Peaks project: #3

[E-Balla]

I'm sorry but I've watched this game and Hakeem dominated David. I'd say the only reason the game was close was because they got 40+ out of Hakeem and its not just me saying that those earlier posted articles alluded to the same (something like Hakeem is doing it on his own and the Spurs have an offense by committee - Avery Johnson was especially good in this game and Sean Elliot was very solid too). I don't see many agreeing that 10-15 for 29 is better than 19-32 in a 43 point performance when your team around you is playing worse.

Here's how I see the statistical comparison in this game:
Both had 4 ast, so let's just wipe that off as even. Stl + Blk =5 for both of them, however many (in a vacuum, myself included) consider steals to be of marginally more value than a block (because a steal guarantees the opponent lost possession, while a block does not); and Robinson outdid him 4-0 in steals.
Otherwise Olajuwon was +14 in points and +2 in rebounds.......but he was also +1 in turnovers and (although excellent) was nearly 13% behind in shooting efficiency. Those things at least come close to balancing out, imo.
Bear in mind that I'm the one who was perhaps more vocal than anyone in cautioning this forum about efficiency-centric thinking.....but still, 13% is nothing to sneeze at.
And one can't pass off Robinson's efficiency as his best Tyson Chandler impersonation. It's not like he had 76.5% TS on 12 pts.....he scored 29. And though he had many fewer attempts than Hakeem, he did get 9 FTA (to 4 for Hakeem). And where rebounds are concerned, it perhaps bears worth considering that he's playing next to a rebounder of Rodman's stature.

At any rate, I was about to call this game a wash overall; it was only the massive discrepancy in ORtg/DRtg that persuaded me to give "the tiniest of edges" to Robinson. I'm comfortable calling it a wash, too. Based on scrutiny of the above, I'm not comfortable giving Hakeem any sort of solid edge (and it's certainly not at all suggestive that Hakeem "dominated" Robinson). I haven't watched the game (since it was played 20 years ago); I'll try to get around to it to have an "eye-test" to go with this.

This might come from watching the game and I could be wrong. You know how they'll say a player got a "quiet" 30. That's kind of the performance DR had. He wasn't really imposing his will on the game offensively and he seemed to be another part of the committee San Antonio had (I watched the series last year though so it's possible I'm thinking of another game but according to the old news articles I might not be).

And IDK how game 1 is a small edge but game 2 a large edge when he outscored and rebounded DR by more in game 2. I mean its 41/16 vs 32/12.

I can't tell exactly what you're advocating for above. The portion of the statement in blue appears to be suggesting that game 2 should NOT be called a "large" edge; but then the latter mauve colored portion suggests that it should.
At any rate, some of the confusion might be stemming from a misread: I didn't call game 1 a "small" edge. If you read again, you'll see I said "clear sizable edge" to Hakeem. And I didn't call game 2 a large edge, either; I called it small (or small-to-moderate) sized edge to Hakeem.

It just threw me off is all. I think Hakeem had a small gap both games.

Why we might not be seeing eye-to-eye on some of these games probably has its roots in what we're looking at. I get the feeling you favor the raw volume stats (mainly scoring and rebounding totals) over the broad picture.
In game 2, yes Hakeem outscored him by +9 and outrebounded him by +4. He also was +2 in ast, had more of the tangible (stl/blk) defensive stats, and was -1 on turnovers. otoh, he was 5.3% worse on his shooting efficiency, and further I'd hinted that Robinson's high DRtg in that game probably belays a larger defensive impact (the inherent flaw in individual DRtg is it's reliance on DReb/Stl/Blk stats). Nonetheless, I still called it "small or small-to-moderate" edge (probably closer to moderate, upon reflection) for Hakeem.

Why did I think the gap was even bigger in game 1 (after all, he was only +6 in scoring and -1 in rebounding)? Simple: look beyond the most basic (scoring and rebounding) totals: he was also +3 in ast, +1 in stl, +3 in blk, -2 in turnovers, and nearly 10% better in shooting efficiency.

Well in the big picture I get efficiency helps a lot but sometimes you need someone to take over and Houston needed that. Also I hate DRTG and think its completely useless so that might have something to do with it.

And fwiw, if we’re going to base a large portion of our decision in the “DRob vs. Dream in ‘95 debate” on H2H’s…...it’s maybe worth noting that they met six times in the regular season, too. Shall we scrutinize what happened then?

