RealGM Top 100 List #9

[90sAllDecade]

Also, while Bird is an all time great player, I wanted to vote for Hakeem Olajuwon.

Larry was a brilliant player and had had no weakness other than athletic ability; but so was Hakeem, who had a sky high basketball intelligence, no weaknesses, the GOAT post game/balance and he was athletic.

He is a better two way anchor and combined individual impact over Bird. Hakeem has a higher peak, better longevity & endurance, and historically bigs are more impactful than wing players who need more help to succeed. He won a championship without an all star, which Bird could not do and struggled without a stacked roster, while losing every time without HCA.

Olajuwon also could be the clear #1 offensive and defensive anchor without depending on teammates, while Bird could defer to McHale for lead scorer duties at times and his entire Celtics roster for defensive duties. Bird was a better passer and three point shooter, but their TS% is comparable in the RS and Olajuwon has better TS% in the playoffs.

Hakeem was also a better stealer and had higher stl% than Bird and he's a center. He's even better than Bird in almost all advanced stats which are flawed and don't account for Hakeem's defensive dominance.

Hakeem was also better in the playoffs and consistently improved while Bird consistently got worse in the postseason.

[E-Balla]

Thanks for the response.

Really good questions. To be honest, I haven't done an analysis trying to quantify these era differences. So the things to look into:

How much (not if) of an advantage did no-hand check it to different types of perimeter player on offense?
Did no-hand check kill off perimeter player defensive impact?
What about big men defensive impact?

Hand-checking is interesting, and it did impact individual scoring for perimeter players, but I'm (perhaps incorrectly) thinking that a change affecting how bigs play is likely going to change the game more than how one impacting perimeter players is. Though spacing is largely making non-bigs more important, so maybe I'm wrong.

Hand-checking was also curtailed going into 78-79 and 94-95, so I wonder if those had similar effects?

Actually a long time ago I tracked rule changes and gameplay changes and in 79 ORTG jumped 3 points, in 95 it jumped 2 points and 3pa and percentage skyrocketed, and in 04 it jumped 3 points. Those new rules are always game changers.

Now it didn't effect bugs effectiveness but it did increase the effectiveness of perimeter stars which leaves bigs to be used less especially since they're so hard to come by nowadays (blame KG and Dirk).

Are the huge defensive numbers we're seeing for big men defenders in the late '90s something systematic, or was it due simply to more talented bigs?

Great, great question. That's what I'm hoping to learn.

Did Shaq fall off? Did a majorly lacking in the skill department Dwight Howard not dominate? Did Yao not do his dirt? I think people think too hard about this sometimes, yes the bugs are way less talented. That's all.

With regards to the last question, a detailed eye ball analysis of Dikembe Mutombo would be awesome. In the past he's not someone I feel like we've really focused on here. He's always obviously been a stellar defender, but he's the guy whose defensive RAPM are absolutely off the chart. How would his M.O. be forced to change with newer things (illegal defense, more fast breaks, extreme 3-point spacing, etc), and what of his strengths would be just weakened?

Mutombo is a tremendous study here with his severe outliers in terms of dRAPM. I'm not sure how to feel about him. Was he that dominant? Or as you said above, was it something systematic? Depending on the answer, I might have to change how I think about defense entirely.

This reminds me of the Hibbert effect. When Hibbert and the Pacers gave a damn they were on their way to being the GOAT defense (along with a little nudge from the refs). When the Pacers didn't care they were barely a memorable defense. That's because a rim defender is easily the most impactful type of defender you can have if you have a team willing to chase players from the three point line or a spot up shot.

Hibbert only allowed 41% of shot attempts to be converted at rim while he was under there. Larry Sanders had about the same effect. If we assume Deke was better he could've realistically made the "most efficient shot" a 35% look for most people. That changes the whole way your defense can play (they can be amazingly aggressive), how the offense plays (look at Melo and Lebron practically avoiding layups against Indy and looking to kill them with jumpshots or failing at attacking Hibbert), and the crazy part is it is possibly the most simple scheme there is. Get the top 4 defenders in the NCAA, put them next to Hibbert and you'll have a top 5 defense in a day of practice because they'll even know all they have to do is give their man the easiest shot to take and they'll more likely than not miss it.

Answering literally your question about era those. The only one I've referred to here is the databall era, which to my mind extends back as far as we've got +/- for when we talk in this context (so '97), but would probably be 2000 based on coaches & GMs being informed.

Good point. So you'd go with 2000? Is that around when analytics departments/consultants started popping up (is there a timeline in terms of adaptation? Unfortunately for both of us, I believe the Lakers are still very much behind the ball in this regard)? Or just based on the availability/knowledge of their existence around the league?

Having the capacity to make informed decisions is a huge deal. It's still on the decision-makers to use the information they have obviously, but without the data existing this point is a non-starter.

I don't think it's a coincidence that around that time, the league became saturated with international players:



The databall era likely had a huge impact on scouting/drafting immediately.

Clearly '04-05 marks the start of a new era based on no-hand check.
I don't know if I think that the illegal defense rule change warrants being called an era shift. Had you asked me in '01-02 I might have said it was based on how the New Jersey Nets' running was the signature style of that year, but given what i now know of actual offensive efficacy and how meh the Nets were, it hardly seems to be worth calling so revolutionary.

Good point. Some of what drza posted about Minny playing KG in a weird zone defensive scheme (something like four corners with KG roaming a ton?) early on the first year after the change is another interesting development.

