# Hakeem Olajouwon or Tim Duncan . Who's better



## Helter Skelter (Jun 27, 2005)

Hello

Which player is better , Hakeem or Tim .

Duncan has won 3 rings , and Hakeem only 2 , but ...

For me , I think Tim Duncan is better , but I'm not sure. :banana:


----------



## SeaNet (Nov 18, 2004)

That's a very tough one. Hakeem had all the moves, and I mean ALL the moves. His post play was sublime. Duncan has a much smaller number of moves, IMO, but delivers them expertly and unstoppably. Hakeem was the artist, Duncan the technician. Defensively they are both on an all-time great level. For me, I prefer Hakeem, because I just loved watching the man play and IMO he did it w/ less talent around him, but I wouldn't quibble w/ those who say Duncan is more effective.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

Hakeem. He was better both offensively and defensively.


----------



## gumpware (May 20, 2003)

Tim Duncan has been an All-NBA player since his 1st year, and it took Hakeem a few years to become the force that we know him as. I'll take Hakeem's best over Duncan's best any day, but if you factor in consistency, I would say overall their careers will be equal.


----------



## kamego (Dec 29, 2003)

Duncan is a great player but he isn't Hakeem.


----------



## ShuHanGuanYu (Feb 3, 2005)

Hakeem had Duncan's interior defense, blocking, rebounding, etc. but was also an unstoppable force offensively. I'd take Hakeem, but that's no knock to Duncan.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

ShuHanGuanYu said:


> Hakeem had Duncan's interior defense, blocking, rebounding, etc. but was also an unstoppable force offensively. I'd take Hakeem, but that's no knock to Duncan.


yep. like spriggan said, he was better on both ends. i wonder how cool kid will try to spin it though...he will probably say some stuff like "if hakeem was in todays game, tim would own him & viceversa"


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

Cool Kid's gonna blame the zone. Watch.


----------



## 4BiddenKnight (Jun 23, 2005)

Duncan, IMO, was stoppable in the offensive end but when it came to crunch time, he gets it done.

Overall, Hakeem no question. Shake and bake, absolutely undressing David Robinson was sweet (got that from the Street series, never watched the live game of it).


----------



## Max Payne (Mar 2, 2004)

Hakeem without a doubt. What a player. Just pure magic.


----------



## Carbo04 (Apr 15, 2005)

Hakeem.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Spriggan said:


> Cool Kid's gonna blame the zone. Watch.


Ha! 

What you don't understand is that Hakeem Olajuwon, outside of any Bulls player, is probably my favorite player of all-time. Tim Duncan status.

They both dominate both ends of the court. They did it in a lot of the same ways, but the difference is Hakeem was more athletic and Duncan was/is the smarter player. I think they were pretty much even on both ends all things considered.

With that said, they are the same calibur, with Hakeem having a slight upper hand. I give Duncan a couple more years and he'll be right there with Hakeem and Shaq historically, maybe even past them.


----------



## sherwin (Mar 21, 2005)

hakeem


----------



## Idunkonyou (Feb 23, 2003)

Hakeem. Better all around player period.


----------



## samvasan (May 26, 2005)

The general consensus seems to be in favor of Hakeem, but I don't know if it's time yet to decide. 

It's an interesting comparison; both started their careers in very similar fashion - the power forward in a 'twin towers' scenario. 

Robinson was clearly in need of help at that point, and gladly deferred to Duncan. The Sampson-Olajuwon union was more an equal partnership. Both had success early on in their careers; the Rockets going to the finals in Hakeem's second year, and Duncan winning the title in his. 

Olajuwon eventually became the sole focal point of his team and won a pair of titles. Duncan did the same this year, and was somewhat there in 2003. 

Let's not count out Timmy yet ... there are still several chapters to be written in his career, and he might very well finish up ahead of Hakeem in the standings. 

Definitely not as much fun as Olajuwon to watch, but he may end up holding a higher rank in NBA history.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

it is harder to be 1st team all-nba at c then at the f spot. 1 c, 2 f's.


----------



## Hoopla (Jun 1, 2004)

kflo said:


> it is harder to be 1st team all-nba at c then at the f spot. 1 c, 2 f's.


Technically, it is not harder because there are fewer centers to compete against than forwards, so the random odds would be similar. But as for the original question, I'd take Hakeem without thinking twice.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Prime value, they are very similar. Duncan was a tad better offensively. Olajuwon was a tad better defensively. Career value, Olajuwon obviously still has a significant leg up.


----------



## Hoopla (Jun 1, 2004)

Yyzlin said:


> Prime value, they are very similar. Duncan was a tad better offensively.


Huh? In his prime, Hakeem played at a level that Duncan has not approached in his career. And Duncan certainly wasn't Hakeem's equal offensively, let alone better.


----------



## Air Fly (Apr 19, 2005)

Hakeem The Dream :banana:


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

Hoopla said:


> Huh? In his prime, Hakeem played at a level that Duncan has not approached in his career. And Duncan certainly wasn't Hakeem's equal offensively, let alone better.


true story.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Hoopla said:


> Huh? In his prime, Hakeem played at a level that Duncan has not approached in his career. And Duncan certainly wasn't Hakeem's equal offensively, let alone better.


Very true. I'd say it's pretty obvious Dream did pretty much everything better than Duncan, on both sides of the ball, night in and night out.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Duncan. Its better for a team to run the offense through Duncan over Hakeem. Duncan is up there defensively with Hakeem no doubt. His individual offense isn't up at Hakeem's level, but Duncan is still very effective. But Duncans passing ability is just too good, and puts him over the top for me. He hovers around 3 assists per game most of the time, but the stats don't do him justice. If the NBA did hockey assists, where you pass to the guy, then that guy passes to the guy that scores, Duncan would be among the leader in assists. So many times Duncan sets up the open guy by drawing the double team and passing it out, and having them swing it around the perimeter for a guy to nail a shot. He would be averaging around 8 assists a game then. He is what makes the Spurs offense go. He allows Ginobli to be effective because Ginobli is not the main focus of the defense. Now I'll be the first to admit that I've seen a helluva lot more Duncan than Hakeem. Duncan may be getting short changed here because of his last finals, but he still averaged 20-14 on two sprained ankles against the best defensive front court in basketball. In 03 when he was healthy, he was out there setting block records, and having constant triple doubles, I hope Duncan can get back up to that level next season because that makes the Spurs much more exciting.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

sloth said:


> Duncan. Its better for a team to run the offense through Duncan over Hakeem. Duncan is up there defensively with Hakeem no doubt. His individual offense isn't up at Hakeem's level, but Duncan is still very effective. But Duncans passing ability is just too good, and puts him over the top for me. He hovers around 3 assists per game most of the time, but the stats don't do him justice. If the NBA did hockey assists, where you pass to the guy, then that guy passes to the guy that scores, Duncan would be among the leader in assists. So many times Duncan sets up the open guy by drawing the double team and passing it out, and having them swing it around the perimeter for a guy to nail a shot. He would be averaging around 8 assists a game then. He is what makes the Spurs offense go. He allows Ginobli to be effective because Ginobli is not the main focus of the defense. Now I'll be the first to admit that I've seen a helluva lot more Duncan than Hakeem. Duncan may be getting short changed here because of his last finals, but he still averaged 20-14 on two sprained ankles against the best defensive front court in basketball. In 03 when he was healthy, he was out there setting block records, and having constant triple doubles, I hope Duncan can get back up to that level next season because that makes the Spurs much more exciting.


That argument favours Hakeem, not duncan, IMHO... Kenny Smith and Vernon Maxwell (The Mad Bomber) made a living off Hakeem's assists from the low-post or next-to-last pass he provided...


----------



## clien (Jun 2, 2005)

i cant think of one aspect of the game duncan is better at than hakeem was. As far as the rings go i think duncans teams that won championships were better than hakeems, plus he played in the jordan era. Tim is an extremly great player now, who knows maybe 1 day he'll be considerd better than hakeem, but i doubt it


----------



## 1 Penny (Jul 11, 2003)

No doubt, Hakeem.

Hakeem is better at every aspect of the game than Duncan. Doesnt take away any from Duncan.. considering I think Hakeem is the best center of all time.... not greatest (since Wilt and Russel l impacted the game a lot more). But Overall Hakeem could do everything. He was a defensive monster, much better than prime Mourning, prime Mutombo and better than current big man Wallace. Robinson and Hakeem took the cake and shared it between them in terms of best defensive big guys. They will dominate a game by blocking 7 shots, stealing the ball 5 times and getting 15 rebounds.... it happened a lot back those days trust me.

Then you have the offensive end... Hakeem's post moves schooled anyone who tried to guard him. People saying he isnt consistent and much more stoppable got tobe kidding.. maybe in his first 5 seasons... but as he progressed he was unstoppable with those turn around one handed jump hooks, he can hit that 15 footer much more fluidly than Duncan too. 

Hakeem was the package..... I still put Hakeem and Robinson as the 2 best big guys Ive *seen* play... bar none. Duncan reminds me of Hakeem and definitely being on the spurs reminds me of Robinson... so thats one reason I like Duncan... that and being today's best big man.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Yyzlin said:


> Prime value, they are very similar. Duncan was a tad better offensively. Olajuwon was a tad better defensively. Career value, Olajuwon obviously still has a significant leg up.


That's pretty much right on point.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

Sir Patchwork said:


> That's pretty much right on point.


:nonono:


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

Hakeem didnt win championship until he looks to be quick with his move and not waiting for double team in the right situations.

But Duncan was never the aggressor on the offense side, he will take his time to draw double teams. But the only thing I see Duncan is better at is to move without the ball to the deep paint area to go for a smiple hook shot. Hakeem was quick, athletic but he isnt at the same level as Tim Duncan interms of size and pure strength.

Hakeem is flashier but Tim Duncn style of play could win him more rings since he didnt need to learn to be assertive to aviod double teams but Hakeem did because Tim Duncan could get away with moving without the ball to get deep position like nowadays players like Shaq, Yao Ming always do that because they do have the hieght and size.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Hoopla said:


> Huh? In his prime, Hakeem played at a level that Duncan has not approached in his career. And Duncan certainly wasn't Hakeem's equal offensively, let alone better.


Why wasn't Duncan better than Hakeem offensively? In Duncan's best season(01-02), he scored 25.5 PPG on a 1.15 PSA. In Olajuwon's best season (92-93), he scored 26.1 PPG on a 1.15 PSA. Duncan did this on a team that averaged 6 possessions less per game. He also did this in a league where offensive averages were much lower than the mid 90's due to the impact of zone defense and various other factors.


----------



## kaniffmn (Jul 29, 2003)

Dream is better.


----------



## JT (Mar 1, 2004)

*evaluations based solely on stats? oh no *



Yyzlin said:


> Why wasn't Duncan better than Hakeem offensively? In Duncan's best season(01-02), he scored 25.5 PPG on a 1.15 PSA. In Olajuwon's best season (92-93), he scored 26.1 PPG on a 1.15 PSA. Duncan did this on a team that averaged 6 possessions less per game. He also did this in a league where offensive averages were much lower than the mid 90's due to the impact of zone defense and various other factors.


:nonono:


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

*Re: evaluations based solely on stats? oh no *

Yyzlin pretty much putting it down how I would have, and have before in the past. People write off pacing and rule changes, among other factors, and fall in love with stats. The reason I like both Duncan and Hakeem so much is because they're so similar. Both dominant on offense *and* defense, both have a lot of similar traits. I couldn't say one was better than the other on either end. Hakeem has the advantage overall simply because his career is done and so we have more to look at with him.


----------



## Cap (Nov 5, 2003)

Yyzlin said:


> Why wasn't Duncan better than Hakeem offensively? In Duncan's best season(01-02), he scored 25.5 PPG on a 1.15 PSA. In Olajuwon's best season (92-93), he scored 26.1 PPG on a 1.15 PSA. Duncan did this on a team that averaged 6 possessions less per game. He also did this in a league where offensive averages were much lower than the mid 90's due to the impact of zone defense and various other factors.


Why are you using one season as an example? And why did you choose Dream's 92-93 season, I'd say his best season was 94-95.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

Yyzlin said:


> Why wasn't Duncan better than Hakeem offensively? In Duncan's best season(01-02), he scored 25.5 PPG on a 1.15 PSA. In Olajuwon's best season (92-93), he scored 26.1 PPG on a 1.15 PSA. Duncan did this on a team that averaged 6 possessions less per game. He also did this in a league where offensive averages were much lower than the mid 90's due to the impact of zone defense and various other factors.


That's the _only_ time Duncan has ever averaged more than 24 ppg. I don't think peak value should only take into account one season, therefore I disagree that Duncan was equal to Hakeem offensively, much less better. The season after Hakeem scored 26.1 ppg, he score 27.3, then 27.8, then 26.9. Those four seasons (92-97) are probably Hakeem at his peak value. Put them up against Duncan's four best so far.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

Spriggan said:


> That's the _only_ time Duncan has ever averaged more than 24 ppg. I don't think peak value should only take into account one season, therefore I disagree that Duncan was equal to Hakeem offensively, much less better. The season after Hakeem scored 26.1 ppg, he score 27.3, then 27.8, then 26.9. Those four seasons (92-97) are probably Hakeem at his peak value. Put them up against Duncan's four best so far.


 Good points.

Very close call but I would put Hakeem ahead.

Those 4 season of Hakeems' peak he scored more then Duncan best 4 seasons so far while being just as efficient.

His approxiamate value for those 4 seasons also beat Duncan's best 4.

Both were great defenders, good with assists, and blocks. For there peak season it looks like Duncan was a slightly better rebounder


----------



## MemphisX (Sep 11, 2002)

Duncan

The reason being is when most people compare players playing now to players who have retired, all they remmeber is the retired players golden years. Hakeem was not on offensive force early in his career. He developed in to that. He was always an athletic freak for his size and top notch defender.


----------



## couchman (Dec 20, 2004)

I'm a HUGE Spurs homer.

But I would say Hakeem right now. I'm not basing this on stats, just my general observations as a long time NBA fan. 

The Dream was much better on offense. 
IMO they are equals on defense. 
Duncan is a better rebounder, but barely. 

But Duncan is still has time left in his career to get better, so you can't close the book on this discussion yet.


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

Hakeem's peak was higher than Duncan's, but Duncan still has a chance to top The Dream's overall career. 



Hakeem for now, and could end up being Hakeem overall as well.


----------



## farhan007 (Jun 6, 2003)

John said:


> Hakeem didnt win championship until he looks to be quick with his move and not waiting for double team in the right situations.
> 
> But Duncan was never the aggressor on the offense side, he will take his time to draw double teams. But the only thing I see Duncan is better at is to move without the ball to the deep paint area to go for a smiple hook shot. Hakeem was quick, athletic but he isnt at the same level as Tim Duncan interms of size and pure strength.
> 
> Hakeem is flashier but Tim Duncn style of play could win him more rings since he didnt need to learn to be assertive to aviod double teams but Hakeem did because Tim Duncan could get away with moving without the ball to get deep position like nowadays players like Shaq, Yao Ming always do that because they do have the hieght and size.


guys, do you remember what era hakeem had to play in to get rings??? thats right the jordan era, the magic, bord era, the great big men era..........

lets see tim freakin im going to die watching his boring *** bank shot duncan win ONE title in that era.....


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

farhan007 said:


> guys, do you remember what era hakeem had to play in to get rings??? thats right the jordan era, the magic, bord era, the great big men era..........
> 
> lets see tim freakin im going to die watching his boring *** bank shot duncan win ONE title in that era.....


To be fair, Hakeem didn't win his championship in the Bird/Jordan/Magic Era. He won his championships while all 3 of these guys were retired. This is an invalid arguement. Jordan came back for the last 17 games of the season, and wasn't at his airness level yet. The team did alright in the playoffs, but they weren't back in a good fit year and lost. Magic didn't come out of retirement until a year later. So that arguement isn't really vald, if Jordan never retired, Hakeem wouldn't have a ring.


----------



## farhan007 (Jun 6, 2003)

sloth said:


> To be fair, Hakeem didn't win his championship in the Bird/Jordan/Magic Era. He won his championships while all 3 of these guys were retired. This is an invalid arguement. Jordan came back for the last 17 games of the season, and wasn't at his airness level yet. The team did alright in the playoffs, but they weren't back in a good fit year and lost. Magic didn't come out of retirement until a year later. So that arguement isn't really vald, if Jordan never retired, Hakeem wouldn't have a ring.


i said that is the era hakeem was in... 
but reffering to those two rings... his compitition was against Drob, Ewing, mourning, barkley, malone.etc...... Tim would not win one ring in that era...


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

farhan007 said:


> i said that is the era hakeem was in...
> but reffering to those two rings... his compitition was against Drob, Ewing, mourning, barkley, malone.etc...... Tim would not win one ring in that era...


How do you know? Do you have a magic ball that allows you to see these types of things?


----------



## farhan007 (Jun 6, 2003)

sloth said:


> if Jordan never retired, Hakeem wouldn't have a ring.


How do you know? Do you have a magic ball that allows you to see these types of things?


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

EHL said:


> Why are you using one season as an example? And why did you choose Dream's 92-93 season, I'd say his best season was 94-95.


Becasue 92-93 was Olajuwon's best season, using PER as a rough estimate His PER that season was 27.3. Considering his next high is 26.0, a whole 1.3 points behind, I think its fair to say that was 92-93 was indeed the Dream's best season.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Spriggan said:


> That's the _only_ time Duncan has ever averaged more than 24 ppg. I don't think peak value should only take into account one season, therefore I disagree that Duncan was equal to Hakeem offensively, much less better. The season after Hakeem scored 26.1 ppg, he score 27.3, then 27.8, then 26.9. Those four seasons (92-97) are probably Hakeem at his peak value. Put them up against Duncan's four best so far.


I usually use one season as the barometer of peak value, especially when a player shows similar value in other seasons. It's not like Duncan didn't come close to matching that. His PPG/48 in the 25.5 PPG season was 30.1. He's had 29.2 PPG/48 in each of the last two seasons. Duncan also factors as a more efficient offensive player, when factoring in league averages. For example, Duncan has already finished in the top 10 in FG% five times in his career. Olajuwon in his entire career only finished in the top 10 twice, and one of those times came in 1999. Olajuwon's offensive peak did likely come in the next three seasons after 92-93, but the reason why I didn't use those seasons is because it wasn't his peak overall, as I answered in the post above.


----------



## carrrnuttt (Dec 4, 2004)

Is there a "Timmy Shake"?

Never heard of it.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Is there a "Timmy Walk"?

Never heard of it.


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

farhan007 said:


> guys, do you remember what era hakeem had to play in to get rings??? thats right the jordan era, the magic, bord era, the great big men era..........
> 
> lets see tim freakin im going to die watching his boring *** bank shot duncan win ONE title in that era.....


Well, let me go one step further.

Hakeem Olajuwon didnt need as many post feeders as Tim Duncan needs to win a championship.

Hakeem looks more dominant because he mostly operate from creating a shot all by himself. Like the dream shake fadeaway, the headfakes, the hook shot.

Hakeem hardly getting points from a couple of decoy plays for him to get deep position from strong to weak, or from out to in because he doesnt have the bulk to do that like the likes of Shaq, Duncan and Yao Ming to some extent.

Hakeem was a far better on the ball lowpost player, but Duncan is very effective to score without having the ball in his hands and probably only Shaq in his prime can do better in that aspect than Duncan himself.

Interms of impact on the game, they are both equal but usually guys do moves with the ball are far more flashier than guys who get their without the ball in his hands.


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

Yyzlin said:


> Is there a "Timmy Walk"?
> 
> Never heard of it.


 theres a "timmy over the back"..."timmy hack across the arm"....


----------



## HKF (Dec 10, 2002)

Had MJ not "retired" for that year and a half, Hakeem's legend would be a little bit dimmer. It is dubious that after those two years, "arguably" the best player in the game (even with Barkley) couldn't get back to the Finals.


----------



## Max Payne (Mar 2, 2004)

HKF said:


> Had MJ not "retired" for that year and a half, Hakeem's legend would be a little bit dimmer. It is dubious that after those two years, "arguably" the best player in the game (even with Barkley) couldn't get back to the Finals.


 Doesn't take away from the fact that he was flat out better than Duncan. I'd like to see any of these Spurs teams go up against Jordan and the Bulls or the Showtime Lakers. What I wouldn't give to see Bowen being killed on every possession by Jordan or Magic.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Ugh, just lost a long write up thanks to a power trip.

Would Duncan be more of a threat on the offensive end without the zone? Who knows, as Hakeem struggled to dominate late in his career when Seattle implemented illegal zone defenses against Houston in the playoffs. Then again, Rudy T never expected to deal with the zone so he never had time to adjust the offense accordingly. Duncan doesn't have Hakeem's arsenal of moves, though, and does no where near as good a job creating for himself.

Duncan is the main cog on a very good Spurs team that runs an amazing system. Hakeem was the Houston system, offensively and defensively. Throw it down to him and set up on the perimeter. It worked, time and time again. Who knows how many titles Hakeem would have won had Sampson stayed healthy/with the Rockets or if he was surrounded by decent players from 1988-92.



HKF said:


> Had MJ not "retired" for that year and a half, Hakeem's legend would be a little bit dimmer. It is dubious that after those two years, "arguably" the best player in the game (even with Barkley) couldn't get back to the Finals.


Houston was the only team in the 90's to have a winning record against Chicago. And Jordan was playing as good as Jordan could play in '95 when the Bulls lost in the playoffs. I guess it's hard to make the finals without a prime Horace Grant or Dennis Rodman.

*John*: Hakeem never needed bulk to position himself. He could work with the ball close to the basket or use his agility to slip past any defender on the perimeter. David Robinson said without hesitation on SportsRadio610 a couple weeks ago that Hakeem was tougher to defend than Shaq. He has played both during their overall primes. Not sure why you would say Duncan is more effective without the ball as Hakeem was a better offensive rebounder and coud set some nasty screens. 

*couchman*: No, no I don't think it's fair to assess them as equal defensively. Hakeem was the greatest defender in the game bar Bill Russell maybe. A primal mix of Ron Artest's intensity and quickness with Ben Wallace's instinct and athleticism in the 80's and still one of the greatest in the 90's.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

MemphisX said:


> Duncan
> 
> The reason being is when most people compare players playing now to players who have retired, all they remmeber is the retired players golden years. Hakeem was not on offensive force early in his career. He developed in to that. He was always an athletic freak for his size and top notch defender.


Hakeem _was_ an offensive force in the late 80's. He just had a crappy supporting cast. In the mid 90's, he had better players around him (relative to the opposition), so the other team couldn't just smother him all the time. I think that if the '94 and '95 Hakeem was replaced with the late 80's Hakeem, the Rockets would have still done about as well as they did.



MemphisX said:


> To be fair, Hakeem didn't win his championship in the Bird/Jordan/Magic Era. He won his championships while all 3 of these guys were retired. This is an invalid arguement. Jordan came back for the last 17 games of the season, and wasn't at his airness level yet. The team did alright in the playoffs, but they weren't back in a good fit year and lost. Magic didn't come out of retirement until a year later. So that arguement isn't really vald, if Jordan never retired, Hakeem wouldn't have a ring.


As I posted in another thread earlier today, the Rockets lost in the '86 Finals in 6 games to the Celtics (arguably the greatest team of all time) without their starting point guard (suspended) and his backup (injured). Over the next year or two, they lost their three best guards to drugs, and Sampson became injured and crap, which crippled the team for years. Like MRC said, you don't know how many titles the Rockets would have won had those guys not been banned for drug-use and had Sampson stayed healthy.
And in the '95 playoffs, Jordan was playing virtually as well as he ever did. He didn't just come back out of nowhere. He had been training with the team for a while. The problem for the Bulls was that they didn't have Horace Grant any more.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> Hakeem _was_ an offensive force in the late 80's. He just had a crappy supporting cast.


He also had too much of a do-it-all mindset early in his NBA career. He was a black hole most of the time, trying to do way too much offensively and demanding the ball vehemently whenever he was close to being open. If his teammates were more capable, he probably would have developed quicker after Sampson left.


----------



## Hoopla (Jun 1, 2004)

Yyzlin said:


> I usually use one season as the barometer of peak value, especially when a player shows similar value in other seasons. It's not like Duncan didn't come close to matching that. His PPG/48 in the 25.5 PPG season was 30.1. He's had 29.2 PPG/48 in each of the last two seasons.


Every player is at their peak for different durations, so you can't use a one season standard for all players. And as was mentioned earlier, Duncan hasn't come within 2 points of his highest scoring average (25.5). And what does his ppg per 48 minutes mean if he didn't play those minutes? You don't reward players for having similar per minute production if they played fewer minutes.



> Olajuwon's offensive peak did likely come in the next three seasons after 92-93, but the reason why I didn't use those seasons is because it wasn't his peak overall, as I answered in the post above.


No, the reason you did that is because you knew it was a way of selectively using stats to support your argument. Similar to how you chose Duncan's peak to be in 2002, although if you went by your favorite stat, the PER, Duncan's best season would be 2004. But wait, Duncan only averaged 22 points that year, so let's not use that one...

[strike]You never saw Hakeem play, because anyone who did wouldn't need to think twice as to who was the better offensive player. You can only race to basketballreference in an attempt to use stats as an all knowing measure. So we take your statements with a solid grain of salt.[/strike]

*Stay on the topic at hand, not other posters. This was not needed. Yyzlin did nothing to provoke such a response.*


----------



## Helter Skelter (Jun 27, 2005)

To pick a season and look for the player's peak is a mistake . 

Because an player's peak it doesn't mean nothing it's just a reference.
there's players that they receive most of the balls 'cause there's not
another one to play . 

Spurs have Duncan , Ginobili , Parket and so forth . The possession is 
distributed , but in Hakeem's team all the balls were to him.

Hakeem was selfish in his game and he won 2 titles when Magic ,Jordan and Bird had retired .

Duncan have won with Shaquille , Bryan , Tracy M. , etc ... :banana:


----------



## tone wone (Jan 30, 2003)

Helter Skelter said:


> To pick a season and look for the player's peak is a mistake .
> 
> Because an player's peak it doesn't mean nothing it's just a reference.
> there's players that they receive most of the balls 'cause there's not
> ...


 Hakeem beat Barkley, Malone, Stockton, Payton, Ewing...whats your point...

IMO Hakeem is better...but sadly Duncan will have the greater legacy


----------



## Priest (Jun 24, 2003)

im not gonna type a long paragraph...hakeem..thats my final answer..


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> Ugh, just lost a long write up thanks to a power trip.
> 
> Would Duncan be more of a threat on the offensive end without the zone? Who knows, as Hakeem struggled to dominate late in his career when Seattle implemented illegal zone defenses against Houston in the playoffs. Then again, Rudy T never expected to deal with the zone so he never had time to adjust the offense accordingly. Duncan doesn't have Hakeem's arsenal of moves, though, and does no where near as good a job creating for himself.


The problem with Olajuwon was, while he could create a decent shot for himself as good as any big at the time, he wasn't always very efficient doing so. There were always several bigs in the legue who were more efficient that him, from D. Robinson to S. O'Neal and even Daugherty. Scoring wise, Olajuwon is extremely comparable to Ewing in terms of their ability to create shots for themselves and their efficiency doing so. Olajuwon was more well rounded on offense because of his superior passing skills though. It's also on defense, where Olajuwon was able to set himself a bit apart from Ewing.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Hoopla said:


> Every player is at their peak for different durations, so you can't use a one season standard for all players. And as was mentioned earlier, Duncan hasn't come within 2 points of his highest scoring average (25.5). And what does his ppg per 48 minutes mean if he didn't play those minutes? You don't reward players for having similar per minute production if they played fewer minutes.


I'm not rewarding Duncan for playing fewer minutes. I was merely stating that Duncan has been able to closely match the scoring rate of that peak season. 





> No, the reason you did that is because you knew it was a way of selectively using stats to support your argument. Similar to how you chose Duncan's peak to be in 2002, although if you went by your favorite stat, the PER, Duncan's best season would be 2004. But wait, Duncan only averaged 22 points that year, so let's not use that one...


But that wasn't Duncan's best season. His PER was the highest by 0.1, but it's easy to see that wasn't his best season because he average 4 less minutes, and played 13 less games. Also, some of the PER can be attributed to the simple fact that Duncan no longer had to compete with Robinson for rebounds, which increased his rebound rate. 



> You never saw Hakeem play, because anyone who did wouldn't need to think twice as to who was the better offensive player. You can only race to basketballreference in an attempt to use stats as an all knowing measure. So we take your statements with a solid grain of salt.


I have seen Hakeem play. And it doesn't matter, because when if you simply compare how each of them appeared to play, then yes, Olajuwon would look much better. But perception is deceiving, since it's extremely contextual.


----------



## BG7 (Jun 25, 2003)

Could Hakeem be as good as Duncan against the zone like Duncan has to go against?


----------



## Ryoga (Aug 31, 2002)

It wasn't jordon who prevented Hakeem to win more rings:

91: lost 3-0 against the Lakers in the 1st round
92: didn't make the playoffs
93: lost 4-3 in the 2nd round against Seattle
96: lost 4-0 in the 2nd round against Seattle 
97: lost 4-2 against Utah in the WC finals
98: lost 3-2 against Utah in the 1st round
99: lost 3-1 against the Lakers in the 1st round

they actually never faced each other in the post season!

My idea is that we're a bit overrating the past: Hakeem was arguably better than Duncan, and I think he was maybe the best C of all time in the 92-96 timespan. But Duncan is up there, the guy is a already a legend. I remeber a game, before the '96 Olympics, when the USA Team was playing under20 USA team, and Hakeem was getting dominated by the opposing center.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

A lot of great points being made. I still can't understand how some people think this is not even close. It's obviously a close comparison. Statistically they were pretty even, both were dominant on both ends, both had a ton of moves in the post, both pass the ball out of the post well, rebound well, both won multiple titles, multiple MVP's, etc.


----------



## Pioneer10 (Sep 30, 2004)

IMO the effects of the zone are being overstated. After all we're seeing players who have played both with a zone and without zone and I haven't seen guys production go down without much more valid reasons (i.e. health). Duncan himselft started out when the zone was banned - don't see a big change to his game.

The zone affects team makeup and what kind of players you need on the bench etc but for the most part great players adjust


----------



## bballlife (Oct 5, 2003)

Spriggan said:


> Hakeem. He was better both offensively and defensively.


Ditto.


----------



## samvasan (May 26, 2005)

3 rings on 3 drastically different squads. In fact, TD's the only player who's been on all of the Spurs championship teams. Something has to be said for that.

I think a lot of ppl in this discussion are dismissing him way too easily in the contest with Dream.


----------



## @[email protected] (Jan 19, 2005)

Dream>TD


----------



## DWadeistheTruth (Apr 25, 2005)

Am a big Duncan fan, his calculated, smooth, all around play. Low post, defense. The bank shot, Duncan is quick deceptive, But Hakeem was to me the flashiest big man, I ever seen. His moves were incredible, his defense was great. Hakeem will take my vote, but is really close. Both great big man.


----------



## DWadeistheTruth (Apr 25, 2005)

Ryoga said:


> It wasn't jordon who prevented Hakeem to win more rings:
> 
> 91: lost 3-0 against the Lakers in the 1st round
> 92: didn't make the playoffs
> ...


Good info, that Jordan talk gets annoying.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> He also had too much of a do-it-all mindset early in his NBA career. He was a black hole most of the time, trying to do way too much offensively and demanding the ball vehemently whenever he was close to being open. If his teammates were more capable, he probably would have developed quicker after Sampson left.


Yeah, he was pretty selfish and kind of wild really in the 80's. But it wasn't all his fault. He had very little help. Otis Thorpe was good, but couldn't really create his own shot. Sleepy Floyd was super-inconsistent. That was it. There was no one else. And excluding Sleepy, there wasn't even anyone who could hit the three. What can you do with a supporting cast like that?



Ryoga said:


> My idea is that we're a bit overrating the past: Hakeem was arguably better than Duncan, and I think he was maybe the best C of all time in the 92-96 timespan. But Duncan is up there, the guy is a already a legend. I remeber a game, before the '96 Olympics, when the USA Team was playing under20 USA team, and Hakeem was getting dominated by the opposing center.


Hakeem got himself injured right after the '96 season, and actually played injured throughout the Olympics.



Yyzlin said:


> Also, some of the PER can be attributed to the simple fact that Duncan no longer had to compete with Robinson for rebounds, which increased his rebound rate.


How do you know? Good centers often help their teammates get rebounds, which can override the "competing for rebounds" effect on stats. Look at what happened to Barkley when he came to the Rockets, or Otis Thorpe when he left the Rockets in '95, or Rodman when he joined the Spurs, or Rasheed when he joined the Pistons.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

> How do you know? Good centers often help their teammates get rebounds, which can override the "competing for rebounds" effect on stats. Look at what happened to Barkley when he came to the Rockets, or Otis Thorpe when he left the Rockets in '95, or Rodman when he joined the Spurs, or Rasheed when he joined the Pistons.


Olajuwon's rebound rate went up the season after Thorpe left. Robinson's rebound rates are significantly higher in non-Rodman years. In the past two years with Sheed, Ben Wallace's rebound rate has been lower than the three previous years without Sheed. It just happens. With another good rebounder, your rebounding rate will depress.


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

i think he meant hakeem helped otis and barkley get rebounds and playing with ben has increased sheeds rpg. i havent read the stats to verify, but thats what i figured it meant

edit: in that same way, robinson as the center could have helped duncan get rebounds at the pf position.


----------



## KokoTheMonkey (Aug 4, 2003)

I wish I could contribute more to this great discussion, but I have to admit I plead ignorance when it comes to Hakeem Olajuwon. I don't remember seeing him play too much, so I'd have to go completely off statistics basically.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Pimped Out said:


> i think he meant hakeem helped otis and barkley get rebounds and playing with ben has increased sheeds rpg. i havent read the stats to verify, but thats what i figured it meant
> 
> edit: in that same way, robinson as the center could have helped duncan get rebounds at the pf position.


Exactly.


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

KokoTheMonkey said:


> I wish I could contribute more to this great discussion, but I have to admit I plead ignorance when it comes to Hakeem Olajuwon. I don't remember seeing him play too much, so I'd have to go completely off statistics basically.


i sorta have to say the same thing. i was young when i watched hakeem so all i remember are his scoring and blocks. i dont really remember much about him as a leader or passer or any of that. from what i remember though, i pick the dream.


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

Since Tim has only played 8 seasons, I'll post the stat comparison for Hakeem's first 8 seasons.

*Tim Duncan*
22.5 PPG
12.3 RPG
3.1 APG
2.5 BPG
.8 SPG
50.7 FG%
69.2 FT%

2 MVPS
3 RINGS, 3 FINALS MVPS
8 ALL-NBA FIRST TEAMS
7 FIRST TEAM ALL-DEFENSE

*Hakeem Olajuwon*
22.8 PPG
12.5 RPG
2.2 APG
2.4 BPG
1.9 SPG
51.7 FG%
68.8 FT%

0 MVPS
0 RINGS, 0 FINALS MVPS
3 ALL-NBA FIRST TEAMS
3 FIRST TEAM ALL-DEFENSE

Is that an eye-opener for those of you who think Duncan is past his prime or that his career is on the downslope?


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> Exactly.


But the bottom line is, with another rebounder on the team, your rebound rate will drop. Duncan's was lower with Robinson than without. When Robinson left, his rebound rate went up which accounted for a boost in PER that doesn't potray a same increase in actual rebounding ability.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

No, that is not the bottom line. I offered several examples of notable power forwards whose respective rebound rates were positively affected by the presence of a good center on their team. You can't say for sure that Duncan's rebound rate increased because Robinson left. It could have increased simply because he improved his rebounding.

Btw, according to basketballreference.com, Duncan's rebound rate stayed exactly the same when Robinson left.


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> *John*: Hakeem never needed bulk to position himself. He could work with the ball close to the basket or use his agility to slip past any defender on the perimeter. David Robinson said without hesitation on SportsRadio610 a couple weeks ago that Hakeem was tougher to defend than Shaq. He has played both during their overall primes. Not sure why you would say Duncan is more effective without the ball as Hakeem was a better offensive rebounder and coud set some nasty screens.


Kid, if u dont know something, dont say it.

Read my post, I said when Hakeem was not having the ball in his hands. You need bulk and pure strength to just walk right in the paint area and wait for the ball to come and make your simple dunk or hook shot.

