Hakeem or Robinson

[IronMexican]

Who was the better player. Not who had the better team.

[BlackSwordsMan]

shaq

[Brutalis]

Easy.

[I Love Me Some Me]

Anyone who votes for Dave is a blind homer.

[Indazone]

Welcome to the 1,298,472 poll on who is better between Dream and D-Rob. I shall abstain from voting in protest to this poll.

[Many PackYao]

Welcome to the 1,298,472 poll on who is better between Dream and D-Rob. I shall abstain from voting in protest to this poll.
Yeah, even as a lurker I remember how ugly these polls involving Hakeem vs Robinson or Duncan would get.:nope

[JamStone]

I think it's clearly Hakeem.

The Hakeem v. Duncan discussion is a little more compelling as each has great arguments for being better..

[duncan228]

The Hakeem v. Duncan discussion is a little more compelling as each has great arguments for being better..

It's always a great conversation. Here's a couple. I'm sure there are others, it's a topic that seems to come up regularly.

The mother of Duncan/Hakeem threads, weighs in at 38 pages.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76149

And a shorter one, just 5 pages.

http://spurstalk.com/forums/showthread.php?t=97461

[xtremesteven33]

Based on individual talent and skills....honestly id chose Hakeem.


in fact its not really close....Duncan or Hakeem is the TRUE arguement.

[SenorSpur]

I absolutely love D-Rob. He was my favorite Spur and an absolute superstar. However, for this execise, my basketball conscious would never allow me to pick him over Hakeem. Gotta be the Dream. Absolutely the most skilled big man ever to play the game.

[lefty]

Olajuwon

[benefactor]

Dream had the skill set of a center that only comes around once or twice in a lifetime. His prime years could be put up against the greatest big men in history. No contest here.

[sook]

keem'

[DROB4EVER]

Keem couldnt carry Daves Jock! Dave is the type of Center that will likely never be seen agian. 7-1 250 who ran the floor like a SF could play away from the basket which Keem could not and was the better man defender and passer.

The fact he didnt beat his chest everytime he blocked MJ or stole the ball and went coast to coast or finished a game with 72pts or when he became just the fourth player in history to record a quandrupel double in pts block rebound and assts....people write him off.

[Many PackYao]

Keem couldnt carry Daves Jock! Dave is the type of Center that will likely never be seen agian. 7-1 250 who ran the floor like a SF could play away from the basket which Keem could not and was the better man defender and passer.

The fact he didnt beat his chest everytime he blocked MJ or stole the ball and went coast to coast or finished a game with 72pts or when he became just the fourth player in history to record a quandrupel double in pts block rebound and assts....people write him off.

Well Olajuwon is the ONLY player in NBA history to win NBA MVP/DOY/Finals MVP all in the same year and in the postseason where it really matters.:bang

[Sissiborgo]

Robinson Faster,Quicker,More agility,and a better player....:toast

[DPG21920]

It is not as easy as some people say, but I have to go with the dream. I can understand arguments in favor of D-Rob.

[Many PackYao]

Robinson Faster,Quicker,More agility,and a better player....:toast
No offense but, judging by where you live, I doubt you saw a whole lot of the Rockets/Spurs games.

[IronMexican]

No offense but, judging by where you live, I doubt you saw a whole lot of the Rockets/Spurs games.

Are you TmacYaoKobe from OTR?

[Dex]

Homer vote, kthxbye

[Many PackYao]

Are you TmacYaoKobe from OTR?
Nope, I post at cfans.net as ToyYodaSender.:lol

[DPG21920]

If you read the other thread about D-Rob (most productive center) he is statistically better than the dream. That does not take into account a lot of factors but does give a nice basis for comparison.

[Many PackYao]

If you read the other thread about D-Rob (most productive center) he is statistically better than the dream. That does not take into account a lot of factors but does give a nice basis for comparison.
Well, yeah and according to the way it was analyzed he owned all other centers of his era.Which, I and the other team's fans don't agree with.

[Allanon]

In his prime, Dream was Jordanesque/ 2000 Shaq-like dominant on both ends of the court, I cannot honestly say DRob was ever dominant.

Dream vs Duncan is definitely the better argument. Dream had an even bigger skillset than Duncan but Tim has been superstar solid throughout his entire career, not many big men can say that.

[DPG21920]

Well, yeah and according to the way it was analyzed he owned all other centers of his era.Which, I and the other team's fans don't agree with.

The numbers don't lie. You can not agree he was better, but the numbers say he was. It is not about one-on-one match ups. Everyone has a player that they do not match up well with, does that make that player better? No. You have to take into account everything (stats, trophies, awards, records,...). One on one the Dream used Rob, but overall Rob did more statistical damage.

[Many PackYao]

but overall Rob did more statistical damage
I agree if by that you mean that he got more wins against Hakeem in the regular season which he most certainly did.

[DPG21920]

I agree if by that you mean that he got more wins against Hakeem in the regular season which he most certainly did.

I am referring to the other article.

[DPG21920]

I voted for Dream by the way.

[baseline bum]

The only negative you could ever attach to Olajuwon is that he became selfish the last few years of his career. Watching him and Barkley take turns fighting for the ball while Pippen stood at the three-point line with his thumb up his ass wasn't a pretty sight. Still, in his prime he was everything anyone could ask for his center to be, and he was a superstar at both ends of the floor.

[mavs>spurs2]

Probably wasn't a good move by the FO to sign 3 guys who were each probably top 25 of all time but also way past their primes. Too much ego to go with deteriorating skill

[Many PackYao]

Watching him and Barkley take turns fighting for the ball while Pippen stood at the three-point line with his thumb up his ass wasn't a pretty sight.I definitely remember this, it's a painful memory as a Rockets fan, but yet funny because of they way you described it.:rollin

[Obstructed_View]

The only negative you could ever attach to Olajuwon is that he became selfish the last few years of his career. Watching him and Barkley take turns fighting for the ball while Pippen stood at the three-point line with his thumb up his ass wasn't a pretty sight. Still, in his prime he was everything anyone could ask for his center to be, and he was a superstar at both ends of the floor.

I'd respectfully counter that watching Hakeem be unselfish for a couple of years in the middle of his career was a beautiful thing to watch, and cemented his legacy. Now there's an argument to be made that his incredible play was because he thought that he wasn't getting the respect he thought he deserved. What's funny is that if he'd just given that kind of effort to that point, he probably would have.

That said, I wasn't a huge fan of David at the beginning of his career because I didn't think he gave much effort.

And, I'm basically sick of these arguments, but it's the offseason so I went with the homer vote.

[sook]

The only negative you could ever attach to Olajuwon is that he became selfish the last few years of his career. Watching him and Barkley take turns fighting for the ball while Pippen stood at the three-point line with his thumb up his ass wasn't a pretty sight. Still, in his prime he was everything anyone could ask for his center to be, and he was a superstar at both ends of the floor.

LOL I saved that post! :lol:lol:lol:lol

[ducks]

david
and it is not even close
the dream had one really great year
that is was it

[Bobsyeruncle]

david
and it is not even close
the dream had one really great year
that is was it
Are you high? Hakeem was great throughout his career, except for tailng off his last 2 years. You couldn't be that much of a homer, could you?:rolleyes

[MrChug]

Robinson did more for his city/team and as a moral compass of where his team would go than "AKEEM" did. (people didn't even know his real name for years) With that said, he set the groundwork for the 4 championships we would ultimately achieve. It's no crime to call DRob the GOD of the Spurs run.

I think that Tim just did an amazing job at keeping this standard 'par for the course'. Hakeem had amazing teams but could have NEVER done for his city what 5-0 did for his. In FACT, he has done less than Brent Barry has done in

[IronMexican]

Are you high? Hakeem was great throughout his career, except for tailng off his last 2 years. You couldn't be that much of a homer, could you?:rolleyes

He isn't a homer. According to him Tony Parker > LeBron James.

[mavs>spurs2]

Robinson did more for his city/team and as a moral compass of where his team would go than "AKEEM" did. (people didn't even know his real name for years) With that said, he set the groundwork for the 4 championships we would ultimately achieve. It's no crime to call DRob the GOD of the Spurs run.

I think that Tim just did an amazing job at keeping this standard 'par for the course'. Hakeem had amazing teams but could have NEVER done for his city what 5-0 did for his. In FACT, he has done less than Brent Barry has done in

we're talking about who was the better individual player, not who knew who's name and what they did for their city or any other shit you're talking about doofus.

Hakeem > Shaq > Duncan >Robinson as far as the past 20 years go

[Flight3107]

The Dream BY FAR

[wijayas]

Without a doubt: D-Rob!

[Amarelooms]

What retards voted for Robinson....stupid homers

[Slippy]

The only negative you could ever attach to Olajuwon is that he became selfish the last few years of his career. Watching him and Barkley take turns fighting for the ball while Pippen stood at the three-point line with his thumb up his ass wasn't a pretty sight. Still, in his prime he was everything anyone could ask for his center to be, and he was a superstar at both ends of the floor.


There is another negative . In 91-92 he was accused of faking injury by his own team. That same year they missed the play-offs for the first time in his career. IF Hakeem gets bonus points for out-playing DROB in one round of play-offs it's only fair we highlight the season he was a bum.

[ambchang]

See, the problem I have with comparing Hakeem and Robinson is that most non-spurs fans would say that whoever voted for Robinson is a homer/dumbass/retards, and that is all based on one single playoff series where Hakeem had a perfect complimentary supporting cast around him that does not allow hard double-teams on him, while Robinson had a bunch of perimeter players who can't score from the perimeter and a PF who quits on his team.

In that series, there was no need to guard Avery Johnson (check his FGA, he was left wide open for shots) and Rodman. Del Negro sucked and always has, and Elliott choked a couple of times. Then the Rockets had Smith, Drexler, Horry, Cassell and Elie bombing the hell out of anyone who dare leave them open.

Robinson had Doc Rivers coming off the bench, Hakeem had Cassell. See the difference?

Granted, Robinson never developed deadly low-post moves in his career, and relied maining on his drive and dunk and jumpshots, he was one of the best centers that ever played in the NBA and is undoubtedly on the same level as Hakeem.

[mrose31]

This is about same as comparing Garnett to Duncan. Garnett is much more athletic than Duncan but Duncan is by far the better player. Robinson was much more athletic than Hakeem but Hakeem was better player.

[Trainwreck2100]

whottt's gonna come here and kick your asses

[JamStone]

The numbers don't lie. You can not agree he was better, but the numbers say he was. It is not about one-on-one match ups. Everyone has a player that they do not match up well with, does that make that player better? No. You have to take into account everything (stats, trophies, awards, records,...). One on one the Dream used Rob, but overall Rob did more statistical damage.

Statistically, Stephon Marbury is one of the greatest point guards to ever play the game.

[bus driver]

What retards voted for Robinson....stupid homers

fcuk dallas and houston
i voted for robinson.

Hello my name is Bus Driver and I am a homer!
:flag::lobt2::flag:

[ambchang]

Statistically, Stephon Marbury is one of the greatest point guards to ever play the game.

I agree with you that stats did not tell the whole story. The problem is, however, people are basing the complete Hakeem vs. Robinson debate on one single playoff series, which makes Hakeem looks much better than he really was, and Robinson much worse than he really was.

If you look at the whole body of work, how Robinson kept the Spurs in contention year after year despite a subpar supporting cast, and how they fared face-to-face in the regular season when teams do not have as much time exploiting their opponent's weakness (and the Spurs had plenty, with the most glaring one as nobody can nail a shot from the perimeter), Robinson is actually much better than people make him out to be.

[xtremesteven33]

I agree with you that stats did not tell the whole story. The problem is, however, people are basing the complete Hakeem vs. Robinson debate on one single playoff series, which makes Hakeem looks much better than he really was, and Robinson much worse than he really was.

If you look at the whole body of work, how Robinson kept the Spurs in contention year after year despite a subpar supporting cast, and how they fared face-to-face in the regular season when teams do not have as much time exploiting their opponent's weakness (and the Spurs had plenty, with the most glaring one as nobody can nail a shot from the perimeter), Robinson is actually much better than people make him out to be.




Agreed, to a certain point. i honestly think anyone basketball fan who knows the game would chose Hakeem over David anyday. I LOVE my man 5-0 but in this case i would have to pick Hakeem. He had better post moves, better defense, better passing abilities and had more intensity than Robinson.

Overall if i had to rate both of them i would give Olajuwon a 8.5 out of 10 and Robinson a 7 out of 10.

[DPG21920]

Statistically, Stephon Marbury is one of the greatest point guards to ever play the game.

That could be the worst point ever...

[Obstructed_View]

This is about same as comparing Garnett to Duncan. Garnett is much more athletic than Duncan but Duncan is by far the better player. Robinson was much more athletic than Hakeem but Hakeem was better player.

Um, no.

[century]

I admire the objectivity demonstrated by numerous Spurs fans. Similarly, I'm not surprised by the utter stupidity of the Mavs pansies.

Hakeem was perhaps more talented and Robinson was soft with his jesus-mentality but...I'm still picking Robinson for not being a primadonna like Hakeem was at times. Basketball is a team sport, after all.

[IronMexican]

All these Spur fans voting Robinson have no right to call out stupid Laker fans picking Kobe over Jordan.

