Hakeem is so vastly better offensively than Stoudemire, there is no comparison. He could score in any way, running, with power, or from outside. And he had a devastating, unstoppable move. Plus a sick hook. I think '94 Hakeem would single-handedly will the old team to a six-game series win. After falling behind 2-0, of course.
I don't understand how it can't be settled, Harper, throughout the duration of his career, had a reputation as a defensive ace, made the all defensive team multiple times, and finished his career 6th on the alltime steals list. Bob Sura - has he ever even gotten a vote for all defensive team? ? His 1.26 steals a game is a career high for him, with a career average of 1.0. That is what Derek Harper was getting at age 37, in 24 minutes a game, his lowest (and final) season. Sura played back in the hand checking era too - but it didn't help him much numbers wise; Sura is hitting or tying career highs in steals and assists after msising the first quarter of the season with injuries. He is nowhere near his career highs in points, and his percentage from distance is lousy (markedly worse than Harper at that point in his career) .99, so terrible that it is Sura's career average - I note that you strategically omitted that he jacked it back up to 1.6 spg in 1996 at age 34- a number that Sura has never gotten close to He's had the ability to hand check for most of his career - didn't seem to help him too much if the numbers are any indication. Well that part is definitely right!
A better matchup?? I don't think so. I'm assuming you're talking about the '85-'86 Rockets... playoff version. Throw Lucas out of there, because he had been thrown out of the League. Who cares? This Rockets team would have destroyed today's Yao/McGrady squad. They killed the Showtime Lakers in 5 games. Just killed them, after the first game in LA. (yes, it took Ralph's miracle shot in game 5 to finish them off, but no one thought the Rockets had a chance going into that series, including that goofy Chronicle writer... Blinefurry? Is that the guy's name?) Then they took what was arguably the best NBA team in history, the '85-'86 Boston Celtics, to 6 games before losing. To get an idea of just how good that Celtics team was, here's an except from Bird's bio on NBA.com: "The following year, which saw Boston win its 16th championship, Bird attained living-legend status. He was showered with commendations: NBA MVP, Finals MVP, The Sporting News Man of the Year, and the Associated Press Male Athlete of the Year. He led the league in three-pointers made (82) and in free throw percentage (.896), an unheard-of accomplishment for a forward. He placed in the top 10 in three other categories. He even won the first-ever three-point shooting competition at the NBA All-Star Weekend. The Celtics finished the 1985-86 season with a 67-15 record; their best under Bird. In the NBA Finals against Houston, Bird nearly averaged a triple-double (24.0 ppg, 9.7 rpg, 9.5 apg). In the decisive Game 6 Bird tallied 29 points, 11 rebounds and 12 assists. He earned a second Finals MVP Award." http://www.nba.com/history/players/bird_bio.html Not trying to pick on anyone, but the Lakers that the Rockets beat that year in the WC Finals would crush the Rockets of today. It was a different NBA back then, folks, which makes these threads fun, but ultimately just silly. A better question would be if the '85/'86 Rockets would beat the '93/'94 version. I saw them both, and I don't know. Keep GARM Readable!!
I think that team was better than 93-94 Rockets, who lost 8 games in the playoff and choked a few times. A lucky bounce would have made Ewing a top 6 center of all-time and one of a couple of superstars winning titles without a star teammate.
Hakeem has more offensive skills, But you can't dispute Amare's offensive efficiency, 26 pts 57.2% FG% and 10+ FTs. Drawing fouls is one big aspect of dominance.
Amare reminds me of a young Akeem, but he's not as good a rebounder or defender, and of course can't block shots like Dream did. Pretty much take away half of Dream's game, and Amare stacks up well against what's left.
Sam, DH won two defensive player of the year awards, but four years removed from his last award he had lost half a step. I could argue that the Knicks' reputation of a physical style gave him leeway from the refs which helped sustain his stats later in his career, and you could argue that the Knicks played slowdown, which deflated his stats. For several years, he was a great defender, no doubt about it. Like you said, on-the-ball defense, it was just outstanding. But we removed his pre-1994 years from this discussion, and none of his post-1994 years would be enough to come close to being on the steals leaderboard even if his minutes were adjusted upward a bit. The argument was not about DH being great, but Sura being 10x worse. I took issue with the exaggeration, not that DH may have been better. In my book, a Francis or a Kenny Smith, now THAT is 10x worse! I think we're beating a dead horse at this point and derailing the thread to boot, so I am bowing out now, much as I enjoy the old-school talk.
Well 10x worse is a bit of hyperbole - but he is definitely a cut (or 2 or 3) below Harper - even at that point in their espective careers - plus add in Harper's tendency to play out of his mind against the Rockets - and......etc.
I agree he's having a great year in that system. But we saw what happened without Nash--it's like Richard Jefferson without Kidd. That offense is built around Nash, while the Rockets offense literally was four guys watching Hakeem.
Not that it affects Amare - but it's time to put the myth that Jefferson is nothing without Kidd to rest. Look at his numbers while Kidd is out - he was putting up triple doubles this season.
otis thorpe was very efficient too. but no ones comparing him to hakeem. all you kids who never saw hakeem play...please dont talk. please.
He was having a good year, but he was so brutally bad in the Olympics. I guess I'm still not convinced. OK, I did the math (this is totally irrelevant, but I have nothing better to do): sans Kidd, RJ had 21 ppg, 8.3 rpg (very impressive), 3.8 assists, 4.1 turnovers (awful), 41.5% FG, 24% 3-pt FG, and the Nets were 4-12. Without Nash (including the game he was hurt), Stoudemire had 19 ppg, 8.25 rpg, shot 37.8%, and went 0-4.
I remember that team, and I'm still quite wistful over what might have been with them. The 90's championship teams were great, great teams. They gave us the nickname of Clutch City, and Bulls or not, were a major dominant force in the league those years. However, that 86 team could have become a dynasty. They were so young, and so scary good, that the real question is how would that team have fared against our championship team(s). (Obviously you'd have Dream vs Dream but oh well) People forget about how good Sampson was, and how most around the league felt that the pairing of he with Dream was unfair to the rest of the NBA. They absolutely demolished the Showtime Lakers in the Western finals, and if they would have faced any other team besides those Celtics, we'd remember them as the first Rockets championship team. But history forgets them because Sampson's career went in the tank the next season because of injuries, and our entire backcourt decided it would be great if they all did drugs and get banned from the league, making that team's full potential to remain never realized. I really like our team now, but no contest against either the 86 or 94-5 teams.
Older teams usually benefitted from a deeper league with deeper benches. That 94-95 team could shoot and break down zone defenses. Not only that, but they were defensive monsters. Thorpe, Horry and Maxwell were well regarded specialists (emerging status for Horry). I can imagine TMac trying to take over in some games, but it would take a toll on him after the 3rd game. Yao would start crying the moment Hakeem posts him up and starts reenacting his flashbacks at the Fonde. The current team would be a blip on the road to the title.
