RealGM

Sampson deteriorated very fast and really incredible how it turned out. He was one of the most heralded players out of college in history. If his health had remained very good, a big hypothetical but just that, how does Houston perform the rest of his and Olajuwon's careers, so about 15 odd year length, say until 2000 season?

Does Sampson come close to mvp at all?

This is a really interesting question. Back in 1986, during the NBA Finals, K.C. Jones said the Rockets looked like the next Western Conference juggernaut, the team that could replace the Lakers as the dominant power. I think this conversation can honestly go both ways.

If Sampson stays healthy, I don’t think the Rockets ever quite recapture the magic of 1986. The fallout from John Lucas being removed from the team in March 1986 and the subsequent suspensions of Lewis Lloyd and Mitchell Wiggins completely gutted their backcourt. Lloyd was a tough, physical defender who could guard small forwards, and Wiggins was an underrated two-way contributor off the bench. Their absence forced Robert Reid to do more without the ball, and that hurt his effectiveness.

Reid was a huge part of the 1986 run because he excelled in his role. By 1987 his role had shifted, and by 1988 his defense had started slipping. He finished that year as a part-time starter before being left unprotected in the expansion draft.

Meanwhile, the front office took a conservative approach to roster moves. Their mid-80s success meant they were stuck with middle-to-late draft picks, landing solid but unspectacular players like Buck Johnson, who was a steady contributor, and Dave Feitl, who was more of a journeyman. None of them could replace the lost backcourt production. Sleepy Floyd was fun to watch offensively, but players like Lester Conner and Mike Woodson were not difference-makers either.

If Sampson had stayed healthy, I could see the Rockets as a consistent 50-win team through the late 80s, maybe making another conference finals appearance. But realistically, they probably keep running into teams like Portland or Dallas and losing in the semifinals.

In some ways, I view Sampson’s departure actually setting up their 1994 and 1995 titles. The 1994 team leaned heavily on Kenny Smith, Vernon Maxwell, and Otis Thorpe; where Thorpe and Smith were effectively there because of the ripple effects of Sampson’s injury and trade. Sampson’s struggles to fit Bill Fitch’s system, often trying to play point-forward when it did not fit, led to the trade for Joe Barry Carroll. That in turn enabled the moves for Thorpe from Sacramento and Tim McCormick from Philadelphia, and McCormick was later traded for Kenny Smith.

As for MVPs, I do not think Sampson ever wins one. He probably would have had several top-five finishes, but voters could view him as being helped by Olajuwon’s presence. It also would have been nearly impossible to surpass Magic Johnson or Michael Jordan in that stretch from 1987 through 1993.

What do you think?

If Sampson stays healthy

Sampson was healthy his first 3 seasons in the league - was rookie of the year in 1983-84, all-NBA 2nd team in 1984-85, and in 1985-86 was the leading rebounder and 2nd leading scorer on a Houston Rockets team that upset the 62-20 Lakers 4-1 in the WCFs to get to the Finals, took Boston to 6 games before losing. He missed just 3 regular season games those 3 seasons, played 36 min/g, and among all PFs and Cs in the league was 4th in rebounds (2645), 4th in blocks (494), and 4th in points scored (5020), the only PF/C to be in the top 4 in all 3 categories those 3 years.

As I wrote in the "Is Wembanyamas impact now similar to Wilt?" thread after his 3rd season Sampson was just 1 of 2 players in league history in the age range of 23-25 to amass 5000+ pts, 2500+ rebs, and 400+ blocks, the other being Bob McAdoo. Even today only 4 players did this ages 23-25 - McAdoo, Sampson, Olajuwon, and Duncan.

Compare his stats his first 3 seasons to those of Tim Duncan and his first 3 seasons (1997-98 to 1999-00):

Duncan - 206 g, 39 min/g, 22.0 pts/g, 12 reb/g, 2.8 ast/g, 2.4 bs/g
Sampson - 243 g, 36 min/g, 20.7 pts/g, 11 reb/g, 2.8 ast/g, 2.0 bs/g

Not a whole lot of difference.

I don't think there is any question that if Sampson had stayed healthy he would have gone on to have a great career, a HOF career, and he and Olajuwon would have been the dominant PF/C combo with great team success for a long time. Remember Sampson was just age 25 at the end of his first 3 seasons, he had not even reached his prime. He got injured at the age of just 26, was never the same after that (played almost twice as many minutes his first 3 seasons in the league than he did his next 6 seasons).

Olajuwon with a heathy Sampson would have been just like David Robinson with Duncan, maybe even better because there was little age difference between Sampson and Olajuwon.

