If you put Gobert on those 1990's Jazz teams how many titles do you think they end up with?

[coastalmarker99]

In this hypothetical situation Rudy is drafted by the Jazz in 1989 as a late first round pick.

My prediction is that the Jazz win back to back titles in 1997 and 1998 and make the finals in 1996 before losing to the Bulls.


As a starting line-up of

stockton

Hornacek

Russell

Malone

Rudy

Would be nasty

[IdolW0rm]

Get past Hakeem in 94 to win it all. Back to back in 97/98.

[dooki667]

Damn that's a huge upgrade especially in the 90's where his weaknesses wouldn't be taken advantage of nearly as much as they are now. I say three 97, 98 and one of 95 or 96 leaning more towards them beating Houston 95 than Seattle 96 there offense was pretty bad that series.

[penbeast0]

And the credit would still all go to Karl Malone and John Stockton, lol.

[penbeast0]

Clearly he's a serious upgrade from Olberding/Spencer/Keefe. How much of an upgrade would you say Gobert is on Mark Eaton (who the advanced stat guys have as a much stronger player than my eye test ever did)?

[dooki667]

Clearly he's a serious upgrade from Olberding/Spencer/Keefe. How much of an upgrade would you say Gobert is on Mark Eaton (who the advanced stat guys have as a much stronger player than my eye test ever did)?

I think it's a huge upgrade. per 36 ur looking at a doubling of points with a much higher ts% .496 to .672. 4 more boards with a reb% advantage of 6.7% slightly less blocks and b% 6.9 to 5.9. Lower turnovers and most important to this question Eaton retired after the 92-93 season so 7 more years of Rudy.

[ronnymac2]

RIP to Felton Spencer who passed away a few days ago. He was a solid player. We like to focus on the stars and all, and I get it, but everybody in the NBA can play. Spencer outdueled some megastars in select games. That’s pretty cool to say that you competed against Robinson and Olajuwon and O’Neal.

As for the thread, they’d be worse. As overrated and borderline useless as Gobert is in this era, he’s be just as useless and overrated in previous eras. Not strong enough to really D up in the post, not mobile enough to stay with the quicker Cs out West. Low-IQ trash offense even in the Optimization Era…what happens in less advanced offensive eras with more physical big man defense, and on a painfully predictable Jazz offense at that?

[dooki667]

RIP to Felton Spencer who passed away a few days ago. He was a solid player. We like to focus on the stars and all, and I get it, but everybody in the NBA can play. Spencer outdueled some megastars in select games. That’s pretty cool to say that you competed against Robinson and Olajuwon and O’Neal.

As for the thread, they’d be worse. As overrated and borderline useless as Gobert is in this era, he’s be just as useless and overrated in previous eras. Not strong enough to really D up in the post, not mobile enough to stay with the quicker Cs out West. Low-IQ trash offense even in the Optimization Era…what happens in less advanced offensive eras with more physical big man defense, and on a painfully predictable Jazz offense at that?

I don't understand the logic. A great rim protecting big man in an era more advantageous to rim protecting big men. Less perimeter shots less matchup hunting more post play why would t Rudy be more helpful?

[Colbinii]

RIP to Felton Spencer who passed away a few days ago. He was a solid player. We like to focus on the stars and all, and I get it, but everybody in the NBA can play. Spencer outdueled some megastars in select games. That’s pretty cool to say that you competed against Robinson and Olajuwon and O’Neal.

As for the thread, they’d be worse. As overrated and borderline useless as Gobert is in this era, he’s be just as useless and overrated in previous eras. Not strong enough to really D up in the post, not mobile enough to stay with the quicker Cs out West. Low-IQ trash offense even in the Optimization Era…what happens in less advanced offensive eras with more physical big man defense, and on a painfully predictable Jazz offense at that?

I don't understand the logic. A great rim protecting big man in an era more advantageous to rim protecting big men. Less perimeter shots less matchup hunting more post play why would t Rudy be more helpful?

Just ignore his Gobert takes.

[magicman1978]

Definitely an improvement that would lead to some titles, but I think people are overestimating the level of improvement. I believe man to man defense was more important against centers in the 90s and Ostertag for example was a stronger man defender than Rudy - he defended Shaq better than Rudy would be able to. But maybe playing in the 90s causes Rudy to focus on getting bigger/stronger rather than spending time working on his agility - hard to say. Rudy is also not going to maintain the same level of offensive efficiency that he has today - 80+% of his shots are at the rim and 60+% of those are dunks. That's not going to be his shot profile in the 90s.

