bastillon wrote:kaima wrote:
This argument would have more merit if it was a true one-off.
In Robinson's top 3 seasons he was badly outplayed by a better post player in the playoffs.
Malone did it in 94, Hakeem in 95 and Malone again in 96. Robinson's legacy is actually inflated by people who pretend he had "one" bad series at his peak.
More like three meltdowns in his three top seasons. That definitely needs to be considered, and brushing it off as a one time thing doesn't really look at the facts.
Losing is one thing. But being outplayed on both ends by the star guarding you is something else entirely. This was David Robinson, at his absolute peak.
Robinson was TKO'd positionally three straight years when he was supposed to be a top three player. That's a pretty big deal.
great post.
I guess what I would wanna add is that you all ignored the reason why Hakeem played poorly against Seattle. you can't know it without re-watching the series. Olajuwon was absolutely swarmed by Seattle,
I don't know if this part was directed at me (as well...), but I largely agree with the thesis.
Karl's trapping schemes were an acid-test that the Rockets, as constructed, couldn't appear to pass.
Kemp was not the team defender that Olajuwon was, or the positional defender that Malone was, but he could be monstrous in Karl's system. He was a lynchpin in many ways for that gameplan.
I don't think he could do what he was doing without the traps and rotations that Karl's system brought, but I also question whether that system could work without him.
Exhibit a is the 1998 NBA playoffs with Vin Baker. A disaster.
because ALL of his teammates were either injured or just useless (Brown).
This is a common theme with contenders that consistently make deep playoff runs, the number going in, often, is three-four seasons of 100+ games.
Examples that come to mind are the Lakers of 03 (from 00-02 played 98-105 games each season), the 99 Jazz (from 96-98 played 100-102 games each season, then faced a condensed and daunting April of 1999 that pretty much ended their season), the 94 Bulls (key on the carry-through and change from Collins to Jackson, the Bulls from 90-93 played 98-104 games each season; though it's obvious, yet required, to note that Jordan wasn't there in 94...an open question in the statement) and the 91 Pistons (played 99-105 games from 88-90).
All the teams listed went from brutally tough opponents that played in multiple Finals (and all, save Utah, champions), to teams that either went out in the second round (LA, Utah, Chi) and/or with a whimper (LA, Utah, Det).
A recent exception that sticks out is/are the Billups(?) Pistons, though this might be a statement as to the relative weakness of the East during this period as well as the less physical nature of the game.
That's also not to say that we're looking at teams that collectively were teams, on court, throughout those seasons. But there seems to often be a collective fatigue, even if, say, Shaq misses twenty games one of those seasons, that affixes to a core of guys that have been together and played deep into the post-season over the course of at least a few post-seasons.
All this preamble is to say that the Rockets were arguably worn down. Though, in multiple ways they violate the criteria between a shifted core (the Drexler trade), a sense that they underplayed their hand in the 95 regular season (all the teams listed tended towards dominant regular seasons, that can be grueling in their own way), and fewer number of rounds and games.
They did have other things going against them, however, including having to play four road series in the 95 post-season, and overcoming 3-1 deficits in both title runs.
I could see where wear played a part, though the meltdown between series is rather telling. Teams like Utah in 99 and LA in 03 looked punch drunk when the playoffs started, whereas Houston looked good to go against LA in 96.
I would say that wear played a decent role, but that the matchup issues Seattle posed was at least as big a deal.
when the team was still relatively healthy in 1st Rd, Hakeem was Dominant with a capital D.
But this could still be a statement as to the matchup problems Seattle wrought.
also, I don't know where the bad-matchup stuff is coming from. Seattle won against Rockets because they were the better team at the time (because of injuries). they were pounding the Rockets in the RS because they were the better team too. they were pounding the Lakers and Nuggets as well, but seems like it didn't help 'em in '94 and '95 because they just sucked in the playoffs those years.
That's pretty much the point. Seattle imploded. Do I think the Nuggets were the better team? No.
I do think that George Karl's psychological failings were exposed, including his tendency to be a frontrunner that panicked when things started to go awry. You could see that in those Sonics teams.
But likewise, if the Sonics (and that's a big "if", but such is the nature of matchup evaluation) had kept their heads and met the Rockets, I wouldn't like Houston's odds from that selfsame standpoint of matchups, whether it be players or systems.
Robinson was outplayed 1 vs 1 in the post. this matchup was just as visibly devastating for him as Hakeem-95 matchup.
Certainly in agreement here.
The difference between a guy like Robinson versus Malone and Olajuwon is one where the former consistently lost head to head matchups against the latter at his peak. On both ends of the floor.
There's not a matchup for the latter two I can find -- as far as prime or peak play where they defended (and likely were guarded by) the opposing star/player -- where they were thoroughly outplayed, both offensively and defensively, over the course of a series by the guy assigned to them.
The closest I can find is Kemp v Olajuwon, and I would agree that a big part of that, even with Kemp as a huge factor within, was the trapping scheme itself.
Robinson was not dominant positionally in the playoffs at his peak. A huge deal.