There is a huge difference from having the ball in your hands then back someone down than not having the ball in his hands but just walk right to the paint area.

Because you can do all kind of fakes or defenders have to honour every Hakeem's move so they, Robinson had to let him back down to certain extent.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

I think John is saying that Hakeem could beat you in more ways with the ball in his hands, but Duncan is better at scoring without having to have the ball. He can get under the hoop and seal off a defender, catch the ball right under and put it in. He also works the pick and roll well, and shoots the jumper well off of catch and shoot. Hakeem was a guy who didn't work off the ball as much to score, he was a guy you gave the ball, he'd pull a move or two before he took a jumper or went for the layup. 

So to re-emphasize John's conclusion, Hakeem will be remembered as the flashier offensive player, because of those moves with the ball in his hands, but Duncan is just as effective, because he is better at those things like sealing his man under the hoop or rolling hard/rolling to the right spot for a catch and shoot. Those things make Duncan just as effective as a scorer, they're just not as memorable as a dream shake or a picture perfect fade away. 

I swear, John has a sense of humor and all of that, but if it wasn't for the language barrier and his strong hate for some players, people would recognize that he can contribute some insightful stuff.


----------



## ssmokinjoe (Jul 5, 2003)

Hakeem had a quadruple double once before. 

Of course, David Robinson did it once before as well.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> No, that is not the bottom line. I offered several examples of notable power forwards whose respective rebound rates were positively affected by the presence of a good center on their team. You can't say for sure that Duncan's rebound rate increased because Robinson left. It could have increased simply because he improved his rebounding.


Where did you offer several examples? You said Olajuwon, Robinson, and Ben Wallace were positively affected, but then I refuted it by demonstrating that each of their rebounding rates increased in the years without those notable power forwards. 



> Btw, according to basketballreference.com, Duncan's rebound rate stayed exactly the same when Robinson left.


Yeah, you were right. I was more referring to the the gap between the 2002 and 2003 season where Robinson was still present, but he played 700 less minutes than the previous season.


----------



## Ps!ence_Fiction (Aug 1, 2004)

KokoTheMonkey said:


> I wish I could contribute more to this great discussion, but I have to admit I plead ignorance when it comes to Hakeem Olajuwon. I don't remember seeing him play too much, so I'd have to go completely off statistics basically.


You are not alone.


----------



## thegreatnero (Jan 8, 2005)

"i think he meant hakeem helped otis and barkley get rebounds and playing with ben has increased sheeds rpg. i havent read the stats to verify, but thats what i figured it meant

edit: in that same way, robinson as the center could have helped duncan get rebounds at the pf position."

There are other factors you have to consider:
1) It should be the entire team's rebounding ability. (i.e. one great rebounder may be lost, while 2 decent rebounders are gained)
2) A defenisve team like the Pistons will force more missed shots and thus there will be more rebounds. (Rasheed might just be benefitting from more missed shots)
3) The pace the team plays (Detroit plays at a slow pace (though I think the Blazers were pretty slow paced too in Sheed's day), so this might offset the lower fg%
4) Freethrows (Detroit probably fouls more than the Portland, allowing more rebound opportunities --easy ones too!)
5) A players new role (Larry Brown made sure Sheed spent most of his time in the paint, whereas Maurice kind of let Sheed do whatever he wanted -- hang around the perimter more)
6) Player's change in attitude (Sheed was definitely more motivated with the Pistons)
7-20) other things I haven't thought of

BOTTOM LINE: Comparisons of stats can be influenced by so factors. It's dangerous to trot them out as proof.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Sir Patchwork said:


> So to re-emphasize John's conclusion, Hakeem will be remembered as the flashier offensive player, because of those moves with the ball in his hands, but Duncan is just as effective, because he is better at those things like sealing his man under the hoop or rolling hard/rolling to the right spot for a catch and shoot. *Those things make Duncan just as effective as a scorer*, they're just not as memorable as a dream shake or a picture perfect fade away.


Quite the assumption you are making. Because isolation plays were so prevalent for the Rocket teams of the 90's, there really was no need for Hakeem to constantly move off the ball and find alternative ways of scoring as much as Duncan. If Hakeem can consistently create shots for himself and average 52% from the field in his first 8 years, why should he be penalised against Duncan's methods off "sealing off defenders"... which has given Duncan a 22.5 ppg for his career so far shooting 51%. IMO, Hakeem was just as effective scoring off the ball whenever he rolled off his man for a catch and shoot jumper, or all the fast break points he generated with his superior shot blocking and quick hands.


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> Quite the assumption you are making. Because isolation plays were so prevalent for the Rocket teams of the 90's, there really was no need for Hakeem to constantly move off the ball and find alternative ways of scoring as much as Duncan. If Hakeem can consistently create shots for himself and average 52% from the field in his first 8 years, why should he be penalised against Duncan's methods off "sealing off defenders"... which has given Duncan a 22.5 ppg for his career so far shooting 51%. IMO, Hakeem was just as effective scoring off the ball whenever he rolled off his man for a catch and shoot jumper, or all the fast break points he generated with his superior shot blocking and quick hands.


I think a lot of people remember Hakeem for his great moves in the post, and think, oh Duncan doesn't do those things as well as Hakeem did, so Hakeem was the better scorer. Hakeem's scoring ability was more in your face, while some of what Duncan does is a lot more subtle. I don't think Hakeem was nearly as good at scoring those ways that Duncan does. Working hard off the ball to get himself an easy opportunity. Statistically, they're pretty even in terms of scoring when it comes down to it, considering rules changes and era differences. It's not an assumption, it's an opinion, just like yours.


----------



## John (Jun 9, 2002)

Sir Patchwork said:


> I think a lot of people remember Hakeem for his great moves in the post, and think, oh Duncan doesn't do those things as well as Hakeem did, so Hakeem was the better scorer. Hakeem's scoring ability was more in your face, while some of what Duncan does is a lot more subtle. I don't think Hakeem was nearly as good at scoring those ways that Duncan does. Working hard off the ball to get himself an easy opportunity. Statistically, they're pretty even in terms of scoring when it comes down to it, considering rules changes and era differences. It's not an assumption, it's an opinion, just like yours.


I think what I said in my very first post said it all.

"Hakeem didnt need as many post feeders as Tim Duncan to win championships!"


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Yyzlin said:


> Where did you offer several examples? You said Olajuwon, Robinson, and Ben Wallace were positively affected, but then I refuted it by demonstrating that each of their rebounding rates increased in the years without those notable power forwards.


No, I said: "Good centers often help their *teammates* get rebounds". I offered examples of power forwards (Barkley, Thorpe, Rodman, Rasheed) whose rebound rates were higher when they played with good centers.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> No, I said: "Good centers often help their *teammates* get rebounds". I offered examples of power forwards (Barkley, Thorpe, Rodman, Rasheed) whose rebound rates were higher when they played with good centers.


First, the examples only hold for two of the four. Neither Thorpe nor Rodman show any trends. Second, how else do you explain the increase in Duncan's rebound rate? You could chalk it up to improvement, but it seems very coincidental that Duncan's rebound rate stayed hovering around 18 for his first five seasons, then started jumping up when Robinson played less and less.


----------



## ssmokinjoe (Jul 5, 2003)

I've seen them both play. Hakeem was more feared around the league by his opponents than Tim Duncan is today. People have read about or have seen highlights of the Dream Shake and think that that's the only way he scored. Nope. He had a great shooting touch from mid-range that was more money than TD's. He took guys like Ewing and Robinson to school. Tim Duncan got his championships earlier in his career than Hakeem, but there are too many factors in winning a championship that are apart from the actual greatness of a single player. So i dont factor those in when comparing one player against another. Hakeem was just better.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Yyzlin said:


> First, the examples only hold for two of the four. Neither Thorpe nor Rodman show any trends.


Thorpe's rebound rate fell when he left the Rockets. Rodman had by far the highest rebound rate of his career in the second of his two seasons with the Spurs, when David Robinson was MVP. He was 33 years old. When he left the Spurs, his rate fell. Other examples of power forwards whose rebound rates increased when they joined teams with good centers are Larry Smith (when he went to Houston), Karl Malone (when he joined the Lakers), Chris Gatling (when he went to the Heat in '96 and when he rejoined them in 2002), and Corliss Williamson (when he joined the Pistons). I'm not saying that this happens all the time (for example, Larry Johnson's rebound rate fell when Mourning started playing for the Hornets, then increased when the latter left). My point is that you can't say that playing alongside a good center will generally lower a power forward's rebound rate, because while they will in effect be competing for rebounds, the center will also help the forward get rebounds by boxing out the opposition and altering shots to force misses.



> Second, how else do you explain the increase in Duncan's rebound rate? You could chalk it up to improvement, but it seems very coincidental that Duncan's rebound rate stayed hovering around 18 for his first five seasons, then started jumping up when Robinson played less and less.


The fact that Duncan's rebound rate stayed exactly the same when Robinson left shows that the latter wasn't taking rebounds away from him. Furthermore, Duncan's rebound rate increased to his career high the second season after Robinson left (the season that has just passed), which suggests that Duncan has been improving as a rebounder.


----------



## TheRoc5 (Mar 1, 2005)

RollWithEm said:


> Since Tim has only played 8 seasons, I'll post the stat comparison for Hakeem's first 8 seasons.
> 
> *Tim Duncan*
> 22.5 PPG
> ...


wow there stats are even, they have the same pts, reb, blocks dang but what seperates them is there awards and acomplishments, duncan owns hakeem in that. but stat for stat hakeem=duncan acomplishments duncan>hakeem


----------



## RollWithEm (Jul 16, 2002)

TheRoc5 said:


> wow there stats are even, they have the same pts, reb, blocks dang but what seperates them is there awards and acomplishments, duncan owns hakeem in that. but stat for stat hakeem=duncan acomplishments duncan>hakeem


That's true. Also, I don't think comparing Hakeem's whole career against Duncan's first 8 seasons is very fair.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> Thorpe's rebound rate fell when he left the Rockets.


When Thorpe came from Sacramento to Houston, his rebound rate dropped. His rebound rate also flunctuated a lot just with the Rockets. I don't think there's much to make of it. 



> Rodman had by far the highest rebound rate of his career in the second of his two seasons with the Spurs, when David Robinson was MVP. He was 33 years old. When he left the Spurs, his rate fell.


Considering that he never came close to matching that, wouldn't you feel that's a flukish season? Why was it only so high in one of his Spurs seasons? 



> Other examples of power forwards whose rebound rates increased when they joined teams with good centers are Larry Smith (when he went to Houston),


Larry Smith's best rebounding rate season with Houston would only account for his 6th best in his career.


> Karl Malone (when he joined the Lakers)


Don't you feel you can attribute most of that to the fact that Malone simply had to so much less elsewhere on the court? He was freed from the huge offensive responsiblity in Utah. Even then, it's not like it was a tremendous rebound rate for Malone. It was still below his career average.


> Chris Gatling (when he went to the Heat in '96 and when he rejoined them in 2002)


Heh, ok, this is valid. 


> Corliss Williamson (when he joined the Pistons)


And what happened when he left the Pistons? 



> I'm not saying that this happens all the time (for example, Larry Johnson's rebound rate fell when Mourning started playing for the Hornets, then increased when the latter left). My point is that you can't say that playing alongside a good center will generally lower a power forward's rebound rate, because while they will in effect be competing for rebounds, the center will also help the forward get rebounds by boxing out the opposition and altering shots to force misses.


But which factor wins out? And why can't power forwards box out and alter shots to help centers? Horace Grant's rebound rate dropped once he came to Orlando with Shaq. Charles Oakley's rebound rate dropped once he came to the Knicks to play with Ewing. 




> The fact that Duncan's rebound rate stayed exactly the same when Robinson left shows that the latter wasn't taking rebounds away from him. Furthermore, Duncan's rebound rate increased to his career high the second season after Robinson left (the season that has just passed), which suggests that Duncan has been improving as a rebounder.


But it increased in the season before when Robinson's minutes began to decrease alot. In addition, it stayed the same, because if Robinson wasn't, than Nestorovic was, and he played 700 more minutes than Robinson the season before. His improvement this year can be attributed to the fact that the total minutes played by Malik Rose/Nazr Mohammed and Nestorovic both went down, in favor of Robert Horry, who isn't the rebounder that those two are. Overall, the 2005 Spurs were a weaker rebounding team than the 2004 Spurs.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Yyzlin said:


> When Thorpe came from Sacramento to Houston, his rebound rate dropped. His rebound rate also flunctuated a lot just with the Rockets. I don't think there's much to make of it.


Thorpe's rebound rate was very nearly at his career high in his rookie season, then went on a downward trend for the next five years. Most people's athleticism peaks in their early 20's, and nearly everyone starts to decline considerably by the time they're 25. Thorpe was 26 when he joined the Rockets. We can only assume that his rebounding ability diminished with his athleticism. His rate did rise again later, probably because he learned to rely less on his athleticism for grabbing rebounds, and perhaps also because Hakeem might have become better at getting his teammates rebounds by 1994. Thorpe's career high was in '94, when he was 31 years old. In 36 games with the Rockets in '95, his rate was 15.6, but in his 34 games with the Blazers that year, it fell to 14.7. 



> Considering that [Rodman] never came close to matching that, wouldn't you feel that's a flukish season? Why was it only so high in one of his Spurs seasons?


I don't think you can fluke an entire season. Why was it only so high in one of his Spurs seasons? Who knows? That was David Robinson's best year, so maybe he was better at getting his teammates rebounds then. Maybe it's because it took a while for Rodman to adjust to playing for the Spurs. Maybe it had to do with the other Spurs players. All I know is that, statistically, Rodman's best rebounding season by far was one of only two seasons in his entire career (excluding his short stint in L.A. when he was 37 years old) in which he played with a really good center.



> Larry Smith's best rebounding rate season with Houston would only account for his 6th best in his career.


That's because he was already 32 years old by the time he joined the Rockets -- well past his prime. His rebound rate had been declining in his last two seasons with the Warriors -- presumably because he was getting older -- but it suddenly increased when he went to Houston.



> Don't you feel you can attribute most of that to the fact that Malone simply had to so much less elsewhere on the court? He was freed from the huge offensive responsiblity in Utah. Even then, it's not like it was a tremendous rebound rate for Malone. It was still below his career average.


I find it striking that a player's rebound rate can increase by over two points when he is 40 years old. In fact, his rebound rate was approximately what it was in 1999, his MVP season! Don't you feel that a player's rebound rate should decrease significantly by the time they reach the age of 40? Do you think the fact that he played alongside Shaq in 2004 had nothing to do with the considerable increase in his rebound rate?



> And what happened when [Corliss Williamson] left the Pistons?


His rebound rate increased by 0.1. However, when he first joined the Pistons, it increased by 1.5 to 11.2, which was his career high. In fact, his five seasons in Detroit comprise four of the five best rebound rate seasons of his career.



> But which factor wins out?


It's impossible to say for sure which factor wins out. There are different examples supporting each argument. Once again, my point is that you can't blame a center for sucking away a power forward's rebounds when there are slight changes to that forward's rebound rate, as centers also help forwards get rebounds. There are too many other factors that influence the rebound rate to say "Duncan's PER was adversely affected by Robinson's presence, as the latter took away some of his rebounds".



> And why can't power forwards box out and alter shots to help centers?


They can, but because of their size and strength and their position on the court, centers are generally better at boxing out to to help their teammates get rebounds. Furthermore, centers are more likely to lurk under the basket to try and block (and alter) shots. There is a reason why no power forwards ever average more than 3 bpg, while many centers have averaged close to 5.



> Horace Grant's rebound rate dropped once he came to Orlando with Shaq.


Horace Grant was 29 by the time he joined Shaq in Orlando. Some of the fall in his rebound rate can be attributed to the fact that he was getting older and less athletic. When he rejoined Shaq in L.A. when he was 35, his rebound rate increased. It fell when he left the Lakers, then increased again when he returned to L.A. This shows that Shaq may have become better at getting his teammates rebounds later in his career, when he was less athletic but more experienced. It could be the same reason why Otis Thorpe's rebound rate was highest in 1994, Hakeem's MVP season, and why Rodman's was highest in '95, D-Rob's MVP season.



> Charles Oakley's rebound rate dropped once he came to the Knicks to play with Ewing.


It also dropped considerably after he left the Knicks. And Juwan Howard's rebound rate fell when he left Marcus Camby and Denver, then increased later when he joined Yao Ming and the Rockets. Dirk's rebound rate increased when Dampier joined the Mavs. As I said, there are plenty of examples to support both arguments.



> But it increased in the season before when Robinson's minutes began to decrease alot.


Robinson only played 3 mpg less. He missed several games, but Kevin Willis filled in, and he was still a good rebounder. I attribute it to Duncan improving.



> In addition, it stayed the same, because if Robinson wasn't, than Nestorovic was, and he played 700 more minutes than Robinson the season before.


Nesterovic is a poor player. He can grab rebounds, but I don't know how much he could have helped Duncan. If Robinson had been there, maybe Duncan's rate would have been higher.



> His improvement this year can be attributed to the fact that the total minutes played by Malik Rose/Nazr Mohammed and Nestorovic both went down, in favor of Robert Horry, who isn't the rebounder that those two are. Overall, the 2005 Spurs were a weaker rebounding team than the 2004 Spurs.


Nestorovic's minutes only fell slightly, and that's probably because Mohammed joined the team after the break.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> Thorpe's rebound rate was very nearly at his career high in his rookie season, then went on a downward trend for the next five years. Most people's athleticism peaks in their early 20's, and nearly everyone starts to decline considerably by the time they're 25. Thorpe was 26 when he joined the Rockets. We can only assume that his rebounding ability diminished with his athleticism. His rate did rise again later, probably because he learned to rely less on his athleticism for grabbing rebounds, and perhaps also because Hakeem might have become better at getting his teammates rebounds by 1994. Thorpe's career high was in '94, when he was 31 years old. In 36 games with the Rockets in '95, his rate was 15.6, but in his 34 games with the Blazers that year, it fell to 14.7.


I don't think it's as much as Hakeem became better at getting his teammates rebounds, but rather that he simply wasn't at adept at getting them himself. 1994 was Thorpe's highest rebound rate, but also Olajuwon's lowest. There's only so many rebounds, and someone has to get them. When one person gets more, it will negatively affect the other. 




> I don't think you can fluke an entire season. Why was it only so high in one of his Spurs seasons? Who knows? That was David Robinson's best year, so maybe he was better at getting his teammates rebounds then. Maybe it's because it took a while for Rodman to adjust to playing for the Spurs. Maybe it had to do with the other Spurs players. All I know is that, statistically, Rodman's best rebounding season by far was one of only two seasons in his entire career (excluding his short stint in L.A. when he was 37 years old) in which he played with a really good center.


First, it _was_ only 49 games. Second, you can't fluke an entire season? Do you really believe that? Do you believe that there have been no fluke seasons in basketball? And again, just like before, while that was Rodman's best rebound rate, it also accounted for David Robinson's second lowest in his career. 




> That's because he was already 32 years old by the time he joined the Rockets -- well past his prime. His rebound rate had been declining in his last two seasons with the Warriors -- presumably because he was getting older -- but it suddenly increased when he went to Houston.


His rebound rate only declined the one season before he joined the Rockets. The two seasons befored he joined the Rockets, he posted 20+ rebound rates. 



> I find it striking that a player's rebound rate can increase by over two points when he is 40 years old. In fact, his rebound rate was approximately what it was in 1999, his MVP season! Don't you feel that a player's rebound rate should decrease significantly by the time they reach the age of 40? Do you think the fact that he played alongside Shaq in 2004 had nothing to do with the considerable increase in his rebound rate?


Don't you also feel that having no longer to worry about being the primary offensive weapon and playing the least minutes of his career would also help significantly increase his rebound rate?




> His rebound rate increased by 0.1. However, when he first joined the Pistons, it increased by 1.5 to 11.2, which was his career high. In fact, his five seasons in Detroit comprise four of the five best rebound rate seasons of his career.


Does degree matter in the type of question we're trying to figure out? If you think so, than you have a point. It's still noteworthy to point out though, that Williamon's years in Detroit were basically his prime, so that may have something to do with it. 




> It's impossible to say for sure which factor wins out. There are different examples supporting each argument. Once again, my point is that you can't blame a center for sucking away a power forward's rebounds when there are slight changes to that forward's rebound rate, as centers also help forwards get rebounds. There are too many other factors that influence the rebound rate to say "Duncan's PER was adversely affected by Robinson's presence, as the latter took away some of his rebounds".


There are other factors, yes, but I feel Duncan's situation is too coincidental to be dismissed. Plus, for the most part, it was Duncan who was the more active rebounder who played closer to the basket during his days with Robinson.




> They can, but because of their size and strength and their position on the court, centers are generally better at boxing out to to help their teammates get rebounds. Furthermore, centers are more likely to lurk under the basket to try and block (and alter) shots. There is a reason why no power forwards ever average more than 3 bpg, while many centers have averaged close to 5.


But you also have to agree that if there was a power forward who played exactly like a center, it would be Duncan. 




> Horace Grant was 29 by the time he joined Shaq in Orlando. Some of the fall in his rebound rate can be attributed to the fact that he was getting older and less athletic. When he rejoined Shaq in L.A. when he was 35, his rebound rate increased. It fell when he left the Lakers, then increased again when he returned to L.A. This shows that Shaq may have become better at getting his teammates rebounds later in his career, when he was less athletic but more experienced. It could be the same reason why Otis Thorpe's rebound rate was highest in 1994, Hakeem's MVP season, and why Rodman's was highest in '95, D-Rob's MVP season.


Using the second time Grant joined LA as a reason is a bit flimsy, no? Take a look at the stats again. Again, I think the reasons may simply be that as those centers got older or placed with an extraordinary rebounder (in Rodman's case), they simply weren't as active and ceded more rebounds to teammates. 




> It also dropped considerably after he left the Knicks. And Juwan Howard's rebound rate fell when he left Marcus Camby and Denver, then increased later when he joined Yao Ming and the Rockets. Dirk's rebound rate increased when Dampier joined the Mavs. As I said, there are plenty of examples to support both arguments.


Right, it's a case by case situation. And in Duncan's case, I think the evidence is fairly convincing that the loss of Robinson would also help Duncan's rebound rate. 




> Robinson only played 3 mpg less. He missed several games, but Kevin Willis filled in, and he was still a good rebounder. I attribute it to Duncan improving.


But you were still encountering a loss going from Robinson to Willis. In addition, Rose's rebound rate also dropped 1.2 percent from the previous year and he was the most played with frontcourt player for Duncan in 2003. 



> Nesterovic is a poor player. He can grab rebounds, but I don't know how much he could have helped Duncan. If Robinson had been there, maybe Duncan's rate would have been higher.


He didn't help Duncan. Duncan helped him and he took rebounds away from Duncan. His 15.0 rebound rate is more than a healthy substitute. He also played 700 more minutes than Robinson from the previous year. 




> Nestorovic's minutes only fell slightly, and that's probably because Mohammed joined the team after the break.


Yes, but it came at the cost of Malik Rose, who wasn't really a great player, but he was a strong rebounder. Horry, who basically took Rose's minutes, isn't. 

Regardless, based on your reasoning, you don't find it suspicious at all that Duncan suddenly improved his rebound rate in 6th NBA season?


----------



## MAS RipCity (Feb 22, 2003)

Hakeem...easily, not to mention Duncan just isn't that clutch.


----------



## Mecca (Jul 3, 2005)

Hakeem had all the tools & post moves for me to say that he's a better player than Duncan. 

Honestly Olajuwon was in the wrong era with Michael Jordan. He won those two rings when he was gone.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Mecca said:


> Hakeem had all the tools & post moves for me to say that he's a better player than Duncan.
> 
> Honestly Olajuwon was in the wrong era with Michael Jordan. He won those two rings when he was gone.


the bulls never played the rockets in the playoffs.


----------



## PauloCatarino (May 31, 2003)

kflo said:


> the bulls never played the rockets in the playoffs.


Very true.

The "wrong era" factor would be to someone like P-Ew, or Barkley. Not Olajuwon.


----------



## Pimped Out (May 4, 2005)

PauloCatarino said:


> Very true.
> 
> The "wrong era" factor would be to someone like P-Ew, or Barkley. Not Olajuwon.


or stockton/malone or reggie miller... damn mj screwed over a lot of people. i really wished the rockets would have played the bulls in the finals at least once, i think they woulda been a great series.

i think its true that hakeem was more feared around the league because while both him and duncan can score on you, hakeem's moves will make you look foolish while he does it. If he had stayed around basketball, it would be great to see him try to pass those moves off to someone (like yao :biggrin


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Yyzlin said:


> I don't think it's as much as Hakeem became better at getting his teammates rebounds, but rather that he simply wasn't at adept at getting them himself. 1994 was Thorpe's highest rebound rate, but also Olajuwon's lowest. There's only so many rebounds, and someone has to get them. When one person gets more, it will negatively affect the other.


Hakeem's rebound rate fell as he helped Thorpe get more rebounds.



> First, it _was_ only 49 games. Second, you can't fluke an entire season? Do you really believe that? Do you believe that there have been no fluke seasons in basketball? And again, just like before, while that was Rodman's best rebound rate, it also accounted for David Robinson's second lowest in his career.


49 games is a lot. I can understand people fluking a series. But to fluke 100 days of basketball? Too far fetched. Fluking a season? Impossible. For players who get solid minutes and who play more than a handful of games, there can be no fluke seasons. And once again, my point is that David Robinson sacrificed rebounds for Rodman.



> His rebound rate only declined the one season before he joined the Rockets. The two seasons befored he joined the Rockets, he posted 20+ rebound rates.


Not relevant. He was ageing, and was thus becoming a worse rebounder. A player has to peak at some point. This guy did it two seasons before he joined the Rockets. He rebound rate fell for a season, then, when he joined Olajuwon, his rebound rate increased. 



> Don't you also feel that having no longer to worry about being the primary offensive weapon and playing the least minutes of his career would also help significantly increase his rebound rate?


Yes, but not to the extent that his rate virtually equals the rebound rate of his MVP season.



> Does degree matter in the type of question we're trying to figure out? If you think so, than you have a point. It's still noteworthy to point out though, that Williamon's years in Detroit were basically his prime, so that may have something to do with it.


Of course degree matters. Those years may have been his prime, but it's still striking that, excluding his rookie season, those were the only years in which his rate even got into double figures.



> There are other factors, yes, but I feel Duncan's situation is too coincidental to be dismissed. Plus, for the most part, it was Duncan who was the more active rebounder who played closer to the basket during his days with Robinson.


I don't find it coincidental at all. To me it's clear -- Duncan improved slightly as a rebounder after a few seasons in the league. I am finding it difficult to see how the slight decrease in the minutes played by an old David Robinson could be responsible for the rise in Duncan's rate. I've always thought it was a commonly accepted idea that centers help their teammates get rebounds. Hell, that was one of the few things they taught us in basketball training when I was a kid -- either use the center's superior ability to box out the opposition to position yourself to grab an uncontested rebound; or, if the center is contesting a shot, do the dirty work yourself.



> But you also have to agree that if there was a power forward who played exactly like a center, it would be Duncan.


He doesn't play "exactly" like a center. He just plays more like a center than just about all other power forwards.



> Using the second time Grant joined LA as a reason is a bit flimsy, no? Take a look at the stats again. Again, I think the reasons may simply be that as those centers got older or placed with an extraordinary rebounder (in Rodman's case), they simply weren't as active and ceded more rebounds to teammates.


Why is it flimsy? Grant played over 20 mpg for 55 games. His rebound rate increased when he went to LA, decreased when he left, then increased again when he rejoined them. He may have only played five games in his final year in Orlando, but his rebound rate in his last season with LA was nearly what it was two years earlier, despite him being 38 years old. You can't really blame it on Shaq getting older and not being able to rebound as well -- his rebound rate in 2001 with Grant was higher than what it was in 1995. And even if it is because these centers are getting older, why would these power forwards' rebound rates decrease when the center leaves? It's not as if Hakeem and D-Rob were below average rebounders in the mid-90's. Those were their MVP years.



> But you were still encountering a loss going from Robinson to Willis. In addition, Rose's rebound rate also dropped 1.2 percent from the previous year and he was the most played with frontcourt player for Duncan in 2003.


A loss from Robinson to Willis? Rebound rate is not a measure of a player's ability to get teammates rebounds. Kevin Willis has always been more of a box out rebounder than Robinson who relied more on athleticism.



> He didn't help Duncan. Duncan helped him and he took rebounds away from Duncan. His 15.0 rebound rate is more than a healthy substitute. He also played 700 more minutes than Robinson from the previous year.


That is part of the reason why I think Duncan improved as a rebounder. Despite playing alongside Nesterovic and not having Robinson to help him, his rebound rate remained the same. The way I see it, he has become a better rebounder in each of the past three seasons.



> Regardless, based on your reasoning, you don't find it suspicious at all that Duncan suddenly improved his rebound rate in 6th NBA season?


Not at all. Players often don't improve linearly. Look at Patrick Ewing. He had a 1.5 point improvement in his rebound rate in his eighth season. Hakeem -- a 2.1 point improvement in his fifth season (and that's the season Otis Thorpe joined him). Barkley had his highest rebound rate in his 14th season. Players often improve different parts of their games at different times, and not always at the same rate.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> Hakeem's rebound rate fell as he helped Thorpe get more rebounds.


Yes, I know. That was my point. As one frontcourt player's rebound rate rises, the other usually declines. It's just a simply inverse relationship. 




> 49 games is a lot. I can understand people fluking a series. But to fluke 100 days of basketball? Too far fetched. Fluking a season? Impossible. For players who get solid minutes and who play more than a handful of games, there can be no fluke seasons. And once again, my point is that David Robinson sacrificed rebounds for Rodman.


Rodman didn't technically fluke a season. He fluked one aspect of his game, which he sacrificed other areas of his game for. The season only accounted for his 3rd highest PER of his career. Yes, it's very easy to fluke a season in one aspect of your game or even all of them. Detlef Schrempf shot .514 in 3 pointers in one season, well well above any other season of his. Or Andre Miller when he averaged basically 3 more APG than he's averaged in the rest of his career. The same with Isiah Thomas. Or Tracy McGrady who had a monster season in 02-03 that he likely will never repeat, with a PER that's 5 higher than his second highest. It happens. 




> Not relevant. He was ageing, and was thus becoming a worse rebounder. A player has to peak at some point. This guy did it two seasons before he joined the Rockets. He rebound rate fell for a season, then, when he joined Olajuwon, his rebound rate increased.


Why is it not relevant? So when a player peaks only a year in his rebounding ability before the change in question, it's irrelevant? Also, it's a moot point since Smith's rebound rate rose again after leaving Houston. 




> Yes, but not to the extent that his rate virtually equals the rebound rate of his MVP season.


How come? It's not exactly like Malone was still rebounding like he used to during his MVP season. Even then, his best rebounding days were behind him. As he got older, his body couldn't take the toll of being both the main rebounder and main scorer, so he sacrificed the rebounding aspect. Once coming to the Lakers, he sacrificed the offense, so he could concentrate on rebounding and playing defense again, and he did. 




> Of course degree matters. Those years may have been his prime, but it's still striking that, excluding his rookie season, those were the only years in which his rate even got into double figures.


Can you clarify how degree matters in the situation we are discussing? 

It's also striking that those were also Corliss Williamson's best stretch of years period, rebounding or not. 




> I don't find it coincidental at all. To me it's clear -- Duncan improved slightly as a rebounder after a few seasons in the league. I am finding it difficult to see how the slight decrease in the minutes played by an old David Robinson could be responsible for the rise in Duncan's rate. I've always thought it was a commonly accepted idea that centers help their teammates get rebounds. Hell, that was one of the few things they taught us in basketball training when I was a kid -- either use the center's superior ability to box out the opposition to position yourself to grab an uncontested rebound; or, if the center is contesting a shot, do the dirty work yourself.


Who do you feel was doing most of the dirty work aka the active, tough work on the Spurs? A young Tim Duncan or an aging David Robinson with a bad back? It was Duncan. 




> He doesn't play "exactly" like a center. He just plays more like a center than just about all other power forwards.


Duncan plays exactly like a center. Other than Shaq and Yao Ming, there's no one else in the league who defines the position more. Simply because the team says that Nazr Mohommed or Rasho Nestorovic or whoever roams around the hoop benefiting from whatever work Tim Duncan does to make their jobs easier is a center, doesn't make them so. 




> Why is it flimsy? Grant played over 20 mpg for 55 games. His rebound rate increased when he went to LA, decreased when he left, then increased again when he rejoined them. He may have only played five games in his final year in Orlando, but his rebound rate in his last season with LA was nearly what it was two years earlier, despite him being 38 years old.


You used Horace Grant's last season as a reason, but why? Ignoring the season where he only played 5 games, his rebounding rate went down from Orlando and was the lowest of his career. 



> You can't really blame it on Shaq getting older and not being able to rebound as well -- his rebound rate in 2001 with Grant was higher than what it was in 1995. And even if it is because these centers are getting older, why would these power forwards' rebound rates decrease when the center leaves? It's not as if Hakeem and D-Rob were below average rebounders in the mid-90's. Those were their MVP years.


What power forwards rebond rates decreased? Alot of the examples you brought up have been refuted, and alot of counter examples have been shown. There isn't any consistent trend. Hakeem conceded some of the rebounding responsibilities to his teammates so he could concentrate more on his offense, and the results show. His best offensive years were also his worst defensive and rebounding years. David Robinson simply conceded alot of rebounds to Rodman, because well, as good as Robinson was at rebounding, Rodman was even better and significantly so. 




> A loss from Robinson to Willis? Rebound rate is not a measure of a player's ability to get teammates rebounds. Kevin Willis has always been more of a box out rebounder than Robinson who relied more on athleticism.


You're exactly right, though. Willis has been more of a box out rebounder, which is why he ceded more rebounds to Tim Duncan than David Robinson. Which is why the more David Robinson didn't play, the higher Tim Duncan's rebound rate went up. 




> That is part of the reason why I think Duncan improved as a rebounder. Despite playing alongside Nesterovic and not having Robinson to help him, his rebound rate remained the same. The way I see it, he has become a better rebounder in each of the past three seasons.


That's because Nesterovic played several more minutes than Robinson. 




> Not at all. Players often don't improve linearly. Look at Patrick Ewing. He had a 1.5 point improvement in his rebound rate in his eighth season. Hakeem -- a 2.1 point improvement in his fifth season (and that's the season Otis Thorpe joined him). Barkley had his highest rebound rate in his 14th season. Players often improve different parts of their games at different times, and not always at the same rate.


Unlike you, I do believe in flukish seasons. And unlike Duncan, Ewing only maintained that increase for that sole season, not any other season. For Hakeem, the addition of Otis Thorpe didn't hurt his rebound rate simply because Thorpe's rebound rate wasn't exactly stellar (13.6) and Thorpe was simply replacing a platoon of forwards from the previous season with similar rebound rates. But other than that, Hakeem looks good, so it does appear Olajuwon became a better rebounder in his 5th season as there are no suspicious or concidental events occuring at the same time, as such is with Duncan. For Barkley, I seriously doubt he improved significantly as a rebounder at 33. He simply marginalized certain areas of his game in favor of others. His usage rates for those seasons were the lowest of his career at that point by a very good margin.


----------



## mysterio (May 20, 2003)

I can't really add much to what has already been said. I'll just say I'm the biggest fan of Hakeem on this board, but by the way things are going, I'll have to admit it and say Duncan will probably have the better career, but Hakeem will always be considered the better player when at his best. Its still too early to compare and predict though.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Yyzlin said:


> Yes, I know. That was my point. As one frontcourt player's rebound rate rises, the other usually declines. It's just a simply inverse relationship.


It is an inverse relationship because the center helps the power forward get rebounds. 



> Rodman didn't technically fluke a season. He fluked one aspect of his game, which he sacrificed other areas of his game for. The season only accounted for his 3rd highest PER of his career. Yes, it's very easy to fluke a season in one aspect of your game or even all of them. Detlef Schrempf shot .514 in 3 pointers in one season, well well above any other season of his. Or Andre Miller when he averaged basically 3 more APG than he's averaged in the rest of his career. The same with Isiah Thomas. Or Tracy McGrady who had a monster season in 02-03 that he likely will never repeat, with a PER that's 5 higher than his second highest. It happens.