[Owly]

Definitely an improvement that would lead to some titles, but I think people are overestimating the level of improvement. I believe man to man defense was more important against centers in the 90s and Ostertag for example was a stronger man defender than Rudy - he defended Shaq better than Rudy would be able to. But maybe playing in the 90s causes Rudy to focus on getting bigger/stronger rather than spending time working on his agility - hard to say. Rudy is also not going to maintain the same level of offensive efficiency that he has today - 80+% of his shots are at the rim and 60+% of those are dunks. That's not going to be his shot profile in the 90s.

Not going to proclaim expertise on the differences and intricacies of the game over eras.

Don't know whether on not man D was more important then.

I am though confident that Manute Bol played a bunch and in Philly and on-off stuff, otoh suggests was circa neutral despite wretchedly awful offense and obvious physical weakness (and high center of gravity) because he was a great rim protector. Shawn Bradley shows an impressive impact profile despite weak box offense ... because he was a great rim protector. Gobert isn't the shot blocker they were but I think you could have a huge impact back then protecting the rim. Raw efficiency would fall in a lower efficiency era, I don't know about relative terms.

[magicman1978]

Definitely an improvement that would lead to some titles, but I think people are overestimating the level of improvement. I believe man to man defense was more important against centers in the 90s and Ostertag for example was a stronger man defender than Rudy - he defended Shaq better than Rudy would be able to. But maybe playing in the 90s causes Rudy to focus on getting bigger/stronger rather than spending time working on his agility - hard to say. Rudy is also not going to maintain the same level of offensive efficiency that he has today - 80+% of his shots are at the rim and 60+% of those are dunks. That's not going to be his shot profile in the 90s.

Not going to proclaim expertise on the differences and intricacies of the game over eras.

Don't know whether on not man D was more important then.

I am though confident that Manute Bol played a bunch and in Philly and on-off stuff, otoh suggests was circa neutral despite wretchedly awful offense and obvious physical weakness (and high center of gravity) because he was a great rim protector. Shawn Bradley shows an impressive impact profile despite weak box offense ... because he was a great rim protector. Gobert isn't the shot blocker they were but I think you could have a huge impact back then protecting the rim. Raw efficiency would fall in a lower efficiency era, I don't know about relative terms.

Question is how many titles they would win though - so my focus is on how he would do in the playoffs (guarding Shaq in 97/98 for example - game 5 in 97 would be a good example of how important Ostertag was in defending Shaq), not what type of impact profile he has in the regular season. Bol's and Bradley's lackluster man to man defense would have been exposed as well if they played guys like Hakeem and Shaq.

[Owly]

Definitely an improvement that would lead to some titles, but I think people are overestimating the level of improvement. I believe man to man defense was more important against centers in the 90s and Ostertag for example was a stronger man defender than Rudy - he defended Shaq better than Rudy would be able to. But maybe playing in the 90s causes Rudy to focus on getting bigger/stronger rather than spending time working on his agility - hard to say. Rudy is also not going to maintain the same level of offensive efficiency that he has today - 80+% of his shots are at the rim and 60+% of those are dunks. That's not going to be his shot profile in the 90s.

Not going to proclaim expertise on the differences and intricacies of the game over eras.

Don't know whether on not man D was more important then.

I am though confident that Manute Bol played a bunch and in Philly and on-off stuff, otoh suggests was circa neutral despite wretchedly awful offense and obvious physical weakness (and high center of gravity) because he was a great rim protector. Shawn Bradley shows an impressive impact profile despite weak box offense ... because he was a great rim protector. Gobert isn't the shot blocker they were but I think you could have a huge impact back then protecting the rim. Raw efficiency would fall in a lower efficiency era, I don't know about relative terms.

Question is how many titles they would win though - so my focus is on how he would do in the playoffs (guarding Shaq in 97/98 for example), not what type of impact profile he has in the regular season. Bol's and Bradley's lackluster man to man defense would have been exposed as well if they played guys like Hakeem and Shaq.