[DPG21920]

All these Spur fans voting Robinson have no right to call out stupid Laker fans picking Kobe over Jordan.

Robinson's numbers compare with the Dream. Kobes, not even close to MJ.

[century]

All these Spur fans voting Robinson have no right to call out stupid Laker fans

Are there some other kind as well???

[Obstructed_View]

All these Spur fans voting Robinson have no right to call out stupid Laker fans picking Kobe over Jordan.

You obviously didn't witness them playing head to head and just repeat what every average idiot does all because of a single playoff series.

[Sissiborgo]

No offense but, judging by where you live, I doubt you saw a whole lot of the Rockets/Spurs games.

Actually yeah i got a house down in Merritt island FL so i watch allot of games there and i got the league pass and i got nba tv in Iceland and they are always showing some old games so yeah i know pretty much about the nba....:toast

[honestfool84]

All these Spur fans voting Robinson have no right to call out stupid Laker fans picking Kobe over Jordan.



jordan = six finals mvps
kobe = N/A

regular season?
jordan = five regular season mvps
kobe = one

pah.
how can any compare them?

[sook]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hW4uXlRGAF0


there should be no argument about this, for robinson himself to say he didn't know how to say that he guarded hakeem well with a straight face spoke volumes.


homeristic pole tho :P

[Many PackYao]

Actually yeah i got a house down in Merritt island FL so i watch allot of games there and i got the league pass and i got nba tv in Iceland and they are always showing some old games so yeah i know pretty much about the nba....:toastSo how long have you been watching the NBA from Iceland?When was it available?

[IronMexican]

jordan = six finals mvps
kobe = N/A

regular season?
jordan = five regular season mvps
kobe = one

pah.
how can any compare them?

exactly, they aren't comparable. Just like Hakeem and Robinson aren't comparable. Hakeem was clearly better.

[Lakers2009champs]

I'm going with the DREAM.

[remingtonbo2001]

exactly, they aren't comparable. Just like Hakeem and Robinson aren't comparable. Hakeem was clearly better.

Let's be real.

The difference in talent/skill/success between David and Hakeem isn't as significant as the gap between Kobe and Jordan.

[ambchang]

You obviously didn't witness them playing head to head and just repeat what every average idiot does all because of a single playoff series.

+1

I would actually like people to state the reason they voted the way they did, and how many games they actually watched.

[Sissiborgo]

So how long have you been watching the NBA from Iceland?When was it available?

it has been sense 2005 but when that was not there then i watched it with my brother and btw i am 15 so...But yeah i watch every spurs game...:toast

[alamo50]

Um, no.

Say what?

[Many PackYao]

it has been sense 2005 but when that was not there then i watched it with my brother and btw i am 15 so...But yeah i watch every spurs game...:toast
I was 15 when I saw that '95 series between the Spurs/Rockets.:lol

[Blake]

fasting contest? Hakeem hands down

mathematics competiton? DRob can run circle around the best of them. I think MathTeam USA missed out by not inviting him.

the better stander at attention during nationonal anthem? I'm not sure there has been anyone else in the history of the NBA that stands straighter and more erect than DRob.

better TV ads? DRob's MR Robinson's neighborhood as well as the shaving ads with Timmy get the nod here.

better twin towers? DRob and Tim over Hakeem and Sampson. They actually won titles together.

by my calculations, the Admiral is laying waste to Hakeem

[Many PackYao]

by my calculations, the Admiral is laying waste to HakeemToo bad for Spurs fans that wasn't the case during the series.:p:

[bigfan]

Im trying to remember Akeems 71 point games.... I remember once attending a game, I had great seats down by the basket and it was Akeems first game in SA. I clearly remember Artis Gilmore schooling (knocking the crap out him) under the hoop. Those were some big guys!

[IronMexican]

Im trying to remember Akeems 71 point games.... I remember once attending a game, I had great seats down by the basket and it was Akeems first game in SA. I clearly remember Artis Gilmore schooling (knocking the crap out him) under the hoop. Those were some big guys!

Well that proves it. Gilmore > Hakeem.


:rolleyes

You guys talk shit about Kobe scoring 81 and Laker fans using it as their argument against MJ, but wanna use that for D-Rob:rolleyes

[JamStone]

Let's be real.

The difference in talent/skill/success between David and Hakeem isn't as significant as the gap between Kobe and Jordan.

But why is this written in stone for Spurs fans?

-All four (Jordan, Hakeem, David Robinson, and Kobe) are Hall of Fame players. That's not in question. Right there you already know they're all near a similar level.

-Hakeem is probably a top 3 center of all time. David Robinson is probably somewhere in the bottom half of top 10 centers of all time.

-Michael Jordan is the greatest shooting guard of all time. Kobe is probably in the top 5 if not top 3 greatest shooting guards of all time.

-Hakeem was the Finals MVP twice and the main reason for Houston's two titles. David Robinson has two titles but couldn't have won either without Tim Duncan.

-Jordan has 6 NBA Finals MVPs and the main reason for 6 NBA titles. Kobe has three titles but couldn't have won any of them without Shaq.

-The statistical numbers between Hakeem and David Robinson are negligible.

-The statistical differences between Jordan and Kobe are more apparent but are a little bit skewed because of Kobe's first two seasons coming off the bench and playing shorter minutes. Kobe's stats per 36 minutes compare favorably with Jordan's stats per 36 minutes. The one obvious difference in field goal percentage. Otherwise, Kobe's numbers are actually pretty close to Jordan's and Kobe still has several more seasons to improve those numbers.


Now Hakeem and Robinson might be closer to equals than Jordan and Kobe. But, the analogy of the two is not really that far off base.

[angelbelow]

gonna have to go with dream here.

[Galileo]

Well that proves it. Gilmore > Hakeem.


:rolleyes

You guys talk shit about Kobe scoring 81 and Laker fans using it as their argument against MJ, but wanna use that for D-Rob:rolleyes

Gilmore:

24,941 points
16,330 rebounds
3179 blocks
58.2% FG

Hakeem:

26,946 points
13,747 rebounds
3830 blocks
51.2% FG

[ambchang]

But why is this written in stone for Spurs fans?

-All four (Jordan, Hakeem, David Robinson, and Kobe) are Hall of Fame players. That's not in question. Right there you already know they're all near a similar level.

-Hakeem is probably a top 3 center of all time. David Robinson is probably somewhere in the bottom half of top 10 centers of all time.

-Michael Jordan is the greatest shooting guard of all time. Kobe is probably in the top 5 if not top 3 greatest shooting guards of all time.

Hakeem is generally ranked somewhere from 4 to 6, with Chamberlain, Jabbar and Russell cementing the top 3 spots. Robinson is somewhere from 5 to 7.
At best, Hakeem is 4, and Robinson is 7.

Besides, there has been much more dominant centers in the league than shooting guards. In fact, no teams were supposed to win consistently without a strong center in the middle before Jordan arrived.


-Hakeem was the Finals MVP twice and the main reason for Houston's two titles. David Robinson has two titles but couldn't have won either without Tim Duncan.

-Jordan has 6 NBA Finals MVPs and the main reason for 6 NBA titles. Kobe has three titles but couldn't have won any of them without Shaq.

I would say the difference between 2 and zero, and 6 and zero is quite large, 300% difference in fact.



-The statistical numbers between Hakeem and David Robinson are negligible.

-The statistical differences between Jordan and Kobe are more apparent but are a little bit skewed because of Kobe's first two seasons coming off the bench and playing shorter minutes. Kobe's stats per 36 minutes compare favorably with Jordan's stats per 36 minutes. The one obvious difference in field goal percentage. Otherwise, Kobe's numbers are actually pretty close to Jordan's and Kobe still has several more seasons to improve those numbers.


Now Hakeem and Robinson might be closer to equals than Jordan and Kobe. But, the analogy of the two is not really that far off base.

Robinson won 1 MVP, Hakeem won an MVP.
Jordan won 5 MVPs, Kobe won 1 MVP.

And not to diminish Kobe’s MVP, but in the year he won the MVP, Paul finished #2, Garnett #3. Compared that to Jordan’s era when he was going up against Barkley, Magic, Bird, Malone, Thomas, Ewing ….. it’s quite a difference.


If you want to go on about stats …
In Kobe’s first 12 seasons, he had more than 30points / 36 mins once, Jordan did it 5 times, of which 3 of them are better than Kobe’s career high.
In the same period, Kobe has >5 assists 4 times, with a high of 5.3, Jordan did it 7 times, with a high of 7.2.
Kobe never got more than 2 steals / 36 mpg in his career, Jordan did it every 10 out of his first 12 years, with a high of 3.
Kobe never got more than 1 block / 36 mpg in his career, Jordan did it 4 times, with a high of 1.7.
Kobe got 6 rebounds / 36 mpg once, Jordan did it 6 times, with a high of 7.2.
Kobe is significantly better at the 3, but this is an era in which the 3 is used much more effectively than the past. However, even though the totals are higher, the averages are about the same.
Jordan shot significantly better from the field, as you mentioned.
Kobe led the league in scoring twice.
Jordan did it 10 times.

Now compare Hakeem and Robinson:
Robinson led the league in blocks, rebounds and scoring once each.
Hakeem led the league in blocks 3 times, rebounds twice. And note that Robinson played half his career after he had a career-altering injury.

In his 7 pre-injury years, Robinson scored more than 25points per 36 minutes 3 times, with a high of 26.5, Hakeem, despite having a much longer injury free period, did it once.

Hakeem rebounded much better, with 5 seasons > 12 rpg in 36 minutes, and Robinson only twice, but Hakeem had a high of 13.4, while Robinson had a high of 12.5. Blocks were pretty even, and so were steals. FG% was basically a draw, and so were FT%, with Robinson slightly better at both.

In the years going head to head, Robinson won All-NBA 1st team 4 times, Hakeem did it 3 times (his fourth time was when Robinson was seriously injured and played only 6 games). Now ask yourself honestly, if Jordan and Kobe were going head to head in their prime, and there is only one all-nba team spots for the SG (as opposed to having two guard spots), how many times would Kobe finish ahead of Jordan?

[Phenomanul]

But why is this written in stone for Spurs fans?

-All four (Jordan, Hakeem, David Robinson, and Kobe) are Hall of Fame players. That's not in question. Right there you already know they're all near a similar level.

I agree...



-Hakeem is probably a top 3 center of all time. David Robinson is probably somewhere in the bottom half of top 10 centers of all time.

That's the problem.... You may not think so but to me that is a serious undermining of David's talent and versatility. That type of ranking is always going to be subjective. To me the ranking of centers is more like:

1. Kareem Abdul Jabar (all-star on both ends of the court; long productive career due to partnering up with Magic on the downside of his career; efficient; deadly 'skyhook' made him unguardable; could level with Bruce Lee if only for a few seconds).
2. Wilt Chamberlain (all-star on both ends of the court; posted ridiculous, currently unattainable numbers - the fact that his teams could not get past Russell's Celtics is not his fault - he was always the better player).
3a. Hakeem Olojuwon (all-star on both ends of the court; best footwork out of the all the great centers; dominant when he wanted to be).
3b. David Robinson (all-star on both ends of the court; fastest center ever; versatile - could play the point; got to the FT line at will; best reliable jumper not named 'skyhook' for a center).
4. Bill Russell ("Mr. More Rings than Fingers" - was a defensive monster, but had limited offense; his teams' dominant streak had more to do with the total package of the team than the fact that he was unstoppable; for example Wilt could still get monster numbers against him even if Russell's team always won; played in an era with fewer teams, and where the league was cast in a lower profile than the other sports leagues).
5. Shaquille O'Neal (unstoppable within 6 feet of the bucket; lackadaisical attitude on defense and poor free-throw shooting drops him this low).

I won't bother with the rest.

P.S. Duncan is a Power Forward.




-Michael Jordan is the greatest shooting guard of all time. Kobe is probably in the top 5 if not top 3 greatest shooting guards of all time.

-Hakeem was the Finals MVP twice and the main reason for Houston's two titles. David Robinson has two titles but couldn't have won either without Tim Duncan.

See... that right there is the problem. Like most casual media-driven fans, your entire premise for considering Hakeem the greater player is based solely (or mainly) on the success of his teams' performances, while holding David entirely accountable for the demise of his.

Robinson was the Spurs. He carried them wherever they went. Hakeem, like Robinson was also the workhorse for the Rockets, but unlike Robinson he was blessed with an amazing set of shooters that literally won/swung playoff series for him. David, never had that luxury, and would not have won a championship with the teams that surrounded him unless he managed to post Wilt-like numbers... how can that be held against him?

That is the cause of frustration for Spurs [Robinson] fans.



-Jordan has 6 NBA Finals MVPs and the main reason for 6 NBA titles. Kobe has three titles but couldn't have won any of them without Shaq.

-The statistical numbers between Hakeem and David Robinson are negligible.

Rudy T. specifically altered his game plan for guarding Robinson in their 1995 series, based on the fact that Robinson had posted monster numbers against them during the regular season. He doubled or triple-teamed Robinson the entire series. He basically dared the Spurs' perimeter players to beat them. The Spurs' coaching staff could never free David up, as they didn't have the players to spread the floor and make the Rockets pay for double-teaming Robinson. To top it off when tried to implement a similar defensive strategy on Hakeem it backfired because the Rockets' perimeter players made them pay. The Spurs managed to win 2 games because of Robinson but lost the series in spite of his efforts. And yet the media threw him under the bus.