Which aspects of his game did Rodman "sacrifice" in favour of rebounding? 3rd highest PER of his career? So? 3rd highest in a 14-season career is pretty good. To fluke a season in rebounding, as you're saying Rodman did, would mean that he just happened, through pure luck, to rebound at a much better rate without any other factors changing over 49 games. What I'm saying -- that Rodman was able to rebound at a better rate because for the first time in his career he was playing alongside a really good center -- is much more believable.
There are no fluke seasons in basketball because each season is so long. Fluke is luck. It's difficult to believe that a player can have a stretch of good luck for so long. Significant changes in statistics happen for a reason. There's always an explanation. 
3-pointers are the part of the game that depends the most on form. Still, Schrempf's 3-pt% must have been so high that season for a reason. Before then he'd never attempted anything even close to 181 three-pointers. From that point on, though, he attempted 147 or more three-pointers for four straight seasons, and he remained an excellent three-point shooter for the rest of his career. He obviously practised his long-range shot a lot before the '94-95 season. Other factors would also have come into play. There were four other good three-point shooters on the Sonics '94-95 squad, while there were only two others the previous year. Having a lot of good three-point shooters can allow you to get open for more threes. Just look at the Rockets of this past season.
T-Mac had a monster season because he was the only real big scoring threat, and because he had the right guys around him. He'll probably never find that combination of factors again during his prime.
I'm sure there were reasons for the Isaiah and Andre Miller examples, too. I just can't be bothered to look them up. Even if I did, I wouldn't know enough about those players and the guys who played with them and their teams' offensive systems to provide a half-decent explanation. My point is that pointing to luck is a cop-out.



> Why is it not relevant? So when a player peaks only a year in his rebounding ability before the change in question, it's irrelevant? Also, it's a moot point since Smith's rebound rate rose again after leaving Houston.


It is irrelevant. Even the use of the word "peak" suggests that the player declined in that aspect of his game after that season. The guy's rebound rate fell for a whole season, then rose again when he joined the Rockets. When he left Houston, he joined David Robinson in San Antonio. Furthermore, Hakeem had a bad year for his standards in 1992, playing with poor health and having off-court problems.



> How come? It's not exactly like Malone was still rebounding like he used to during his MVP season. Even then, his best rebounding days were behind him. As he got older, his body couldn't take the toll of being both the main rebounder and main scorer, so he sacrificed the rebounding aspect. Once coming to the Lakers, he sacrificed the offense, so he could concentrate on rebounding and playing defense again, and he did.


It's not exactly like Malone was still rebounding like he used to during his MVP season? His rebound rate was 0.3 less. Bringing that up is just being pedantic. You say the rise in Malone's rebound rate was solely due to him not having to work as hard. I say it was a combination of that and having played with Shaq. My argument is strengthened by the Horace Grant example that I provided (more on that one in a minute). Malone was 40 years old. Players deteriorate rapidly at around that age. 



> Can you clarify how degree matters in the situation we are discussing?
> 
> It's also striking that those were also Corliss Williamson's best stretch of years period, rebounding or not.


Degree matters because while a 0.1 point change in a player's rebound rate has little significance (i.e. it can be attributed to fluke), a change of 1.5 means that some major change has probably occured. His rebound rate could have increased by 0.1 for a number of reasons. The different mix of players in Detroit in 2004 would have had some impact. And are you suggesting that's it's just a coincidence that Williamson's best years also happened to be the only years he played with a great defensive center? 



> Who do you feel was doing most of the dirty work aka the active, tough work on the Spurs? A young Tim Duncan or an aging David Robinson with a bad back? It was Duncan.


David Robinson was still playing center. He was still blocking shots and boxing out. It's not like he was a cripple. He was starting center on one of the best teams in the league. He wasn't playing on the perimeter. He wasn't swooping in and jumping over people for McGrady-like rebounds. As most good centers do, he helped his power forward get rebounds.



> Duncan plays exactly like a center. Other than Shaq and Yao Ming, there's no one else in the league who defines the position more. Simply because the team says that Nazr Mohommed or Rasho Nestorovic or whoever roams around the hoop benefiting from whatever work Tim Duncan does to make their jobs easier is a center, doesn't make them so.


I'm not denying that Duncan makes his teammates better. But if Duncan plays exactly like a center, why don't the Spurs start him at center? Why did they keep around a crappy center like Nesterovic? Why do they have Mohammed, who shouldn't start on a good team, instead of a decent power forward? If Duncan, one of the greatest defensive big men of all time, really does play exactly like a center, why can't he even average 3 blocks per game?



> You used Horace Grant's last season as a reason, but why? Ignoring the season where he only played 5 games, his rebounding rate went down from Orlando and was the lowest of his career.


I already explained that. In two years -- from the age of 36 to 38 -- Grant's rebound rate fell by only 0.3. Nearly every player's rebound rate will fall by more than that over that span and at that age. Growing old affects rebounding probably more than any area of the game apart from defense.



> What power forwards rebond rates decreased? Alot of the examples you brought up have been refuted, and alot of counter examples have been shown. There isn't any consistent trend. Hakeem conceded some of the rebounding responsibilities to his teammates so he could concentrate more on his offense, and the results show. His best offensive years were also his worst defensive and rebounding years. David Robinson simply conceded alot of rebounds to Rodman, because well, as good as Robinson was at rebounding, Rodman was even better and significantly so.


Which examples have been refuted? You have simply picked at my examples, and I have defended them. Nothing has been refuted. A lot of counter-examples? How many? Charles Oakley?
Hakeem's best offensive years weren't his worst defensive years. His four best offensive years were from '93 to '96. He was named DPoY in two of those four years. Statistically, 1993 was the fourth-best rebounding season of his 18-year career. He scored 26 ppg on the highest PSA of his career. Still, he was very nearly as good offensively in the late 80's, despite rebounding more. He was doubled and tripled more in the 80's, and his supporting cast sucked. His points didn't come as easily. He had to work harder, yet he still rebounded well. In the 90's he was less athletic, but better at boxing out, and he was a smarter player. He helped his teammates get rebounds. Why do you think Thorpe had the best rebound rate of his career in '94, despite being 30 years old, and despite Hakeem still grabbing 12 rpg? He couldn't get his rate that high when he was in his athletic prime in Sacramento, nor could he do it when he left the Rockets a couple of years later.



> You're exactly right, though. Willis has been more of a box out rebounder, which is why he ceded more rebounds to Tim Duncan than David Robinson. Which is why the more David Robinson didn't play, the higher Tim Duncan's rebound rate went up.


Yes, but both David Robinson and Kevin Willis were considerably above average in their ability to get their teammates rebounds. Duncan was helped by the presence of both of them.



> That's because Nesterovic played several more minutes than Robinson.


... Yet Duncan's rebound rate remained the same. He went from playing alongside a center who was good at getting his teammates rebounds, to playing with a guy who is not so good at that, yet his rebound rate was not negatively affected. This shows that he improved as a rebounder himself.



> Unlike you, I do believe in flukish seasons. And unlike Duncan, Ewing only maintained that increase for that sole season, not any other season. For Hakeem, the addition of Otis Thorpe didn't hurt his rebound rate simply because Thorpe's rebound rate wasn't exactly stellar (13.6) and Thorpe was simply replacing a platoon of forwards from the previous season with similar rebound rates. But other than that, Hakeem looks good, so it does appear Olajuwon became a better rebounder in his 5th season as there are no suspicious or concidental events occuring at the same time, as such is with Duncan. For Barkley, I seriously doubt he improved significantly as a rebounder at 33. He simply marginalized certain areas of his game in favor of others. His usage rates for those seasons were the lowest of his career at that point by a very good margin.


On the '88 Rockets, Joe Barry Carroll played about half his minutes as backup center. He only played 63 games. Sampson only played 19 games. Jim Petersen played 69 games for only 26 mpg, and his rebound rate was a point lower than Thorpe's. Thorpe came the next year and played 82 games for 38 mpg at a rebound rate that was still higher than that of all those other guys. Hakeem's rebound rate increased by 2.2. 
Barkley didn't improve as a rebounder. It was a bad example. He started playing with Hakeem and his rebound rate consequently increased by 2.6. He was still playing more mpg than in each of his previous three seasons with the Suns. I don't know how relevant the usage rate is. These guys don't just stand around when they don't have the ball. 
Once again, my point is that players often don't improve linearly, which is, I think, something against which few will argue.


----------



## clien (Jun 2, 2005)

ill put an end to this thread.......................................................................................................................*HAKEEM!!!!*


----------



## yavoon (Jul 2, 2005)

Hakeem said:


> I'm not denying that Duncan makes his teammates better. But if Duncan plays exactly like a center, why don't the Spurs start him at center? Why did they keep around a crappy center like Nesterovic? Why do they have Mohammed, who shouldn't start on a good team, instead of a decent power forward? If Duncan, one of the greatest defensive big men of all time, really does play exactly like a center, why can't he even average 3 blocks per game?
> 
> 
> .


easy answer, because duncan can guard power forwards and poppovich likes to leverage size advantage. and honestly 3 bpg is a lot, hakeem did not avg 3.

I agree, duncan plays EXACTLY like a center. he is the main anchor defensively, the main rebounder, the main low post offensive threat. duncan is a center. its just the spurs play two centers at once.


----------



## FanOfAll8472 (Jun 28, 2003)

yavoon said:


> easy answer, because duncan can guard power forwards and poppovich likes to leverage size advantage. and honestly 3 bpg is a lot, hakeem did not avg 3.
> 
> I agree, duncan plays EXACTLY like a center. he is the main anchor defensively, the main rebounder, the main low post offensive threat. duncan is a center. its just the spurs play two centers at once.


Actually, in the 89-90 season, Olajuwon blocked 376 shots and played 82 games. In his MVP season, he blocked 297 shots and played 80 games. You do the math.

The answer to this question is Hakeem easily. There is no contest.


----------



## yavoon (Jul 2, 2005)

FanOfAll8472 said:


> Actually, in the 89-90 season, Olajuwon blocked 376 shots and played 82 games. In his MVP season, he blocked 297 shots and played 80 games. You do the math.
> 
> The answer to this question is Hakeem easily. There is no contest.


and whats hakeems overall avg? god u ppl are myopic


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

I'm not talking about career bpg. I'm asking why Duncan has never averaged even 3 bpg, while many true centers have averaged 4 or more (off the top of my head: Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Eaton, Bol, Mutombo, Mourning...).


----------



## yavoon (Jul 2, 2005)

Hakeem said:


> I'm not talking about career bpg. I'm asking why Duncan has never averaged even 3 bpg, while many true centers have averaged 4 or more (off the top of my head: Hakeem, Robinson, Ewing, Eaton, Bol, Mutombo, Mourning...).


is there a conclusion to what ur saying? if ur saying duncan isnt a real center ur full of ****. if all ur saying is hakeem is better then I really dont care.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

it's pretty clear, that at their peaks, duncan's the better rebounder. we can rationalize how hakeem helps his pf get rebounds, but hakeem's rebound rate in his best years were just lower than duncan's. combine this with the fact that hakeem didn't play on strong rebounding teams, and it's hard to argue differently. it's not like someone else was simply taking alot of the rebounds, the other team was taking their fair share as well. 

hakeem was easily the better shot blocker, and the better overall defender, imo. contrary to what's being discussed, though, it's likely that duncan playing the 4 actually increases his defensive value, as opposed to decreasing it. it makes sa a very long team and obviously the defensive results have been pretty stellar.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> It is an inverse relationship because the center helps the power forward get rebounds.


At the cost of the number of rebounds he gets. It's not like a center can still get the same number of rebounds that he normally gets and still help a power forward get more. It's simply mathematics. If there are X rebounds that gets mostly distributed between a center and a power forward, when a power forward increases his rebounding rate, it's inevitable that the center's rebounding rate will go down. 




> Which aspects of his game did Rodman "sacrifice" in favour of rebounding? 3rd highest PER of his career? So? 3rd highest in a 14-season career is pretty good. To fluke a season in rebounding, as you're saying Rodman did, would mean that he just happened, through pure luck, to rebound at a much better rate without any other factors changing over 49 games. What I'm saying -- that Rodman was able to rebound at a better rate because for the first time in his career he was playing alongside a really good center -- is much more believable.


I'm not saying it's luck. Fluke doesn't mean solely luck. It just simply means Rodman just happened to rebound better than year than any other year in his career. When Rodman has his best rebounding year by far, but it doesn't increase his PER above some of his other seasons, then yes, it must mean that certain other areas of his game were sacrificed. How do you explain the previous SA season? David Robinson drastically increased his ability to get power forwards rebounds? Gimme a break. 



> There are no fluke seasons in basketball because each season is so long. Fluke is luck. It's difficult to believe that a player can have a stretch of good luck for so long. Significant changes in statistics happen for a reason. There's always an explanation.
> 3-pointers are the part of the game that depends the most on form. Still, Schrempf's 3-pt% must have been so high that season for a reason. Before then he'd never attempted anything even close to 181 three-pointers. From that point on, though, he attempted 147 or more three-pointers for four straight seasons, and he remained an excellent three-point shooter for the rest of his career. He obviously practised his long-range shot a lot before the '94-95 season. Other factors would also have come into play. There were four other good three-point shooters on the Sonics '94-95 squad, while there were only two others the previous year. Having a lot of good three-point shooters can allow you to get open for more threes. Just look at the Rockets of this past season.


Yes, but you see, that's the definition of a fluke season. He got really good for one season that he wasn't able to match. Why didn't he match it the seasons after? The Sonics still had tons of great 3 point shooters. 



> T-Mac had a monster season because he was the only real big scoring threat, and because he had the right guys around him. He'll probably never find that combination of factors again during his prime.


Wasn't that the situation in every season in Orlando with TMac?



> It is irrelevant. Even the use of the word "peak" suggests that the player declined in that aspect of his game after that season. The guy's rebound rate fell for a whole season, then rose again when he joined the Rockets. When he left Houston, he joined David Robinson in San Antonio. Furthermore, Hakeem had a bad year for his standards in 1992, playing with poor health and having off-court problems.


But a peak indicates that for several seasons after a player will maintain a similar level, and that's what Larry Smith did. 




> It's not exactly like Malone was still rebounding like he used to during his MVP season? His rebound rate was 0.3 less. Bringing that up is just being pedantic. You say the rise in Malone's rebound rate was solely due to him not having to work as hard. I say it was a combination of that and having played with Shaq. My argument is strengthened by the Horace Grant example that I provided (more on that one in a minute). Malone was 40 years old. Players deteriorate rapidly at around that age.


I misphrased that. I meant "it isn't like Malone is exactly rebounding like he did during his prime". Plus, we are talking about Karl Malone here. Karl Malone doesn't age like other players. He never has. When a player doesn't have to work as hard on one area of his game, he has more effort to exert on another area of his game. 



> Degree matters because while a 0.1 point change in a player's rebound rate has little significance (i.e. it can be attributed to fluke), a change of 1.5 means that some major change has probably occured. His rebound rate could have increased by 0.1 for a number of reasons. The different mix of players in Detroit in 2004 would have had some impact. And are you suggesting that's it's just a coincidence that Williamson's best years also happened to be the only years he played with a great defensive center?


Well, Williamson's season isn't over yet, so we don't know if last season was a fluke or not. We'll have to wait and see. Are you also suggesting that it's a coincidence that Williamson's best years also happened when most players have their best years? Are you also suggesting that playing with the great offensive center that is Ben Wallace also helped Williamson have his offensive peak as well? 




> David Robinson was still playing center. He was still blocking shots and boxing out. It's not like he was a cripple. He was starting center on one of the best teams in the league. He wasn't playing on the perimeter. He wasn't swooping in and jumping over people for McGrady-like rebounds. As most good centers do, he helped his power forward get rebounds.


Yes, but he wasn't the main front court player. It was Duncan that was doing the most blocking and boxing out. 



> I'm not denying that Duncan makes his teammates better. But if Duncan plays exactly like a center, why don't the Spurs start him at center? Why did they keep around a crappy center like Nesterovic? Why do they have Mohammed, who shouldn't start on a good team, instead of a decent power forward? If Duncan, one of the greatest defensive big men of all time, really does play exactly like a center, why can't he even average 3 blocks per game?


kflo addressed this, but for defensive purposes. And for all intents and purposes, Duncan does play center for the Spurs. He doesn't average 3 blocks per game because he's really not an all-time great at blocking. He's a safe defender in that he doesn't never really risks attempting a block in worries that he'll lose his defensive position. He still has finished in the top 10 in blocking his whole career, and top 5 in blocking the last 4 years, but yes, compared with guys like Robinson and Olajuwon, he doesn't fare as well in that area of defense. 




> I already explained that. In two years -- from the age of 36 to 38 -- Grant's rebound rate fell by only 0.3. Nearly every player's rebound rate will fall by more than that over that span and at that age. Growing old affects rebounding probably more than any area of the game apart from defense.


And his rebound rate did fall. And from age 36-38, there seems to be no trend in how far rebounding rate changes from 36-38. Some players see absolutely no change, or even an increase such as Robert Parish, Moses Malone, Kevin Willis, and Elvin Hayes. Others do see a significant change such as Abdul Jabbar, Karl Malone, and Artis Gilmore. That was just going over forwards/centers in the top 10 in career games played btw. 



> Which examples have been refuted? You have simply picked at my examples, and I have defended them. Nothing has been refuted. A lot of counter-examples? How many? Charles Oakley?


Several have been refuted and shown to be inconsistent, with opposite results in before and after. Counter examples have been shown. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't see any trend. 



> Hakeem's best offensive years weren't his worst defensive years. His four best offensive years were from '93 to '96. He was named DPoY in two of those four years.


But does my point still stand? Were they or were they not Hakeem's worst defensive years during his relative prime? You haven't disproved anything. 



> Statistically, 1993 was the fourth-best rebounding season of his 18-year career. He scored 26 ppg on the highest PSA of his career. Still, he was very nearly as good offensively in the late 80's, despite rebounding more. He was doubled and tripled more in the 80's, and his supporting cast sucked. His points didn't come as easily. He had to work harder, yet he still rebounded well. In the 90's he was less athletic, but better at boxing out, and he was a smarter player. He helped his teammates get rebounds. Why do you think Thorpe had the best rebound rate of his career in '94, despite being 30 years old, and despite Hakeem still grabbing 12 rpg? He couldn't get his rate that high when he was in his athletic prime in Sacramento, nor could he do it when he left the Rockets a couple of years later.


1992-93 was Olajuwon's pure peak season. I know that. Everything you say is also true. But I never challenged any of that. I simply said, during Olajuwon's absolute best offensive seasons (or maybe seasons with the most FGA), they were also Olajuwon's relatively worst seasons rebounding in his "prime level" seasons. Is that true, or is that not? If you don't find it true, then address the actual point, instead of going off in a random tangent. 

Thorpe had his best rebounding rate of his career at 30 because well, it happens. Brian Grant had his best rebound rate at age 30. Erick Dampier at age 29. Karl Malone at age 31. Kevin Willis at age 29. Elden Campbell at age 30. Dikembe Mutombo at age 34. Sam Perkins at age 30. Grant Long at 29. Mark West at 29. Get my drift? 



> Yes, but both David Robinson and Kevin Willis were considerably above average in their ability to get their teammates rebounds. Duncan was helped by the presence of both of them.


Yeah, but you said it yourself. Willis was more of a box out rebounder and thus got his power forward more rebounds. Thus, as you say, Duncan rebound rate would have been helped more by playing with Willis than Robinson. 




> ... Yet Duncan's rebound rate remained the same. He went from playing alongside a center who was good at getting his teammates rebounds, to playing with a guy who is not so good at that, yet his rebound rate was not negatively affected. This shows that he improved as a rebounder himself.


Nesterovic was a poorer rebounder than David Robinson. Thus, he took less rebounds from Tim Duncan. Thus, Tim Duncan rebound rate was sustained despite Nesterovic playing more minutes than Robinson. 




> On the '88 Rockets, Joe Barry Carroll played about half his minutes as backup center. He only played 63 games. Sampson only played 19 games. Jim Petersen played 69 games for only 26 mpg, and his rebound rate was a point lower than Thorpe's. Thorpe came the next year and played 82 games for 38 mpg at a rebound rate that was still higher than that of all those other guys. Hakeem's rebound rate increased by 2.2.


Also Rodney McCray. But yeah, I agree that Olajuwon's rebounding peak happened suddenly. 



> Once again, my point is that players often don't improve linearly, which is, I think, something against which few will argue.


Agreed, but if a non-linear jump happens, it's still something that should be looked carefully and contextualized.


----------



## ThaShark316 (May 7, 2004)

LOL @ Hakeem or Duncan...hey lets ask this question.

Wade or Jordan. LMFAO @ this thread having 8 pages.


----------



## Chalie Boy (Aug 26, 2002)

Hakeem Olajouwon! Hakeem Olajouwon !Hakeem Olajouwon!


----------



## clien (Jun 2, 2005)

the dream


----------



## charlz (Jun 9, 2003)

Helter Skelter said:


> Hello
> 
> 
> For me , I think Tim Duncan is better , but I'm not sure. :banana:


I know he is better - hakeem is a nigerian fart wagon.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

yavoon said:


> is there a conclusion to what ur saying? if ur saying duncan isnt a real center ur full of ****. if all ur saying is hakeem is better then I really dont care.


It's always clear when a poster has nothing of significance to add to a discussion -- they just try and insult the guy with whom they disagree.



kflo said:


> it's pretty clear, that at their peaks, duncan's the better rebounder. we can rationalize how hakeem helps his pf get rebounds, but hakeem's rebound rate in his best years were just lower than duncan's. combine this with the fact that hakeem didn't play on strong rebounding teams, and it's hard to argue differently. it's not like someone else was simply taking alot of the rebounds, the other team was taking their fair share as well.


Actually, Hakeem had a higher rebound rate than Duncan's career high in that statistic for three consecutive seasons. 



kflo said:


> hakeem was easily the better shot blocker, and the better overall defender, imo. contrary to what's being discussed, though, it's likely that duncan playing the 4 actually increases his defensive value, as opposed to decreasing it. it makes sa a very long team and obviously the defensive results have been pretty stellar.


The results have been stellar, but I can't see how it could be better for any team to have a great defensive power forward rather than a great defensive center, regardless of how much like a center the forward plays. As a center, you have more of an impact on defense. I also don't see how it can help SA defensively to have Nazr Mohammed starting at center. He is a crap defender. If Duncan really did play exactly like a center, wouldn't it be wise to have at least a mediocre defender at the 4 (or quite a decent one in Malik Rose), and have Duncan at center?



Yyzlin said:


> At the cost of the number of rebounds he gets. It's not like a center can still get the same number of rebounds that he normally gets and still help a power forward get more. It's simply mathematics. If there are X rebounds that gets mostly distributed between a center and a power forward, when a power forward increases his rebounding rate, it's inevitable that the center's rebounding rate will go down.


That is exactly what I've been saying. In fact, in my last post addressed to you, I agreed that it is an inverse relationship. I said Hakeem's rebound rate fell and Thorpe's increased because Hakeem helped Thorpe to get rebounds. However, I must add that it's not "simply mathematics". It doesn't always work like that. For example, in 1995, both Robinson's and Rodman's rebound rates increased.



> I'm not saying it's luck. Fluke doesn't mean solely luck. It just simply means Rodman just happened to rebound better than year than any other year in his career.


That is luck. If, as you say, Rodman just happened to rebound at a much better rate for 49 straight games, it means he got lucky for the entire season. Luck isn't anything magical. It is a word used to describe good things happening for no reason. And look up "fluke" in the dictionary -- "A stroke of good luck".



> When Rodman has his best rebounding year by far, but it doesn't increase his PER above some of his other seasons, then yes, it must mean that certain other areas of his game were sacrificed. How do you explain the previous SA season? David Robinson drastically increased his ability to get power forwards rebounds? Gimme a break.


It doesn't necessarily mean that he "sacrificed" certain areas of his game. His defense worsened as he got older, and this would have negatively impacted his PER. It's not like Rodman went out and thought "OK, this year I'm going to play less defense so I can conserve my energy for rebounding". Also, his career high in PER came in his second season, when he was playing only 26 mpg. His second-highest PER season came when he was still in Detroit, and playing better defense than he was later. 
How do I explain the previous SA season? I can't. At least, not very well. I didn't follow the Spurs all that much back then. As I said in an earlier post, it was probably a combination of Robinson becoming better at getting his teammates rebounds, Rodman being more adjusted to his new situation, the different coach, the different mix of teammates and playing time, and other factors that I don't know about. And Robinson improving at helping his teammates rebound isn't that hard to believe. That was his MVP year, despite all the stats. Terry Cummings also had his career high in rebound rate that year, despite being 33 years old. Anyway, how do you explain Rodman's significantly higher rebound rate in '95 (one of only two seasons in his career in which he played with a really good center)? Fluke? Give me a break.



> Yes, but you see, that's the definition of a fluke season. He got really good for one season that he wasn't able to match. Why didn't he match it the seasons after? The Sonics still had tons of great 3 point shooters.


As I said, three-point shooting is the part of the game that is the most dependent on form. And I don't mean "shooting form". I mean it as in "Damn, Detlef Schrempf is in good form from long range this year!" Players get hot. There are streaky shooters, but there aren't any streaky rebounders (though you could make a case for Yao and Tyson Chandler). 3-pt% is the statistic with the greatest fluctuation throughout players' careers. You would have a point if Schrempf went from being a poor long-range shooter to shooting 50% one year, then went back to shooting a poor percentage. But that wasn't the case. He improved dramatically one year, then remained one of the best shooters in the league for the rest of his career.



> Wasn't that the situation in every season in Orlando with TMac?


T-Mac improved suddenly to have a great season in 2003, though that did come partly at the expense of his rebounding and defense. In 2004, it's no secret that he kind of gave up. Didn't try his hardest. Slacked off on defense.



> But a peak indicates that for several seasons after a player will maintain a similar level, and that's what Larry Smith did.


No, that's "prime" or the rarely-used "plateau". A peak is an extremity. Think of it as climbing a mountain. You climb up, reach the peak, then climb down. Similarly a player declines after his peak. When I look at Larry Smith's rebound rate stats, I see that his rebounding ability peaked in '87, worsened in '88, worsened further in '89, then picked up again when he joined the Rockets.



> I misphrased that. I meant "it isn't like Malone is exactly rebounding like he did during his prime". Plus, we are talking about Karl Malone here. Karl Malone doesn't age like other players. He never has. When a player doesn't have to work as hard on one area of his game, he has more effort to exert on another area of his game.


You've said that several times, and I haven't denied it. What I'm saying is that a player also gets more rebounds when he plays alongside a center who is good at helping his teammates rebounds. 



> Are you also suggesting that it's a coincidence that Williamson's best years also happened when most players have their best years?


No. However, players' best years often don't coincide with their best rebounding years. I could pull out several examples, but I won't bother, as I'm sure you'll agree with me on this.



> Are you also suggesting that playing with the great offensive center that is Ben Wallace also helped Williamson have his offensive peak as well?


Actually, it might have. Ben Wallace gets a lot of offensive rebounds, which may have let Williamson get a lot of easy buckets. Plus, Detroit is a team that spreads the scoring nicely around. Anyway, that is irrelevant. I don't see your point in asking this question. What has Williamson's offensive peak got to do with the idea of centers helping power forwards get rebounds?



> Yes, but he wasn't the main front court player. It was Duncan that was doing the most blocking and boxing out.


Yes, but both of them did a lot of blocking and boxing out. You can't say with any degree of certainty that Duncan helped Robinson more than Robinson helped Duncan in terms of rebounding. Remember, Robinson's rebound rate decreased with Duncan there.



> And for all intents and purposes, Duncan does play center for the Spurs. He doesn't average 3 blocks per game because he's really not an all-time great at blocking. He's a safe defender in that he doesn't never really risks attempting a block in worries that he'll lose his defensive position. He still has finished in the top 10 in blocking his whole career, and top 5 in blocking the last 4 years, but yes, compared with guys like Robinson and Olajuwon, he doesn't fare as well in that area of defense.


It's funny how every great defensive center has averaged more blocks than Duncan, including guys shorter than him like Wallace and Olajuwon. Guess he must just be the "safest" defender ever, blocking and contesting less shots than the other greats because he's worried that he'll lose his position...



> And his rebound rate did fall. And from age 36-38, there seems to be no trend in how far rebounding rate changes from 36-38. Some players see absolutely no change, or even an increase such as Robert Parish, Moses Malone, Kevin Willis, and Elvin Hayes. Others do see a significant change such as Abdul Jabbar, Karl Malone, and Artis Gilmore. That was just going over forwards/centers in the top 10 in career games played btw.


Parish's rate was lower when he was 38 than it was when he was 36. Kevin Willis' decreased, too, though not by as much, as he was playing 7 mpg less. Moses' rate increased because he was playing 19 mpg less. Hayes' rate increased because he was playing 25 mpg less. Horace Grant's case is different from those of these guys. He played 9 mpg less, and his rebound rate fell by only 0.3. The closest to this is Kevin Willis, who played 7 mpg less and whose rate fell by 0.7. However, Willis, after Parish, is the most durable player ever. You really can't deny that virtually every player's rebounding ability will fall as they near the end of their career.



> Several have been refuted and shown to be inconsistent, with opposite results in before and after. Counter examples have been shown. I don't know about you, but I certainly don't see any trend.


You wish. Tell me, which examples have been refuted? Arguing against something is not the same as refuting it. Saying "Karl Malone only improved his rebound rate because he did not have to carry the team offensively -- Shaq had nothing to do with it" is not refuting my argument. Saying "Rodman had a fluke season in '95 -- Robinson did not help him" is not refuting my argument. Saying "Corliss Williamson had his best rebounding years with Detroit because he was in his overall prime then -- Ben Wallace's presence is irrelevant" is not refuting my argument. 
And what counter-examples have you shown? You came up with Oakley and Horace Grant (who I used myself, explaining that Shaq was able to help him later on, as he became better at helping his teammates rebound). I brought up Larry Johnson myself. I can't think of any other examples that you've introduced (though I'm sure there are a few out there). Tell me if I've missed anything that you've already come up with (I'm sure you will).



> But does my point still stand? Were they or were they not Hakeem's worst defensive years during his relative prime? You haven't disproved anything.1992-93 was Olajuwon's pure peak season. I know that. Everything you say is also true. But I never challenged any of that. I simply said, during Olajuwon's absolute best offensive seasons (or maybe seasons with the most FGA), they were also Olajuwon's relatively worst seasons rebounding in his "prime level" seasons. Is that true, or is that not? If you don't find it true, then address the actual point, instead of going off in a random tangent.


You did not say "relative prime" earlier. Don't make it sound as if I've said something irrelevant by changing your words now, then going off with some lawyerlike crap with "Is that true, or is that not... address the actual point". You made the mistake by leaving out "relative prime" in the first place. I simply responded to what I read in your post. I did not go off "in a random tangent".
You said: "His best offensive years were also his worst defensive and rebounding years."
I responded by saying that he was named DPoY twice during his best offensive years. Then, in case you argued that '93 wasn't one of his best offensive and rebounding years, I provided some statistics to prove that it was. Then, I added that he might have been as good offensively in the 80's, when he was in his absolute prime defensively and rebounding-wise, but that the stats don't show it because of how heavily he was doubled. So, my point clearly was that Hakeem's best offensive years were not his worst defensive years. You didn't say anything about "relative prime", and I definitely didn't go off on a tangent.
And what exactly is your "actual point" anyway? That Hakeem didn't play as hard on defense and didn't rebound as well because he was saving himself for the offensive end? That's not what happened at all. Take a look at some mid-90's Rockets games, then compare them to the late-80's games. In the 90's, Hakeem found a way to score without relying as much on his athleticism. He actually had to work harder on the offensive end earlier in his career, because he had different moves. If anything, he had more energy for defense in '93 and '94. And in the mid-90's he was a smarter player. He knew that he wasn't as athletic as before, so he relied more on boxing out. He helped his teammates more. 
Also, you can't say for sure that Hakeem's "pure peak" season was '92-93. You're just looking at stats, which are greatly affected by many factors outside of a player's control. It might have been '92-93. But it might have also been in the late '80's or in the mid-90's.



> Thorpe had his best rebounding rate of his career at 30 because well, it happens. Brian Grant had his best rebound rate at age 30. Erick Dampier at age 29. Karl Malone at age 31. Kevin Willis at age 29. Elden Campbell at age 30. Dikembe Mutombo at age 34. Sam Perkins at age 30. Grant Long at 29. Mark West at 29. Get my drift?


You're conveniently ignoring the help Thorpe got from Olajuwon in '94. Did you even see mid-90's Hakeem? He became very good at boxing out. Just as he changed his offensive game, he changed his rebounding style. Instead of outjumping people and tapping the ball around, he relied more on positioning. Just like Shaq after '99. Why did Thorpe's rebound rate fall even in the same season when he left in '95? He was playing less mpg in Portland.
Also, Willis, Malone, Dampier and Mutombo are all more box out rebounders. I can't say anything about the others, as I didn't watch them that much. Box out rebounders don't need athleticism as much, and hence can rebound at a high rate even when they start to age. Now, Thorpe wasn't purely a Marion-like rebounder, but he did rely quite a bit on his length and athleticism and his freakishly big hands. 



> Yeah, but you said it yourself. Willis was more of a box out rebounder and thus got his power forward more rebounds. Thus, as you say, Duncan rebound rate would have been helped more by playing with Willis than Robinson.


Yes, that's part of the reason why his rebound rate increased when Kevin Willis joined him. It wasn't because Robinson was no longer taking away rebounds from him. It's because a guy who was marginally better at getting him rebounds was getting some minutes.



> Nesterovic was a poorer rebounder than David Robinson. Thus, he took less rebounds from Tim Duncan. Thus, Tim Duncan rebound rate was sustained despite Nesterovic playing more minutes than Robinson.


Nesterovic was only a slightly worse rebounder than Robinson, but he was considerably worse in his ability to get his teammates rebounds. His replacement of Robinson should have hurt Duncan's rebounding had Duncan not improved as a rebounder.


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

I say they are about even right now. I could probably make a decent case for either player, but I think they are similiar in terms of accomplishments in this league and overall impact on the floor.

Olajuwon was the better defender and had more moves offensively, but I think Duncan was just as solid on offense and has generally had more success in terms of regular season and playoff wins. The last four seasons Duncan has been playing his best basketball as indicated by his consistently excellent PER and by his teams superb winning percentage. 

I think Duncan has to win one more title to be considered better than Hakeem. If Duncan can have an amazing post-season and lead his team a convincing title, then I would say he is the superior player to Olajuwon. Olajuwon was more physically gifted and capable on defense, but the fact is you just don't know how Hakeem and Duncan would matchup and whose team would win if they had similiar caliber supporting casts.

Drob and Hakeem were basically equals before that 1995 series, and no one really knew Hakeem would play that much better than David. On paper and judging by physical ability they were damn close. So I just don't know for sure how Duncan and Hakeem would matchup, especially if they had similiar supporting casts, but I would love to see it happen.


----------



## arcade_rida (Jun 23, 2003)

charlz said:


> I know he is better - *hakeem is a nigerian fart wagon.*


tthats not funny


----------



## DH12 (Jun 22, 2005)

Hakeem Olajuwon


----------



## Sir Patchwork (Jan 12, 2005)

9 pages, wow. I knew this one was too close to call.


----------



## SlamJam (Nov 27, 2004)

like most people have said, its not a tough choice. the dream on o, the dream on d. the dream overall.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

Nikos said:


> I think Duncan has to win one more title to be considered better than Hakeem. If Duncan can have an amazing post-season and lead his team a convincing title, then I would say he is the superior player to Olajuwon. Olajuwon was more physically gifted and capable on defense, but the fact is you just don't know how Hakeem and Duncan would matchup and whose team would win if they had similiar caliber supporting casts.


Why does it really matter how many more titles Duncan wins? As has been repeatedly stated, Olajuwon was basically without a team after Ralph Sampson left the Rockets. The things he could do in the 80's were absolutely amazing, especially defensively. If he had Duncan's top notch supporting cast and some stronger defenders, who knows how many titles Hakeem would have won.

I think it's been established that Hakeem was the better defender, whether or not he was a better rebounder during his peak. His spg make up for the gained posessions anyways, not to mention the deflections and his ability to play the passing lanes. 

Offensively, we can bring in irrevelant arguments like Duncan's ability to "box his man out" to a better degree than Olajuwon or his midrange jumper, but all those who have seen both play through most of their careers would agree that Olajuwon is better in every aspect of the offensive game, including the mid range jumper.