Keep in mind from 1986-87 to 1989-90 Olajuwon was the best C in the league (all-NBA 1st team 3 times, all-NBA 2nd team once) yet the Rockets did not win as many as 50 games in a season even once. With Sampson they won 51 games when one was just a 3rd year player and the other a 2nd year player.

Like I think of Shaq and a healthy Penny I think a healthy Sampson and Olajuwon would have had numerous 55-60 wins seasons, likely a title or two if not more. They clearly showed how good they could be when both were healthy in 1985-86.

As for MVPs, I do not think Sampson ever wins one.

Olajuwon played 18 seasons, is acknowledged as one of the greatest Cs in league history. Yet he has just one MVP, despite being all-NBA 1st team 7 times and all-defensive 1st team 5 times. Duncan has 2 MVPs and there is no question in my mind who was the better player between the two - it's Olajuwon.

So MVPs aren't easy to get.

migya wrote:Sampson deteriorated very fast and really incredible how it turned out. He was one of the most heralded players out of college in history. If his health had remained very good, a big hypothetical but just that, how does Houston perform the rest of his and Olajuwon's careers, so about 15 odd year length, say until 2000 season?

Does Sampson come close to mvp at all?

I don't think so key things:

1. Sampson was secretly a t-rex with not-that-impressive arm reach for his height, and that's part of why Hakeem was immediately a much better shotblocker. As a big if you're not the team's lead eraser, then we would expect you to be able to handle man defense.

2. Sampson would get bullied by other bigs because of his flimsy frame, so you can't really use him as the "big man man defender" and expect that great a thing.

3. Sampson wasn't good enough to be the Rockets' primary interior scorer because of Hakeem.

4. Sampson was secretly not actually a great shooter. People talk about him as if he'd have spaced the floor like crazy, but we're talking about a guy with a career FT% below 70. That's really not impressive.

Put all this together and I think the way to think about Sampson is a guy who could not be a star in the NBA, and so it's a question of whether he could re-think-through his game to be a role player, but generally role players are at least really good at something not already being done by the star, and Sampson doesn't actually have anything like that.

All this to say, while the injuries were huge in terms of keeping him from doing what he already had shown he could do, the reason why Sampson was never anywhere near as good as he was projected to be by scouts leading up to the draft seems to me to be mostly about them not thinking through a big's body back then the way we do now.

People actually thought he'd be the rich man's version of Bill Russell because he was listed as 7 inches taller than Russell, but aside form the fact that he wasn't that much taller, he literally had less reach than Russell while also being less agile and less smart. All this means that Sampson was destined to be an NBA disappointment even if he had perfect health, because unreasonable expectations were placed upon him early.

Now, just from a Rockets' perspective, a healthy Sampson would have been better in those later years, and I'd say it would have meant the Rockets would have stayed scary for any playoff opponent, but I don't believe another leap forward was in the cards for the Rockets other than Hakeem just getting better.

Sampson was secretly a t-rex with not-that-impressive arm reach for his height, and that's part of why Hakeem was immediately a much better shotblocker.

Sampson's rookie season he blocked shots at a rate of 2.9 bs/40min.

Olajuwon's rookie season he blocked shots at 3.0 bs/40min - just a tad better than Sampson in his rookie season.

Sampson would get bullied by other bigs because of his flimsy frame, so you can't really use him as the "big man man defender" and expect that great a thing.

In 1982-83 Houston on defense ranked 18th in the league in lowest 2pt FG% allowed at 50.7% (6th highest allowed by a team).

In 1983-84 Sampson's rookie season Houston as a team improved on defense to the 6th lowest 2pt FG% allowed at just 48.8%. He blocked 197 shots, 3rd most blocked by a player in the league, and no other Rockets player blocked more than 80 shots.

I think the way to think about Sampson is a guy who could not be a star in the NBA

Sampson was all-NBA 2nd team in 1984-85. Did that not make him a star in 1984-85? If he wasn't a star at that time in the league then who were the stars in the NBA in 1984-85?

his game to be a role player... Sampson doesn't actually have anything like that... All this means that Sampson was destined to be an NBA disappointment even if he had perfect health

Role player? rflmao

Revisionist history.

After 1985-86 both Sampson and Olajuwon were considered stars in the league and everyone following the NBA back then knew the sky was the limit for the Rockets.