1st meeting
Hakeem - 20 pts, 8 reb, 5 ast, 2 stl, 5 blk, 3 tov, 40.2% TS, 79 ORtg/103 DRtg (-24)
David - 18 pts, 11 reb, 4 ast, 2 stl, 2 blk, 1 tov, 67.6% TS, 138 ORtg/94 DRtg (+44)
Result: Spurs win
Verdict: moderate-to-large edge to Robinson

2nd meeting
Hakeem - 19 pts, 10 reb, 0 ast, 2 stl, 4 blk, 4 tov, 45.8% TS, 82 ORtg/91 DRtg (-9)
David - 18 pts, 10 reb, 3 ast, 1 stl, 4 blk, 4 tov, 48.0% TS, 89 ORtg/96 DRtg (-7)
Result: Spurs win
Verdict: marginal edge to Robinson

3rd meeting
Hakeem - 47 pts, 10 reb, 4 ast, 1 stl, 3 blk, 7 tov, 61.7% TS, 105 ORtg/101 DRtg (+4)
David - 23 pts, 10 reb, 4 ast, 5 stl, 0 blk, 3 tov, 45.3% TS, 92 ORtg/99 DRtg (-7)
Result: Rockets win
Verdict: edge to Olajuwon

4th meeting
Hakeem - 36 pts, 14 reb, 2 ast, 3 stl, 4 blk, 6 tov, 49.1% TS, 98 ORtg/106 DRtg (-8)
David - 25 pts, 9 reb, 3 ast, 2 stl, 6 blk, 3 tov, 55.5% TS, 113 ORtg/103 DRtg (+10)
Result: Spurs win
Verdict: nearly a wash; perhaps marginal edge to Robinson

How does Robinson take the edge here? I get that he won but Rodman had 11/22 (5/6), Avery 17/11 (111 ORTG), Elliot 26/4/3 (10-15), and VDN 22/6 (136 ORTG). Hakeem had Horry and Cassell (combined 13-17 for 38 points) but outside of that not much. Yeah he wasn't too efficient but it looked like he had to shoot more.

First off, I didn't definitively declare an edge for Robinson. I implied basically a wash; "perhaps" a "marginal" edge to Robinson.
As to why I came to that conclusion:
Robinson is -11 in pts, -1 in steals, -5 in rebounds (though you noted Rodman's vacuum effect for rebounds in this game). But then he's +1 in assists, +2 in blocks, -3 in turnovers, and nearly 6.5% better in shooting efficiency. These latter four categories pretty well brings things even to my eye.

Yeah looking at that again I can see why you'd call it a wash but looking at how each of their teams performed and how close the game was anyway I'm inclined to say Hakeem was a little better as the two players that showed up with Hakeem are both heavily reliant in Hakeem most of the time. Then again I've probably never seen that exact game so IDK.

I didn't disagree with much else in your post but I have to ask if you really feel comfortable putting that series in the fluke category knowing how Hakeem has historically performed in the playoffs (even against great Cs) and how Robinson has historically performed in the playoffs (against not bad or average defenses and offenses). To me in Robinson I see a guy that clearly took a step backwards both offensively and defensively in the postseason.

Now I didn't necessarily declare the WCF a "fluke". I merely pointed out that: 1) prior to the last two games, Robinson hadn't actually been drastically outplayed in the series as a whole, and 2) the Spurs had some internal distraction (Rodman's meltdown) that was eroding some of their team chemistry and focus; and that 3) if we're going to base such a large degree of this comparison on how they played head-to-head, why are we not considering the OTHER six games they played (in the rs), where it was mostly Robinson who got the better of Hakeem?

And fwiw, I don't like using H2H as a primary means; it's not like they're facing each other every night. Seems to me the greater point is how they are against the entire field of competition. And against the majority of that field, it's Robinson who played better that year (at least in the rs; I don't deny Robinson had his struggles in the post-season, I just don't have this "it's the only part of the season that matters" philosophy).

Well DR wasn't getting outplayed that much in games 1-4 (but he was still getting outplayed) and neither was San Antonio (2-2) but Hakeem still dominated the series as a whole when he outplayed DR 4-2 games and possibly another one.

And I get the want to include the regular season play but when the book on Hakeem is that he was a postseason guy and the book on David is that he wasn't I think the postseason performance matters more. These are career trends with both guys not just one year anomalies so it makes sense that this would be seen as a nail in DR's coffin.

I get not liking H2H too but in the 90s NBA as a C you needed to be able to win H2H matchups with some of the GOAT Cs to get a ring (which is the ultimate goal for all teams). If you can't do that IDK how you can call yourself the best.

[E-Balla]

I'm sorry but I've watched this game and Hakeem dominated David. I'd say the only reason the game was close was because they got 40+ out of Hakeem and its not just me saying that those earlier posted articles alluded to the same (something like Hakeem is doing it on his own and the Spurs have an offense by committee - Avery Johnson was especially good in this game and Sean Elliot was very solid too). I don't see many agreeing that 10-15 for 29 is better than 19-32 in a 43 point performance when your team around you is playing worse.

