, the Nuggets faced the Sonics in round 1. This is a team which:
- Fell one game short of the Finals the previous year
- Had the best SRS by a clear margin (+2.2 over second, +3.6 over third)
- Was #2 on offense behind only Barkley/KJ Suns
- Went 17-2 heading into the playoffs (losing to Nuggets and Suns).

Mutombo delivered arguably the greatest non-Russell defensive series ever and shut down the entire Sonics team while averaging a record 6.2 blocks. Kemp, who was otherwise a good postseason scorer during his All Star prime (20 ppg on 61% TS), was held to only 15 ppg on 44% TS. For full disclosure, the Sonics internal problems after the Payton/Pierce fight at G2 halftime probably helped but the Nuggets also had a competitive series with the Jazz the next round too. They forced a G7 and lost by a much closer margin than Robinson Spurs did. While a second round exit might not seem like much, only Hakeem/Ewing/Malone/Reggie advanced further and Miller didn't actually have a good series to push the Pacers into the Conference Finals (18.5 points on 53.3% TS).

I have not finalized my order yet but Mutombo has a very strong top 5 case for me. He's not a scorer but neither was Thurmond who still placed highly in the past despite his offensive limitations.

This is more like a top 3 case than a top 5 case honestly. Well done.

[70sFan]

So he threw for more assists in some later seasons. That does not make him a better player. He was a 7' tall 290-300 lb C that scored big inside, rebounded, defended, and blocked shots. Why the heck does he need to be throwing more passes for?

It is not about throwing more assists. I am sure you are aware that two players can have the exact same number of assists, even though the difference between their passing ability is massive.

I don't think Shaq improved because he threw more assists. Shaq was a better player because he knew how to punish double teams, he knew how to react against different types of coverages and he was more patient at decision making. All young Shaq did against defensive pressure were simple kickouts to the shooter, Lakers Shaq could manipulate defenses better and choose more valuable openings.

He shot 60% on 2s when just the league average C that season shot only 50% on 2s. He shot better on 2s than all other Cs in the league that year except Oliver Miller, who scored just 9 pts/g. And he did this committing just 2.7 to/g.

The last thing you want is a huge C that was a dominant inside force that shot a very high FG% close to the basket and drew fouls better than all Cs in the league (except DRob) passing off when he is one of the most offensively efficient high scorers in the game.

Sorry, but this is not how basketball works. Shaq scored very efficiently inside, which forced defenses to adjust and Shaq needed to know how to punish defenses for that. Older Shaq did it significantly better than 1994 Shaq.

Shaq grabbed 384 offensive rebounds that season. That was the most offensive rebounds grabbed by a C in a season in 5 years (Malone 386 in 1988-89). And he grabbed those shooting 60% on 2s, so he was grabbing a lot of his teammates' misses as opposed to his own.

How's that for reading defenses? Knowing where to be and then getting there to grab all those offensive rebounds. Shaq was awfully quick when he was young. And he never grabbed more than 336 offensive rebounds in any later season, and even that is some 12%-13% less than 384.

Good, Shaq perfected one aspect of the game early in his career. Reading defenses are not limited to offensive rebounding, but also to adjusting your positioning on the court depending on the defensive scheme faced, decisions with the ball etc.

Shaq was already a great offensive rebounder in his rookie year (he didn't lose that ability), but he improved in the other parts. I never said Shaq couldn't read defenses, I said he improved.

Come again? This is a 290-300 lb C we are talking about, dominant inside scorer and the Magic's best shot blocker/rebounder. Well over 90% of his time on the floor he was within the FT lane extended whether on offense or defense, and that includes running up and down the floor.

Instead of laughing, you should take a closer look at how Shaq played. Peak Shaq did 90% of his work without the ball, the whole reason why he was so hard to defend is because of how active he was without the ball and how hard he worked to establish deep position inside. All the flashes in the lane, reposting, changing sides, sealing off his man - that made Shaq great. I hope you are aware that inside players also do a lot of work without the ball, they don't just stand inside waiting for the ball.

Younger Shaq was much less active without the ball. He was more happy standing on the left block and waiting for the ball to come through him. That rarely happened with peak Shaq.

4. At limiting stupid fouls.

Try again.

In 1993-94 he committed just 4.2 PF/48min. Among the 41 Cs that year that played 1000+ minutes, that was the 5th lowest/best rate of fouls committed. The last thing Shaq was doing in 1993-94 was committing stupid fouls.

The next decade (with Orlando and the Lakers) he committed 4.3 PF/48min.