Conversely, two of the games in the series were essentially decided by key daggers. But no, it was the 'greatness of Hakeem' that got them past the Spurs - after all his 'dream-shake' on Robinson proved that he was the better player. To them that one play summed up the series. As if that were possible. In short, the series' deciding plays were overlooked in favor of focusing on a more inflammatory, albeit unfounded, headline - one that unfairly tarnished Robinson's legacy forever. NBA-nation ate it up.... :rolleyes



-The statistical differences between Jordan and Kobe are more apparent but are a little bit skewed because of Kobe's first two seasons coming off the bench and playing shorter minutes. Kobe's stats per 36 minutes compare favorably with Jordan's stats per 36 minutes. The one obvious difference in field goal percentage. Otherwise, Kobe's numbers are actually pretty close to Jordan's and Kobe still has several more seasons to improve those numbers.

Now Hakeem and Robinson might be closer to equals than Jordan and Kobe. But, the analogy of the two is not really that far off base.

The supporting cast Kobe had this year was better than any Robinson ever had prior to Duncan's arrival.

Let me put it this way... if the 93-95 Rockets were led by David Robinson instead of Hakeem:

The Rockets would still be owners of back-to-back titles. I am convinced of that

Funny thing is that this isn't a slight on Hakeem; this is a knock on David's teammates.

For that matter, when the Spurs lost against the Blazers in 1992 was it David's fault too? He posted monster numbers in that series. One boneheaded play made by a boneheaded player (Rod Strickland) cost the Spurs that series.

Just for the record, I haven't voted. Voting on such a thread when started by a Lakers Fan is demeaning in and of itself...

[bobbyjoe]

Robinson's numbers compare with the Dream. Kobes, not even close to MJ.

Regular season, yes.

Post season? Not even close.

Here is the breakdown for career postseason stats:

David Robinson: 18.1 PPG 10.6 RPG 48% FG 2.3 APG 2.3 BPG

Hakeem Olajuwon: 25.9 PPG 11.2 PPG 53% FG 3.2 APG 3.3 BPG

Saying Robinson is on par with Hakeem is as homeristic as a Wolves ban saying KG is on par with Duncan. Same argument, similar careers.

Olajuwon's game was tailor-made for post season success as he was a dominant big.

Robinson at no point in his career was dominant and his game which relied on cheap buckets was clearly inferior in the postseason when his stats consistently dipped from his regular season play each and every year because play was more physical and intense and the guy just had no reliable go to moves. Olajuwon was the opposite.

The Robinson-Olajuwon postseason spread is actually much wider than Kobe-MJ. Kobe does become a beast in the playoffs. David Robinson never did.

[JamStone]

Fair points. Don't completely agree with all of them from each of you, but definitely fair.

I did say the margin between Jordan and KObe is greater that the difference between Hakeem and David, but I don't feel it's the so much greater to nullify a justifiable comparison of the two pairs.

We're talking all four of those players "arguably" being top 20 players in the history of the league and "arguably" all four being top 8 players at their respective positions.

The gap between Michael and Kobe is larger. Kobe can still gain ground. He has a good 5-6 years to do so.

I'm not one to argue Kobe is close to Jordan. But, there are legitimate reasons to put him in the same category.

[bobbyjoe]

Hakeem is generally ranked somewhere from 4 to 6, with Chamberlain, Jabbar and Russell cementing the top 3 spots. Robinson is somewhere from 5 to 7.
At best, Hakeem is 4, and Robinson is 7.

Besides, there has been much more dominant centers in the league than shooting guards. In fact, no teams were supposed to win consistently without a strong center in the middle before Jordan arrived.



I would say the difference between 2 and zero, and 6 and zero is quite large, 300% difference in fact.




Robinson won 1 MVP, Hakeem won an MVP.
Jordan won 5 MVPs, Kobe won 1 MVP.

And not to diminish Kobe’s MVP, but in the year he won the MVP, Paul finished #2, Garnett #3. Compared that to Jordan’s era when he was going up against Barkley, Magic, Bird, Malone, Thomas, Ewing ….. it’s quite a difference.


If you want to go on about stats …
In Kobe’s first 12 seasons, he had more than 30points / 36 mins once, Jordan did it 5 times, of which 3 of them are better than Kobe’s career high.
In the same period, Kobe has >5 assists 4 times, with a high of 5.3, Jordan did it 7 times, with a high of 7.2.
Kobe never got more than 2 steals / 36 mpg in his career, Jordan did it every 10 out of his first 12 years, with a high of 3.
Kobe never got more than 1 block / 36 mpg in his career, Jordan did it 4 times, with a high of 1.7.
Kobe got 6 rebounds / 36 mpg once, Jordan did it 6 times, with a high of 7.2.
Kobe is significantly better at the 3, but this is an era in which the 3 is used much more effectively than the past. However, even though the totals are higher, the averages are about the same.
Jordan shot significantly better from the field, as you mentioned.
Kobe led the league in scoring twice.
Jordan did it 10 times.

Now compare Hakeem and Robinson:
Robinson led the league in blocks, rebounds and scoring once each.
Hakeem led the league in blocks 3 times, rebounds twice. And note that Robinson played half his career after he had a career-altering injury.

In his 7 pre-injury years, Robinson scored more than 25points per 36 minutes 3 times, with a high of 26.5, Hakeem, despite having a much longer injury free period, did it once.

Hakeem rebounded much better, with 5 seasons > 12 rpg in 36 minutes, and Robinson only twice, but Hakeem had a high of 13.4, while Robinson had a high of 12.5. Blocks were pretty even, and so were steals. FG% was basically a draw, and so were FT%, with Robinson slightly better at both.

In the years going head to head, Robinson won All-NBA 1st team 4 times, Hakeem did it 3 times (his fourth time was when Robinson was seriously injured and played only 6 games). Now ask yourself honestly, if Jordan and Kobe were going head to head in their prime, and there is only one all-nba team spots for the SG (as opposed to having two guard spots), how many times would Kobe finish ahead of Jordan?

Robinson is generally ranked from 5 to 7?

Homerism at it's worst.

Show me one single list outside of a Spurs fan site where David Robinson is ranked as the FIFTH best Center in NBA history (and thus ahead of either Hakeem or Shaq).

That's just BS and you know it.

Robinson is generally ranked 7-10.

[Phenomanul]

Regular season, yes.

Post season? Not even close.

Here is the breakdown for career postseason stats:

David Robinson: 18.1 PPG 10.6 RPG 48% FG 2.3 APG 2.3 BPG

Hakeem Olajuwon: 25.9 PPG 11.2 PPG 53% FG 3.2 APG 3.3 BPG

Saying Robinson is on par with Hakeem is as homeristic as a Wolves ban saying KG is on par with Duncan. Same argument, similar careers.

Olajuwon's game was tailor-made for post season success as he was a dominant big.

Robinson at no point in his career was dominant and his game which relied on cheap buckets was clearly inferior in the postseason when his stats consistently dipped from his regular season play each and every year because play was more physical and intense and the guy just had no reliable go to moves. Olajuwon was the opposite.

The Robinson-Olajuwon postseason spread is actually much wider than Kobe-MJ. Kobe does become a beast in the playoffs. David Robinson never did.

Nice try.... I see what you did there.

Split that up before Robinson's back injury. Robinson played half of his career on a bad back, fortunately for Spurs fans the latter half was after Duncan's arrival. Unfortunately for David's post-season stats, every extra year in the league caused them to dip even if he was winning championships.

How's this for comparison...

Robinson played a total of 70 post-season games after his back injury (almost all of them on the downside of his prime - while deferring to Duncan).
Pre-injury average of 24.03 ppg. Post-injury average of 13.54 ppg

In that same period Hakeem played in a total of 15 post season games (nine of which were on the downside of his prime).

All of which suggest your averages are purposely (or ignorantly - take your pick) skewed.

Also don't forget that the Admiral gave up two seasons to serve this country, seasons that would have statistically increased his averages based on his immediate impact as a 2-year-deferred rookie.

[Phenomanul]

Robinson is generally ranked from 5 to 7?

Homerism at it's worst.

Show me one single list outside of a Spurs fan site where David Robinson is ranked as the FIFTH best Center in NBA history (and thus ahead of either Hakeem or Shaq).

That's just BS and you know it.

Robinson is generally ranked 7-10.

You may call it homerism. I will choose to call you media sheeple.

Either way the argument is subjective.

:rolleyes surprise, surprise another Laker fan undermining David's legacy.

[baseline bum]

You knew this thread was going to bring out the Rocket fan douchebag who pretends to go for the Lakers.

[bobbyjoe]

Nice try.... I see what you did there.

Split that up before Robinson's back injury. Robinson played half of his career on a bad back, fortunately for Spurs fans the latter half was after Duncan's arrival. Unfortunately for David's post-season stats, every extra year in the league caused them to dip even if he was winning championships.

How's this for comparison...

Robinson played a total of 70 post-season games after his back injury (almost all of them on the downside of his prime - while deferring to Duncan).
Pre-injury average of 24.03 ppg. Post-injury average of 13.54 ppg

In that same period Hakeem played in a total of 15 post season games (nine of which were on the downside of his prime).

All of which suggest your averages are purposely (or ignorantly - take your pick) skewed.

Also don't forget that the Admiral gave up two seasons to serve this country, seasons that would have statistically increased his averages based on his immediate impact as a 2-year-deferred rookie.

Hakeem's prime is generally agreed to have ended in 1996 when he turned 34 years old. He played 30 postseason games after this point with much lower postseason #'s. So his #'s are also dragged down.

Bottom line is that you could completely throwout Robinson's postseason resume post-back injury and Hakeem's post decline and the #'s are still just not close. Robinson's FG% was always much less than his regular season FG% even in his prime years. Easy buckets gone in the postseason, more physical play, less success for Robinson.

Olajuwon was just a monster in the postseason every year throughout his career where David's #'s consistenly dipped from the regular season, and yes, even before his back injuries.

Given Robinson's trend of falling short in the playoffs and failing to step up each and every year of his career, much like Kevin Garnett or Chris Webber, I fail to see what difference the 2 years lost to the Navy would have made.

Would he have suddenly become clutch (which he was not throughout his career) and developed some actual go-to moves in the playoffs (which he never worked to do). That's just a reach.

Robinson is what he is. A good Center, but not even remotely in the discussion with guys like Olajuwon, Duncan, and O'Neal, the 3 truly elite bigs of the past 20-25 years. He's in the KG/Webber/Karl Malone 2nd tier...

Robinson was embarassed from 93-95 in the playoffs every year when he faced a contemporary elite big. First by Karl Malone (twice) and then by Olajuwon...And this was smack in his prime, before any back injury

[Galileo]

I agree...



That's the problem.... You may not think so but to me that is a serious undermining of David's talent and versatility. That type of ranking is always going to be subjective. To me the ranking of centers is more like:

1. Kareem Abdul Jabar (all-star on both ends of the court; long productive career due to partnering up with Magic on the downside of his career; efficient; deadly 'skyhook' made him unguardable; could level with Bruce Lee if only for a few seconds).
2. Wilt Chamberlain (all-star on both ends of the court; posted ridiculous, currently unattainable numbers - the fact that his teams could not get past Russell's Celtics is not his fault - he was always the better player).
3a. Hakeem Olojuwon (all-star on both ends of the court; best footwork out of the all the great centers; dominant when he wanted to be).
3b. David Robinson (all-star on both ends of the court; fastest center ever; versatile - could play the point; got to the FT line at will; best reliable jumper not named 'skyhook' for a center).
4. Bill Russell ("Mr. More Rings than Fingers" - was a defensive monster, but had limited offense; his teams' dominant streak had more to do with the total package of the team than the fact that he was unstoppable; for example Wilt could still get monster numbers against him even if Russell's team always won; played in an era with fewer teams, and where the league was cast in a lower profile than the other sports leagues).
5. Shaquille O'Neal (unstoppable within 6 feet of the bucket; lackadaisical attitude on defense and poor free-throw shooting drops him this low).

I won't bother with the rest.

P.S. Duncan is a Power Forward.




See... that right there is the problem. Like most casual media-driven fans, your entire premise for considering Hakeem the greater player is based solely (or mainly) on the success of his teams' performances, while holding David entirely accountable for the demise of his.

Robinson was the Spurs. He carried them wherever they went. Hakeem, like Robinson was also the workhorse for the Rockets, but unlike Robinson he was blessed with an amazing set of shooters that literally won/swung playoff series for him. David, never had that luxury, and would not have won a championship with the teams that surrounded him unless he managed to post Wilt-like numbers... how can that be held against him?

That is the cause of frustration for Spurs [Robinson] fans.



Rudy T. specifically altered his game plan for guarding Robinson in their 1995 series, based on the fact that Robinson had posted monster numbers against them during the regular season. He doubled or triple-teamed Robinson the entire series. He basically dared the Spurs' perimeter players to beat them. The Spurs' coaching staff could never free David up, as they didn't have the players to spread the floor and make the Rockets pay for double-teaming Robinson. To top it off when tried to implement a similar defensive strategy on Hakeem it backfired because the Rockets' perimeter players made them pay. The Spurs managed to win 2 games because of Robinson but lost the series in spite of his efforts. And yet the media threw him under the bus.

