National Celtics discourse

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I just keep thinking about how incredible Hakeem would be in the modern game.

Think Embiid + Chet.

Someone posted the other day a podcast that had Sam Cassell on it. Sam was asked about Hakeem versus Embiid. Sam said, Hakeem, no doubt. He also said that for a few years, Hakeem was the best offensive player and the best defensive player in the NBA.

He'd be like Jokic if Jokic was a great defender.

 

[Kliq]

Someone posted the other day a podcast that had Sam Cassell on it. Sam was asked about Hakeem versus Embiid. Sam said, Hakeem, no doubt. He also said that for a few years, Hakeem was the best offensive player and the best defensive player in the NBA.

He'd be like Jokic if Jokic was a great defender.

Anthony Davis with more durability with more of a killer instinct is I think a good comparison.

 

[PedroKsBambino]

Hakeem is a vastly better offensive player than AD, though I agree he is probably the closest current comp.

 

[BaseballJones]

David Robinson is one of my all-time favorite players but I also love Hakeem. They had some epic battles and I know in the Western Conference final Hakeem beat him up but over the course of their career it was pretty even match up. Either of those guys would be awesome today.

it’s really kind of amazing. Jordan going third in that draft seems utterly insane but Houston taking Olajuwon was a pretty awesome pick too. He is an inner circle all-time great player in his own right.

 

[slamminsammya]

Hakeem (my favorite player as a kid) would absolutely be Hakeem in today's game. Heck, the championship Rockets were an early pioneer of a 3-happy, inside-out offense.

Basketball is all about advantages, and Hakeem's post game would absolutely still create a ton of advantages. We see that with guys like Jokic and Embiid, two of the best offensive players in today's game. A modern Hakeem probably looks a ton like Embiid, threatening from the midpost with his elite midrange game, and then using great footwork to get to the rim, pass out of double teams, etc.

Those Houston teams were finally able to break through once they leaned into the inside out game, going from 13 to 16 and finally 21 3 point attempts per game in their first championship season.

 

[RorschachsMask]

View: https://twitter.com/C2_Cooper/status/1849942366288785541

 

[Eddie Jurak]

I haven't seen anything I'd call "Brunson hate". Over in the KP thread, they're saying that Brunson wouldn't start for the Celtics, given how we've chosen to play - that White and Jrue are better fits for this team and what we need our guards to do. So while the Knicks swapping Brunson for White would make the Knicks worse, the Celtics swapping White for Brunson would also make the Celtics worse.

If we had Brunson instead of Holiday or White, the Celtics would need to do offense differently. Brunson had higher usage last year than Tatum or Brown. Would he have to become the Dallas version of himself where Luka had the ball a lot more? Would that work? Would Tatum and Brown coexist with that kind of third weel?

If we had Brunson instead of Holiday or White, the Celtics would need to do defense differently. They can't rely on him to pick up anyone.

I would not say that the Celtics could not win with Brunson in place of Holday and White, but I don't know basketball enough to know what that team would look like.

Yeah, I'm not disagreeing. I'm essentially giving the argument for why it's one thing to see Steph to things never seen before, and it's another to see league-wide chucking.

I love good ball movement and playmaking in space, but I still personally miss great post play like we had with McHale, Olajuwon, Kareem, et al. I thought that was fun too.

But long story short, Nick Wright is just being whiny now that the Celtics are the ones killing the league with the three ball.

Not disagreeing with you, but... didn't those days basically end before the emergence of 3 point shooting? The mid 90s were not basketball at its best.

 

[joe dokes]

I think that the malignant intellectual forces of the 25-hour a day talkvomit industrial complex has caused a morphing from the old-school discourse of "they are really fucking good, we just "hate" them because they win so much" (old yankees & Patriots (maybe pre-2010) to "we hate them becauase the way they win is objectively 'bad' in some way."

McAfee, SAS, F&M, and everyone in between have corroded the crtical thinki g skills of a plurality of sports fans. Throw in considerably more widespread gambling, where the result of the game becomes secondary in many cases, and you end up with a "national discourse" that is little more than a circle jerk that its purveyors call sex.

 

[BringBackMo]

Right. The Celtics didn't invent this. They've just mastered it as a whole team.

This response completely misses the overarching point that Euclis20 so powerfully articulated. What the Celtics are doing is beautiful basketball, bordering on art, that features excellent passing and superior skill. That it so often results in baskets worth three points instead of two may rub some old timers the wrong way, but it in no way diminishes the wonder of what the Celtics are producing.

 

[BringBackMo]

I got no beef with people who miss old fashioned post play, the same way that dudes who love off-tackle runs and FB dives probably hate that the NFL went all passing all of the time or baseball old timers hate three true outcomes offense.

This, precisely. Across all sports, and all things, no one wants the world to change from when it all just made sense.

Yeah it doesn’t seem to me that (good) offenses are simpler than they were twenty/thirty years ago. They seem substantially more complex.