....
Not sure that this follows logically. Jazz have many chances to win, they have to win series versus all types of opponents, is there evidence that the Jazz route would be particularly heavily through high value offensive centers (not saying it necessarily isn't - fwiw there are probably changes from their IRL path with the Gobert upgrade changing RS record). They already have cross-match options with the strength of Malone ... I guess versus '95 Rockets him on Horry isn't optimal though his agility, I've heard, is underrated. More typically at that time even if the center matchup were an issue (not a given) most cross matching would allow him to cover a fairly basket adjacent PF.

And the finals teams went 8-1 versus the Shaq Lakers in the playoffs on their finals trips. I imagine there's some luck there. Still...
In '98 ...
1) It's a sweep
2) it's a comfortable one 416-362, points over the series, 116.1 to 101 per 100 possessions.
3) After a poor first game that contributed a fair chunk towards those differentials LA is winning two of those games in the circa 40mpg Shaq is on the floor.
4) For those 3 games he averages 36ppg on .600 shooting from the field, dragged down only by bad free throw shooting, probably not something Utah centers altered. He's also grabbing 4 offensive rebounds per game. Include g1 and it's 31.8 on .560, 4.3.
His OBPMs go
-5.1
7.3
7.5
13.5
The Jazz victory then in '98, was not won by a superb containment of O'Neal, but through a very efficient offense (and perhaps by limiting other Lakers?). Granted it's not individual matchups in a vacuum but Shaq seems to have been pretty effective.

It's a very clumsy first glance analysis but I'm not sure Bradley wasn't effective versus Olajuwon
Looking at Bradley and Olajuwon playing over half the game in Olajuwon's prime years (94-96) I see 5 games, a small sample, just one measure used etc
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199401080HOU.html
Olajuwon -1.4 OBPM
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199503140PHI.html
Olajuwon -0.6 OBPM
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199503190HOU.html
-2.1 OBPM
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199511220PHI.html
0.7 OBPM
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199601240NJN.html
5.6 OBPM

There is another game where Olajuwon gets a 4.3 OBPM but only 18 minutes of Bradley, so hard to tell what is versus who. Thus whilst I note them as primarily driving defense through rim protection and they aren't the physical archetype you seem to prefer for that time I don't see a clear indication that Olajuwon would "expose" Bradley (his teams seem to have been fairly effective in containing Olajuwon, though it's a small sample and without deeper analysis [requiring footage etc] it would be hard to make strong statements on cause).

[Chronz]

Nobody posts up, how good at it would he be in an era where they spammed it

[magicman1978]

Not going to proclaim expertise on the differences and intricacies of the game over eras.

Don't know whether on not man D was more important then.

I am though confident that Manute Bol played a bunch and in Philly and on-off stuff, otoh suggests was circa neutral despite wretchedly awful offense and obvious physical weakness (and high center of gravity) because he was a great rim protector. Shawn Bradley shows an impressive impact profile despite weak box offense ... because he was a great rim protector. Gobert isn't the shot blocker they were but I think you could have a huge impact back then protecting the rim. Raw efficiency would fall in a lower efficiency era, I don't know about relative terms.

Question is how many titles they would win though - so my focus is on how he would do in the playoffs (guarding Shaq in 97/98 for example), not what type of impact profile he has in the regular season. Bol's and Bradley's lackluster man to man defense would have been exposed as well if they played guys like Hakeem and Shaq.

....
Not sure that this follows logically. Jazz have many chances to win, they have to win series versus all types of opponents, is there evidence that the Jazz route would be particularly heavily through high value offensive centers (not saying it necessarily isn't - fwiw there are probably changes from their IRL path with the Gobert upgrade changing RS record). They already have cross-match options with the strength of Malone ... I guess versus '95 Rockets him on Horry isn't optimal though his agility, I've heard, is underrated. More typically at that time even if the center matchup were an issue (not a given) most cross matching would allow him to cover a fairly basket adjacent PF.

And the finals teams went 8-1 versus the Shaq Lakers in the playoffs on their finals trips. I imagine there's some luck there. Still...
In '98 ...
1) It's a sweep
2) it's a comfortable one 416-362, points over the series, 116.1 to 101 per 100 possessions.
3) After a poor first game that contributed a fair chunk towards those differentials LA is winning two of those games in the circa 40mpg Shaq is on the floor.
4) For those 3 games he averages 36ppg on .600 shooting from the field, dragged down only by bad free throw shooting, probably not something Utah centers altered. He's also grabbing 4 offensive rebounds per game. Include g1 and it's 31.8 on .560, 4.3.
His OBPMs go
-5.1
7.3
7.5
13.5
The Jazz victory then in '98, was not won by a superb containment of O'Neal, but through a very efficient offense (and perhaps by limiting other Lakers?). Granted it's not individual matchups in a vacuum but Shaq seems to have been pretty effective.

