Tired of Jordan's Legacy, the Bulls were the best defensive team of the 90s.

[TitleMaster]

The 90s Rockets were basically ~50 win teams, relatively low seed championship squads. The person who could take a shot, without being completely open, was Cassell. Starks had his shooting slumps but he was a better shooter for the Knicks, at least for that part of Cassell's rookie & sophomore years in the league. The Rockets should never have traded him as Cassell continued to improve throughout his career. I wasn't too wowed by anything that Maxwell or Smith did except for taking shots when open and fed by the big man.

On any given night, Mason (or Oakley) were better defenders than Thorpe, who was mainly a perimeter defender. Houston was not a defense first team. As someone else stated, Houston had a defensive center but a regular team.

That '95 Drexler year was an exception because Clyde arrived mid-season, before he hit the shooting guard slide, the following year. And in that situation, take away his ability to slash and the Rockets become a jump shooting team. Thus, it didn't last.

The Knicks were routinely getting 55-60 win seasons via tough defense. They had enough role players to keep themselves relevant in the playoffs but Ewing was Webber-esque and thus, wasn't reliable in crunch time. Remember, most Knicks-Bulls series went 7 games. They were seldom about to fall over and die but as you know, I wouldn't want Ewing in a game during the final 4-5 minutes. My argument is that having Hakeem around, eliminates the game 6 or game 7 offensive vis-a-vis  defensive snafus which Ewing is infamous for.

[TitleMaster]

From Celtics pov, the 90s Rockets were like this ...

1) A younger KG in the middle (see Hakeem w/o the Dream Shake a/o 4th quarter scoring explosion) so metaphor isn't complete either.

2 Eddie House style shooters (Kenny and gang)

1 Tony Allen (wing defender like Thorpe)

1 Nate Robinson (Cassell's rookie/sopho years)

The above team isn't getting far in the playoffs.

[TitleMaster]

Other thread:

From Celtics pov, the 90s Rockets were like this ...

1) A younger KG in the middle (see Hakeem w/o the Dream Shake a/o 4th quarter scoring explosion) so metaphor isn't complete either.

2 Eddie House style shooters (Kenny and gang)

1 Tony Allen (wing defender like Thorpe)

1 Nate Robinson (Cassell's rookie/sopho years)

The above team isn't getting far in the playoffs.

[wdleehi]

So a team with the front court of Dream, Thorpe and Robert Horry isn't a defensive team?

[TitleMaster]

front court of Dream, Thorpe and Robert Horry isn't a defensive

Here's a defensive frontcourt... Mason, Hakeem, Oakley.

I wouldn't want KG, Perks, and Pierce to be facing that unit.

[Celtics17]

Someone please tell me how to cut and paste, or whatever its called where I put the other guys comments here in the light green color.

So, Hakeem is quicker and faster then Wilt huh? Do you realize that when Wilt passed away that Sports Illustrated had an article that said he may have been the best constuction of flesh and blood athlete the nation has ever seen? While that is certainly debatable the point is that he was a tremendous athlete. His vertical was way beyond Hakeems, he was not only faster but much, much faster. In a 100 yard dash Wilt would probably have beaten Hakeem by a long way. There is a reason that when you see that Jordan had 43 games in which he scored 40 or more points and maybe the next player has 16 and the next guy 4 or maybe 5 and then they show Wilt and he has 135!!

[Fafnir]

Someone please tell me how to cut and paste, or whatever its called where I put the other guys comments here in the light green color.

So, Hakeem is quicker and faster then Wilt huh? Do you realize that when Wilt passed away that Sports Illustrated had an article that said he may have been the best constuction of flesh and blood athlete the nation has ever seen? While that is certainly debatable the point is that he was a tremendous athlete. His vertical was way beyond Hakeems, he was not only faster but much, much faster. In a 100 yard dash Wilt would probably have beaten Hakeem by a long way. There is a reason that when you see that Jordan had 43 games in which he scored 40 or more points and maybe the next player has 16 and the next guy 4 or maybe 5 and then they show Wilt and he has 135!!

Two ways, you can hit the quote button and it will enclose the entire post with a link, timestamp, and everything else.

or you can just use "quote""/quote" with brackets replacing the quotation marks.

[BballTim]

Someone please tell me how to cut and paste, or whatever its called where I put the other guys comments here in the light green color.