And this excellent post highlights what we lose when our thinking is stuck in a time when everything just made sense: an appreciation for the brilliance of what is new and different.

 

[BaseballJones]

This response completely misses the overarching point that Euclis20 so powerfully articulated. What the Celtics are doing is beautiful basketball, bordering on art, that features excellent passing and superior skill. That it so often results in baskets worth three points instead of two may rub some old timers the wrong way, but it in no way diminishes the wonder of what the Celtics are producing.

I don't believe I missed that point. The Celtics' offense is a thing of beauty.

 

[BaseballJones]

Not disagreeing with you, but... didn't those days basically end before the emergence of 3 point shooting? The mid 90s were not basketball at its best.

The 90s featured ugly, brutal, over-the-top physical play, and scores were routinely in the 80s. Not interested in going back to that, no.

 

[joe dokes]

And this excellent post highlights what we lose when our thinking is stuck in a time when everything just made sense: an appreciation for the brilliance of what is new and different.

I don't think you are suggesting otherwise, but it's great because it's great, not just because it's new and different. And I'm not even sure it's *that* different from what the Reed-Frazier-Bradley Knicks or Walton Blazers were doing. Coaches have been preaching cutting without the ball, finding the open man, etc, since Jews in tight shorts dominated the league. It *is* different from what was (IMO, course) the garbage that Reilly's Knicks put out. It was certainly successful, but the beauty and intricacy of a functioning offense was lacking. They run weaves and weave-like actions to get open 3s instead of layups.

I would love to have heard what Tommy or Red would say about this iteration of the offense, humming as it is. I would be stunned if it was anything other than, "if you can get *that* open and shoot like *that* to get an extra point, it doesn't matter *where* you are shooting from." From what little we got to hear before he got canned by ESPN, Jeff van Gundy got it.

I love good ball movement and playmaking in space, but I still personally miss great post play like we had with McHale, Olajuwon, Kareem, et al. I thought that was fun too.

I don't disagree with this either. (though post-play and ball movement were not mutually exclusive). They were incredible players. It's an interesting thought experiment to wonder how they'd fit in now on an offense.

 

[Everetts Dinosaurs]

This, precisely. Across all sports, and all things, no one wants the world to change from when it all just made sense.

And this excellent post highlights what we lose when our thinking is stuck in a time when everything just made sense: an appreciation for the brilliance of what is new and different.

For some of us it isn’t about “not wanting things to change” but about the friction between aesthetics/entertainment and efficiency. The min/maxing of sports, by its nature, emphasizes certain ideal strategies at the expense of other possible plays and by extension the limitation of certain forms of athleticism.

as fans of teams we want winning strategies. As watchers of the games we want entertainment. Those don’t always overlap.

 

[BaseballJones]

I don't disagree with this either. (though post-play and ball movement were not mutually exclusive). They were incredible players. It's an interesting thought experiment to wonder how they'd fit in now on an offense.

My guess:

- Olajuwon - Would be amazing in today's game. I'm pretty sure his range would have expanded to three point territory, and he'd be an elite rim protector.
- Robinson - Same thing as Olajuwon.
- Ewing - Great shooter whose range could extend further. Younger Ewing was more athletic than older Ewing, but I think he'd be fine today.
- Shaq - Non shooter. Younger Shaq could really move. Older Shaq, not much and you could exploit him when you have the ball. But he'd be a monster post guy. Imagine Chet or Wemby trying to guard him? LOL
- Duncan - Would be fine today.
- Mutombo - Would be a good rim protector but would struggle on offense badly.
- Mourning - Eh...not a great shooter. Good defender with quick enough feet to make it work today.
- Divac - Great passer, decent enough defender, but limited offensively.
- Smits - Would struggle today I think. Not athletic enough. Certainly tall enough (7'4") but too limited offensively.
- Daughterty - I don't think he'd be very good today. Decent enough mid range shooter, but limited defensively and would have trouble with today's space game.

Of this group, I'd suspect Olajuwon and Robinson would best adapt to today's game. I mean, just imagine this Celtics team with Hakeem or Robinson instead of Porzingis or Horford. I'm assuming that Olajuwon and Robinson's range would be extended coming up in today's game. But even if not...they'd still be amazing.

 

[lovegtm]

Hakeem wasn't in Jokic's zipcode as a passer, and also was light years better as a defender and athlete. I don't actually know in what sense they're comparable?