Young Shaq commited mostly stupid fouls. I am well aware that he doesn't foul a lot, but that's because of his lack of intensity on defense - not because he was smart with fouls. I just provided example from 1994 playoff game, you are free to look at them and point out what I am missing.

Shaq was never a high intensity player in the RS, it's the playoffs when he showed what he can do:

1994-96 Shaq: 4.7 PF/48
2000-02 Shaq: 3.6 PF/48

5. At scoring in isolation.

You under the impression Shaq was taking his man off the dribble far more in later seasons? As a 7-0, 290/300 lb C he's always been dependent on entry passes. Yes he could grab a occasional defensive rebound and dribble the length of the court for a slam. But I don't recall Shaquille O'Neal often taking his man off the dribble from top of the key with a couple of dribble moves to the basket.

No, I am under the impression that isolation plays also include isolations in the post.

6. At dealing with double teams.

And just how are you measuring this?

By watching games and observing how he dealt with double teams? You know that not everything can be captured in the boxscore?

[

quote]7. At limiting turnovers.

You just making this stuff up? Shaq committed just 2.7 to/g in 1993-94. The next decade he committed 2.6-2.9 to/g every season. As a matter of fact, he played 40 min/g in 1993-94 committing just 2.7 to/g, and the only other seasons he played as much as 40 min/g (1999-00 and 2000-01) he committed 2.8 and 2.9 to/g.

So I guess you are just making this stuff up.[/quote]
Again, you ignore playoffs when Shaq's playmaking ability and turnover economy was truly tested:

1994-96 Shaq: 14.0 TOV%, 4.4 TOV/48
2000-02 Shaq: 10.2 TOV%, 3.5 TOV/48

All while carrying higher offensive load and bigger playmaking role in triangle. You also ignore how he got these turnovers.

[Bad Bart]

Rodman is a good player (despite next year’s scapegoating). Provides no scoring but does everything else well.

Dale Ellis is a good shooter and scorer and a fine starter. No longer in his prime, but he has a few more useful years left. He was also on the team last year, so not like that qualifies as a notable decline from what they were.

Willie Anderson is a tolerable starter, and more to the point, in the same role as his first three years with Robinson (before the injuries started derailing his career).

Vinny Del Negro will be the team’s starting shooting guard for the next four seasons. Tolerable enough fifth man.

Agree the roster falls off pretty hard past those four and that the roster overall is completely dependent on Robinson. But the reason they are completely dependent on him (aside from a bad bench) is that the loss of Sean Elliott and Avery Johnson meant they had no one else equipped to create offence. A lot of teams look awful if you take away their superstar big and lead playmaker. Look at the 2003/04 Rockets. That team won 43-45 games with Steve Francis and rookie/sophomore Yao Ming. How much do they win if you took off both?

I am fine for crediting Robinson’s regular season in the context of “the team did not have a real point guard and still managed to be pretty successful,” but the team’s inability to look like a functional roster without Robinson was not unique to Robinson. There were a lot of bigs you could put in his place such that the team would still win 40 games. Do the Nuggets strike you as a particularly impressive roster without Dikembe and Mahmoud? Do the Magic without Shaq and Penny? The Knicks and Rockets both had good backup point guards this year, so not quite the same with them, but similar principle with the 1993 Rockets roster if they did not have Hakeem and Kenny Smith.

This isn't really about David Robinson, although he does benefit from this exercise, I'm genuinely flabbergasted at the roster. Dale Ellis was the second leading scorer at 15.2 points per game, the next player after that was Willie Anderson at 11.9, which was his last season ever in double digits. During the series versus the Jazz only Ellis cleared double digits besides Robinson at 10.5. The next highest scorer was someone named Negele Knight at 9.3. And I know you think the four players you listed aren't that bad, but I still can't imagine a team of Ellis, Anderson, Del Negro, Rodman and a league average center with that same bench winning more than 15 games.

I think "look at the ppg of the teammates of a player who takes a high-volume of shots and is a limited creator" isn't a great way to assess supporting casts tbh.

You focus on points per game and completely ignore the rest of my comment. Nice!

[OhayoKD]

This isn't really about David Robinson, although he does benefit from this exercise, I'm genuinely flabbergasted at the roster. Dale Ellis was the second leading scorer at 15.2 points per game, the next player after that was Willie Anderson at 11.9, which was his last season ever in double digits. During the series versus the Jazz only Ellis cleared double digits besides Robinson at 10.5. The next highest scorer was someone named Negele Knight at 9.3. And I know you think the four players you listed aren't that bad, but I still can't imagine a team of Ellis, Anderson, Del Negro, Rodman and a league average center with that same bench winning more than 15 games.