Is there any way to quantify spacing? Maybe someone could generate something from the play-by-play, but just going by the box score:

Code: Select all

Season   3PA/FGA   3PA/TSA
2013-14   25.9%   24.7%
2012-13   24.4%   23.7%
2011-12   22.6%   22.1%
2010-11   22.2%   21.4%
2009-10   22.2%   21.3%
2008-09   22.4%   21.7%
2007-08   22.2%   21.4%
2006-07   21.2%   20.5%
2005-06   20.3%   19.9%
2004-05   19.7%   19.2%
2003-04   18.7%   18.4%
2002-03   18.2%   17.7%
2001-02   18.1%   17.7%
2000-01   17.0%   16.5%
1999-00   16.7%   15.8%
1998-99   16.9%   16.8%
1997-98   15.9%   15.6%
1996-97   21.2%   20.9%
1995-96   20.0%   19.3%
1994-95   18.8%   17.9%   <--Four-year college players from here on had the 3 each year in HS+college
1993-94   11.7%   10.7%
1992-93   10.5%   9.3%
1991-92   8.7%   7.8%
1990-91   8.1%   7.2%   <--Four-year college players from here on had the 3 each year in college
1989-90   7.6%   6.7%
1988-89   7.4%   6.4%
1987-88   5.7%   4.9%   <--High Schools adapt three
1986-87   5.3%   4.5%   <--NCAA adapts three
1985-86   3.7%   3.2%
1984-85   3.5%   2.9%
1983-84   2.7%   2.3%
1982-83   2.6%   2.2%
1981-82   2.6%   2.2%
1980-81   2.3%   1.9%
1979-80   3.1%   2.6%   <--NBA adapts three

Looks like it crossed 20% two years after the latest hand-checking rule change (three years in terms of 3PA/TSA, which might be more telling since players are rarely fouled on threes), though it's increasing in prevalence even further in the past couple of seasons.

The illegal defense along with the regular 3 point line coming back led to the greatest defensive era in NBA history (it was just peaking in 04 when the league had enough of the 71-70 scores).

I'd say the handcheck removal does define the modern era though. Around 05ish smalls suddenly became more valuable than or as valuable as bigs. The Lakers trading Shaq was the start of it all.

[acrossthecourt]

Very cool to see ridge regression applied to APM - hadn't seen that before! Do you know if there is a version that incorporates a different type of penalty, like LASSO or elastic net?

Well, I'm not sure if there's any published version using LASSO, but here's a comment from mystic, who doesn't seem to favor it (I guess it's because it uses an L1 norm, as opposed to ridge regression, which uses an L2 penalty, so maybe the fit is better?):

If you choose lambda to be zero (default is NULL), it should give you the APM results. You can also choose a parameter called alpha, which is the elastic-net parameter, that is basically a different kind of regularization, which is in essence better than LASSO (least absolute shrinkage and selection operator), which is then again a different way of handling such ill-posed problems. Anyway, you should probably start with alpha at 0 (which should be the default value, if I'm not mistaken).

I've been meaning to play around with when I have a chance (if you don't want to bother preparing a dataset, here's a link with a quick tutorial and easy script to get started: http://www.hickory-high.com/how-to-calculate-rapm/). glment in R has an optional alpha parameter. In calculating RAPM there's cross validation of lambda already. With a bigger dataset (I know J.E. on APBRmetrics has a big 14-year set) they can find a nice stable alpha via cv. That's another thing to play around with even in single-season RAPM though. Anyhow, maybe shutupandjam or acrossthecourt has experience fooling around with either.

Thanks for the info. I work with regularization in different contexts (and even have my own humble little R package called ppmlasso which is past due for an update), and I have found LASSO to be generally preferable for the problems I encounter given that it performs variable selection as well as shrinkage. You can get really complicated with this stuff with two-stage LASSO, adaptive LASSO or combine LASSO with ridge regression via the elastic net, but I thought I'd ask if there were any endeavors to use other penalties.

For anybody who is interested, Hastie's book The Elements of Statistical Learning is available for free online, and it has a nice section on penalized regression:

http://web.stanford.edu/~hastie/local.f ... print4.pdf

We use ridge because we already know the variable we want: every player.

I've used LASSO, however, on a statistical plus/minus model testing out variables and looking for spacing effects. It's quite useful.

Speaking of, we've had a lot of talk about per game stats, PER, Win Shares, and RAPM, but not ASPM. It's probably the best of both worlds for this group: it's scientifically tested, but it's more stable, likes superstars more, and it's more comprehensible (usage*assist=good, turnovers=bad, etc.)

Here's one ASPM, which is used a lot:
http://godismyjudgeok.com/DStats/aspm-a ... -nba-aspm/

A couple caveats: the ASPM was created from data over the last decade, so it's not directly applicable to stuff in the, say, 70's. And I don't think everything is adjusted for league averages. But it's still quite useful and better than PER. It's also something like RAPM that can be used for older players.

For instance, despite his PPG, which people love, Olajuwon's offensive rating (ORAPM) wasn't special pre-1993.

From 1985 to 1998:
1.20
1.82
1.57
1.20
1.25
1990:
0.45
0.67
0.99
1993:
3.16
2.84
3.19
1996:
2.96
1.67
0.81

His offensive prime is four seasons, but DRAPM saw his defense start to slip in 1994 and on. (Note: this is based on box score stats, so DRAPM is less reliable, so I'd wager the slip wasn't as bad. However, if you increase your load on offense, your defense usually slips somewhere ... usually.)

His five best seasons by ASPM:
1989:
5.68
1993 to 1996:
6.93
6.03
6.03
5.31

Bird's best seasons:
1984 to 1988 (1983 is close too):
5.94
6.71
6.91
7.19
7.70

I have the data downloaded, so let me know if you want more player summaries in case you can't find someone. I also need to finish my own ASPM, which uses more data, but that's mostly for prior-informed stuff.

[Baller2014]

Posting big stats while losing against teams you should beat is something we need to be very careful about giving too much credit too. Hakeem's Rockets were abnormally bad against the Sonics, and everyone at the time (including Hakeem's own team and coach!) attributed it to the Sonics being very adept at disguising their illegal zone D, so it looked legal. The thing is, that illegal D is now perfectly legal today, which means today's stars have all had to play against it and have had no problems. Hakeem did, and that certainly should make us pause and look at why his normal impact was reduced against the Sonics.

[Double Clutch]

I'm not sure I really buy the criticisms directed at Olajuwon's offense before 1993. That's not to say he was a perfect offensive player, that's definitely not the case but he certainly wasn't a 'negative' on that end either especially when used in the right situation and I think you could build a good offense around him. You want to question his offense after he got knee surgery in late 1997 and was never close to being his old self again, feel free to do so. To be clear, Olajuwon after the 1996-97 season is nowhere near the offensive force he was during his prime or peak years. He wasn't anywhere near as quick or agile he used to be, he wasn't getting to the middle as much for the jump-hook, was slower in the post and as a result, took more time to create his own shot, more jumpshot reliant, his ability to maneuver through double teams was restricted and he wasn't creating anywhere near as much offense as he used to because teams stopped double teaming him as much. You can see Hakeem talk about it in a quote below as well as another quote by Sam Smith (CHI Tribune writer) talking about Olajuwon no longer drawing double teams meaning teams weren't respecting his scoring prowess anywhere near as much.