It

My guess:

- Olajuwon - Would be amazing in today's game. I'm pretty sure his range would have expanded to three point territory, and he'd be an elite rim protector.
- Robinson - Same thing as Olajuwon.
- Ewing - Great shooter whose range could extend further. Younger Ewing was more athletic than older Ewing, but I think he'd be fine today.
- Shaq - Non shooter. Younger Shaq could really move. Older Shaq, not much and you could exploit him when you have the ball. But he'd be a monster post guy. Imagine Chet or Wemby trying to guard him? LOL
- Duncan - Would be fine today.
- Mutombo - Would be a good rim protector but would struggle on offense badly.
- Mourning - Eh...not a great shooter. Good defender with quick enough feet to make it work today.
- Divac - Great passer, decent enough defender, but limited offensively.
- Smits - Would struggle today I think. Not athletic enough. Certainly tall enough (7'4") but too limited offensively.
- Daughterty - I don't think he'd be very good today. Decent enough mid range shooter, but limited defensively and would have trouble with today's space game.

Of this group, I'd suspect Olajuwon and Robinson would best adapt to today's game. I mean, just imagine this Celtics team with Hakeem or Robinson instead of Porzingis or Horford. I'm assuming that Olajuwon and Robinson's range would be extended coming up in today's game. But even if not...they'd still be amazing.

As we see with Embiid, extending range to the 3 point line as a big man isn't critical if you're elite in the midrange. Hakeem would be ridiculous.

 

[RG33]

…I mean, just imagine this Celtics team with Hakeem or Robinson instead of Porzingis or Horford.

How fucking dare you ask me to imagine this Celtics team without Big Al Horford?

You want to kick my puppy next?

My Saturday is ruined.

 

[BringBackMo]

For some of us it isn’t about “not wanting things to change” but about the friction between aesthetics/entertainment and efficiency. The min/maxing of sports, by its nature, emphasizes certain ideal strategies at the expense of other possible plays and by extension the limitation of certain forms of athleticism.

as fans of teams we want winning strategies. As watchers of the games we want entertainment. Those don’t always overlap.

Again, it seems inarguable to me that the NBA basketball of today is both more efficient AND more aesthetically pleasing and entertaining than the basketball of the 90s and early 2000s. Assuming that you are personally a Celtics fan, you right now have both a winning strategy and an incredibly entertaining team.

What would you personally like to change with respect to the 2024-2025 Boston Celtics and the broader NBA?

 

[chilidawg]

How fucking dare you ask me to imagine this Celtics team without Big Al Horford?

You want to kick my puppy next?

My Saturday is ruined.

Proper response.

 

[lovegtm]

Again, it seems inarguable to me that the NBA basketball of today is both more efficient AND more aesthetically pleasing and entertaining than the basketball of the 90s and early 2000s. Assuming that you are personally a Celtics fan, you right now have both a winning strategy and an incredibly entertaining team.

What would you personally like to change with respect to the 2024-2025 Boston Celtics and the broader NBA?

+1.

The best games have an irresolvable tension at their core: if you want to get X, you have to give up Y, where X and Y are both very desirable.

In modern basketball, improved skill in 3-point shooting and the passing reads to find open shooters has created the following tension:
X: shots at the rim are super-valuable, something like 60-65% propositions
Y: open shots from 3 are roughly 40%, so very similar to shots at the rim

To make things even better, the rim and the 3-point line are the furthest points from each other. So prioritizing one unavoidably makes you worse at defending the other.

This makes a great game, because teams have to spend their personnel and strategic resources in the way that maximizes the tradeoffs they make, and they have to do so dynamically, in real time.

(90% of MazzullaBall is about "solving" basketball by making opponents indifferent, in a game theoretic sense, to whether they give up rim attempts or 3s. In the Ime iteration of the Celtics, teams could collapse at the rim, close out hard to 3-point shooters, and that was it, so they could prioritize late help at the rim without a tradeoff.)

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

Again, it seems inarguable to me that the NBA basketball of today is both more efficient AND more aesthetically pleasing and entertaining than the basketball of the 90s and early 2000s. Assuming that you are personally a Celtics fan, you right now have both a winning strategy and an incredibly entertaining team.

What would you personally like to change with respect to the 2024-2025 Boston Celtics and the broader NBA?

One thing to take into account when comparing styles of play are the rule changes. The Cs maybe couldn't be running their offense in the 1990s when the NBA allowed hand checking and hitting/grabbing people while they moved.

Someone on a podcast recently said that the Cs offense is most comparable to the Spurs offense with Duncan. Funny how the Spurs offense is called the "Beautiful Game" while the Cs apparently are ruining basketball.

 

[lovegtm]

(90% of MazzullaBall is about "solving" basketball by making opponents indifferent, in a game theoretic sense, to whether they give up rim attempts or 3s. In the Ime iteration of the Celtics, teams could collapse at the rim, close out hard to 3-point shooters, and that was it, so they could prioritize late help at the rim without a tradeoff.)

To follow on this, and to steelman the Celtics haters:

I think people are complaining that the Celtics solved basketball, on offense. It's extraordinarily beautiful basketball, and requires incredible skill and BBIQ, but there really is a sense in which they've reduced every possession to
- create a small advantage
- score in iso if no help, pass if help
- eventually create a 2-on-1 from 3 or at the rim
- execute the 2-on-1 read
- take the shot

I don't agree with this criticism at all, because it requires so much skill and roster construction and attention to spacing, and it's beautiful to watch, but many people don't like watching solved games ("solved" in their perception).

