more impressive: 1 chip with 0 hofers or 11 with 2-5 hofers?

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

if you miss a shot it gives the other team an opportunity to get a defensive rebound. it's better to put the ball in the basket the first time. you'd also have to watch every single game every single player ever played to come up with a statistic that applies the same standard to everyone, not just moses. also, is it 1 or 2? makes a big difference as to what someone's field goal percentage would look like. this is a perfect example of over complicating statistics to the point of borderline absurdity

I am not seriously suggesting changing the stats but Malone (and perhaps Drummond) sometimes are not concerned with the accuracy of their first shot because they know they are getting the rebound. Throwing up a shot can give a player the opportunity to repost deeper against a less set defense. But the player has to know that they have the strength to push the defenders out of the way on the rebound.

It was also good for foul drawing.

In a situation where Moses knows he has an 75% chance of getting the rebound and 75% percent chance of either scoring on the follow up shot or getting fouled, then putting up a FG 32% first shot is fine. Put up 100 shots like that, 32 go in, of the 68 that miss he gets 51 rebounds. On those rebounds between made shots free throws and and ones he hits the equivalent 34 more shots for a equivalent TS% of TS 66% and he gets the defenders in foul trouble and the opposing team into the penalty. But on paper he is racking up rebounds while shooting TS%39 on those shots that are semi-intentional misses.

that's nice. hakeem had a 66 ts% in the 87 playoffs and averaged per 100 possessions 5.5 more points, 1.3 more assists, and 3.2 more blocks than moses in 83 during his chip run. hakeem then came back next year in the playoffs and had a 64 ts% and averaged per 100 possessions 14.7 more points, 1.4 more rebounds, .3 more assists, 1.0 more steals, and 1.0 more blocks than moses in his 83 chip run. the year after moses's chip run he averaged 8 less points per 100 possessions and his ts% was 3.6 lower with the sixers. the next year with the sixers moses averaged 9 less points per 100 possessions than hakeem in the 86 playoffs and his ts% was 5.7 points lower. long story short, hakeem's 3 year playoff peak gives those sixers a better chance of winning multiple titles

Sorry if I hijacked your thread. With off topic thoughts about Moses.

That wasn't about Hakeem vs Moses.

I actually am a Hakeem supporter. Hakeem vs Duncan is not a contest to me. Hakeem wins. I liked watching Hakeem more than watching Shaq but that is a contest to me. Some people say Shaq is clearly better than Hakeem. I don't agree.

I think Wilt was better than Russell. You can't do time travel although I am about as pro eye test and time travel thought experiments as anybody. Wilt vs Hakeem is a contest to me. I favor Hakeem over Wilt if I drop them into the current time period. But I am not sure Hakeem is better than Wilt. Young Kareem was pretty springy. People point out Kareem had success vs young Hakeem. Kareem vs Hakeem is a contest for o me. I Have Hakeem over Robinson and Hakeem over Russell. Hakeem vs Walton is not a contest to me and Hakeem wins that. So, I am more pro Hakeem than most Realgm's are.

That still does not make Hakeem's 2 championships a bigger accomplishment than Russell's 11 championships.

[post]

Sikma got in so that gives the Sonics 2 guys. Neither one of them were truly elite. Gus Williams and Freddy Brown had their moments. Silas has 3 rings.

Draymond and Klay might not make the Hall.

I guess the OP ("Post") thought Russell was overrated but the OP did find 2 rare cases of single Hall of Famer champions.
Duncan might be a single Hall of Famer champion if Ginobili and Parker don't get in the Hall. I am betting Manu gets in the Hall.

gus williams was seattle's leading scorer in the 79 playoffs chip run averaging 26.7 ppg, 6 more than johnson and 12 more than sikma. i'd call that more than "having a moment"

But Isn’t that the exact description of ‘having a moment?’ He had it on the big stage when it was most important.

he was also the teams leading scorer in the regular season. on seattle from 79-84 in the playoffs he was very good, peaking at 32.5 ppg in 83

[michaelm]

gus williams was seattle's leading scorer in the 79 playoffs chip run averaging 26.7 ppg, 6 more than johnson and 12 more than sikma. i'd call that more than "having a moment"

But Isn’t that the exact description of ‘having a moment?’ He had it on the big stage when it was most important.

he was also the teams leading scorer in the regular season. on seattle from 79-84 in the playoffs he was very good, peaking at 32.5 ppg in 83

You do realise that there are important aspects of NBA basketball other than individual player ppg?.