Spoiler:

It was the equivalent of planting a flag on Mount Everest, the last step up to the highest peak. But from that cold, lonely place, the only view of the world is down. That's the battle Olajuwon has been fighting for the past three seasons as knee injuries - and eventually surgery on one - took away his strength, quickness and mobility, and the whispers grew to a roar.
"I've heard all of the talk, that Hakeem is not hungry anymore, that he has his two championships and is satisfied," Olajuwon said. "They overlook the obvious, that for the past several years I have not been physically able to play the game, to play my game, which relies on speed and agility.
"People are so quick to forget, so quick to make judgments without having all of the information, all of the facts. They see me trying to play my game without getting the same results, and suddenly it is because I am too old or not hungry anymore.
"It is frustrating when you are used to being a dominating player and you find that you can't dominate. It has nothing to do with being satisfied. If anything, I was less satisfied over the past several years, because I was not myself. I knew it was a physical problem, but that did not make it easier for me."

^Chron, 1999

They drop the ball into Olajuwon, who draws a double-team and then can hit an open perimeter shooter or take the shot himself. But Olajuwon, 36, has slowed considerably and is no longer getting double-teamed.

Anyway, I'm basically seeing a lot of people skeptical about Olajuwon's offense in the early 90s, how the offense got better without him in 1991, some criticism regarding his passing that I'm not sure I entirely agree with. First of all, based on the footage I've seen, the idea of Olajuwon being an unwilling or a poor passer is a tad exaggerated. You could certainly question his willingness to pass on certain possessions where he'd really try to force a shot attempt facing multiple defenders and some passes out of double teams weren't as crisp or sharp as you'd want them to be which could potentially lead to interceptions or perhaps allow the defense to rotate in time but for the most part, Olajuwon did a good job creating offense out of double teams. When I watched the 1990 Rockets vs Laker series (and fatal9 already talked about this), I saw Olajuwon receive constant double and triple teaming through the first 3 games and he did just fine creating offense for his teammates and that might not always reflect in his assist totals because a lot of times, the Rocket guards would miss from the perimeter or the team would be unable to capitalize against a rotating defense with good ball movement. It's entirely possible the Rockets end up with a bad offensive rating for a game (and they did in game 1) with Olajuwon playing well offensively which he did. I'm not going to criticize a big man or a star player in general if they're creating tons of offense for their teammates and they're not being able to capitalize on it for whatever reason and in the 1990 Rockets' case, they lacked quality perimeter shooting, proper spacing with guys being in the right position and good ball movement (crisp swing passes) that can often be used to beat a rotating defense. Basically, what I'm saying is the team didn't always take advantage of the attention Hakeem drew and with Hakeem being stifled by multiple defenders, it could make their offensive results rather poor. It's certainly not the most optimal situation for a dominant C like Olajuwon.

Look at what Hubie Brown says in the intro of game 2 of this series at the 0:45 mark: Anytime you triple team a star player, you're naturally going to cut down his shot attempts. What happens now is that the ball club must rally around him. *cuts to footage* Here we have, now the ball is going to go into Hakeem in the post, you'll see him triple teamed. Now, this happened 33 times during the game. Being unselfish, he found the free people and now you'll see the two outside perimeter games open up and when the pass was made, they either missed with an air ball or hit the front of the rim and only shot was a very, very dismal 28% from the field.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M0v1EWFeA2I

The combination of Mychal's defense and the team defensive help turned Akeem into a passer."
That might not have been such a bad thing for the Rockets had their supporting players shot better. The Rockets made just 43.2% of their shots, with guards Eric (Sleepy) Floyd and Vernon Maxwell combining to sink only 14 of 37 attempts.

"I thought Akeem did a good job passing the ball, but we just weren't hitting," Rocket Coach Don Chaney said.

Besides that, I would say the type of offense ran during the Don Chaney years (guards often free lancing and playing uptempo), the fact that Chaney didn't have good control of the team (reason for his firing) combined with the type of players he was surrounded with wasn't very conducive to a player like Hakeem and due to this, Hakeem's decision making on offense could seem questionable and end up being counterproductive to the offense. There would be instances where he'd go multiple possessions without touching the ball and then force up bad, low percentage shots when he did get it and when he'd get ignored in the low-post, he'd resort to areas on the court (high post, perimeter) where he could get more shots up despite being relatively less effective from those spots on the floor. Part of it was due to scheming, too. They had Hakeem starting his offense further away from the basket. Sleepy Floyd and Hakeem always had issues because Hakeem felt Floyd wouldn't do necessarily do a good job getting the ball to him. Same for Vernon Maxwell. Just think if this is the best possible offensive environment to maximize a dominant center's offensive impact. A center (even like Hakeem who was very versatile) will always be limited in the sense that he cannot initiate offense from the get-go like perimeter players can. He'll need adequate entry passing with the ball being delivered to him in his most effective spots on the floor at the right time, effective spacing allowing him room to maneuver and see passing lanes, good ball handlers that can run the offense smoothly getting them into their sets with minimal time wasted, an established hierarchy within the system with each player knowing their respective role, etc.

Spoiler:

Akeem Olajuwon was sidelined with thrombophlebitis (a blood clot) in his left calf during the preseason, but he has made a full recovery. The world keeps telling coach Don Chaney that he needs a point guard, and Chaney keeps saying he has one. "Sleepy Floyd has done everything I've asked him to do." says Chaney. But not always everything Olajuwon has asked him to do—like passing him the ball instead of taking it to the hole. The Rockets are best known for their beneficence in giving players a second chance: The roster includes guards John Lucas, Mitch Wiggins and Lewis Lloyd, all former offenders of the NBA's drug policy.

Spoiler:

Olajuwon's focus and indomitable spirit undoubtedly had a blanket effect on his club. Before last season, he was considered a great player who hadn't unlocked the secret of championship play. Also, the Rockets always appeared too selfish to allow a player of Olajuwon's stature to carry it.