Funny/ironic how your comments are so out of line with those of former NBA PGs:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/t5LMqfY8hlU

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/tgzbvcnGk-E

For those that have not seen him play, some highlights of Ralph Sampson:

Sampson was a very overrated player, so I doubt it changes much. As people noted, the guy was nothing like Wemby. He was a fringe 80s all-star if he stays healthy, which is nice, but it's not like they're winning the title. Hakeem & Sampson weren't a great fit anyway, and they excelled when they went away from that and put a bunch of shooters around a better version of Hakeem.

We basically saw who Sampson was, since he was healthy until he turned 26, and he was a borderline All-Star. Even healthy, he probably wasn't getting any better and may have been marginalised a bit as Hakeem continued to improve.

If he'd remained healthy, I think the Rockets would benefit most by trading him, creating a more balanced roster around Hakeem.

kcktiny wrote:

If Sampson stays healthy

Sampson was healthy his first 3 seasons in the league - was rookie of the year in 1983-84, all-NBA 2nd team in 1984-85, and in 1985-86 was the leading rebounder and 2nd leading scorer on a Houston Rockets team that upset the 62-20 Lakers 4-1 in the WCFs to get to the Finals, took Boston to 6 games before losing. He missed just 3 regular season games those 3 seasons, played 36 min/g, and among all PFs and Cs in the league was 4th in rebounds (2645), 4th in blocks (494), and 4th in points scored (5020), the only PF/C to be in the top 4 in all 3 categories those 3 years.

As I wrote in the "Is Wembanyamas impact now similar to Wilt?" thread after his 3rd season Sampson was just 1 of 2 players in league history in the age range of 23-25 to amass 5000+ pts, 2500+ rebs, and 400+ blocks, the other being Bob McAdoo. Even today only 4 players did this ages 23-25 - McAdoo, Sampson, Olajuwon, and Duncan.

Compare his stats his first 3 seasons to those of Tim Duncan and his first 3 seasons (1997-98 to 1999-00):

Duncan - 206 g, 39 min/g, 22.0 pts/g, 12 reb/g, 2.8 ast/g, 2.4 bs/g
Sampson - 243 g, 36 min/g, 20.7 pts/g, 11 reb/g, 2.8 ast/g, 2.0 bs/g

Not a whole lot of difference.

Biggest difference is Ralph was 2 years older, as well as fact that in 3rd year Duncan's scoring increased while Ralph declined. Add to it and Duncan has 3 all-defense selections.
Also Duncan winds up with incredible longevity, which is part of his value in any all-time conversation.
It is probably more fair to take Ralph vs Ewing 195 g. 20,5/8.6/1.7/2.5 while the same age. Which is still an awfully good player, just not the Duncan/DRob/Shaq/Olajuwon level we all thought he would be.

I think the truth with Sampson lies somewhere between the extremes being discussed.

He was clearly better than a “borderline All-Star.” He was Rookie of the Year, All-NBA in his second season, and the second-best player on a Finals team that beat a 62-win Lakers squad. That is far above fringe status, and the numbers kck highlighted reflect that. At the same time, I would not put him on a Hall of Fame path the way his pre-draft hype suggested. He had real limitations that likely would have capped his long-term ceiling.

Some of those limitations showed up early. He was unbelievably athletic for his size, but he had a tendency to try to handle the ball or initiate offense in situations that did not call for it. His decision making in the post was inconsistent, especially compared to Hakeem who was already becoming elite in that area. His rookie counting stats were also inflated once the Rockets shifted toward a stealth tank at 20-26 with the goal of positioning for Olajuwon.

For me, the larger story is still the roster context. Even a fully healthy Sampson next to a rising Hakeem does not solve what happened to Houston’s perimeter. Lucas was removed in 1986. Lloyd and Wiggins were suspended. Robert Reid declined. The front office, drafting in the middle of the first round because the team kept winning in the 40s, landed solid contributors like Buck Johnson but no replacements for the backcourt they lost. Those perimeter losses gutted the structure that made the 1986 team work.

Sampson was better than borderline All-Star, but he was not a long-term number one option. Once Hakeem became the clear franchise anchor, Sampson either had to evolve significantly or become a trade piece to rebuild the roster around Hakeem. And even with perfect health, the guard situation and overall roster instability in the late 1980s limit how far that pairing could realistically go.

The way I see it, Anthony Davis is essentially what Ralph Sampson could have become if Sampson had been a better shooter, a more disciplined defender, and a little stronger physically.

I agree with some of what you said. Sampson had Wemby type hype coming out of college as a 7-4 fluid athlete with inside/outside basketball skills. That said, he was slim without great lower body strength which was a bigger key in the era of post centered offenses than today. Getting Hakeem probably hurt him as he was moved outside to allow for Hakeem to work inside; you can see a difference between Alex Sarr last year and this year as an example of learning to play NBA inside rather than just shooting jump shots.