It's a very clumsy first glance analysis but I'm not sure Bradley wasn't effective versus Olajuwon
Looking at Bradley and Olajuwon playing over half the game in Olajuwon's prime years (94-96) I see 5 games, a small sample, just one measure used etc
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199401080HOU.html
Olajuwon -1.4 OBPM
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199503140PHI.html
Olajuwon -0.6 OBPM
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199503190HOU.html
-2.1 OBPM
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199511220PHI.html
0.7 OBPM
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199601240NJN.html
5.6 OBPM

There is another game where Olajuwon gets a 4.3 OBPM but only 18 minutes of Bradley, so hard to tell what is versus who. Thus whilst I note them as primarily driving defense through rim protection and they aren't the physical archetype you seem to prefer for that time I don't see a clear indication that Olajuwon would "expose" Bradley (his teams seem to have been fairly effective in containing Olajuwon, though it's a small sample and without deeper analysis [requiring footage etc] it would be hard to make strong statements on cause).

I did say he was a clear improvement and the Jazz would win some titles (and 97/98 does seem likely and maybe some others years - I haven't really looked closely) - I just don't think they improve as much as a couple of posts indicate (for example, I don't see them winning in 96 nor Gobert having a 67%TS). So I just wanted to mention a couple of things people should consider.

Hakeem struggled against DRob in the regular season in 95 as well - but it was a different story in the playoffs. So I don't know if what Bradley did in the regular season means much (my memory is hazy, but I think Duncan was having his way against Bradley when they matched up in the playoffs). Maybe he's the difference maker in 95, but there's a good chance they go through Hakeem and Shaq still and also DRob.

97 in particular is where I think Ostertag was really key in slowing Shaq down and I believe Gobert would have struggled a bit more in that situation. He doesn't have the lower body strength to keep Shaq from getting position like Ostertag did. Ostertag got into foul trouble pretty quickly and I think Gobert does so even more quickly. And if you look at it from a roster building perspective - Ostertag was paid $500K-$600K? Gobert is obviously going to be paid a lot more, how would that impact the rest of the roster (I don't know, maybe it doesn't?).

[Owly]

Question is how many titles they would win though - so my focus is on how he would do in the playoffs (guarding Shaq in 97/98 for example), not what type of impact profile he has in the regular season. Bol's and Bradley's lackluster man to man defense would have been exposed as well if they played guys like Hakeem and Shaq.

....
Not sure that this follows logically. Jazz have many chances to win, they have to win series versus all types of opponents, is there evidence that the Jazz route would be particularly heavily through high value offensive centers (not saying it necessarily isn't - fwiw there are probably changes from their IRL path with the Gobert upgrade changing RS record). They already have cross-match options with the strength of Malone ... I guess versus '95 Rockets him on Horry isn't optimal though his agility, I've heard, is underrated. More typically at that time even if the center matchup were an issue (not a given) most cross matching would allow him to cover a fairly basket adjacent PF.

And the finals teams went 8-1 versus the Shaq Lakers in the playoffs on their finals trips. I imagine there's some luck there. Still...
In '98 ...
1) It's a sweep
2) it's a comfortable one 416-362, points over the series, 116.1 to 101 per 100 possessions.
3) After a poor first game that contributed a fair chunk towards those differentials LA is winning two of those games in the circa 40mpg Shaq is on the floor.
4) For those 3 games he averages 36ppg on .600 shooting from the field, dragged down only by bad free throw shooting, probably not something Utah centers altered. He's also grabbing 4 offensive rebounds per game. Include g1 and it's 31.8 on .560, 4.3.
His OBPMs go
-5.1
7.3
7.5
13.5
The Jazz victory then in '98, was not won by a superb containment of O'Neal, but through a very efficient offense (and perhaps by limiting other Lakers?). Granted it's not individual matchups in a vacuum but Shaq seems to have been pretty effective.

