Your age is showing. Uh, that my point! No, Cato is NOT better than Yao. This goes back to the OT vs Grant issue. How can a non-biased person be partial towards his own team, without nullifying the "non-biased" part? No. Non-biased persons also points out discrepancies with his own team. That's the whole meaning non-biased. You just think I'm picking on the Rockets because this is the only BBS you read my post on. So, it's your one sided perspective. I only reply vigorously to extreme-homers like yourself (Francis can do no wrong), and a few others. Most are not so narrow-minded as you. Most BBS members are reasonable regarding other players and don't have delusions of grander regarding past Rocket players. Invite me to join in a Laker debate (on a Laker BBS) regarding their players and Rocket players. Some Laker fans are fair about Rocket players, some are homers (Shaq is more skilled than Hakeem. Or Kobe is better than Jordan/Drexler, etc....) Those I jump on!
yeah except all we're saying is thorpe is at least grant's equal, possibly a little more and you take offense as if we must be homers to suggest such a thing when facts/stats/history would suggest it to be highly plausible. it ain't exactly shaq is more skilled than hakeem. you seem to understand basketball, yet you cloud your judgment with your own views of how it should be played, expect those views to be universally held, and then argue from a predetermined standpoint. not good. as for watching the bulls enough. there is no team i hated more during their second threepeat (hell i rooted for the jazz in those finals it was so bad) and there is no team i watched more than them outside of the rockets. between watching every playoff game, most nationally televised games, and the occasional wgn game, you would be hard pressed to tell me i am not familiar with the bulls of 96-98.
To my saying, "We'll never agree on this one, which is why I didn't back up my points," you wrote: You've got quite the paradox here, because you obviously didn't pay any attention to my saying, "But in general, I think the sum of our role players is greater than the sum of the Bulls role players. Simply put, our guys could match up with their guys, while they had ZERO to throw at Hakeem. The Rockets presented a much greater mismatch for the Bulls than the Bulls presented for the Rockets. Which wins us the series. " Did you pay attention or not? I can't figure it out because in the first paragraph, you tell me what is quoted above, but then you write: I don't get you man. First you say that I didn't back up what I had to say, but then you respond to what I had to say to back myself up. Basically, your only argument is that we're all a bunch of biased homers. Of course I'm biased. Of course I'm a homer. How could I not be either? The thing is, as one person pointed out, you seem to think that 76 points in a game by the Bulls is artistry, while 100 points in a game by the Rockets is uglyball. You've got some problem with the Rockets titles. You say essentially that we wouldn't have won had MJ not retired, but that doesn't really matter because all the Rockets did back then is play ugly....I don't get you at all, man. And one more time, just in case you missed it, I backed up my points back on page two and referenced them again here, you just chose to ignore them the first time around. In a nutshell, our mismatch at center was so hugely in our favor, that yes, in my opinion, that alone is the deal breaker. Hakeem wins us a series against the Bulls just like he did against everyone but Seattle. Pretty much everyone on either team would get theirs in the series, and the lone reason we could and/or would win is because of the mismatch at center. Now, I've got to go to a party, just like I had to last night. Tomorrow, I'm going out of the country for about a week. And by then, I'm sure that this thread will be so damn deep that I really won't want to wade through a million posts concerning the artistry of Horace Grant vs. your perception of OT's unworthiness. Carry on.
LOL!! That is what Utah thought too when they beat the bulls in 98 in regular season head-to-head. You will never get a fair answer here, after all this is clutchcity.net, not nba.com or some other nuetral ground. Sorry, but you guys are asking hardcore Rockets fans, who probably think that the Rockets could have taken on the Hulk himself!
I hated the Bulls too. But champions are still champs. And it's sad to see the once great ones fall from grace...Similar to Ali's last fight. He was a former champ, but it looked pitiful when he got beat. Same with Jordan, Bird and Magics team. I respected those teams greatly.
Ok, fair enough. That's what you believe... But you could have summed up your entire post with the following statement... Heh...
