Latrell Sprewell and Allan Houston were not overrated, IMO. With a gimpy Ewing and a limited LJ, these two guys had to really carry New York. People forget that the Knicks went on that playoff run largely due to Houston, Sprewell, and Camby as Van Gundy reluctantly opened up the offense out of necessity.

Let's review. Ewing, LJ, and Kurt Thomas did the gritty defensive work and rebounding against a bigger, healthier, and younger Miami Heat in the first round of 98-99. But scoring wise this one hinged on Houston and Sprewell. And we all know it turned out that Houston hit the game-winner. In Round 2 they swept the Hawks handily with Camby really having a coming out party. Against the Pacers, Ewing and LJ were not playing for large stretches and Houston, Sprewell, and Camby ran circles around Indiana. They ran out of bullets against a San Antonio team with two hall of fame big men.

But you can't say Sprewell and Houston were overrated. They led a team with Chris Dudley as the starting center to the Finals.

Also, I understand that you don't spend much time on Camby, because Van Gundy ignored him for the most part. But the Knicks don't get to the Finals without Camby coming alive against Atlanta and Indiana. He was remarkable has a shot blocker and rebounder. He didn't have the size to bang with Duncan and Robinson, but Camby was extraordinary for a spell. And really, Van Gundy must be faulted for not utilizing him.

As you said, Pat Riley's gift was his ability to adapt his strategy to the team he had. Van Gundy could not do that. He insisted on centering the team around Patrick Ewing when he was clearly past his prime and after Sprewell and Houston were the clear team leaders. I believe it was a mistake by Van Gundy to not start speeding up the games and having Camby, Houston, and Sprewell run the floor with Childs at the point guard position. The Knicks had better open floor players than the Kings of that time who ran effectively. No one was more dangerous than Sprewell on the fast break. Houston could stop and pop a fast break three. Camby was thriving anytime the Knicks ran. Van Gundy instead continued to try and post up Ewing and LJ time and time again. That was a failure on Jeff's part.

And those early 90's Knicks? They were typically the second best team in the League. At that point they were MJ's biggest rival. No team pushed the Bulls and Jordan harder. It's a testament to Jordan that he beat those Knicks of 92 and 93. Ewing was no choker there. Losing to the greatest ever is no choke.

I know this is coming back to bite me in the ass so I'll say it now: I should have said scorer again, not offensive player. However, the whole argument has been based on the argument of scoring and whether his efficiency and less turnovers offset Olajuwon's volume. Now lets get back to our regularly scheduled program.

You damn well should consider Drexler that then seeing that Drexler had a True Shooting percentage higher than Jordan in 1996, and Shaq in 2000. In fact the whole argument is about the playoffs and while doing some research I noticed something: over the last 19 playoffs for all of the players who have won an NBA title and averaged at least 30 points (I'm going to include Kobe's 2001 because he averaged 29.4 a game), not one of them had a true Shooting Percentage as high as Drexler's. Here is the numbers (note: I'm not correcting for the pace because the shot attempts are pretty much the same)

Jordan 1992: 34.5 points per game/ 57.1 TS%
Jordan 1993: 35.1 PPG/ 55.3 TS%
Jordan 1996: 30.7 PPG/ 56.4 TS%

Shaq 2000: 30.7 PPG/ 55.6 TS%
Shaq 2001: 30.4 PPG/ 56.4%
Kobe 2001: 29.4 PPG/ 55.5%

Kobe 2009: 30.2 PPG/ 56.4%

also lets add more to the mix: D-Wade's 2006 was 28.4 and his True Shooting percentage was 59.3.

Also because of his greatness in the postseason and his higher average in the first two titles, Tim Duncan
Duncan 2003: 24.7 PPG/ 57.7%
Duncan 1999: 23.2 PPG/ 57.3%

So here is the breakdown: For all the ones that averaged at least 29 points per game not one of the max is 57.1 held by Michael Jordan. After that the rest were hovering around 55.5-56.5 percent. Then we had Duncan, who was less than thirty points, but had a higher average than Drexler, his percentage was in the 57%. There is only one player who had a higher scoring average, won a title, and had a higher TS% and that was Wade (and that was fueled by an absolutely crazy efficient final two series). But the point is this: in the playoffs when the average reaches the mid 20s, and certainly nearing 30 points, the drop in TS% is precipitous.