It's a very clumsy first glance analysis but I'm not sure Bradley wasn't effective versus Olajuwon
Looking at Bradley and Olajuwon playing over half the game in Olajuwon's prime years (94-96) I see 5 games, a small sample, just one measure used etc
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199401080HOU.html
Olajuwon -1.4 OBPM
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199503140PHI.html
Olajuwon -0.6 OBPM
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199503190HOU.html
-2.1 OBPM
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199511220PHI.html
0.7 OBPM
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199601240NJN.html
5.6 OBPM

There is another game where Olajuwon gets a 4.3 OBPM but only 18 minutes of Bradley, so hard to tell what is versus who. Thus whilst I note them as primarily driving defense through rim protection and they aren't the physical archetype you seem to prefer for that time I don't see a clear indication that Olajuwon would "expose" Bradley (his teams seem to have been fairly effective in containing Olajuwon, though it's a small sample and without deeper analysis [requiring footage etc] it would be hard to make strong statements on cause).

I did say he was a clear improvement and the Jazz would win some titles (and 97/98 does seem likely and maybe some others years - I haven't really looked closely) - I just don't think they improve as much as a couple of posts indicate (for example, I don't see them winning in 96 nor Gobert having a 67%TS). So I just wanted to mention a couple of things people should consider.

Hakeem struggled against DRob in the regular season in 95 as well - but it was a different story in the playoffs. So I don't know if what Bradley did in the regular season means much (my memory is hazy, but I think Duncan was having his way against Bradley when they matched up in the playoffs). Maybe he's the difference maker in 95, but there's a good chance they go through Hakeem and Shaq still and also DRob.

97 in particular is where I think Ostertag was really key in slowing Shaq down and I believe Gobert would have struggled a bit more in that situation. He doesn't have the lower body strength to keep Shaq from getting position like Ostertag did. Ostertag got into foul trouble pretty quickly and I think Gobert does so even more quickly. And if you look at it from a roster building perspective - Ostertag was paid $500K-$600K? Gobert is obviously going to be paid a lot more, how would that impact the rest of the roster (I don't know, maybe it doesn't?).

First para ... fair enough sounds reasonable, but I haven't been arguing for a specific ranking either. I've specifically granted raw TS% as an issue. None of this changes the points I've argued though.

Para 2 okay ... so what's the conclusion? Hakeem isn't genuinely defense inelastic but lucky? That Hakeem didn't give his best effort in the RS and would therefore do better regardless of RS data in the playoffs? What impression am I supposed to leave with from this? Or that Hakeem is immune to offensive criticism because as it happens to have happened his production did trend up in the playoffs? I'm not saying you're saying the latter (or the two prior options) but throwing out possibilities. I think the limited data is that Bradley teams were relatively effective. If playoffs is the trump card however it went then there isn't any discussion to be had.

Para 3. So we've got 1 series. Again a pretty convincing Utah win. GO's impact is via 26.8 mpg. And tbh given where he was drafted (which is why he's so cheap) having Gobert doesn't preclude having Greg. Indeed given the quality of their second string center on these runs and from GO's arrival (Foster) I'd be surprised if Utah settled for that and said no need to pick Ostertag (indeed IRL they went after Seikaly, but injuries and or Seikaly not doing what needed to be done got the trade undone). There's no individual max. In '97 Jazz were bottom half in salaries ... they should have some upside to spend. They spent less then half their finals opponents (and less than their opponents did on a single player - which should indeed indicate that [without a deep knowledge of the deep intricacies, but there's no individual max, no luxury tax] there's relatively little stopping teams spending if they want to keep a contender together. And heck whilst it's only one aspect of the game and given the D I'd imagine the package was worth it, GO scores 3.0ppg shooting .313 from the field, so imagining that it's an absolute given he was better for the defensive matchup there's some offensive upside for the Jazz in less/no Ostertag if Gobert's in.

[magicman1978]

....
Not sure that this follows logically. Jazz have many chances to win, they have to win series versus all types of opponents, is there evidence that the Jazz route would be particularly heavily through high value offensive centers (not saying it necessarily isn't - fwiw there are probably changes from their IRL path with the Gobert upgrade changing RS record). They already have cross-match options with the strength of Malone ... I guess versus '95 Rockets him on Horry isn't optimal though his agility, I've heard, is underrated. More typically at that time even if the center matchup were an issue (not a given) most cross matching would allow him to cover a fairly basket adjacent PF.