[post]

russell's pace adjusted assist stats are similar to hakeem's. i didn't say it's about flashy passes. but flashy passes show a lot of skill in creating opportunity that might not have been there otherwise. if hakeem had to play russell's role in boston's offense he had enough vision and iq to play that role consistently based on eye test

a peak by definiton is a small sample size. hakeem was always a great post scorer. and saying the only advantage his older self had is offensive rebounding is not intelligent when you just said you think he was a better passer in the 90's. it's also not smart because the stats clearly say he was a better offensive rebounder in the 80's. he had more athleticism in the 80's. you don't know what you are talking about

wilt's numbers dropped a lot vs. the celtics. hakeem played against the number 1 rated defense once in the playoffs during his peak and so did kareem and they both lost. hakeem took bird's celtics to 6 games and kareem got swept by walton's blazers. kareem also never won anything without having a goat caliber pg, oscar and magic. hakeem dominated one of the goat offensive and defensive centers, david robinson, when both were in their prime in the playoffs. shaq was less dominate against an old robinson in the playoffs during shaq's peak and shaq had the good fortune of playing with a goat caliber sg in kobe so he never had to carry the offensive load hakeem did. and the nets in 02 had no center despite leading the league in defensive rating

no, there are not defensive rating stats for bill russell individually. his pace adjusted blocks are not that different than hakeem's

cousy was a great passer in the 60's and made it a lot easier for russell and everyone else to score. cousy shot 34.2% in the playoffs for his career. in his last two playoff years he shot 35.7 and 35.3. you are simply wrong

https://www.basketball-reference.com/players/c/cousybo01.html

drexler was much less efficient in the 96 playoffs when hakeem was going for the 3peat whereas havlicek increased his efficiency every year after the 66 playoffs. russell finished 4th, 5th, 2nd, 2nd, 1st, 3rd, 4th, 3rd, 3rd, 4th, and 7th on his team in playoff ppg in the years he won chips. that means on average he was the 3-4th best scorer on his team during chip runs. he was carried to an incredible degree as a scorer. it is almost impossible houston's rockets at any point in hakeem's career could've carried him to such an immense degree if at all

11 ppg and 10 rpg on 57%, what thorpe did in the 94 playoffs, is not all star level. it's very good role player level

Flashy passes don't show that... Consistency in finding good opportunities or even better - creating these opportunities are what makes player a great passer. Russell was never ATG passer, but he had that feel and he could find open guys in transition or in high post consistently. Hakeem didn't do that as well, especially early in his career. He missed a lot of good opportunities and he was quite turnover prone. He improved as a passer later, but we're talking about him replacing Russell so his early weaknesses are also important. Hakeem was never great passer, he was a poor one who developed into decent one.

Also, assist numbers don't tell anything about player's ability to pass the ball. You should know that.

I said that his only advantage OVER his older self is offensive rebounding, meaning that young Hakeem was worse at everything offensively except offensive rebounding. I'm not a native English speaker but I thought what I said is clear. Old Hakeem was better scorer, passer, playmaker and shooter. Younger Hakeem was better offensive rebounder. I got everything right here...

Here are numbers of 1960-68 Wilt, 1970-80 Kareem, 1986-96 Hakeem and 1994-04 Shaq against -4 rDRtg defenses or better:

Wilt Chamberlain (42 playoffs games): 47.5 mpg, 28.5 rpg, 4.3 apg, 28.1 ppg on 50.8% FG, 50.6% FT, 52.2% TS (+3.84 rTS%)
Kareem Abdul-Jabbar (25 playoffs games): 44.1 mpg, 15.9 rpg, 4.1 apg, 33.3 ppg on 54.5% FG, 72.2% FT, 56.9% TS (+5.28 rTS%)
Shaquille O'Neal (48 playoffs games): 41.1 mpg, 13.3 rpg, 2.9 apg, 3.3 tov, 26.9 ppg on 55.8% FG, 53.5% FT and 56.9% TS (+4.59% rTS)
Hakeem Olajuwon (17 playoffs games): 42.0 mpg, 10.2 rpg, 3.1 apg, 3.4 tov, 24.1 ppg on 48.9% FG, 75.2% FT and 53.9% TS (+0.30% rTS)

Hakeem played by far the least amount of games against elite defenses, he also had clearly the weakest boxscore production against them. Funny that you mentioned 1986 finals, as Hakeem wasn't dominant in this series - 25 ppg on 53% and only 1.8 apg with almost 3 turnovers is nothing to dream about. Especially when you compare that Kareem dominated Blazers (and Kareem had much worse team).

We don't have Russell's blocks numbers, so you don't know that. I'm saying that Russell's teams were far more dominant defensively than Hakeem's, far more than any other in NBA history. Hakeem's defensive impact isn't close to Russell's.