That said, I don't think Hakeem's passing was elite in the first half of his career; it was raw at first and he worked at it and refined it over time until by his championship years it had gone from a weakness to a strength. But Hakeem's main strength was always his defense and post protection. Sampson playing center might have developed those more; Sampson playing PF didn't develop them as much. Without that focus, his height was not the weapon it could have been for him. (Tim Duncan playing PF did so it's about the player as well as the learning curve as well -- trite but true).

kcktiny wrote:

Sampson was secretly a t-rex with not-that-impressive arm reach for his height, and that's part of why Hakeem was immediately a much better shotblocker.

Sampson's rookie season he blocked shots at a rate of 2.9 bs/40min.

Olajuwon's rookie season he blocked shots at 3.0 bs/40min - just a tad better than Sampson in his rookie season.

The reason Olajuwon didn't block more shots as a rookie is because they were playing a twin towers scheme with him and Sampson. Remove Sampson and Olajuwon's BPG looks more like what it did in college or later in the pros.

kcktiny wrote:

Sampson would get bullied by other bigs because of his flimsy frame, so you can't really use him as the "big man man defender" and expect that great a thing.

In 1982-83 Houston on defense ranked 18th in the league in lowest 2pt FG% allowed at 50.7% (6th highest allowed by a team).

In 1983-84 Sampson's rookie season Houston as a team improved on defense to the 6th lowest 2pt FG% allowed at just 48.8%. He blocked 197 shots, 3rd most blocked by a player in the league, and no other Rockets player blocked more than 80 shots.

In Sampson's rookie season the team's defense was 17th in the league which was a) about what it had been the previous season, and b) awful given that the league was smaller. The team also sucks generally with a comparably ineffective offense built with Sampson as the first scoring option.

Then Olajuwon shows up in '84-85 and the Rockets actually take a leap forward around a worthy franchise player.

kcktiny wrote:

I think the way to think about Sampson is a guy who could not be a star in the NBA

Sampson was all-NBA 2nd team in 1984-85. Did that not make him a star in 1984-85? If he wasn't a star at that time in the league then who were the stars in the NBA in 1984-85?

He made All-NBA 2nd team while Olajuwon didn't because the team was still operating with Sampson as the first scoring option. Because of Sampson's fame status, his PPG, and the fact he was now on a good team, he got the credit that was due for Olajuwon, which fortunately, didn't happen again in subsequent years.

But you do make a reasonable point of the fact that since Sampson was named all-star repeatedly to start his career, how can I say he couldn't be a star?

There I'd say it depends on your definition, but if star means "Effective at being the primary scorer and lead defensive anchor on a good team", I would say that we saw nothing to suggest Sampson had the talent to do this.

kcktiny wrote:

his game to be a role player... Sampson doesn't actually have anything like that... All this means that Sampson was destined to be an NBA disappointment even if he had perfect health

Role player? rflmao

And there you go against just being an anti-social person reminding the rest of us that we shouldn't make the mistake of talking to you like an adult.

Squared2020 wrote:I think the truth with Sampson lies somewhere between the extremes being discussed.

He was clearly better than a “borderline All-Star.” He was Rookie of the Year, All-NBA in his second season, and the second-best player on a Finals team that beat a 62-win Lakers squad. That is far above fringe status, and the numbers kck highlighted reflect that. At the same time, I would not put him on a Hall of Fame path the way his pre-draft hype suggested. He had real limitations that likely would have capped his long-term ceiling.

Some of those limitations showed up early. He was unbelievably athletic for his size, but he had a tendency to try to handle the ball or initiate offense in situations that did not call for it. His decision making in the post was inconsistent, especially compared to Hakeem who was already becoming elite in that area. His rookie counting stats were also inflated once the Rockets shifted toward a stealth tank at 20-26 with the goal of positioning for Olajuwon.

For me, the larger story is still the roster context. Even a fully healthy Sampson next to a rising Hakeem does not solve what happened to Houston’s perimeter. Lucas was removed in 1986. Lloyd and Wiggins were suspended. Robert Reid declined. The front office, drafting in the middle of the first round because the team kept winning in the 40s, landed solid contributors like Buck Johnson but no replacements for the backcourt they lost. Those perimeter losses gutted the structure that made the 1986 team work.

Sampson was better than borderline All-Star, but he was not a long-term number one option. Once Hakeem became the clear franchise anchor, Sampson either had to evolve significantly or become a trade piece to rebuild the roster around Hakeem. And even with perfect health, the guard situation and overall roster instability in the late 1980s limit how far that pairing could realistically go.

