Olajuwon/Robinson duo in 2000s

[migya]

If Olajuwon and Robinson were drafted ten years later and both on the same team, figure Olajuwon injured large portion of 1999 and Robinson drafted at that time, and they are together on the Spurs with the roster of 1999, without Duncan, how does that team perform in the 2000s? Either one at Center or PF as both could play those positions.


Championships, mvps?

Do they beat the Lakers with Shaq and Kobe?

[tsherkin]

Trying to score against that team would SUCK.

[Hair Jordan]

Wouldn’t work. They’d get in each others way. It’s like putting Kobe on a team with Jordan. They wouldn’t be able to be as great because they would both want to be the man and they’d fight for offensive possessions. Recipe for disaster.

[tsherkin]

Wouldn’t work. They’d get in each others way. It’s like putting Kobe on a team with Jordan. They wouldn’t be able to be as great because they would both want to be the man and they’d fight for offensive possessions. Recipe for disaster.

So, 1, no. Robinson never showed any inclination towards fighting for possessions at all. So the whole "want to be the man" thing is violently overplayed and specifically inaccurate in Robinson's case.

2, Olajuwon had more range and more inclination towards isolation play, which were exactly the things with with Robinson struggled. So it would be fairly straightforward for them to operate on opposite sides of the floor. It's not like Dream didn't work with other bigs during his time. And Robinson had about as much range as Otis Thorpe, and that worked out fine.

3, with how horridly brutal it would be for teams to score against that back line, they'd be afforded some degree of margin for error. That'd be instantly the best defensive frontcourt in league history, and an absolutely vile pair to face as far as possession control is concerned. Keep in mind that those two represent half of the official quadruple doubles in league history. Those two were both individually INCREDIBLE at forcing turnovers.

[Hair Jordan]

Wouldn’t work. They’d get in each others way. It’s like putting Kobe on a team with Jordan. They wouldn’t be able to be as great because they would both want to be the man and they’d fight for offensive possessions. Recipe for disaster.

So, 1, no. Robinson never showed any inclination towards fighting for possessions at all. So the whole "want to be the man" thing is violently overplayed and specifically inaccurate in Robinson's case.

2, Olajuwon had more range and more inclination towards isolation play, which were exactly the things with with Robinson struggled. So it would be fairly straightforward for them to operate on opposite sides of the floor. It's not like Dream didn't work with other bigs during his time. And Robinson had about as much range as Otis Thorpe, and that worked out fine.

3, with how horridly brutal it would be for teams to score against that back line, they'd be afforded some degree of margin for error. That'd be instantly the best defensive frontcourt in league history, and an absolutely vile pair to face as far as possession control is concerned. Keep in mind that those two represent half of the official quadruple doubles in league history. Those two were both individually INCREDIBLE at forcing turnovers.

Wouldn’t work. Robinson only deferred to Duncan because he was at the end of his career and recognized that Duncan could get him a ring. DRob and Olajuwon in their primes would be nightmarish defensively but not ideal offensively. Two alpha dogs at their peak would be a bad mix. Neither one could be their dominant self with the other around. The teams hierarchy, chemistry and identity would suffer. Two alphas playing different positions works (Kareem/Magic, Bird/McHale, Jordan/Pipprn, Shaq/Kobe etc) but two alphas playing the same position would not. Don’t think you’re going to hide DRob as a stretch 4. He’s a natural center and so is Hakeem.

[migya]

Wouldn’t work. They’d get in each others way. It’s like putting Kobe on a team with Jordan. They wouldn’t be able to be as great because they would both want to be the man and they’d fight for offensive possessions. Recipe for disaster.

So, 1, no. Robinson never showed any inclination towards fighting for possessions at all. So the whole "want to be the man" thing is violently overplayed and specifically inaccurate in Robinson's case.

2, Olajuwon had more range and more inclination towards isolation play, which were exactly the things with with Robinson struggled. So it would be fairly straightforward for them to operate on opposite sides of the floor. It's not like Dream didn't work with other bigs during his time. And Robinson had about as much range as Otis Thorpe, and that worked out fine.

3, with how horridly brutal it would be for teams to score against that back line, they'd be afforded some degree of margin for error. That'd be instantly the best defensive frontcourt in league history, and an absolutely vile pair to face as far as possession control is concerned. Keep in mind that those two represent half of the official quadruple doubles in league history. Those two were both individually INCREDIBLE at forcing turnovers.