So it's good for Cousy that he shot 35% FG because that's his playoffs average? What is this logic about? When you are always poor scorer, then you can be poor because it doesn't matter? No, I'm not wrong - Cousy had his value as a passer but his scoring was so terrible that it didn't make him elite (or even very good) offensive player.

If Russell's teammates were so good offensively then why Celtics were always among the worst offensive teams in the league? Certainly not because his HoF teammates were that great...

in his playoff career hakeem averaged 7.2 points per 36 minutes more than russell and russell averaged 1.8 assists more. 7 points is more valuable than 2 assists. 2 assists is only leading to 4 points which is less than 7. playing at a faster pace hakeem's numbers would be even higher if he played in russell's time

i made a mistake on this, but the mistake only made russell look better. hakeem actually averaged 10.7 more points per 36 minutes than russell in their playoff careers and russell only averaged .8 assists per 36 minutes more than hakeem in their playoff careers. so hakeem is producing 9 points per 36 more than russell in their playoff careers and that's not even adjusted for pace which favors hakeem even more. russell was also a bad foul shooter even for his time at 60% in the playoffs. whereas hakeem was a respectable foul shooter for a center at 72%. russell also only shot 1 point above average from the field in the regular season relative to his league average whereas hakeem shot 4.7 points above average from the field relative to his league average. and russell's field goal percentage dropped 1 point in his playoff career whereas hakeem increased his field goal percentage 1.6 points in the playoffs

[post]

But Isn’t that the exact description of ‘having a moment?’ He had it on the big stage when it was most important.

he was also the teams leading scorer in the regular season. on seattle from 79-84 in the playoffs he was very good, peaking at 32.5 ppg in 83

You do realise that there are important aspects of NBA basketball other than individual player ppg?.

i see no good reason why gus williams is not in the hall of fame when you look at him as an overall player compared to both dennis johnson and jack sikma. sikma only won 1 chip like williams. johnson was fortunate to play with bird, mchale, and parish. he wasn't even a top 3 player on those boston teams

[michaelm]

he was also the teams leading scorer in the regular season. on seattle from 79-84 in the playoffs he was very good, peaking at 32.5 ppg in 83

You do realise that there are important aspects of NBA basketball other than individual player ppg?.

i see no good reason why gus williams is not in the hall of fame when you look at him as an overall player compared to both dennis johnson and jack sikma. sikma only won 1 chip like williams. johnson was fortunate to play with bird, mchale, and parish. he wasn't even a top 3 player on those boston teams

You appear to have only 2 indices of player quality, membership of the Hall of Fame and individual ppg. Neither operates independently of context as has repeatedly been pointed out to you, and in particular in regard to the latter the only thing which matters in terms of the result of actual NBA games is team ppg for and against, not which individual player scores the team's points.

[post]

I am not seriously suggesting changing the stats but Malone (and perhaps Drummond) sometimes are not concerned with the accuracy of their first shot because they know they are getting the rebound. Throwing up a shot can give a player the opportunity to repost deeper against a less set defense. But the player has to know that they have the strength to push the defenders out of the way on the rebound.

It was also good for foul drawing.

In a situation where Moses knows he has an 75% chance of getting the rebound and 75% percent chance of either scoring on the follow up shot or getting fouled, then putting up a FG 32% first shot is fine. Put up 100 shots like that, 32 go in, of the 68 that miss he gets 51 rebounds. On those rebounds between made shots free throws and and ones he hits the equivalent 34 more shots for a equivalent TS% of TS 66% and he gets the defenders in foul trouble and the opposing team into the penalty. But on paper he is racking up rebounds while shooting TS%39 on those shots that are semi-intentional misses.

that's nice. hakeem had a 66 ts% in the 87 playoffs and averaged per 100 possessions 5.5 more points, 1.3 more assists, and 3.2 more blocks than moses in 83 during his chip run. hakeem then came back next year in the playoffs and had a 64 ts% and averaged per 100 possessions 14.7 more points, 1.4 more rebounds, .3 more assists, 1.0 more steals, and 1.0 more blocks than moses in his 83 chip run. the year after moses's chip run he averaged 8 less points per 100 possessions and his ts% was 3.6 lower with the sixers. the next year with the sixers moses averaged 9 less points per 100 possessions than hakeem in the 86 playoffs and his ts% was 5.7 points lower. long story short, hakeem's 3 year playoff peak gives those sixers a better chance of winning multiple titles

Sorry if I hijacked your thread. With off topic thoughts about Moses.

That wasn't about Hakeem vs Moses.

I actually am a Hakeem supporter. Hakeem vs Duncan is not a contest to me. Hakeem wins. I liked watching Hakeem more than watching Shaq but that is a contest to me. Some people say Shaq is clearly better than Hakeem. I don't agree.