 

[Kliq]

I think every team relying on the three point shot to a great degree has created an annoying sameness to basketball stylistically that we've talked about plenty of times over the years here in the Port Cellar.

Using the Celtics, who play offense extremely well, as an example for why this is a major problem in the NBA, just reeks of jealousy and an anti-Boston bias by people. Those criticisms should be saved for a Nets/Wizards game with guys like Cam Thomas and Jordan Poole hopelessly chucking up a million threes, as opposed to the team that does it the best.

I know there is nostalgia for everything and I too, enjoy post play, but its weird to me how so many people want to go back to an era of basketball where whoever had the best tall player won 90% of the time. Basketball is way better when there is a greater diversity of who can be a great player that tilts the balance of a game. The proliferation of the three pointer has helped level the playing field so a player like Steph Curry can be as dominant as Shaq was.

The criticisms of there being no big men anymore are also about a decade out of date. The last six MVP's have all been big men and the best prospect since LeBron is freaking 7'5"!

 

[Scriblerus]

I’m hearing nothing but praise for the Warriors blowing out Portland and Utah with Buddy Hield racking up the 3s. Granted those two teams are not good, but the press has been about Kerr using a 12 man rotation and players hitting 3s/ finding the open man.

 

[PRabbit]

Switching out White for Brunson would be a downgrade IMO. I'm not convinced White couldn't score 25ppg with Brunson's usage last year. Obviously the gap on D is...pretty vast.

 

[Everetts Dinosaurs]

Again, it seems inarguable to me that the NBA basketball of today is both more efficient AND more aesthetically pleasing and entertaining than the basketball of the 90s and early 2000s. Assuming that you are personally a Celtics fan, you right now have both a winning strategy and an incredibly entertaining team.

What would you personally like to change with respect to the 2024-2025 Boston Celtics and the broader NBA?

The only thing I’d change about the 2024-2025 Celtics is to increase the length of games by 25% so my personal enjoyment is maximized.

the rest of the NBA? How about the garbage that is free-throw hunting? Everything about the Embiid/Harden style of play is an abomination and I won’t watch unless it’s a C’s game. Good strategy, shitty product. Just this week there was a game with 90+ free throws. That’s really rough stuff. Same thing with tanking: logical decision that gives us 6 teams every year that are unwatchable.

I personally disagree about the 90’s vs today argument, but I was also young in the 90’s so
I’m sure I’m not remembering it correctly.

same thing with MLB. Moneyball changed my life and I understand the analytical reasons for why the game is played like it is. But I can’t watch it anymore. Walks are boring. Home runs as the primary scoring method are boring. SP who can’t go more than 5 innings are boring. Good decisions, bad product.

 

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

I just think some of these broadcasters are bad at articulating what they don't like about Celtics games. It's less, I think, the brand of basketball they're playing and more the brand of game they're participating in: blowout after blowout. I think it's possible that there's something wrong with the game when even mediocre teams — not just bad teams — have absolutely not shot at beating the best team.

But basketball has ALWAYS been that way, for as long as I've been watching. Why was it good for the sport when every year would start with essentially two or three teams having a chance to win? I think, despite the Celtics dominance, the NBA is the best — in terms of just raw talent level — that I have ever seen, and I've been watching since the early 1980s.

I think what some commentators are reacting to is that the NBA has been soooo good for the last five years, with no super team and plenty of drama in terms of who is going to win the title, that going back to "only a couple teams even have a chance" feels like something must be wrong with the sport.

 

[BaseballJones]

How fucking dare you ask me to imagine this Celtics team without Big Al Horford?

You want to kick my puppy next?

My Saturday is ruined.

LOL, buck up. It's gonna happen at some point. (Horford, not kicking your puppy...I hope)

 

[RG33]

LOL, buck up. It's gonna happen at some point. (Horford, not kicking your puppy...I hope)

View: https://youtu.be/svUyYzzv6VI?feature=shared

 

[Morgan's Magic Snowplow]

I just think some of these broadcasters are bad at articulating what they don't like about Celtics games. It's less, I think, the brand of basketball they're playing and more the brand of game they're participating in: blowout after blowout. I think it's possible that there's something wrong with the game when even mediocre teams — not just bad teams — have absolutely not shot at beating the best team.

But basketball has ALWAYS been that way, for as long as I've been watching. Why was it good for the sport when every year would start with essentially two or three teams having a chance to win? I think, despite the Celtics dominance, the NBA is the best — in terms of just raw talent level — that I have ever seen, and I've been watching since the early 1980s.

I think what some commentators are reacting to is that the NBA has been soooo good for the last five years, with no super team and plenty of drama in terms of who is going to win the title, that going back to "only a couple teams even have a chance" feels like something must be wrong with the sport.