And the finals teams went 8-1 versus the Shaq Lakers in the playoffs on their finals trips. I imagine there's some luck there. Still...
In '98 ...
1) It's a sweep
2) it's a comfortable one 416-362, points over the series, 116.1 to 101 per 100 possessions.
3) After a poor first game that contributed a fair chunk towards those differentials LA is winning two of those games in the circa 40mpg Shaq is on the floor.
4) For those 3 games he averages 36ppg on .600 shooting from the field, dragged down only by bad free throw shooting, probably not something Utah centers altered. He's also grabbing 4 offensive rebounds per game. Include g1 and it's 31.8 on .560, 4.3.
His OBPMs go
-5.1
7.3
7.5
13.5
The Jazz victory then in '98, was not won by a superb containment of O'Neal, but through a very efficient offense (and perhaps by limiting other Lakers?). Granted it's not individual matchups in a vacuum but Shaq seems to have been pretty effective.

It's a very clumsy first glance analysis but I'm not sure Bradley wasn't effective versus Olajuwon
Looking at Bradley and Olajuwon playing over half the game in Olajuwon's prime years (94-96) I see 5 games, a small sample, just one measure used etc
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199401080HOU.html
Olajuwon -1.4 OBPM
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199503140PHI.html
Olajuwon -0.6 OBPM
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199503190HOU.html
-2.1 OBPM
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199511220PHI.html
0.7 OBPM
https://www.basketball-reference.com/boxscores/199601240NJN.html
5.6 OBPM

There is another game where Olajuwon gets a 4.3 OBPM but only 18 minutes of Bradley, so hard to tell what is versus who. Thus whilst I note them as primarily driving defense through rim protection and they aren't the physical archetype you seem to prefer for that time I don't see a clear indication that Olajuwon would "expose" Bradley (his teams seem to have been fairly effective in containing Olajuwon, though it's a small sample and without deeper analysis [requiring footage etc] it would be hard to make strong statements on cause).

I did say he was a clear improvement and the Jazz would win some titles (and 97/98 does seem likely and maybe some others years - I haven't really looked closely) - I just don't think they improve as much as a couple of posts indicate (for example, I don't see them winning in 96 nor Gobert having a 67%TS). So I just wanted to mention a couple of things people should consider.

Hakeem struggled against DRob in the regular season in 95 as well - but it was a different story in the playoffs. So I don't know if what Bradley did in the regular season means much (my memory is hazy, but I think Duncan was having his way against Bradley when they matched up in the playoffs). Maybe he's the difference maker in 95, but there's a good chance they go through Hakeem and Shaq still and also DRob.

97 in particular is where I think Ostertag was really key in slowing Shaq down and I believe Gobert would have struggled a bit more in that situation. He doesn't have the lower body strength to keep Shaq from getting position like Ostertag did. Ostertag got into foul trouble pretty quickly and I think Gobert does so even more quickly. And if you look at it from a roster building perspective - Ostertag was paid $500K-$600K? Gobert is obviously going to be paid a lot more, how would that impact the rest of the roster (I don't know, maybe it doesn't?).

First para ... fair enough sounds reasonable, but I haven't been arguing for a specific ranking either. I've specifically granted raw TS% as an issue. None of this changes the points I've argued though.

Para 2 okay ... so what's the conclusion? Hakeem isn't genuinely defense inelastic but lucky? That Hakeem didn't give his best effort in the RS and would therefore do better regardless of RS data in the playoffs? What impression am I supposed to leave with from this? Or that Hakeem is immune to offensive criticism because as it happens to have happened his production did trend up in the playoffs? I'm not saying you're saying the latter (or the two prior options) but throwing out possibilities. I think the limited data is that Bradley teams were relatively effective. If playoffs is the trump card however it went then there isn't any discussion to be had.

Para 3. So we've got 1 series. Again a pretty convincing Utah win. GO's impact is via 26.8 mpg. And tbh given where he was drafted (which is why he's so cheap) having Gobert doesn't preclude having Greg. Indeed given the quality of their second string center on these runs and from GO's arrival (Foster) I'd be surprised if Utah settled for that and said no need to pick Ostertag (indeed IRL they went after Seikaly, but injuries and or Seikaly not doing what needed to be done got the trade undone). There's no individual max. In '97 Jazz were bottom half in salaries ... they should have some upside to spend. They spent less then half their finals opponents (and less than their opponents did on a single player - which should indeed indicate that [without a deep knowledge of the deep intricacies, but there's no individual max, no luxury tax] there's relatively little stopping teams spending if they want to keep a contender together. And heck whilst it's only one aspect of the game and given the D I'd imagine the package was worth it, GO scores 3.0ppg shooting .313 from the field, so imagining that it's an absolute given he was better for the defensive matchup there's some offensive upside for the Jazz in less/no Ostertag if Gobert's in.