"We'd all rush to get a box score after games to see how we did as individuals," Maxwell said. "I guess we all got tired of losing. Rudy (Tomjanovich, Rocket coach) instilled in us that, in order to win, we'd have to play as a team.

Spoiler:

At one point, it didn't appear that Olajuwon would get that recognition in a Houston uniform. Two seasons ago, reports from Houston were that Olajuwon was upset with the selfish play of the team, particularly the guards, and an offense that didn't include looking for the star center. His unhappiness spread to management after Olajuwon -- with the Rockets fighting for a playoff spot -- complained of a sore left hamstring and did not dress for a late-season game. Team tests the next day cleared him to play, but he didn't dress for the next game and was suspended indefinitely by the team.

Olajuwon, who missed four games, didn't touch on the problems with management. But he did say that the mentality of the players is different.

"Individual players realize that winning is the key, so everybody is willing to sacrifice individual goals for team goals," Olajuwon said. "Now, we win as a team, everybody's getting credit and everybody's happy. We play smart, and play to our strengths.

"Last year, we had a meeting before the All-Star break . . . and we said, 'Let's make a commitment,' " Olajuwon added. "It was a commitment as a team. Instead of saying, 'Why doesn't he pass me the ball?' we encourage each other."

Spoiler:

Get smart: The best explanation offered for Don Chaney's surprising dismissal last week as Houston coach was repeated accusations by NBA rivals that the talented Rockets often beat themselves with mental mistakes.

Chaney's departure was guaranteed after the Rockets lost to the last-place Minnesota Timberwolves on Feb. 17. Team owner Charlie Thomas said, "When I walked out of The Summit that night, I felt like I never wanted to see another game, and I wondered how many of our fans felt the same way."

Rudy Tomjanovich, the former Rockets assistant who replaced Chaney, said: "We want to get to where people don't say we're a dumb basketball team. That's embarrassing. I've heard that in Houston and on tape of a visiting television game. They said, 'If we just stay in the game these guys aren't very smart and they'll crater.' "
But Carroll Dawson, a former Chaney aide who did not want to be considered as a replacement, said: "Rudy will be trying to solve the same problem that Don had. The problems haven't changed."

The persistent problem for Houston has been the decision-making and questionable shot selection of backcourt starters Kenny Smith and Vernon Maxwell and backup Sleepy Floyd.
Said Floyd, a former Georgetown star who is shooting 37 percent: "It's not that we're not trying our best. Nobody wants to win more than us. The only difference this year is in the standings."

But All-NBA center Hakeem Olajuwon disagreed, suggesting Chaney, who won Coach of the Year laurels last season, had lost his authority.
"It didn't work out," Olajuwon said. "If you let people slack off, they take advantage. . . . We all know we are deceiving ourselves
as players."

I'm seeing the 1990-91 Rockets ORtg with/without being used to question Hakeem's offense. The data really doesn't do much for me knowing the context of the situation. I already talked about how I didn't feel Hakeem wasn't being utilized in a manner that would maximize his talents and as a result, he was making certain decisions that would be counterproductive to the team's offense and in that sense, it's natural that the team wouldn't miss his presence as much. Based on the numbers ElGee posted [91 Rockets ORtg IN 107.7 (-0.5). 91 Rockets ORtg OUT 108.3 (+0.3)], the difference in their offense isn't something extraordinary and can be attributed to a number of things.

In the 25 consecutive games Hakeem missed with an eye injury, Larry Smith averaged 6.2 offensive rpg, had an ORB% of 18.6. In other words, even though, he's not providing much else on offense, he's an absolute monster on the offensive glass giving Houston plenty of second chance opportunities. If you look at the four factor for Houston's offense, their biggest strength was clearly their ORB% so it's probably a fair assumption that Smith's rebounding helped the offense. I remember colts18 had done a with/without for Rodman and he was making a big impact on the 1994-95 Spurs' offense just based on his offensive rebounding alone. Their ORtg with Rodman was 115.3 and just 108.9 without him. Obviously, this isn't perfect because it's entirely plausible the Spurs made some strategic/game plan changes with Rodman out. Here's the link to his post: viewtopic.php?p=38846063#p38846063

Anyway, L. Smith was also a very good pick setter which was most likely valuable considering Chaney switched to a PnR heavy offense with Olajuwon out. Otis Thorpe was a very good PnR threat (pick setting, timely rolls, could catch and finish and pass off the dribble) so he benefited a lot from this and it accounts for a big increase in his numbers. The guards were usually inconsistent and prone to hot and cold streaks which they'd have with and without Hakeem in the line up. K. Smith was the most consistent of the bunch while Maxwell and Floyd were more erratic and could explode at any given moment but also as likely to have a poor shooting night. In those games where they were 'hot' and they definitely had some explosive games in that stretch Hakeem missed, they were good enough to provide a lift to the team's offense but this type of offense was volatile and not something you could consistently rely on. This brings me to Hakeem's return. When Hakeem returned, he accepted a smaller role mostly working in PnRs, finishing up plays via dish-offs, putbacks, spotting up for jumpers, etc. From this point right up till Don Chaney was fired, the amount of post-ups for Hakeem were limited and it was not what the offense was built upon. Vernon Maxwell led the team in shot attempts after Hakeem returned. They continued primarily being a PnR heavy team with an equal opportunity offense.

Here's what's interesting. In the 1991 playoffs, this new offense that Houston ran completely tanked because their perimeter stunk up the place (Maxwell, Floyd, B. Johnson). Throughout the series, you hear Doug Collins, who was commentating, complain about the lack of touches for Hakeem hurting Houston's offense. This goes back to the point about the perimeter threats being inconsistent on the offensive end (shot selection, bad decision making) which could make them unreliable at any given moment especially having a greater share of the offensive load.

Me and other people (commentators, writers) at the time didn't watch the 1991 Rockets vs Lakers series and reach the conclusion that this evenly distributed/equal opportunity offense is working so well for the Rockets. I thought they should've gone into Hakeem (and to a lesser extent, Otis) more and tried establishing an inside-outside game.