I think that's definitely part of it. But it also seems like the issue for many commentators isn't the idea of a dominant team in the NBA in the abstract, its that they view the current Celtics as not the type of team that is supposed to be that good or in that conversation. I think people were genuinely annoyed that on all sorts of metrics - combined regular/postseason win percentage, average point differential, etc - the 23-24 Celtics ranked as one of the best teams of all time. They look at the Celtics on some stat list in the company of the Jordan Bulls, 71-72 Lakers, early 70s Bucks, peak Steph-led Warriors, 85-86 Celtics, Showtime Lakers, etc and think something just has to be wrong.

 

[InstaFace]

Switching out White for Brunson would be a downgrade IMO. I'm not convinced White couldn't score 25ppg with Brunson's usage last year. Obviously the gap on D is...pretty vast.

Solid username. Welcome!

 

[reggiecleveland]

David Robinson is one of my all-time favorite players but I also love Hakeem. They had some epic battles and I know in the Western Conference final Hakeem beat him up but over the course of their career it was pretty even match up. Either of those guys would be awesome today.

it’s really kind of amazing. Jordan going third in that draft seems utterly insane but Houston taking Olajuwon was a pretty awesome pick too. He is an inner circle all-time great player in his own right.

The 1995 WCF finlas was as bad as I ever saw a "Great Player" get his ass kicked. David Robinson was Hakeem's rented mule that series. Robinson's defeated body language made him an object of pity. Calling that matchup even is like say Paul Quantrill and David Ortiz had some good battles. Not before or since have I turned in to watch two guys go at in a hyped up matchup has one guy so thoroughly dominated the other. We needed Cosell saying "Down goes Robinson" as Dave limped off the floor the most defeated of defeated stars I have ever seen.

Hakeem Shot 56% while the Ensign (he was busted down after the series, if he didn't know a senator he would have been Seeman 1st Class Robinson after that series) shot 45, Hakeem scored 35 a game to Robinson's 23. Blocked more than twice as many shots, more than twice as many assists, out rebounded him. Robinson turned the ball over more, despite not having the ball nearly as much becasue Hakeem denied him so well. If it had been a fight they would have stopped it during game three.


GM1: 27 PTS, 8 REB, 6 AST, 5 BLK
GM2: 41 PTS, 16 REB
GM3: 43 PTS, 11 REB
GM4: 20 PTS, 14 REB
GM5: 42 PTS, 9 REB, 8 AST, 5 BLK
GM6: 39 PTS, 17 REB

Robinson was maybe the most talented athlete in NBA history. I am not kidding. But which guys in your top tens, GOAT discussions, Mount Rushmores, was repeatedly called soft and accused of having a poor work ethic? Robinson had that tag, and not until he could be the second to Duncan did he win. Hakeem is possibly the GOAT. I am not sure even Jordan was a better player than peak Hakeem.

 

[skidmark21]

What on earth are you arguing? Poster clearly said outside of that series, yet you really dig into that series?

He stated outside of that glaring example they were pretty even players. Do you disagree?

 

[BringBackMo]

What on earth are you arguing? Poster clearly said outside of that series, yet you really dig into that series?

He stated outside of that glaring example they were pretty even players. Do you disagree?

This part right here makes me think that he does disagree:

Robinson was maybe the most talented athlete in NBA history. I am not kidding. But which guys in your top tens, GOAT discussions, Mount Rushmores, was repeatedly called soft and accused of having a poor work ethic? Robinson had that tag, and not until he could be the second to Duncan did he win. Hakeem is possibly the GOAT. I am not sure even Jordan was a better player than peak Hakeem.

 

[InstaFace]

Hakeem Shot 56% while the Ensign (he was busted down after the series, if he didn't know a senator he would have been Seeman 1st Class Robinson after that series) shot 45...

I always enjoy a good 1AM rant, but this was the best part and had me giggling.

 

[BaseballJones]

View attachment 90677

The 1995 WCF finlas was as bad as I ever saw a "Great Player" get his ass kicked. David Robinson was Hakeem's rented mule that series. Robinson's defeated body language made him an object of pity. Calling that matchup even is like say Paul Quantrill and David Ortiz had some good battles. Not before or since have I turned in to watch two guys go at in a hyped up matchup has one guy so thoroughly dominated the other. We needed Cosell saying "Down goes Robinson" as Dave limped off the floor the most defeated of defeated stars I have ever seen.

Hakeem Shot 56% while the Ensign (he was busted down after the series, if he didn't know a senator he would have been Seeman 1st Class Robinson after that series) shot 45, Hakeem scored 35 a game to Robinson's 23. Blocked more than twice as many shots, more than twice as many assists, out rebounded him. Robinson turned the ball over more, despite not having the ball nearly as much becasue Hakeem denied him so well. If it had been a fight they would have stopped it during game three.