The "AI effect" is a relational idea that you can bloat numbers in order to get a seemingly higher scoring average (this is more true early in his career than now). Same with Caron Butler. He's on a bad team, but gets most of the shots. He shot 1000 shots, averaged 15ppg, hit less than half. Francis (two years ago) shot 1000 shots, averaged 21ppg, hit less than half. Who's better? See, what I'm talking about? Also, what don't you understand about dunking? You do realize that it's a high percentage shot, right? It's really not a "shot" it's a dunk. And OT was NOT "unstoppable." So, don't say, he could get his dunk anytime he wanted to. This was not the case. He had a free-reign in Sac. For OT to get most of the shots for a BAD team in 1988, INFLATES his numbers. Scouting has a lot to do with it too. When a new players comes into the league, other teams don't know other teams' rosters as much as they would for a "star" player. They would not focus in more on new players that haven't proven themselves. Grant never got the amount of shots to inflate his numbers. If has able to average 14ppg with 800 shot attempts, it's reasonable to think that he could have scored 20ppg on a BAD team, with 400 more shots (on that same BAD Sac team). Also, you keep underscoring the fact that if a player that doesn't spend his time in the post, is doing so because he can't. But that's not true. Grant would stay in the post if he didn't have an mid-range shot. But he did. Thus, he was more valuable to balance his game (inside-outside). OT was relegated only to the inside because he HAD to play there. Anything outside would have weakened his game, and thus the detriment of the team. In the end, the "better" player and their style is up for debate. OT's offensive weaknesses couldn't have been more evident at the start of the 94-95 season (year that Drexler joined). I also, put some blame on Rudy's simplistic ISO based offense. But, that's another story. Thank God for Drexler. He saved the offense.
But you can't bloat the numbers in this case because OT makes 50% of his shots, unlike any of the other players you mention when you attempt to use your AI theory. Furthemore, since you want to make reference to shot attempts, Grant had all the opportunity to up his shot attempts when MJ retired. Grant has this great offensive ability, yet he was only able to get 49 more shot attempts from the 2003 shots that Jordan took in the PY? Man, Phil really had confidence in his offensive arsenal. So a dunk is not a shot now? I thought a shot was whenever you attempted to put the ball in the basket? I thought a dunk was the shot with the highest % of going in since you are closer to the hoop. Silly me. Who ever said OT was unstoppable. We are just saying that the numbers show he was a more efficient scorer than Grant. You still have yet to show us how that is not true. How is in inflating his numbers when he is making over half of his shots? I would think that if he were the only option on the team, then it would be easier to double him because no one else is a threat, especially when his entire offensive game is in the paint. Give that man his props. That is pure BS? You think it takes two seasons to scout a team/player? That is not true. As I look at the numbers in greater detail, I notice that Grant averaged 12.54 shots per game in 93/94 (his highest total) when he scored 15 ppg (his highest total). This is still below the 14.95 that OT averaged when he scored 20 ppg, but it's right in line with the 12.8 that he averaged the yr before, when he averaged 19 ppg (which is still higher than any average Grant put up). Why did OT still have a higher average than Grant? Because he had a higher field goal %, and because he attempted more free throws....two benefits of staying in the paint as opposed to shooting jumpers. Your AI theory, based on shot attempts, is useless. But the numbers show us that OT and his style was just as efficient, if not more, than Grant and his full offensive arsenal.
Wait a minute. What's with this 50%? Grant averaged over 50% as well. You are distracted by those numbers. The "AI" issue isn't about affecting the shooting %, it's about affecting the scoring average. So, you CAN bloat the scoring numbers. Also you can ask, "Why didn't Grant take the opportunity?" all you want. Your acting like Grant could just say, "Yo coach! Give me the ball!" NO, Phil would distribute more of the shots to Scotty and Toni. Not Grant. The reason that Sac gave most of the shots to OT is because he did not have a future Hofer and 6th man to take the burden. Thus bloated numbers. Let me ask you this. Cato, an average role player. A player that shoots 52%. How many points do you think he could average if you gave him 1200 shots for the year? If he was the only option, he's numbers would bloat too. This is the same thing that happened to MoT in Clipper land. His scoring average dropped once his shot attempts dropped. The difference is that MoT actually has some decent offensive talent (can shoot from the outside, not so good inside). Let me be more clear. It's inflating his scoring average, not his FG%. Most players FG% don't change that much with increased or decreased shot attemps. It may deviate a little. But not much. But the scoring average will change with increased shots. And if you read the posts above, I have given him "props." But you wont give Grant his.
Due to the large amount of shot attempts, of course he's going to get to the FT line more. Same would have happened to Grant. But he never got that many (1000-1200) attempts. Plus, that wouldn't have been Phil's game plan. In the end, Sacs game plan only got Sac many loses. Not wins. I would have hated to see that teams "offensive" production with OT at the helm.