Doug Collins at the 21 second mark: Well, Ron, the first thing is, you know they've lived and died by the jumpshot this season and the first two games, they've died by it. They've been impatient, they've cranked up a lot of quick outside shots. Hakeem Olajuwon, only 28 shots attempted in the first two ball games. He's gotta get the ball. They've got to get to the free throw line. If they don't have an inside attack, they're not going to win this basketball game. At the 4:28 mark, Olajuwon's gotta get a touch here early. 5:38, Twice Hakeem has touched the basketball, twice the team has scored from it (both hockey assists).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fXmR4q4WgA

4:37 mark: On the 12 possessions for Houston, we talked about Hakeem touching the ball. He's only touched it 3 times out of 12. Well, I think it's a very important stat. And I think that as the game goes along, you're going to see in the 4th period that he starts touching it more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ce0FfcQDMkQ


Plenty of writers criticizing this Houston offense below.

Spoiler:

I DON'T TAKE IT BACK. Saying the Houston Rockets would "curl up like bad wallpaper in the playoffs" still seems about right. Those wild-shooting Houston guards - Kenny Smith, Vernon Maxwell and Sleepy Floyd - combined to make 41 percent of their tries and tossed it up often enough to keep the ball out of the hands of Hakeem Olajuwon.

The big center and power-mate forward Otis Thorpe shot 58 percent in the series against Los Angeles, but combined to get 48 fewer shots than the guard trio. Does this make sense? Good thing those coach-of-the-year ballots are in, Don.

The Rockets, winners of a franchise-high 52 games, went kicking, screaming and whining, but they went just the same. They expired exactly as a skeptic would have predicted, dying by the jump shot.
Guards Kenny Smith (47%), Vernon Maxwell (41%) and Sleepy Floyd (33%) hit an aggregate 41%.
Mad Max took 11 more shots than Hakeem Olajuwon.
Olajuwon and Otis Thorpe each shot 58% but got 48 fewer shots than the Wild Bunch at guard.
The Lakers made it tough to get the ball into the middle, difficult to do anything when the ball did get into the middle and invited the guards to hoist away.

On the Rockets' new offense after Hakeem returned and inconsistencies of the guards:

The Rockets' red glare comes from their backcourt, which runs the gamut from spectacular to beneath contempt. Kenny Smith came from nowhere to become a top point guard and shoot 52%, so he shouldn't be lumped with running mates Maxwell and Sleepy Floyd, whose pictures could appear in the dictionary next to the words volatile and erratic .

Mad Max took more shots than Olajuwon after Hakeem returned, more than any Rocket and more three-pointers than anyone in the NBA. His overall percentage: 40%. Floyd came off the bench for some huge games, including a high of 40 points--seven different Rockets had highs of 27 or more--but his overall mark was 41%.
In the playoffs, long shots get harder, and there is no doubt the Lakers will protect the lane and invite the Rockets to shoot them.

There's no doubt the Rockets will shoot them, either. All that remains is the counting.

Fast forward to the 1991-92 season and Chaney kept this PnR heavy offense with plenty of freedom for the guards which led to Hakeem complaining about not being the center of the offense and the Rockets' guards were criticized plenty for their inconsistent play, decision making, etc which you can read in the many of the aforementioned quotes in spoiler tags.

Here's what I find interesting. As soon as Rudy Tomjanovich took over, he built the offense around Hakeem forcing the Rockets to play inside-out as opposed to the PnR heavy, free lancing, outside-in approach Don Chaney had established the past couple of seasons. This immediately lead to great results for the Rockets offense. I'm not even talking about 1992-93 yet. I'm talking about that short stint Rudy had as an interim in 1991-92 after Chaney got fired.

They started off 11-4, went 0-5 with Hakeem suspended and then finished 5-5 when Hakeem came back although it was said team morale was really down once Hakeem came back after the suspension and Hakeem had demanded a trade as well.

Spoiler:

The Rockets were 11-4 after 15 games under Tomjanovich before a controversy involving center Hakeem Olajuwon affected the team and it lost 10 of the last 15 games, missing several opportunities to win a playoff berth.

Olajuwon was suspended by the Rockets after refusing to play despite being given medical clearance from a team doctor.

Although Olajuwon has said he wants to be traded, Tomjanovich said he hoped to have Olajuwon in the lineup next season.

"Hakeem is under contract to the Rockets and we are proceeding on that basis," Tomjanovich said. "He's a great player and our relationship has been very good. We've never had any problems. Anything I asked him to do, he did."

In those first 15 games where they went 11-4, they had an ORtg of 111.9, a significant increase from whatever their ORtg with Chaney was. Their ORtg in those 5 games Hakeem missed with the suspension was 102.7. In the 25 games total that Hakeem played under Rudy T, Houston's ORtg was 111.35 (correct me if I'm wrong, I was told to add up all the pts and divide by the total possessions) which is pretty damn good and certainly much better than the offensive results under Chaney. All of this can be attributed to Rudy Tomjanovich structuring the offense in a way that did a better job of utilizing Hakeem to his strengths which helped open up the game for everyone else. You can see an improvement in Hakeem's own offense too. His TS% increases from 54.3 to 57.2 and he was posting better assist numbers mainly because he was being put in a better position to create offense for his teammates and like I said before, the assists don't nearly capture all the offense he'd create. If individual ORtg is what you're interested in, his ORtg rose to 114 (it was 108 under Chaney).

Some quotes below to showcase the changes and improvement within the offense:

Spoiler:

At the 3:15 mark in the link below (credit to sp6runderrated for a handy video), Mike Fratello refers to a talk he had with Rudy T before 1993 game 5 vs LAC and states how the Rockets were known as a PnR team every time down the floor and Rudy changed that.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pg891srkbeE

Olajuwon also had six assists Thursday, helping get Floyd free from outside.

''A lot of our offense goes into Hakeem,'' said coach Rudy Tomjanovich, who has led Houston to a 15-10 record since succeeding the fired Don Chaney on Feb. 18. ''They double-teamed him and he passed it out. That's our game.''

DON CHANEY--JUNE 13, 1988-
FEB. 18, 1992

A team with Hakeem Olajuwon and Otis Thorpe ought to win 50 games by accident.

On track for 41 victories, the Rockets converted easy rider and nice guy Don Chaney from defending coach of the year into an ex-coach.

Running No. 9 in the West and headed for the lottery, they were desperate enough to eat $1.2 million of Chaney's new, three-year contract.

"Don's easiness this year was perceived as a lack of strictness," guard Kenny Smith said.