GM1: 27 PTS, 8 REB, 6 AST, 5 BLK
GM2: 41 PTS, 16 REB
GM3: 43 PTS, 11 REB
GM4: 20 PTS, 14 REB
GM5: 42 PTS, 9 REB, 8 AST, 5 BLK
GM6: 39 PTS, 17 REB

Robinson was maybe the most talented athlete in NBA history. I am not kidding. But which guys in your top tens, GOAT discussions, Mount Rushmores, was repeatedly called soft and accused of having a poor work ethic? Robinson had that tag, and not until he could be the second to Duncan did he win. Hakeem is possibly the GOAT. I am not sure even Jordan was a better player than peak Hakeem.

Not sure how to respond to this. My options are: (1) Don't say anything and just let this rant go. (2) Laugh, because it's like you think I was saying that that WCF was even when clearly I already said that in that WCF Hakeem beat up Robinson, but then you go through an impressive deep dive into that very series to show how wrong I am, which is ridiculous. Or (3) try to take it seriously and offer a reasoned response.

Well, I'm choosing a little bit of (2) but figured (3) is the best way to go. So go back to my post. Here's what I actually said: "in the Western Conference final Hakeem beat him up but over the course of their career it was pretty even match up."

So in that WCF, it was one-sided. Not a soul on earth disputes that. Robinson wouldn't even dispute that. That was peak Olajuwon putting on one of the all-time great displays. But let's look at their overall careers.

Career Stats:
Olajuwon: 21.8 points, 11.1 rebounds, 2.5 assists, 1.7 steals, 3.1 blocks, .512 FG, .513 eFG, 74.2 VORP in 1,238 G
Robinson: 21.1 points, 10.6 rebounds, 2.5 assists, 1.4 steals, 3.0 blocks, .518 FG, .519 eFG, 81.9 VORP in 987 G

Career Accolades:
Olajuwon: HOF, 12x all-star, 12x all-NBA, 2x DPOY, 9x all-defense, 2x NBA champ, 2x Finals MVP, 1x NBA MVP
Robinson: HOF, 10x all-star, 10x all-NBA, 1x DPOY, 8x all-defense, 2x NBA champ, 1x NBA MVP

Head-to-Head stats (total):
Olajuwon (16-32 W-L): 23.5 points, .460 FG, 11.4 rebounds, 3.1 assists, 1.8 steals, 3.5 blocks
Robinson (32-16 W-L): 20.1 points, .482 FG, 11.3 rebounds, 2.8 assists, 2.1 steals, 3.1 blocks

Head-to-Head stats (playoffs):
Olajuwon (4-2 W-L): 35.3 points, .560 FG, 12.5 rebounds, 5.0 assists, 1.3 steals, 4.2 blocks
Robinson (2-4 W-L): 23.8 points, .449 FG, 11.3 rebounds, 2.7 assists, 1.5 steals, 2.2 blocks

Head-to-Head stats (regular season):
Olajuwon (12-30 W-L): 21.9 points, .441 FG, 11.3 rebounds, 2.8 assists, 1.9 steals, 3.4 blocks
Robinson (30-12 W-L): 19.6 points, .488 FG, 11.2 rebounds, 2.9 assists, 2.2 steals, 3.3 blocks

If we take a composite stat line, taking each player's best seasons in these categories, here's what we get:
Olajuwon: 27.8 points, .538 FG, 14.0 rebounds, 3.6 assists, 2.6 steals, 4.6 blocks
Robinson: 29.8 points, .552 FG, 13.0 rebounds, 4.8 assists, 2.3 steals, 4.5 blocks

I mean, it's as close as you can basically get for two guys. Outside that one series, which everyone knows was a convincing win for Hakeem, over their entire careers, they were very even. If Robinson was considered "soft", the stat line and his career results sure showed otherwise. Dude was a freaking force of nature. I've always said Hakeem was a little better, but that it was very close, and quite obviously, it was pretty even.

 

[lovegtm]

This is a good time to post 2 separate really good videos that Thinking Basketball did on each player:

Hakeem:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1cp6_ucC9M


The Ensign:
View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_5ZhbbDvQg

 

[reggiecleveland]

Basketball isn't baseball though. Stats do not tell the story nearly as much in basketball. There are Alpha guys who lead a team, have the drive inside to win. Hakeem had that in buckets. Some wonder if Robinson had it at all.

Robinson was younger and had less wear and tear since he entered NBA later (and didn't train that hard) and Hakeem had a steep decline after his peak. Certainly Robinson got the better of sore kneed, stuck between a fat Barkley and an unhappy Pippen Hakeem. That a healthier (original load manager, give him credit for that) Robinson was better than broken down Hakeem does not make it even just like Hearns beating (he won!) Sugar Ray Leonard 8 years after he was whipped showed how good he still was, it didn't make it even.