I think Wilt was better than Russell. You can't do time travel although I am about as pro eye test and time travel thought experiments as anybody. Wilt vs Hakeem is a contest to me. I favor Hakeem over Wilt if I drop them into the current time period. But I am not sure Hakeem is better than Wilt. Young Kareem was pretty springy. People point out Kareem had success vs young Hakeem. Kareem vs Hakeem is a contest for o me. I Have Hakeem over Robinson and Hakeem over Russell. Hakeem vs Walton is not a contest to me and Hakeem wins that. So, I am more pro Hakeem than most Realgm's are.

That still does not make Hakeem's 2 championships a bigger accomplishment than Russell's 11 championships.

shaq and wilt are horrible free throw shooters

hakeem and kareem didn't guard each other when sampson was on houston. after sampson was traded in december of 87 hakeem faced kareem 8 times in 88 and 89 before kareem retired. hakeem outscored kareem by an average of 9.65 ppg. the idea that old kareem hung with young hakeem isn't based on much

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

You would think Ralph Sampson would be the ideal guy to defend the skyhook. Sampson had so much length and mobility.

For Hakeem's first 2 years (Sampson's 2nd and 3rd year) Kareem (age 36 and 37) regularly lit up the Rockets.
Kareem must have been motivated when playing these hyped young stud big men. Kareem could be very passive in the 1980s if nothing woke him up.

You say Sampson guarded Kareem. I believe you. Kareem wasn't that physical therefore the more physical Hakeem would not be needed to guard Kareem, except that as Dave Cowens, showed, even though Kareem was not that physical in how he scored, getting physical against Kareem could bother Kareem.

Age 38 through 40 Kareem did not do much against Hakeem.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id1_hint=Kareem+Abdul-Jabbar&player_id1_select=Kareem+Abdul-Jabbar&player_id1=abdulka01&idx=players&player_id2_hint=Hakeem+Olajuwon&player_id2_select=Hakeem+Olajuwon&player_id2=olajuha01&idx=players

[70sFan]

that's nice. hakeem had a 66 ts% in the 87 playoffs and averaged per 100 possessions 5.5 more points, 1.3 more assists, and 3.2 more blocks than moses in 83 during his chip run. hakeem then came back next year in the playoffs and had a 64 ts% and averaged per 100 possessions 14.7 more points, 1.4 more rebounds, .3 more assists, 1.0 more steals, and 1.0 more blocks than moses in his 83 chip run. the year after moses's chip run he averaged 8 less points per 100 possessions and his ts% was 3.6 lower with the sixers. the next year with the sixers moses averaged 9 less points per 100 possessions than hakeem in the 86 playoffs and his ts% was 5.7 points lower. long story short, hakeem's 3 year playoff peak gives those sixers a better chance of winning multiple titles

Sorry if I hijacked your thread. With off topic thoughts about Moses.

That wasn't about Hakeem vs Moses.

I actually am a Hakeem supporter. Hakeem vs Duncan is not a contest to me. Hakeem wins. I liked watching Hakeem more than watching Shaq but that is a contest to me. Some people say Shaq is clearly better than Hakeem. I don't agree.

I think Wilt was better than Russell. You can't do time travel although I am about as pro eye test and time travel thought experiments as anybody. Wilt vs Hakeem is a contest to me. I favor Hakeem over Wilt if I drop them into the current time period. But I am not sure Hakeem is better than Wilt. Young Kareem was pretty springy. People point out Kareem had success vs young Hakeem. Kareem vs Hakeem is a contest for o me. I Have Hakeem over Robinson and Hakeem over Russell. Hakeem vs Walton is not a contest to me and Hakeem wins that. So, I am more pro Hakeem than most Realgm's are.

That still does not make Hakeem's 2 championships a bigger accomplishment than Russell's 11 championships.

shaq and wilt are horrible free throw shooters

hakeem and kareem didn't guard each other when sampson was on houston. after sampson was traded in december of 87 hakeem faced kareem 8 times in 88 and 89 before kareem retired. hakeem outscored kareem by an average of 9.65 ppg. the idea that old kareem hung with young hakeem isn't based on much

Sampson guarded Kareem in playoffs because Hakeem was always destroyed one on one on defense by old Jabbar:

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

But sure, Kareem didn't do it anymore when he was past 40. Nobody was that good at that age, even Kareem.

[post]

You would think Ralph Sampson would be the ideal guy to defend the skyhook. Sampson had so much length and mobility.

For Hakeem's first 2 years (Sampson's 2nd and 3rd year) Kareem (age 36 and 37) regularly lit up the Rockets.
Kareem must have been motivated when playing these hyped young stud big men. Kareem could be very passive in the 1980s if nothing woke him up.

