OT:Larry Bird

I can almost buy that for his first title. Hakeem was a superstar surrounded by a group of VERY good role players. Not a star among them, but guys like Robert Horry, Otis Thorpe, Sam Cassell, Kenny Smith, Vernon Maxwell and Mario Elie didn't exactly stink the place up.

And, then for the second championship, he had those guys (minus Thorpe) plus fellow Hall of Famer Clyde Drexler by his side. Clyde may have been slightly past his prime, but he was still one of the best 2-guards in the league at that time (especially, with no Jordan around) and had a PER of >22 that season and came up huge in the finals against Orlando (23/11/7 in game 1 and 25/13/7 in game 3).

BNM

 

It's pretty simple, really. The truly great players make everyone around them better and produce wins when it counts ... also known as deep playoff runs and championships.

Defense and leadership intangibles are every bit as important as the measurable offensive statistics, if not more so. Jordan was the best (in the eyes of many) because of his clutch performances, personified by the quote, "It doesn't matter how hard you push along the way. What matters is how much you have left for the finish."

Karl Malone was the antithesis of this... Huge production along the way but a lot of choke jobs when it counted.

If you were building a team, would you take Malone in his prime or Duncan in his prime? Would anyone outside the state of Utah pause even the slightest of moments on this one? It's a no brainer, as far as I'm concerned.

 

Yes, it's simple, but basically superstition, IMO. Players don't have a magical ability to get better "in the clutch." Logically, it's possible for players to get worse, but players who reach the NBA are a picked population of athletes who don't wilt under pressure...they've been under extreme pressure to even reach the NBA. Their entire futures have been on the line at each step of the way. Players who aren't able to handle pressure get winnowed out during all the stages one has to excel to be among the tiny percentage who reach the NBA.

So while I think a random person might well be capable of "choking," I don't think it happens at the highest level of professional sports. "Choking" is just the way people justify having scorn for those who fail. Simply not being good enough doesn't make a person loathsome, the way many sports writers and fans like to cast the losers. It's much better if you can ascribe a moral failing to them. Similarly, it's much easier to make heroes if they're more than simply great athletes...if you can attach a moral virtue to them, like being "clutch" then they make much better heroes. Sports culture is all about narratives and myth-making.

Jordan wasn't great at the end of games because he was "clutch." He was great at the end of games because he was the best player in basketball, all the time. Tim Duncan failed plenty of times in huge games, especially during the Lakers' threepeat. Not because he was a choker, but because he and the Spurs weren't good enough those years. Malone had plenty of great games in big games. He and Stockton carried the Jazz to the Finals and pushed the Bulls in both series. They didn't lose because they choked, they lost because the Bulls were better.

If your belief in championships as a measure of individual players rests on the notion that some players are clutch and some are chokers, then we definitely have a fundamental divide.

 

Thorpe was a good player, no question. Horry and Cassell were rookies cutting their teeth in the league. Vernon was a streak shooting undersized 2 guard and Elie defined journeyman. Kenny Smith? meh... at least he could shoot. If someone were to call Hakeem's supporting cast average I'd feel they were being generous... thats a subpar collection of talent. They succeeded because HO could collapse a D and consistently get them as wide open looks from the outside as any post player I've seen. Most NBA players can drain wide open looks and the Rockets did make their share, but guess which guy in the rotation shot the highest % from 3's?

This very mediocre collection was easily the best group of teammates that 31 year old HO had enjoyed since his brief pairing with Ralph. Horry and Cassell, though rookies, were decent sized players for their positions and immediate upgrades from the dreck that proceeded them. But don't kid yourself, few players in the history of the game (other then HO) could have made that a successful group. Since you sited PER, heres a link that contains the individual ratings. 15 is an average NBA player... besides HO only Thorpe (at 16.1) rated as average or above.

Thorpe for Clyde was an upgrade in talent for them. But when you look at the absolute scrubs who were thrust into major roles at PF in Thorpe's absence (Carl Herrera, Pete Chilcutt & Chuckie Brown), whatever gain Clyde gave them was largely (if not entirely) offset. Clyde's arrival also pushed crazy Vernon out of the picture... he only appeared in one post season game. The real gain in talent from the 1st championship to the 2nd was the maturation of Horry and Cassell, but that was still a thin collection of NBA talent.

STOMP

 

Drexler was named to the top 50 all time list

STOMP

 

That would be Clyde Drexler - top 50, PER of 22 that season.

Rodman and Kukoc were role players, good at what they did but limited skills. Rodman was a great rebounder and still a pretty good defender in his mid-30s with the Bulls, but pretty useless on offense. Kukoc was a good offensive player, but a horrible defender. Every team needs role players, and they deserve credit for what they did, but then so do the Rockets role players - even if all they did was get the ball into Hakeem on the low block and knock down open 3-pointers. That was their role and they did it well enough to help the team in two championships.

And what about the 2004 Pistons? Where are their 2 top 50 players? They won a championship - beating the Shaq/Kobe/Malone/Payton Lakers in the finals. They didn't have a single player with a PER above 19 that season. They had a bunch of guys in the 13.0 - 18.8 range. Slightly below average to a bit above average players, but not a superstar in sight, let alone two top 50 players.