Conversely, two of the games in the series were essentially decided by key daggers. But no, it was the 'greatness of Hakeem' that got them past the Spurs - after all his 'dream-shake' on Robinson proved that he was the better player. To them that one play summed up the series. As if that were possible. In short, the series' deciding plays were overlooked in favor of focusing on a more inflammatory, albeit unfounded, headline - one that unfairly tarnished Robinson's legacy forever. NBA-nation ate it up.... :rolleyes



The supporting cast Kobe had this year was better than any Robinson ever had prior to Duncan's arrival.

Let me put it this way... if the 93-95 Rockets were led by David Robinson instead of Hakeem:

The Rockets would still be owners of back-to-back titles. I am convinced of that

Funny thing is that this isn't a slight on Hakeem; this is a knock on David's teammates.

For that matter, when the Spurs lost against the Blazers in 1992 was it David's fault too? He posted monster numbers in that series. One boneheaded play made by a boneheaded player (Rod Strickland) cost the Spurs that series.

Just for the record, I haven't voted. Voting on such a thread when started by a Lakers Fan is demeaning in and of itself...

Bill Russell was GREAT on offense. He moved without the ball, set picks, passed, and offensive rebounded great. He was like a smaller, quicker version of Tim Duncan on offense.

[bobbyjoe]

But why is this written in stone for Spurs fans?

-All four (Jordan, Hakeem, David Robinson, and Kobe) are Hall of Fame players. That's not in question. Right there you already know they're all near a similar level.

-Hakeem is probably a top 3 center of all time. David Robinson is probably somewhere in the bottom half of top 10 centers of all time.

-Michael Jordan is the greatest shooting guard of all time. Kobe is probably in the top 5 if not top 3 greatest shooting guards of all time.

-Hakeem was the Finals MVP twice and the main reason for Houston's two titles. David Robinson has two titles but couldn't have won either without Tim Duncan.

-Jordan has 6 NBA Finals MVPs and the main reason for 6 NBA titles. Kobe has three titles but couldn't have won any of them without Shaq.

-The statistical numbers between Hakeem and David Robinson are negligible.

-The statistical differences between Jordan and Kobe are more apparent but are a little bit skewed because of Kobe's first two seasons coming off the bench and playing shorter minutes. Kobe's stats per 36 minutes compare favorably with Jordan's stats per 36 minutes. The one obvious difference in field goal percentage. Otherwise, Kobe's numbers are actually pretty close to Jordan's and Kobe still has several more seasons to improve those numbers.


Now Hakeem and Robinson might be closer to equals than Jordan and Kobe. But, the analogy of the two is not really that far off base.

The gap between the FG% advantage MJ had on Kobe Bryant narrows considerably when you look at the fact that a much higher percentage of Bryant's Field Goal attempts are behind the arc.

You really need to look at adjusted FG% when you are comparing 2 players when there's a considerable difference in % of 3's attempted relative to overall FG's.

I think the comparison is very legit.

[Phenomanul]

The gap between the FG% advantage MJ had on Kobe Bryant narrows considerably when you look at the fact that a much higher percentage of Bryant's Field Goal attempts are behind the arc.

You really need to look at adjusted FG% when you are comparing 2 players when there's a considerable difference in % of 3's attempted relative to overall FG's.

I think the comparison is very legit.

And you've got the audacity to call me a homer? :lmao

Kobe isn't even the 2nd best SG; that honor would go to the Big O, Oscar Robertson.

And yes, the gap between MJ and Kobe is substantial.

The only reason they're even in the same sentence is because Kobe plays for a large market team; to deny that would be expose your naive understanding of how the media hype-machine affects the perception of players.

[ambchang]

Regular season, yes.

Post season? Not even close.

Here is the breakdown for career postseason stats:

David Robinson: 18.1 PPG 10.6 RPG 48% FG 2.3 APG 2.3 BPG

Hakeem Olajuwon: 25.9 PPG 11.2 PPG 53% FG 3.2 APG 3.3 BPG

Saying Robinson is on par with Hakeem is as homeristic as a Wolves ban saying KG is on par with Duncan. Same argument, similar careers.

Olajuwon's game was tailor-made for post season success as he was a dominant big.

Robinson at no point in his career was dominant and his game which relied on cheap buckets was clearly inferior in the postseason when his stats consistently dipped from his regular season play each and every year because play was more physical and intense and the guy just had no reliable go to moves. Olajuwon was the opposite.

The Robinson-Olajuwon postseason spread is actually much wider than Kobe-MJ. Kobe does become a beast in the playoffs. David Robinson never did.

Of course this totally neglected the fact that Robinson played the majority of his postseason games later on in his career, post-injury when Duncan was on board due to a largely subpar supporting cast.

In the first 7 seasons in the NBA, he played in the playoffs 6 season, with the only year he missed the playoffs due to an injury at the end of the 3rd season. Other than two seasons, there wasn't any significant dip in his scoring average. In fact, that season, he went from 29.8 to 25.3 in his MVP season due to aggressive double teams (I mean, you are going to double off Avery Johnson and let Rodman roam to double/triple Robinson too, wouldn't you?).

Interestingly, the two seasons he did worse in the playoffs was when Rodman was on board, coincidence? Doubltful.

In the seasons he actually got help, he shot 53.29%, 68.63% and 51.55% in the playoffs, while pretty much maintained his scoring average. In those years, he averaged 24.04 points in the playoffs, 11.75 rebounds, 3.11 blks and 1.26 stls, pretty much numbers that are in line with his regular season production.

To use Kevin Garnett vs. Duncan as an analogy must be some sort of joke. Duncan out performed Garnett in every single significant statistical category other than assists, FT% and 3PT shooting, and did it with less minutes.

Garnett's teams missed multiple playoffs, Robinson NEVER missed the playoffs (other than the season he played 6 games) despite having supporting cast that is comparably as bad as Garnett's.

On the other hand, Duncan missed zero playoffs, while Hakeem couldn't say the same.

The difference between Duncan and Garnett is much larger than that of Hakeem and Robinson when you want to talk about it from a statistical point of view.

However, I do agree that Robinson's game is not tailored to the playoffs, just that the reason is that he relied heavily on drawing the foul on drives, and playoffs don't make those calls as much. To say that he got points of cheap baskets suggests that you haven't been watching much of Robinson. You are talking about a guy who shot an insane amount of FTs, players who get garbage points does not do that. He also led the team in assists, and that suggests the offense runs through him.

And Kobe is a beast in the playoffs? In the 11 seasons he made the playoffs, he had a better FG% thrice, 3pt% 7 times, FT% twice, rebounds 4 times, assists 5 times, scoring 7 times. However, his net average over the years, he had a worse FG%, FT%, 3PT%, rebounding average, assists and scoring. In other words, all his major statistical categories (except steals, which I am too lazy to look up) went down. How do you figure he was a beast?

[ambchang]

Robinson is generally ranked from 5 to 7?

Homerism at it's worst.

Show me one single list outside of a Spurs fan site where David Robinson is ranked as the FIFTH best Center in NBA history (and thus ahead of either Hakeem or Shaq).

That's just BS and you know it.

Robinson is generally ranked 7-10.

Give me your list.

Other than Chamberlain, Russell, Jabbar, Hakeem and Shaq, it's between Moses Malone and Robinson. Who else would you put up there?

[ambchang]

Hakeem's prime is generally agreed to have ended in 1996 when he turned 34 years old. He played 30 postseason games after this point with much lower postseason #'s. So his #'s are also dragged down.

Bottom line is that you could completely throwout Robinson's postseason resume post-back injury and Hakeem's post decline and the #'s are still just not close. Robinson's FG% was always much less than his regular season FG% even in his prime years. Easy buckets gone in the postseason, more physical play, less success for Robinson.

Olajuwon was just a monster in the postseason every year throughout his career where David's #'s consistenly dipped from the regular season, and yes, even before his back injuries.

Given Robinson's trend of falling short in the playoffs and failing to step up each and every year of his career, much like Kevin Garnett or Chris Webber, I fail to see what difference the 2 years lost to the Navy would have made.

Would he have suddenly become clutch (which he was not throughout his career) and developed some actual go-to moves in the playoffs (which he never worked to do). That's just a reach.

Robinson is what he is. A good Center, but not even remotely in the discussion with guys like Olajuwon, Duncan, and O'Neal, the 3 truly elite bigs of the past 20-25 years. He's in the KG/Webber/Karl Malone 2nd tier...

Robinson was embarassed from 93-95 in the playoffs every year when he faced a contemporary elite big. First by Karl Malone (twice) and then by Olajuwon...And this was smack in his prime, before any back injury

Why don't you just look up the numbers first before you make these statements that you pass off as facts. I did, look them up. I agree Hakeem had better post season numbers, but to say that pre-injury Robinson and pre-decline Hakeem are not comparable is really reaching.

Pre-decilne Hakeem avearged:
27 ppg (pull up significantly by those two title runs, and curiously, when the NBA had shorter 3 pt lines, perhaps having shooters surround him helped afterall, huh?), 53% from the field, 72% from the line, 11.6 rebounds, 3.4 assists, 1.71 stls, 3.4 blocks.

[florige]

Yeah, even as a lurker I remember how ugly these polls involving Hakeem vs Robinson or Duncan would get.:nope



:lol

[Phenomanul]

Hakeem's prime is generally agreed to have ended in 1996 when he turned 34 years old. He played 30 postseason games after this point with much lower postseason #'s. So his #'s are also dragged down.

Bottom line is that you could completely throwout Robinson's postseason resume post-back injury and Hakeem's post decline and the #'s are still just not close.

OK let's see:

Robinson Pre-Injury Playoff Averages:
Age 24-30

Games Played: 53
24.04 PPG
11.75 RPG
2.94 APG
3.11 BPG
1.26 SPG
2.89 TPG
39.32 MPG
48.85 FG%
66.67 FT%

Robinson Post-Injury Playoff Averages:
Age 32-37

Games Played: 70
13.54 PPG
9.69 RPG
1.77 APG
2.10 BPG
1.20 SPG
1.81 TPG
30.53 MPG
46.61 FG%
66.67 FT%

Olojuwon Pre-33 Playoff Averages:
Age 22-33

Games Played: 115
27.84 PPG
11.70 RPG
3.37 APG
3.55 BPG
1.70 SPG
3.08 TPG
41.05 MPG
52.95 FG%
71.57 FT%

I would be blind to suggest David's averages were better. But they are very similar. Statistically poignant is the fact that Olojuwon's best seasons were played out at the ages of 23, 31, & 32. You say Robinson's years in the Navy didn't hurt his averages? Well if it hadn't been for that commitment one could draw a parallelism between Robinson's career and Hakeem's, and based on that comparison Robinson's numbers at 23 (his hypothetical 2nd year in the league) would be as good as his numbers were at 25 - his actual 2nd year in the league (25.8 PPG, 13.5 RPG, 2.0 APG, 68.6 FG%, 86.8 FT%, 3.5 BPG). Those numbers would certainly help his overall post-season averages; you have used to guage David's post-season 'disappearance'.

For comparison Garnett, Kobe, and LeBron all entered the league as teens. By the time they were 22-24, they were posting monster/career numbers.

Not to be left out of the discussion is that fact that Olojuwon's two most complete post-seasons occurred during his prime at ages 30 and 31 (his two title runs). Due to his injury, David couldn't 'pad his post-season stats' by playing out those years of his prime - and when he did return at 32, Duncan had arrived as the Spurs' new/primary post weapon.




Robinson's FG% was always much less than his regular season FG% even in his prime years. Easy buckets gone in the postseason, more physical play, less success for Robinson.
Other teams just had to focus on Robinson to eliminate the Spurs; good teams mind you (otherwise they wouldn't be in the playoffs). Spurs shooters were never elite enough to keep the defense honest. As a result David's numbers suffered. Numbers and statistics have to be kept in the context of what actually took place on the court. Most fans don't have that insight, don't care, haven't been around long enough or simply don't understand the dynamics of the game's numbers to understand how significant that context is. They're lazy and depend on the media's perpective to develop their own perceptions of players.

A big knock on Shaq is that he has always had the luxury of playing with an elite All-NBA 1st-Team SG. It's substantially easier to score when your opponents can't focus their entire defensive game plan around you. Or when your All-star guard can get you easy buckets, and help shoulder the offensive load. It's also easier to score when refs allow you to bull-doze your way to the bucket (but that's another matter altogether - one I don't want to expound on more than I already have).



Olajuwon was just a monster in the postseason every year throughout his career where David's #'s consistenly dipped from the regular season, and yes, even before his back injuries.

David played in just 53 postseason games (in a span of 6 years).
He never had an elite guard as a teammate, or trust-worthy three-point shooters to help him out. If Jordan couldn't win playoff series before Pippen's arrival, despite posting otherworldly stats; did that make him any less great?

Robinson got his teams to the 2nd round of the playoffs or the WCF without a perennial all-star side kick. And though Olojuwon was a stud he still relied heavily on timely shots by Horry, Cassell, Elie, Kenny Smith and even Drexler during his run in '95 to help him win playoff series.