Wouldn’t work. Robinson only deferred to Duncan because he was at the end of his career and recognized that Duncan could get him a ring. DRob and Olajuwon in their primes would be nightmarish defensively but not ideal offensively. Two alpha dogs at their peak would be a bad mix. Neither one could be their dominant self with the other around. The teams hierarchy, chemistry and identity would suffer. Two alphas playing different positions works (Kareem/Magic, Bird/McHale, Jordan/Pipprn, Shaq/Kobe etc) but two alphas playing the same position would not. Don’t think you’re going to hide DRob as a stretch 4. He’s a natural center and so is Hakeem.

It would work much like Robinson and Duncan did, just better. I don't agree that Robinson wasn't good at isolation scoring, he was the Spurs offense almost entirely before Duncan got there, so that itself shows he was a very good scorer and creator. Both have inside and outside game and demand double teams. It worked with Olajuwon and Sampson as well.

[henshao]

What's going to really suck for opponents is when the Admiral starts learning moves from Dream

[tsherkin]

Wouldn’t work. Robinson only deferred to Duncan because he was at the end of his career and recognized that Duncan could get him a ring.

Literally nothing about him ever suggests that, no. That is a purely fictitious argument. It's even worse when you consider HOW the two guys scored, which couldn't have differed more.

Don’t think you’re going to hide DRob as a stretch 4. He’s a natural center and so is Hakeem.

No, they'd run Hakeem as the 4 because he had more range, and because Robinson was much more focused on exploiting plodding big guys with his off-ball action. Because of the large differences in how they approached scoring...

[Owly]

2, Olajuwon had more range and more inclination towards isolation play, which were exactly the things with with Robinson struggled. So it would be fairly straightforward for them to operate on opposite sides of the floor. It's not like Dream didn't work with other bigs during his time. And Robinson had about as much range as Otis Thorpe, and that worked out fine.

Robinson's 15-3pt percentage, as far as it's known is similar to Olajuwon's as far as it's known on a similar proportion of shots. His FT% is a bit better for his career though not so much if you cut out early Hakeem. I'm not sure then that one has more range whilst it's "exactly" where the other "struggled". From reporting at the time (from mid 90s prime) my sense is both were considered good shooters for centers.

[tsherkin]

Robinson's 15-3pt percentage, as far as it's known is similar to Olajuwon's as far as it's known on a similar proportion of shots. His FT% is a bit better for his career though not so much if you cut out early Hakeem. I'm not sure then that one has more range whilst it's "exactly" where the other "struggled". From reporting at the time (from mid 90s prime) my sense is both were considered good shooters for centers.

Both were considered good for size, yes. From me watching them, Robinson didn't really take anything where his foot wasn't roughly touching the FT line, and Olajuwon (like Ewing) seemed a little more comfortable letting fly from a little further. He was also considerably more comfortable shooting off a live dribble. I don't have tracking numbers on them pre-97, but Robinson basically didn't take shots past 16 feet at that point in his career and was highly inconsistent when he did. Olajuwon used a similar proportion, but was a little more consistent until his last couple seasons. Hakeem was also notably more effective from 3-16 feet, and 10-16 was a bread and butter range for both, and where Hakeem was quite a bit more effective.

Olajuwon's big deal is that he was so much more comfortable attacking with a live dribble, and in iso post, both of which were Robinson's specific offensive weaknesses. It put a cap on Olajuwon's overall efficiency because he initiated so much and didn't do as much work on second-chance points and transition and so forth, but it also highlights why he was more resilient into the postseason.

[Owly]

Robinson's 15-3pt percentage, as far as it's known is similar to Olajuwon's as far as it's known on a similar proportion of shots. His FT% is a bit better for his career though not so much if you cut out early Hakeem. I'm not sure then that one has more range whilst it's "exactly" where the other "struggled". From reporting at the time (from mid 90s prime) my sense is both were considered good shooters for centers.

Both were considered good for size, yes. From me watching them, Robinson didn't really take anything where his foot wasn't roughly touching the FT line, and Olajuwon (like Ewing) seemed a little more comfortable letting fly from a little further. He was also considerably more comfortable shooting off a live dribble. I don't have tracking numbers on them pre-97, but Robinson basically didn't take shots past 16 feet at that point in his career and was highly inconsistent when he did. Olajuwon used a similar proportion, but was a little more consistent until his last couple seasons. Hakeem was also notably more effective from 3-16 feet, and 10-16 was a bread and butter range for both, and where Hakeem was quite a bit more effective.