BNM

 

How do you explain Outlaw then? He's crap for most of the game and rarely misses in the 4th quarter. Ever hear of terms like focus, concentration, and relaxation? The great athletes in all sports focus best when the pressure is the greatest. That's what allows them to rise to the occasion.

(Note: I'm not counting Outlaw among the greats, just that his offensive concentration gets much better as the game goes along.)

 

Selective memory. He's missed plenty in the fourth quarter, and has plenty of good first, second and third quarters.

Yup. Elite players have those things all the time, which is what gives them the edge to be among the top 0.01%.

If they have the ability to "take it up a notch," they'd do it all the time. It's in their best interests both to help their team and to put up stats that earn them dollars. They don't have that ability, though, unless they intentionally take their effort down a level prior. Older players may cruise a bit during a long season, but in big games, they're not cruising through three quarters and then suddenly trying hard in the fourth quarter. Jordan was at max fury in minute one of a playoff game.

 

Well enough must mean Hakeem being able to carry the club despite his teammates being below average. Yes they shot a lot of 3's, but they only made 33%.

You keep siting PER yet are avoiding my link showing that only HO and Thorpe posted above average (15) PER scores. For reference, this year's Blazers have 6 guys in their rotation at or above a 15 PER + Steve Blake at 14.9

STOMP

 

It would behoove you to put down the statistics books once in a while and read up on exercise physiology and psychology...

 

Actually, my field of study was cognitive science, which includes psychology and the peripheral nervous system. I don't think notions of "clutch" have any grounding in science; it's entirely folk wisdom.

I have no training in statistics, beyond the standard university undergraduate courses. So, I have no books on statistics.

 

You know this thread was about me pissing with Larry Legend and now look at it! I hate how threads just twist and turn like this!!!!!!

 

I already said I agreed with the assertion that the first Rockets championship was Hakeem and a bunch of good role players.

The may have only made 33% of their 3s in the regular season, but look at their play-off numbers. Smith, Maxwell, Horry and Cassell all shot considerably better from 3-point range in the play-offs than the regular season.

I'm not avoiding anything. I already said they were good role players, not above average starters. They all contributed - especially in the play-offs. I don't have play-off PERS for them, but I bet Horry and Cassell, and likely Smith all had higher PERs in the play-offs than the regular season. Horry and Cassell, because they had shown considerable improvement between the start of their rookie season and the finals, and Smith due to his hot 3-point shooting in the play-offs.

Not sure why is all matters, and why we're only talking about PER. Ultimately, it came down to match-ups in the finals vs. the Knicks. In both personel and stats, that's one of the most evenly matched finals I remmber. Hakeem vs. Ewing, Thorpe vs. Oakley, Maxwell vs. Starks, Smith vs. Harper, etc. What is ultimately came down to was Hakeem was better than Ewing and the Rockets role players hit some big shots in some close games.

BNM

 

because it was the measure you used to show how well Drexler played for them. By the PER metric, 15 is an average player. So by the standard you laid out, all but 2 of the Rockets were were below average nba players. You called HO's supporting cast "a group of VERY good role players"... and described their role... "all they did was get the ball into Hakeem on the low block and knock down open 3-pointers"... well 33% from 3's leaves a lot to be desired IMO. To their credit they did get the ball into Hakeem, but I don't think thats showing enough to call them average let alone good. My opinion of them is more in line both with what PER reflects and Denny Crane's assessment of them as "pretty weak". The Rockets won despite HO's supporting cast... he was also the DPOY in that first title season

Again, the reason I initially got in this discussion about the GOAT is to suggest that if titles are being considered then the talent level of a guy's teammates should be as well.

btw... your Sampson response slipped by me but it plays right into this.

Jordan was shelved his 2nd year with a broken foot. All other things staying the same, RS and MJ would have only been healthy in Mike's rookie year in the league. Maybe they would have won a title that single year, but thats obviously a narrower window then Mike enjoyed playing with PIP and the rest of the talented Bulls.

 

Wrong. PER = 15.0 is average NBA STARTER, not average NBA player. By definition an average starter is a better than an average player.

BNM

 

Now you're onto something. Defense and rebounding wins games - especially in the play-offs. This is actually, at least as important (I'd argue more important) than PER which is heavily biased towards offensive stats. It's not like Dennis Rodman had a high PER on those Bulls championship teams, but he was still a vital piece thanks to his rebounding and defense.

That first Houston title team was a very good rebounding team (with Hakeem and Thorpe both averaging double digits in rebounds), and pretty good defensively. Again, Hakeem deserves a lot of the credit for this, but he had help.

BNM

 

Does this change my point about HO's supporting cast not being very good in any way???

STOMP

 

It's extremely rare for a team, even a championship team, to have all five starters with a PER above 15. For every above average starter in the league, there is another one that's below average (more, or less). It's not uncommon for even championship teams to have two starters with a PER below 15. Three starters with a PER below 15 on a championship team is a bit unusual, but not at all rare.

And, as I have stated repeatedly, I'd be surprised if more of the Houston players didn't have PERS above 15 for the post season. Smith and Horry both had PERs of 14.2 during the regular season. Horry had higher scoring and rebounding averages in the play-offs and Smith shot extremely well from 3-point range in the play-offs. That should have been enough to move their PERs from 14.2 to over 15 in the play-offs. So, that's two more above average starters, to go with Hakeem and Thorpe, in the play-offs, when it counted, than the regular season.

BNM