This is why I am so surprised that there isn't so much skepticism when it comes to Drexler's high efficiency and just because of that he'd continue to be anywhere near effective with more shots. The data we have suggests that the likelihood of that happening when you're facing the very best teams in the league in a seven (well back then the first rounds were 5) game elimination is very, very, very low. It is very difficult to maintain that kind of productivity when you're shooting that often in the playoffs. Plus ask yourself that question: do you honestly, in your mind, feel that at his age Drexler was as athletically dominant as all of those all-time greats (and if Wade's body doesn't fall apart he will certainly join those ranks)? I think that answer is a definitive no.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/blog/?p=5500

I tend to be dumb on purpose.

"Also here is another point: it doesn't matter about if he or should he been taking more shots per game, the fact is that he didn't and he definitely couldn't."

Oh really? That's why he absolutely struggled despite accounting for about 24% of his team's offense, right? Clyde certainly had more in the tank than you would care to admit.

"You're seemingly going tic-for-tac by the win share formula without exploring how it reflects in the possessions of a basketball game. To me Win Shares got this wrong..."

I don't think you're in a position to criticize something that you don't even have an understanding for, neither in its methodology nor how it was formulated. If you have a problem with it, you need to air your grievances with the methodology used in its calculation, not cherry-pick examples of your choosing that you don't happen to agree with because it doesn't put who YOU want to see at the top.

"BTW you've still ducked my question: do you think that Drexler was a better offensive player than Jordan in his last three championship runs, Shaq in the Laker dynasty era, or any of the other players I selected? Please answer that question."

You don't need to be covert in your reasons for wanting me to answer this question; I know what you're trying to do here. The answer is no.

This is the dumbest basketball related thing I've heard in quite some time.

Olajuwon was still averaging 56% for the true shooting percentage on of the 30 shots he was attempting per game. For that kind of volume that is a fantastic number. That's the equivalent of Jordan's last four championship runs and Shaq's 2000 playoffs. Having him take that many shots, no matter how more efficient than Drexler was in far fewer shots, was still the most important factor in the Rockets' repeating. To say that his less efficiency didn't justify his high possession rate is pure nonsense.

Also, I'll say it again, the difference between in points scored if Olajuwon's TS% was used for the volume of shots Drexler shot was only 1 point. That is small. And guess what? Drexler's points per game that he scored was only slightly better than what he was averaging in the playoffs and regular season for the previous three seasons. To me he was playing exactly at his limits when it came to his maximum offensive potential.

Also here is another point: it doesn't matter about if he or should he been taking more shots per game, the fact is that he didn't and he definitely couldn't. He was 32 at the time and was slightly past his athletic prime. At that point in his career Olajuwon was definitely superior at creating his own shot with regularity. Would you like to argue this point Anon? If a player has a significantly higher load of the offense then that is indication to me that they're talent for creating their own shot is probably better. I'm not going to give somebody more credit for a slightly higher efficiency in shooting if the other player is taking on a much bigger piece of the scoring responsibility.

You're seemingly going tic-for-tac by the win share formula without exploring how it reflects in the possessions of a basketball game. To me Win Shares got this wrong: by virtue of his still high efficiency and his volume Olajuwon was the more important cog of the Rocket's offensive engine. It is reflected by the 12 extra points a game and I am shocked that you're not seeing the obvious.

BTW you've still ducked my question: do you think that Drexler was a better offensive player than Jordan in his last three championship runs, Shaq in the Laker dynasty era, or any of the other players I selected? Please answer that question.

Understood, and there's nothing wrong with disagreeing with someone. But if people disagree they need to present sound evidence.

And actually, Dean was the one who emphasized the statistical importance of shot-creation and why it is important in basketball in his book. Winning games surely has to do alot more than shooting high %s from the field, which is why for all of the flak that the Kobes, Iversons, etc. get sometimes from the media for shooting too much during games, fans need to understand that by doing so they help open up opportunities for others by attempting the shots that their teammates wouldn't otherwise make, which gives them value over players that shoot high %s but don't do alot in the offense in the first place. However, the key is figuring out how how much you increase your team's chances of winning with the shots you create (even if you miss them) until you start shooting too much and you're not getting significant returns for the extra shots you attempt. Hakeem was certainly helping his team by virtue of taking on alot of the Rockets offense, but for all the additional shots he was taking, he wasn't making enough of them to justify his (high) possession rate. Perhaps Drexler wouldn't have been the shot-creator the Hakeem was, but with what he was already doing in his role he could've increased his usage without taking a huge hit in his already high efficiency.