Olajuwon's big deal is that he was so much more comfortable attacking with a live dribble, and in iso post, both of which were Robinson's specific offensive weaknesses. It put a cap on Olajuwon's overall efficiency because he initiated so much and didn't do as much work on second-chance points and transition and so forth, but it also highlights why he was more resilient into the postseason.

After each of '93, '94 and '95 (the editions I just looked at, others may vary ... '96 probably relevant but format changed and less detailed so didn't feel need to look further) Cohn and then Barry and Cohn note the 17 footer as a shot they can make and perhaps implicitly the roughly the extent of their effective range. For both guys. Maybe they're wrong. I don't have the numbers. Olajuwon's FT% don't inspire me to think his touch is that much better. I'll happily grant significant uncertainty. On what I have, my impression is this isn't a "struggle" for one and strength for the other so much as something broadly the same.

I'm reticent to ding Robinson for not taking J's off the dribble because his first step was taking him past his man. I suppose it's possible that one could put up equivalent numbers on the J whilst being a technically worse shooter by doing less of a difficult variety of shot in this manner and more of an easier one. At the margins, against this (at least the latter part), one could argue if Hakeem's being hurt by shooting in motion off a dribble, why isn't he a better shooter in the relatively pure test of shooting at the line.

[tsherkin]

After each of '93, '94 and '95 (the editions I just looked at, others may vary ... '96 probably relevant but format changed and less detailed so didn't feel need to look further) Cohn and then Barry and Cohn note the 17 footer as a shot they can make and perhaps implicitly the roughly the extent of their effective range. For both guys. Maybe they're wrong. I don't have the numbers. Olajuwon's FT% don't inspire me to think his touch is that much better. I'll happily grant significant uncertainty. On what I have, my impression is this isn't a "struggle" for one and strength for the other so much as something broadly the same.

I'd very much believe that Olajuwon wasn't going to be comfortable shooting much further out than 17 feet, yes.

I'm reticent to ding Robinson for not taking J's off the dribble because his first step was taking him past his man.

But this circles back to my other point. He didn't have counters. He didn't have confidence if he had to use more than a single dribble outside of transition. There's a REASON he was so much less resilient in the playoffs (aka, "why he fell apart year after year against decent defenses and physical frontlines").

I suppose it's possible that one could put up equivalent numbers on the J whilst being a technically worse shooter by doing less of a difficult variety of shot in this manner and more of an easier one. At the margins, against this (at least the latter part), one could argue if Hakeem's being hurt by shooting in motion off a dribble, why isn't he a better shooter in the relatively pure test of shooting at the line.

Motion shooting and set shooting are not really the same thing at all, so I'm not sure I see the relevance. Body control and confidence are of considerably more relevance, and the handle involved in setting it up. Hakeem's handle was SIGNIFICANTLY advanced compared to Robinson's, which is a big part of why he was so much more successful in motion.

The middie is really where this shines through much more obviously, to be fair, but that's where it mattered most for them anyway, since they both were still taking a quarter to 30% of their shots at that range even 97 and onward.

[Owly]

After each of '93, '94 and '95 (the editions I just looked at, others may vary ... '96 probably relevant but format changed and less detailed so didn't feel need to look further) Cohn and then Barry and Cohn note the 17 footer as a shot they can make and perhaps implicitly the roughly the extent of their effective range. For both guys. Maybe they're wrong. I don't have the numbers. Olajuwon's FT% don't inspire me to think his touch is that much better. I'll happily grant significant uncertainty. On what I have, my impression is this isn't a "struggle" for one and strength for the other so much as something broadly the same.

I'd very much believe that Olajuwon wasn't going to be comfortable shooting much further out than 17 feet, yes.

I'm reticent to ding Robinson for not taking J's off the dribble because his first step was taking him past his man.

But this circles back to my other point. He didn't have counters. He didn't have confidence if he had to use more than a single dribble outside of transition. There's a REASON he was so much less resilient in the playoffs (aka, "why he fell apart year after year against decent defenses and physical frontlines").

I suppose it's possible that one could put up equivalent numbers on the J whilst being a technically worse shooter by doing less of a difficult variety of shot in this manner and more of an easier one. At the margins, against this (at least the latter part), one could argue if Hakeem's being hurt by shooting in motion off a dribble, why isn't he a better shooter in the relatively pure test of shooting at the line.

Motion shooting and set shooting are not really the same thing at all, so I'm not sure I see the relevance. Body control and confidence are of considerably more relevance, and the handle involved in setting it up. Hakeem's handle was SIGNIFICANTLY advanced compared to Robinson's, which is a big part of why he was so much more successful in motion.