The way I see it, Anthony Davis is essentially what Ralph Sampson could have become if Sampson had been a better shooter, a more disciplined defender, and a little stronger physically.

I'll have seen less than you but in a very limited sample don't think Sampson showed anything like the finishing of Davis. He certainly was far less efficient a scorer overall. And the Tov% difference ...

I don't think the HoF pathway discussion is helpful. He is - as it stands - a HoF player. Whether he merited it (especially as a pro) is another matter.

Some of the framings on the positives are overly optimistic or excluding fuller information
62 win Lakers are at 59 pythag wins.
That 59 pythag wins doesn't account for a softer, Western schedule (-0.91 SoS).
Houston are only 2.10 SRS in the regular season.
Being a finals team is easier when being a conference finals team only involves beating a -3.19 SRS team and a 0.89 SRS team. That still leaves one tough series, but it's only one series.
Slashlines without league context - and comparisons across eras - are ... less than ideal.
On the box-side, with Olajuwon, his numbers after accounting for shooting efficiency, turnovers etc aren't so spectacular 17.2 PER, .090 WS/48 and 0.4 BPM (include the rookie year and it's up to 18.1; .096; 0.5). Quite some distance from Duncan and probably worse than fringe all-star level.
On actual accolades by '86 Sampson is outside what would have been 3rd team reckoning (on limited information) or among the 18 players to pick up any MVP consideration (17 of whom got at least 2 points). We're starting to get to the fringes of all-star here.
Honestly, more pertinent than was he perceived as an all-star is was his play of that caliber and I think it's at least fairly plausible that a halo effect from a very well regarded (overrated?), decorated college career stuck around him and he may not have been as good as perceived.


On some general thoughts offered elsewhere Sampson probably wasn't that much neutered offensively by Olajuwon. It's documented by Lazenby that even at Virginia he didn't like being defined or pigeonholed as a center, that he liked playing outside. I suppose that's more valuable if he's drawing centers out. But he's not some great shooter (circa 55% from the stripe in college, circa 65% in the pros otoh), nor passer so him as the star or decision maker or outside threat ... isn't so great. So whilst I don't think HO helps (and he cuts into Sampson's production, especially versus playing with Caldwell Jones as a rookie) there it's probably more on defense that there's a cost moving Sampson away from the rim. That said, for all his purported size - and that height number is often said to be "soft" and there have been comments on his length/reach - it's not like he was a spectacular shot blocker (including college versus smaller players), though the rookie number does show some promise. So in summary I think the bigger cost is on D, there's some cost to his production but in any case I'm not sure where a Sampson led team is taking you.

The idea of Sampson was broadly similar to VW and was a mouth watering prospect. But I'm increasingly convinced it wasn't real. Sampson wasn't an 80% FT shooter (VW now at .815). Sampson seemingly wasn't as tall as billed. Sampson wasn't as fluid. Sampson wasn't a 10.2 block percentage guy. Some of these weren't directly claimed for Sampson at the time (though some now seem to by invoking a VW comp for Sampson). But then I think there was some invocation of a next-Jabbar or even evolution of the great big man and he just wasn't close to that level of player.

Sampson was a very overrated player... a fringe 80s all-star

We basically saw who Sampson was, since he was healthy until he turned 26, and he was a borderline All-Star.

Fringe? Borderline? Do you people even know who Ralph Sampson was?

Sampson was an all-star each of his first 4 seasons in the league, 1983-84 to 1986-87. I don't think there is any question that had he stayed healthy he would have been an all-star every season he played.

it's not like they're winning the title. Hakeem & Sampson weren't a great fit anyway

How astute.

In just Sampson's 3rd season and Olajuwon's 2nd season they get to the Finals and lose to a team many consider the greatest NBA team of all-time, the 1985-86 Celtics.

How about you telling us how they made it to the Finals that season if they weren't a great fit? They were the Rockets two leading scorers, rebounders, and shot blockers that season, and just those two combined accounted for 1/3 of the team's points scored, 44% of the team's rebounds, and 2/3 of the team's blocked shots.

Not a great fit? Where do you think the phrase Twin Towers came from (in deference to Chamberlain/Thurmond)?

as well as fact that in 3rd year Duncan's scoring increased while Ralph declined

Not every player's scoring average increases every season they are in the league.

And what you are failing to understand is that he was just entering his prime seasons.

