Supreme365
Superstar
This is why thecoli.com got the world's dumbest nikkas. In what world is Terry Porter anywhere near Lowry?
Porter would’ve worked Lowry
This is why thecoli.com got the world's dumbest nikkas. In what world is Terry Porter anywhere near Lowry?
KOBE TOO SKILLED
LEBRON IS THE PLAYER WHO WOULD SUFFER MOST FROM HAND CHECKING
Porter would’ve worked Lowry

Ninjas on here overrate zone defense way more than hand checkingGoddamn y’all overrate hand checking so much on this forum. In y’all minds David Windgate would be a 25 ppg player today because he played in the insanely difficult hand check era.
The truth is.... the same players that are dominating today would be dominating back then. Just like nobody can check KD now, nobody back then can check KD.
This is defense in 1992. Full-on handchecking allowed, a deciding game in the Finals. THIS is what ya'all are telling me is supposed to scare LeBron and Curry:
Where's all the deadly hand-checking? They giving the weakest calls to the Bulls left and right.
I'm sorry, but a team that played defense that weak today wouldn't go anywhere in the playoffs.![]()
I know it changed the game but I never realized those two things coincided with the revision of the rule in 04-05.
Got me thinking should we even be comparing players between the two eras
Blazers only made 10 threes in 6 games combined, and they only shot 19% from three. Saying I can't use that as a data point is just dumb. The Celtics had better three-point shooters, full stop.You can not compare three point volume it’s a different era fool. And why’d you use EFG which nobody uses and not TS. Your another Gil Scott only use numbers when it benefits you.
Buck's shooting % was meaningless because he made nothing other than putbacks and dunks, they didn't run plays for him and he had no offensive game in the post (only 7ppg against the Bulls). It wasn't like Buck was a pick-and-roll threat or beating guys in the post, they ran literally no plays for him. And as you point out, neither Cliff nor Duckworth had low post game either. And neither was hitting threes either. Which demonstrates what I'm saying about the Blazer offense - it's silly to call it an elite offense when none of your 4/5 can score in the low post OR hit threes and none of your perimeter players are hitting threes either.They finished 7th in offensive rating 111.4 ppg and had a point differential of 7 while the Celtics with Kyrie for 60 games had an offensive rating of 18th at 107 ppg that’s like the distance between the best offense and the 15th. Buck Williams was a 4 and shot 65% TS. Cliff Robinson wasn’t a post big he was a space big. Duckworth was your average plotter who was needed at the time to guard all the other good centers. They didn’t have a great half court offense, but they scored well.
Blazers only made 10 threes in 6 games combined, and they only shot 19% from three. Saying I can't use that as a data point is just dumb. The Celtics had better three-point shooters, full stop.
eFG% is the most accurate measure of how efficient a player is at shooting the ball. TS% includes free throws, which aren't shot in the course of the offense and vary too much depending on how officials call the game. In eras where officials call more fouls, TS% gets inflated and doesn't tell you whether they were actually making shots or just getting to the line.
Buck's shooting % was meaningless because he made nothing other than putbacks and dunks, they didn't run plays for him and he had no offensive game in the post (only 7ppg against the Bulls). It wasn't like Buck was a pick-and-roll threat or beating guys in the post, they ran literally no plays for him. And as you point out, neither Cliff nor Duckworth had low post game either. And neither was hitting threes either. Which demonstrates what I'm saying about the Blazer offense - it's silly to call it an elite offense when none of your 4/5 can score in the low post OR hit threes and none of your perimeter players are hitting threes either.
To compare offensive rating and ppg for the regular season is just dumb as regular season scoring in the 1980s and early 1990s was inflated by tons of fast breaks and defenses that didn't even try to dial down until the 4th quarter. Even Charlotte averaged 110ppg that same year with a legitimately bad team that started Muggsy Bogues, 2nd-year Kendall Gill, Johnny Newman, rookie Larry Johnson, and Kenny Gattison....a lineup that made 0.4 threes a game and still rolled up points just running up and down the floor.
So a team had a 5'3" point guard in an era where hand-checking was totally legal, not a single 3pt shooter in the starting lineup, no great scorers....and still averaged 110 points a game? THAT is why it would be dumb to compared offensive rating across eras with no context.
But they had a great offense. This isn't football. Defense alone can not win NBA games.The Cavs made the finals the last 2 years being a bad defensive team
And so did the 93 suns. I was directly talking about the point that bad defensive teams can win in today’s NBABut they had a great offense. This isn't football. Defense alone can not win NBA games.
They can if they have more fire power than the next team. At the moment none of them do, so no they can't winAnd so did the 93 suns. I was directly talking about the point that bad defensive teams can win in today’s NBA
Why do you stan Bron so hard


We saw Kobe in this era his last days pre achillies and was averaging 40 pts a gamekobe in this era with a green light today![]()
40 every night.![]()
that year also coincided with Shaq leaving so he can take more shots![]()