The middie is really where this shines through much more obviously, to be fair, but that's where it mattered most for them anyway, since they both were still taking a quarter to 30% of their shots at that range even 97 and onward.

I think Robinson's resilience ... you know what it's far enough off track that it doesn't matter. I'll just say samples in playoffs are small and fg% is something that fluctuates quite a lot (and Robinson shot notably worse at the line against tougher defenses for presumably luck-based reasons).

Regarding relevance ... re-read the post. It's getting niche enough that it doesn't matter but I grant it's possible to get to the same percentages off different types of shot from the same range whilst being technically better. But state if someone is more broadly argued as a better shooter not displaying this in a more constant scenario with a relatively much higher sample in a pure test of shooting will "at the margins" do damage to that claim of being a better shooter in the (in-game) "easier" (stationary) shot.

[tsherkin]

I think Robinson's resilience ... you know what it's far enough off track that it doesn't matter. I'll just say samples in playoffs are small and fg% is something that fluctuates quite a lot (and Robinson shot notably worse at the line against tougher defenses for presumably luck-based reasons).

They are, but it was a repeating theme with him and good defenses/physical frontcourts.

Regarding relevance ... re-read the post. It's getting niche enough that it doesn't matter but I grant it's possible to get to the same percentages off different types of shot from the same range whilst being technically better. But state if someone is more broadly argued as a better shooter not displaying this in a more constant scenario with a relatively much higher sample in a pure test of shooting will "at the margins" do damage to that claim of being a better shooter in the (in-game) "easier" (stationary) shot.

I definitely don't agree here. I think Olajuwon was a much better shooter off the bounce, and that was a decisively important element of why he struggled less in the playoffs. I can see where you're coming from about "range." Perhaps I used the term too loosely. I don't think Olajuwon was out there bombing 20-footers, or that he'd be too much better at that than D-Rob. There, I agree that we would likely see more expression in FT%.

But in terms of what differentiated them against difficult defenses, the difference in Olajuwon's ability to handle the ball coupled to his body control made him a considerably superior mid-range scoring threat, which is an area where Robinson struggled notably. If you see enough of him, you understand the distribution of play types where he's quite effective, and how when those are denied, he tended to fold. Tempo decrease, more isolation sets, not enough dump-offs in close, fewer lobs... that sort of thing. He wasn't good at creating and finishing looks for himself. He could absolutely drop his head and drive into the defense and draw fouls, which he often did well enough in the playoffs. But he didn't do a good job of finishing shots in those instances, which is a big part of what harmed his ability to score efficiently (though as you say, he also tended to fold at the line).

This was visible all throughout the RS, not just the PS. It was foundational to how the two approached scoring. It's also a big part of why Robinson was so much more efficient in the RS.

[Ol Roy]

Wouldn’t work. Robinson only deferred to Duncan because he was at the end of his career and recognized that Duncan could get him a ring. DRob and Olajuwon in their primes would be nightmarish defensively but not ideal offensively. Two alpha dogs at their peak would be a bad mix. Neither one could be their dominant self with the other around. The teams hierarchy, chemistry and identity would suffer. Two alphas playing different positions works (Kareem/Magic, Bird/McHale, Jordan/Pipprn, Shaq/Kobe etc) but two alphas playing the same position would not. Don’t think you’re going to hide DRob as a stretch 4. He’s a natural center and so is Hakeem.

First observation: Hakeem preferred playing on the left side; Robinson on the right side. There is no reason they would need to get in each other's way. If playing 90s style, one can isolate while the other crashes the boards. The advantage of them playing together? Double teams are now punished.

In more modern sets, you could actually pull either or both out to the perimeter. Their shooting would translate today. They could dribble-drive to the rim and cut without the ball. He didn't do it a lot, but Robinson was excellent at surveying the court from the perimeter and rocketing passes to an open man.

Hakeem was definitely an alpha scorer, but Robinson was a consummate glue player. It isn't because he played with Duncan. Watch him on the Olympic teams.

[Ol Roy]

Trying to score against that team would SUCK.

Yep. At 1:09:37 you can see Olajuwon and Robinson playing together on the 1996 Olympic squad against China.