"Last year when we won 52 games, it was called the freedom to let the players play. But there was no difference."

In the best of times, Chaney was never a match for Vern Maxwell or Sleepy Floyd who kept shooting from the three-point line, at a 30% pace this season. Other teams went inside-out. The Rockets went outside-in.

In Rudy Tomjanovich's debut, Maxwell and Floyd took 12 shots, Olajuwon and Thorpe 28. They won.

See who wins out in the end.

The Rockets are now 5-1 under new Coach Rudy Tomjanovich, giving him an .833 winning percentage, tops among active coaches.

"When you come in, almost in a state of shock like I did, everything is a surprise," Tomjanovich said before the game. "I think it would be tough to be a first-year coach coming in if you had the time to prepare over the summer. The way it's happened to me, it's really learning day to day."

One thing he was stressing, however, was the need for his guards to look inside before shooting from the perimeter.

With the Lakers double-teaming Hakeem Olajuwon on Houston's fourth offensive play, the ball went to Maxwell, who made a three-pointer.

--The Houston Rockets discovering chemistry.
Even before the Hakeem Olajuwon-Charlie Thomas feud, no team squandered as much talent as systematically as these guys who never seemed to grasp one fundamental: Olajuwon and Otis Thorpe should shoot more than Vern Maxwell and Sleepy Floyd do. Let's see how long they remember it this time.

Next season was Rudy T's first full season being named head coach. Olajuwon had worked on his conditioning and offensive game in the summer and he also took his goggles off which helped his shooting. IIRC, I remember reading he worked on his turnaround jumper in particular and finding variations on the spin moves he had perfected from different spots on the floor. There was some roster turnover with the biggest one being the rookie Horry replacing B. Johnson. Even though Horry did not possess a perimeter jumper in his rookie season, he was a valuable piece and an upgrade over Johnson for the reasoning below.

Horry, the No. 11 pick in the 1992 draft (Houston's prize for last
year's foldaroo), is also not a pure shooter -- not yet, anyway. But
after one week of training camp, he knew more about proper floor
spacing and feeding the pivot than any Rocket small forward since
Rodney McCray, who was traded away in 1988.

The Rockets' record is intriguing this season. They started off the season 14-9. They proceeded to lose 7 consecutive games with 4 of those 7 losses being by 20+ pts which called for a team meeting where they emphasized passing, unselfishness and also stressed defense. This marked a turning point and they went 41-11 over the rest of the season. With Olajuwon acting as the clear centerpiece of the offense, Houston had a 112.2 ORtg in that 52 game stretch (not sure if it's correct but that's what I got from the advanced game log page).

Spoiler:

Nothing much changed from what was an ordinary team two years
ago, not until the Rockets endured a seven-game losing streak
early last season. In retrospect that slide was the beginning of
the metamorphosis, the darkness before the light. "In a way it
was probably the best thing that could have happened to a new
coach," Tomjanovich says. "After seven straight losses it's not
hard to get players to commit to a little different way of doing
things." Since the end of that skid the Rockets have gone 57-12,
with two 15-game winning streaks and another string of 10
straight victories.

"Last year, we had a meeting before the All-Star break . . . and we said, 'Let's make a commitment,' " Olajuwon added. "It was a commitment as a team. Instead of saying, 'Why doesn't he pass me the ball?' we encourage each other."

All at once, Hakeem Olajuwon is eligible for the playoffs, the next Dream Team and the United States Armed Forces. His 12th basketball season in America has been his unadulterated best, starting suspiciously with his calling his team owner a coward but concluding spiritedly with his name on almost everyone's most valuable player ballot.

.....
He has had any number of breakthroughs in the past year -- a 14 1/2-hour flight to Tokyo when he and his Rockets boss, both insomniacs, finally shook hands; a clandestine January team meeting when he delivered a rare speech to restore Rocket morale;

......

Since Jan. 10, the Rockets are 41-11, own the best record since the All-Star Gamebreak and are Midwest Division champions for the first time since 1986. Olajuwon, in an early January meeting, told teammates "I am your friend," and not to take his criticisms so personally. It freed them all. The advancement of rookie forward Robert Horry, plus Tomjanovich's declarations that everybody pass, have also made the Rockets a selfless team.

When the Rockets were slumping two seasons ago, Rudy T. succeeded Don Chaney as coach. The players responded with an 11-4 burst.
"But when we lost seven straight in January last season," he recalled, "I told 'em, 'We can't run and gun and hope to score 115 points to win. We can't do it that way. We've got to do it with defense.' They bought it. They committed themselves to defense."
That commitment, according to Olajuwon, was smoothed by Rudy T.'s style. "Communication," said Olajuwon. "He knows how to get his key points across."
Before losing to the Seattle SuperSonics in seven games in the Western Conference semifinals, the Rockets won the Midwest divisional with a 41-11 finish for a 55-27 record, the best in franchise history. Including this season's 15-1 start, the Rockets have won 56 of their last 68 regular-season games. So they're no flash in the pan.

[ronnymac2]

^^^Amazing post man.

[acrossthecourt]

All that says is that Houston wasn't using him correctly, which people have been saying for a while, but you don't get imaginary credit for an alternate world where you are used correctly. Simply put, the results stand on their own, and it's admitting they did have problems on offense.

[Baller2014]

All that says is that Houston wasn't using him correctly, which people have been saying for a while, but you don't get imaginary credit for an alternate world where you are used correctly. Simply put, the results stand on their own, and it's admitting they did have problems on offense.

I wish I could give this post more than a single +1. Totally right. Too often people use the excuse of "it was the coaches fault" or "what if he'd been used better sooner?!" What if Len Bias had lived? What if Walton never got hurt? What if Jason Kidd had learnt to shoot earlier? You get credit for the career that actually happened, not a hypothetical one.

[therealbig3]

All that says is that Houston wasn't using him correctly, which people have been saying for a while, but you don't get imaginary credit for an alternate world where you are used correctly. Simply put, the results stand on their own, and it's admitting they did have problems on offense.

No, you should judge players based on their skillsets (their "goodness"), how easy those skills are to apply to a team situation, and how much you can elevate various team environments. Otherwise, why is anyone mentioning Kevin Garnett at this point?