It is probably more fair to take Ralph vs Ewing

Excellent comparison. Both were ages 23-25 their first 3 seasons in the league, like Sampson Ewing's scoring declined from the previous season (ages 24 to 25), but Ewing was far better in his prime (ages 26+) than he was his first 3 seasons, averaged 38 min/g, 25 pts/g, 11 reb/g, 3 bs/g over the next 5 seasons (ages 26-30).

He was a better scorer, better rebounder, and better shot blocker in his prime than he was his first 3 seasons in the league. I don't think there is any question a healthy Sampson would have followed a similar trajectory.

At the same time, I would not put him on a Hall of Fame path the way his pre-draft hype suggested.

Well Isaiah Thomas and B.J. Armstrong (above) certainly think differently than you.

he had a tendency to try to handle the ball or initiate offense in situations that did not call for it.

And you say this why? You're talking about a player that his first four seasons in the league had 4 different starting PGs - Phil Ford, Lionel Hollins, John Lucas, and Dirk Minniefield. Not a lot of consistency there.

And also a player that those 4 seasons among all PFs and Cs in the league was 6th in scoring (5692 pts), 9th in rebounds (3017), 8th in blocks (552), but also 7th in assists (790). For a PF/C he was literally doing it all.

Only 2 other players in the league those 4 seasons amassed 5000+ pts, 3000+ rebs, and 400+ blocks (Robert Parish and Bucks Williams) and neither had anywhere near the assists Sampson threw for.

This is a player that was clearly a star on the path to great career had he not been injured. Just like Penny Hardaway. Just like Sidney Moncrief.

His rookie counting stats were also inflated once the Rockets shifted toward a stealth tank at 20-26

What "inflation" are you talking about?

Their first 46 games in 1983-84 Sampson averaged 34 min/g, 21.7 pts/g, 12 reb/g, 2.6 bs/g. Their last 36 games he averaged 31 min/g, 19.7 pts/g, 10 reb/g, 2.1 bs/g.

even with perfect health, the guard situation and overall roster instability in the late 1980s limit how far that pairing could realistically go.

Funny you should say this - because they made it to the 1985-86 Finals with a healthy Sampson/Olajuwon (just the ages of 25 and 23) with a backcourt of Robert Reid and Lewis Lloyd.

he was not a long-term number one option. Once Hakeem became the clear franchise anchor, Sampson either had to evolve significantly or become a trade piece

Nothing but conjecture. Here's some more - Olajuwon and a healthy Sampson would have dominated the league for a decade.

Remove Sampson and Olajuwon's BPG looks more like what it did in college or later in the pros.

Remove Olajuwon and Sampson's BPG would look more like his rookie season too.

The team also sucks generally with a comparably ineffective offense built with Sampson as the first scoring option.

Wow - so Sampson is a unanimous ROY but you are blaming the offense on Sampson?

Little history lesson for you. The Rockets in 1982-83 went 14-68, worst team record the league had seen in a decade. In 1983-84 they started another rookie, Rodney McCray, a Golden State benchwarmer the season before in Lewis Lloyd, a retread PG in Phil Ford who has played for 3 different teams the previous 2 seasons, and a 33 year old Caldwell Jones.

Yet that team improved 15 games to go 29-53.

Then Olajuwon shows up in '84-85 and the Rockets actually take a leap forward around a worthy franchise player.

They add Olajuwon and with both Sampson and Olajuwon improve 19 games to 48-34.

Wow that leap of 19 more wins was so much better than that tiny jump of 15 wins.

Tell us - how many games does Houston win in 1984-85 without Sampson, you know the player that in 1984-85 lead them in minutes played, scoring, and was 2nd in rebounding?

He made All-NBA 2nd team while Olajuwon

Such a tragedy.

Olajuwon actually had to wait another whole year to be named all-NBA 2nd team.

he got the credit that was due for Olajuwon

How sad. And the Dream didn't even win ROY (went to Jordan). Another tragedy.

But you do make a reasonable point of the fact that since Sampson was named all-star repeatedly to start his career, how can I say he couldn't be a star?

Likely because you knew next to nothing about Ralph Sampson prior to this thread.

There I'd say it depends on your definition, but if star means "Effective at being the primary scorer and lead defensive anchor on a good team", I would say that we saw nothing to suggest Sampson had the talent to do this.

Don't say "we". Likely you saw nothing. I was alive back then watching the NBA. And back then both Sampson and Olajuwon were considered stars after 1985-86 primarily because of the Finals run they made. At that time Houston was deemed the team of the future, because of both players.

David Robinson and Tim Duncan only played 6 seasons together as starters, but they averaged 57 wins a season and got two rings. Sampson and Olajuwon over a decade could have won more.