Para 2 - you provided regular season stats for Hakeem vs Bradley. But the discussion is about winning titles. The DRob example is just to show that the regular season didn't have any bearing to what happened in the playoffs when teams start exploiting weaknesses.

Para 3 - yes, I've acknowledged the upsides. All I said is Ostertag was a worse man defender. Gobert would likely be in foul trouble more quickly. Ostertag defended Shaq very well that series and I don't think Gobert can do that.

[Owly]

I did say he was a clear improvement and the Jazz would win some titles (and 97/98 does seem likely and maybe some others years - I haven't really looked closely) - I just don't think they improve as much as a couple of posts indicate (for example, I don't see them winning in 96 nor Gobert having a 67%TS). So I just wanted to mention a couple of things people should consider.

Hakeem struggled against DRob in the regular season in 95 as well - but it was a different story in the playoffs. So I don't know if what Bradley did in the regular season means much (my memory is hazy, but I think Duncan was having his way against Bradley when they matched up in the playoffs). Maybe he's the difference maker in 95, but there's a good chance they go through Hakeem and Shaq still and also DRob.

97 in particular is where I think Ostertag was really key in slowing Shaq down and I believe Gobert would have struggled a bit more in that situation. He doesn't have the lower body strength to keep Shaq from getting position like Ostertag did. Ostertag got into foul trouble pretty quickly and I think Gobert does so even more quickly. And if you look at it from a roster building perspective - Ostertag was paid $500K-$600K? Gobert is obviously going to be paid a lot more, how would that impact the rest of the roster (I don't know, maybe it doesn't?).

First para ... fair enough sounds reasonable, but I haven't been arguing for a specific ranking either. I've specifically granted raw TS% as an issue. None of this changes the points I've argued though.

Para 2 okay ... so what's the conclusion? Hakeem isn't genuinely defense inelastic but lucky? That Hakeem didn't give his best effort in the RS and would therefore do better regardless of RS data in the playoffs? What impression am I supposed to leave with from this? Or that Hakeem is immune to offensive criticism because as it happens to have happened his production did trend up in the playoffs? I'm not saying you're saying the latter (or the two prior options) but throwing out possibilities. I think the limited data is that Bradley teams were relatively effective. If playoffs is the trump card however it went then there isn't any discussion to be had.

Para 3. So we've got 1 series. Again a pretty convincing Utah win. GO's impact is via 26.8 mpg. And tbh given where he was drafted (which is why he's so cheap) having Gobert doesn't preclude having Greg. Indeed given the quality of their second string center on these runs and from GO's arrival (Foster) I'd be surprised if Utah settled for that and said no need to pick Ostertag (indeed IRL they went after Seikaly, but injuries and or Seikaly not doing what needed to be done got the trade undone). There's no individual max. In '97 Jazz were bottom half in salaries ... they should have some upside to spend. They spent less then half their finals opponents (and less than their opponents did on a single player - which should indeed indicate that [without a deep knowledge of the deep intricacies, but there's no individual max, no luxury tax] there's relatively little stopping teams spending if they want to keep a contender together. And heck whilst it's only one aspect of the game and given the D I'd imagine the package was worth it, GO scores 3.0ppg shooting .313 from the field, so imagining that it's an absolute given he was better for the defensive matchup there's some offensive upside for the Jazz in less/no Ostertag if Gobert's in.

Para 2 - you provided regular season stats for Hakeem vs Bradley. But the discussion is about winning titles. The DRob example is just to show that the regular season didn't have any bearing to what happened in the playoffs when teams start exploiting weaknesses.

Para 3 - yes, I've acknowledged the upsides. All I said is Ostertag was a worse man defender[sic]. Gobert would likely be in foul trouble more quickly. Ostertag defended Shaq very well that series and I don't think Gobert can do that.

My last go round on this, because I don't see it being productive.