You say Sampson guarded Kareem. I believe you. Kareem wasn't that physical therefore the more physical Hakeem would not be needed to guard Kareem, except that as Dave Cowens, showed, even though Kareem was not that physical in how he scored, getting physical against Kareem could bother Kareem.

Age 38 through 40 Kareem did not do much against Hakeem.

https://www.basketball-reference.com/play-index/h2h_finder.cgi?request=1&player_id1_hint=Kareem+Abdul-Jabbar&player_id1_select=Kareem+Abdul-Jabbar&player_id1=abdulka01&idx=players&player_id2_hint=Hakeem+Olajuwon&player_id2_select=Hakeem+Olajuwon&player_id2=olajuha01&idx=players

sampson is 7'4". kareem 7'2". hakeem 7'0" but it's been said he's really 6'10" or 6'11". either way it would make more sense to play sampson on kareem because hakeem is quicker and at less of a disadvantage guarding power forwards. you could make the argument hakeem was really more of a power forward overall

Sorry if I hijacked your thread. With off topic thoughts about Moses.

That wasn't about Hakeem vs Moses.

I actually am a Hakeem supporter. Hakeem vs Duncan is not a contest to me. Hakeem wins. I liked watching Hakeem more than watching Shaq but that is a contest to me. Some people say Shaq is clearly better than Hakeem. I don't agree.

I think Wilt was better than Russell. You can't do time travel although I am about as pro eye test and time travel thought experiments as anybody. Wilt vs Hakeem is a contest to me. I favor Hakeem over Wilt if I drop them into the current time period. But I am not sure Hakeem is better than Wilt. Young Kareem was pretty springy. People point out Kareem had success vs young Hakeem. Kareem vs Hakeem is a contest for o me. I Have Hakeem over Robinson and Hakeem over Russell. Hakeem vs Walton is not a contest to me and Hakeem wins that. So, I am more pro Hakeem than most Realgm's are.

That still does not make Hakeem's 2 championships a bigger accomplishment than Russell's 11 championships.

shaq and wilt are horrible free throw shooters

hakeem and kareem didn't guard each other when sampson was on houston. after sampson was traded in december of 87 hakeem faced kareem 8 times in 88 and 89 before kareem retired. hakeem outscored kareem by an average of 9.65 ppg. the idea that old kareem hung with young hakeem isn't based on much

Sampson guarded Kareem in playoffs because Hakeem was always destroyed one on one on defense by old Jabbar:

Watch on YouTube

Watch on YouTube

But sure, Kareem didn't do it anymore when he was past 40. Nobody was that good at that age, even Kareem.

if you want to be really accurate, you'd have to watch every single possession of every single game during the regular season between 84-86 to see exactly how many times sampson or hakeem was guarding kareem because they took turns. also, it looks like houston should've doubled kareem sometimes instead of leaving olajuwon alone on an island but the lakers were a much better team than houston from 84-86 so they probably didn't want to leave the lakers many capable scorers other than kareem open. and yet still houston beat them in the 86 western conference finals. why? various factors, but hakeem certainly outplayed kareem in that series

84-86 jabbar was putting up similar point per 36 numbers and shooting percentage numbers as he was in the 70's throughout the regular season. so he was older but effectively the same level of a scorer and shooter. it's not like he was a bum in 84-86 and putting up big numbers against houston. his rebounding and defense had declined a lot compared to the 70's so he was being asked to do less overall when they played against the rockets

overall, it's really hard to make comparisons this way especially when they only played 23 regular season games against each other their entire careers. kareem won more in the regular season vs hakeem but hakeem beating kareem and outplaying him in the playoffs with a worse team matters more

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

In the videos above Hakeem looks confused. Hakeem is inexperienced.
Why is Hakeem repeatedly acting like he thinks he is going to steal the entry pass. Did Fitch tell him to steal the entry pass. If Hakeem is trying to steal the entry pass he better fully commit to stealing the entry pass. Maybe Hakeem is trying to get a body on Kareem further from the hoop. I don't see Hakeem being physical. That isn't Dave Cowen's version of getting a body on Kareem further from the hoop. Maybe Hakeem is trying to force Kareem to the baseline but Hakeem is giving Kareem the baseline side. Hakeem doesn't look that alert and motivated on defense. He also looks inexperienced.

[SinceGatlingWasARookie]

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-02-07-sp-5349-story.html

"By THOMAS BONK
FEB. 7, 1986 12 AM
TIMES STAFF WRITER
HOUSTON — What is the best way to defend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar? Certainly not the way the Houston Rockets did it Thursday night when they put one player on him. That was about 11 players too few.
While Akeem Olajuwon spent the whole game trying to steal the ball from Abdul-Jabbar, the Laker center spent the whole game throwing down a breathtaking series of hook shots on his way to a 46-point explosion.