You would be delusional not to factor any of this into the argument; or just downright obtuse. Based on your history in this forum - I say it's the latter.



Given Robinson's trend of falling short in the playoffs and failing to step up each and every year of his career, much like Kevin Garnett or Chris Webber, I fail to see what difference the 2 years lost to the Navy would have made.

Would he have suddenly become clutch (which he was not throughout his career) and developed some actual go-to moves in the playoffs (which he never worked to do). That's just a reach.

Robinson dunked on folks - that was his 'go-to' move. A feat much harder to accomplish when teams have focused their entire game plan on clogging the lane and double teaming you. You made the argument that Robinson's and Olojuwon's post-season stats were radically different. When I pointed out that Robinson's career needed to be evaluated on a pre/post injury basis and that said numbers would reflect that he and Olojuwon were actually statistically similar you simply couldn't admit that your use of numbers was purposely spun to undermine David's game. Now you fail to understand a simple concept; that playing more games during one's prime can only help/rather than hurt your statistical averages. I'm not reaching for anything; I'm simply noting something that should be obvious were you actually able to analyze their careers objectively. Your love for Shaq, is handicapping your ability to give David the merit he deserves.

On the subject of comparing Robinson vs. Garnett; please... that is a weak argument. Robinson would have gotten the Wolves into the playoffs with several of Garnett's supporting casts.

Chris Webber is not even a center; and was never the defensive player Robinson or Olojuwon were. Did he ever lead the league in rebounding or blocks? Webber's one lone attribute where he was actually better than both Robinson or Olojuwon was the vision to set up his teammates; Webber's passing skills were superb. Just be glad the refs gave you the series in '02, otherwise you may not be as inclined to lambast Webber for his shortcommings.


Robinson is what he is. A good Center, but not even remotely in the discussion with guys like Olajuwon, Duncan, and O'Neal, the 3 truly elite bigs of the past 20-25 years. He's in the KG/Webber/Karl Malone 2nd tier...

O'Neal hurt his 'elite' status by not giving a damn about defense (outside of his title runs with the Lakers). Or by not caring enough to improve his woeful free-throw shooting to the point of becoming his team's liability in the clutch. See last year's Spurs/Suns series.

Robinson and Olojuwon carried teams all by themselves. Shaq has always had an all-star team mate, one that could create shots for him, and command defensive assignments of their own. Unlike Robinson's Spurs' Olojuwon's teams became elite because the clutchest set of 3pt bombers happenned to call you, "teammate" during a title run. The casual fan has always downplayed this factor.



Robinson was embarassed from 93-95 in the playoffs every year when he faced a contemporary elite big. First by Karl Malone (twice) and then by Olajuwon...And this was smack in his prime, before any back injury

Malone had an all-star PG in Stockton, and was surrounded by an excellent cast of 3pt shooters (Stockton himself was pretty clutch).

Like I said, casual fans (or bitter rival fans) will be obtuse on the matter when they want to be. Teams win championships. NBA series aren't decided by 1-on-1 match-ups.

[Phenomanul]

My original ranking has Olojuwon as 3a and Robinson as 3b. The only thing that separates them in my mind was that Olojuwon badly wanted to defeat his opponents while Robinson was too much of a professional when it came to the duties of his job to ever take him to a more dominant level.

The game of basketball never really empassioned Robinson early on in his career the way it did after he had teamed up with super-competitor Duncan, super-leader Elie and even a fearless rookie Manu.

The difference alone is driven by this frame of mind. As players, however both Olojuwon and Robinson were equally versatile.

[bobbyjoe]

Give me your list.

Other than Chamberlain, Russell, Jabbar, Hakeem and Shaq, it's between Moses Malone and Robinson. Who else would you put up there?

Maybe in your book it comes down to that. Don't forget Mikan and Walton.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dailydime-GreatestCenters

This is from an ESPN poll where 20 analysts were polled.

Not one out of 20 ranked Rob over Hakeem. Only 4 had Robinson over Moses Malone.

You initially suggested that Robinson is ranked anywhere from 5-7. That was the statement I have serious issue with, because it's a bigtime reach and inaccurate. To have Robinson as #5, you are saying he is better than one of the 5 you mentioned. No one is that crazy besides a true homer silver n blacker.

The fact that its' pretty clearly established who are the top 5 C's of alltime suggests that Robinson is simply not in the tier of this discussion. I have him at #7 after Walton.

Moses was a multi-MVP. He was an absolute force in the playoffs. I would easily take him over Robinson. He's generally very underrated in these discussions.

[bobbyjoe]

And you've got the audacity to call me a homer? :lmao

Kobe isn't even the 2nd best SG; that honor would go to the Big O, Oscar Robertson.

And yes, the gap between MJ and Kobe is substantial.

The only reason they're even in the same sentence is because Kobe plays for a large market team; to deny that would be expose your naive understanding of how the media hype-machine affects the perception of players.

I can't get over the irony here. You talk about Kobe's fame being due to hype in the context of a discussion of Kobe Bryant vs. Michael Jordan. Yeah, the media hype-machine never played up Jordan...

[bobbyjoe]

OK let's see:

Robinson Pre-Injury Playoff Averages:
Age 24-30

Games Played: 53
24.04 PPG
11.75 RPG
2.94 APG
3.11 BPG
1.26 SPG
2.89 TPG
39.32 MPG
48.85 FG%
66.67 FT%

Robinson Post-Injury Playoff Averages:
Age 32-37

Games Played: 70
13.54 PPG
9.69 RPG
1.77 APG
2.10 BPG
1.20 SPG
1.81 TPG
30.53 MPG
46.61 FG%
66.67 FT%

Olojuwon Pre-33 Playoff Averages:
Age 22-33

Games Played: 115
27.84 PPG
11.70 RPG
3.37 APG
3.55 BPG
1.70 SPG
3.08 TPG
41.05 MPG
52.95 FG%
71.57 FT%

I would be blind to suggest David's averages were better. But they are very similar. Statistically poignant is the fact that Olojuwon's best seasons were played out at the ages of 23, 31, & 32. You say Robinson's years in the Navy didn't hurt his averages? Well if it hadn't been for that commitment one could draw a parallelism between Robinson's career and Hakeem's, and based on that comparison Robinson's numbers at 23 (his hypothetical 2nd year in the league) would be as good as his numbers were at 25 - his actual 2nd year in the league (25.8 PPG, 13.5 RPG, 2.0 APG, 68.6 FG%, 86.8 FT%, 3.5 BPG). Those numbers would certainly help his overall post-season averages; you have used to guage David's post-season 'disappearance'.

For comparison Garnett, Kobe, and LeBron all entered the league as teens. By the time they were 22-24, they were posting monster/career numbers.

Not to be left out of the discussion is that fact that Olojuwon's two most complete post-seasons occurred during his prime at ages 30 and 31 (his two title runs). Due to his injury, David couldn't 'pad his post-season stats' by playing out those years of his prime - and when he did return at 32, Duncan had arrived as the Spurs' new/primary post weapon.



Other teams just had to focus on Robinson to eliminate the Spurs; good teams mind you (otherwise they wouldn't be in the playoffs). Spurs shooters were never elite enough to keep the defense honest. As a result David's numbers suffered. Numbers and statistics have to be kept in the context of what actually took place on the court. Most fans don't have that insight, don't care, haven't been around long enough or simply don't understand the dynamics of the game's numbers to understand how significant that context is. They're lazy and depend on the media's perpective to develop their own perceptions of players.

A big knock on Shaq is that he has always had the luxury of playing with an elite All-NBA 1st-Team SG. It's substantially easier to score when your opponents can't focus their entire defensive game plan around you. Or when your All-star guard can get you easy buckets, and help shoulder the offensive load. It's also easier to score when refs allow you to bull-doze your way to the bucket (but that's another matter altogether - one I don't want to expound on more than I already have).



David played in just 53 postseason games (in a span of 6 years).
He never had an elite guard as a teammate, or trust-worthy three-point shooters to help him out. If Jordan couldn't win playoff series before Pippen's arrival, despite posting otherworldly stats; did that make him any less great?

Robinson got his teams to the 2nd round of the playoffs or the WCF without a perennial all-star side kick. And though Olojuwon was a stud he still relied heavily on timely shots by Horry, Cassell, Elie, Kenny Smith and even Drexler during his run in '95 to help him win playoff series.

You would be delusional not to factor any of this into the argument; or just downright obtuse. Based on your history in this forum - I say it's the latter.



Robinson dunked on folks - that was his 'go-to' move. A feat much harder to accomplish when teams have focused their entire game plan on clogging the lane and double teaming you. You made the argument that Robinson's and Olojuwon's post-season stats were radically different. When I pointed out that Robinson's career needed to be evaluated on a pre/post injury basis and that said numbers would reflect that he and Olojuwon were actually statistically similar you simply couldn't admit that your use of numbers was purposely spun to undermine David's game. Now you fail to understand a simple concept; that playing more games during one's prime can only help/rather than hurt your statistical averages. I'm not reaching for anything; I'm simply noting something that should be obvious were you actually able to analyze their careers objectively. Your love for Shaq, is handicapping your ability to give David the merit he deserves.

On the subject of comparing Robinson vs. Garnett; please... that is a weak argument. Robinson would have gotten the Wolves into the playoffs with several of Garnett's supporting casts.

Chris Webber is not even a center; and was never the defensive player Robinson or Olojuwon were. Did he ever lead the league in rebounding or blocks? Webber's one lone attribute where he was actually better than both Robinson or Olojuwon was the vision to set up his teammates; Webber's passing skills were superb. Just be glad the refs gave you the series in '02, otherwise you may not be as inclined to lambast Webber for his shortcommings.



O'Neal hurt his 'elite' status by not giving a damn about defense (outside of his title runs with the Lakers). Or by not caring enough to improve his woeful free-throw shooting to the point of becoming his team's liability in the clutch. See last year's Spurs/Suns series.

Robinson and Olojuwon carried teams all by themselves. Shaq has always had an all-star team mate, one that could create shots for him, and command defensive assignments of their own. Unlike Robinson's Spurs' Olojuwon's teams became elite because the clutchest set of 3pt bombers happenned to call you, "teammate" during a title run. The casual fan has always downplayed this factor.



Malone had an all-star PG in Stockton, and was surrounded by an excellent cast of 3pt shooters (Stockton himself was pretty clutch).

Like I said, casual fans (or bitter rival fans) will be obtuse on the matter when they want to be. Teams win championships. NBA series aren't decided by 1-on-1 match-ups.


The problem with this argument is that David Robinson is not the only player in the history of the NBA to face double teams in the playoffs.

Great players like MJ, Hakeem, Magic, Bird, Shaq, etc were often on teams without great supporting casts just like David Robinson was. In those years, their so-so casts may have stood in the way of team success, but they were still dominant in defeat.

Robinson's #'s consistently declined in the playoffs from his regular season #'s.

You say that the #'s between hakeem and drob are close post-seasonwise, but the difference between 4% FG and 4 ppg is statistically significant, given that Robinson and Hakeem's #'s in the regular season were much, much closer, or even in favor of Robinson's in many cases. That just reinforces that come postseason time, one player's game was elevated and one took a step back.

Olajuwon's game was simply more suited to postseason success, which made him a more valuable player in May and June. You don't build championship teams around perimeter oriented face-up bigs like Robinson, Webber, and KG. You build them around dominant post players like Duncan, Shaq, Kareem, and Hakeem. Double teaming a post up big typically results in easier scoring opportunities for surrounding players. You swap Hakeem and Robinson and those guys like Smith, Elie, Horry, etc aren't getting as clean as looks. Much easier to play help D on a turn and face big when he beats his man off the dribble than against a post up big catching the ball 5 feet from the hoop when you have to collapse from the perimeter, opening up opportunities for guards.

Olajuwon also had a money turnaround baseline move which double teams were simply ineffective against. As quick as he was, if he wanted to catch the ball off a post entry pass and immediately turn to the baseline and launch a turnaround jumper (which was highly accurate) there was simply nothing a double team could do to stop it. It was just like Kareem's skyhook. As a defense, all you can do is hope for a miss. You seem to ignore this, but the fact of the matter of is Olajuwon wasn't double teamed less than Robinson. He was just much harder to take out of his game with a double due to an unstoppable turnaround move being one of the key staples of his game.

BTW, O'Neal did nothing to hurt his elite status. He wasn't on par defensively with some of the super elite bigs of all time, but his unbelievable dominance offensively distanced himself from all but 1-2 of the all time bigs (O'Neal is probably #3 all time amongst C's). It's a joke to suggest because of Penny and Kobe that teams were reluctant to double O'Neal.

No player in the modern era has been double/tripled more than O'Neal. When it comes to giving up a dunk or layin from 2 feet vs. taking your chances on a great player like Kobe beating you, 31 out of 31 opposing coaches took the logical approach and swarmed O'Neal. He was the tablesetter and clearly so.

Ranking Robinson over O'Neal is only something a true homer would do. No objective fan would ever suggest this.

If you want to argue that as great as O'Neal was, he could/should have been better if he were more committed to being in shape, that is fair. If you want to argue that he did less than Hakeem/Rob/etc to maximize his God-given potential, that is also fair. But to suggest that his shortcomings as a FT shooter and somewhat erratic play defensively were significant enough to place him below David Robinson, a career postseason underachiever, is asinine.