Put all this together and I think the way to think about Sampson is a guy who could not be a star in the NBA, and so it's a question of whether he could re-think-through his game to be a role player

"Not a star". "Be a role player". omg

At the age of just 23 Sampson averaged 21.0 pts/g, 11.1 reb/g, 2.0 ast/g, 2.4 bs/g. In league history the only other players to average 20+ pts/g, 11+ reb/g, 2+ ast/g, and 2+ bs/g in a season age 23 or younger were Bob McAdoo, Olajuwon, Shaq, Duncan, and Wemby.

And there you go against just being an anti-social person

Perhaps if you had been more social of a person you would have talked to people who had actually watched Sampson play before disparaging him like you have. People that actually knew about him. Like B.J. Armstrong and Isaiah Thomas up above.

kcktiny wrote:

If Sampson stays healthy

Compare his stats his first 3 seasons to those of Tim Duncan and his first 3 seasons (1997-98 to 1999-00):

Duncan - 206 g, 39 min/g, 22.0 pts/g, 12 reb/g, 2.8 ast/g, 2.4 bs/g
Sampson - 243 g, 36 min/g, 20.7 pts/g, 11 reb/g, 2.8 ast/g, 2.0 bs/g

Not a whole lot of difference.

The difference is defense. By 2000, Duncan was headed towards being one the best defensive big men ever--Sampson, though he had certain physical gifts, was never that, and even with Hakeem couldn't produce a top defense outside of the playoff run.

The difference is defense. By 2000, Duncan was headed towards being one the best defensive big men ever--Sampson, though he had certain physical gifts, was never that, and even with Hakeem couldn't produce a top defense outside of the playoff run.

Couldn't produce a top defense with Olajuwon? How perceptive.

Duncan came to a Spurs team with one of the greatest offensive and defensive Cs the league had ever seen in David Robinson. Duncan's rookie season Robinson played 34 min/g and was all-NBA 2nd team and all-defensive 2nd team. He was also all-NBA in 1999-00 and 2000-01. Duncan's first 3 seasons with the Spurs Robinson among all Cs in the league was 3rd in rebounds, 6th in blocks, and 2nd in points.

Really going out on a limb with your comments on Duncan are you? Of course only after the fact since we all already know he was a great defensive big man over a 2 decade long career.

What would you be saying about Duncan had he been injured in his 4th season and never played meaningful minutes after that like what happened to Sampson? Would you be boasting he was one of the "best defensive big men ever"? Let me guess.

Sampson played only 2 full seasons with Olajuwon, when both were quite young. In 1984-85 Houston was the 4th best team in the league defensively (104.9 pts/100poss allowed) when Sampson and Olajuwon both played all 82 games. In 1985-86 they ranked 14th in defense (106.1 pts/100poss allowed) but Olajuwon missed 14 games. Yet you want to blame Sampson?

Owly wrote:

Squared2020 wrote:I think the truth with Sampson lies somewhere between the extremes being discussed.

He was clearly better than a “borderline All-Star.” He was Rookie of the Year, All-NBA in his second season, and the second-best player on a Finals team that beat a 62-win Lakers squad. That is far above fringe status, and the numbers kck highlighted reflect that. At the same time, I would not put him on a Hall of Fame path the way his pre-draft hype suggested. He had real limitations that likely would have capped his long-term ceiling.

Some of those limitations showed up early. He was unbelievably athletic for his size, but he had a tendency to try to handle the ball or initiate offense in situations that did not call for it. His decision making in the post was inconsistent, especially compared to Hakeem who was already becoming elite in that area. His rookie counting stats were also inflated once the Rockets shifted toward a stealth tank at 20-26 with the goal of positioning for Olajuwon.

For me, the larger story is still the roster context. Even a fully healthy Sampson next to a rising Hakeem does not solve what happened to Houston’s perimeter. Lucas was removed in 1986. Lloyd and Wiggins were suspended. Robert Reid declined. The front office, drafting in the middle of the first round because the team kept winning in the 40s, landed solid contributors like Buck Johnson but no replacements for the backcourt they lost. Those perimeter losses gutted the structure that made the 1986 team work.

Sampson was better than borderline All-Star, but he was not a long-term number one option. Once Hakeem became the clear franchise anchor, Sampson either had to evolve significantly or become a trade piece to rebuild the roster around Hakeem. And even with perfect health, the guard situation and overall roster instability in the late 1980s limit how far that pairing could realistically go.

The way I see it, Anthony Davis is essentially what Ralph Sampson could have become if Sampson had been a better shooter, a more disciplined defender, and a little stronger physically.