Honestly, San Antonio just won the NBA championship with Tim Duncan shooting 46% in the playoffs and averaging 23.6 ppg. Hakeem averaged 31 ppg in the 2 years the Rockets won the championship, and had a career playoff average of 25.9 ppg. Duncan is a great player, but let's not go overboard and start comparing him to Hakeem already.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Mr. Roger's Cardigan said:


> Why does it really matter how many more titles Duncan wins? As has been repeatedly stated, Olajuwon was basically without a team after Ralph Sampson left the Rockets. The things he could do in the 80's were absolutely amazing, especially defensively. If he had Duncan's top notch supporting cast and some stronger defenders, who knows how many titles Hakeem would have won.
> 
> I think it's been established that Hakeem was the better defender, whether or not he was a better rebounder during his peak. His spg make up for the gained posessions anyways, not to mention the deflections and his ability to play the passing lanes.
> 
> ...


duncan's easily a better passer. 

and duncan has been a far better rebounder in the finals (14+ each time) than hakeem was (9.1 and 11.5). by alot. 

hakeem was a more unstoppable scorer, and a better overall defender. but it's not ridiculous to compare them.


----------



## Priest (Jun 24, 2003)

charlz said:


> I know he is better - hakeem is a nigerian fart wagon.


hakeems farts are more accurate then duncans FT percentage


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

Hakeem said:


> Actually, Hakeem had a higher rebound rate than Duncan's career high in that statistic for three consecutive seasons.


which is why i said in hakeem's prime, which i think most would consider '93 to '96.



Hakeem said:


> The results have been stellar, but I can't see how it could be better for any team to have a great defensive power forward rather than a great defensive center, regardless of how much like a center the forward plays. As a center, you have more of an impact on defense. I also don't see how it can help SA defensively to have Nazr Mohammed starting at center. He is a crap defender. If Duncan really did play exactly like a center, wouldn't it be wise to have at least a mediocre defender at the 4 (or quite a decent one in Malik Rose), and have Duncan at center?


because sa becomes extremely long, and extremely difficult to penetrate the paint with. mhomamed or nesterovic may not be great defenders, but plug them in the middle with duncan next to them and it becomes extremely difficult to get any space to get to the rack. 

as for hakeem's rebounding with thorpe, again, the rockets just weren't a good rebounding team. from '92 to '94, on a rate basis, they were outrebounded by their opponents.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

kflo said:


> which is why i said in hakeem's prime, which i think most would consider '93 to '96.


Sorry, I thought you meant his rebounding prime. 



kflo said:


> duncan's easily a better passer.
> 
> and duncan has been a far better rebounder in the finals (14+ each time) than hakeem was (9.1 and 11.5). by alot.
> 
> hakeem was a more unstoppable scorer, and a better overall defender. but it's not ridiculous to compare them.


Duncan is not easily the better passer. Hakeem became a very good passer in the mid-90's. I'd say they're even.

And it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to compare their Finals rebounding numbers. Hakeem faced Ewing and Oakley, then Shaq and Horace Grant (he also averaged 12.5 boards a game in the '95 WCF against Robinson and Rodman). Duncan faced a still-green Camby and a senescent Larry Johnson, then a 36-year-old Mutombo and Kenyon Martin, then finally a really good combo in the Wallaces (where he averaged something like 16 boards a game). If you look at their overall playoff rebounding figures for each of their first eight seasons, you see that Duncan is ahead by only a quarter of a rebound per game. 



> because sa becomes extremely long, and extremely difficult to penetrate the paint with. mhomamed or nesterovic may not be great defenders, but plug them in the middle with duncan next to them and it becomes extremely difficult to get any space to get to the rack.


I still don't see how it can be better for any team defensively to have a long frontcourt with a great defensive power forward and a crappy defensive center, rather than an ordinary-sized frontcourt (just like nearly every other team) with a great defensive center and a decent defensive power forward. Actual defensive prowess is more important than length.
In terms of defense, centers are considerably more valuable than forwards. Having a poor defender at center hurts you, regardless of how long your frontcourt is. 
The results have been stellar for San Antonio because they have excellent defenders at both forward positions, and good defenders starting in the backcourt.



> as for hakeem's rebounding with thorpe, again, the rockets just weren't a good rebounding team. from '92 to '94, on a rate basis, they were outrebounded by their opponents.


That is irrelevant, unless you're suggesting that Hakeem and Thorpe were a sub-par duo on the boards. In those years, the Rockets were starting guys like Vernon Maxwell, Kenny Smith and Robert Horry, all of whom were poor-to-terrible rebounders for their respective positions.

But I agree with you that it's not ridiculous to compare Olajuwon and Duncan.


----------



## SoCalfan21 (Jul 19, 2004)

Timmay


----------



## DaBobZ (Sep 22, 2003)

TD 3 - 2 Hakeem


----------



## numb555 (May 25, 2003)

Timmay!


This guy gets no love cuz he's not flashy! and even in a season where he was plaugued by injuries, and not at his best he still wins the Championship, and Playoff MVP honors.

Olaujawon if you want a single dominant big man, Timmay if you want the superior team player.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> That is exactly what I've been saying. In fact, in my last post addressed to you, I agreed that it is an inverse relationship. I said Hakeem's rebound rate fell and Thorpe's increased because Hakeem helped Thorpe to get rebounds. However, I must add that it's not "simply mathematics". It doesn't always work like that. For example, in 1995, both Robinson's and Rodman's rebound rates increased.


Right, but that was an unusual case. I would say 95% of the time, it's an inverse relationship. 



> That is luck. If, as you say, Rodman just happened to rebound at a much better rate for 49 straight games, it means he got lucky for the entire season. Luck isn't anything magical. It is a word used to describe good things happening for no reason. And look up "fluke" in the dictionary -- "A stroke of good luck".


But in relationship to basketball, fluke season simply doesn't mean success was achieved by luck. It simply means an abnormal season, whether above or below the usual expectations. 



> It doesn't necessarily mean that he "sacrificed" certain areas of his game. His defense worsened as he got older, and this would have negatively impacted his PER. It's not like Rodman went out and thought "OK, this year I'm going to play less defense so I can conserve my energy for rebounding". Also, his career high in PER came in his second season, when he was playing only 26 mpg. His second-highest PER season came when he was still in Detroit, and playing better defense than he was later.


PER isn't really affected by defense, unless you are suggesting that the specific areas of blocking and stealing are where Rodman declined. I don't think Rodman conciously made an effort to sacrifice certain areas of his game to improve his rebounding, but it's obvious that he made an effort to rebound more and it was only natural that other areas of his game may have slipped. 



> How do I explain the previous SA season? I can't. At least, not very well. I didn't follow the Spurs all that much back then. As I said in an earlier post, it was probably a combination of Robinson becoming better at getting his teammates rebounds, Rodman being more adjusted to his new situation, the different coach, the different mix of teammates and playing time, and other factors that I don't know about. And Robinson improving at helping his teammates rebound isn't that hard to believe. That was his MVP year, despite all the stats. Terry Cummings also had his career high in rebound rate that year, despite being 33 years old. Anyway, how do you explain Rodman's significantly higher rebound rate in '95 (one of only two seasons in his career in which he played with a really good center)? Fluke? Give me a break.


So basically, there a huge multiple of reasons that may have accounted for Rodman's rebound increase, and you're solely pinpointing a gigantic increase in David Robinson's "help PF's get rebounds" ability as the cause? After all, isn't that what you're saying? I mean, you would think coming from Detroit where an old, half functional Bill Lambier and Olden Polynice were playing center to San Antonio would immediately improve Rodman's rate in the first season, right? Yet, that didn't happen. Rodman had a significantly higher rebound rate because he simpy had a career year in rebounding. His minutes per game were the lowest 4 seasons which helped him play with more energy. Also, the fact that he only played 49 minutes helps increase the chance of statistical variance. If you are saying that a certain trend happens, and yet, it only happens half the time, you can't call it a trend. 




> As I said, three-point shooting is the part of the game that is the most dependent on form. And I don't mean "shooting form". I mean it as in "Damn, Detlef Schrempf is in good form from long range this year!" Players get hot. There are streaky shooters, but there aren't any streaky rebounders (though you could make a case for Yao and Tyson Chandler). 3-pt% is the statistic with the greatest fluctuation throughout players' careers. You would have a point if Schrempf went from being a poor long-range shooter to shooting 50% one year, then went back to shooting a poor percentage. But that wasn't the case. He improved dramatically one year, then remained one of the best shooters in the league for the rest of his career.


It was still more than 10% higher than any of his seasons after. So, from first saying that fluke seasons simply can't happen, you are now suggesting that flukes simply can't happen in regards to rebounding? 



> T-Mac improved suddenly to have a great season in 2003, though that did come partly at the expense of his rebounding and defense. In 2004, it's no secret that he kind of gave up. Didn't try his hardest. Slacked off on defense.


But, those are irrevelant. Is it true or not that 2003 was McGrady's best season by a significant margin? It is true. Thus, that season was the very definition of a flukish season. 



> No, that's "prime" or the rarely-used "plateau". A peak is an extremity. Think of it as climbing a mountain. You climb up, reach the peak, then climb down. Similarly a player declines after his peak. When I look at Larry Smith's rebound rate stats, I see that his rebounding ability peaked in '87, worsened in '88, worsened further in '89, then picked up again when he joined the Rockets.


Do peaks generally occur during a player's prime? Yes or no? 

For me, I see Larry Smith have two 20+ rebound rate seasons, drop to 17 for one season, and then get to 18. That's certainly nothing unreasonable. 



> No. However, players' best years often don't coincide with their best rebounding years. I could pull out several examples, but I won't bother, as I'm sure you'll agree with me on this.


I don't think it always happens, but generally, that is the rule of thumb. I could pull out several examples, but I won't bother, as I'm sure you'll agree with me on this. 



> Actually, it might have. Ben Wallace gets a lot of offensive rebounds, which may have let Williamson get a lot of easy buckets. Plus, Detroit is a team that spreads the scoring nicely around. Anyway, that is irrelevant. I don't see your point in asking this question. What has Williamson's offensive peak got to do with the idea of centers helping power forwards get rebounds?


Ben Wallace gets a lot of offensive rebounds, yes. I fail to see how that lets Williamson get lots of easy buckets. I see how that could help Wallace get easy buckets. Not Williamson. It doesn't have anything to do with the topic. I was simply responding to one of your points. We like to go off in lots of tangents. 



> Yes, but both of them did a lot of blocking and boxing out. You can't say with any degree of certainty that Duncan helped Robinson more than Robinson helped Duncan in terms of rebounding. Remember, Robinson's rebound rate decreased with Duncan there.


You're always the one that says "Oh man, centers and power forwards rebound rates drop precipitously as a player gets older". Robinson's rebound rates suffered extremely mildly as he aged. Of the 6 seasons Robinson played with Duncan, 3 of those seasons his rebound rate was above his career average. By 2002 and 2003, it was very easy to say that Duncan was doing more of the work. I think anyone watching Spurs games at that time would have agreed. 




> It's funny how every great defensive center has averaged more blocks than Duncan, including guys shorter than him like Wallace and Olajuwon. Guess he must just be the "safest" defender ever, blocking and contesting less shots than the other greats because he's worried that he'll lose his position...


Didn't I say that Duncan wasn't a great blocker? That doesn't affect his overall defensive standing as blocking is merely one aspect of defense, and one that is far less important than the unmeasurables on defense. Is Duncan the best defensive player or not in the league right now? I think it's clear that he is. Whether or not he measures up with Olajuwon or Robinson on defense is unclear, but what is clear is he has easily been the best of the league over his career and that's saying something. Do you feel its merely a coincidence that the Spurs have been in the top three in defensive efficiency in every year since Duncan has come into the league and #1 six times? 




> Parish's rate was lower when he was 38 than it was when he was 36. Kevin Willis' decreased, too, though not by as much, as he was playing 7 mpg less. Moses' rate increased because he was playing 19 mpg less. Hayes' rate increased because he was playing 25 mpg less. Horace Grant's case is different from those of these guys. He played 9 mpg less, and his rebound rate fell by only 0.3. The closest to this is Kevin Willis, who played 7 mpg less and whose rate fell by 0.7. However, Willis, after Parish, is the most durable player ever. You really can't deny that virtually every player's rebounding ability will fall as they near the end of their career.


And Robert Parish's rebound rate at age 39 was higher than it was at 36. Since the examples I gave didn't satisfy you, I'll throw some more in. Sam Perkins. Charles Oakley. Hakeem Olajuwon. Terry Cummings. Herb Williams. I don't deny that a player's rebounding will fall from 36-38, but I will deny that obtaining only a 0.3 decrease is somehow impossible for a player to manage, when many players have done so. 



> You wish. Tell me, which examples have been refuted? Arguing against something is not the same as refuting it. Saying "Karl Malone only improved his rebound rate because he did not have to carry the team offensively -- Shaq had nothing to do with it" is not refuting my argument. Saying "Rodman had a fluke season in '95 -- Robinson did not help him" is not refuting my argument. Saying "Corliss Williamson had his best rebounding years with Detroit because he was in his overall prime then -- Ben Wallace's presence is irrelevant" is not refuting my argument.


Otis Thorpe. Larry Smith. Williamson didn't decline after Detroit. Rodman in 94. These are all reasons why centers may help their power forwards get rebounds in certain situations, but there is *no* trend, which is the important key. 




> And what counter-examples have you shown? You came up with Oakley and Horace Grant (who I used myself, explaining that Shaq was able to help him later on, as he became better at helping his teammates rebound). I brought up Larry Johnson myself. I can't think of any other examples that you've introduced (though I'm sure there are a few out there). Tell me if I've missed anything that you've already come up with (I'm sure you will).


Those the only ones introduced, and them by itself prove my point that there is no trend. 




> You did not say "relative prime" earlier. Don't make it sound as if I've said something irrelevant by changing your words now, then going off with some lawyerlike crap with "Is that true, or is that not... address the actual point". You made the mistake by leaving out "relative prime" in the first place. I simply responded to what I read in your post. I did not go off "in a random tangent".


I didn't feel it was necessary. I'm obviously not going to hold Olajuwon's few last aging seasons against him. We are obviously in a discussion of these player's relative prime, and I didn't feel it was necessary to preface it again. 



> I responded by saying that he was named DPoY twice during his best offensive years. Then, in case you argued that '93 wasn't one of his best offensive and rebounding years, I provided some statistics to prove that it was. Then, I added that he might have been as good offensively in the 80's, when he was in his absolute prime defensively and rebounding-wise, but that the stats don't show it because of how heavily he was doubled. So, my point clearly was that Hakeem's best offensive years were not his worst defensive years. You didn't say anything about "relative prime", and I definitely didn't go off on a tangent.


Going on about the 80's was exactly a random tangent. What did it have to do with my point? Was Olajuwon's seasons in the 1980's his best offensive seasons? No. They weren't and I don't believe you'll find anyone who agrees that they were. So if those seasons weren't in discussion, why discuss them? 



> And what exactly is your "actual point" anyway? That Hakeem didn't play as hard on defense and didn't rebound as well because he was saving himself for the offensive end? That's not what happened at all. Take a look at some mid-90's Rockets games, then compare them to the late-80's games. In the 90's, Hakeem found a way to score without relying as much on his athleticism. He actually had to work harder on the offensive end earlier in his career, because he had different moves. If anything, he had more energy for defense in '93 and '94. And in the mid-90's he was a smarter player. He knew that he wasn't as athletic as before, so he relied more on boxing out. He helped his teammates more.


My point is, I don't know whether Hakeem didn't play as hard (I doubt that) or he simply didn't have enough energy to play at his absolutely career peak on both sides of the court, but his offensive peak never coincided with his defensive peak. 



> Also, you can't say for sure that Hakeem's "pure peak" season was '92-93. You're just looking at stats, which are greatly affected by many factors outside of a player's control. It might have been '92-93. But it might have also been in the late '80's or in the mid-90's.


But stats are the best we have to go by, so that's what I'm basing my facts on. It may not be the absolute truth, but it's the best truth at this point because well, I don't access to hundreds of game tapes of Olajuwon's games during the 1980's and I'm sure you don't either. 




> You're conveniently ignoring the help Thorpe got from Olajuwon in '94. Did you even see mid-90's Hakeem? He became very good at boxing out. Just as he changed his offensive game, he changed his rebounding style. Instead of outjumping people and tapping the ball around, he relied more on positioning. Just like Shaq after '99. Why did Thorpe's rebound rate fall even in the same season when he left in '95? He was playing less mpg in Portland.


Thorpe also didn't improve when coming over to Houston. We've been over Thorpe ad naseum. If Olajuwon changed his ability to help his power forwards improve their rebound rates, so be it, but that relates nothing to Robinson's ability to help his power forwards rebound during his last years, and only proves my point that some centers help, some don't, and some have done both in their career. Thus, no trend. 



> Also, Willis, Malone, Dampier and Mutombo are all more box out rebounders. I can't say anything about the others, as I didn't watch them that much. Box out rebounders don't need athleticism as much, and hence can rebound at a high rate even when they start to age. Now, Thorpe wasn't purely a Marion-like rebounder, but he did rely quite a bit on his length and athleticism and his freakishly big hands.


Oh, so does length and freakishly big hands change as a player gets older? Thorpe is very reminiscent of PJ Brown today, and PJ Brown himself had his rebounding rate peak at age 32. It simply happens. Alot. And trust me, guys like Sam Perkins were definitely not box out rebounders. And if you want, I can find you about 20 more examples, but I think I've made my point. 




> Yes, that's part of the reason why his rebound rate increased when Kevin Willis joined him. It wasn't because Robinson was no longer taking away rebounds from him. It's because a guy who was marginally better at getting him rebounds was getting some minutes.


So, doesn't that prove my original point that Duncan really wasn't a better rebounder, despite the improved rebounding rate? I'm not sure what you're trying to get at. 




> Nesterovic was only a slightly worse rebounder than Robinson, but he was considerably worse in his ability to get his teammates rebounds. His replacement of Robinson should have hurt Duncan's rebounding had Duncan not improved as a rebounder.


Nesterovic was a slightly worse rebounder than Robinson. That means, he is taking less rebounds away from Duncan. That means Duncan's rebound rate goes up. Robinson at age 37 was simply no longer good at boxing out and doing that type of stuff. He played a role similar to one Mohammed plays now. Duncan does all the dirty work. Robinson helps clean up.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> I still don't see how it can be better for any team defensively to have a long frontcourt with a great defensive power forward and a crappy defensive center, rather than an ordinary-sized frontcourt (just like nearly every other team) with a great defensive center and a decent defensive power forward. Actual defensive prowess is more important than length.
> In terms of defense, centers are considerably more valuable than forwards. Having a poor defender at center hurts you, regardless of how long your frontcourt is.
> The results have been stellar for San Antonio because they have excellent defenders at both forward positions, and good defenders starting in the backcourt.


Neither Nestorovic nor Mohammed are crappy defensive centers. Both are decent for their position. Having a strong defender at power forward these days is more valuable than a strong center (particularly in Duncan's case)since when Duncan sits in the post, he occupies it like a center. When he is guarding man to man, he defends the power forward position, which is an infinitely stronger position offensively in today's league than the center position. 



> That is irrelevant, unless you're suggesting that Hakeem and Thorpe were a sub-par duo on the boards. In those years, the Rockets were starting guys like Vernon Maxwell, Kenny Smith and Robert Horry, all of whom were poor-to-terrible rebounders for their respective positions.


And are Parker, Ginobili, and Bowen any better?


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Yyzlin said:


> But in relationship to basketball, fluke season simply doesn't mean success was achieved by luck. It simply means an abnormal season, whether above or below the usual expectations.


Expectations have nothing to do with it. If a season is abnormal, there should be a reason. If there is no reason at all, then it is luck. And, because of the number of games that are played, I don't believe anyone can get lucky enough for a season for their stats to change significantly.



> PER isn't really affected by defense, unless you are suggesting that the specific areas of blocking and stealing are where Rodman declined. I don't think Rodman conciously made an effort to sacrifice certain areas of his game to improve his rebounding, but it's obvious that he made an effort to rebound more and it was only natural that other areas of his game may have slipped.


Actually, in the only two seasons in which Rodman had a higher PER, he did average more blocks and steals. The first of those seasons was his career high in steals, and the second was his career high in blocks. Also, those two seasons were his two highest scoring seasons. I don't see anything indicating that Rodman's game slipped at all.



> So basically, there a huge multiple of reasons that may have accounted for Rodman's rebound increase, and you're solely pinpointing a gigantic increase in David Robinson's "help PF's get rebounds" ability as the cause?


No, read it again. I pointed out several other factors.



> I mean, you would think coming from Detroit where an old, half functional Bill Lambier and Olden Polynice were playing center to San Antonio would immediately improve Rodman's rate in the first season, right? Yet, that didn't happen. Rodman had a significantly higher rebound rate because he simpy had a career year in rebounding. His minutes per game were the lowest 4 seasons which helped him play with more energy. Also, the fact that he only played 49 minutes helps increase the chance of statistical variance. If you are saying that a certain trend happens, and yet, it only happens half the time, you can't call it a trend.


I offered several reasons as to why Rodman's rebound rate did not rise in his first season in San Antonio. David Robinson's lesser ability to help his teammates rebound, unfamiliar surroundings, different teammates and a different coach. It appears you have chosen to ignore this, as it doesn't suit your argument. Yes, Rodman did have a career year in rebounding in '95. That's because he was playing beside a great center who had improved his game, and he was now adjusted to the new situation. He did play slightly fewer minutes per game, but he played almost exactly the same minutes the next year in Chicago, but his rebound rate fell by 3.1. As I said, David Robinson was better all round on the boards in '95. His own rebound rate increased, as did those of Rodman, Terry Cummings and J.R. Reid. Quadruple fluke?



> It was still more than 10% higher than any of his seasons after. So, from first saying that fluke seasons simply can't happen, you are now suggesting that flukes simply can't happen in regards to rebounding?


Yes. Especially not when a player's rebound rate rises significantly, then falls back to the same level it was earlier.



> But, those are irrevelant. Is it true or not that 2003 was McGrady's best season by a significant margin? It is true. Thus, that season was the very definition of a flukish season.


No, it wasn't a fluke, and my comment wasn't irrelevant. As I said, there was a reason why, statistically, 2003 was McGrady's best season. He had improved from the previous year, he was the only big scoring threat on the team, and he was trying his hardest.



> Do peaks generally occur during a player's prime? Yes or no?


Irrelevant.



> For me, I see Larry Smith have two 20+ rebound rate seasons, drop to 17 for one season, and then get to 18. That's certainly nothing unreasonable.


Why not be more precise? Simply saying "two 20+ rebound rate seasons" makes it sound like the 17 season was a fluke. Larry Smith's rebound rate fell by 0.8 one season, then fell by a further 3.1, then rose by 1.2 when he joined Olajuwon in Houston. 



> I don't think it always happens, but generally, that is the rule of thumb. I could pull out several examples, but I won't bother, as I'm sure you'll agree with me on this.


Actually, I don't agree with you. Just looking at the best players of the past two decades who have retired or passed their primes, Shaq, Hakeem (using what you think is his prime), D-Rob, Ewing, Magic, Bird, Barkley and Bernard King all had lower rebound rates in their primes. Aguirre, Jordan and Drexler show no trends. Only Pippen and Karl Malone had their best rebound rates in their primes, but Pippen was playing without Grant and Rodman in his two best rebound rate years, and Malone's prime lasted a decade, so it was probably going to happen for him anyway.



> You're always the one that says "Oh man, centers and power forwards rebound rates drop precipitously as a player gets older". Robinson's rebound rates suffered extremely mildly as he aged. Of the 6 seasons Robinson played with Duncan, 3 of those seasons his rebound rate was above his career average. By 2002 and 2003, it was very easy to say that Duncan was doing more of the work. I think anyone watching Spurs games at that time would have agreed.


Robinson's mpg fell from around 40 in his prime to 26 in his final season (one of the three seasons with Duncan in which his rate was above his career average). He played less than 30 mpg in each of his final three seasons. In the other two seasons with Duncan in which his rate was above his career average, Robinson was still a very good player. He was only 32-33, and he was playing less minutes than in previous years. Again, you can't say with any certainty that Duncan helped Robinson get rebounds more than Robinson helped Duncan.



> Didn't I say that Duncan wasn't a great blocker? That doesn't affect his overall defensive standing as blocking is merely one aspect of defense, and one that is far less important than the unmeasurables on defense. Is Duncan the best defensive player or not in the league right now? I think it's clear that he is. Whether or not he measures up with Olajuwon or Robinson on defense is unclear, but what is clear is he has easily been the best of the league over his career and that's saying something. Do you feel its merely a coincidence that the Spurs have been in the top three in defensive efficiency in every year since Duncan has come into the league and #1 six times?


That last part of your paragraph is almost exactly what some other guy posted in the KG vs Duncan thread earlier today (I'm not implying that you copied). I'll post my exact reply (not because it's particularly good or even perfectly relevant, but so I don't have to repeat myself):
"So, Bowen, Ginobili, Parker and D-Rob, and a bunch of other guys who were good defenders, some of them borderline defensive specialists, such as Malik Rose, Kevin Willis, Will Perdue, Mario Elie, Robert Horry and Jerome Kersey, are also part of the difference between TD and all the other players in the league?"
Still, I don't disagree that Duncan is a great defender. In fact, I've repeatedly stated in this thread that he is. However, he definitely has not "easily" been the best defender in the league. What about Mutombo? Mourning? Ben Wallace? If it's so clear that Duncan has been the best defender in the league all along, why has he not been named DPoY even once? Hell, Ron Artest won it last year.
And I don't think you understand my point about Duncan and blocking shots. Remember, we were arguing about whether or not Duncan plays exactly like a center. I remarked that every great defensive center has averaged more blocks than Duncan.
Blocking shots is a very important part of defense for centers. It is not simply the few turnovers forced per game that are the direct result of blocking shots. It is also the opposition's knowledge that their shots will be blocked if they are not careful. The number of blocks a center gets indicates their ability to alter shots, which is extremely important.
Now, Duncan's 2.5 or so blocks per game is very good for a power forward -- even for a power forward who plays a lot like a center. He's probably the second-greatest defensive PF ever.



> And Robert Parish's rebound rate at age 39 was higher than it was at 36. Since the examples I gave didn't satisfy you, I'll throw some more in. Sam Perkins. Charles Oakley. Hakeem Olajuwon. Terry Cummings. Herb Williams. I don't deny that a player's rebounding will fall from 36-38, but I will deny that obtaining only a 0.3 decrease is somehow impossible for a player to manage, when many players have done so.


Robert Parish was a freak. Sam Perkins went to Indiana and played alongside Rik Smits. Charles Oakley went to Chicago and played alongside Brad Miller and Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler (which was more useful to his rebounding than Kevin Willis' 21 mpg). Hakeem Olajuwon played 9 mpg less and was playing with Barkley when he was 36. Terry Cummings isn't as bad an example, but he went to the Warriors with Adonal Foyle (who, although horrifically overpaid and not worthy of starting, was and is good at boxing out). Herb Williams only played 8 mpg for 21 games when he was 38. 
I'm not saying it's impossible for a player to maintain the same rebound rate from the age of 36 to 38, but that it's very rare that it occurs without a significant change of factors. Horace Grant's rebound rate increased when he went to LA, decreased when he left, then only fell by 0.3 when he rejoined Shaq two years later at the age of 38. I honestly can't see how you could view that as anything other than Shaq having helped Horace Grant get rebounds.



> Otis Thorpe. Larry Smith. Williamson didn't decline after Detroit. Rodman in 94. These are all reasons why centers may help their power forwards get rebounds in certain situations, but there is *no* trend, which is the important key.


As I've said many times, Otis Thorpe's rate fell when he left Houston halfway through the '94-95 season. His career high was in '94, Olajuwon's MVP season, and also Robert Horry's best rebound rate season with the Rockets. Part of the reason why his rate declined when he joined Houston was that Hakeem wasn't as good at boxing out then. Thorpe was playing with the Kings before that, and they had a terrific box out rebounder in LaSalle Thompson who got solid minutes (I know because he is one of my favourite non-Rocket, non-star players of all time; I can't remember anything about the other center on the Kings, Joe Kleine).
Larry Smith's rebound rate picked up when he joined Houston, despite it having fallen significantly for two consecutive seasons.
Corliss Williamson had four of his five best rebound rate seasons in Detroit. While those were his best overall years (though that could be attributed to the team he played on), there is no trend indicating that a player's best rebounding years occurs in his prime.
I've already explained about Rodman in this post.
I definitely see a trend. Not just with these examples, but with the several others. Plus, it is a commonly agreed-upon fact that good centers generally help their power forwards get rebounds.



> Those the only ones introduced, and them by itself prove my point that there is no trend.


So just two examples are required to prove your point, while the numerous examples that I've offered mean nothing?



> I didn't feel it was necessary. I'm obviously not going to hold Olajuwon's few last aging seasons against him. We are obviously in a discussion of these player's relative prime, and I didn't feel it was necessary to preface it again.


What about Olajuwon's early years? How do you define relative prime? He was nearly as good in '86 as he was in '95. We've gone all over the place in this lengthy discussion, from Olajuwon's ability to box out in 1989, to Duncan's effect on Robinson in 1998. You simply said "Olajuwon's best offensive years were his worst defensive years", and I responded to what you said.



> Going on about the 80's was exactly a random tangent. What did it have to do with my point? Was Olajuwon's seasons in the 1980's his best offensive seasons? No. They weren't and I don't believe you'll find anyone who agrees that they were. So if those seasons weren't in discussion, why discuss them?


Firstly, to go off on a "random tangent" is to go completely off topic. That would be, say, suddenly bringing up Scott Skiles when comparing Duncan and Olajuwon. Still, I didn't even go off on a regular, ordinary tangent. I was explaining that Olajuwon's late 80's seasons might very well have been his best offensive seasons. Most people won't agree for the same reason that they will bring up rings when comparing Kobe with T-Mac.



> But stats are the best we have to go by, so that's what I'm basing my facts on. It may not be the absolute truth, but it's the best truth at this point because well, I don't access to hundreds of game tapes of Olajuwon's games during the 1980's and I'm sure you don't either.


But having seen plenty of games in the past does help a great deal, as stats are significantly influenced by many external factors (which is a major theme in this discussion). 



> Thorpe also didn't improve when coming over to Houston. We've been over Thorpe ad naseum. If Olajuwon changed his ability to help his power forwards improve their rebound rates, so be it, but that relates nothing to Robinson's ability to help his power forwards rebound during his last years, and only proves my point that some centers help, some don't, and some have done both in their career. Thus, no trend.


No, it has a lot to do with Robinson's ability to help his power forwards rebound during his last years. I've shown that good centers -- especially as they change their games as they become less athletic and more experienced -- help their forwards to get rebounds. That's been the case with four of the five best centers of the past two decades, Olajuwon (Barkley, Thorpe, Larry Smith), Shaq (Horace Grant, and now that I've thought of it, I might as well mention Samaki Walker, too), Robinson (Rodman and Cummings and Samaki Walker) and Mourning (Chris Gatling).



> Oh, so does length and freakishly big hands change as a player gets older? Thorpe is very reminiscent of PJ Brown today, and PJ Brown himself had his rebounding rate peak at age 32. It simply happens. Alot. And trust me, guys like Sam Perkins were definitely not box out rebounders. And if you want, I can find you about 20 more examples, but I think I've made my point.


I meant athleticism and length and freakishly big hands as opposed to mainly boxing out. You can get better at boxing out as you get older, as your feel for it gets better due to experience. But your size doesn't change and your athleticism diminishes.
PJ Brown came into the league when he was 24 (and I might add that his rebound rate, too, increased when he started to play with a good center in Alonzo Mourning). Still, it's not very often that a player's rebound rate peaks when they're 30+ with no other factors changing. I'm sure you could wade through scores of players on basketball-reference.com and come up with 20 examples. I'm just saying that most players -- especially the ones who rely heavily on athleticism to grab rebounds -- are better rebounders when they're younger.



> So, doesn't that prove my original point that Duncan really wasn't a better rebounder, despite the improved rebounding rate? I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.


I'm saying that good centers help their forwards get rebounds, and that Duncan's rebound rate was not negatively affected by the presence of David Robinson. I don't know if the slight differences in Robinson's and Willis' ability to box out had much impact on Duncan's rebound rate. I don't know if Duncan improved as a rebounder, or whether -- or rather how much of -- the rise in his rate can be attributed to the different mix of players or the fact that he played less minutes. All I know is that there is no clear evidence at all that Robinson took away Duncan's rebounds.



> Nesterovic was a slightly worse rebounder than Robinson. That means, he is taking less rebounds away from Duncan. That means Duncan's rebound rate goes up. Robinson at age 37 was simply no longer good at boxing out and doing that type of stuff. He played a role similar to one Mohammed plays now. Duncan does all the dirty work. Robinson helps clean up.


You've repeated that several times. Nesterovic takes away more rebounds from Duncan because he is not good at getting people rebounds. Robinson was still very good at boxing out. That's one thing that doesn't require as much athleticism as, say, rebounding by simply outjumping people. It mainly requires a good instinct (which can only get better the longer you play), the desire to do so (which would increase as players mature) and some strength (strength doesn't diminish with age as quickly as speed and explosiveness). Robinson did not simply "help clean up". One of the fittest players ever, he was still very effective. Even in 2003 he was blocking nearly as many shots per 48 mins as Duncan was.



> Neither Nestorovic nor Mohammed are crappy defensive centers. Both are decent for their position. Having a strong defender at power forward these days is more valuable than a strong center (particularly in Duncan's case)since when Duncan sits in the post, he occupies it like a center. When he is guarding man to man, he defends the power forward position, which is an infinitely stronger position offensively in today's league than the center position.


Both Nesterovic and Mohammed and crappy defenders. There's a reason why Nesterovic played only 7 mpg in the playoffs and barely stepped onto the court in the Finals. Mohammed is there mainly to clean up, as you said. He can get offensive rebounds, get free occasionally for a dunk, but that's about it. Defensively, he sucks. He is made to look an OK defender because Duncan's there.
And it is always better to have a great defensive center than a great defensive power forward. The number of shots altered and blocked has a huge impact on the opposition's entire offense. Like other great centers have done before, Duncan could always guard the Garnetts etc. of this league when those teams are played, but play center the rest of the time.



> And are Parker, Ginobili, and Bowen any better?


Parker and Ginobili are better than their '95 Rockets counterparts. The Spurs also have Horry (who is a better rebounder now) and Nesterovic and Mohammed and, until recently, Malik Rose.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

defending the paint is what's most important for a big man, not who they're guarding. i don't know why you keep saying it's always better to have a great defensive center than power forward. it's the impact that's important, not who they're guarding. oftentimes, it's the opposing pf that's spending more time in the post than the opposing center anyway. it's about altering shots and clogging the middle. duncan does that as well as any center in the league. the only difference is who he's guarding, not the impact he's having on the opposition.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

That's exactly my point. Altering shots and clogging the middle, rather than who specifically they're guarding. That's why a center is more valuable than a power forward. Duncan plays a lot like a center, but not exactly like one. But, again, I'm not denying that he does the job any worse than even the best centers in the league.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

you're not explaining why a center is more valuable than a pf. duncan's a pf because he matches up with pf's. but he alters shots and clogs the middle. no differently really than any center. so why is it less valuable coming from duncan at the pf spot?


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> Expectations have nothing to do with it. If a season is abnormal, there should be a reason. If there is no reason at all, then it is luck. And, because of the number of games that are played, I don't believe anyone can get lucky enough for a season for their stats to change significantly.


Why does it have to be luck? Are you saying it's impossible for a player to have to just have a career season by a decent margin without external reasons other than the player itself? If you do, then we just have to disagree. 




> Actually, in the only two seasons in which Rodman had a higher PER, he did average more blocks and steals. The first of those seasons was his career high in steals, and the second was his career high in blocks. Also, those two seasons were his two highest scoring seasons. I don't see anything indicating that Rodman's game slipped at all.


Ok then, Rodman was blocking and stealing less. He was also scoring less. But he was rebounding more. That seems like a reasonable tradeoff. 




> No, read it again. I pointed out several other factors.


I know, but if all those reasons are the reason for Rodman's rebounding improvement, then are you admitting that perhaps this supposed improvement in Robinson's ability to help his teammates rebound better has really little to do with it? 