But, fact is when Robinson was at his peak he was destroyed, physically, mentally, completely. It isn't like Tyson Ali or even Tyson Larry Holmes where we have to wonder who wins at their peaks. These two went at it their peaks and the Dream knocked Robinson out. Did we read about Robinson 'revenge tour? Did that epic ass whooping get him to train harder, miss practice less often? Did teammates talk about how he inspired or motivated them to get back and show how good he was? Great players respond to losing and embarrassment. Magic was so bad in the 84 finals, but everyone agrees that made him even better afterwards. Robinson quietly went about his business, stayed what he was, the most talented, but not the most driven.

That's how I see it. Two giants went head to head and one crushed the other. Hakeem is the only former NBA player textbook narcissist Michael Jordan ever praises.

Robinson was great and better than Embid or Anthony Davis. In any other era he would have been the quickest big, but he played at the same time, and in the same state with the quickest big guy ever, and he was lost.

I will give you this Robinson was a great player for a longer period than Hakeem and that allowed him to be around for Duncan. He deserves credit for lasting so long. ,But that he was far inferior to Hakeem at their peaks is not in doubt.

 

[BaseballJones]

Individual best seasons by VORP:

Olajuwon:
92-93: 7.8
93-94: 7.3
89-90: 6.2
88-89: 5.7

Robinson:
93-94: 11.4
94-95: 8.7
95-96: 8.3
90-91: 8.1

Robinson had four seasons with more VORP than Olajuwon's best season.

Individual best seasons by Win Shares:

Olajuwon:
92-93: 15.8
93-94: 14.3
88-89: 12.4
89-90: 11.2

Robinson:
93-94: 20.0
95-96: 18.3
94-95: 17.5
90-91: 17.0

Robinson had four seasons with more Win Shares than Olajuwon's best season.

Individual best seasons by PER:

Olajuwon:
92-93: 27.3
94-95: 26.0
95-96: 25.5
93-94: 25.3

Robinson:
96-97: 31.0
93-94: 30.7
95-96: 29.4
94-95: 29.1

Robinson had seven seasons with a higher PER than Olajuwon's best season.

Head-to-head, more often than not, Robinson beat Olajuwon. 32-16 win-loss record for Robinson over their respective career head-to-head matchups. The statistical matchup is essentially even, with Hakeem having better points average (but on 33% more FGA). The advanced metrics all favor Robinson by a sizable margin.

Olajuwon will always have that WCF, there's no doubt about that. It wasn't as if Robinson played poorly. He went up against an inner circle elite all-time great and still averaged 23.8 points, 11.3 rebounds, 2.7 assists, 1.5 steals, and 2.2 blocks. I wasn't as if Olajuwon held him to a dozen points and six rebounds a night. It was simply that Olajuwon was in another universe that series, so he rightly deserves every bit of praise he gets for that. He was a god that series.

And despite all these advanced metrics which favor Robinson by a lot, I *still* agree that Hakeem was a little better. It's just that it was pretty even when you look at their entire body of work. That WCF for some (like you, it appears) that is the measuring stick, but they both played a long time and had a lot of battles, the vast majority of which Robinson won. Not that series, of course, but most of the time.

 

[tims4wins]

Can we please split this out or take it offline?

 

[InstaFace]

In fairness, as Ben Taylor notes in his Olajuwon video, we don't have good stats to measure his defensive impact from back then, so a pure box score comparison is going to be sorely lacking. Which doesn't mean either point of view is wrong, just that the data is even more suspect than usual.

 

[reggiecleveland]

Individual best seasons by VORP:

Olajuwon:
92-93: 7.8
93-94: 7.3
89-90: 6.2
88-89: 5.7

Robinson:
93-94: 11.4
94-95: 8.7
95-96: 8.3
90-91: 8.1

Robinson had four seasons with more VORP than Olajuwon's best season.

Individual best seasons by Win Shares:

Olajuwon:
92-93: 15.8
93-94: 14.3
88-89: 12.4
89-90: 11.2

Robinson:
93-94: 20.0
95-96: 18.3
94-95: 17.5
90-91: 17.0

Robinson had four seasons with more Win Shares than Olajuwon's best season.

Individual best seasons by PER:

Olajuwon:
92-93: 27.3
94-95: 26.0
95-96: 25.5
93-94: 25.3

Robinson:
96-97: 31.0
93-94: 30.7
95-96: 29.4
94-95: 29.1

Robinson had seven seasons with a higher PER than Olajuwon's best season.

Head-to-head, more often than not, Robinson beat Olajuwon. 32-16 win-loss record for Robinson over their respective career head-to-head matchups. The statistical matchup is essentially even, with Hakeem having better points average (but on 33% more FGA). The advanced metrics all favor Robinson by a sizable margin.

Olajuwon will always have that WCF, there's no doubt about that. It wasn't as if Robinson played poorly. He went up against an inner circle elite all-time great and still averaged 23.8 points, 11.3 rebounds, 2.7 assists, 1.5 steals, and 2.2 blocks. I wasn't as if Olajuwon held him to a dozen points and six rebounds a night. It was simply that Olajuwon was in another universe that series, so he rightly deserves every bit of praise he gets for that. He was a god that series.

