A.I. and Webber to reduce salaries

[Joe Vancil]

I guess Fanhome posters are mistaking beating players up as great defense.

My thoughts exactly.

The Bad Boys had Mahorn the first time around and Dumars who were great defenders, as well as Rodman and Salley off the bench as great and good defenders, respectively.  But Laimbeer and Thomas were awful, and Aguirre wasn't good.  The Bad Boys were good defenders based on BRUTALITY - of all the players up there, only Dumars and Aguirre were reasonbly clean defenders.

The Bad Boys were better OFFENSIVELY.  They might have been a better team, and just due to the offense, I'd pick the '89 Bad Boys over the '04 Pistons.  But I can't seriously argue that the Bad Boys were better defensively.
 

[Guest_Randy]

The Bad Boys had Mahorn the first time around and Dumars who were great defenders

Now, who is mistaking beating players up as great defense.  Mahorn was a VERY dirty player -- a decent defender but his dirty play made more stops than his defensive abilities!!!  Laimbeer fits in the dirty defender category but he didn't have any defensive abilities outside of that!  The Spyder and the Worm were BOTH excellent defenders -- Dumars also fits in that frame.  Who played SF for these teams.  Vinnie Johnson was a decent defender -- I'd call Isaiah a decent defender too but Aguire was a horrible defender.

I wonder just how good Detroit will be next year when they don't have Larry Brown to coach them defensively?

[rickortreat]

In the old days the broadcasters used to keep track of intimidations.  The player wouldn't even try to take the shot for fear of it being blocked.

Wilt was the most intimidating player of his day.  Yes, there were fewer big centers in the league at that time, but there were some really big strong players that Wilt had to go up against.

As for the different era's take a look at the size of the 76'ers front line in the 66-67 year.  Wilt 7-1, Chet Walker 6-10 Luke Jackson 6-10, 240.  These were really big guys.  If we had a time machine, you could see Wilt banging with Ben Wallace and Rasheed trying to keep Luke Jackson off the blocks.  But the pace of the game was much faster then, a team like the Pistons couldn't keep up with those teams or control the tempo because they couldn't have outrebounded the better teams of those days.

As far as defense goes, if they're better today why do they now allow gimmicky zone defenses.  That used to be illegal, it was bush league stuff reserved for College kids without the skills to be in the NBA. It's how Larry Brown finally managed to win in the NBA they let him play the defense he allways wanted.

 

[Joe Vancil]

Actually, Mahorn was a top-notch defender ALWAYS.  I learned more about post defense from watching Rick Mahorn and Alton Lister than I learned from watching any other players.

Mahorn was dirty and brutal, but also smart, and had amazingly good technique for position and defensive footwork, as well as being a good shot-blocker (for those times when he decided to block the opponent rather than decapitate them).  I always wanted to see how he would have done against Shaq in the post in Mahorn's hey-day.

There's no doubt Mahorn had some dirt to his game, but outside of the decapitation blocks and the arm-bar, he was actually more PHYSICAL than DIRTY.  Of course, the decapitation blocks were very showy and impossible to overlook, thereby cementing Mahorn's reputation as being primarily dirty.

[WayOutWest]

So many posts so little time....

The only guy who could block Kareems sky hook was Wilt.  I saw him do it twice AFTER Kareem released the shot.  Still, Kareem scored on Wilt at will because there has never been anyone big enough to hinder Kareem on the sky hook.  The Utah center came close...his name slips my mind right now, he did bother Kareem but most of that was position.  Mark Eaton...that's the guys name.

There is no force now or EVER that could stop Shaq.  Plain and simple.  

Heartless may not be the correct term for Wilt, it's more like killer instinct that Wilt lacked.  Russell had it, so did Magic, MJ and Bird.

Don't know what you're talking about Randy, Mahorn and Lambier were some of the best position defenders in the league.  They were both great at defending the post.  Both guys had trouble with the more mobile players of the day or big men who could take them outside, ala Barkley, Worthy, Sikma etc...

[Reality]

So many posts so little time....

The only guy who could block Kareems sky hook was Wilt.  I saw him do it twice AFTER Kareem released the shot.  Still, Kareem scored on Wilt at will because there has never been anyone big enough to hinder Kareem on the sky hook.  The Utah center came close...his name slips my mind right now, he did bother Kareem but most of that was position.  Mark Eaton...that's the guys name.

There is no force now or EVER that could stop Shaq.  Plain and simple. 

Heartless may not be the correct term for Wilt, it's more like killer instinct that Wilt lacked.  Russell had it, so did Magic, MJ and Bird.

Don't know what you're talking about Randy, Mahorn and Lambier were some of the best position defenders in the league.  They were both great at defending the post.  Both guys had trouble with the more mobile players of the day or big men who could take them outside, ala Barkley, Worthy, Sikma etc...

Russell clearly had better talent around him then Wilt.

Bullstink that Wilt couldn't finish.

Unstoppable force Shaq. :rofl:   That's out of Star Wars.  Now I've got a visual of Yoda tossing Shaq to the floor and dissecting him like peperoni.

[ziggy]

Kareem had his unstoppable Sky-hook. Olajuwan had the dream shake. O'Neil has moves, but how many times did he have to execute against a player of comparable size and strength? Wilt had so many moves, there was no one signature one that defined him.