> I offered several reasons as to why Rodman's rebound rate did not rise in his first season in San Antonio. David Robinson's lesser ability to help his teammates rebound, unfamiliar surroundings, different teammates and a different coach. It appears you have chosen to ignore this, as it doesn't suit your argument. Yes, Rodman did have a career year in rebounding in '95. That's because he was playing beside a great center who had improved his game, and he was now adjusted to the new situation. He did play slightly fewer minutes per game, but he played almost exactly the same minutes the next year in Chicago, but his rebound rate fell by 3.1. As I said, David Robinson was better all round on the boards in '95. His own rebound rate increased, as did those of Rodman, Terry Cummings and J.R. Reid. Quadruple fluke?


Yes, but all the reasons you offer, only one has to do with David Robinson, and it's probably one of the most minor reasons of them all. His rebound rate fell simply because that 95 seasons was an abnomaly. That next season in Chicago, Rodman obtained his highest rebound rate outside of 95. And actually, looking over the 94 and 95 San Antonio teams, I suspect there may be an error in the basketball-reference database. At least, the results are very suspicious. The 1994 SA team was a better rebounding team than the 1995 team, grabbing 53.9% of total rebounds compared with 52.6% for the 95 team. Yet, everyone had better rebound rates in 1995, which simply doesn't make sense. Maybe they messed up the calculations or something, but it's definitely curious. Can you figure it out, cause I can't. 



> Yes. Especially not when a player's rebound rate rises significantly, then falls back to the same level it was earlier.


So flukes are possible in every other aspect of the game, except rebounding. How come? 




> No, it wasn't a fluke, and my comment wasn't irrelevant. As I said, there was a reason why, statistically, 2003 was McGrady's best season. He had improved from the previous year, he was the only big scoring threat on the team, and he was trying his hardest.


Why isn't it a fluke season? Explain. If he suddenly improved to an level that he has never matched, doesn't that fit the profile? He's always only been the big scoring threat on the team with Orlando. So, McGrady can try his hardest for one season, but Rodman can't? 



> Why not be more precise? Simply saying "two 20+ rebound rate seasons" makes it sound like the 17 season was a fluke. Larry Smith's rebound rate fell by 0.8 one season, then fell by a further 3.1, then rose by 1.2 when he joined Olajuwon in Houston.


Let's be the most precise then. 

Four seasons (age): 21.1 (29), 20.3 (30), 17.2 (31), 18.4 (32)

You tell me, does that last season look like a fluke? It sure as hell doesn't to me. If anything the 17.2 was the fluke, as it's his lowest rebound rate in any season. 



> Actually, I don't agree with you. Just looking at the best players of the past two decades who have retired or passed their primes, Shaq, Hakeem (using what you think is his prime), D-Rob, Ewing, Magic, Bird, Barkley and Bernard King all had lower rebound rates in their primes. Aguirre, Jordan and Drexler show no trends. Only Pippen and Karl Malone had their best rebound rates in their primes, but Pippen was playing without Grant and Rodman in his two best rebound rate years, and Malone's prime lasted a decade, so it was probably going to happen for him anyway.


Just for note, I'm using PER as the general rule of thumb for "best seasons" and rebound rate for "best rebounding seasons". O'Neal's prime was 99 and 00. His rebounding rates around 18, which is exactly what all his best rebounding seasons have been his entire career, minus his rookie season. The rest are all exceptions to the rule (though I was referring to big men when I was talking, not really guards or wings as I haven't payed attention to trends for them). Now for players that prove the rule, again going down the career of most games played. Robert Parish, Kevin Willis, Buck Williams, Charles Oakley, AC Green, Clifford Robinson, Jack Sikma, Tree Rollins, Rick Mahorn. In general, when a player is at his athletic peak, it will be his best rebounding and overall peak. Granted that for some special players who have become even better players when their athleticism has declined, that isn't true, but in overall, I think it is. 



> Robinson's mpg fell from around 40 in his prime to 26 in his final season (one of the three seasons with Duncan in which his rate was above his career average). He played less than 30 mpg in each of his final three seasons. In the other two seasons with Duncan in which his rate was above his career average, Robinson was still a very good player. He was only 32-33, and he was playing less minutes than in previous years. Again, you can't say with any certainty that Duncan helped Robinson get rebounds more than Robinson helped Duncan.


During the beginning of their pairing, I can't say with any certainty. During the last two or three years, I can say with great certainty. It's obviously something that is impossible to be statistically proven, but from my own eyes, Duncan was much much much more active down low than Robinson during those years. I'm sure if you ask any Spurs fan, they'll agree. 




> That last part of your paragraph is almost exactly what some other guy posted in the KG vs Duncan thread earlier today (I'm not implying that you copied). I'll post my exact reply (not because it's particularly good or even perfectly relevant, but so I don't have to repeat myself):
> "So, Bowen, Ginobili, Parker and D-Rob, and a bunch of other guys who were good defenders, some of them borderline defensive specialists, such as Malik Rose, Kevin Willis, Will Perdue, Mario Elie, Robert Horry and Jerome Kersey, are also part of the difference between TD and all the other players in the league?"


First, most of the so called "defensive specialists" were far from it by the time they came to the Spurs. Guys like Willis, Elie, Kersey were all at the end of their careers. As for the other players with Duncan now, we simply don't know how much they benefit from playing with Duncan. Bowen wasn't considered a great defender SA before and now he's regarded as one of the best perimeter defenders in the league since playing with Duncan. 



> Still, I don't disagree that Duncan is a great defender. In fact, I've repeatedly stated in this thread that he is. However, he definitely has not "easily" been the best defender in the league. What about Mutombo? Mourning? Ben Wallace? If it's so clear that Duncan has been the best defender in the league all along, why has he not been named DPoY even once? Hell, Ron Artest won it last year.


Over Tim Duncan's career, Mutombo has not been the best defender. Maybe he was around the same level as Duncan for the first two years or so, but his defensive performance has dropped as he's been plagued with injuries and age. Mourning has a strong case, as he was likely a better defender during Duncan's first three seasons. Since then though, it's all Duncan as Mourning has been missed lots of games because of kidney problems. Ben Wallace, no. I don't think anyone considers Ben Wallace a better defender than Duncan. It's absoutely amazing what he's doing at his height, but he's not a better defender than Duncan. I think Duncan's lack of pizazz may have a bit to do with his lack of a DPoY award. Whereas with the MVP award, it's impossible to ignore the results (i.e wins), most voters have not the slightest idea of say team defensive efficiency or anything else related to defense other than blocks and steals. Ben Wallace has won 3 out of the last 4 DPoY awards, because he has lots of highlight defensive plays and he doing it at a height that draws a lot of attention. But I don't think Wallace is at the same level defensively as Duncan, and if you do, then well, we just have to strongly disagree. He's been on the all-defensive team the last 8 years. No one else has. 



> And I don't think you understand my point about Duncan and blocking shots. Remember, we were arguing about whether or not Duncan plays exactly like a center. I remarked that every great defensive center has averaged more blocks than Duncan.
> Blocking shots is a very important part of defense for centers. It is not simply the few turnovers forced per game that are the direct result of blocking shots. It is also the opposition's knowledge that their shots will be blocked if they are not careful. The number of blocks a center gets indicates their ability to alter shots, which is extremely important.
> Now, Duncan's 2.5 or so blocks per game is very good for a power forward -- even for a power forward who plays a lot like a center. He's probably the second-greatest defensive PF ever.


Because Duncan is basically a center, and San Antonio usually has two centers of the court at a time, Duncan doesn't really need to block every shot. He can push an offensive player to the other center where he is an easy position for a block. For some examples, Nesterovics two highest BPG seasons have come with the Spurs. Mohammed's block rate more than doubled since coming to the Spurs. 




> Robert Parish was a freak. Sam Perkins went to Indiana and played alongside Rik Smits. Charles Oakley went to Chicago and played alongside Brad Miller and Eddy Curry and Tyson Chandler (which was more useful to his rebounding than Kevin Willis' 21 mpg). Hakeem Olajuwon played 9 mpg less and was playing with Barkley when he was 36. Terry Cummings isn't as bad an example, but he went to the Warriors with Adonal Foyle (who, although horrifically overpaid and not worthy of starting, was and is good at boxing out). Herb Williams only played 8 mpg for 21 games when he was 38.
> I'm not saying it's impossible for a player to maintain the same rebound rate from the age of 36 to 38, but that it's very rare that it occurs without a significant change of factors. Horace Grant's rebound rate increased when he went to LA, decreased when he left, then only fell by 0.3 when he rejoined Shaq two years later at the age of 38. I honestly can't see how you could view that as anything other than Shaq having helped Horace Grant get rebounds.


OK on Parish and Perkins. Oakley played with Antoine Davis and Willis,both whom are far more useful in rebounding than the motley crew of rebounders in Brad Miller, Curry, and Chandler, neither of whom are great at boxing out. I thought you said Olajuwon helped Barkley get more rebounds. Now, you are saying its the other way. Which way is it? Heh, aren't you stretching just a bit with Foyle. Williams only played 13 MPG at age 36. He never was a big minute guy with the Knicks. If you want more examples, I've only touched the tip of the iceberg. I mean, come on, Horace Grant dropped his rebounding rate from age 36 to 38. That's perfectly normal. There have been tons of players like Grant. 



> As I've said many times, Otis Thorpe's rate fell when he left Houston halfway through the '94-95 season. His career high was in '94, Olajuwon's MVP season, and also Robert Horry's best rebound rate season with the Rockets. Part of the reason why his rate declined when he joined Houston was that Hakeem wasn't as good at boxing out then. Thorpe was playing with the Kings before that, and they had a terrific box out rebounder in LaSalle Thompson who got solid minutes (I know because he is one of my favourite non-Rocket, non-star players of all time; I can't remember anything about the other center on the Kings, Joe Kleine).
> Larry Smith's rebound rate picked up when he joined Houston, despite it having fallen significantly for two consecutive seasons.
> Corliss Williamson had four of his five best rebound rate seasons in Detroit. While those were his best overall years (though that could be attributed to the team he played on), there is no trend indicating that a player's best rebounding years occurs in his prime.
> I've already explained about Rodman in this post.
> I definitely see a trend. Not just with these examples, but with the several others. Plus, it is a commonly agreed-upon fact that good centers generally help their power forwards get rebounds.


How is a there a trend? You just admitted that Olajuwon wasn't as good at boxing out when he was young, and Thorpe's rebound rate actually declined from before. Some players are good at helpings Williamson hasn't had an effect after leaving Detroit. Again, if it only happens half the time, how is it a trend? 



> So just two examples are required to prove your point, while the numerous examples that I've offered mean nothing?


1. Yes. They show that there is no trend. 
2. Again, the numerous examples you've shown have holes in them, and haven't shown a consistent trend. 



> What about Olajuwon's early years? How do you define relative prime? He was nearly as good in '86 as he was in '95. We've gone all over the place in this lengthy discussion, from Olajuwon's ability to box out in 1989, to Duncan's effect on Robinson in 1998. You simply said "Olajuwon's best offensive years were his worst defensive years", and I responded to what you said.


I would regard his relative prime as 86-96. 



> Firstly, to go off on a "random tangent" is to go completely off topic. That would be, say, suddenly bringing up Scott Skiles when comparing Duncan and Olajuwon. Still, I didn't even go off on a regular, ordinary tangent. I was explaining that Olajuwon's late 80's seasons might very well have been his best offensive seasons. Most people won't agree for the same reason that they will bring up rings when comparing Kobe with T-Mac.


Do *you* feel the late 80's seasons were Olajuwon's best offensive seasons? 




> But having seen plenty of games in the past does help a great deal, as stats are significantly influenced by many external factors (which is a major theme in this discussion).


Of course, but I don't have tapes on me to revisit, and I assume that you don't either. So for this discussion, statistics are all we can draw from. 




> No, it has a lot to do with Robinson's ability to help his power forwards rebound during his last years. I've shown that good centers -- especially as they change their games as they become less athletic and more experienced -- help their forwards to get rebounds. That's been the case with four of the five best centers of the past two decades, Olajuwon (Barkley, Thorpe, Larry Smith), Shaq (Horace Grant, and now that I've thought of it, I might as well mention Samaki Walker, too), Robinson (Rodman and Cummings and Samaki Walker) and Mourning (Chris Gatling).


Well, I obviously don't agree with you on maybe of those examples, and we are still in discussion about many of them, so I'll leave that there. 




> PJ Brown came into the league when he was 24 (and I might add that his rebound rate, too, increased when he started to play with a good center in Alonzo Mourning). Still, it's not very often that a player's rebound rate peaks when they're 30+ with no other factors changing. I'm sure you could wade through scores of players on basketball-reference.com and come up with 20 examples. I'm just saying that most players -- especially the ones who rely heavily on athleticism to grab rebounds -- are better rebounders when they're younger.


PJ Brown's rebounding peak happened 9 years into his NBA career, and Thorpe's happened 10 years into his NBA career (and I might add that Brown's rebound rate increased when he left Miami or that his rebound rate last year with no other decent big man to be found in sight was just about equal with any of his Miami years and at age 35 to boot). Exactly. I didn't say it was a trend. I simply said, it happens alot as I've shown with examples. So thus, for it to happen with Otis Thorpe is certainly not unusual or out of place. 



> I'm saying that good centers help their forwards get rebounds, and that Duncan's rebound rate was not negatively affected by the presence of David Robinson. I don't know if the slight differences in Robinson's and Willis' ability to box out had much impact on Duncan's rebound rate. I don't know if Duncan improved as a rebounder, or whether -- or rather how much of -- the rise in his rate can be attributed to the different mix of players or the fact that he played less minutes. All I know is that there is no clear evidence at all that Robinson took away Duncan's rebounds.


More Willis time + less Robinson time=more rebounds for Duncan without him having to improve his rebounding one bit. That's all I'm trying to say. 




> You've repeated that several times. Nesterovic takes away more rebounds from Duncan because he is not good at getting people rebounds. Robinson was still very good at boxing out. That's one thing that doesn't require as much athleticism as, say, rebounding by simply outjumping people. It mainly requires a good instinct (which can only get better the longer you play), the desire to do so (which would increase as players mature) and some strength (strength doesn't diminish with age as quickly as speed and explosiveness). Robinson did not simply "help clean up". One of the fittest players ever, he was still very effective. Even in 2003 he was blocking nearly as many shots per 48 mins as Duncan was.


I don't feel Nesterovic was any less effective than Robinson was and was probably better at blocking out because of his huge body. The 2004 Spurs were actually a significantly superior rebounding team to the 2003 Spurs, despite the only major roster change being the replacement of Robinson with Nesterovic. And boxing out doesn't require much athleticism, but Robinson was never a box out rebounder in the first place. He never had a great body for boxing out, and he uses many his huge length to procure most rebounds. 




> Both Nesterovic and Mohammed and crappy defenders. There's a reason why Nesterovic played only 7 mpg in the playoffs and barely stepped onto the court in the Finals. Mohammed is there mainly to clean up, as you said. He can get offensive rebounds, get free occasionally for a dunk, but that's about it. Defensively, he sucks. He is made to look an OK defender because Duncan's there.


I'm not sure why Nesterovic didn't play much in the playoffs. When he did play, he did what he always did and he did play 25.5 MPG during the regular season. The Spurs also gave up less points with him on the court than off. 



> And it is always better to have a great defensive center than a great defensive power forward. The number of shots altered and blocked has a huge impact on the opposition's entire offense. Like other great centers have done before, Duncan could always guard the Garnetts etc. of this league when those teams are played, but play center the rest of the time.


But there are many more great offensive power forwards these days, which is why he normally plays that position. When he does play a great offensive center like O'Neal, he can always switch and take the assignment. 



> Parker and Ginobili are better than their '95 Rockets counterparts. The Spurs also have Horry (who is a better rebounder now) and Nesterovic and Mohammed and, until recently, Malik Rose.


Comparing last seasons Spurs with the 95 Rockets. 

Name-Rebound Rate
Parker- 6.1
K. Smith- 3.5

Ginobili- 8.8
Drexler- 10.9
Maxwell- 4.6 

Bowen- 6.3
Horry- 9.0

It's pretty even.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

kflo said:


> you're not explaining why a center is more valuable than a pf. duncan's a pf because he matches up with pf's. but he alters shots and clogs the middle. no differently really than any center. so why is it less valuable coming from duncan at the pf spot?


A center is more valuable than a power forward because they have the opportunity to alter and block more shots. Duncan does play differently to a center. He is a great defender, right? But he has never averaged even 3 bpg, and blocks are a good indicator of a player's ability to alter shots. Every great defensive center has averaged more blocks than him. That's because Duncan is a power forward who simply plays a lot like a center.



Yyzlin said:


> Why does it have to be luck? Are you saying it's impossible for a player to have to just have a career season by a decent margin without external reasons other than the player itself? If you do, then we just have to disagree.


It is virtually impossible for a player to have a career season, then drop to approximately the same level as before without any external factors changing. It may very rarely happen for 3-pt%, but not for anything else. Certainly not for rebounding. If that does happen, it is luck. There is no other explanation. Professional basketballers don't suddenly get good, then drop back to where they were before. If they improve, they stay at the same level until they decline due to age or injury.



> Ok then, Rodman was blocking and stealing less. He was also scoring less. But he was rebounding more. That seems like a reasonable tradeoff.


No, Rodman's blocks, steals and ppg in '95 were similar to what they were in several other seasons of his. They were only particularly high in the two seasons in which his PER was higher than what it was in '95.



> I know, but if all those reasons are the reason for Rodman's rebounding improvement, then are you admitting that perhaps this supposed improvement in Robinson's ability to help his teammates rebound better has really little to do with it?


No. How does adjusting to new surroundings, a new system and a new set of teammates explain why Rodman's rebound rate was highest in '95? It only explains why his rate did not immediately rise when he joined the Spurs.



> Yes, but all the reasons you offer, only one has to do with David Robinson, and it's probably one of the most minor reasons of them all. His rebound rate fell simply because that 95 seasons was an abnomaly. That next season in Chicago, Rodman obtained his highest rebound rate outside of 95. And actually, looking over the 94 and 95 San Antonio teams, I suspect there may be an error in the basketball-reference database. At least, the results are very suspicious. The 1994 SA team was a better rebounding team than the 1995 team, grabbing 53.9% of total rebounds compared with 52.6% for the 95 team. Yet, everyone had better rebound rates in 1995, which simply doesn't make sense. Maybe they messed up the calculations or something, but it's definitely curious. Can you figure it out, cause I can't.


Again, the reasons I offered explain why his rebound rate wasn't as high in '94, not why it was highest in '95. And the next season in Chicago, Rodman's rebound rate was 26.6, but he also had seasons of 26.2, 26.0, 25.7 and 25.6. In '95 his rate was 29.7. The fact that his second-best rebound rate season was in '96 has no relevance because it was only fractionally higher than it was in some of his other seasons.
And I seriously doubt that there's an error in the stats at basketball-reference.com. In all the time I've been visiting that site, the only error that I've come across is that of Shareef Abdur-Rahim's page not loading. That is the only type of error that is possible. I'd believe it if everyone on the '95 team had the exact same rebound rate, as the first person's rate might have been calculated and mistakenly copied for the rest of the team. But each player's different rebound rates can't be miscalculated. They use a formula and it is automatically applied to every player. It's not like there's actually some guy sitting there who manually enters all the numbers into his calculator.
The '95 team had several different players to the '94 team. I'm not going to go through every player and compare their rebound rates and their mpg and games played. It's perfectly plausible that there were guys on the '95 team who were simply worse rebounders, making the '95 team marginally worse at rebounding. For example, they had Avery Johnson in '95, and he was a very poor rebounder. All that is relevant to this discussion is that there was an increase in the rebound rates of the Spurs' three best forwards in '95, including a career year for Rodman.



> So flukes are possible in every other aspect of the game, except rebounding. How come?


No, I said flukes are possible in 3-pt% (that is, if you call Schrempf going from being an ordinary three-point shooter to a 50% guy, then remaining around a 40% shooter for the rest of his career a fluke). Are you denying that, of all statistical categories, 3-pt% is most likely to show by far the greatest fluctuation over a player's career?



> Why isn't it a fluke season? Explain. If he suddenly improved to an level that he has never matched, doesn't that fit the profile? He's always only been the big scoring threat on the team with Orlando. So, McGrady can try his hardest for one season, but Rodman can't?


Suddenly improving is not fluking. McGrady suddenly improved in 2003, and he has been as good a player since. His statistics weren't as good in '04 because he realised that his team wasn't going to go anywhere and he gave up. Fans suspected it for a while, and he finally said as much himself. This past season he had to share the scoring load with Yao. It is extremely unlikely that Rodman tried any less in his other seasons than he did in '95. He generally played on good teams. You're telling me he gave up on the Bulls? You've thought up some pretty far-fetched explanations for the rise in Rodman's rebound rate -- that it was a fluke, that there is an error on basketball-reference.com, that he simply tried harder in '95 than in any other season, that he suddenly improved in '95 then fell back to about where he was before. My explanation -- that he was helped by David Robinson, just as many power forwards are helped by good centers -- is by far the most plausible.



> Let's be the most precise then.
> 
> Four seasons (age): 21.1 (29), 20.3 (30), 17.2 (31), 18.4 (32)
> 
> You tell me, does that last season look like a fluke? It sure as hell doesn't to me. If anything the 17.2 was the fluke, as it's his lowest rebound rate in any season.


I didn't say the last season was a fluke. In fact, my point is that it wasn't a fluke. His rebound rate increased by 1.2 because he was playing with Olajuwon. And the 17.2 can't be a fluke. Unless you believe he got unlucky enough over a span of 80 straight games for his rate to fall by 3.1, that is.



> Just for note, I'm using PER as the general rule of thumb for "best seasons" and rebound rate for "best rebounding seasons".


For players whom we know pretty well, it's better to define their primes as what we know them to be, rather than when their PER was highest. For example, Jordan's PER in '92 was one of his lowest in Chicago, but we know that he was in his absolute prime then.



> O'Neal's prime was 99 and 00. His rebounding rates around 18, which is exactly what all his best rebounding seasons have been his entire career, minus his rookie season.


Shaq's rebound rate was around 18 in '99 and '00, but his rate was about 21 in his rookie season, and was close to 19 in two other seasons before his prime. 



> The rest are all exceptions to the rule (though I was referring to big men when I was talking, not really guards or wings as I haven't payed attention to trends for them).


How can it be a rule of thumb if there are so many exceptions? There are plenty more of these exceptions. I'll bet that if you take a random sample of, say, 30 retired centers and power forwards who each played for several seasons, you will find no trend indicating that players rebound best during their overall primes.



> Now for players that prove the rule, again going down the career of most games played. Robert Parish, Kevin Willis, Buck Williams, Charles Oakley, AC Green, Clifford Robinson, Jack Sikma, Tree Rollins, Rick Mahorn. In general, when a player is at his athletic peak, it will be his best rebounding and overall peak. Granted that for some special players who have become even better players when their athleticism has declined, that isn't true, but in overall, I think it is.


As you said, in general, when a player is in his athletic prime, he will also be in his rebounding prime. Virtually everyone's athleticism starts to decline by the time they're 25. This is a fact. This is the reason why so many players have their best rebound rate seasons early in their careers. However, as you said yourself in an earlier post, most players' overall primes only occur when they're around 29.
Also, it isn't fair to look at players who have played the most games. They were so durable that most of them had extremely long primes, making it highly likely that their best rebound rate seasons were in their primes. 
Anyway, four of Robert Parish's five best rebound rate seasons occured outside of his decade-long prime ('81-'91). And don't tell me he was in his prime with the Warriors. Everyone knows he only started his prime in Boston.
Kevin Willis is a good example for you.
Buck Williams was one of those players whose primes occured in their first few seasons, for him, between the ages of 21 and 27. For these players, yes, their overall primes will generally coincide with their rebounding primes.
Charles Oakley's three best rebound rate seasons occured in his first three seasons, when he was in Chicago. That definitely was not his overall prime. He was a much better player in NY in the mid-90's.
AC Green had a decade-long prime. His rebounding prime was bound to fall somewhere in there. Still, from the stats, it's not even clear if he had a definite rebounding prime.
Cliff Robinson's prime lasted about 11 seasons. Three of his six best rebound rate seasons occured before his prime -- in his first three seasons.
I know very little about Jack Sikma, but he too seems to have had a very long prime.
Tree Rollins was another one of those guys whose primes occured in their first few seasons.
Rick Mahorn's prime lasted nine years, from the ages of 23 to 32. Obviously his rebound rate would be highest somewhere in there.
Generally, a player's rebounding and overall primes will coincide if he has a very long prime or if his prime occurs early in his career. There is no "rule of thumb" saying that overall and rebounding primes will otherwise still coincide.



> During the beginning of their pairing, I can't say with any certainty. During the last two or three years, I can say with great certainty. It's obviously something that is impossible to be statistically proven, but from my own eyes, Duncan was much much much more active down low than Robinson during those years. I'm sure if you ask any Spurs fan, they'll agree.


Duncan was more active in the last few years, but you still can't say with any degree of certainty that he helped Robinson rebound more than Robinson helped him. 



> First, most of the so called "defensive specialists" were far from it by the time they came to the Spurs. Guys like Willis, Elie, Kersey were all at the end of their careers. As for the other players with Duncan now, we simply don't know how much they benefit from playing with Duncan. Bowen wasn't considered a great defender SA before and now he's regarded as one of the best perimeter defenders in the league since playing with Duncan.


Willis has been tremendously durable. He was still a good defender in SA. Kersey was, too. He was there pretty much only for his defense.
Elie began his career when he was 27, so his body hadn't been subject to nearly the same amount of wear and tear as most other players by the time he was 35. He was playing some of the highest mpg of his career in SA, and that was on a championship side.
Bowen, Ginobili and Parker are all good defenders. They played pretty good defense when Duncan was injured (in fact, I saw them shut down my favourite team). You can't deny that. Obviously, the presence of Duncan makes them better defenders, but that is the case with all players on teams with good defensive centers (or power forwards who play a lot like centers).



> Over Tim Duncan's career, Mutombo has not been the best defender. Maybe he was around the same level as Duncan for the first two years or so, but his defensive performance has dropped as he's been plagued with injuries and age.


Yes, but for a couple of years he was at Duncan's level. Duncan was not "clearly" the best defender in the league then.



> Mourning has a strong case, as he was likely a better defender during Duncan's first three seasons. Since then though, it's all Duncan as Mourning has been missed lots of games because of kidney problems.


Until then though, Mourning was better, meaning that Duncan was not the best defender in the league.



> Ben Wallace, no. I don't think anyone considers Ben Wallace a better defender than Duncan. It's absoutely amazing what he's doing at his height, but he's not a better defender than Duncan. I think Duncan's lack of pizazz may have a bit to do with his lack of a DPoY award. Whereas with the MVP award, it's impossible to ignore the results (i.e wins), most voters have not the slightest idea of say team defensive efficiency or anything else related to defense other than blocks and steals. Ben Wallace has won 3 out of the last 4 DPoY awards, because he has lots of highlight defensive plays and he doing it at a height that draws a lot of attention. But I don't think Wallace is at the same level defensively as Duncan, and if you do, then well, we just have to strongly disagree. He's been on the all-defensive team the last 8 years. No one else has.


I consider Wallace to be very close to Duncan's level defensively. Maybe not as close over the course of this season, but over the past few years, yes. I think the fact that Duncan has been the centerpiece of overall the best defensive team of the past few years would carry more weight in people's minds than his lack of pizazz. Ben Wallace has not averaged many more blocks than Duncan. In fact, he averaged less bpg this season. And those voters aren't that stupid. They have access to complex stats just like we do. Last year they even brought up Artest's average points allowed for his man per game. Anyway, how did Artest win it last year? There were guys who got more spg. We know he's a great defender. The voters knew it, too. They're not perfect, but they're not idiots, either. My point is that Wallace is very close to Duncan defensively, which means Duncan has not clearly been the best defender in the league. He has arguably been the best defender, but with Mourning having been so good for a couple of years, I wouldn't call Duncan the best.



> Because Duncan is basically a center, and San Antonio usually has two centers of the court at a time, Duncan doesn't really need to block every shot. He can push an offensive player to the other center where he is an easy position for a block. For some examples, Nesterovics two highest BPG seasons have come with the Spurs. Mohammed's block rate more than doubled since coming to the Spurs.


Yeah, because Duncan is a great defensive power forward. What you're basically seem to be saying is that Duncan is a power forward. Pushing offensive players to the center so that they will be rejected? That's what good power forwards do. I think you made the mistake of saying Duncan plays "exactly" like a center, and are reluctant to take it back now. Don't get me wrong -- he plays a lot like a center, but not exactly like one. He is a power forward.



> OK on Parish and Perkins. Oakley played with Antoine Davis and Willis,both whom are far more useful in rebounding than the motley crew of rebounders in Brad Miller, Curry, and Chandler, neither of whom are great at boxing out.


Antonio Davis wasn't particularly good at boxing out. Willis only played 21 mpg. Miller is good at boxing out. Curry and Chandler are decent. Oakley played 6 mpg less and his PER fell by 35% despite the increased rebound rate. Still, it's an OK example for you.



> I thought you said Olajuwon helped Barkley get more rebounds. Now, you are saying its the other way. Which way is it?


I'm not saying it's the other way. Olajuwon helped Barkley get more rebounds, which had a negative impact on his own rebound rate. He played with Barkley when he was 36. When he was 38, Barkley was no longer there. That, combined with the fact that he was playing less minutes, explains the slight increase in his rebound rate.



> Heh, aren't you stretching just a bit with Foyle.


I don't think so. No one takes Foyle seriously because of how much he is overpaid and because he is actually starting on an NBA team and because of his cheesey grin. They don't realise that he is a good box out rebounder. He helps his teammates that way, even if other aspects of his game need a bit of work.



> Williams only played 13 MPG at age 36. He never was a big minute guy with the Knicks.


Yes, but his minutes fell by over a third and he only played 21 games when he was 38. That is why his rebound rate fell by only 0.3.



> If you want more examples, I've only touched the tip of the iceberg. I mean, come on, Horace Grant dropped his rebounding rate from age 36 to 38. That's perfectly normal. There have been tons of players like Grant.


No, he didn't just drop his rebound rate from age 36 to 38. Why not tell the whole story, like I did? Horace Grant's rebound rate rose when he went to play with Shaq, fell when he left, then, after two years, at the age of 38, his rate only fell by 0.3 when he rejoined Shaq. There have not been tons of players whose rates stayed roughly the same from the ages of 36 to 38 without there having been any change of factors. There have hardly been any at all. It is simply the ageing process. Tell me straight up -- do you think most players' rebounding ability will fall from the ages of 36 to 38?



> How is a there a trend? You just admitted that Olajuwon wasn't as good at boxing out when he was young, and Thorpe's rebound rate actually declined from before. Some players are good at helpings Williamson hasn't had an effect after leaving Detroit. Again, if it only happens half the time, how is it a trend?


Yes, Thorpe's ability declined because Hakeem wasn't as good at boxing out. Before, LaSalle, who was excellent at boxing out, played a decent amount of minutes.
Williamson had his best rebound rate seasons with Ben Wallace. He was past his athletic prime. Who knows why his rate was low that last season in Detroit? There are too many other factors. I just can't believe it was a coincidence that he had his best rebounding years with Ben Wallace, who also improved Rasheed's rebounding.
There is a trend because I have offered many examples that work. There are too many factors for it to happen every single time, but generally, good centers help their power forwards get rebounds.



> 1. Yes. They show that there is no trend.
> 2. Again, the numerous examples you've shown have holes in them, and haven't shown a consistent trend.


1. It takes just two examples to show that there's no trend? You've got to be kidding. Look up "trend" in the dictionary. "A general tendency or inclination".
2. You have tried to pick holes in the numerous examples I've shown, but they mostly hold up. I have defended every one of them with reasonable arguments. 



> I would regard his relative prime as 86-96.


Well, since you consider '93 to be his peak, he had worse rebounding seasons in '86, '87, '88 and '92.



> Do *you* feel the late 80's seasons were Olajuwon's best offensive seasons?


It's very hard to say because I don't know what he could have done had his teammates been better. He was still raw in his first couple of seasons, but he had good players around him so he was able to produce very well offensively. I think he improved a lot but that his stats didn't show it because of his teammates were crap later. So, yeah, I think the late '80's and 1990 was the time when he was at his best offensively, though I can't say that with very much certainty.



> Of course, but I don't have tapes on me to revisit, and I assume that you don't either. So for this discussion, statistics are all we can draw from.


No, we can still draw from memory. And I do have some tapes, but I'm not actually going to watch them now just for this discussion.



> PJ Brown's rebounding peak happened 9 years into his NBA career, and Thorpe's happened 10 years into his NBA career (and I might add that Brown's rebound rate increased when he left Miami or that his rebound rate last year with no other decent big man to be found in sight was just about equal with any of his Miami years and at age 35 to boot). Exactly. I didn't say it was a trend. I simply said, it happens alot as I've shown with examples. So thus, for it to happen with Otis Thorpe is certainly not unusual or out of place.


I'll give you PJ Brown (though his rate did at first stay the same despite his offensive game taking the back seat).
However, you still can't explain why Thorpe's rate fell when he went to Portland in the same season. His career high coincided with Robert Horry's career high of his first five seasons, 1994.
For Otis Thorpe to peak in rebounding at such a late age is unusual. Most players peak earlier. Not everyone, but most guys do.



> More Willis time + less Robinson time=more rebounds for Duncan without him having to improve his rebounding one bit. That's all I'm trying to say.


You forgot the "less minutes for Duncan" bit.



> I don't feel Nesterovic was any less effective than Robinson was and was probably better at blocking out because of his huge body. The 2004 Spurs were actually a significantly superior rebounding team to the 2003 Spurs, despite the only major roster change being the replacement of Robinson with Nesterovic. And boxing out doesn't require much athleticism, but Robinson was never a box out rebounder in the first place. He never had a great body for boxing out, and he uses many his huge length to procure most rebounds.


Nesterovic is not good at getting boards for his power forward. He doesn't seem to have that "help out" mentality there. That's the strong impression I got from watching him.
And there were other changes for the Spurs. They got Turkoglu. Ginobili and Parker improved. They got Devin Brown.
Also, D-Rob was good at boxing out, especially after his first few seasons. You don't really need to be wide for boxing out. You need to be strong, and Robinson was very strong. And boxing out to help teammates is largely a mental thing.



> I'm not sure why Nesterovic didn't play much in the playoffs. When he did play, he did what he always did and he did play 25.5 MPG during the regular season. The Spurs also gave up less points with him on the court than off.


Nesterovic didn't play much in the playoffs because he sucks. You saw how badly Mohammed played in the Finals. Still, Popovich chose not to play Nesterovic. His mpg decreased when Mohammed was signed. It was a very good trade for them, because while Mohammed isn't a good player, he is significantly better than Nesterovic.



> Comparing last seasons Spurs with the 95 Rockets.
> 
> Name-Rebound Rate
> Parker- 6.1
> ...


Drexler only played 35 games. Hakeem's rebounding had significantly declined by then. Spurs had Nesterovic, Mohammed and Malik Rose. Duncan is significantly better than Thorpe.
Anyway, what's your point with this?


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> It is virtually impossible for a player to have a career season, then drop to approximately the same level as before without any external factors changing. It may very rarely happen for 3-pt%, but not for anything else. Certainly not for rebounding. If that does happen, it is luck. There is no other explanation. Professional basketballers don't suddenly get good, then drop back to where they were before. If they improve, they stay at the same level until they decline due to age or injury.


If you feel, so then fine. But I don't. 



> No, Rodman's blocks, steals and ppg in '95 were similar to what they were in several other seasons of his. They were only particularly high in the two seasons in which his PER was higher than what it was in '95.


Yes. And see how spaced out Rodman's peaks are. Whereas in other seasons, blocks and steals and ppg are what he upped, in this peak season, he upped rebounding. 




> No. How does adjusting to new surroundings, a new system and a new set of teammates explain why Rodman's rebound rate was highest in '95? It only explains why his rate did not immediately rise when he joined the Spurs.


But those reasons would predicate a large drop in Rodman's rebound rate when coming to the Spurs. That didn't happen. That first season is perfectly in line with the rest of Rodman's career. The only season that stands out rebounding wise is 1995. BTW, he had a new coach in 1995, too. 