And if players shouldn't be punished for bad teammates...they shouldn't be punished for bad coaching either.

The career that Hakeem Olajuwon actually had was a pretty fantastic one, where his pre-93 seasons were still fantastic, just not applied in a proper team context, because Don Chaney was kind of dumb and his teammates were coked out and inconsistent. And yeah, he made improvements as a player...but he was still a pretty fantastic player before then (pre-93 Olajuwon was basically on the same level as prime KG and prime Duncan...he was always a much more naturally gifted scorer, but he didn't read defenses the way they did...his defense was always on their level though).

[Baller2014]

I better go redo my top 20 list then to include Derrick Coleman. After all, he had one of the best skill sets, he just never had a coach who taught him to use it properly and consistently. If only he could have had a better coach, who could have reached out to him, then he'd be a top 20 all-time player.

Come on, you can't rank players in this way. I mean, you can, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

[therealbig3]

Posting big stats while losing against teams you should beat is something we need to be very careful about giving too much credit too. Hakeem's Rockets were abnormally bad against the Sonics, and everyone at the time (including Hakeem's own team and coach!) attributed it to the Sonics being very adept at disguising their illegal zone D, so it looked legal. The thing is, that illegal D is now perfectly legal today, which means today's stars have all had to play against it and have had no problems. Hakeem did, and that certainly should make us pause and look at why his normal impact was reduced against the Sonics.

Equating the Rockets losing to Hakeem underperforming is pretty shallow analysis.

And the only time the Rockets had a better SRS than the Sonics and ended up losing was in 1987. Every other time, the Sonics were the better team anyway. In 1987, Hakeem played great...this is also what the media was saying at the time as well. They noted he was harassed by Seattle's defense in game 1, and he was in foul trouble in game 4...but other than that, he played as well as possible, including his brilliant and ATG game 6.

[Baller2014]

A lot of people blame Hakeem for the Rockets having a worse SRS than the Sonics (and other teams). If his impact had been as big as his volume stats suggested, the Rockets would have won more regular season games most years. At any rate, 3-13 is an abnormally bad result even for a team that is marginally better than you, and it was commented on at the time why this discrepancy existed- Seattle's "illegal" zone D.

[therealbig3]

I better go redo my top 20 list then to include Derrick Coleman. After all, he had one of the best skill sets, he just never had a coach who taught him to use it properly and consistently. If only he could have had a better coach, who could have reached out to him, then he'd be a top 20 all-time player.

Come on, you can't rank players in this way. I mean, you can, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

Derrick Coleman was a dog that stopped trying once he got a big contract. That kind of mentality is also part of "skillsets"...BBIQ and what I believe the player is capable of adjusting to plays a pretty big part in my evaluation of a player.

Allen Iverson had a pretty great skillset too...he just never proved to be willing to change his role all that much for the betterment of the team...that plays a pretty big part in where I rank him.

[Baller2014]

A lot of people blame Hakeem and his attitude for some of his underperformance. Ultimately, it's impossible to go inside the mind of a player to know how much he is to blame, and how much it's other factors (like coaches, etc). That's why you should judge them off how they actually played and what they actually did on and off the court and not try to engage in retrospective mind reading about who was to blame for him being this way. Off the court stuff counts against you, you can't waive it away with "well, if his coach had just gotten through to him, he'd have been better adjusted for longer, etc", but so too does on the court underachievement count... as it actually happened. I mean, using your logic we should give Jason Kidd credit as a good 3pt shooter for his whole career, because if things had gone differently, he could have developed the skill sooner, just like how Hakeem could have played differently sooner.

[ThunderDan9]

Bird never won without HCA

Does it really matter? The sample size is less than minimal, because the Celtics almost never had a series without HCA. JB's chart shows only 4 (!) series altogether, and while I don't know exactly, I have a feeling some of these happened after Bird's prime already had ended...

[Baller2014]

HCA is a meaningless metric. The idea behind it, assumedly, is to give players credit for beating the teams they were supposed to, and punish them for losing to teams they should have beaten. Except HCA often doesn't indicate that at all. The 1985 Lakers technically were lower seeded than the Celtics that year, but that is because they lost one single game less. So the team who beat the Celtics without HCA that year was a team who was basically dead even with them (the Lakers SRS was actually 0.01 higher than the Celtics). But it gets worse, because given they had slightly more injuries to key players than the Celtics, the Lakers would likely have had the better regular season record if both teams were healthy. It's just a garbage stat, more a trivia prize than anything indicating individual performance.

Just to take another example. Let's imagine the 1990 Pistons decide to rest all their starters after the first 60 games, so they're fresh for the playoffs. Over the first 60 games the Pistons go 49-11, crushing the NBA. But over the last 22 games the Pistons bench players finish the season 5-17. Technically, Jordan's Bulls would have had HCA in the playoffs when they met the Pistons. Would it really have been remotely reasonable to blame Jordan for losing to a "worse" team though? Obviously not, because when they were at full strength (as they would be in the playoffs) the Pistons were the better team.

[DQuinn1575]

When you consider the heavy team support advantage, it helps put those team based statistics in perspective.

With his minimal in comparison to the other player's team support, Hakeem was better against 50 win teams with HCA and Bird never won without HCA. Bird very much needed that team support to help him succeed in comparison to what Hakeem had for their careers.

These numbers are also skewed to help players who had better team support as well. Having higher ranked all time players & coaching on your roster will naturally increase your odds of team success, which puts stats like this in context.

It doesn't analyze the differences in teammate quality and coaching each player had to get these team based statistics.

Um, bird for hca support much more than Hakeem because bird played better in the regular season than Hakeem.

Birds teammates obviously helped and overall were better than Hakeem's.


Bird joined a 29 win team which added no other starters and took them to 61 wins.


Sent from my iPhone using RealGM Forums

[lukekarts]

Also, while Bird is an all time great player, I wanted to vote for Hakeem Olajuwon.

Larry was a brilliant player and had had no weakness other than athletic ability; but so was Hakeem, who had a sky high basketball intelligence, no weaknesses, the GOAT post game/balance and he was athletic.

He is a better two way anchor and combined individual impact over Bird. Hakeem has a higher peak, better longevity & endurance, and historically bigs are more impactful than wing players who need more help to succeed. He won a championship without an all star, which Bird could not do and struggled without a stacked roster, while losing every time without HCA.