How many times did O'Neal have to execute against a player of comparable size and strength?  PLEASE!!!  Let's start the list (over the course of Shaq's career):  Hakeem, DRob, Ewing, Zo, BMiller, Ostertag, Ilgauskas, Ming (taller than Shaq), Oliver Miller, Nesterovic, Duncan, Polynice, Bradley (also taller than Shaq) -- I COULD go on, couldn't I?  The league has a TON of 7 footers today! I didn't say that all of these players were good -- simply answering your question -- how many times has O'Neal had to execute against a player of comparable size and/or strength?

Now, let's start the list on Wilt -- when was it that he had to execute against a player of comparable size and strength?  It wasn't until VERY late in his career!  There were a few 6'10"/6'11" guys that came into the league a couple of years after Wilt did -- but that was after Wilt had already set his records, wasn't it?
Again, even those teams that had a 6'10" or 6'11" guy -- what was the rest of the roster like?  SA has two starting 7'0" players -- Wilt NEVER played against ANYTHING like that, did he?

Go back and check roster size because Wilt didn't play against ANYONE remotely of comparable size and strength until Kareem came into the league very late in Wilt's career.  Also, remember that Wilt came into the league after playing pretty much professional ball with the globetrotters -- he was ready for the NBA and he set his records at that point before the league had any other big men.

Shaq is as strong or stronger than all of these players, and taller than most but Yao, Illguaskis, Sabonis, Bradley.

Wilt played against Willis Reed, Bill Russell, Nate Thurmond, Zelmo Beatty, Kareem, Bob Lanier, Walt Bellamy, Wes Unseld, Dave Cowens, Elvin Hayes.  Every one of those was a hall of famer.

Wilt played most of his career in an era with an average of about 14 teams (from 9 to 17), Shaq in an era of about 28 teams.  Shaq played many fewer games against the best centers, more against Bradley, and Polynice.
82 games divided by 13 other opponents = 6.3 games per opponent
82 games divided by 27 other opponents = 3 games per opponent
 

[Joe Vancil]

WayOutWest,

I also saw Artis Gilmore block the sky-hook.  He always did reasonably well against Abdul-Jabbar.

 

[westkoast]

As far as defense goes, if they're better today why do they now allow gimmicky zone defenses.  That used to be illegal, it was bush league stuff reserved for College kids without the skills to be in the NBA. It's how Larry Brown finally managed to win in the NBA they let him play the defense he allways wanted.

Two reasons:

1) Shaq

2) They want to see higher scoring.  The crappy zone defense allows for certain players to go off on a tear.  Notably the permieter stars like T-mac, Kobe, AI, Wade, Carter, etc etc.

I didnt say the defense was better in the league.  What I said is that they have a harder time now than before.  No hand checks and ticky tack perimeter fouls are two major disadvantages.   You can barely breathe on a guy on the perimeter without getting a foul unless your Bruce Bowen or a star player.   Slamming players on the ground till they get weak is also not acceptable anymore.

[JoMal]

I don't think there can be any argument that the most dominating shot ever in the NBA was Jabber's sky hook. He hit it from both sides of the floor and if anybody ever got a finger on it, chances are they got callled for goal tending.

No question also that Shaq "should" be listed as the most dominant center ever, and that he won't has more to do with his own damned self then the so-called centers he has played against his entire career.

For that reason, I still would go with Chamberlain as the most dominant center ever. He did have competition and let's face it, they played a more brutal type of basketball in his day. He had trouble with quicker guys like Russell, but on shear dominance in the middle, if Wilt wanted it, he got it. Same with Shaq, but it sure looks to me he doesn't seem to want it as often as Wilt did.

[Joe Vancil]

westkoast,

Two reasons:

1) Shaq

2) They want to see higher scoring. The crappy zone defense allows for certain players to go off on a tear. Notably the permieter stars like T-mac, Kobe, AI, Wade, Carter, etc etc.

Actually, reason 1 isn't just Shaq.  It's the isolation offense that pretty much every team in the league started running.  They tried putting in rules like the back-down rule (the Barkley rule), but that didn't work.  They tried making strong-side zone legal, which caused a big fury when teams playing match-up zones (Portland, specifically) were causing fits due to coaches on the sideline screaming that it was a zone...and being right...but it still being allowed within the rules of "illegal defense."

The result was to further simplify the rules, and return to the early 80's version of illegal defense:  the 3-second defensive lane for a player who isn't within arm's length of an opponent.

As for reason 2, you're correct in that it was higher scoring they wanted.  However, it wasn't just for perimeter players, because if it was, by-the-book zone would be allowed, and it isn't.  The lane is still an area that can't be too congested - the NBA still wants to see spectacular dunks in the lane.  That doesn't happen if a big center is allowed to camp out down there while not guarding a man.  

As for Shaq, I've always argued that the zone rules will make him *MORE* effective...not less.  O'Neal is a gifted passer, and is easily capable of throwing the weakside pass.  The difference between doubling him from the strong side and doubling him from the weak side is negligible - O'Neal is going to find the open man.  And the 3-second defensive lane prevents the weakside help defender  from cheating off his man - he's now forced to come all the way over - which means that he's generally NOT going to be there to help on Shaq.  "Closely guarded" was cut in half by the new rules - from 6 feet to within arm's length.