I think "look at the ppg of the teammates of a player who takes a high-volume of shots and is a limited creator" isn't a great way to assess supporting casts tbh.

You focus on points per game and completely ignore the rest of my comment. Nice!

the rest of your comment is saying your opinions of various players. The only justification offered of these opinions is their points averaged. I can only engage with what is there to be engaged

[Bad Bart]

I think "look at the ppg of the teammates of a player who takes a high-volume of shots and is a limited creator" isn't a great way to assess supporting casts tbh.

You focus on points per game and completely ignore the rest of my comment. Nice!

the rest of your comment is saying your opinions of various players. The only justification offered of these opinions is their points averaged. I can only engage with what is there to be engaged

I didn't mention points per game when discussing my opinion of players that made up other rosters, so I don't know what this means. Apparently referring to points per game reflects a lack of sophistication on my part, so it's okay to be dismissive of the rest of my comment, which was in response to a comment that was using personal opinion. Really welcoming board here.

[OhayoKD]

You focus on points per game and completely ignore the rest of my comment. Nice!

the rest of your comment is saying your opinions of various players. The only justification offered of these opinions is their points averaged. I can only engage with what is there to be engaged

I didn't mention points per game when discussing my opinion of players that made up other rosters, so I don't know what this means. Apparently referring to points per game reflects a lack of sophistication on my part, so it's okay to be dismissive of the rest of my comment, which was in response to a comment that was using personal opinion. Really welcoming board here.

Now cite where i accused you of not being sophisticated or stop the fake vicimhood

[homecourtloss]

Notable thoughts from the +/- data:

-McMillan was probably the best bench player in the league, but it's still a bench player playing bench player minutes that dropped further in the playoffs, don't go crazy. Helps drive the Sonics stars down a bit in the on/off.
-The Hawks starting lineup was surprisingly dominant in the RS, usually we might suspect that would've translated better to the POs. Losing to the Pacers seems solidly disappointing. Would be nice if we had the traded player data, maybe the Nique for Manning deal wasn't a good idea?
-Robinson/Malone/Hakeem the trio of guys that seem to me to really stand out as having both elite leaguewide numbers and having a clear separation from their teammates (lineup grouping can be troublesome without regressions)
-Sprewell/Richmond pretty disappointing for All-NBA guys, maybe Payton too, but there's the McMillan issue. Rest of the All-NBA guys measure out in a pretty similar range.

Nate McMillan was the defender people think Payton was though Payton might be underrated as an offensive player. He was a pace and space defender in an era that didnt play with pace and space.

[homecourtloss]

This isn't really about David Robinson, although he does benefit from this exercise, I'm genuinely flabbergasted at the roster. Dale Ellis was the second leading scorer at 15.2 points per game, the next player after that was Willie Anderson at 11.9, which was his last season ever in double digits. During the series versus the Jazz only Ellis cleared double digits besides Robinson at 10.5. The next highest scorer was someone named Negele Knight at 9.3. And I know you think the four players you listed aren't that bad, but I still can't imagine a team of Ellis, Anderson, Del Negro, Rodman and a league average center with that same bench winning more than 15 games.

I think "look at the ppg of the teammates of a player who takes a high-volume of shots and is a limited creator" isn't a great way to assess supporting casts tbh.

You focus on points per game and completely ignore the rest of my comment. Nice!

You didn’t write about anything other than ppg and names. What else did you analyze?

This isn't really about David Robinson, although he does benefit from this exercise, I'm genuinely flabbergasted at the roster. Dale Ellis was the second leading scorer at 15.2 points per game, the next player after that was Willie Anderson at 11.9, which was his last season ever in double digits. During the series versus the Jazz only Ellis cleared double digits besides Robinson at 10.5. The next highest scorer was someone named Negele Knight at 9.3. And I know you think the four players you listed aren't that bad, but I still can't imagine a team of Ellis, Anderson, Del Negro, Rodman and a league average center with that same bench winning more than 15 games.

I feel a lot better about Kenny Smith, Mad Max, Horry and Thorpe, plus Cassell and Elie. Nick Anderson and Dennis Scott are at least an interesting duo, and I think could win at least 30 games with the rest of that supporting cast. The Knicks roster is veritable All Star team in comparison to the Spurs. Nuggets had some interesting pieces in Rodney Rogers, Bison Dele and LaPhonso Ellis plus Robert Pack and Reggie Williams.