BTW, a dunk is not a go-to move, unless your name was Wilt or Shaq and you were so much bigger/stronger than your opponent, that you could consistently catch at the rim and stuff it home. Don't cite Robinson's quickness either because that can be countered by playing several feet off of him, daring him to shoot a decent, but not lethal midrange jumper.

Go to moves are jump hooks, Tim Duncan's bankshot, MJ or Hakeem fadeaways, Kareem's skyhook, etc. What was David Robinson's?

[bobbyjoe]

Of course this totally neglected the fact that Robinson played the majority of his postseason games later on in his career, post-injury when Duncan was on board due to a largely subpar supporting cast.

In the first 7 seasons in the NBA, he played in the playoffs 6 season, with the only year he missed the playoffs due to an injury at the end of the 3rd season. Other than two seasons, there wasn't any significant dip in his scoring average. In fact, that season, he went from 29.8 to 25.3 in his MVP season due to aggressive double teams (I mean, you are going to double off Avery Johnson and let Rodman roam to double/triple Robinson too, wouldn't you?).

Interestingly, the two seasons he did worse in the playoffs was when Rodman was on board, coincidence? Doubltful.

In the seasons he actually got help, he shot 53.29%, 68.63% and 51.55% in the playoffs, while pretty much maintained his scoring average. In those years, he averaged 24.04 points in the playoffs, 11.75 rebounds, 3.11 blks and 1.26 stls, pretty much numbers that are in line with his regular season production.

To use Kevin Garnett vs. Duncan as an analogy must be some sort of joke. Duncan out performed Garnett in every single significant statistical category other than assists, FT% and 3PT shooting, and did it with less minutes.

Garnett's teams missed multiple playoffs, Robinson NEVER missed the playoffs (other than the season he played 6 games) despite having supporting cast that is comparably as bad as Garnett's.

On the other hand, Duncan missed zero playoffs, while Hakeem couldn't say the same.

The difference between Duncan and Garnett is much larger than that of Hakeem and Robinson when you want to talk about it from a statistical point of view.

However, I do agree that Robinson's game is not tailored to the playoffs, just that the reason is that he relied heavily on drawing the foul on drives, and playoffs don't make those calls as much. To say that he got points of cheap baskets suggests that you haven't been watching much of Robinson. You are talking about a guy who shot an insane amount of FTs, players who get garbage points does not do that. He also led the team in assists, and that suggests the offense runs through him.

And Kobe is a beast in the playoffs? In the 11 seasons he made the playoffs, he had a better FG% thrice, 3pt% 7 times, FT% twice, rebounds 4 times, assists 5 times, scoring 7 times. However, his net average over the years, he had a worse FG%, FT%, 3PT%, rebounding average, assists and scoring. In other words, all his major statistical categories (except steals, which I am too lazy to look up) went down. How do you figure he was a beast?

Unreal that a Spurs fan of all people would question Kobe's prowess in the playoffs.

How many times does he have to rip your heart out in the postseason to prove that he's a playoff beast?

Kobe is 4-2 lifetime against the Spurs in the playoffs. One of the 2 losses came when he was a 19 yr old kid and Kurt friggin Rambis was his head coach.

Even in O'Neal's heyday, it's always been Kobe Bryant who just destroyed the Spurs in the playoffs (the Spurs actually contained O'Neal pretty well in all but 1 of these matchups in 2001). Just like this year.

And Robinson's game did rely on cheap buckets to a much higher degree than the elite bigmen in the history of the NBA. He frequently used his speed to beat guys downcourt and scored as well as any big ever has in transition in the regular season.

Problem for Robinson was, transition buckets are harder to come by in the postseason and so is getting to the FT line because more physical play is allowed. Anyone who watched Robinson knows that he relied a lot on getting FT's and transition hoops to impact the game. When these were mitigated thanks to the nature and dynamic of posteason play, so was his value to the Spurs.

His supporting casts aren't nearly as poor as you make them out to be. Sean Elliott was an all star caliber SF who Robinson palyed with most of his career. Rodman was a 5 time champion, probable HOF rebounding/defensive machine. Before him, Robinson had an all star caliber Terry Cummings for some time as well. You couldn't ask any big man for a better sidekick in the frontcourt to do all the dirty work. AJ was an underrated PG. Chuck Person and Dale Ellis were dead eye shooters.

The only real major weakness on the Spurs roster throughout DROb years was the lack of a quality 2 guard, esp one who could defend.

It's nothing personal against DRob. Great player. HOF player. Great person. But not the kind of guy you win titles with as a #1 option due to never developing a post game. Guard's game in a Center's body and most great teams in NBA history have great bigmen as the foundation, excepting for MJ's Bulls. DRob's the quintessential ideal complementary player to a true #1 superstar. Much like Scottie Pippen was to MJ...

[Obstructed_View]

Unreal that a Spurs fan of all people would question Kobe's prowess in the playoffs.

How many times does he have to rip your heart out in the postseason to prove that he's a playoff beast?

:lol Let me know when he does it once.

Back to the topic: I'm glad Hakeem had six good games against Robinson when it mattered to seal his legacy. It would have been unfortunate for him to be remembered as a guy who faked injury while refusing to play under the contract he signed.

[Galileo]

And you've got the audacity to call me a homer? :lmao

Kobe isn't even the 2nd best SG; that honor would go to the Big O, Oscar Robertson.

And yes, the gap between MJ and Kobe is substantial.

The only reason they're even in the same sentence is because Kobe plays for a large market team; to deny that would be expose your naive understanding of how the media hype-machine affects the perception of players.

Guards better than Kobe:

MJ
Magic
Bob Cousy
Jerry West
Oscar Robertson

Equal to as of now:

Sam Jones (10 NBA titles in 12 years)

[Galileo]

Give me your list.

Other than Chamberlain, Russell, Jabbar, Hakeem and Shaq, it's between Moses Malone and Robinson. Who else would you put up there?

Top Centers:

1. Jabber
2. Russell
3. Shaq
4. Chamberlain
5. Olajuwon
6. Moses & Mikan
8. D-Rob
9. Willis Reed
10. Bill Walton

[Phenomanul]

I'm done with this... Bobbyjoe's opinions while his. Continue to undermine the importance of teammates.

---- When a dunk is reclassified as perimeter play let me know.

---- Trying to convince me that playing along with an elite all-star does nothing for your game - as far as legacy defining accomplishments go; now that is asinine. Even Robinson benefited from being paired up with an all-time great in Duncan. Shaq has been paired with an elite all-NBA guard every year of his career. That is why statistically speaking Robinson had to do more for his teams to win than Shaq did - and why the IBM award, a method which measures this value, was awarded to him on several occasions.

---- Keep thinking that free-throw shooting is not an essential skill. That it ultimately didn't affect the heights Shaq could have attained. You are obtuse after all.


---- Clutch, series defining, championship-metal three point daggers are what they are. Hakeem, as great as he was, needed them. Shaq as great as he was needed them. Jordan as great as he was also needed them. Duncan as great as he is, needs them. Elite teams have perimeter players that can swing a series in their favor. The more you downplay their significance, the more your agenda is exposed. Robinson was a better player than Shaq before his injury. Dropping triple doubles on his fat @ss, and running him off the floor on multiple occasions. Unfortunately pre-injury Robinson never had a reliable, clutch or all-star level cast to keep teams from clogging the lane against him in the post-season. Shots that all the other championship caliber teams relied on to obtain their ultimate goal.

[Phenomanul]

I can't get over the irony here. You talk about Kobe's fame being due to hype in the context of a discussion of Kobe Bryant vs. Michael Jordan. Yeah, the media hype-machine never played up Jordan...

Probably the most hyped player ever... that doesn't take away from his accomplishments because he actually kept winning. See Tiger Woods.

Ever read the Time Magazine article titled, "The Jordan Effect". Jordan affected the US Economy to the tune of billions of dollars.

If you can't understand the point I was making then there is seriously no hope for you. And this is coming from someone who actually has respect for Kobe's game.

[Phenomanul]

Top Centers:

1. Jabber
2. Russell
3. Shaq
4. Chamberlain
5. Olajuwon
6. Moses & Mikan
8. D-Rob
9. Willis Reed
10. Bill Walton

Mikan above D-Rob?

Seriously?.... Robinson would have run circles around him.

And Moses Malone was not as a complete a player as Robinson was.

Robinson averaged more assists, steals and blocks per game than Malone. Malone was a rebounding freak, with awesome play around the basket, who had a truly great career in both the ABA and NBA.

[mogrovejo]

Based on individual talent and skills....honestly id chose Hakeem.


in fact its not really close....Duncan or Hakeem is the TRUE arguement.

Yeps. That's an argument that makes sense. Robinson was good, very good, but Hakeem was clearly a better player.

[E20]

LOl the orginal post stated:
Who was the better player, not who had the better team. LOL

Then everybody started to discuss teams.

[Galileo]

Mikan above D-Rob?

Seriously?.... Robinson would have run circles around him.

And Moses Malone was not as a complete a player as Robinson was.

Robinson averaged more assists, steals and blocks per game than Malone. Malone was a rebounding freak, with awesome play around the basket, who had a truly great career in both the ABA and NBA.

If Mikan had the nutrition of today's athelete's, he'd be better than Robinson.

[mavs>spurs2]

If Mikan had the nutrition of today's athelete's, he'd be better than Robinson.

:lmao

[IronMexican]

:lmao

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao

[Slippy]

What doesn't get enough attention in a discussion where scoring and personal acccolades receives the most? Is what a great passer David Robinson was at the center spot. From willingness to share to putting your teammates in the best position to score, David was best at it.

[Phenomanul]

LOl the orginal post stated:
Who was the better player, not who had the better team. LOL

Then everybody started to discuss teams.

One can't have it both ways.... One can't use Hakeem's championships as a measure to suggest that he was better player than David without looking at the context. Championships are won by teams not single players.

The NBA is not 1 vs. 1.

[Phenomanul]

If Mikan had the nutrition of today's athelete's, he'd be better than Robinson.

Seriously???

Mikan would be a 2nd tier center in Today's NBA. For that matter, he would have been a 2nd tier center in the 80's and 90's.

Artis Gilmore > George Mikan

[Galileo]

Seriously???

Mikan would be a 2nd tier center in Today's NBA. For that matter, he would have been a 2nd tier center in the 80's and 90's.

Artis Gilmore > George Mikan

Mikan also didn't have as good of coaching as today's players. He also would have improved had he been tested by stronger competition.

[m33p0]

If Mikan had the nutrition of today's athelete's, he'd be better than Robinson.
you have seriously ruined what's left of your reputation on this board.

[ambchang]

Maybe in your book it comes down to that. Don't forget Mikan and Walton.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/dailydime?page=dailydime-GreatestCenters

This is from an ESPN poll where 20 analysts were polled.

Not one out of 20 ranked Rob over Hakeem. Only 4 had Robinson over Moses Malone.

You initially suggested that Robinson is ranked anywhere from 5-7. That was the statement I have serious issue with, because it's a bigtime reach and inaccurate. To have Robinson as #5, you are saying he is better than one of the 5 you mentioned. No one is that crazy besides a true homer silver n blacker.

The fact that its' pretty clearly established who are the top 5 C's of alltime suggests that Robinson is simply not in the tier of this discussion. I have him at #7 after Walton.

Moses was a multi-MVP. He was an absolute force in the playoffs. I would easily take him over Robinson. He's generally very underrated in these discussions.

Funny you provided the list, 4 out of 20 analysts ranked Robinson #5 or higher. I would be shocked there are that many Spurs homers on the national media level.

Also 5, of them ranked Robinson right behind Hakeem. Perhaps this supposed huge divide is not as pronounced as you suggested?

I could not understand the Walton selection. He would have been phenomenal if he played perhaps 3 or 4 more years at the top, but the fact is he had two dominant seasons, and was injury plagued throughout his career. At least Robinson can claim that he had 7 to 8 good years.

And even a hater like you would admit that Robinson would be ranked #8 in the list behind the big 5, Malone and Walton, why would ranking him anywhere between 5 and 7 be such a huge blind homer vote?

[ambchang]

Unreal that a Spurs fan of all people would question Kobe's prowess in the playoffs.

How many times does he have to rip your heart out in the postseason to prove that he's a playoff beast?

Kobe is 4-2 lifetime against the Spurs in the playoffs. One of the 2 losses came when he was a 19 yr old kid and Kurt friggin Rambis was his head coach.

Even in O'Neal's heyday, it's always been Kobe Bryant who just destroyed the Spurs in the playoffs (the Spurs actually contained O'Neal pretty well in all but 1 of these matchups in 2001). Just like this year.

I am really unfamiliar in ranking people based on a few isolated incident. So Kobe ripping Spurs in playoffs = Kobe is a beast in the playoffs, despite the fact that his playoff averages were all lower DESPITE such stellar performances in a couple of seasons. The logic of averages would suggest to me that his other series were even WORSE than his overall average if you were to take out the Spurs series, so why was he a beast again?