> Again, the reasons I offered explain why his rebound rate wasn't as high in '94, not why it was highest in '95. And the next season in Chicago, Rodman's rebound rate was 26.6, but he also had seasons of 26.2, 26.0, 25.7 and 25.6. In '95 his rate was 29.7. The fact that his second-best rebound rate season was in '96 has no relevance because it was only fractionally higher than it was in some of his other seasons.


So, because it's only a little bit better than hugely better, you can simply dismiss it? The fact is, the year after, it was also his second best rebounding season and he played lesser minutes, which suggests that dropping his minutes helped improve his rebounding. 



> And I seriously doubt that there's an error in the stats at basketball-reference.com. In all the time I've been visiting that site, the only error that I've come across is that of Shareef Abdur-Rahim's page not loading. That is the only type of error that is possible. I'd believe it if everyone on the '95 team had the exact same rebound rate, as the first person's rate might have been calculated and mistakenly copied for the rest of the team. But each player's different rebound rates can't be miscalculated. They use a formula and it is automatically applied to every player. It's not like there's actually some guy sitting there who manually enters all the numbers into his calculator.


Yes, but B-R.com simply extrapolates data from dougstats.com and it is very possible that Doug has made a mistake. 



> The '95 team had several different players to the '94 team. I'm not going to go through every player and compare their rebound rates and their mpg and games played. It's perfectly plausible that there were guys on the '95 team who were simply worse rebounders, making the '95 team marginally worse at rebounding. For example, they had Avery Johnson in '95, and he was a very poor rebounder. All that is relevant to this discussion is that there was an increase in the rebound rates of the Spurs' three best forwards in '95, including a career year for Rodman.


Actually, nevermind, I figured it out. It's because Rodman did only play about half the minutes in 95 than he did in 94. That other half freed up ALOT of rebounds for other players, which explains Robinson's and the other player's rebound rate boost from the previous season while simultaneously, there team's rebound rate was lower. 




> No, I said flukes are possible in 3-pt% (that is, if you call Schrempf going from being an ordinary three-point shooter to a 50% guy, then remaining around a 40% shooter for the rest of his career a fluke). Are you denying that, of all statistical categories, 3-pt% is most likely to show by far the greatest fluctuation over a player's career?


Yes, but I feel like they can also happen in every other area of a person's game. 




> Suddenly improving is not fluking. McGrady suddenly improved in 2003, and he has been as good a player since. His statistics weren't as good in '04 because he realised that his team wasn't going to go anywhere and he gave up. Fans suspected it for a while, and he finally said as much himself. This past season he had to share the scoring load with Yao.


But he hasn't been as good of a player since. I'm sure you remember that during season, you just knew McGrady was going to take over. No one could stop him. He didn't settle for jumpers. He just went to the hoop at will. That was his best season. He hasn't been like that since. 



> It is extremely unlikely that Rodman tried any less in his other seasons than he did in '95. He generally played on good teams. You're telling me he gave up on the Bulls? You've thought up some pretty far-fetched explanations for the rise in Rodman's rebound rate -- that it was a fluke, that there is an error on basketball-reference.com, that he simply tried harder in '95 than in any other season, that he suddenly improved in '95 then fell back to about where he was before. My explanation -- that he was helped by David Robinson, just as many power forwards are helped by good centers -- is by far the most plausible.


I've explained part of it above. And maybe not trying as hard, but simply his overall dedication is what I meant. After all, it's with Chicago that he really started getting involved into all sorts of wild antics off court. Stuff like participating in professional wrestling matches doesn't do wonders for your game. 



> I didn't say the last season was a fluke. In fact, my point is that it wasn't a fluke. His rebound rate increased by 1.2 because he was playing with Olajuwon. And the 17.2 can't be a fluke. Unless you believe he got unlucky enough over a span of 80 straight games for his rate to fall by 3.1, that is.


But the rebound rate itself isn't an anamoly. It was perfectly in line with a career, playing with a good center or not. Again, I don't view always fluke as luck like you do. He simply wasn't as good that year, whether it's because he was still not fully recovered from the injury the year before or what, I don't know. 



> For players whom we know pretty well, it's better to define their primes as what we know them to be, rather than when their PER was highest. For example, Jordan's PER in '92 was one of his lowest in Chicago, but we know that he was in his absolute prime then.


Again, I was just using PER as a general rule of thumb and I was pinpointing groups of seasons rather than individual ones anyway, so it's fairly irrelevant. 



> Shaq's rebound rate was around 18 in '99 and '00, but his rate was about 21 in his rookie season, and was close to 19 in two other seasons before his prime.


Didn't I say, minus his rookie season. I could have swore I did. Again, I mean generally. It's difficult to have a player's best rebound rate season line up exactly with a player's best season overall. However, in say the group of seasons where a player was at his best, his rebounding is usually at his best as well. And like I said, outside of his rookie season, O'Neal's rebounding during his peak seasons are among his best. 



> How can it be a rule of thumb if there are so many exceptions? There are plenty more of these exceptions. I'll bet that if you take a random sample of, say, 30 retired centers and power forwards who each played for several seasons, you will find no trend indicating that players rebound best during their overall primes.


It's possible to find lots of examples for everything. From the players I've examined, in general, alot more players rebound best during their overall primes than not. 



> As you said, in general, when a player is in his athletic prime, he will also be in his rebounding prime. Virtually everyone's athleticism starts to decline by the time they're 25. This is a fact. This is the reason why so many players have their best rebound rate seasons early in their careers. However, as you said yourself in an earlier post, most players' overall primes only occur when they're around 29.


Well, it depends on the players, but for forwards and centers, again, don't really get affected by athleticism or have athletic peaks of much longer than age 25. These guys aren't guards. And I thought it was generally recognized that an athlete's peak generally occurs around 27-30? 



> Also, it isn't fair to look at players who have played the most games. They were so durable that most of them had extremely long primes, making it highly likely that their best rebound rate seasons were in their primes.
> Anyway, four of Robert Parish's five best rebound rate seasons occured outside of his decade-long prime ('81-'91). And don't tell me he was in his prime with the Warriors. Everyone knows he only started his prime in Boston.


First, Parish was hurt by having Bird and McHale. Second, even given that, his rebounding peak was in his last years in Golden State. You can argue that he wasn't in his prime,but even then, he was only one season away from his prime. 



> Charles Oakley's three best rebound rate seasons occured in his first three seasons, when he was in Chicago. That definitely was not his overall prime. He was a much better player in NY in the mid-90's.


Why do you assume that he was a better player in the mid-90's? He had the most team success, but that you can't say that was "definitely" his overall prime. 



> Cliff Robinson's prime lasted about 11 seasons. Three of his six best rebound rate seasons occured before his prime -- in his first three seasons.


But his best season was also his best rebounding season. 



> I know very little about Jack Sikma, but he too seems to have had a very long prime.


He stopped playing at age 35. 



> Generally, a player's rebounding and overall primes will coincide if he has a very long prime or if his prime occurs early in his career. There is no "rule of thumb" saying that overall and rebounding primes will otherwise still coincide.


Doesn't the group of forwards/centers who have very long primes or a prime occurs early in his career pretty much include the large majority of players? I mean, really, what does that leave? Players who have a very short prime in the middle or their career, or players who peak later in their career. That's not that many players.




> Duncan was more active in the last few years, but you still can't say with any degree of certainty that he helped Robinson rebound more than Robinson helped him.


From my opinion from watching the games, I am saying with strong certainty. You can feel differently, since this is obviously not an objective issue, but for me, I saw Duncan being a lot more active down low and boxing out than Robinson. 



> Willis has been tremendously durable. He was still a good defender in SA. Kersey was, too. He was there pretty much only for his defense.
> Elie began his career when he was 27, so his body hadn't been subject to nearly the same amount of wear and tear as most other players by the time he was 35. He was playing some of the highest mpg of his career in SA, and that was on a championship side.


Yes, but you have to admit that none of them were in their primes anymore, defensively or overall. I'm not sure what Elie's age that he entered the league has to do with anything. It wasn't like he wasn't playing basketball year around before then. 



> Bowen, Ginobili and Parker are all good defenders. They played pretty good defense when Duncan was injured (in fact, I saw them shut down my favourite team). You can't deny that. Obviously, the presence of Duncan makes them better defenders, but that is the case with all players on teams with good defensive centers (or power forwards who play a lot like centers).


Yes, they are good defenders. Just saying, Duncan makes them look much better than they are, but yes, that's the case with all great defensive big men. 



> Yes, but for a couple of years he was at Duncan's level. Duncan was not "clearly" the best defender in the league then.
> 
> Until then though, Mourning was better, meaning that Duncan was not the best defender in the league.


Again, I never said that for every minute of his career, Duncan was the best defender. I said over his career, he has been overall the league's best defender, and that's true. 



> I consider Wallace to be very close to Duncan's level defensively. Maybe not as close over the course of this season, but over the past few years, yes. I think the fact that Duncan has been the centerpiece of overall the best defensive team of the past few years would carry more weight in people's minds than his lack of pizazz. Ben Wallace has not averaged many more blocks than Duncan. In fact, he averaged less bpg this season. And those voters aren't that stupid. They have access to complex stats just like we do.


Yes, but Wallace has the flashy "knock those blocks across half the court" while Duncan's blocks usually well, impede the progress of the ball without putting any forward movement to it. Not coincidentally, those also tend to lead to more possession changes, which only helps the Spurs. Voters have access to complex stats. They don't use them. How many voters do you think actually know of team defensive efficiency? Maybe one? Sportswriters are idiots.



> Last year they even brought up Artest's average points allowed for his man per game. Anyway, how did Artest win it last year? There were guys who got more spg. We know he's a great defender. The voters knew it, too.


The voters didn't bring that up. It was the Indiana front office who "found" those stats from studying video tapes, and used them to campaign for Artest's case. Seriously, who campaigns for the freaking DPOY award? 



> They're not perfect, but they're not idiots, either. My point is that Wallace is very close to Duncan defensively, which means Duncan has not clearly been the best defender in the league. He has arguably been the best defender, but with Mourning having been so good for a couple of years, I wouldn't call Duncan the best.


Sorry, but I don't feel Wallace is close, but I also have expressed in my past of my feeling that B. Wallace's defense is slightly overraed. Personally, I don't think he's even the best defender on his team. Rasheed is. 




> Yeah, because Duncan is a great defensive power forward. What you're basically seem to be saying is that Duncan is a power forward. Pushing offensive players to the center so that they will be rejected? That's what good power forwards do. I think you made the mistake of saying Duncan plays "exactly" like a center, and are reluctant to take it back now. Don't get me wrong -- he plays a lot like a center, but not exactly like one. He is a power forward.


Yes, he pushes offensive players to the center. Centers also push offensive players to the power forward to be rejected. But who's doing the most rejecting? That would be the center, or in SA's case, the player who plays most like a center, Duncan. Duncan isn't an idiot. He knows that with basically two centers on the court, that creates alot of defensive luxuries for the team. With another center on the court, he realizes that he doesn't have to risk his position to try and block a ball like other centers do. 



> Antonio Davis wasn't particularly good at boxing out. Willis only played 21 mpg. Miller is good at boxing out. Curry and Chandler are decent. Oakley played 6 mpg less and his PER fell by 35% despite the increased rebound rate. Still, it's an OK example for you.


Davis isn't good at boxing out? I would have to strongly disagree. Miller is good enough at boxing out. Curry, umm, is atrocious especially early in his career. He wouldn't know the meaning of boxing out if it hit him in the head. Chandler is decent, but he relies much much more on his athleticism. 




> I'm not saying it's the other way. Olajuwon helped Barkley get more rebounds, which had a negative impact on his own rebound rate. He played with Barkley when he was 36. When he was 38, Barkley was no longer there. That, combined with the fact that he was playing less minutes, explains the slight increase in his rebound rate.


Gotcha. Misread it. Still, he managed to increase his rebound rate over the same time period. 



> I don't think so. No one takes Foyle seriously because of how much he is overpaid and because he is actually starting on an NBA team and because of his cheesey grin. They don't realise that he is a good box out rebounder. He helps his teammates that way, even if other aspects of his game need a bit of work.


Yeah, he's still Foyle. He only plays 20 minutes a game. He may be a good box out rebounder considering the overall class of player he is, but compared with the rest of the starting centers in the league, he's average or perhaps worse. The only reason he stands out is because of his knack for blocking shots. Plus, Cummings played on the Warriors the season before and still upped his rebound rate going from 37 to 38. 




> Yes, but his minutes fell by over a third and he only played 21 games when he was 38. That is why his rebound rate fell by only 0.3.


But he wasn't playing many games before either. [/quote]
Oh, so it's a minute played thing right? Funny, cause whereas Herb Williams minutes dropped 600 minutes from 36 to 38, Horace Grants dropped over 1000 from 36 to 38. 




> Tell me straight up -- do you think most players' rebounding ability will fall from the ages of 36 to 38?


Yes, but didn't Horace Grant's? Yes, it did. Tons and tons of players as I've shown have also increased or maintained a similar level of rebounding. None of it's unusual. 



> Yes, Thorpe's ability declined because Hakeem wasn't as good at boxing out. Before, LaSalle, who was excellent at boxing out, played a decent amount of minutes.
> Williamson had his best rebound rate seasons with Ben Wallace. He was past his athletic prime. Who knows why his rate was low that last season in Detroit? There are too many other factors. I just can't believe it was a coincidence that he had his best rebounding years with Ben Wallace, who also improved Rasheed's rebounding.
> There is a trend because I have offered many examples that work. There are too many factors for it to happen every single time, but generally, good centers help their power forwards get rebounds.


How is it a trend? I mean, in almost each of the players you brought up, half the story doesn't correspond with your point. There have been good rebounding centers that didn't help their power forwards. Some improved after leaving, or didn't improve after arriving. I mean, you point out players from before that were better at boxing out than Hakeem, but I mean, LaSalle only played 18 MPG. How much effect does that have? Was LaSalle so much better as a box out rebounder that he could not only play just 18 MPG compared with Olajuwon's 37 MPG, and still help Thorpe get a rebound rate that much higher than with Olajuwon? 



> 1. It takes just two examples to show that there's no trend? You've got to be kidding. Look up "trend" in the dictionary. "A general tendency or inclination".
> 2. You have tried to pick holes in the numerous examples I've shown, but they mostly hold up. I have defended every one of them with reasonable arguments.


Allright fine. Here are more examples. Shawn Kemp's rebound rate dropped from going to Seattle to Cleveland, despite being able to play with a much better rebounding center in Illgauskas. AC Green's rebound rate dropped going from Dallas to LA with Shaq. Anthony Mason's rebound rate decreased when coming to New York with Ewing, and increased when he left. Malik Rose's rebound rate dropped coming to SA. Udonis Haslem's rebound rate barely moved at all with O'Neal coming aboard. You would even think simple natural development and improvement as a player would have accounted for a bigger change. Wayne Cooper's rebound rate improved leaving Robert Parish in GS. Jerome Kersey's rebound rate decreased when Duckworth came to Portland. Ditto for Buck Williams when coming to Portland. Do I need more? 




> Well, since you consider '93 to be his peak, he had worse rebounding seasons in '86, '87, '88 and '92.


I consider 93 to be his peak, not his offensive peak. 



> It's very hard to say because I don't know what he could have done had his teammates been better. He was still raw in his first couple of seasons, but he had good players around him so he was able to produce very well offensively. I think he improved a lot but that his stats didn't show it because of his teammates were crap later. So, yeah, I think the late '80's and 1990 was the time when he was at his best offensively, though I can't say that with very much certainty.


If that's your opinion, that's fine. Hey, off topic, but do yuo know what happened in 91 and 92? It's very odd that Olajuwon's scoring rate dropped despite really no major roster changes occuring. 



> No, we can still draw from memory. And I do have some tapes, but I'm not actually going to watch them now just for this discussion.


But memory is extremely prejudiced and vague. You know that. 



> I'll give you PJ Brown (though his rate did at first stay the same despite his offensive game taking the back seat).
> However, you still can't explain why Thorpe's rate fell when he went to Portland in the same season. His career high coincided with Robert Horry's career high of his first five seasons, 1994.
> For Otis Thorpe to peak in rebounding at such a late age is unusual. Most players peak earlier. Not everyone, but most guys do.


Probably since Otis Thorpe's shouldered a greater offensive load in Portland than he was in Houston. His usage rate increased and his PER increased in Portland. As for why they decreased from 1994 to 1995, Drexler's arrival midseason had to likely do with it. 



> You forgot the "less minutes for Duncan" bit.


I'm not sure if I completely understand what you're trying to say, but I'll take a stab at what I think you're trying to say. Willis and Duncan didn't compete for minutes. The vast majority of minutes Willis played was with Duncan. 




> Nesterovic is not good at getting boards for his power forward. He doesn't seem to have that "help out" mentality there. That's the strong impression I got from watching him.


That's what he mostly does, though. He's not particularly athletic and can't jump up really and snatch rebounds that don't directly come to him. He's big. That's his main asset and he uses it for positioning so he can grab the rebound if it comes to him or prevent his guy from getting the rebound. 



> And there were other changes for the Spurs. They got Turkoglu. Ginobili and Parker improved. They got Devin Brown.


Yeah, but they also lost Stephen Jackson. I don't think Devin Brown really made a difference. 



> Also, D-Rob was good at boxing out, especially after his first few seasons. You don't really need to be wide for boxing out. You need to be strong, and Robinson was very strong. And boxing out to help teammates is largely a mental thing.


Yes, but at the end of his career, I don't feel he was very good. Boxing out is part mental, but most of it is physical. As good of a technique as you have, you still need tremendous endurance and strength to hold your position. 



> Nesterovic didn't play much in the playoffs because he sucks. You saw how badly Mohammed played in the Finals. Still, Popovich chose not to play Nesterovic. His mpg decreased when Mohammed was signed. It was a very good trade for them, because while Mohammed isn't a good player, he is significantly better than Nesterovic.


I don't feel the same way, but if you do, whatever. I think Nesterovic is a league average center. There's really no part of his game that's particularly poor and he has a lot of positives, like his tremendous knack for offensive rebounds. I have no idea why Nesterovic didn't play at all. Perhaps because Mohammed matches up better with the athletic frontlines of Phoenix and Detroit and Denver, though that doesn't explain Seattle. Maybe Popovich is still reeling after Rasho's dud the previous postseason. 

Heh, this argument is at the point where I have to set aside half an hour of free time just to answer these. But it's a very interesting debate, so I enjoy it.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

in '94, hakeem blocked 5.6% of all 2 point shots attempted while he was in the game. in '05, duncan blocked 5.6% of all 2 point shots attempted while he was in the game. if you adjust for pace, for 3 pointers, for minutes played, you'll find that duncan's a pretty good shot blocker. if your only evidence that duncan doesn't impact the game defensively like a center is his blocks, you may want to rethink.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Yyzlin said:


> Yes. And see how spaced out Rodman's peaks are. Whereas in other seasons, blocks and steals and ppg are what he upped, in this peak season, he upped rebounding.


Yes, because of David Robinson. Rodman was primarily a defender and a rebounder. His points generally just came to him. He didn't improve as a scorer in any seasons, then drop back to his earlier level. His ppg were mainly affected by external factors like teammates and the offensive system. If he really did sacrifice scoring in favour of rebounding, as you say he did, then why did he score more in '95 than he did in '87, '94, '96, '97, '98, '99 and '00? He had the third-highest PSA of his career in '95.
And blocks and steals don't indicate how good a defender he was. He didn't sacrifice rebounding for defense in '95. If he had a fraction less blocks and steals per game that year than in his peak, it doesn't mean he was any worse a defender. Anyway, he had virtually the same blocks and steals figures in '94.



> But those reasons would predicate a large drop in Rodman's rebound rate when coming to the Spurs. That didn't happen. That first season is perfectly in line with the rest of Rodman's career. The only season that stands out rebounding wise is 1995. BTW, he had a new coach in 1995, too.


That is my point. The reason why Rodman's rebound rate didn't fall by much when he went to SA was that he was being helped by David Robinson.
And what is your point regarding the new coach? I said the coach in '94 might have partly explained why his rebound rate didn't immediately increase. I seriously doubt Bob Hill was the reason Rodman's rebound rate spiked in '95.



> So, because it's only a little bit better than hugely better, you can simply dismiss it?


Yes. While a slight increase can be attributed to a number of factors, including chance, reduced mpg and a different system, a huge increase deserves more scrutiny.



> The fact is, the year after, it was also his second best rebounding season and he played lesser minutes, which suggests that dropping his minutes helped improve his rebounding.


Yes, but he only played 0.6 mpg less in '95 than in '96. He played 6.3 mpg more in '93 than in '96, but his rebound rate was only 0.6 higher in '96.



> Yes, but B-R.com simply extrapolates data from dougstats.com and it is very possible that Doug has made a mistake.


The same logic applies. The same formula is applied automatically to all players. This guy Doug doesn't actually manually calculate rebound rates.



> Actually, nevermind, I figured it out. It's because Rodman did only play about half the minutes in 95 than he did in 94. That other half freed up ALOT of rebounds for other players, which explains Robinson's and the other player's rebound rate boost from the previous season while simultaneously, there team's rebound rate was lower.


But why were Reid's and Cummings' rates in '95 their career highs? 



> Yes, but I feel like they can also happen in every other area of a person's game.


How? How can you just fluke a season in rebounding? It doesn't make sense. If there is a good explanation for the jump in a player's rebound rate, it was most likely not fluke.



> But he hasn't been as good of a player since. I'm sure you remember that during season, you just knew McGrady was going to take over. No one could stop him. He didn't settle for jumpers. He just went to the hoop at will. That was his best season. He hasn't been like that since.


I feel that McGrady is just as good a player now. Do you honestly believe that he peaked then, and has been declining since? That's one reason why I don't like PER. Statistically, T-Mac had his best season in '03, but he really is no worse a player now. It's the same with Kobe. Do you really believe he's any worse now than he was a few years ago?
And, unlike Rodman, McGrady sacrificed his defense in '03. He has concentrated more on his defense after coming to Houston.



> I've explained part of it above. And maybe not trying as hard, but simply his overall dedication is what I meant. After all, it's with Chicago that he really started getting involved into all sorts of wild antics off court. Stuff like participating in professional wrestling matches doesn't do wonders for your game.


That still doesn't explain why his rebound rate was only hovering around 26 in Detroit (just as it did in Chicago). 



> But the rebound rate itself isn't an anamoly. It was perfectly in line with a career, playing with a good center or not. Again, I don't view always fluke as luck like you do. He simply wasn't as good that year, whether it's because he was still not fully recovered from the injury the year before or what, I don't know.


But what we do know is that his rate fell for two straight years, then picked up when he went to Houston.



> Didn't I say, minus his rookie season. I could have swore I did. Again, I mean generally. It's difficult to have a player's best rebound rate season line up exactly with a player's best season overall. However, in say the group of seasons where a player was at his best, his rebounding is usually at his best as well. And like I said, outside of his rookie season, O'Neal's rebounding during his peak seasons are among his best.


His rebound rates during '99 and '00 were 18 and 18.3. He had rates of 20.6, 18.8, 18.7 and 18.1 outside of his prime. Therefore, Shaq's best rebounding years did not coincide with his prime. His prime only accounts for his fourth and sixth best rebounding seasons.



> It's possible to find lots of examples for everything. From the players I've examined, in general, alot more players rebound best during their overall primes than not.


That's because you've looked at players who had unusually long primes. Most players don't have primes lasting ten years. 



> Well, it depends on the players, but for forwards and centers, again, don't really get affected by athleticism or have athletic peaks of much longer than age 25. These guys aren't guards.


Sorry, I don't really understand what you're trying to say. Forwards and centers don't depend on athleticism? Only a guard's athleticism will peak at the age of 25?



> And I thought it was generally recognized that an athlete's peak generally occurs around 27-30?


No, a basketballer's overall prime is usually from the ages of 27 to 30; however, every human's athletic prime occurs from the ages of 21 to 25. 



> First, Parish was hurt by having Bird and McHale. Second, even given that, his rebounding peak was in his last years in Golden State. You can argue that he wasn't in his prime,but even then, he was only one season away from his prime.


His prime lasted a decade, but those two years still fell outside of it. Therefore, statistically, his rebounding prime didn't coinicde with his overall prime. You're right about Bird and McHale, though. But a lot of centers end up playing with good rebounders. Hakeem had Thorpe and Barkley. Ewing had Oakley and Mason. Robinson had Cummings and Rodman and Duncan. 



> Why do you assume that he was a better player in the mid-90's? He had the most team success, but that you can't say that was "definitely" his overall prime.


It was, though. He was a far superior defender in the '90's, and I'm not saying that because the Knicks' team defense made him look good. It didn't. The thing about the Knicks' team defense was that it understated the defensive prowess of its individual players. Patrick Ewing never got the credit he deserved as a defender because he was on the Knicks. 



> But his best season was also his best rebounding season.


He wasn't at his best in '93. He improved his defense considerably later. I'd say his best seasons were in Phoenix. And I'm saying that from having followed the Blazers quite a bit in the early-to-mid '90's.



> Doesn't the group of forwards/centers who have very long primes or a prime occurs early in his career pretty much include the large majority of players? I mean, really, what does that leave? Players who have a very short prime in the middle or their career, or players who peak later in their career. That's not that many players.


No, you're twisting it. Just because a player didn't have a very long prime doesn't imply that he had a very short one. He could have had a very short one or a moderately short one or a prime of average length or a long prime. Not many players have very long primes. It just seems that way from your examples because you chose guys who have played the most games. And not many players have primes in their first few seasons, either. The majority of players have primes that occur when they're in their late 20's to early 30's, and which last just a few years.



> Yes, but you have to admit that none of them were in their primes anymore, defensively or overall. I'm not sure what Elie's age that he entered the league has to do with anything. It wasn't like he wasn't playing basketball year around before then.


It doesn't matter if Willis and Kersey weren't in their primes. They were still good defenders, and that's what matters.
Elie was as good a defender in SA as he was earlier in his career. He was still in his defensive prime. And it does make a difference that he entered the league when he was 27. The NBA schedule is very gruelling. It is one of the most physically demanding in all team sports, mainly because of the number of games that are played. College or International ball etc. do not compare.



> Again, I never said that for every minute of his career, Duncan was the best defender. I said over his career, he has been overall the league's best defender, and that's true.


That's because all the other great defenders started before or after Duncan. It's very unlikely that a player would have shared Duncan's defensive prime. Obviously, overall, from '98 to '05, Duncan has been the best defender. For a player to contest that, they would have had to have been drafted around 1998.



> Yes, but Wallace has the flashy "knock those blocks across half the court" while Duncan's blocks usually well, impede the progress of the ball without putting any forward movement to it. Not coincidentally, those also tend to lead to more possession changes, which only helps the Spurs. Voters have access to complex stats. They don't use them. How many voters do you think actually know of team defensive efficiency? Maybe one? Sportswriters are idiots.


That's just what fans like to say to make themselves feel good. It's a huge generalisation. Sportswriters generally aren't great analysts of the game, but they're definitely not idiots. Calling them that is really just a form of ego massage. I actually admire sportswriters in a way because they rely less on stats than most fans. I sometimes get annoyed when fans say "this player was better than that player because he had a higher PER". IMO, nothing beats actually watching games with a knowledge of all the factors that are coming into play. Looking at the stats, people could be excused for thinking that Hakeem was significantly worse in the late '80's, or that Garnett is better than Duncan, or that T-Mac in 2003 was better than a prime Larry Bird, or that D-Rob was the best center since Kareem in 1972, or that in 1994 he was a better player than '92, '93, '96 and '97 Jordan. Looking at the stats, people could be excused for thinking Amare dominated Duncan in the WCF. But for those of us who watched the series with a knowledge of what to look for on defense and how to spot double-teams and their impact and how to judge passing and everything else, we know who was better.
And Wallace didn't really have very many of those spectacular blocks this season. He toned it down.



> Sorry, but I don't feel Wallace is close, but I also have expressed in my past of my feeling that B. Wallace's defense is slightly overraed. Personally, I don't think he's even the best defender on his team. Rasheed is.


Guess we'll just have to disagree on this, as we do for many other things. Ben Wallace is one of the best defenders I've ever seen. He was inconsistent this season, but he was terrific in the playoffs.



> Yes, he pushes offensive players to the center. Centers also push offensive players to the power forward to be rejected. But who's doing the most rejecting? That would be the center, or in SA's case, the player who plays most like a center, Duncan. Duncan isn't an idiot. He knows that with basically two centers on the court, that creates alot of defensive luxuries for the team. With another center on the court, he realizes that he doesn't have to risk his position to try and block a ball like other centers do.


Once again, I'm not denying that Duncan plays a lot like a center. But he doesn't play exactly like one. Nesterovic and Mohammed are both mediocre-to-poor defenders, yet they -- and Robinson -- averaged about as many blocks per 48 mins as Duncan. In 2001, when Robinson was 35 years old, he averaged 4 blocks per 48 mins, while Duncan only averaged 2.9.



> Davis isn't good at boxing out? I would have to strongly disagree. Miller is good enough at boxing out. Curry, umm, is atrocious especially early in his career. He wouldn't know the meaning of boxing out if it hit him in the head. Chandler is decent, but he relies much much more on his athleticism.


Davis was good, but nothing special. I agree with Curry being crap early in his career (but he's decent now). Chandler, although athletic, is good at boxing out.



> Gotcha. Misread it. Still, he managed to increase his rebound rate over the same time period.


Yes, because there was a significant change of factors. Remember, I'm only denying that rebound rates will stay the same or increase if nothing else changes. Grant played with Shaq, which is why his rate stayed the same.



> Yeah, he's still Foyle. He only plays 20 minutes a game. He may be a good box out rebounder considering the overall class of player he is, but compared with the rest of the starting centers in the league, he's average or perhaps worse. The only reason he stands out is because of his knack for blocking shots. Plus, Cummings played on the Warriors the season before and still upped his rebound rate going from 37 to 38.


Foyle is above average when it comes to boxing out. He isn't good at much else, but you have too look at each area of his game without letting his overall crapness spoil your judgement.
Terry Cummings' rebound rate was higher when he was 38 than when he was 37 because when he was 37 he was playing slightly more minutes and Erick Dampier was playing less.



> But he wasn't playing many games before either.
> Oh, so it's a minute played thing right? Funny, cause whereas Herb Williams minutes dropped 600 minutes from 36 to 38, Horace Grants dropped over 1000 from 36 to 38.


Herb played 35 more games when he was 36. And when he was 36 the Knicks had a very good rebounder in Anthony Mason, which would have taken away some of Herb's rebounds.



> Yes, but didn't Horace Grant's? Yes, it did. Tons and tons of players as I've shown have also increased or maintained a similar level of rebounding. None of it's unusual.


Horace Grant's rate only fell by 0.3. All the examples you've shown are either of freakishly durable players, guys who played a lot less minutes when they were older, or guys who played with a mix of players that was more conducive to them getting rebounds. Horace Grant didn't have that Parish-like durability and he only played 9 mpg less. Shaq was the difference. He was the reason why Grant's rate stayed approximately the same. And you have ignored the fact that Grant's rate increased when he first went to LA.



> How is it a trend? I mean, in almost each of the players you brought up, half the story doesn't correspond with your point. There have been good rebounding centers that didn't help their power forwards. Some improved after leaving, or didn't improve after arriving. I mean, you point out players from before that were better at boxing out than Hakeem, but I mean, LaSalle only played 18 MPG. How much effect does that have? Was LaSalle so much better as a box out rebounder that he could not only play just 18 MPG compared with Olajuwon's 37 MPG, and still help Thorpe get a rebound rate that much higher than with Olajuwon?


In almost each of the players I've brought up, half the story doesn't correspond? What about Barkley? Rasheed? Gatling? Terry Cummings? Perkins? Malone? Juwan Howard? Dirk? The only ones for which you've tried to make out that half the story doesn't correspond are Rodman, Thorpe, Grant, Williamson and Larry Smith, and I've offered good reasons for each of those. I see a clear trend suggesting that centers who are good at boxing out to help their teammates rebound will get their power forwards rebounds.
I know Thorpe's rate fell when he first joined the Rockets. As I've repeatedly said, that's because Hakeem wasn't as good at boxing out for helping his teammates then, and Thorpe's athleticism was starting to diminish, and he was playing much harder defense with the Rockets.



> Allright fine. Here are more examples. Shawn Kemp's rebound rate dropped from going to Seattle to Cleveland, despite being able to play with a much better rebounding center in Illgauskas.


Kemp's athleticism was already declining, and he relied very much on his athleticism for rebounding. His rebound rate fell in his last season in Seattle. In Celeveland he had to shoulder more of the scoring load, and he didn't have a great point guard to get him easy buckets. His rebounding and defense consequently took a hit.



> AC Green's rebound rate dropped going from Dallas to LA with Shaq.


Green's rebound rate only fell by 0.4 despite him being 36 years old and despite having to play more minutes.



> Anthony Mason's rebound rate decreased when coming to New York with Ewing, and increased when he left.


Mason only played 21 games in New Jersey, and only averaged 5 mpg. In his first season in NY he averaged 27 mpg. The Knicks had other good rebounders in Xavier McDaniel and Charles Oakley, who would have taken away some of Mason's rebounds. Also, when he left, Mason joined Vlade Divac in Charlotte, which also partly explains the rise in his rate. When Divac left Charlotte, Mason's rate fell. His rate increased again when he joined Miami, who had a good man for boxing out in Brian Grant and also Zo for 13 games.



> Malik Rose's rebound rate dropped coming to SA.


Malik Rose wasn't as good a defender in Charlotte. He concentrated more on his D when he got to SA, which probably contributed to his rebound rate falling. Also, Charlotte had a good box out rebounder in Vlade Divac.



> Udonis Haslem's rebound rate barely moved at all with O'Neal coming aboard. You would even think simple natural development and improvement as a player would have accounted for a bigger change.


Haslem played 10 mpg more this season, yet his rebound rate still increased slightly. And I understand improvement as a player, but what natural development? No one grows when they're 23.



> Wayne Cooper's rebound rate improved leaving Robert Parish in GS.


Cooper's offensive game took more of a back seat in Utah, allowing him to rebound better. Also, I don't know how good Parish was at boxing out to help teammates early in his career. Like a lot of centers, he probably wasn't as good at that when he was young.



> Jerome Kersey's rebound rate decreased when Duckworth came to Portland.


Kersey played 10 mpg less in the season before Duckworth came, yet his rebound rate was only 0.3 higher.



> Ditto for Buck Williams when coming to Portland.


Williams' rebound rate fell significantly for two straight seasons before going to Portland, but it only fell by 0.3 when he got there. He was 29, meaning that his athleticism had been declining for four years.



> If that's your opinion, that's fine. Hey, off topic, but do yuo know what happened in 91 and 92? It's very odd that Olajuwon's scoring rate dropped despite really no major roster changes occuring.


Several reasons for that.
Disputes with teammates and management. He was labeled selfish. They called him Hakeem "The Team" Olajuwon. He complained that management didn't respect him, and that his teammates weren't playing well enough. Their defense was poor, he said, which made him have to work extra hard.
He fractured the bones around his eye and broke his nose and had a blood clot and had several other smaller injuries in '91.
It was a similar situation in '92, only worse. The disputes with management boiled over when they accused him of faking an injury. He demanded a trade, and seemed to pull a T-Mac/Vince Carter. He was also playing with poor health for much of the season. He had arrhythmia and a hamstring injury, but there was also other stuff that I can't recall.



> But memory is extremely prejudiced and vague. You know that.


It can be, but that's not sufficient reason for not relying at all on memory. For example, how are we so certain that Pippen was such an amazing defender? Because we remember his impact on the court.



> Probably since Otis Thorpe's shouldered a greater offensive load in Portland than he was in Houston. His usage rate increased and his PER increased in Portland. As for why they decreased from 1994 to 1995, Drexler's arrival midseason had to likely do with it.


But you'd think that the 7 mpg more he played in Houston would have had more of an impact on his PER than a slight change in his usage rate. He did attempt more field goals per game in Houston. I watched the results of that trade with interest, as I liked the Blazers in the early-to-mid 90's. Thorpe had a very similar role on both teams. His rebound rate never even reached 15 for the rest of his career.



> I'm not sure if I completely understand what you're trying to say, but I'll take a stab at what I think you're trying to say. Willis and Duncan didn't compete for minutes. The vast majority of minutes Willis played was with Duncan.


No, not that. You said Willis playing more and Robinson playing less led to the increase in Duncan's rebound rate. I'm saying that the fact that Duncan played slightly less minutes and that he had to shoulder slightly less of the offensive load also had an impact.