So, Hakeem is quicker and faster then Wilt huh? Do you realize that when Wilt passed away that Sports Illustrated had an article that said he may have been the best constuction of flesh and blood athlete the nation has ever seen? While that is certainly debatable the point is that he was a tremendous athlete. His vertical was way beyond Hakeems, he was not only faster but much, much faster. In a 100 yard dash Wilt would probably have beaten Hakeem by a long way. There is a reason that when you see that Jordan had 43 games in which he scored 40 or more points and maybe the next player has 16 and the next guy 4 or maybe 5 and then they show Wilt and he has 135!!

  I think you need to take a better look at a few things. First of all, when Wilt played teams averaged close to 120 points a game, took more shots and shot at a lower fg% than they did when Hakeem played. That has a lot to do with the huge numbers Wilt put up. There may have been 30 or so more rebounds a game.

  Secondly, consider the level of competition they played against. The average player in the 90s (or 80s) were obviously bigger, stronger and faster than the players Wilt played against. Wilt was a great athlete, but if you took Hakeem out of the 90s and put him in the 60s of course he would dominate. And it's possible Wilt would win a 100 yard dash, but he wouldn't win a 10 yard dash or a 20 yard dash, and a bball court is only 30 yards or so end to end.

[dark_lord]

why is this even being debated?  its purely hypothetical and nothing can be proven from either argument. you will just keep going around and around.

the facts are, hakeem played on the rockets, ewing on the knicks, and jordan won 6 titles with the bulls.

coulda, shoulda, woulda

[Fafnir]

why is this even being debated?  its purely hypothetical and nothing can be proven from either argument. you will just keep going around and around.

the facts are, hakeem played on the rockets, ewing on the knicks, and jordan won 6 titles with the bulls.

coulda, shoulda, woulda

So I guess you won't be joining the fun in the 2010 CB Draft.

[dark_lord]

why is this even being debated?  its purely hypothetical and nothing can be proven from either argument. you will just keep going around and around.

the facts are, hakeem played on the rockets, ewing on the knicks, and jordan won 6 titles with the bulls.

coulda, shoulda, woulda

So I guess you won't be joining the fun in the 2010 CB Draft.

nope

[TitleMaster]

why is this even being debated?

This whole thing revolves around an idea which I believe is well sounded and that is ... defense wins championships. Just ask the prolific scorers: Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, Buffalo's MacAdoo, Pete Maravich, and Bernard King about this, since scoring never got 'em their titles.

Thus, the team with the best defense and *one alpha male* scorer/defender will be more likely to win titles. Now, this can vary if there are a number of ace scorers and the team plays good defense as well, ala most pre-1990 title teams like the Frasier Knicks, all Auerbach Celtics, Riley Lakers, Bad Boys Pistons, etc.

The 90s Knicks were led by Patrick Ewing, so-called franchise player but who was clearly not clutch nor a great defender during crunch time. Our near time equivalent of this was Chris Webber, another NCAA legend who clearly was a liability during crunch time.

Thus, in the 90s, the Heat, the Knicks, and the Bulls were the three best defensive teams of their time period. Of the three, only the Bulls had that alpha male scorer/defender to compliment their squads. Still, despite that, most Knicks-Bulls series went the full 7 games. That's not bad but it's clear that if Olajuwon was swapped out w/ Ewing, then the scene changes completely, and the Bulls are facing an enemy that an explosive wingman can't simply overcome by lashing out at his teammates because Jordan won't be the one trying to stop Hakeem, it's be all his friends, like Pippen, Grant, and Cartwright, who'll be run ragged all series long.

[Celtics17]

I suppose this is being debated because we want to and really there is no other reason needed. BballTim, it sounds like you are saying that there weren't good athletes in Wilt's time and that is a pointless argument. I wouldnt tell Oscar Robertson or Jerry West or Russ that. You can throw all of the arguments about athleticism out the door as the are irrelevant. Tony Allen was at worst the second best 'athlete' on this team last year but was far from it's second best player.

[BballTim]

I suppose this is being debated because we want to and really there is no other reason needed. BballTim, it sounds like you are saying that there weren't good athletes in Wilt's time and that is a pointless argument. I wouldnt tell Oscar Robertson or Jerry West or Russ that. You can throw all of the arguments about athleticism out the door as the are irrelevant. Tony Allen was at worst the second best 'athlete' on this team last year but was far from it's second best player.