Hakeem is great while Robinson is terrible because of one playoff series. OK, so what do you make of Robinson's 1st playoff appearance. When he had Rod Strickland, Terry Cummings around him, he played great. He dominated Golden States the next year, he played quite well in 96, what do we make of those? Because I am quite sure those are not regular season series.

Kobe choked in 04 and 06 finals just as badly as Robinson did in 95. An argument cannot go both ways. If you want to say Robinson sucked in the playoffs, you have to say Kobe did as well, because you can't use selective series to demonstrate Kobe's prowess, while at the same time use selective series to demonstrate Robinson's ineptitude.

Hakeem didn't do well in a couple of series in the playoffs either, in fact, he couldn't even make the playoffs in 91-92, why is that? He scored 18.5 ppg on 44.3% in the 90 playoffs vs. the Lakers after averaging 24.3 on 50% in the regular season. Did he choke? Why did he do so poorly in that one series?


And Robinson's game did rely on cheap buckets to a much higher degree than the elite bigmen in the history of the NBA. He frequently used his speed to beat guys downcourt and scored as well as any big ever has in transition in the regular season.

Problem for Robinson was, transition buckets are harder to come by in the postseason and so is getting to the FT line because more physical play is allowed. Anyone who watched Robinson knows that he relied a lot on getting FT's and transition hoops to impact the game. When these were mitigated thanks to the nature and dynamic of posteason play, so was his value to the Spurs.

And yet the numbers showed otherwise. He did use his speed on transition a lot, and he did get a lot of FTs, but he also had a nice 15 to 18 foot jumper, was great at going around him man, and later on developed a reliable little jump hook. You make him sound like Cedric Ceballos.


His supporting casts aren't nearly as poor as you make them out to be. Sean Elliott was an all star caliber SF who Robinson palyed with most of his career. Rodman was a 5 time champion, probable HOF rebounding/defensive machine. Before him, Robinson had an all star caliber Terry Cummings for some time as well. You couldn't ask any big man for a better sidekick in the frontcourt to do all the dirty work. AJ was an underrated PG. Chuck Person and Dale Ellis were dead eye shooters.

Sean Elliott was his best side kick in his career, and there is no doubt about it, but Rodman was a terrible offensive player who would be deadly to any team who had no outside game.

Dale Ellis played two seasons with the Spurs. The year he shot well, Robinson was opened up and played well, the year he didn't (also when Elliott was traded), Robinson didn't shoot so well because the defense would collapse on him. He also plays minimal defense, and any team with a way over the hill Ellis as your #2 scoring option is not a good thing at all.

Chuck Person was way over the hill as well at that stage of his career, and only played reasonably well in one of his 3 seasons with the Spurs. Notice the two never played together with the Spurs at any given time.

In fact, the Spurs only had two reasonable shooters, max, on their roster playing any significant minutes a handful of times in Robinson's heyday, unlike Hakeem, who was surrounded by 3 to 5 of those players.

Rodman was great on a team when you have perimeter scoring like Thomas and Dumars, or Pippen and Jordan, because his man cannot leave him and clog the lane as much. On a team that has no offense outside the middle, his presence allows the opposition to just leave him and double the other big man. it's no secret, and it's no coincidence that Robinson played his two worse playoffs with Rodman by him.

Avery Johnson is one of the worst outside shooting PG in the history of the league, he was so bad, he couldn't even make it as a 3rd string guard on Hakeem's teams. He is great when a team was flanked with shooters, but that team just wasn't the Spurs.

And thanks for bringing up Cummings. He had three good years with the Spurs before injuries severely limited his production. Those three years, Robinson did great in the playoffs. So thanks for helping me find evidence to support my claim that teammates actually DOES matter.

As for Rodman


The only real major weakness on the Spurs roster throughout DROb years was the lack of a quality 2 guard, esp one who could defend.

It's nothing personal against DRob. Great player. HOF player. Great person. But not the kind of guy you win titles with as a #1 option due to never developing a post game. Guard's game in a Center's body and most great teams in NBA history have great bigmen as the foundation, excepting for MJ's Bulls. DRob's the quintessential ideal complementary player to a true #1 superstar. Much like Scottie Pippen was to MJ...
EDIT: Had to step out for a couple of hours.

The Spurs problems have always been outside shooting, and FO tried to address it year after year. Problem was, they only manage to have two quality shooter and two absolutely horrible offensive players that teams could leave wide open for.

Avery Johnson was a self-made player, but he was terrible from the outside. He could finish well around the basket and he rarely forces shots, but he couldn't shoot anywhere outside of 15 feet. He made 27 out 186 3 pters in his career. That is 18.6%. He made ONE out of 16 3 pters in the playoffs for a laughable 6.3%. That is one in 90 games. David Robinson made 2 out of 15 in his career. So you are telling me that this is not some guy who you would double off and leave wide open for jumpers?

Rodman doesn't need to be defended at all.

I am not sure Robinson would be a good #1 option or not with a decent supporting cast around him, but I do know that he never had the chance other than his 1st year in the league, when he took his team to 7 games of the 2nd round against the Blazers. We also do know that his team won 20 games, a drop of 39 games from the previous season, when Robinson got injured, and had the gain of 35 games when he first joined them. I just don't know what kind of 2nd banana could do that outside of David Robinson.

[Galileo]

you have seriously ruined what's left of your reputation on this board.

11 of the 20 experts at ESPN rated Mikan above Robinson.

Mikan

7 championships
6 scoring titles

No one else has ever dominated that much.

[Phenomanul]

11 of the 20 experts at ESPN rated Mikan above Robinson.

Mikan

7 championships
6 scoring titles

No one else has ever dominated that much.


He played in an era where the dominant athletes hadn't yet entered the fray (i.e. African Americans).

He played in an era with far fewer teams.

This is the prototypical ranking where Championships are used as the sole measure of greatness; or more heavily weighted than they should be... I don't expect any less ignorance from certain "analysts" at BSPN. By that logic:

Robert Horry > Charles Barkley

Except that Mikan was actually a star, whereas Robert is probably the clutchest shooter in the history of the post-season.

[Galileo]

He played in an era where the dominant athletes hadn't yet entered the fray (i.e. African Americans).

He played in an era with far fewer teams.

This is the prototypical ranking where Championships are used as the sole measure of greatness; or more heavily weighted than they should be... I don't expect any less ignorance from certain "analysts" at BSPN. By that logic:

Robert Horry > Charles Barkley

Except that Mikan was actually a star, whereas Robert is probably the clutchest shooter in the history of the post-season.

Mikan suffered 16 broken bones during his playing days. His stats and NBA titles were way down because he didn't have modern medicine like Robinson.

[century]

Mikan also didn't have as good of coaching as today's players. He also would have improved had he been tested by stronger competition.

Too bad he didn't have wings and a jet engine either. He could have been a fighter jet.

[mavs>spurs2]

11 of the 20 experts at ESPN rated Mikan above Robinson.

Mikan

7 championships
6 scoring titles

No one else has ever dominated that much.

LOLOLOL

wow

:lmao

hi jeff

[bobbyjoe]

Funny you provided the list, 4 out of 20 analysts ranked Robinson #5 or higher. I would be shocked there are that many Spurs homers on the national media level.

Also 5, of them ranked Robinson right behind Hakeem. Perhaps this supposed huge divide is not as pronounced as you suggested?

I could not understand the Walton selection. He would have been phenomenal if he played perhaps 3 or 4 more years at the top, but the fact is he had two dominant seasons, and was injury plagued throughout his career. At least Robinson can claim that he had 7 to 8 good years.

And even a hater like you would admit that Robinson would be ranked #8 in the list behind the big 5, Malone and Walton, why would ranking him anywhere between 5 and 7 be such a huge blind homer vote?

More analysts (6)ranked Robinson as not even being in their top 10 entirely than had him being #5 (4). That should tell you something. Ranking Robinson in the top 5 is an extreme outlier position. The majority of these p5 had Robinson over Bill Russell, who's achievements are easy to belittle by those who never saw him play. You made it sound like prevailing opinion has DR from #5-7 which is ridiculous.

And how in the world does Robinson being ranked "right behind Hakeem" by 5 out of 20 (or a whopping 25%) of people signify that the "gap between them wasn't that significant".

Most consider Phil Mickelson second best in golfing only to Tiger Woods. Does that somehow mean that just because he's "right behind Tiger" the majority of reasonable, sane golf experts dont think there's still a significant distance and divide between the 2?

Many analysts have Kobe as the 2nd best shooting guard ever in NBA history to MJ. This doesnt state anything as to the feelings that are held with regards to the performance gap between the 2.


You love putting a bigtime silver n black spin on things as such an intentionally deceptive statement proves. Since you want to play that game, here are some other facts to consider:

1) 10 out of the 20 experts had Hakeem ranked at least 5 spots higher than Robinson on the alltime list vs. only the 5 you mentioned who had Robinosn only one spot behind Hakeem.

2) Your argument seems to be moving from "Robinson was as good or better than Hakeem" to "Hakeem wasnt that much better". If that is indeed true and the gap between them was so small, it's pretty damn hard to believe that not ONE out of the 20 experts polled on this ranked Robinson over Hakeem. NOT ONE. What does that tell you? That outside of SA, there's not much to debate...

RE Walton vs. Robinson? Walton at his peak was just a dominant force. David Robinson never dominated the NBA. This shows the hypocrisy in your argument. When it comes to Robinson's playoff #'s, you love to point out his injuries as an excuse. Yet when it comes to a guy like Walton who's career was derailed by injuries, that shouldn't come into play? Do injuries only matter when it comes to Robinson?!

As you can see in the rankings, most did have Walton over Robinson. At his peak, he was dominant. David never was.

[Rummpd]

Saying Robinson never dominated the NBA is simply an inane statement - he had a scoring title, block title a MVP and a quadruple double. In his prime David Robinson no worse than #7 all time - the ESPN poll is consistent with media bias against an all time great.

[JP le Requin]

look at the stats when he had the quadruple double...he almost did it Three times in the same month!!!!
look this, if even he had a bettr team around him....like TD....damn....like i say to david robinson when i met him...you are the player who gave me love for basketball!

[The Franchise]

If you plugged Hakeem on any Spurs squad in David Robinsons place the team would be better.This shit should never have made five pages. I like Dave a lot because he was a great person, but as a player he was no Dream. I don't fault anyone for standing up for their favorite players, but if any team had to chose between the two nobody would pick Dave..... well, maybe Isaiah Thomas.

[Phenomanul]

bobbyjoe is just a hater....

When you give him the info that he's too lazy to look up for himself he spins it around to say what he wants it to say. When you corner him with the data, he's all, "but wait there's this other angle".... He continually leaves out key factors, and has countered his own arguments on at least three occasions. He has ignored the statistics at his convenience and has formulated his arguments on an entirely subjective basis. His best statistical argument has been to use the opinions of 20 ESPN analysts as his trumping 'wild card'... :lol

-- David Robinson is on the same level as Hakeem Olojuwon. No matter what bobbyjoe, or any of these other haters who never saw David play before 1996 say. It's sad that Spurs fans continually undermine David's talent, skillset, level and ultimately his legacy. If you all never saw him play - stay out of the discussion.

-- David's playoff supporting casts sucked. Period. This is huge!!!. No matter how you spin it, no matter who ignores it, David would not have been able to win Championships with his supporting casts. And yet this is used as the primary argument to suggest that he was an inferior player.

-- Every great playoff run in the last 18 years has required at least one series swinging 3pt dagger, or jumper from someone other than the teams' star players.

Jordan was surrounded by: B.J. Armstrong, Craig Hodges, and John Paxon during his first three championship runs. And Steve Kerr, Toni Kukoc and Ron Harper during his last three. Not to be forgotten was the fact that he had Scottie Pippen, a deadly 3pt shooter in his own right, for all 6 championship runs. They all made series changing, game winning shots for him.

Hakeem was surrounded by: Sam Cassell, Robert Horry, Mario Elie, Kenny Smith and Clyde Drexler during his championship runs. They all made series changing, game winning shots for him. An abnormal amount actually.

Shaquille was surrounded by: Robert Horry, Derek Fisher, Glen Rice, Rick Fox, Brian Shaw, Derek Harper, and Jason Kapono during his championship runs. Not to mention Shaq had guys like Kobe Bryant, Penny Hardaway, and Dwayne Wade complementing his inside presence. They all made series changing, game winning shots for him.

Duncan was surrounded by: Steve Kerr, an unlikely hero in Jaren Jackson, a more mature Sean Eliott, Mario Elie, Stephen Jackson, Manu Ginobili, and Robert Horry. They all made series changing, game winning shots for him.

Last years Celtics were a three-headed all-star cast.

While this generation's Pistons have proven to be one of the most balanced teams ever. One greater than the sum of it's parts. Aside from Ben Wallace They all made series changing, game winning shots.

No matter how 'great' anyone tries to pass off Robinson's playoff supporting casts. None of his teammates ever made series changing, or game winning shots for him. Eliott and AJ, spared no self-criticism in suggesting this very truth back in 2003 (I'm trying to find the article).

Unfortunately the media has a lazy habit of defining players' legacies by their post-season accomplishments. Unfairly or not, their arguments mold and shape the nation's perception of athletes to the tune of their own viewpoints. To Robinson's detriment, he could never pull off the ultimate miracle and attain the coveted 'ship without an adequate supporting cast. After the series against the Rockets in 1995, the media threw Robinson under the bus, called him "soft", and hypocritically ignored the obvious: that the Spurs were a one-man team.