So it wasn’t too surprising that the Lakers won easily, taking a 117-95 decision from the Rockets, whose home record was a lot better than their defensive strategy on Abdul-Jabbar."

....


“Akeem made some bad decisions on defense trying to go for steals,” said Fitch, who nevertheless, since becoming coach of the Rockets, has always insisted that Abdul-Jabbar be guarded by one defender.

Abdul-Jabbar was charitable when he spoke of Olajuwon’s defense.

“What he tried didn’t work at all for him,” said Abdul-Jabbar, who also had 11 rebounds. “I know he can play a whole lot better than that.”


For some reason, Rocket Coach Bill Fitch thinks it is a good idea to let Olajuwon go one-on-one with Abdul-Jabbar. It proved to be the biggest coaching blunder in any Laker game this season.

[post]

In the videos above Hakeem looks confused. Hakeem is inexperienced.
Why is Hakeem repeatedly acting like he thinks he is going to steal the entry pass. Did Fitch tell him to steal the entry pass. If Hakeem is trying to steal the entry pass he better fully commit to stealing the entry pass. Maybe Hakeem is trying to get a body on Kareem further from the hoop. I don't see Hakeem being physical. That isn't Dave Cowen's version of getting a body on Kareem further from the hoop. Maybe Hakeem is trying to force Kareem to the baseline but Hakeem is giving Kareem the baseline side. Hakeem doesn't look that alert and motivated on defense. He also looks inexperienced.

hakeem was really good at getting steals different ways. he had 4 in that 46 point kareem game. if you watch the first video closely kareem is scoring on sampson multiple times too

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1986-02-07-sp-5349-story.html

"By THOMAS BONK
FEB. 7, 1986 12 AM
TIMES STAFF WRITER
HOUSTON — What is the best way to defend Kareem Abdul-Jabbar? Certainly not the way the Houston Rockets did it Thursday night when they put one player on him. That was about 11 players too few.
While Akeem Olajuwon spent the whole game trying to steal the ball from Abdul-Jabbar, the Laker center spent the whole game throwing down a breathtaking series of hook shots on his way to a 46-point explosion.

So it wasn’t too surprising that the Lakers won easily, taking a 117-95 decision from the Rockets, whose home record was a lot better than their defensive strategy on Abdul-Jabbar."

....


“Akeem made some bad decisions on defense trying to go for steals,” said Fitch, who nevertheless, since becoming coach of the Rockets, has always insisted that Abdul-Jabbar be guarded by one defender.

Abdul-Jabbar was charitable when he spoke of Olajuwon’s defense.

“What he tried didn’t work at all for him,” said Abdul-Jabbar, who also had 11 rebounds. “I know he can play a whole lot better than that.”


For some reason, Rocket Coach Bill Fitch thinks it is a good idea to let Olajuwon go one-on-one with Abdul-Jabbar. It proved to be the biggest coaching blunder in any Laker game this season.

if you're not going to double kareem there has to be better help defense if hakeem goes for a steal. it can't be getting there late or not at all. hakeem was a better help defender than sampson. seems to me to make more sense to utilize hakeem in that role vs jabbar if you have a 7'4" guy like sampson. hakeem also upped his game in the playoffs throughout his career so judging him based on regular season performance is not the best way to see his value against anybody

[post]

Well, quality of basketball HoF isn't that high, so it's possible that at some point Horry will make it. He was very good player that was very useful on good teams. That doesn't make him star or anything but sometimes this kind of player is better than 20 ppg scorer.

BTW, Horry is definitely as much of a HoF-level player as Tommy Heinsohn, Tom Sanders or KC Jones. He just played later and that's the difference between them.

tom sanders made the hall as a contributor, not a player. kc jones might not be a "real" hofer, but he was known as a very good defensive player and lead the celtics in assists 3 years in the regular season and once in the playoffs. horry was 5th on the rockets in assists both years he won with hakeem. heinsohn not only lead boston in scoring for four of their chips, two of those years during the playoffs he scored at a rate that would've been 3rd and 6th in the nba during the regular season. there's a quite obvious difference between what heinsohn and horry contributed to their respective teams

so who were the real hofers russell had. i'd say at bare minimum cousy, sharman, havlicek, and sam jones. he always had at least two of these guys. adding in guys like howell and heinsohn, who have good cases for the hall, and then ramsey, kc jones, sanders, etc. just gave boston a depth advantage no team could match

[70sFan]

Well, quality of basketball HoF isn't that high, so it's possible that at some point Horry will make it. He was very good player that was very useful on good teams. That doesn't make him star or anything but sometimes this kind of player is better than 20 ppg scorer.