  Is this a serious post? Wow. We're discussing whether Wilt was quicker or faster than Hakeem and you want to throw all of the arguments about athleticism out the door as they are irrelevant? Priceless.

  I didn't say that there weren't any good athletes in the 60s. I said the AVERAGE player in the 90s was bigger, faster and stronger than the AVERAGE player in the 60s. Are you seriously going to debate this? I also, of course, never said that the best athletes are always the best players.

  You're scoffing at the idea that Hakeem could possibly be quicker or faster than Wilt. Based on what? Seeing them go head to head? Obviously not. If you saw either or both of them play (I have no idea of your age) then you saw Wilt play against players from his era and Hakeem play against people from his era. Wilt had a bigger athletic advantage against his opponents, but his opponents were less athletic. I don't see why that would be irrelevant.

[Jon]

Did someone on page 2 actually say that Hakeem was definitely a top 3 center all time and probably top 2 behind Russ? Come on man. Do you really think Hakeem was better then Wilt? Sure, Hakeem had a variety of excellent moves around the basket but who do you think would score more effectively there? Who is the better rebounder? The better offensive player or for that matter defensive player? I say one on one and Hakeem is lucky to get into double figures in scoring and probably would get 1/3 of his shots blocked. Wilt was way, way too much for Hakeem to handle. He was bigger (by a lot), stronger beyond compare, faster, probably quicker. My how time changes things.

Yes - Hakeem was better than Wilt...a better teammate, better passer, and better defender. And more agile.

Wilt was just BIG...Hakeem was Big, Agile, and quick - with an array of low-post moves that would put Shake and Bake out of business.

Who do you think Kobe stole "Dream Shake" from?

I'm not sure Hakeem makes my top 5 centers.  Russell, Wilt, and Jabbar are head and shoulder above Hakeem.  After that you could make a case for Hakeem, but I think you could also make a case for Shaq, George Mikan, or even Tim Duncan, who for all the times he was called a power forward, probably played more center. 

And while you can wax poetic about Hakeem having crap teams, I personally believe the mid '90s was the nadir of basketball quality.  Sure, he went to the Finals in 1994 with Otis Thorpe, Sam Cassell, Robert Horry, and Vernon Maxwell, but he also played against Patrick Ewing and the likes of John Starks, Charles Oakley, and Hubert Davis. 

I mean outside of Hakeem and Ewing, no one else on either of those teams could crack our starting rotation, and each team would be lucky if half of the rest of their starters could even crack our playoff rotation. 

I understand your rankings, but it's impossible to change my mind about Hakeem being the best All-Around Center. He was.

Wilt? Truly a Great One, but not as talented as Hakeem. Russell? The best Defensive Center.

I think your point is All Time, though, and I can understand that. To be honest, I was thinking in frameset of 90's until now.

One point I didn't want to bring up, though, because it may lessen the legacy of Russell and Wilt: There were not as many centers in the game that could compete with those two. IMO, I think the age of Centers were from 80's to 90's, and a few over the last 10 years (Yao, Dikembe, Zo, Shaq).

But again - my outlook is from my 20 year or so frame of reference.

Not to be disrespectful, but what type of analysis is "Wilt? Truly a Great One, but not as talented as Hakeem. Russell? The best Defensive Center"?

Let's get specific.  Wilt Chamberlain averaged 50.4 ppg (while pulling down over 25 rpg) in the '61-62 season.  That's absolutely absurd.  He also averaged 8.6 assists per game in the '67-68 season.  Even mentioning Hakeem's name in the same breath as Wilt is probably insulting to Wilt.  If Wilt hadn't had to contend with Russell's dynasty, he likely would've won more titles than Hakeem. 

Kareem is the all time leading scorer in NBA history and the owner of 6 rings.  I think that outstrips Hakeem.

And Russell in the winningest player in pro sports history, I think that puts him a notch above Hakeem as well. 

The notion that there weren't any great centers when Wilt and Russ played is flawed too.  Kareem was actually in the league when Wilt was still around.  And let's not do a disservice to Hall of Fame big men that played in the '60s like Willis Reed, Nate Thurmond, Dolph Schayes, Bob Petit, and Wes Unseld.