Para 2: So if your only sample you're going to go off is playoffs then you're going to get tiny samples for nearly every matchup in history (especially post-late 60s expansion). So every matchup will be "what I reckon" regardless of actual RS data if they haven't played in the playoffs or based of a tiny sample if they have. Okay. As I say there's nothing to discuss. I will say don't get making strong unqualified assertions or absolute statements about stuff you have no [that you trust] data on.

para 3 - Fwiw I saw a general, "they get better" is acknowledged. Not sure "the upsides" (plural) including the likely gulf in offensive production/efficiency, particularly in the specific context versus LA as raised here was outlined above, apologies if this was redundant and I missed it, though I don't think it was there.

[magicman1978]

First para ... fair enough sounds reasonable, but I haven't been arguing for a specific ranking either. I've specifically granted raw TS% as an issue. None of this changes the points I've argued though.

Para 2 okay ... so what's the conclusion? Hakeem isn't genuinely defense inelastic but lucky? That Hakeem didn't give his best effort in the RS and would therefore do better regardless of RS data in the playoffs? What impression am I supposed to leave with from this? Or that Hakeem is immune to offensive criticism because as it happens to have happened his production did trend up in the playoffs? I'm not saying you're saying the latter (or the two prior options) but throwing out possibilities. I think the limited data is that Bradley teams were relatively effective. If playoffs is the trump card however it went then there isn't any discussion to be had.

Para 3. So we've got 1 series. Again a pretty convincing Utah win. GO's impact is via 26.8 mpg. And tbh given where he was drafted (which is why he's so cheap) having Gobert doesn't preclude having Greg. Indeed given the quality of their second string center on these runs and from GO's arrival (Foster) I'd be surprised if Utah settled for that and said no need to pick Ostertag (indeed IRL they went after Seikaly, but injuries and or Seikaly not doing what needed to be done got the trade undone). There's no individual max. In '97 Jazz were bottom half in salaries ... they should have some upside to spend. They spent less then half their finals opponents (and less than their opponents did on a single player - which should indeed indicate that [without a deep knowledge of the deep intricacies, but there's no individual max, no luxury tax] there's relatively little stopping teams spending if they want to keep a contender together. And heck whilst it's only one aspect of the game and given the D I'd imagine the package was worth it, GO scores 3.0ppg shooting .313 from the field, so imagining that it's an absolute given he was better for the defensive matchup there's some offensive upside for the Jazz in less/no Ostertag if Gobert's in.

Para 2 - you provided regular season stats for Hakeem vs Bradley. But the discussion is about winning titles. The DRob example is just to show that the regular season didn't have any bearing to what happened in the playoffs when teams start exploiting weaknesses.

Para 3 - yes, I've acknowledged the upsides. All I said is Ostertag was a worse man defender[sic]. Gobert would likely be in foul trouble more quickly. Ostertag defended Shaq very well that series and I don't think Gobert can do that.

My last go round on this, because I don't see it being productive.

Para 2: So if your only sample you're going to go off is playoffs then you're going to get tiny samples for nearly every matchup in history (especially post-late 60s expansion). So every matchup will be "what I reckon" regardless of actual RS data if they haven't played in the playoffs or based of a tiny sample if they have. Okay. As I say there's nothing to discuss. I will say don't get making strong unqualified assertions or absolute statements about stuff you have no [that you trust] data on.

para 3 - Fwiw I saw a general, "they get better" is acknowledged. Not sure "the upsides" (plural) including the likely gulf in offensive production/efficiency, particularly in the specific context versus LA as raised here was outlined above, apologies if this was redundant and I missed it, though I don't think it was there.

So all I said here was man to man defense was more important then and that's not something Gobert would be better at for some of those Jazz teams (while acknowledging they'd still be better overall and win multiple championships) - do you think that's inaccurate? Is that making a strong unqualified assertion / absolute statement? I didn't bring up any samples - I merely countered your Bradley data saying that regular season samples are not necessarily an indication of what will happen in the playoffs and there are many examples of that just in the last few years.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

In this hypothetical situation Rudy is drafted by the Jazz in 1989 as a late first round pick.

My prediction is that the Jazz win back to back titles in 1997 and 1998 and make the finals in 1996 before losing to the Bulls.


As a starting line-up of

stockton

Hornacek

Russell

Malone

Rudy

Would be nasty

How do you compare Gobert to peak 1980s Mark Eaton? I prefer Eaton on the 1990s Jazz because Eaton actually played with young Stocton and young Malone. Maybe toss in Thurl Bailey.

Ostertag is underrated.