Olajuwon also could be the clear #1 offensive and defensive anchor without depending on teammates, while Bird could defer to McHale for lead scorer duties at times and his entire Celtics roster for defensive duties. Bird was a better passer and three point shooter, but their TS% is comparable in the RS and Olajuwon has better TS% in the playoffs.

Hakeem was also a better stealer and had higher stl% than Bird and he's a center. He's even better than Bird in almost all advanced stats which are flawed and don't account for Hakeem's defensive dominance.

Hakeem was also better in the playoffs and consistently improved while Bird consistently got worse in the postseason.

I very much agree with this post and whilst normally I'd be compelled to write my own, this mirrors almost word for word my argument here so I'm just quoting and +1'ing.

I should clarify however, that whilst the substantial list of points above does read like Hakeem is way better, these differences are actually really minor overall IMO.

[Quotatious]

Okay, so my case for Hakeem is based mostly on three things - one, Olajuwon is a clearly better playoff performer, two, he has better longevity/durability, and three, I think his overall impact was higher because even though Bird's offense was better than Hakeem's offense (at least it's clearly better in the RS, gets closer in the postseason), Hakeem's defense was IMO better than Bird's defense to a greater degree than Bird's offense was better than Olajuwon's offense - unlike Magic, Larry wasn't an extremely consistent playoff performer offensively (he was more versatile than Magic, with his potent jumpshot, but he tended to go hot and cold quite a bit, especially in the early 80s).

I have Hakeem's peak at 5, and in contention with Shaq, LeBron, probably even Wilt, and MAYBE Jordan, for the GOAT peak (although I tend to put Mike quite firmly at the top), and Bird at 9 (have Kareem, Russell and Duncan in between of Olajuwon and Bird), and don't see much of a case for Larry, because he simply wasn't the same kind of an elite two way player as the guys who rank ahead of him on my list were (except for Russ). He was a GOAT caliber offensive player, as was Magic, but defense is also important (overall Bird was above average, clearly had a positive impact on that end of the floor, but not close to to the elite bigs, Jordan or LeBron).

I'm not really that impressed with pre-1984 Bird (at least when I compare him to other top 10 players), because while his all-around game was already there (and he was likely better at D in the early 80s when he played PF), but his scoring was very inconsistent. Bird averaged just 20.5 PPG on 50.5% TS, and had 19.9 PER/16.6 WS/48 over his first 44 playoff games between 1979-80 and 1982-83, and many people still have some doubts about pre-1993 Olajuwon...He averaged 26.5 PPG on 58.0% TS, had 26.0 PER and 22.3 WS/48 in 50 playoff games before the 1992-93 season (so a pretty similar sample size) - that's a HUGE difference, and I think that Olajuwon's poor passing pre-93 is a way, way smaller problem than Bird's relatively poor scoring, considering that both of these guys were #1 options on their teams.
I'm not even sure if pre-84 Bird was a better RS performer than pre-93 Olajuwon, to be honest.

Frankly, I'd also take 1993-95 Olajuwon over 1985-87 (or whatever 3-year stretch you think was his best) Bird. 1993-97 Hakeem and 1984-88 Bird is more or less a wash - I'm not sure who I'd take, but peak and top 3 year stretch, as well as longevity, goes in Olajuwon's favor.

Bird's playoff (and conference in the RS) opponents were on average better than Akeem's, in the 80s, but not nearly enough to justify the difference in terms of production/efficiency between these two guys, so even if Olajuwon's numbers went down a bit against a better competition, he has enough of a surplus value to still be slightly better than early Bird, even after that hypothetical decline. I'm not even sure whether he would really decline that much early on against better competition, as he played extremely well against very tough teams in the mid 90s - he was also a better player in the mid 90s than he was in the 80s, but not by a really big margin (like some of the most ardent Hakeem backers like 90sAllDecade or ronnymac have said repeatedly) thus I doubt he could expect a huge decline early on.
Obviously numbers don't tell the whole story with Bird, as his insane basketball IQ allowed him to make CRITICAL plays in the most important moments of a game, but they don't tell the whole story about Olajuwon, either, because of what he brought to the table defensively. RAPM would tell us much more about that. Yeah, I can dream...

So, ultimately I think that pre-93 Hakeem was quite decisively better than pre-84 (or post-88, because of injuries) Bird, Hakeem peaked higher, had the better top 3-year stretch, and equal 5 year stretch (so a better peak and longevity, primes are somewhat debatable).

I don't want to say that it isn't close (it is), or anyone seeing my post as biased (i LOVE watching Bird's tape because I really appreciate unorthodox players who have that "genius" or "savant" quality, and Bird is absolutely one of the top guys in this regard - like Chuck Texas said, Bird might even look like the GOAT if you based your opinion on the eye-test), but to me, trying to look at it objectively, it's close yet clear that Olajuwon should get the upper hand.

^^^Amazing post man.

Indeed. I'd love to see Double Clutch post much more often. Also I'm really glad that ShaqAttack decided to participate.

I haven't been very active in the project thus far cause even though the discussion has been fantastic, it makes me a bit depressed when I constantly have to learn how much stuff I had no clue about before. Outstanding job guys.

[penbeast0]

Looks like either Bird or Olajuwon will go here. Almost safe to say whoever isn't voted in now will likely be voted in at 10 or 11 at the latest since these 2 are the last of the truly elite players. #11 and #12 will bring a flood of players.

Yeh, almost every single Bird/Hakeem voter has said "this is between Bird and Hakeem for me". Whoever wins, I think we should adopt a lax approach about the discussion in the next thread, and let people talk about candidates up for nomination at the #11 spot a little bit. Otherwise we're going to get 2 days of waiting for Bird/Hakeem to officially win by 20+ votes, and it's going to get deadly dull having to talk about Hakeem/Bird when 90% of voters agree he belongs there.

I think if Bird get in, many of his supporters (the offense is more important than defense guys) will switch over to another offensive superstar, Kobe, Oscar, Dr. J etc. Whether they coalesce around a single guy is iffier. If Hakeem gets in, I am curious as to how many of his supporters slide over to the Garnett camp which has been the main defensive superstar alternative offered to this point. I think you are right and the loser here will get in but I hope it's not as clear cut as you think.