A perfect example of this phenomenon in games I've watched this season is with the Lakers. With Kobe's injuries this season, the other go-to guy on the team in Pau Gasol took on more of the Lakers offense to compensate for their first option being out. He has been sterling in this regard, and has had multiple games where he has remained pretty efficient while creating more shots than usual.

Dean Oliver created most of our community and our understanding of the possession by possession importance of the game was crucial. Yet, just like people didn't always agree with Bill James, I don't always agree with his importance of efficiency for an individual player.

In a game with a 24 second shot clock and 90 to 100 possessions per game, a quality shot must be attempted. Its the one thing that drives us nuts because our statistical "on-base percentage" for judging scorers is a subjective skill and not a record of absolute fact: usage percentage. The efficiency is the "slugging percentage." Like I said before the difference between Olajuwon, if he took the quantity of shots of Drexler the difference is only a free throw. Yet, I hate to sound like a broken record here, there was still those extra possessions that somebody needed to take those shots and Drexler, at his age and not having the athletic ability of Olajuwon, couldn't be relied upon to carry more of the load. Those 12 shots per game would represent 36 points but realistically, 0 to 16 points. Correct me if I'm wrong but the Rockets' games were mostly decided by less than 10 points per game so if Olajuwon would have been ineffective with those extra shots there is absolutely no way that the Rockets could have won the title. Olajuwon was maintaining a very high efficiency with those possessions and thus accounted for 12.5 points more per game. That's more than enough to convince me that he was more valuable to the Rockets' offensive success than Drexler was. Personally I don't think its even close.

Not a problem at all; there was no offense taken in the first place. But you're still assuming that I'm calculating efficiency and possessions used in a similar manner that you're doing in your posts. Your comments on Hakeem (and the game in general) are all valid and deserve consideration. However, someone has already done that for you in detail -- see "Basketball on Paper".

I have a ton of respect for Robinson at his absolute peak in the regular season (which are three of the best seasons ever). He gets underrated in that department. I have come to the point that I have no problem with people ranking him based on those accomplishments alone. But I still do penalize him for two things: the deep offensive drop in the playoffs and the drop in overall production because of the reduced minutes he played after he came back from his leg injury. Because I think that the playoffs are more important game I give them more value than regular season games (the only reason for the existence of the regular season is seeding for the playoffs). Plus, for whatever reason, there are players who drop off alot in the playoffs (Karl Malone, Kobe Bryant, and for all of his clutch reputation in the playoffs, Larry Bird) so there is some justification of a player not doing better against the best talent available. Those are the reasons I rank Robinson behind not only Olajuwon, but Tim Duncan, Shaq, Kareem, Jordan, and Magic to name a few.

a) the team's overall offensive efficiency is mostly determined by the player who shoots the most shots. There is no getting around it and that is something I've always complimented Hollinger credit for recognizing (even though some have criticized him for overvaluating volume shooter. No matter how the way you look at it The Dream was attempting a dozen more shots a game, and it REALISTICALLY would account for 10 points a game more to the Rockets' points scored. That is a huge difference. Second you're missing another point: how come Olajuwon took more shots per game than Drexler?

b) Because Drexler couldn't carry as much of the offensive load at his age than Olajuwon. Somebody had to take those shots in those possessions and Drexler couldn't make and create the variety of shots Olajuwon could at that age. His role was significantly less limited because he couldn't do as much.

This is what people need to consider. Drexler's efficiency was better, he averaged slightly more assists and once we adjust for the assists, his turnover rate was lower than Olajuwon's in the second Rockets' title run. But those advantages, no matter how you look at it Anon, in the course of a possession by possession in a 48 minute basketball contest is small. What is not small is the dozen more shot attempts Olajuwon was taking per game and thus the higher correlation to the Rocket's shooting percentage.