> That's what he mostly does, though. He's not particularly athletic and can't jump up really and snatch rebounds that don't directly come to him. He's big. That's his main asset and he uses it for positioning so he can grab the rebound if it comes to him or prevent his guy from getting the rebound.


But he doesn't seem to have the "box out to help my teammates rebound" mentality. From what I've seen of him, he tries his best to get rebounds for himself, perhaps not realising that his team might get more rebounds if he sometimes focussed less on his own position to grab the rebound and more on getting his man away from the ball. Boxing out to rebound for yourself is a compromise between your opposition's position and your own position. It's not the same thing with boxing out to simply ensure that someone on your team gets the ball.



> Yeah, but they also lost Stephen Jackson. I don't think Devin Brown really made a difference.


They lost Stephen Jackson, but they got Turkoglu, who's a significantly better rebounder. And Devin Brown played 11 mpg and had a rebound rate of 11.6, which is well above average for his position.



> Yes, but at the end of his career, I don't feel he was very good. Boxing out is part mental, but most of it is physical. As good of a technique as you have, you still need tremendous endurance and strength to hold your position.


We'll have to disagree. I think he was very effective.



> Heh, this argument is at the point where I have to set aside half an hour of free time just to answer these. But it's a very interesting debate, so I enjoy it.


I enjoyed it for a while, and parts of it still are interesting, but I'm getting bored now, as we seem to be mostly going in circles. Also, half an hour a day is a bit much for this. I don't think I'll continue for much longer. Sorry.  



kflo said:


> in '94, hakeem blocked 5.6% of all 2 point shots attempted while he was in the game. in '05, duncan blocked 5.6% of all 2 point shots attempted while he was in the game. if you adjust for pace, for 3 pointers, for minutes played, you'll find that duncan's a pretty good shot blocker. if your only evidence that duncan doesn't impact the game defensively like a center is his blocks, you may want to rethink.


Where did you get those stats from? I'm not doubting them -- it just sounds like an interesting web site.
Hakeem wasn't in his defensive prime in '94. While that year accounted for easily his highest mpg, it was only his fifth highest season for bpg. Anyway, adjusting for pace and minutes played will understate Hakeem's ability. A player will be able to block a greater percentage of shots if he plays less minutes and if the pace of the game is slower.
I don't have any cold, hard evidence that Duncan doesn't play exactly like a center, just as you don't have any that he does. But I know from watching the Spurs that he is a power forward. He plays very much like a center, but he would have slightly more of an impact defensively if he actually was a center.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

i done calculate them myself. take opponents fga's-3pfga's and divide by 82 games to get 2 pt fga's per game. then take mpg / 48 * 2p fga's. then take bpg and divide by that number.

maybe it slightly understates hakeem's value - but the point i was making was that duncan's shotblocking ability is undervalued by simply looking at his bpg and comparing it to peers from the past. hakeem was still a great shotblocker in '94, and again, '94 was arguably his peak overall as a player, and yet duncan is right with him (in the ballpark) in his ability to block shots. duncan has anchored great defenses his whole career, with different personnel around him - he's the constant.


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> Yes, because of David Robinson. Rodman was primarily a defender and a rebounder. His points generally just came to him. He didn't improve as a scorer in any seasons, then drop back to his earlier level. His ppg were mainly affected by external factors like teammates and the offensive system. If he really did sacrifice scoring in favour of rebounding, as you say he did, then why did he score more in '95 than he did in '87, '94, '96, '97, '98, '99 and '00? He had the third-highest PSA of his career in '95.


His usage rate in 95 was the lowest of his career at that point, outside of the previous season that was also with SA. His PSA was, again, likely fluke like, similar to his rebound rate. I don't think he got better offensively. 



> And blocks and steals don't indicate how good a defender he was. He didn't sacrifice rebounding for defense in '95. If he had a fraction less blocks and steals per game that year than in his peak, it doesn't mean he was any worse a defender. Anyway, he had virtually the same blocks and steals figures in '94.


I agree that it doesn't really indicate defensive ability. But using those, they were lower than Rodman's Detroit days. 




> That is my point. The reason why Rodman's rebound rate didn't fall by much when he went to SA was that he was being helped by David Robinson.
> And what is your point regarding the new coach? I said the coach in '94 might have partly explained why his rebound rate didn't immediately increase. I seriously doubt Bob Hill was the reason Rodman's rebound rate spiked in '95.


My point was, he had to deal with a new coach again in 1995 and several new players. Why didn't Rodman experience a similar drop? Why did it only happen in 1994 and not 1995? 




> Yes. While a slight increase can be attributed to a number of factors, including chance, reduced mpg and a different system, a huge increase deserves more scrutiny.


But wouldn't the David Robinson explaination fall under the "number of factors"? After all, of all the players and examples we've examined, the largest increase we've ever seen a center help was maybe 1-2 points in rebounding rate. Seeing how Rodman didn't increase in his first full season, and with the circumstances of a new coach in 1995, his huge increase is more likely to due to a systematic change or a fluke season, which can predicate a large increase in a single statistic such as the one Rodman experienced. 




> Yes, but he only played 0.6 mpg less in '95 than in '96. He played 6.3 mpg more in '93 than in '96, but his rebound rate was only 0.6 higher in '96.


So what's your point? His rebound rate went up with less minutes, despite being three years older. 



> But why were Reid's and Cummings' rates in '95 their career highs?


Cummings just is prone to random rebound seasons, see rookie season and 92. His MPG were also the lowest in his career. Reid simply benefited from not playing with Rodman for many of his minutes as he did the previous year. 




> How? How can you just fluke a season in rebounding? It doesn't make sense. If there is a good explanation for the jump in a player's rebound rate, it was most likely not fluke.


There are a multitude of reasons how you could fluke a season. It's the same as fluking a shooting season or offensive season. Mental changes, physical changes, form changes, etc. Things just click for an entire season, or in Rodman's case, about half a season. 



> I feel that McGrady is just as good a player now. Do you honestly believe that he peaked then, and has been declining since? That's one reason why I don't like PER. Statistically, T-Mac had his best season in '03, but he really is no worse a player now. It's the same with Kobe. Do you really believe he's any worse now than he was a few years ago?


I don't. He can still turn it on at any point as in the past, but his game has changed. Like I said, if you watched a McGrady game from that season and a McGrady game from this season, his approach on offense is very much different. Note the free throw attempts. I don't believe Bryant is any worse than he was a few years ago. But, I do believe Bryant is significantly worse than the Kobe Bryant in 2003 for about 2 months, where he was simply on fire and totally unstoppable. 



> And, unlike Rodman, McGrady sacrificed his defense in '03. He has concentrated more on his defense after coming to Houston.


But he sacrificed his defense even more in '04. He _has_ exerted more effort on defense in Houston, which explains the ~2 point drop in PER from his otherwise prime norm PER that hovers around 25. 




> That still doesn't explain why his rebound rate was only hovering around 26 in Detroit (just as it did in Chicago).


In those two seasons where Rodman posted 26 rebound rates, Detroit was barely in contention the first season, and didn't even make the playoffs in the second. 




> But what we do know is that his rate fell for two straight years, then picked up when he went to Houston.


But nothing is ever that simple. You can't simply look at increases and decreases. You need to look at the numbers. Take a hypothetical player. His rebound rates in four seasons are 20, 19.6, 19.2, 19.3. Would you call the last season a fluke? It's the same thing. His rate fell for two straight years, and then picked up. Likewise, with Larry Smith, you simply can't use that logic. You have to look at the whole picture and for him, that is 21.1, 20.3, 17.2, 18.4. 




> His rebound rates during '99 and '00 were 18 and 18.3. He had rates of 20.6, 18.8, 18.7 and 18.1 outside of his prime. Therefore, Shaq's best rebounding years did not coincide with his prime. His prime only accounts for his fourth and sixth best rebounding seasons.


Again, outside of his rookie season, those rebound rates are essentially his prime. Unless you really consider fractional differences in rebound rates as huge, I regard those rates around 18 to be basically his rebounding prime. 




> Sorry, I don't really understand what you're trying to say. Forwards and centers don't depend on athleticism? Only a guard's athleticism will peak at the age of 25?


No, I'm saying forwards and centers rely less on athleticism, so thus, there even if there is loss of athleticism, it doesn't affect their overall performance as much as a guard. 



> No, a basketballer's overall prime is usually from the ages of 27 to 30; however, every human's athletic prime occurs from the ages of 21 to 25.


The record holder for the 100m race was 27 when he broke it. Michael Johnson was 29 and 32 when he broke the 200m and 400m records. The 800m record holder was 25 when he got it. The high jump record holder was 26 when he got it. The long jump holder was 28 when he got it. The triple jump holder was 29 when he got it. So, atleast from track records, it seems that athletic prime usually occurs from 25-30. Do you have any evidence that the athletic prime occurs from the ages of 21-25? 




> His prime lasted a decade, but those two years still fell outside of it. Therefore, statistically, his rebounding prime didn't coinicde with his overall prime. You're right about Bird and McHale, though. But a lot of centers end up playing with good rebounders. Hakeem had Thorpe and Barkley. Ewing had Oakley and Mason. Robinson had Cummings and Rodman and Duncan.


At the same time? Ewing is the only other one of those examples. 




> It was, though. He was a far superior defender in the '90's, and I'm not saying that because the Knicks' team defense made him look good. It didn't. The thing about the Knicks' team defense was that it understated the defensive prowess of its individual players. Patrick Ewing never got the credit he deserved as a defender because he was on the Knicks.


The last season that Oakley spent with the Bulls, they ranked 2nd in league defense. I think Oakley looked much better as a defender in the mid 90's than his first few seasons with the Knicks. The arrival of Pat Riley, and a huge onslaught of defensive talent does that. 




> He wasn't at his best in '93. He improved his defense considerably later. I'd say his best seasons were in Phoenix. And I'm saying that from having followed the Blazers quite a bit in the early-to-mid '90's.


And let me guess, you also followed Phoenix in the late 90's quite a bit too right? Gotcha. 



> No, you're twisting it. Just because a player didn't have a very long prime doesn't imply that he had a very short one. He could have had a very short one or a moderately short one or a prime of average length or a long prime. Not many players have very long primes. It just seems that way from your examples because you chose guys who have played the most games. And not many players have primes in their first few seasons, either. The majority of players have primes that occur when they're in their late 20's to early 30's, and which last just a few years.


No, I picked players with long careers. Since when does prime length and career length directly correlate? Nowhere near all of my examples had very long primes. Most simply had 5-6 year primes which is the norm. 




> It doesn't matter if Willis and Kersey weren't in their primes. They were still good defenders, and that's what matters.


The point was, you were citing them as defensive specialists, when they no longer have the capability of being one in the point of their careers when they were with SA. They still were capable defenders, but not outstanding ones. 



> Elie was as good a defender in SA as he was earlier in his career. He was still in his defensive prime. And it does make a difference that he entered the league when he was 27. The NBA schedule is very gruelling. It is one of the most physically demanding in all team sports, mainly because of the number of games that are played. College or International ball etc. do not compare.


Are we really talking about the same Elie in SA? Cause Elie had a very good defensive reputation early in his career, but not with SA, seemingly always playing hurt or gimped up or something similar, especially in the 1999 season, where he missed the first half of the season with an injury. 

As for the NBA schedule being more gruelling than international/non-NBA ball, it's the exact opposite for Mario Elie. Whereas in the NBA he would have just sat on the bench for half the game, Elie was a star in international/non-NBA, logging huge minutes for ~50 games every year and carrying the load for his team. 




> That's because all the other great defenders started before or after Duncan. It's very unlikely that a player would have shared Duncan's defensive prime. Obviously, overall, from '98 to '05, Duncan has been the best defender. For a player to contest that, they would have had to have been drafted around 1998.


Or have simply had their prime at a similar time to Duncan. My statement still stands. 




> That's just what fans like to say to make themselves feel good. It's a huge generalisation. Sportswriters generally aren't great analysts of the game, but they're definitely not idiots. Calling them that is really just a form of ego massage. I actually admire sportswriters in a way because they rely less on stats than most fans. I sometimes get annoyed when fans say "this player was better than that player because he had a higher PER".


Fine, they aren't idiots. They just aren't very good analysts of the game, and that's enough of a statement to say that taking their word really isn't the best choice. 




> IMO, nothing beats actually watching games with a knowledge of all the factors that are coming into play. Looking at the stats, people could be excused for thinking that Hakeem was significantly worse in the late '80's, or that Garnett is better than Duncan, or that T-Mac in 2003 was better than a prime Larry Bird, or that D-Rob was the best center since Kareem in 1972, or that in 1994 he was a better player than '92, '93, '96 and '97 Jordan.


If you actually think sportswriters take into account all the factors that come into play, you are sadly mistaken. They tend to focus on wins (especially a change in wins from one season to the next), and basic statistics such as PPG, RPG, APG, etc. 



> Looking at the stats, people could be excused for thinking Amare dominated Duncan in the WCF.


Funny, because almost all sportswriters were FAWNING over Amare during that series, hailing him as the next God. 



> But for those of us who watched the series with a knowledge of what to look for on defense and how to spot double-teams and their impact and how to judge passing and everything else, we know who was better.


Of course. But do sportswriters? I don't think many of them think very analytically when watching games. 



> And Wallace didn't really have very many of those spectacular blocks this season. He toned it down.


That's because he wasn't as great of a defender this season. 




> Once again, I'm not denying that Duncan plays a lot like a center. But he doesn't play exactly like one. Nesterovic and Mohammed are both mediocre-to-poor defenders, yet they -- and Robinson -- averaged about as many blocks per 48 mins as Duncan. In 2001, when Robinson was 35 years old, he averaged 4 blocks per 48 mins, while Duncan only averaged 2.9.


But only because of Duncan, do they do so. And if was nice of you to selectively choose Robinson's best blocking season in all of his seasons with Duncan. Again, I'll repeat what I said before. Duncan isn't an idiot. Duncan knows that with basically two centers on the court, that creates alot of defensive luxuries for the team. With another center on the court, he realizes that he doesn't have to risk his position to try and block a ball like other centers do. 




> Davis was good, but nothing special. I agree with Curry being crap early in his career (but he's decent now). Chandler, although athletic, is good at boxing out.


Ok, whatever, but basically my point is, Oakley had better box out rebounders than in Chicago, which is true. 




> Yes, because there was a significant change of factors. Remember, I'm only denying that rebound rates will stay the same or increase if nothing else changes. Grant played with Shaq, which is why his rate stayed the same.


And Olajuwon also improved from age 37 to 38, without the Barkley factor. Just to add that. 




> Foyle is above average when it comes to boxing out. He isn't good at much else, but you have too look at each area of his game without letting his overall crapness spoil your judgement.


I don't feel the same way, but what are we going to do? 



> Terry Cummings' rebound rate was higher when he was 38 than when he was 37 because when he was 37 he was playing slightly more minutes and Erick Dampier was playing less.


Ok, it was also higher from age 36 with the Sixers. And age 35. 




> Herb played 35 more games when he was 36. And when he was 36 the Knicks had a very good rebounder in Anthony Mason, which would have taken away some of Herb's rebounds.


Don't the minutes make the real difference though? And with the minutes Herb Williams played, no one player would really have any impact at all on his numbers. I seriously doubt Herb Williams was playing much with Anthony Mason either. Guys like Monty Williams or Anthony Bonner would be much more on the mark. 



> Horace Grant's rate only fell by 0.3. All the examples you've shown are either of freakishly durable players, guys who played a lot less minutes when they were older, or guys who played with a mix of players that was more conducive to them getting rebounds. Horace Grant didn't have that Parish-like durability and he only played 9 mpg less. Shaq was the difference. He was the reason why Grant's rate stayed approximately the same. And you have ignored the fact that Grant's rate increased when he first went to LA.


And 9 MPG is more than alot of the other examples I've used. And you resorted to calling guys like Curry a decent box out rebounder to cite "a better mix of box out" players. I could easily cite more examples, but for the sake of another million tangents, I won't. And you have ignored the fact that Horace Grant's rate first decreased when going to LA to play with Shaq, other than the argument that from age 28 to 29, Grant somehow bit the age bug. So what? 



> In almost each of the players I've brought up, half the story doesn't correspond? What about Barkley?


The season Moses Malone left, Barkley's rebound rate went up. In Houston, lowest usage rates of his career. 



> Rasheed? Gatling?


I think I said I ceded those. Good examples. 



> Terry Cummings?


Explained before. 



> Perkins?


Simple redefinement of roles. Lowest usage rate of his career, and unlike perviously in his career, he was no longer counted as a serious scoring threat. 



> Malone?


Didn't we go over this?



> Juwan Howard?


Uh, clarify this one? 



> Dirk?


Clarify this one, too. 




> Kemp's athleticism was already declining, and he relied very much on his athleticism for rebounding. His rebound rate fell in his last season in Seattle. In Celeveland he had to shoulder more of the scoring load, and he didn't have a great point guard to get him easy buckets. His rebounding and defense consequently took a hit.


So basically, the same type of reasons I've used before but you've rejected? 



> Green's rebound rate only fell by 0.4 despite him being 36 years old and despite having to play more minutes.


OK. 



> Mason only played 21 games in New Jersey, and only averaged 5 mpg. In his first season in NY he averaged 27 mpg. The Knicks had other good rebounders in Xavier McDaniel and Charles Oakley, who would have taken away some of Mason's rebounds. Also, when he left, Mason joined Vlade Divac in Charlotte, which also partly explains the rise in his rate. When Divac left Charlotte, Mason's rate fell. His rate increased again when he joined Miami, who had a good man for boxing out in Brian Grant and also Zo for 13 games.


I don't think Mason and Oakley played together much if at all, except if Ewing was off the court. Is Vlade Divac a better box out rebounder than Ewing now? Since when is Vlade Divac even a very good box out rebounder? Is he better than Elden Campbell or Brad Miller? My answer is no for all of those. 



> Malik Rose wasn't as good a defender in Charlotte. He concentrated more on his D when he got to SA, which probably contributed to his rebound rate falling. Also, Charlotte had a good box out rebounder in Vlade Divac.


Wow, you must really think highly of Vlade Divac's box out ability. First, he helped Anthony Mason more than Patrick Ewing. Now, he's helping Rose more than David Robinson. Quite high praise. 




> Haslem played 10 mpg more this season, yet his rebound rate still increased slightly. And I understand improvement as a player, but what natural development? No one grows when they're 23.


I meant, natural development as in the customary improvement that players usually experience from their first to second season. 



> Cooper's offensive game took more of a back seat in Utah, allowing him to rebound better. Also, I don't know how good Parish was at boxing out to help teammates early in his career. Like a lot of centers, he probably wasn't as good at that when he was young.


So, again, similar reasoning to ones I was using. 



> Kersey played 10 mpg less in the season before Duckworth came, yet his rebound rate was only 0.3 higher.


You mean 1.0 higher? 



> Several reasons for that.
> Disputes with teammates and management. He was labeled selfish. They called him Hakeem "The Team" Olajuwon. He complained that management didn't respect him, and that his teammates weren't playing well enough. Their defense was poor, he said, which made him have to work extra hard.
> He fractured the bones around his eye and broke his nose and had a blood clot and had several other smaller injuries in '91.
> It was a similar situation in '92, only worse. The disputes with management boiled over when they accused him of faking an injury. He demanded a trade, and seemed to pull a T-Mac/Vince Carter. He was also playing with poor health for much of the season. He had arrhythmia and a hamstring injury, but there was also other stuff that I can't recall.


Good to know. 



> It can be, but that's not sufficient reason for not relying at all on memory. For example, how are we so certain that Pippen was such an amazing defender? Because we remember his impact on the court.


Right, but that's only because defensively, we don't really have any valid statistics to measure it so memory is all we have to go by. Not so with offense. 




> But you'd think that the 7 mpg more he played in Houston would have had more of an impact on his PER than a slight change in his usage rate. He did attempt more field goals per game in Houston. I watched the results of that trade with interest, as I liked the Blazers in the early-to-mid 90's. Thorpe had a very similar role on both teams. His rebound rate never even reached 15 for the rest of his career.


He was putting up the same PPG in Portland as in Houston despite 7 mpg less. That signifies that he obviously undertook a larger offensive load. 



> No, not that. You said Willis playing more and Robinson playing less led to the increase in Duncan's rebound rate. I'm saying that the fact that Duncan played slightly less minutes and that he had to shoulder slightly less of the offensive load also had an impact.[/quoet]
> I don't really consider a change of 0.7 MPG to make any difference, but ok, that's fine as well. Either way, it's just more and more factors to suggest that the rebound rate increase wasn't due to Duncan improving his rebounding ability, but rather external circumstances.
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

Yyzlin said:


> His usage rate in 95 was the lowest of his career at that point, outside of the previous season that was also with SA. His PSA was, again, likely fluke like, similar to his rebound rate. I don't think he got better offensively.


I didn't say he got better offensively. I was countering your argument that he sacrificed his offense in favour of rebounding. If he had usage rates lower than 10.5 (the '95 figure) in six other seasons including the previous year's figure of 7.6, and if he had the third-highest PSA of his career in '95, how can you say that the reason his rebound rate was so high was that he sacrificed his offensive game?



> I agree that it doesn't really indicate defensive ability. But using those, they were lower than Rodman's Detroit days.


They were about 0.1-0.2 off. His defense was no worse.



> My point was, he had to deal with a new coach again in 1995 and several new players. Why didn't Rodman experience a similar drop? Why did it only happen in 1994 and not 1995?


Most of the roster was the same. The surroundings were the same. The system was similar. Some coaches will have less of an effect than others (see when he went to Chicago).



> But wouldn't the David Robinson explaination fall under the "number of factors"? After all, of all the players and examples we've examined, the largest increase we've ever seen a center help was maybe 1-2 points in rebounding rate. Seeing how Rodman didn't increase in his first full season, and with the circumstances of a new coach in 1995, his huge increase is more likely to due to a systematic change or a fluke season, which can predicate a large increase in a single statistic such as the one Rodman experienced.


I don't believe in such large flukes for rebounding over 49 games, especially when there is a good explanation for the rise. Rodman was playing with an improved Robinson. D-Rob was good in '94, too, but Rodman's rebound rate did not increase that year because he was in new surroundings with a new coach and new teammates and a new system.



> So what's your point? His rebound rate went up with less minutes, despite being three years older.


But his rebound rate fell by 3.1 from '95 to '96, despite playing only 36 seconds more per game.



> Cummings just is prone to random rebound seasons, see rookie season and 92. His MPG were also the lowest in his career. Reid simply benefited from not playing with Rodman for many of his minutes as he did the previous year.


Again, this comes down to believing in fluke. I don't believe in it, at least not in rebounding in the NBA. Like many players, Cummings had one of his highest rebound rates in his rookie season, when he was at his athletic peak. In '92, he was playing the lowest mpg and had the second-lowest usage rate of his career up to that point. It can't just be a coincidence that Rodman, Cummings and Reid all had their career highs in rebound rate in the same season, which also happened to be David Robinson's best season.
And if the only reason why Reid had his career high in '95 was that Rodman missed some games, why did he not have even higher rebound rates in the years in which Rodman didn't play with him at all?



> There are a multitude of reasons how you could fluke a season. It's the same as fluking a shooting season or offensive season. Mental changes, physical changes, form changes, etc. Things just click for an entire season, or in Rodman's case, about half a season.


Again, when there's an explanation, I'll never call it a fluke. 3-pt shooting, yeah, but not for rebounding. There is a reason why rebounding figures don't change much over the course of players' careers, while 3-pt% does.



> I don't. He can still turn it on at any point as in the past, but his game has changed. Like I said, if you watched a McGrady game from that season and a McGrady game from this season, his approach on offense is very much different. Note the free throw attempts. I don't believe Bryant is any worse than he was a few years ago. But, I do believe Bryant is significantly worse than the Kobe Bryant in 2003 for about 2 months, where he was simply on fire and totally unstoppable.


Yes, McGrady took it to the rim more. His approach is different now. But was Rodman's rebounding approach any different in '95?



> But he sacrificed his defense even more in '04.


He gave up in 2004. 



> In those two seasons where Rodman posted 26 rebound rates, Detroit was barely in contention the first season, and didn't even make the playoffs in the second.


So? 



> But nothing is ever that simple. You can't simply look at increases and decreases. You need to look at the numbers. Take a hypothetical player. His rebound rates in four seasons are 20, 19.6, 19.2, 19.3. Would you call the last season a fluke? It's the same thing. His rate fell for two straight years, and then picked up. Likewise, with Larry Smith, you simply can't use that logic. You have to look at the whole picture and for him, that is 21.1, 20.3, 17.2, 18.4.


It's not the same thing. The difference between your hypothetical player's highest and lowest rebound rates is 0.7. The difference for Smith is 3.9. Tiny changes can be attributed to chance. Huge differences can't.



> Again, outside of his rookie season, those rebound rates are essentially his prime. Unless you really consider fractional differences in rebound rates as huge, I regard those rates around 18 to be basically his rebounding prime.


Why ignore his rookie season though? That was by far his highest rate. And remember, he was playing with Horace Grant in '95 and '96, who would have taken away some of his rebounds.



> No, I'm saying forwards and centers rely less on athleticism, so thus, there even if there is loss of athleticism, it doesn't affect their overall performance as much as a guard.


But it still has a big effect.



> The record holder for the 100m race was 27 when he broke it. Michael Johnson was 29 and 32 when he broke the 200m and 400m records. The 800m record holder was 25 when he got it. The high jump record holder was 26 when he got it. The long jump holder was 28 when he got it. The triple jump holder was 29 when he got it. So, atleast from track records, it seems that athletic prime usually occurs from 25-30. Do you have any evidence that the athletic prime occurs from the ages of 21-25?


I don't have any quotable evidence, but I am 100% sure. I thought it was common knowledge. I learnt it way back in high school P.E. class. I've read it in numerous different places over the years. In fact, it was mentioned in some magazine I flipped through just two weeks ago. If you still don't believe me, ask your doctor. Or, if you go to school, ask your science teacher. Or look it up in a textbook.
I can't explain the late success of those track athletes. They're the exceptions. Maybe they were late to perfect their techniques. You said that the world record holder for the 100 m was 27 when he broke it. That's incorrect. The world record holder is Asafa Powell. He broke the record a month ago. He is 23 years old. I know Ato Boldon, my all-time favourite sprinter, said that his prime was from the ages of 22-26. His best year was '98, when he was 24. I remember him saying a while ago that most 100m sprinters are out of contention by the time they near the age of 30. Maurice Greene's best year was '99, when he was 24. The first 100 m Olympic champion, Thomas Burke, was 21 when he won. The first guy to break the record after they started using electronic timing was 22 when he did it. The next man to do it was also 22. There have been a few guys who peaked late, such as Linford Christie (28), Carl Lewis (30) and Frankie Fredericks (29), but these guys were unusually durable, as evidenced by the length of their careers. Donovan Bailey also peaked late (29), but he only started sprinting seriously when he was 27. If you look at the long list of sprinters who have broken the world record, then look up at what age each of them did it, you'll find that the vast majority did it when they were between 20 and 23. 



> At the same time? Ewing is the only other one of those examples.


Still, Parish's prime was enormously long, which makes the example a bit unfair. 



> The last season that Oakley spent with the Bulls, they ranked 2nd in league defense. I think Oakley looked much better as a defender in the mid 90's than his first few seasons with the Knicks. The arrival of Pat Riley, and a huge onslaught of defensive talent does that.


The onslaught of defensive talent and the presence of Pat Riley and the Knicks' defensive success as a unit made it hard for their individual players to stand out. Perhaps moreso than any other team in NBA history, the Knicks had a reputation for brilliant team defense, rather than being a team with a handful of defensive specialists. They had the image of being a bunch of guys who weren't great by themselves, but who played amazingly well together. Many people considered Patrick Ewing as a guy who never lived up to his potential defensively, and John Starks as a guy whose defensive prowess was grossly overstated because he played on such a good defensive team. Both are underrated, IMO. I think if Oakley had played on any other successful team in the mid-90's, he too would have been considered an even better defender.



> And let me guess, you also followed Phoenix in the late 90's quite a bit too right? Gotcha.


What's your point? I saw him play in Phoenix, too. He appeared a better defender then. Did you see him play?



> No, I picked players with long careers. Since when does prime length and career length directly correlate? Nowhere near all of my examples had very long primes. Most simply had 5-6 year primes which is the norm.


Players who had long careers are the players who played the most games, as I said. Prime length and career length do correlate, though certainly not perfectly. Most players play for a few seasons before their prime and for a few seasons after it. Therefore, if a player had a long prime, it is more likely than not that he will have had a long career. 
Robert Parish and AC Green had a decade-long primes. Cliff Robinson's prime lasted 11 seasons. Rick Mahorn's prime lasted 9. Of those of your examples who didn't have extremely long primes, Buck Williams and Tree Rollins both had primes in their first few seasons, which would have been their athletic primes. Charles Oakley did not rebound best in his prime. Kevin Willis and Jack Sikma are examples that work for you. I looked at the best centers and power forwards of the '90's. Robinson, Olajuwon, Shaq, Ewing and Barkley all rebounded best before their primes. Malone rebounded best during his prime, but his prime lasted 11 years.



> The point was, you were citing them as defensive specialists, when they no longer have the capability of being one in the point of their careers when they were with SA. They still were capable defenders, but not outstanding ones.


First, my exact words were: "a bunch of other guys who were good defenders, some of them borderline defensive specialists, such as Malik Rose, Kevin Willis, Will Perdue, Mario Elie, Robert Horry and Jerome Kersey"
Second, a "defensive specialist" isn't necessarily an outstanding defender. He is a player who is on the court almost solely for his defense (and often rebounding, too, since most good defensive big men are also good rebounders). Bruce Bowen and Ryan Bowen are both defensive specialists. One is an outstanding defender, while the other may not even have a job come October. From my examples, Malik Rose and Jerome Kersey were the borderline defensive specialists. Kevin Willis, Will Perdue, Mario Elie and Robert Horry were the "other guys" who were good defenders but not specialists.



> Are we really talking about the same Elie in SA? Cause Elie had a very good defensive reputation early in his career, but not with SA, seemingly always playing hurt or gimped up or something similar, especially in the 1999 season, where he missed the first half of the season with an injury.


He was, IMO, as good a defender in SA. He was an important part of that '99 championship team. Played 28 mpg for 47 games in '99 and about the same minutes for 79 games in '00. He was one of only seven Spurs to play in all 17 of their playoff games in '99. He averaged 31 mpg in the playoffs.



> As for the NBA schedule being more gruelling than international/non-NBA ball, it's the exact opposite for Mario Elie. Whereas in the NBA he would have just sat on the bench for half the game, Elie was a star in international/non-NBA, logging huge minutes for ~50 games every year and carrying the load for his team.


25 mpg for 82 games is a lot. And that's excluding the 30 mpg or so he averaged in the playoffs. Ever heard of Andrew Gaze? He said that being a bench-warmer in the NBA was more tiring than logging huge minutes in international ball. Anyway, I don't think Elie even played any international ball. He played a lot of streetball and he had a few years in the CBA.



> Or have simply had their prime at a similar time to Duncan. My statement still stands.


How many good defenders have had their primes at the same time as Duncan?



> Fine, they aren't idiots. They just aren't very good analysts of the game, and that's enough of a statement to say that taking their word really isn't the best choice.


It's not the best choice. Watching for yourself is best. But the awards have generally been pretty accurate. I don't think Big Ben has ever been a better defender than Duncan, but I think they're very close. Wallace being named DPoY all these times isn't unfair, IMO. When players are that close, it just comes down to differences in opinion.



> If you actually think sportswriters take into account all the factors that come into play, you are sadly mistaken. They tend to focus on wins (especially a change in wins from one season to the next), and basic statistics such as PPG, RPG, APG, etc.


Obviously there will be some sportswrites who have a poor understanding of the game, just as there are idiots in any field (though I'll admit that sportsjournalism has a bit more than its fair share). But I think most sportswriters have watched enough basketball to have a decent understanding of the various subtle factors that come into play. However, I could be wrong. I only read from a few different sources. There are thousands of basketball analysts out there whose stuff I've never come across. So I may indeed be sadly mistaken.



> Funny, because almost all sportswriters were FAWNING over Amare during that series, hailing him as the next God.


And they should have. He scored copiously against the best defender in the league and made a couple of big crunch-time plays. And he's only three years out of high school. However, I don't think very many sportswriters claim that Amare is better than Duncan. I certainly didn't come across any who did.



> That's because he wasn't as great of a defender this season.


Since when did being a great defender necessarily involve getting a bunch of spectacular blocks? Wallace was inconsistent, but when he was playing well I think he was just as good as before. But even when he was playing well, he didn't have a whole lot of those huge blocks. 



> But only because of Duncan, do they do so. And if was nice of you to selectively choose Robinson's best blocking season in all of his seasons with Duncan. Again, I'll repeat what I said before. Duncan isn't an idiot. Duncan knows that with basically two centers on the court, that creates alot of defensive luxuries for the team. With another center on the court, he realizes that he doesn't have to risk his position to try and block a ball like other centers do.


I selected Robinson's best blocking season with Duncan to illustrate my point. There's nothing wrong with that. You said earlier that Duncan was altering more shots. I used that example to show that Robinson was pretty active, too.
And I agree with you that Duncan realizes that he doesn't have to risk his position to try and block a ball like centers do. That's what all power forwards realize. Of course, because Duncan plays so much like a center he is able to get quite a few blocks himself.



> Ok, whatever, but basically my point is, Oakley had better box out rebounders than in Chicago, which is true.


Slightly better, yes. But in Chicago he was playing less minutes. And he seems to have sacrificed his offensive game, with not only his usage rate being lower, but his PSA being by far the lowest of his career. Also, when Davis and Willis increased their minutes in 2001, when Oakley was 37, his rebound rate rose. Furthermore, T-Mac was taking away some of his rebounds in 2000.



> And Olajuwon also improved from age 37 to 38, without the Barkley factor. Just to add that.


Barkley played in 13 of Olajuwon's 44 games when Hakeem was 37. Also, Hakeem got injured in late November, missed six weeks of action, then came back to play injured before missing another month. His rebounded much worse during that stretch in which he played injured. In 14 games before the injury, he reached double figures in rebounds five times. In the 30 games in which he played injured, he only reached double figures once. Hakeem also played a lot of games with Anthony Miller that year. Miller had a rebound rate of 19.3. All of these factors combined to give Olajuwon a relatively poor rebound rate in 2000, when he was 37.



> Ok, it was also higher from age 36 with the Sixers. And age 35.


That's because unlike the Warriors, who had Dampier, the Sixers and the Sonics didn't have any really good box out rebounders.



> Don't the minutes make the real difference though? And with the minutes Herb Williams played, no one player would really have any impact at all on his numbers. I seriously doubt Herb Williams was playing much with Anthony Mason either. Guys like Monty Williams or Anthony Bonner would be much more on the mark.


Of course there would be an impact on his numbers. Rebound rate is adjusted for minutes played. And what basis do you have for saying Herb didn't play much with Mason?



> And 9 MPG is more than alot of the other examples I've used.


I only used the mpg argument exclusively for three players -- Kevin Willis (who played 7 mpg less, but is freakishly durable), for Moses (who played 19 mpg less), and for Elvin Hayes (who played 25 mpg less). 



> And you resorted to calling guys like Curry a decent box out rebounder to cite "a better mix of box out" players.


I admitted that I made the mistake of forgetting that Curry was a terrible box out rebounder at that stage of his career. But I have further addressed the Oakley example in this post. And I also used the "better mix of players" argument several other times.



> I could easily cite more examples, but for the sake of another million tangents, I won't. And you have ignored the fact that Horace Grant's rate first decreased when going to LA to play with Shaq, other than the argument that from age 28 to 29, Grant somehow bit the age bug. So what?


You mean when he went to play with Shaq in Orlando. Not LA. When he went to LA his rebound rate increased. And I already stated that Shaq wasn't good at boxing out to get his teammates rebounds in '95. As I have said, that's the case with many centers when they are young. Ageing would have contributed, too. His rebound rate fell every single season after he left Chicago, except for when he joined Shaq in LA, and including the year Shaq left Orlando. Also, the Bulls had a good box out guy in Cartwright, although he only played around 19 mpg in Grant's final year there.



> The season Moses Malone left, Barkley's rebound rate went up. In Houston, lowest usage rates of his career.