Here's how I see the statistical comparison in this game:
Both had 4 ast, so let's just wipe that off as even. Stl + Blk =5 for both of them, however many (in a vacuum, myself included) consider steals to be of marginally more value than a block (because a steal guarantees the opponent lost possession, while a block does not); and Robinson outdid him 4-0 in steals.
Otherwise Olajuwon was +14 in points and +2 in rebounds.......but he was also +1 in turnovers and (although excellent) was nearly 13% behind in shooting efficiency. Those things at least come close to balancing out, imo.
Bear in mind that I'm the one who was perhaps more vocal than anyone in cautioning this forum about efficiency-centric thinking.....but still, 13% is nothing to sneeze at.
And one can't pass off Robinson's efficiency as his best Tyson Chandler impersonation. It's not like he had 76.5% TS on 12 pts.....he scored 29. And though he had many fewer attempts than Hakeem, he did get 9 FTA (to 4 for Hakeem). And where rebounds are concerned, it perhaps bears worth considering that he's playing next to a rebounder of Rodman's stature.

At any rate, I was about to call this game a wash overall; it was only the massive discrepancy in ORtg/DRtg that persuaded me to give "the tiniest of edges" to Robinson. I'm comfortable calling it a wash, too. Based on scrutiny of the above, I'm not comfortable giving Hakeem any sort of solid edge (and it's certainly not at all suggestive that Hakeem "dominated" Robinson). I haven't watched the game (since it was played 20 years ago); I'll try to get around to it to have an "eye-test" to go with this.

This might come from watching the game and I could be wrong. You know how they'll say a player got a "quiet" 30. That's kind of the performance DR had. He wasn't really imposing his will on the game offensively and he seemed to be another part of the committee San Antonio had (I watched the series last year though so it's possible I'm thinking of another game but according to the old news articles I might not be).

And IDK how game 1 is a small edge but game 2 a large edge when he outscored and rebounded DR by more in game 2. I mean its 41/16 vs 32/12.

I can't tell exactly what you're advocating for above. The portion of the statement in blue appears to be suggesting that game 2 should NOT be called a "large" edge; but then the latter mauve colored portion suggests that it should.
At any rate, some of the confusion might be stemming from a misread: I didn't call game 1 a "small" edge. If you read again, you'll see I said "clear sizable edge" to Hakeem. And I didn't call game 2 a large edge, either; I called it small (or small-to-moderate) sized edge to Hakeem.

It just threw me off is all. I think Hakeem had a small gap both games.

Why we might not be seeing eye-to-eye on some of these games probably has its roots in what we're looking at. I get the feeling you favor the raw volume stats (mainly scoring and rebounding totals) over the broad picture.
In game 2, yes Hakeem outscored him by +9 and outrebounded him by +4. He also was +2 in ast, had more of the tangible (stl/blk) defensive stats, and was -1 on turnovers. otoh, he was 5.3% worse on his shooting efficiency, and further I'd hinted that Robinson's high DRtg in that game probably belays a larger defensive impact (the inherent flaw in individual DRtg is it's reliance on DReb/Stl/Blk stats). Nonetheless, I still called it "small or small-to-moderate" edge (probably closer to moderate, upon reflection) for Hakeem.

Why did I think the gap was even bigger in game 1 (after all, he was only +6 in scoring and -1 in rebounding)? Simple: look beyond the most basic (scoring and rebounding) totals: he was also +3 in ast, +1 in stl, +3 in blk, -2 in turnovers, and nearly 10% better in shooting efficiency.

Well in the big picture I get efficiency helps a lot but sometimes you need someone to take over and Houston needed that. Also I hate DRTG and think its completely useless so that might have something to do with it.

And fwiw, if we’re going to base a large portion of our decision in the “DRob vs. Dream in ‘95 debate” on H2H’s…...it’s maybe worth noting that they met six times in the regular season, too. Shall we scrutinize what happened then?

1st meeting
Hakeem - 20 pts, 8 reb, 5 ast, 2 stl, 5 blk, 3 tov, 40.2% TS, 79 ORtg/103 DRtg (-24)
David - 18 pts, 11 reb, 4 ast, 2 stl, 2 blk, 1 tov, 67.6% TS, 138 ORtg/94 DRtg (+44)
Result: Spurs win
Verdict: moderate-to-large edge to Robinson

2nd meeting
Hakeem - 19 pts, 10 reb, 0 ast, 2 stl, 4 blk, 4 tov, 45.8% TS, 82 ORtg/91 DRtg (-9)
David - 18 pts, 10 reb, 3 ast, 1 stl, 4 blk, 4 tov, 48.0% TS, 89 ORtg/96 DRtg (-7)
Result: Spurs win
Verdict: marginal edge to Robinson

3rd meeting
Hakeem - 47 pts, 10 reb, 4 ast, 1 stl, 3 blk, 7 tov, 61.7% TS, 105 ORtg/101 DRtg (+4)
David - 23 pts, 10 reb, 4 ast, 5 stl, 0 blk, 3 tov, 45.3% TS, 92 ORtg/99 DRtg (-7)
Result: Rockets win
Verdict: edge to Olajuwon