Watch on YouTube

Defensive possession outcomes:

1. Robinson grabs the ball from a driving ballhandler
2. Olajuwon intercepts a pass
3. Perimeter shot goes in
4. Perimeter shot goes in? (Camera was focused on dumb interview)
5. Robinson and Olajuwon converge on a drive; Robinson swats the ball from the ballhandler into Olajuwon's hands
6. Robinson and Olajuwon stuff several drive attempts, leading to a couple perimeter misses
7. Robinson blocks a paint shot and grabs the ball
8. Miss over Robinson contest, then miss over Olajuwon contest

[Owly]

I think Robinson's resilience ... you know what it's far enough off track that it doesn't matter. I'll just say samples in playoffs are small and fg% is something that fluctuates quite a lot (and Robinson shot notably worse at the line against tougher defenses for presumably luck-based reasons).

They are, but it was a repeating theme with him and good defenses/physical frontcourts.

Regarding relevance ... re-read the post. It's getting niche enough that it doesn't matter but I grant it's possible to get to the same percentages off different types of shot from the same range whilst being technically better. But state if someone is more broadly argued as a better shooter not displaying this in a more constant scenario with a relatively much higher sample in a pure test of shooting will "at the margins" do damage to that claim of being a better shooter in the (in-game) "easier" (stationary) shot.

I definitely don't agree here. I think Olajuwon was a much better shooter off the bounce, and that was a decisively important element of why he struggled less in the playoffs. I can see where you're coming from about "range." Perhaps I used the term too loosely. I don't think Olajuwon was out there bombing 20-footers, or that he'd be too much better at that than D-Rob. There, I agree that we would likely see more expression in FT%.

But in terms of what differentiated them against difficult defenses, the difference in Olajuwon's ability to handle the ball coupled to his body control made him a considerably superior mid-range scoring threat, which is an area where Robinson struggled notably. If you see enough of him, you understand the distribution of play types where he's quite effective, and how when those are denied, he tended to fold. Tempo decrease, more isolation sets, not enough dump-offs in close, fewer lobs... that sort of thing. He wasn't good at creating and finishing looks for himself. He could absolutely drop his head and drive into the defense and draw fouls, which he often did well enough in the playoffs. But he didn't do a good job of finishing shots in those instances, which is a big part of what harmed his ability to score efficiently (though as you say, he also tended to fold at the line).

This was visible all throughout the RS, not just the PS. It was foundational to how the two approached scoring. It's also a big part of why Robinson was so much more efficient in the RS.

I'm not inclined to go too much further with this.

On 1) ... don't know about physical ... in the playoffs in a limited time frame as clear cut alpha scorer it does repeat but to be clear I'm not saying samples in one playoffs are small I'm saying cumulatively this is a small sample (and in a limited range of contexts). Fwiw, off very limited info (mainly I think my reading of an ElGee table, and maybe more positively recollections of some single season STATs inc comparisons of head-to-heads for elite centers), my impression is Robinson was more broadly neither notably good nor bad in terms of resilience against good centers. Fwiw from same source Olajuwon does appear generally inelastic (from an unexceptional overall efficiency). I'm open to listening which teams are good and physical and what the data is there.

On 2) ... you say "I definitely don't agree here" ... but the response - and especially the immediately following sentence - to my reading contains very little directly in response to what is written which is a restatement of something intentionally kept quite limited in remit. At the margin I'm slightly concerned by the choice of "fold" at the line versus good defenses. The baggage on that term ... is a red flag for me personally.

More broadly you seem to be talking shorter mid-range stuff and there the (limited) data and the simplest explanation is Hakeem was better there though samples are limited and I'd be happy to see fuller data. IDK about the off the bounce stuff which is why I haven't really commented on it, again I'd be happy to see data: impression is in the shorter midrange Olajuwon was good at making difficult shots (though that doesn't always make them good shots).

[tsherkin]

On 1) ... don't know about physical ... in the playoffs in a limited time frame as clear cut alpha scorer it does repeat but to be clear I'm not saying samples in one playoffs are small I'm saying cumulatively this is a small sample (and in a limited range of contexts).

I understood what you were saying, but it wasn't a trend limited to the playoffs, so that's somewhat moot.

my impression is Robinson was more broadly neither notably good nor bad in terms of resilience against good centers.

Not what I said. I said "physical front lines" for a reason. It wasn't about quality of center, it was about strength, and about their ability to play him physically and force him away from the rim, or to bother him on the shot.

More broadly you seem to be talking shorter mid-range stuff and there the (limited) data and the simplest explanation is Hakeem was better there though samples are limited and I'd be happy to see fuller data. IDK about the off the bounce stuff which is why I haven't really commented on it, again I'd be happy to see data: impression is in the shorter midrange Olajuwon was good at making difficult shots (though that doesn't always make them good shots).