Barkley rapidly improved all areas of his game in the '80's. His rebound rate improved by 2.5 from '85 to '86, and Moses was there both those years. It improved by 1.4 when Moses left. His rebound rate in his last season with Moses was the second-highest of his career in Philadelphia and Phoenix.
And I find it hard to believe that Barkley had his career high in rebound rate and four of his six best rebounding seasons -- from the ages of 33 to 36, no less -- just because his usage rate fell from the mid 20's to the early 20's. His PER in Houston was higher than what it was in a couple of his earlier seasons. When his usage rate fell by 3.8 from '91 to '92, his rebound rate only increased by 1.2. His usage rate fell by 4 from Phoenix to Houston, yet his rebound rate increased by 2.6. That's a similar fall in usage rate, but more than double the increase in rebound rate.



> Simple redefinement of roles. Lowest usage rate of his career, and unlike perviously in his career, he was no longer counted as a serious scoring threat.


But in his second-last season in Seattle to his last season there, his mpg fell by 3.7 and his usage rate fell by 2.5, yet his rebound rate actually fell by 0.1. When he went to play with Rik Smits the next year, his mpg fell by 4.3 and his usage rate fell by 1.7 (i.e. a very similar fall in both categories), but his rebound rate increased by 1.3.



> Didn't we go over this?


Yes, we did. You did not prove -- or even assert, for that matter -- that the trend works for half the time with him. You simply disagreed with me about the effect of a reduction in offensive responsibilities. Remember, I'm responding to your claim that in nearly all my examples half the story doesn't correspond.



> Uh, clarify this one?


Juwan Howard's rebound rate increased by 1.2 when he came to Houston. His minutes and usage rate did decrease, too, but he had similar decreases earlier in his career without there having been such an impact on his rebound rate.



> Clarify this one, too.


Dirk's rebound rate increased by 1.5 after Dampier went to Dallas, despite him playing the best defense of his career and having the highest usage rate and PER of his career and playing his second-highest mpg.
I can't recall if I brought up Dirk earlier. I certainly remember noticing it, but I don't remember if I actually used the example.



> So basically, the same type of reasons I've used before but you've rejected?


Tell me where you've used these exact reasons in a fitting situation.



> I don't think Mason and Oakley played together much if at all, except if Ewing was off the court. Is Vlade Divac a better box out rebounder than Ewing now? Since when is Vlade Divac even a very good box out rebounder? Is he better than Elden Campbell or Brad Miller? My answer is no for all of those.


What do you mean Mason didn't play much with Oakley? They played together a lot.
And Vlade was a very good box out rebounder. That's obvious. I don't know how you can disagree with that. I can't say for sure whether or not he was better at it than Ewing. There isn't much proof of Ewing being good at getting his teammates rebounds, so, in that area specifically, Vlade was very likely better. Also, it wasn't just Vlade. It was the other good Knicks rebounders, too.



> Wow, you must really think highly of Vlade Divac's box out ability. First, he helped Anthony Mason more than Patrick Ewing. Now, he's helping Rose more than David Robinson. Quite high praise.


Did you even see Vlade play once in the '90's? What were you, 10 years old when he went to Charlotte? 
Anyway, what's so surprising about Vlade being good at boxing out to get his teammates rebounds. His athleticism was poor, so that's what he had to rely on.



> So, again, similar reasoning to ones I was using.


No, I said it was a combination of less offensive responsibilities and the fact that Parish probably wasn't as good at helping his teammates early in his career. I never denied that having to shoulder less of the offensive load would help a player's rebounding. We just disagreed as to the degree of the effects in a couple of examples.



> You mean 1.0 higher?


No, I mean 0.3 higher. Duckworth played 51 games for the Blazers in '87, so that year should be counted. He played significantly more minutes the next year, but that wasn't the reason why Kersey's rebound rate fell by 1. Kersey played 11.1 more mpg in '88 and was much more active on offense.



> Right, but that's only because defensively, we don't really have any valid statistics to measure it so memory is all we have to go by. Not so with offense.


I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that because we have lots of statistics to measure offensive ability, we shouldn't rely on memory at all? Or are you saying that we should use statistics along with memory?



> He was putting up the same PPG in Portland as in Houston despite 7 mpg less. That signifies that he obviously undertook a larger offensive load.


No, it indicates that he scored more efficiently. The amount of energy a player uses up when taking a shot is not dependent on whether or not he sinks that shot. Thorpe attempted 0.9 less field goals per game in Portland and played 7 mpg less. Despite this, his rebound rate was 0.9 lower. He may have undertaken a larger offensive load on a per minute basis, but not over the course of each full game.



> I don't really consider a change of 0.7 MPG to make any difference, but ok, that's fine as well. Either way, it's just more and more factors to suggest that the rebound rate increase wasn't due to Duncan improving his rebounding ability, but rather external circumstances.


Fine. We'll never know how much of the rise in Duncan's rebound rate can be attributed to these external factors and the fact that Willis played more. Maybe Duncan didn't improve at all, but then again, maybe he did improve a little bit. That's really not my concern in this discussion. My main point is that Robinson didn't take away Duncan's rebounds. Most likely he helped him. Willis may have helped him more, but that doesn't change the fact that Robinson very likely helped Duncan in absolute terms.



> Doesn't boxing out for yourself get your man away from the ball? I'm not sure what you are trying to say. How do you box out to ensure someone else on your team gets the ball? The best you can do is box out your man, unless you want to go ahead and box out two men at the same time, but Nesterovic simply ain't that damn good and neither was Robinson at the end of his career.


I explained that, though perhaps not very clearly. However, I don't know how else to put it, so I'll pretty much have to repeat myself. Boxing out to get a rebound yourself is about positioning -- a compromise between your own position and your opponent's position. You want to block your opponent from getting the ball, but you also want to be in a good enough position to get the ball yourself. If you focus too much on one thing, you lose out on the other. However, in boxing out to ensure a teammate gets the ball, there is much more of a priority on blocking your opponent than on your own position. Here, it doesn't matter so much if you end up behind the backboard, as long as the opposition has little chance of getting the rebound.


----------



## The_Franchise (Mar 30, 2003)

What a legendary battle between Yyzlin and Hakeem. Kudos to both for putting so much time and energy into this thread.


----------



## kflo (Jun 28, 2002)

can someone summarize?


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

kflo said:


> can someone summarize?


 Olajuwon was better.


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

*Recap*

*Hakeem*










Better defensively, weaker caliber supporting casts. 

Dream did pretty much everything better than Duncan, on both sides of the ball, night in and night out.

Duncan doesn't have Hakeem's arsenal of moves, though, and does no where near as good a job creating

Duncan is the main cog on a very good Spurs team that runs an amazing system. Hakeem was the Houston system, offensively and defensively. Throw it down to him and set up on the perimeter. It worked, time and time again..

Yeah, he was pretty selfish and kind of wild really in the 80's. But it wasn't all his fault. He had very little help. Otis Thorpe was good, but couldn't really create his own shot.

Because isolation plays were so prevalent for the Rocket teams of the 90's, there really was no need for Hakeem to constantly move off the ball and find alternative ways of scoring as much as Duncan. If Hakeem can consistently create shots for himself and average 52% from the field in his first 8 years, why should he be penalized against Duncan's methods off "sealing off defenders"... which has given Duncan a 22.5 ppg for his career so far shooting 51%. IMO, Hakeem was just as effective scoring off the ball whenever he rolled off his man for a catch and shoot jumper, or all the fast break points he generated with his superior shot blocking and quick hands.

The things he could do in the 80's were absolutely amazing, especially defensively. If he had Duncan's top notch supporting cast and some stronger defenders, who knows how many titles Hakeem would have won.


*Middle Ground*

Hakeem will be remembered as the flashier offensive player, because of those moves with the ball in his hands, but Duncan is just as effective, because he is better at those things like sealing his man under the hoop or rolling hard/rolling to the right spot for a catch and shoot. Those things make Duncan just as effective as a scorer, they're just not as memorable as a dream shake or a picture perfect fade away.

I think a lot of people remember Hakeem for his great moves in the post, and think, oh Duncan doesn't do those things as well as Hakeem did, so Hakeem was the better scorer. Hakeem's scoring ability was more in your face, while some of what Duncan does is a lot more subtle. I don't think Hakeem was nearly as good at scoring those ways that Duncan does. Working hard off the ball to get himself an easy opportunity. Statistically, they're pretty even in terms of scoring when it comes down to it, considering rules changes and era differences. 


*Duncan*










When most people compare players playing now to players who have retired, all they remember is the retired players golden years. Hakeem was not on offensive force early in his career. He developed in to that. He was always an athletic freak for his size and top notch defender.

Hakeem struggled to dominate late in his career when Seattle implemented illegal zone defenses against Houston in the playoffs.

Duncan a little more efficient offensively adjusted for ERA offensive efficiency. 

Has had more team success and in terms of actual winning in regular season and playoffs

Greater peak seasons in terms of PER for longer period of time

Leader of a very consistent system that seems to win 55+ games every season regardless of changing supporting casts and minor injuries to himself


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Anyways, I'm going to respond to this one, but it'll be the last one, mainly because it's getting way too time consuming and well, boring as you said. Add in the fact that it doesn't seem we will ever agree on the main points, and it's kind of evident that this discussion isn't going to be anymore productive than it has already. 



Hakeem said:



> I didn't say he got better offensively. I was countering your argument that he sacrificed his offense in favour of rebounding. If he had usage rates lower than 10.5 (the '95 figure) in six other seasons including the previous year's figure of 7.6, and if he had the third-highest PSA of his career in '95, how can you say that the reason his rebound rate was so high was that he sacrificed his offensive game?


Because he did? It was the lowest usage rate of his career, other than the 94 season. As Rodman got older, it's pretty evident that he sacrificed on offense to focus intensely on rebounding. And doing so at the peak of his rebounding ability helped Rodman achieve his best rebounding season. 



> They were about 0.1-0.2 off. His defense was no worse.


I didn't say anything about defense. Steals and blocks tell almost nothing about defensive performance. I just stated they were lower, no remarks about the degree. Just that they were lower. 




> Most of the roster was the same. The surroundings were the same. The system was similar. Some coaches will have less of an effect than others (see when he went to Chicago).


The roster was pretty signficantly different. Avery Johnson, Sean Elliott, and Chuck Person all played more than 2000 minutes in the 95 season, and all were newcomers. I don't think their offensive system was very similar either going from Lucas to Hill. Their offensive pace increased dramatically and a lot more three pointers were taken. 



> I don't believe in such large flukes for rebounding over 49 games, especially when there is a good explanation for the rise. Rodman was playing with an improved Robinson. D-Rob was good in '94, too, but Rodman's rebound rate did not increase that year because he was in new surroundings with a new coach and new teammates and a new system.


Other than new surroundings, all of which also applied to the 95 season. 




> But his rebound rate fell by 3.1 from '95 to '96, despite playing only 36 seconds more per game.


Well, you know my stance on the 95 season, that it was a fluke. 



> Again, this comes down to believing in fluke. I don't believe in it, at least not in rebounding in the NBA. Like many players, Cummings had one of his highest rebound rates in his rookie season, when he was at his athletic peak. In '92, he was playing the lowest mpg and had the second-lowest usage rate of his career up to that point. It can't just be a coincidence that Rodman, Cummings and Reid all had their career highs in rebound rate in the same season, which also happened to be David Robinson's best season.
> And if the only reason why Reid had his career high in '95 was that Rodman missed some games, why did he not have even higher rebound rates in the years in which Rodman didn't play with him at all?


Reid had a 13.9 rebound rate in the season before Rodman came. He had a 14.2 rebound rate in 1995, with a significant drop in MPG and usage rate. Doesn't seem particularly eye popping to me. But yes, I suppose our differences boil down to whether flukes in rebounding are possible or not. 




> Again, when there's an explanation, I'll never call it a fluke. 3-pt shooting, yeah, but not for rebounding. There is a reason why rebounding figures don't change much over the course of players' careers, while 3-pt% does.


Of course. But Rodman's fluke in rebounding was also smaller in percentage than most player's flukes in say, three point shooting. All is fair play. 




> Yes, McGrady took it to the rim more. His approach is different now. But was Rodman's rebounding approach any different in '95?


I don't know, but given his rebound rate increase, I think it's likely. 




> He gave up in 2004.


Yes, but the end result was he exerted less effort defensively in 2004 than 2003. 



> So?


What do you mean "So?". You asked what about Rodman's Detroit years where they were still in contention, and I'm showing that by the time Rodman turned into the historical rebounding beast that he was, Detroit really was no longer a title contender. 




> It's not the same thing. The difference between your hypothetical player's highest and lowest rebound rates is 0.7. The difference for Smith is 3.9. Tiny changes can be attributed to chance. Huge differences can't.


I was merely giving an example to show that the logic you were trying to use simply doesn't work. It wasn't a direct analogy. Again, I restate, you have to look at the whole picture and for Smith, that is 21.1, 20.3, 17.2, 18.4. Now, 18.4 may look like an anamoly to you, but it doesn't for me. 




> Why ignore his rookie season though? That was by far his highest rate. And remember, he was playing with Horace Grant in '95 and '96, who would have taken away some of his rebounds.


Like Rodman, it was a fluke season. He was much better rebounding that season than any other season of his, and stands as an anamoly of his career. The latter seasons with the Lakers where Shaq was at his overall peak, the teams were better rebounding teams than the teams in which O'Neal put up his rebound rate highs. So if anything, prime O'Neal would have had even higher rebound rates if he were playing with those inferior rebounding teams earlier in his career. 




> But it still has a big effect.


I know it has a big effect. But the effect is much more minimal than a guard's, which was my point. 




> I don't have any quotable evidence, but I am 100% sure. I thought it was common knowledge. I learnt it way back in high school P.E. class. I've read it in numerous different places over the years. In fact, it was mentioned in some magazine I flipped through just two weeks ago. If you still don't believe me, ask your doctor. Or, if you go to school, ask your science teacher. Or look it up in a textbook.


Or how about, _you_ find me a source? I don't feel like I need to do the legwork to make a point for you. Until then, I don't see any reason to believe you. 



> I can't explain the late success of those track athletes. They're the exceptions. Maybe they were late to perfect their techniques. You said that the world record holder for the 100 m was 27 when he broke it. That's incorrect. The world record holder is Asafa Powell. He broke the record a month ago. He is 23 years old.


Eh, I was going off of USATF's website. http://www.usatf.org/statistics/records/outdoortrackfield_world_open_all.asp
As for now, it's impossible to make conclusions from Powell. His career isn't over, and he may run faster times in the future. 



> I know Ato Boldon, my all-time favourite sprinter, said that his prime was from the ages of 22-26. His best year was '98, when he was 24. I remember him saying a while ago that most 100m sprinters are out of contention by the time they near the age of 30. Maurice Greene's best year was '99, when he was 24. The first 100 m Olympic champion, Thomas Burke, was 21 when he won. The first guy to break the record after they started using electronic timing was 22 when he did it. The next man to do it was also 22.


Of the current top 10 times in the 100 meter dash, 6 of them have occured with runners past the age of 25. 2 of them did it at age 24 (Boldon and Greene). The other two (Gaitlin and Powell) still have active careers. 



> Still, Parish's prime was enormously long, which makes the example a bit unfair.


OK.




> The onslaught of defensive talent and the presence of Pat Riley and the Knicks' defensive success as a unit made it hard for their individual players to stand out. Perhaps moreso than any other team in NBA history, the Knicks had a reputation for brilliant team defense, rather than being a team with a handful of defensive specialists. They had the image of being a bunch of guys who weren't great by themselves, but who played amazingly well together. Many people considered Patrick Ewing as a guy who never lived up to his potential defensively, and John Starks as a guy whose defensive prowess was grossly overstated because he played on such a good defensive team. Both are underrated, IMO. I think if Oakley had played on any other successful team in the mid-90's, he too would have been considered an even better defender.


I doubt it. The Knicks team defense made Oakley look better. Plus, Oakley, unlike Ewing, was never shortchanged since he was typically given pretty much most of the credit for their defense and was considered the defensive lynchpin of the Knicks. 



> What's your point? I saw him play in Phoenix, too. He appeared a better defender then. Did you see him play?


"He appeared a better defender". Ok. I saw him play in his last two seasons in Phoenix. I did not see him play in Portland, outside of one or two playoff games. 



> Players who had long careers are the players who played the most games, as I said. Prime length and career length do correlate, though certainly not perfectly. Most players play for a few seasons before their prime and for a few seasons after it. Therefore, if a player had a long prime, it is more likely than not that he will have had a long career.
> Robert Parish and AC Green had a decade-long primes. Cliff Robinson's prime lasted 11 seasons. Rick Mahorn's prime lasted 9. Of those of your examples who didn't have extremely long primes, Buck Williams and Tree Rollins both had primes in their first few seasons, which would have been their athletic primes. Charles Oakley did not rebound best in his prime. Kevin Willis and Jack Sikma are examples that work for you. I looked at the best centers and power forwards of the '90's. Robinson, Olajuwon, Shaq, Ewing and Barkley all rebounded best before their primes. Malone rebounded best during his prime, but his prime lasted 11 years.


I forgot who we were even discussing, but superstars obviously operate differently than players who aren't asked to handle huge offensive duties. Their offensive loads flunctuate more than most role players, and likewise, it's more difficult for them to maintain their best rebounding season in the same season as their best offensive season (which has the most weight in PER). But that doesn't apply to whatever role player we were discussing, and all of the examples I've given were of players who were never the first offensive option on their team, except maybe Sikma. 




> First, my exact words were: "a bunch of other guys who were good defenders, some of them borderline defensive specialists, such as Malik Rose, Kevin Willis, Will Perdue, Mario Elie, Robert Horry and Jerome Kersey"
> Second, a "defensive specialist" isn't necessarily an outstanding defender. He is a player who is on the court almost solely for his defense (and often rebounding, too, since most good defensive big men are also good rebounders). Bruce Bowen and Ryan Bowen are both defensive specialists. One is an outstanding defender, while the other may not even have a job come October. From my examples, Malik Rose and Jerome Kersey were the borderline defensive specialists. Kevin Willis, Will Perdue, Mario Elie and Robert Horry were the "other guys" who were good defenders but not specialists.


Fair enough. 




> He was, IMO, as good a defender in SA. He was an important part of that '99 championship team. Played 28 mpg for 47 games in '99 and about the same minutes for 79 games in '00. He was one of only seven Spurs to play in all 17 of their playoff games in '99. He averaged 31 mpg in the playoffs.


Important, yes, but far more because of his ability to space the offense out because of his shooting abilities than his defensive ability. 




> 25 mpg for 82 games is a lot. And that's excluding the 30 mpg or so he averaged in the playoffs. Ever heard of Andrew Gaze? He said that being a bench-warmer in the NBA was more tiring than logging huge minutes in international ball. Anyway, I don't think Elie even played any international ball. He played a lot of streetball and he had a few years in the CBA.


Do we always take what Andrew Gaze says? What if another player disagrees? What do we do then? 

From Elie's NBA.com bio
"From 1985 to 1989 he played professionally in Portugal, Argentina, and Ireland. Besides his overseas exploits, he put in a stint with the Miami Tropics of the United States Basketball League in summer 1987. ... Elie returned to the United States in 1989, signing with the Albany Patroons of the Continental Basketball Association. He played 56 games for the Patroons in 1989-90, averaging 18.3 points, 6.1 rebounds, and 3.4 assists while shooting .561 from the floor. He hiked his output to 23.5 points per game in 12 playoff appearances, including a high of 38 points against the La Crosse Catbirds on April 7. ... The following summer Elie played for the Youngstown Pride of the World Basketball League, averaging 23.1 points in 43 games while shooting .552 from the field and .857 from the free-throw line. "




> How many good defenders have had their primes at the same time as Duncan?


Shaq. Ben Wallace. Kevin Garnett. Rasheed Wallace. Camby. Elton Brand. Jermaine O'Neal. Theo Ratliff. Kenyon Martin. Kirilenko. I don't know. Good is a pretty broad term. 




> It's not the best choice. Watching for yourself is best. But the awards have generally been pretty accurate. I don't think Big Ben has ever been a better defender than Duncan, but I think they're very close. Wallace being named DPoY all these times isn't unfair, IMO. When players are that close, it just comes down to differences in opinion.


Well, as long as you agree that Wallace has never been as good of a defender as Duncan, than I have no beef. 



> Obviously there will be some sportswrites who have a poor understanding of the game, just as there are idiots in any field (though I'll admit that sportsjournalism has a bit more than its fair share). But I think most sportswriters have watched enough basketball to have a decent understanding of the various subtle factors that come into play. However, I could be wrong. I only read from a few different sources. There are thousands of basketball analysts out there whose stuff I've never come across. So I may indeed be sadly mistaken.


Yeah, I'm just saying that sportswriters in general don't seem to have a strong grasp of the sport. Their analysis usually only glances the surface. I'm extremely positive that I could find 120 posters on this board whose collective knowledge of the game far, far exceeds the knowledge of the same 120 sportswriters who are voting for the postseason awards. 




> And they should have. He scored copiously against the best defender in the league and made a couple of big crunch-time plays. And he's only three years out of high school. However, I don't think very many sportswriters claim that Amare is better than Duncan. I certainly didn't come across any who did.


No, but I came across those who believed that Stoudemire outplayed Duncan in the series, and wasn't that the initial point of contention?



> Since when did being a great defender necessarily involve getting a bunch of spectacular blocks? Wallace was inconsistent, but when he was playing well I think he was just as good as before. But even when he was playing well, he didn't have a whole lot of those huge blocks.


I feel when he was playing well, he had a whole lot of those huge blocks. When he didn't, well, he didn't. Wallace simply isn't the type of player who gets many blocks of his own man. It just doesn't happen very often. His blocks almost primarily come from helping off, and that tends to lead to huge blocks. 



> I selected Robinson's best blocking season with Duncan to illustrate my point. There's nothing wrong with that. You said earlier that Duncan was altering more shots. I used that example to show that Robinson was pretty active, too.


Yes. But that was the highest of with Duncan years, so it may just be a bit of a fluke (of course, we don't agree on that either). 



> And I agree with you that Duncan realizes that he doesn't have to risk his position to try and block a ball like centers do. That's what all power forwards realize. Of course, because Duncan plays so much like a center he is able to get quite a few blocks himself.


So yes, other than the fact that Duncan takes advantage of their team's defensive scheme, would you agree that Duncan plays exactly like a center? 




> Slightly better, yes. But in Chicago he was playing less minutes. And he seems to have sacrificed his offensive game, with not only his usage rate being lower, but his PSA being by far the lowest of his career. Also, when Davis and Willis increased their minutes in 2001, when Oakley was 37, his rebound rate rose. Furthermore, T-Mac was taking away some of his rebounds in 2000.


All that's great and true. I'm just showing that Oakley's rebound rate went up from 36 and 38, and for all the minor factors that may have occured, that fact still remains and stands in light of your claim that players rebound rates decline greatly from 36 to 38, when in fact, players have shown to have minimal impact during those ages. 



> Barkley played in 13 of Olajuwon's 44 games when Hakeem was 37. Also, Hakeem got injured in late November, missed six weeks of action, then came back to play injured before missing another month. His rebounded much worse during that stretch in which he played injured. In 14 games before the injury, he reached double figures in rebounds five times. In the 30 games in which he played injured, he only reached double figures once. Hakeem also played a lot of games with Anthony Miller that year. Miller had a rebound rate of 19.3. All of these factors combined to give Olajuwon a relatively poor rebound rate in 2000, when he was 37.


Olajuwon missed tons of games at age 38 as well. All in all though, Olajuwon's rate went up. 



> That's because unlike the Warriors, who had Dampier, the Sixers and the Sonics didn't have any really good box out rebounders.


Coleman was as good as Dampier. Kemp was as good as Dampier. I think you overrate Dampier's ability, or moreso his effort. There's a reason why he earned a reputation as a lazy underachiever. 




> Of course there would be an impact on his numbers. Rebound rate is adjusted for minutes played. And what basis do you have for saying Herb didn't play much with Mason?


You are twisting my words. I said that with the small minutes that Herb Williams plays, the players he plays with would have minimal impact on his numbers. Not the minutes themselves wouldn't have an impact. And I don't believe that Herb Williams played much with Mason, because well, Herb Williams played primarily when the game has already been decided. At those same times, Mason would usually be benched for a bench player. 



> I only used the mpg argument exclusively for three players -- Kevin Willis (who played 7 mpg less, but is freakishly durable), for Moses (who played 19 mpg less), and for Elvin Hayes (who played 25 mpg less).


OK.




> You mean when he went to play with Shaq in Orlando. Not LA. When he went to LA his rebound rate increased. And I already stated that Shaq wasn't good at boxing out to get his teammates rebounds in '95. As I have said, that's the case with many centers when they are young. Ageing would have contributed, too. His rebound rate fell every single season after he left Chicago, except for when he joined Shaq in LA, and including the year Shaq left Orlando. Also, the Bulls had a good box out guy in Cartwright, although he only played around 19 mpg in Grant's final year there.


Yeah, I meant Orlando. My mistake. I don't think O'Neal was much worse than he was older, and certainly better than a 36 year old Cartwright. Plus, the latter bump going to LA may simply be due to playing for a title contender. 



> Barkley rapidly improved all areas of his game in the '80's. His rebound rate improved by 2.5 from '85 to '86, and Moses was there both those years. It improved by 1.4 when Moses left. His rebound rate in his last season with Moses was the second-highest of his career in Philadelphia and Phoenix.
> And I find it hard to believe that Barkley had his career high in rebound rate and four of his six best rebounding seasons -- from the ages of 33 to 36, no less -- just because his usage rate fell from the mid 20's to the early 20's. His PER in Houston was higher than what it was in a couple of his earlier seasons. When his usage rate fell by 3.8 from '91 to '92, his rebound rate only increased by 1.2. His usage rate fell by 4 from Phoenix to Houston, yet his rebound rate increased by 2.6. That's a similar fall in usage rate, but more than double the increase in rebound rate.


And in 87 to 88, his usage rate went up around 3 points, and his rebounding rate fell by 3.4. It's all fairly meaningless. 



> But in his second-last season in Seattle to his last season there, his mpg fell by 3.7 and his usage rate fell by 2.5, yet his rebound rate actually fell by 0.1. When he went to play with Rik Smits the next year, his mpg fell by 4.3 and his usage rate fell by 1.7 (i.e. a very similar fall in both categories), but his rebound rate increased by 1.3.


Good point. Conceded. 



> Yes, we did. You did not prove -- or even assert, for that matter -- that the trend works for half the time with him. You simply disagreed with me about the effect of a reduction in offensive responsibilities. Remember, I'm responding to your claim that in nearly all my examples half the story doesn't correspond.


But if my point in the effect of a reduction in offensive responsibility is true, than your Malone argument doesn't work. 



> Juwan Howard's rebound rate increased by 1.2 when he came to Houston. His minutes and usage rate did decrease, too, but he had similar decreases earlier in his career without there having been such an impact on his rebound rate.


Only a year earlier in Denver, he had a higher rebound rate. Again, we'll play the context game. 

13.0, 12.5, 11.2, 12.4. Which one stands out? Could it be, he was bitten by the "I'm on Orlando and we totally suck" bug? 




> Dirk's rebound rate increased by 1.5 after Dampier went to Dallas, despite him playing the best defense of his career and having the highest usage rate and PER of his career and playing his second-highest mpg.
> I can't recall if I brought up Dirk earlier. I certainly remember noticing it, but I don't remember if I actually used the example.


It wasn't even the highest rebound rate of his career, tied for second. Maybe Nowitzki is just entering his prime? It happens alot around the age of 26-27. 




> Tell me where you've used these exact reasons in a fitting situation.


You know, how shouldering or not shouldering an offensive load and various other factors will impact rebound rate. I've used it in Malone's case and several others. I don't feel like going back and looking for them. 




> What do you mean Mason didn't play much with Oakley? They played together a lot.


They were both power forwards. When Ewing was on the court, they rarely played together as neither of them could really play the small forward position effectively. 



> And Vlade was a very good box out rebounder. That's obvious. I don't know how you can disagree with that. I can't say for sure whether or not he was better at it than Ewing. There isn't much proof of Ewing being good at getting his teammates rebounds, so, in that area specifically, Vlade was very likely better. Also, it wasn't just Vlade. It was the other good Knicks rebounders, too.


Vlade was a very good box out rebounder. I just don't feel he did it nearly as well as Ewing or Robinson. 




> Did you even see Vlade play once in the '90's? What were you, 10 years old when he went to Charlotte?


I've seen in LA mostly, pre-Kings days. 



> Anyway, what's so surprising about Vlade being good at boxing out to get his teammates rebounds. His athleticism was poor, so that's what he had to rely on.


Vlade's athleticism was poor? I would strongly disagree with that. Anyway, Vlade simply didn't have the strength to be an elite box out rebounder. 



> No, I said it was a combination of less offensive responsibilities and the fact that Parish probably wasn't as good at helping his teammates early in his career. I never denied that having to shoulder less of the offensive load would help a player's rebounding. We just disagreed as to the degree of the effects in a couple of examples.


OK.




> No, I mean 0.3 higher. Duckworth played 51 games for the Blazers in '87, so that year should be counted. He played significantly more minutes the next year, but that wasn't the reason why Kersey's rebound rate fell by 1. Kersey played 11.1 more mpg in '88 and was much more active on offense.


Duckworth barely played in 87, but if you want to count it, fine. 




> I'm not sure I understand what you're trying to say here. Are you saying that because we have lots of statistics to measure offensive ability, we shouldn't rely on memory at all? Or are you saying that we should use statistics along with memory?


Using memory is fine in non-evaluative circumstances. When making evalutive statements from memory like "I remember he was a better offensive player in this year than this so and so year" I don't really have any faith in it. 




> No, it indicates that he scored more efficiently. The amount of energy a player uses up when taking a shot is not dependent on whether or not he sinks that shot. Thorpe attempted 0.9 less field goals per game in Portland and played 7 mpg less. Despite this, his rebound rate was 0.9 lower. He may have undertaken a larger offensive load on a per minute basis, but not over the course of each full game.


He averaged almost 2 FGA more per 48 minutes in Portland than Houston. It doesn't matter what he undertook over the course of a full game, since you have to rebound at the same time as your playing. If you are exerting more energy on offense during the time you are playing, you have less energy to rebound while you are playing. 




> Fine. We'll never know how much of the rise in Duncan's rebound rate can be attributed to these external factors and the fact that Willis played more. Maybe Duncan didn't improve at all, but then again, maybe he did improve a little bit. That's really not my concern in this discussion. My main point is that Robinson didn't take away Duncan's rebounds. Most likely he helped him. Willis may have helped him more, but that doesn't change the fact that Robinson very likely helped Duncan in absolute terms.


And yet, Duncan's rebound rate increased when Robinson played less minutes and then left. And while it may not be your concern, it is my concern. My original point was simply that Duncan didn't improve his rebounding despite increased rebound rate numbers. I didn't really want to get into this huge multiple page argument that we could write a book on, but it happened. 



> I explained that, though perhaps not very clearly. However, I don't know how else to put it, so I'll pretty much have to repeat myself. Boxing out to get a rebound yourself is about positioning -- a compromise between your own position and your opponent's position. You want to block your opponent from getting the ball, but you also want to be in a good enough position to get the ball yourself. If you focus too much on one thing, you lose out on the other. However, in boxing out to ensure a teammate gets the ball, there is much more of a priority on blocking your opponent than on your own position. Here, it doesn't matter so much if you end up behind the backboard, as long as the opposition has little chance of getting the rebound.


But Nesterovic does that simply by using his body. He's large enough that if he simply boxes out for himself, it makes it extremely difficult for an opponent to rebound over him.


----------



## Spriggan (Mar 23, 2004)

I have a very fast Internet connection and I couldn't help but notice that this page took a few seconds to fully load, much like the main NBA forum page or a page with many replies would.

I then noticed, in amazement, that Yyzlin's reply was the only post on the entire page.


----------



## Hakeem (Aug 12, 2004)

I could make it take even longer to load up, but I won't. Sorry, Yyzlin. Although I still have something to say in response to each of your paragraphs, I can't be bothered any more. Thanks for sticking with it this long.


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

Anyone want to look at the recap and discuss the initial topic?


----------



## Yyzlin (Feb 2, 2003)

Hakeem said:


> I could make it take even longer to load up, but I won't. Sorry, Yyzlin. Although I still have something to say in response to each of your paragraphs, I can't be bothered any more. Thanks for sticking with it this long.


Yeah, it was an interesting discussion for the most part. I think we can certainly self proclaim ourselves to be the experts of the board on various rebounding effects and trends during a players career after all this.


----------



## nextghitman (Jul 17, 2005)

Tim Duncan without a doubt.


----------



## Nikos (Jun 5, 2002)

Nikos said:


> Anyone want to look at the recap and discuss the initial topic?


I agree with him, if only *Yyzlin* and *Hakeem* (and others) argued with as much passion as the actual thread topic.


----------



## bender (Jul 15, 2002)

I'd say Duncan, because he's been more consistent.


----------



## ralaw (Feb 24, 2005)

I think Olajuwon is the better talent, but Duncan has the rings (3 to Olajuwon's 2) so in my book Duncan is better. Not to mention INHO Duncan will have around 6-7 championships by the time his is done!


----------



## Ming_7_6 (May 6, 2005)

Hakeem. Duncan is heading towards being a top 10 player ever, but I think people are putting too much on championships.

Hakeem played for years on teams with no help, much like KG has.


Don't get me wrong, IMO NO DOUBT Duncan is the best player in the NBA, BUT if you really think Duncan is better than Hakeem was, you must not have seen much of Hakeem back in the day.


----------



## bender (Jul 15, 2002)

I think some people are confusing career value and peak value of Hakeem Olajuwon. In his two championship years (maybe plus 92/93) he was arguably better than any other center before (and Duncan now). But in the years before and after his championship seasons, he was pretty much below the level Duncan is having since he entered the league. Thus, I think Duncan's career value is higher than Hakeems.

Hakeem's teams in his first 8 seasons: 367 - 289 (.559), one Finals appearance, no titles
Duncan's teams in his first 8 seasons: 438 - 186 (.701) three Finals appearances, three titles


----------



## The One (Jul 10, 2005)

Who's better? Two words....."The Dream!"


----------



## The Mad Viking (Jun 12, 2003)

TheRoc5 said:


> wow there stats are even, they have the same pts, reb, blocks dang but what seperates them is there awards and acomplishments, duncan owns hakeem in that. but stat for stat hakeem=duncan acomplishments duncan>hakeem


Completely false.

If you look at the last few years of TDs career, you will see that his PPG and BPG have dropped each year over the last four years. His FG%, APG and RPG have dropped over the last 3 years. At this point, it seems likely that Duncan peaked when he was 25.

If you look at Hakeem's career, he did not peak until AFTER the 8-year period excerpted in the comparison. He had a very good year at age 27, and then had injury problems and two comparatively poor years at ag 28 and 29. His four best years were at age 30 to 33, seasons 9 thru 12.

It is possible that Duncan will bounc back, and have some better seasons over the next four or five years. If not, his career production will not even be close to Hakeem's.


----------



## The Mad Viking (Jun 12, 2003)

A rational and objective person, carefully considering the evidence, can only conclude that Hakeem was better than Duncan.

Even looking at the first 8 years, head to head- Hakeem scored more AND shot at a higher percentage. Hakeem rebounded a little more. Hakeem blocked A LOT more. 

He average more blocks over 12 years than Duncan's best single season.

Duncan had more assists, was a better passer sooner in his career, and must be rated a little better overall. But Hakeem was a very good passer, and had tended to have very good assist totals when he had quality teammates. (8 seasons of 2.9 or better, 4 consecutive of 3.5 or better in his prime.) 

Hakeem was flat out phenomenal at stealing the ball. He was consistently among the league leaders. Duncan completely ordinary. Hakeem once finished 3rd in the leauge, with 213 steals; he had 99 as a rookie, and followed with 13 straight years over 100; and was in the NBA top 20 8 times. Duncan's best ever was 70 steals, 98th in the league. 

Then consider that Hakeem's best years were seasons 9 to 12, and that Duncan has been in a clear decline in productivity since year 5. We'll see how Duncan's rebounding holds up


People talk about Duncan's consistency, but half his seasons have been below 50%, and in two playoff seasons he shot about 46%. The Dream shot over 50% for 13 straight seasons.


----------



## soulhunter (Nov 2, 2004)

Hakeem


----------



## manu20 (Jun 24, 2005)

duncan


----------

