One_and_Done wrote:AEnigma wrote:Truly astounding how such definite statements apparently require no basis other than vaguely gesturing at the cheapest possible basketball banalities.
One_and_Done wrote:Hakeem lost in both 93 and 96 to the Sonics. That wasn’t random.
“Duncan lost to Kobe in 2001, 2002, 2004, and 2008. That wasn’t random.”
The Sonics deployed a defence that pushed the limits of illegal defence rules,
Very specific stuff here. How
exactly did the Sonics “push the limits” in a way distinct from every other historically elite defence of the era.
and Hakeem was bad at dealing with it.
Even more specific. How. What was “bad” about his performance. What did Hakeem
uniquely fail to do that we know the brilliant Duncan — who
routinely lost with more advantages than Hakeem ever had — would have done to guarantee a win.
If Hakeem had come up against the Sonics in 94 or 95, maybe he doesn’t win a title at all.
Oh, so true, if only Hakeem had been replaced with Dikembe or Vlade, then the Rockets would have been able to solve that unprecedented “limit-pushing” defence.
feel like that failure to adapt
To what. The Rockets won every home game and lost game 7 in overtime with Hakeem acting as the team’s primary playmaker. What exact “adaptation” did you expect.
in the PS has to hold him back against Jordan, just as I mark him down for it v.s Duncan (who didn’t have the benefit of illegal D for almost the whole of his career, and yet was still awesome.
What
precise “benefit” was denied to Duncan by comparison. You think the 2003 Finals was a better performance? Hey, I agree, but that is not because the Nets were replicating the Sonics’ approach; they were more stylistically comparable to the Knicks.
Hakeem on an individual level did not deal poorly with the Sonics in any year except 1996, but you are committed to this fiction that someone like Duncan — with absolutely no evidentiary support — could magically guarantee his teammates would convert on any open look and would be immune to what may have been the most aggressive ball pressure backcourt in league history.
Chill. There’s no need to take disagreements so personally.
I do not care if you vote Hakeem second. I do not care if you think Jordan was better. I do not care if you are more impressed by Jordan’s postseason. I do not care if you are relatively indifferent to Hakeem’s postseason. I start to care when you push false narratives to justify any of that.
1) Duncan lost to Shaq and his sidekick Kobe in 01, 02 and 04, because he was outgunned due to his rubbish support cast. In 08 he wasn’t in his prime and lost to Kobe and Pau and others. That’s the context that is relevant here. I know you weren’t being serious, but it’s worth pointing out nonetheless.
Does not seem like you care about Hakeem being grossly outgunned himself — and unlike with 2001/2004 Duncan, he did not even have homecourt, and unlike every single one of those Duncan losses, he went to a Game 7.
2) How did the Sonics “push the limits” of illegal D? Well, there’s countless google articles that discuss that point. Here’s the first one that I found, which illustrates the issue thusly.
https://www.red94.net/14511/14511/History in Hindsight: The Houston Rockets, The Seattle SuperSonics, and Hakeem Olajuwon’s greatest foe.
But beyond Kemp and Payton was George Karl’s “unique” defense. Up until the 2001-02 NBA season, the league did not allow zone defenses. Double teams were permitted, but players had to commit to the double and were not allowed to hedge. Otherwise, the result was an illegal defense violation. However, the Sonics under Karl used a pressing, trapping defense which had elements of zone. Hakeem was always relentlessly doubled by the Sonics regardless of whether he had the ball. Whether these were legal doubles or otherwise was a controversial matter. At best, Karl skirted the line between legal and illegal defenses… The Rockets were far from the only team to complain about Seattle’s zone defense over the years. Phil Jackson and Scottie Pippen stated that the Sonics played a zone defense before the 1996 NBA Finals began, and teams like Sacramento and the Lakers also complained. In 1996, Seattle received by a significant margin the most illegal defensive violations in the league.
You can also find similar complaints about the defences employed by the Bad Boys and the Riley Knicks. Now, the Sonics were more
blatant (think Warriors screening), but no truly elite defence in any era let opposing stars just take them one-on-one.
Other teams tried this as well, but lacked the speed and athleticism of the Sonics for the most part. Hakeem struggled with this because, even in his peak from 93-96, his passing and decision making weren’t on the same level as other stars. When the pressure was applied, he couldn’t handle it.
This is not a real comment based on watching the teams. You are just gesturing at some assumed truism about “passing and decision-making,” with no comparative thought or analysis of what was supposedly being missed. In fact, I am not even sure you are bothering to check the statsheet, for as low a bar as that would be, because then you would have noticed Hakeem had a very high assist rate (higher than every Shaq postseason save 1996, and higher than every Duncan postseason save 2002/03). Later on you cite the Rockets’ relative success from three, but you make no connection to the idea that maybe Hakeem had something to do with that.
The Sonics were not trying to exploit Hakeem’s “decision-making”. It was literally the opposite. Their entire scheme was designed to keep the ball
away from him — not put it in his hands and trust he would make dumb plays.
They made it as difficult as possible to get the ball to him, and when he did get the ball, they wanted him to pass it away. And again the most infuriating part of this is that it is not even necessary to have watched the series to infer as much.
This is notable because guys like Duncan lacked the protection afforded to Hakeem in the form of illegal defence, and thrived anyway.
Duncan never faced any defence at all stylistically similar to those Sonics. He was not doubled (or tripled) more than Hakeem.
And no, Duncan did not “routinely lose with more advantages than Hakeem ever had”. Duncan’s teams through his whole prime (98-07) either met or exceeded expectations. His playoff record looks nothing like the shaky one Hakeem has.
Duncan had multiple hall-of-famers and a top three coach throughout his entire career yet also has one of the worst records as a favourite or home team of any all-time great. Only Bird’s is clearly worse.
If Hakeem is going to be compared to the greatest players of all-time, which is what a comparison to Duncan and Jordan constitutes, then he should have been able to overcome this basic problem.
Still avoiding ever speaking specifically. What “basic problem”. “This basic problem” was not something Duncan ever experienced.
Jordan overcame the Sonics doing this in 96 for instance.
His team did, but that was one of Jordan’s career worst series.
Duncan had to play almost his whole career without any protection from soft doubles and more ball pressure.
Wrong, and further confirmation you have never really bothered to watch Hakeem.
This is not about Hakeem’s team mates failing, and Duncan’s succeeding.
Wrong.
Duncan’s team mates often failed spectacularly during his prime,
Not as badly as Hakeem’s.
or were just bad in the first place some years,
Never as bad as Hakeem’s.
but when Duncan lost it was to the likes of Shaq and Kobe, not the Payton and Kemp Sonics (who were only 23 and 24 in 1993).
He was also much less competitive despite having more support.
Payton wasn’t even playing like an all-star that year.
Not offensively, no.
I also find it a bizarre thing to claim in 1993.
When they had the league’s best SRS?
The Rockets were 39/102 from 3 in the Sonics series; an incredibly high % and volume for that era. Hakeem should have had plenty of support to beat the Sonics if he really had the impact of Duncan (or Jordan).
Still no actual analysis of the series or his supposed limitations, and now you are even retreating to a notion you yourself oppose in other contexts. It is about the
real spacing and shooting provided, not about whether it was solid relative to even worse shooting teams. 5.5 made threes a game is not some outstanding support, and Hakeem was the entire reason they were getting those looks.