4th meeting
Hakeem - 36 pts, 14 reb, 2 ast, 3 stl, 4 blk, 6 tov, 49.1% TS, 98 ORtg/106 DRtg (-8)
David - 25 pts, 9 reb, 3 ast, 2 stl, 6 blk, 3 tov, 55.5% TS, 113 ORtg/103 DRtg (+10)
Result: Spurs win
Verdict: nearly a wash; perhaps marginal edge to Robinson

How does Robinson take the edge here? I get that he won but Rodman had 11/22 (5/6), Avery 17/11 (111 ORTG), Elliot 26/4/3 (10-15), and VDN 22/6 (136 ORTG). Hakeem had Horry and Cassell (combined 13-17 for 38 points) but outside of that not much. Yeah he wasn't too efficient but it looked like he had to shoot more.

First off, I didn't definitively declare an edge for Robinson. I implied basically a wash; "perhaps" a "marginal" edge to Robinson.
As to why I came to that conclusion:
Robinson is -11 in pts, -1 in steals, -5 in rebounds (though you noted Rodman's vacuum effect for rebounds in this game). But then he's +1 in assists, +2 in blocks, -3 in turnovers, and nearly 6.5% better in shooting efficiency. These latter four categories pretty well brings things even to my eye.

Yeah looking at that again I can see why you'd call it a wash but looking at how each of their teams performed and how close the game was anyway I'm inclined to say Hakeem was a little better as the two players that showed up with Hakeem are both heavily reliant in Hakeem most of the time. Then again I've probably never seen that exact game so IDK.

I didn't disagree with much else in your post but I have to ask if you really feel comfortable putting that series in the fluke category knowing how Hakeem has historically performed in the playoffs (even against great Cs) and how Robinson has historically performed in the playoffs (against not bad or average defenses and offenses). To me in Robinson I see a guy that clearly took a step backwards both offensively and defensively in the postseason.

Now I didn't necessarily declare the WCF a "fluke". I merely pointed out that: 1) prior to the last two games, Robinson hadn't actually been drastically outplayed in the series as a whole, and 2) the Spurs had some internal distraction (Rodman's meltdown) that was eroding some of their team chemistry and focus; and that 3) if we're going to base such a large degree of this comparison on how they played head-to-head, why are we not considering the OTHER six games they played (in the rs), where it was mostly Robinson who got the better of Hakeem?

And fwiw, I don't like using H2H as a primary means; it's not like they're facing each other every night. Seems to me the greater point is how they are against the entire field of competition. And against the majority of that field, it's Robinson who played better that year (at least in the rs; I don't deny Robinson had his struggles in the post-season, I just don't have this "it's the only part of the season that matters" philosophy).

Well DR wasn't getting outplayed that much in games 1-4 (but he was still getting outplayed) and neither was San Antonio (2-2) but Hakeem still dominated the series as a whole when he outplayed DR 4-2 games and possibly another one.

And I get the want to include the regular season play but when the book on Hakeem is that he was a postseason guy and the book on David is that he wasn't I think the postseason performance matters more. These are career trends with both guys not just one year anomalies so it makes sense that this would be seen as a nail in DR's coffin.

I get not liking H2H too but in the 90s NBA as a C you needed to be able to win H2H matchups with some of the GOAT Cs to get a ring (which is the ultimate goal for all teams). If you can't do that IDK how you can call yourself the best.

[Owly]

I get not liking H2H too but in the 90s NBA as a C you needed to be able to win H2H matchups with some of the GOAT Cs to get a ring (which is the ultimate goal for all teams). If you can't do that IDK how you can call yourself the best.

Care to expand on this? Any qualifiers thrown in? Or clarifications (e.g. "as a franchise center in the West as clearly the best player on your team, in the mid-nineties you should be capable of, though wouldn't necessarily "need to", go through multiple top X all-time centers"). At face value this doesn't seem to ring true.

[E-Balla]

I get not liking H2H too but in the 90s NBA as a C you needed to be able to win H2H matchups with some of the GOAT Cs to get a ring (which is the ultimate goal for all teams). If you can't do that IDK how you can call yourself the best.

Care to expand on this? Any qualifiers thrown in? Or clarifications (e.g. "as a franchise center in the West as clearly the best player on your team, in the mid-nineties you should be capable of, though wouldn't necessarily "need to", go through multiple top X all-time centers"). At face value this doesn't seem to ring true.

Well of course I meant as the franchise player but in the 94-95 period you needed to beat one of Hakeem, Ewing, Shaq, or Robinson in the playoffs to get a ring. That's all I meant and if you look at those series usually the play of the star C was the determining factor.