BTW, Horry is definitely as much of a HoF-level player as Tommy Heinsohn, Tom Sanders or KC Jones. He just played later and that's the difference between them.

tom sanders made the hall as a contributor, not a player. kc jones might not be a "real" hofer, but he was known as a very good defensive player and lead the celtics in assists 3 years in the regular season and once in the playoffs. horry was 5th on the rockets in assists both years he won with hakeem. heinsohn not only lead boston in scoring for four of their chips, two of those years during the playoffs he scored at a rate that would've been 3rd and 6th in the nba during the regular season. there's a quite obvious difference between what heinsohn and horry contributed to their respective teams

so who were the real hofers russell had. i'd say at bare minimum cousy, sharman, havlicek, and sam jones. he always had at least two of these guys. adding in guys like howell and heinsohn, who have good cases for the hall, and then ramsey, kc jones, sanders, etc. just gave boston a depth advantage no team could match

Sorry but I don't have any interest in debating with a guy who don't want to change his opinion. Especially when this guy doesn't have the same knowledge against certain topic (1960s basketball).

[post]

Well, quality of basketball HoF isn't that high, so it's possible that at some point Horry will make it. He was very good player that was very useful on good teams. That doesn't make him star or anything but sometimes this kind of player is better than 20 ppg scorer.

BTW, Horry is definitely as much of a HoF-level player as Tommy Heinsohn, Tom Sanders or KC Jones. He just played later and that's the difference between them.

tom sanders made the hall as a contributor, not a player. kc jones might not be a "real" hofer, but he was known as a very good defensive player and lead the celtics in assists 3 years in the regular season and once in the playoffs. horry was 5th on the rockets in assists both years he won with hakeem. heinsohn not only lead boston in scoring for four of their chips, two of those years during the playoffs he scored at a rate that would've been 3rd and 6th in the nba during the regular season. there's a quite obvious difference between what heinsohn and horry contributed to their respective teams

so who were the real hofers russell had. i'd say at bare minimum cousy, sharman, havlicek, and sam jones. he always had at least two of these guys. adding in guys like howell and heinsohn, who have good cases for the hall, and then ramsey, kc jones, sanders, etc. just gave boston a depth advantage no team could match

Sorry but I don't have any interest in debating with a guy who don't want to change his opinion. Especially when this guy doesn't have the same knowledge against certain topic (1960s basketball).

i'm arguing a position, not necessarily an opinion. it doesn't really matter to me one way or another. i'm making a case that i think is strong. i have no emotional attachment here. i wasn't even a houston fan growing up. i just appreciated hakeem's game

i know more than most people born in the 80's or later about 50's-60's basketball. i know boston had so much depth in the 59 playoffs frank ramsey, a "questionable" hall of famer, could lead boston in the playoffs in scoring at a rate that would've been 6th in the nba during the regular season and a field goal percentage that would've been 1st. that's quite extraordinary when you think about it. i know the team boston swept in the finals that year had 2 official hofers, elgin baylor and vern mikkelsen, and boston had 7

[post]

You do realise that there are important aspects of NBA basketball other than individual player ppg?.

i see no good reason why gus williams is not in the hall of fame when you look at him as an overall player compared to both dennis johnson and jack sikma. sikma only won 1 chip like williams. johnson was fortunate to play with bird, mchale, and parish. he wasn't even a top 3 player on those boston teams

You appear to have only 2 indices of player quality, membership of the Hall of Fame and individual ppg. Neither operates independently of context as has repeatedly been pointed out to you, and in particular in regard to the latter the only thing which matters in terms of the result of actual NBA games is team ppg for and against, not which individual player scores the team's points.

Well, quality of basketball HoF isn't that high, so it's possible that at some point Horry will make it. He was very good player that was very useful on good teams. That doesn't make him star or anything but sometimes this kind of player is better than 20 ppg scorer.

BTW, Horry is definitely as much of a HoF-level player as Tommy Heinsohn, Tom Sanders or KC Jones. He just played later and that's the difference between them.

tom sanders made the hall as a contributor, not a player. kc jones might not be a "real" hofer, but he was known as a very good defensive player and lead the celtics in assists 3 years in the regular season and once in the playoffs. horry was 5th on the rockets in assists both years he won with hakeem. heinsohn not only lead boston in scoring for four of their chips, two of those years during the playoffs he scored at a rate that would've been 3rd and 6th in the nba during the regular season. there's a quite obvious difference between what heinsohn and horry contributed to their respective teams

so who were the real hofers russell had. i'd say at bare minimum cousy, sharman, havlicek, and sam jones. he always had at least two of these guys. adding in guys like howell and heinsohn, who have good cases for the hall, and then ramsey, kc jones, sanders, etc. just gave boston a depth advantage no team could match