And despite all these advanced metrics which favor Robinson by a lot, I *still* agree that Hakeem was a little better. It's just that it was pretty even when you look at their entire body of work. That WCF for some (like you, it appears) that is the measuring stick, but they both played a long time and had a lot of battles, the vast majority of which Robinson won. Not that series, of course, but most of the time.

Last word.
He looked better on paper didn't he?
The why did the superior player get his ass handed to him?

 

[BaseballJones]

Last word.
He looked better on paper didn't he?
The why did the superior player get his ass handed to him?

I guess I just wish you'd actually see what I'm trying to say and not argue against what I'm not saying. Oh well.

 

[Deathofthebambino]

Last word.
He looked better on paper didn't he?
The why did the superior player get his ass handed to him?

Umm, because sometimes guys have better series than other guys in a small sample size?

Or are you arguing that Dr. J was better than Larry Bird because of the 1982 ECF?

 

[reggiecleveland]

Umm, because sometimes guys have better series than other guys in a small sample size?

Or are you arguing that Dr. J was better than Larry Bird because of the 1982 ECF?

Not even close to same level of beat down. One guy was on top and the other on the way down. Larry was not MVP Larry yet, and when he was Doc was older. I love Larry, but ABA Doc is maybe better. But we will never know becasue they never played each other when they were both on top. And when it got out hand the other way Doc fought Larry rather than just take it.

Maybe Jordan Clyde was as bad as Hakeem/Robinson, but nobody was saying Clyde was a good.

 

[pjheff]

I love Larry, but ABA Doc is maybe better.

 

[reggiecleveland]

View attachment 90717

Fair

 

[Deathofthebambino]

Not even close to same level of beat down. One guy was on top and the other on the way down. Larry was not MVP Larry yet, and when he was Doc was older. I love Larry, but ABA Doc is maybe better. But we will never know becasue they never played each other when they were both on top. And when it got out hand the other way Doc fought Larry rather than just take it.

Maybe Jordan Clyde was as bad as Hakeem/Robinson, but nobody was saying Clyde was a good.

Well shit, if we've got an answer for everything, maybe if Robinson doesn't spend two years in the Navy, and instead rolled into the league, he'd have been a more polished 29 year old against the 33 year old Hakeem.

And you know these quotes are completely incoherent, right?

"Some wonder if Robinson had it at all."

Umm, no, almost nobody wonders that about David Robinson

"Robinson was younger and had less wear and tear since he entered NBA later (and didn't train that hard) and Hakeem had a steep decline after his peak."

Yeah, those Annapolis grads and Navy veterans, them guys just go through the motions. And Hakeem won his MVP in his 10th season. In his 13th season, he was finishing 7th in the MVP voting. I wouldn't say he had a steep decline. He just got old.

That a healthier (original load manager, give him credit for that) Robinson was better than broken down Hakeem But, fact is when Robinson was at his peak he was destroyed, physically, mentally, completely. It isn't like Tyson Ali or even Tyson Larry Holmes where we have to wonder who wins at their peaks.

Their peaks were literally at the same time from 89/90-95/96, it just so happens that 89/90 was Robinson's rookie year. And Load Manager? WTF? Robinson averaged 70.5 games/year for his career, and that includes 96/97 where he played only 6 games after he broke his foot. Olajuwon is apparently the real load manager, he only averaged 68.77 games/year, and from what I remember, never had a career altering injury.

These two went at it their peaks and the Dream knocked Robinson out. Did we read about Robinson 'revenge tour? Did that epic ass whooping get him to train harder, miss practice less often? Did teammates talk about how he inspired or motivated them to get back and show how good he was? Great players respond to losing and embarrassment. Magic was so bad in the 84 finals, but everyone agrees that made him even better afterwards. Robinson quietly went about his business, stayed what he was, the most talented, but not the most driven.

Robinson literally went out the following season and came in 2nd in the MVP voting, was Defensive player of the year for the 4th time, 1st team all NBA. What, he didn't get the triple crown so it's a lost season? This sounds like Derek Jeter's Captain Intangibles shit right here.


I will give you this Robinson was a great player for a longer period than Hakeem and that allowed him to be around for Duncan. He deserves credit for lasting so long.

Umm, Olajuwon played 18 years in the league, Robinson only played 14. Robinson's peak was shorter than Hakeem's, because of the Navy and because of the foot injury.

Dude, I would take Olajuwon over Robinson too, but this is nonsense.

 

[InstaFace]

gonna have to rename this thread "International Celtics Discourse"

 

[snowmanny]

Fair

To also be fair, I didn't see Dr. J until a couple games in the 1976 ABA finals, and I certainly had never seen anything like that before. And not much like it since.Apparently the Knicks weren't watching though.