This is getting unbeliveably stupid. I know you are on Horace Grant's jock or whatever but how many damn excuses can u make for the guy. Now Grant would have got to the FT line if he took more shots? The guy was basically a damn spot up jump shooter who played good defense. You don't bag trips to the FT line like that. The true answer as to why Horace Friggin Grant did not average 20 ppg has nothing to do with MJ. He played in 94 without MJ and a euro-rookie Kukoc emerged as a better scoring option than Mr. All-rounded badass gratn. Grant left the Bulls and was a solid 13-16 ppg scorer who played Good D and had a money midrange J. However, the guy simply did not have much offensive game besides his midrange shot. He was not a post presence and certainly wasn't going to take you off the dribble. Thorpe was a power player who got position and got to the FT line and took smart, high percentage shots. For you to say it's a homer take to say OT was better than Grant is just stupid. That's a perfectly defensible position. OT didn't play on SAC his whole career. He had many seasons of 16-18 ppg in Houston on 55-56% FG for playoff teams. The comparison to Cato is r****ded. Cato is a scrub and did not have the power game like OT. No way in hell could Cato score 20 ppg or maintain his FG% if he simply took more shots. He lacks the game and skills to contribute more than he does. That's completely short-selling Thorpe's much more refined post game, work ethic, and ability to execute the pick n roll, things Cato could only dream of. Was the NBA a bunch of Rockets homers when OT made the all-star game twice? Are you aware that MJ's playoff #'s from his 95 playoffs were actually better than his #'s from 96-98. The team simply didn't have Rodman then. Could MJ have led a team without a 2nd superstar and 3rd all-star (Grant or Rodman) to a title like Hakeem did in 94 or Duncan did this year? What evidence is there to suggest that even? What did MJ ever accomplish without a 2nd superstar as a sidekick? As for the Utah comparison, Utah did go 2-0 against CHI in 98 but I guarantee you they had a losing record against CHI overall when you look at 91-93 and 96-98, while the Rockets consistently played the Bulls tough, not just over a 1 year sample.
Cato=Bum, But Cato is the best! Heh heh... Oh, wait. I thought I was taking to Cato=not-Bum. My bad. I guess you missed my other post on this. (in which I mentioned Scotty and Toni). Sounds like Francis. Score a lot points, but eventually lose. Guess they needed to work on that "team game/chemistry" part. Heh... Guess MJ wasn't that good, huh? Heh...you guys! So blind. Heh heh...
Based purely on statistics (wins, losses, points differential etc), it would be easy to conclude that those Bulls team would have creamed the '95 Rockets. However, that Rockets team of 95 was a Team of Destiny. That is something you cannot capture statistically.
Once again, I pointed out that Grant and OT had similar field goal attempts per game. It is more rational to use fga per game than total field goals attempted since Thorpe played in more games (another OT advantage that we have yet to mention). In 93/94, Grant's fga per game were on par with Thorpe's, and OT still was a more efficient scorer. Did you just ignore that evidence in my last post? That is not true. As I look at the numbers in greater detail, I notice that Grant averaged 12.54 shots per game in 93/94 (his highest total) when he scored 15 ppg (his highest total). This is still below the 14.95 that OT averaged when he scored 20 ppg, but it's right in line with the 12.8 that he averaged the yr before, when he averaged 19 ppg (which is still higher than any average Grant put up). Why did OT still have a higher average than Grant? Because he had a higher field goal %, and because he attempted more free throws....two benefits of staying in the paint as opposed to shooting jumpers. Your AI theory, based on shot attempts, is useless. I would think if Grant was this great offensive weapon that you are describing, than Phil would have had more confidence in his offensive ability instead of relying on B.J. Armstrong and a rookie from Europe. His meager increase in shots attempted (49 out of 2003) shows that Phil was not a believer in his offensive prowess as you are. I don't think his fg% would be that high, especially since he can't create scoring opportunities for himself (unlike OT). Mo Taylor never shot 50% with the Clippers. He didn't even come close. Poor comparison. Once again, their field goals attempted per game were in line with each other. What is your next excuse?
There is nothing to get. You originally claimed that Grant was a more efficient offensive player than OT. Another poster pulled the numbers and proved that to be false (based on statistics). You attempted to discredit the statistics by claiming that Grant scored less because he shot less. Someone mentioned that Grant shot less because he played less games. You then came back with an "AI theory", even though it is invalid since Thorpe had a good fg %. I looked at the stats and show that Grant and OT's field goal attempts per game were quite similar when Grant had his best scoring output as a pro, and still fell 4 ppg behind OT. Once again, what is there to get? Make me understand how Grant was a more efficient offensive player when none of his numbers prove it.