Sorry but I don't have any interest in debating with a guy who don't want to change his opinion. Especially when this guy doesn't have the same knowledge against certain topic (1960s basketball).

explain to me why both teams boston beat in the 57 and 59 finals for russell's first 2 chips had a negative srs. doesn't that indicate the teams boston beat were garbage. is olajuwon's 1 chip with zero hofers really worth 2 rings when you consider russell's celtics beat a couple terrible teams early in his career

[70sFan]

i see no good reason why gus williams is not in the hall of fame when you look at him as an overall player compared to both dennis johnson and jack sikma. sikma only won 1 chip like williams. johnson was fortunate to play with bird, mchale, and parish. he wasn't even a top 3 player on those boston teams

You appear to have only 2 indices of player quality, membership of the Hall of Fame and individual ppg. Neither operates independently of context as has repeatedly been pointed out to you, and in particular in regard to the latter the only thing which matters in terms of the result of actual NBA games is team ppg for and against, not which individual player scores the team's points.

tom sanders made the hall as a contributor, not a player. kc jones might not be a "real" hofer, but he was known as a very good defensive player and lead the celtics in assists 3 years in the regular season and once in the playoffs. horry was 5th on the rockets in assists both years he won with hakeem. heinsohn not only lead boston in scoring for four of their chips, two of those years during the playoffs he scored at a rate that would've been 3rd and 6th in the nba during the regular season. there's a quite obvious difference between what heinsohn and horry contributed to their respective teams

so who were the real hofers russell had. i'd say at bare minimum cousy, sharman, havlicek, and sam jones. he always had at least two of these guys. adding in guys like howell and heinsohn, who have good cases for the hall, and then ramsey, kc jones, sanders, etc. just gave boston a depth advantage no team could match

Sorry but I don't have any interest in debating with a guy who don't want to change his opinion. Especially when this guy doesn't have the same knowledge against certain topic (1960s basketball).

explain to me why both teams boston beat in the 57 and 59 finals for russell's first 2 chips had a negative srs. doesn't that indicate the teams boston beat were garbage. is olajuwon's 1 chip with zero hofers really worth 2 rings when you consider russell's celtics beat a couple terrible teams early in his career

Because in smaller league SRS are scaled differently. You can be around 0 SRS and be contender in small league. Back then you didn't have teams that were +8 or -8 SRS. Teams were more balanced.

[post]

You appear to have only 2 indices of player quality, membership of the Hall of Fame and individual ppg. Neither operates independently of context as has repeatedly been pointed out to you, and in particular in regard to the latter the only thing which matters in terms of the result of actual NBA games is team ppg for and against, not which individual player scores the team's points.

Sorry but I don't have any interest in debating with a guy who don't want to change his opinion. Especially when this guy doesn't have the same knowledge against certain topic (1960s basketball).

explain to me why both teams boston beat in the 57 and 59 finals for russell's first 2 chips had a negative srs. doesn't that indicate the teams boston beat were garbage. is olajuwon's 1 chip with zero hofers really worth 2 rings when you consider russell's celtics beat a couple terrible teams early in his career

Because in smaller league SRS are scaled differently. You can be around 0 SRS and be contender in small league. Back then you didn't have teams that were +8 or -8 SRS. Teams were more balanced.

then why in the 61-62 season did boston have an 8.25 srs. do you just constantly make things up thinking i'm stupid and won't check your info out

[70sFan]

explain to me why both teams boston beat in the 57 and 59 finals for russell's first 2 chips had a negative srs. doesn't that indicate the teams boston beat were garbage. is olajuwon's 1 chip with zero hofers really worth 2 rings when you consider russell's celtics beat a couple terrible teams early in his career

Because in smaller league SRS are scaled differently. You can be around 0 SRS and be contender in small league. Back then you didn't have teams that were +8 or -8 SRS. Teams were more balanced.

then why in the 61-62 season did boston have an 8.25 srs. do you just constantly make things up thinking i'm stupid and won't check your info out

In the whole 1960s there were two teams that were above +8 SRS - 1962 Celtics and 1967 Sixers. In 2016-19 there were 5 teams above +8 and 3 above +10. There were 7 such teams in 1986-94 period (Hakeem's prime).

Not to mention how many teams now have +5 SRS, in Russell's time only leaders had such a rate.

I don't make things up, you just have visible problems with analyzing data. Finding one example in over 10 years for a thing that happens consistently in bigger league doesn't prove anything. You don't even need basic math skills to understand this - more teams means less balance. It's easier to reach high extreme with bigger population.