I agree that Olajuwon took a lot of shots which were what you would generally categorize as "lower quality." He was good at making them (relatively) and that helped his inelasticity in efficiency come the playoffs. I said this earlier. And I also noted that it lowered his overall ceiling of efficiency in the RS, which does change some of the tone between the two players in terms of impact on RS offense on lower-quality teams (on which both were often playing).

Keep in mind I am a fan of David Robinson. I think well of him. I watched a lot of him. And Olajuwon. In the 90s, centers were my primary focus in the game of basketball. Interior offense is also what I primarily coached. This is an area of emphasis for me.

[Owly]

On 1) ... don't know about physical ... in the playoffs in a limited time frame as clear cut alpha scorer it does repeat but to be clear I'm not saying samples in one playoffs are small I'm saying cumulatively this is a small sample (and in a limited range of contexts).

I understood what you were saying, but it wasn't a trend limited to the playoffs, so that's somewhat moot.

my impression is Robinson was more broadly neither notably good nor bad in terms of resilience against good centers.

Not what I said. I said "physical front lines" for a reason. It wasn't about quality of center, it was about strength, and about their ability to play him physically and force him away from the rim, or to bother him on the shot.

More broadly you seem to be talking shorter mid-range stuff and there the (limited) data and the simplest explanation is Hakeem was better there though samples are limited and I'd be happy to see fuller data. IDK about the off the bounce stuff which is why I haven't really commented on it, again I'd be happy to see data: impression is in the shorter midrange Olajuwon was good at making difficult shots (though that doesn't always make them good shots).

I agree that Olajuwon took a lot of shots which were what you would generally categorize as "lower quality." He was good at making them (relatively) and that helped his inelasticity in efficiency come the playoffs. I said this earlier. And I also noted that it lowered his overall ceiling of efficiency in the RS, which does change some of the tone between the two players in terms of impact on RS offense on lower-quality teams (on which both were often playing).

Keep in mind I am a fan of David Robinson. I think well of him. I watched a lot of him. And Olajuwon. In the 90s, centers were my primary focus in the game of basketball. Interior offense is also what I primarily coached. This is an area of emphasis for me.

Last go round here
1) As ever open to seeing data
2) Okay well the quote was "good defenses/physical frontcourts". And I kind of assume the idea is defenses good at defending centers for which teams with good centers is for me an adequate proxy that I actually have seen some form of data. As above, open to seeing new/your sources.

(All numbers below are RS)
Fwiw, eyeballing him versus the Rileyball and Ewing/Oakley/Mason era Knicks (including '96 for that frontcourt, and one of the games is under JVG) the most notriously physical team and physical frontline .... looking at the average of game BPMs there's little evidence of an overall struggle at 9.533333333 (9.1 was his RS average for the spell).

Shooting wise
EFG% versus Knicks 0.538922156
average of season averages versus all teams (this is actually slightly inflated versus a true weighted average, '92 is his best shooting season in these [raw] terms but he suffers an injury and gets up fewer attempts - it should be lower but I’m not doing the proper average right now) 0.5228
Robinson up versus Knicks
TS% versus Knicks 0.581725
TS% against league (actual, properly weighted this time) .586
Robinson narrowly worse versus Knicks … because … 0.653465 from the line (I’d suggest luck rather than free throw defense).
One very small sample, am open to evidence … not seeing it in here versus the archetype.

3) Yes, I’m (trying to) grant you/ acknowledge Olajuwon’s shorter midrange and inelasticity (though I think also some luck – before doing any adjustments to account for which years he plays the largest samples in Olajuwon’s career TS% is up in the playoffs – [if this holds with closer inspection] unless you’re not trying [to some degree] in the RS, I believe that’s luck).

[ardee]

Good thing you mentioned 2000s and not modern day, because they'd likely be less effective (still very good though) today with the emphasis on the three-point shot hurting them on both ends (unless Hakeem developed a passable 3, which I wouldn't put past him).

In the noughties though, they'd be utterly devastating as most people here have said. In the first 7 years of their careers they were combining for 11 steals/blocks per game, and if they played together it would likely be more considering one of them could force opponents into positions where the other could take advantage.

Really, they'd just need a couple of competent perimeter players who could make entry passes and shoot threes and you're likely beating everyone in the league senseless short of the peak Shaq/Kobe Lakers (and even then they'd be the favorite).