I'll have seen less than you but in a very limited sample don't think Sampson showed anything like the finishing of Davis. He certainly was far less efficient a scorer overall. And the Tov% difference ...

I don't think the HoF pathway discussion is helpful. He is - as it stands - a HoF player. Whether he merited it (especially as a pro) is another matter.

Some of the framings on the positives are overly optimistic or excluding fuller information
62 win Lakers are at 59 pythag wins.
That 59 pythag wins doesn't account for a softer, Western schedule (-0.91 SoS).
Houston are only 2.10 SRS in the regular season.
Being a finals team is easier when being a conference finals team only involves beating a -3.19 SRS team and a 0.89 SRS team. That still leaves one tough series, but it's only one series.
Slashlines without league context - and comparisons across eras - are ... less than ideal.
On the box-side, with Olajuwon, his numbers after accounting for shooting efficiency, turnovers etc aren't so spectacular 17.2 PER, .090 WS/48 and 0.4 BPM (include the rookie year and it's up to 18.1; .096; 0.5). Quite some distance from Duncan and probably worse than fringe all-star level.
On actual accolades by '86 Sampson is outside what would have been 3rd team reckoning (on limited information) or among the 18 players to pick up any MVP consideration (17 of whom got at least 2 points). We're starting to get to the fringes of all-star here.
Honestly, more pertinent than was he perceived as an all-star is was his play of that caliber and I think it's at least fairly plausible that a halo effect from a very well regarded (overrated?), decorated college career stuck around him and he may not have been as good as perceived.


On some general thoughts offered elsewhere Sampson probably wasn't that much neutered offensively by Olajuwon. It's documented by Lazenby that even at Virginia he didn't like being defined or pigeonholed as a center, that he liked playing outside. I suppose that's more valuable if he's drawing centers out. But he's not some great shooter (circa 55% from the stripe in college, circa 65% in the pros otoh), nor passer so him as the star or decision maker or outside threat ... isn't so great. So whilst I don't think HO helps (and he cuts into Sampson's production, especially versus playing with Caldwell Jones as a rookie) there it's probably more on defense that there's a cost moving Sampson away from the rim. That said, for all his purported size - and that height number is often said to be "soft" and there have been comments on his length/reach - it's not like he was a spectacular shot blocker (including college versus smaller players), though the rookie number does show some promise. So in summary I think the bigger cost is on D, there's some cost to his production but in any case I'm not sure where a Sampson led team is taking you.

The idea of Sampson was broadly similar to VW and was a mouth watering prospect. But I'm increasingly convinced it wasn't real. Sampson wasn't an 80% FT shooter (VW now at .815). Sampson seemingly wasn't as tall as billed. Sampson wasn't as fluid. Sampson wasn't a 10.2 block percentage guy. Some of these weren't directly claimed for Sampson at the time (though some now seem to by invoking a VW comp for Sampson). But then I think there was some invocation of a next-Jabbar or even evolution of the great big man and he just wasn't close to that level of player.

I think your points are very fair, particularly on the finishing and efficiency side of things. When I mentioned the Anthony Davis comparison, I was not trying to suggest Sampson was on that level of productivity, but more to give an archetype for the kind of mobile, multi-skilled 7-footer he was theoretically aiming toward. The three areas I mentioned that Sampson would have needed to improve, his strength, his shooting, and his defensive discipline, are not minor tweaks. They represent very large gaps in ability and development. Your point about his finishing is a good one and fits squarely into the strength piece of that argument.

I also agree that looking at the All-Star landscape of that era matters. Once Karl Malone becomes a perennial selection and David Robinson arrives, it becomes much harder to sustain All-Star status even if Sampson continued to play at his 1985 or 1986 level. That perspective helps refine the borderline All-Star versus solid All-Star debate.

On the fit side, your note that Hakeem may not have cut into Sampson’s offensive development as much as is sometimes claimed is reasonable. My comments about Bill Fitch’s system were largely tied to how the backcourt completely disappeared after 1986. With Lucas gone, Wiggins and Lloyd suspended, and Reid declining, Sampson had more freedom to do the open court handling that he probably should not have been doing in the first place. His TOV percentage reflects a lot of those midcourt possessions he was trying to create on his own.

And I agree with your broader closing point. The idea of Sampson was always tantalizing, but the reality never fully matched the projection. He was a very talented, very coordinated, and at times very impactful big, but the finishing issues, the questionable decision making, the strength limitations, and the inflated early expectations all kept him from becoming what people hoped he would be. That is why I still place him between the extremes being argued in the thread.