Their subjective arguments have unfairly shaped the viewpoints of every casual fan who never saw Robinson play in his heyday, even new generation Spurs fans. Robinson was a beast. He was feared; his 'guns' were huge. He was big, ripped, fast, athletic, versatile, could jump out of the gym, could score from anywhere and recover with the best of them. How he went from 'this' to being perceived as 'soft' just because of his teams' playoff failures is just wrong. Especially when his teams got farther than they ever should have to begin with.

One event that unfairly contributed to this perception was Robinson's reaction to Karl Malone's thuggish elbow (the one that knocked him unconscious); Robinson literally 'turned the other cheek' and publically 'forgave' Malone for it by downplaying his intent. In a world where rash, impulsive, egocentric players let their emotions get the best of them the Admiral did something worthy of admiration but was criticized for it. Unbelievable! The casual fan is ignorant. They prefer to praise crass players rather than one who defines class.

Anyway, not a single NBA champion since 1980 has had less than one star. Not one*. The only exception was Hakeem's first Championship team with the Rockets, but Hakeem was surrounded by the deadliest, clutchest, 3-pt ensemble ever. Not surprisingly, they also met up against one of the weakest finalists ever (statistically speaking) - the '94 Knicks.

[ambchang]

More analysts (6)ranked Robinson as not even being in their top 10 entirely than had him being #5 (4). That should tell you something. Ranking Robinson in the top 5 is an extreme outlier position. The majority of these p5 had Robinson over Bill Russell, who's achievements are easy to belittle by those who never saw him play. You made it sound like prevailing opinion has DR from #5-7 which is ridiculous.

20% of the population being called extreme outlier would signify a huge variance. But the funny thing is, YOU selected this poll as some sort of guide. Robinson ranked #8 when I said he would rank #5 to 7, of which 20% of the people YOU picked to be the guide agreed. So you are saying 20% of the people YOU chose as a standard of evalutation are extreme homers and ridiculous?

Also, check this: http://sports.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/listranker?id=688

The nation also ranked Robinson #7. There really ARE that many homers in throughout the nations huh? And I thought the Spurs were boring and disliked.


And how in the world does Robinson being ranked "right behind Hakeem" by 5 out of 20 (or a whopping 25%) of people signify that the "gap between them wasn't that significant".

25% of the people YOU chose ranked Robinson right behind Hakeem and that isn't significant? Really? Only 7 out of 20 of them ranked Shaq and Hakeem right to next other, is their gap significant? I would imagine that extra 10% wouldn't turn the gap from significant into insignificant.


Most consider Phil Mickelson second best in golfing only to Tiger Woods. Does that somehow mean that just because he's "right behind Tiger" the majority of reasonable, sane golf experts dont think there's still a significant distance and divide between the 2?

I don't follow golf, and I don't care about it.


Many analysts have Kobe as the 2nd best shooting guard ever in NBA history to MJ. This doesnt state anything as to the feelings that are held with regards to the performance gap between the 2.

I didn't realize Kobe and Jordan went head to head, with each winning 4 1st team all-nbas during their times together.


You love putting a bigtime silver n black spin on things as such an intentionally deceptive statement proves. Since you want to play that game, here are some other facts to consider:

1) 10 out of the 20 experts had Hakeem ranked at least 5 spots higher than Robinson on the alltime list vs. only the 5 you mentioned who had Robinosn only one spot behind Hakeem.

And what is the problem? It WOULD be a problem if I said only a blind homer would rank Hakeem significantly better than Robinson. But I didn't do that now did I? It was you who said only a blind homer would say Robinson is #5 to 7 alltime.


2) Your argument seems to be moving from "Robinson was as good or better than Hakeem" to "Hakeem wasnt that much better". If that is indeed true and the gap between them was so small, it's pretty damn hard to believe that not ONE out of the 20 experts polled on this ranked Robinson over Hakeem. NOT ONE. What does that tell you? That outside of SA, there's not much to debate...

Quote me, quote me where I said Robinson was better than Hakeem, or even as good as. I have been saying all along the two aren't as far apart as popular media think. And thanks for pulling the poll to prove me right with the rankings.


RE Walton vs. Robinson? Walton at his peak was just a dominant force. David Robinson never dominated the NBA. This shows the hypocrisy in your argument. When it comes to Robinson's playoff #'s, you love to point out his injuries as an excuse. Yet when it comes to a guy like Walton who's career was derailed by injuries, that shouldn't come into play? Do injuries only matter when it comes to Robinson?!

Robinson had 7 good years, Walton had 2. Robinson won an MVP, scoring title, block shot title, rebounding title, ranked top 5 in 3 stats category and top 10 in 5 in the same year. I don't what you call that other than dominant.


As you can see in the rankings, most did have Walton over Robinson. At his peak, he was dominant. David never was.

I saw the rankings, I just got puzzled over it.

[peskypesky]

I picked Drob.

[bobbyjoe]

20% of the population being called extreme outlier would signify a huge variance. But the funny thing is, YOU selected this poll as some sort of guide. Robinson ranked #8 when I said he would rank #5 to 7, of which 20% of the people YOU picked to be the guide agreed. So you are saying 20% of the people YOU chose as a standard of evalutation are extreme homers and ridiculous?

Also, check this: http://sports.espn.go.com/chat/sportsnation/listranker?id=688

The nation also ranked Robinson #7. There really ARE that many homers in throughout the nations huh? And I thought the Spurs were boring and disliked.



25% of the people YOU chose ranked Robinson right behind Hakeem and that isn't significant? Really? Only 7 out of 20 of them ranked Shaq and Hakeem right to next other, is their gap significant? I would imagine that extra 10% wouldn't turn the gap from significant into insignificant.



I don't follow golf, and I don't care about it.



I didn't realize Kobe and Jordan went head to head, with each winning 4 1st team all-nbas during their times together.



And what is the problem? It WOULD be a problem if I said only a blind homer would rank Hakeem significantly better than Robinson. But I didn't do that now did I? It was you who said only a blind homer would say Robinson is #5 to 7 alltime.



Quote me, quote me where I said Robinson was better than Hakeem, or even as good as. I have been saying all along the two aren't as far apart as popular media think. And thanks for pulling the poll to prove me right with the rankings.



Robinson had 7 good years, Walton had 2. Robinson won an MVP, scoring title, block shot title, rebounding title, ranked top 5 in 3 stats category and top 10 in 5 in the same year. I don't what you call that other than dominant.



I saw the rankings, I just got puzzled over it.

It proved you wrong actually.

1) Not one out of 20 analysts picked Robinson over Hakeem. If the 2 are as close you contend, surely ONE person would have voted the other way.

2) Hakeem ended with something like 132 pts to Robinson's 51 total. Again, that's not particularly close. You can keep trying to spin, but 132 to 51 is not close.

3) RE Hakeem vs. Shaq. As you can see, many of the 20 analysts did indeed pick Hakeem over Shaq (I believe 6 or 7 total). Their overall #'s were also close at 142 vs. 130 which is again why this is a much more legitimate and actual debate.

For something to be debatable, which is essentially what are you arguing by saying the gap between them is small, there has to be some actual disagreement. There is 0 disagreement on who was better out of Hakeem vs. Robinson amongs the 20 analysts in the ESPN piece.

You continue to state that because person A is ranked right behind person B, the gap has to be small. Take a look on the list at #1 Kareem vs. #2 Wilt (173 pts to 172). Then look at#5 Hakeem vs. #6 Moses (130 pts to 76). Thus, the panel overall felt that Kareem vs. Wilt was MUCH closer than Hakeem vs. Moses.

It would be inaccurate and a huge spin job to say that because Wilt was ranked just below Kareem and Moses just below Hakeem that the panel felt the gap between the 2 pairs was equal.

You can't only look at how many rungs on the ladder 2 Centers are separated by, but also how steep the drops on the ladder are. It's not rocket science. Additionally, the bottomline was that Robinson was ranked not 1, but three spots behind Hakeem on an overall basis. It was only 25% who ranked them "right next to each other" but then a larger % ranked them as 5 spots or more apart.

-How was Robinson's playoff performances in those years you contend he was "dominant"? Care to post the #'s: Hint, they all decline.

-I notice you again fail to account for Walton's injuries. When healthy, he impacted the game in a way David Robinson simply did not. Walton led a very pedestrian supporting cast to a Championship.

Why do injuries only affect David Robinson's all time standings and not Bill Walton's? It makes so sense, which is clearly why you are ignoring it.

Can you honestly tell me with a straight face that Robinson ever approached the level of play that Walton did in 78 for the Blazers?

[bobbyjoe]

bobbyjoe is just a hater....

When you give him the info that he's too lazy to look up for himself he spins it around to say what he wants it to say. When you corner him with the data, he's all, "but wait there's this other angle".... He continually leaves out key factors, and has countered his own arguments on at least three occasions. He has ignored the statistics at his convenience and has formulated his arguments on an entirely subjective basis. His best statistical argument has been to use the opinions of 20 ESPN analysts as his trumping 'wild card'... :lol

-- David Robinson is on the same level as Hakeem Olojuwon. No matter what bobbyjoe, or any of these other haters who never saw David play before 1996 say. It's sad that Spurs fans continually undermine David's talent, skillset, level and ultimately his legacy. If you all never saw him play - stay out of the discussion.

-- David's playoff supporting casts sucked. Period. This is huge!!!. No matter how you spin it, no matter who ignores it, David would not have been able to win Championships with his supporting casts. And yet this is used as the primary argument to suggest that he was an inferior player.

-- Every great playoff run in the last 18 years has required at least one series swinging 3pt dagger, or jumper from someone other than the teams' star players.

Jordan was surrounded by: B.J. Armstrong, Craig Hodges, and John Paxon during his first three championship runs. And Steve Kerr, Toni Kukoc and Ron Harper during his last three. Not to be forgotten was the fact that he had Scottie Pippen, a deadly 3pt shooter in his own right, for all 6 championship runs. They all made series changing, game winning shots for him.

Hakeem was surrounded by: Sam Cassell, Robert Horry, Mario Elie, Kenny Smith and Clyde Drexler during his championship runs. They all made series changing, game winning shots for him. An abnormal amount actually.

Shaquille was surrounded by: Robert Horry, Derek Fisher, Glen Rice, Rick Fox, Brian Shaw, Derek Harper, and Jason Kapono during his championship runs. Not to mention Shaq had guys like Kobe Bryant, Penny Hardaway, and Dwayne Wade complementing his inside presence. They all made series changing, game winning shots for him.

Duncan was surrounded by: Steve Kerr, an unlikely hero in Jaren Jackson, a more mature Sean Eliott, Mario Elie, Stephen Jackson, Manu Ginobili, and Robert Horry. They all made series changing, game winning shots for him.

Last years Celtics were a three-headed all-star cast.

While this generation's Pistons have proven to be one of the most balanced teams ever. One greater than the sum of it's parts. Aside from Ben Wallace They all made series changing, game winning shots.

No matter how 'great' anyone tries to pass off Robinson's playoff supporting casts. None of his teammates ever made series changing, or game winning shots for him. Eliott and AJ, spared no self-criticism in suggesting this very truth back in 2003 (I'm trying to find the article).

Unfortunately the media has a lazy habit of defining players' legacies by their post-season accomplishments. Unfairly or not, their arguments mold and shape the nation's perception of athletes to the tune of their own viewpoints. To Robinson's detriment, he could never pull off the ultimate miracle and attain the coveted 'ship without an adequate supporting cast. After the series against the Rockets in 1995, the media threw Robinson under the bus, called him "soft", and hypocritically ignored the obvious: that the Spurs were a one-man team.

Their subjective arguments have unfairly shaped the viewpoints of every casual fan who never saw Robinson play in his heyday, even new generation Spurs fans. Robinson was a beast. He was feared; his 'guns' were huge. He was big, ripped, fast, athletic, versatile, could jump out of the gym, could score from anywhere and recover with the best of them. How he went from 'this' to being perceived as 'soft' just because of his teams' playoff failures is just wrong. Especially when his teams got farther than they ever should have to begin with.

One event that unfairly contributed to this perception was Robinson's reaction to Karl Malone's thuggish elbow (the one that knocked him unconscious); Robinson literally 'turned the other cheek' and publically 'forgave' Malone for it by downplaying his intent. In a world where rash, impulsive, egocentric players let their emotions get the best of them the Admiral did something worthy of admiration but was criticized for it. Unbelievable! The casual fan is ignorant. They prefer to praise crass players rather than one who defines class.

Anyway, not a single NBA champion since 1980 has had less than one star. Not one*. The only exception was Hakeem's first Championship team with the Rockets, but Hakeem was surrounded by the deadliest, clutchest, 3-pt ensemble ever. Not surprisingly, they also met up against one of the weakest finalists ever (statistically speaking) - the '94 Knicks.

How could a Spurs fan of all people make that claim?

The Spurs of 2003 had more than 1 star? They had Duncan and a weak Rockets 94 type of supporting cast. But Duncan was so dominant that the Spurs won the Title. No way the Spurs win that title with a prime David Robinson swapping for a prime Tim Duncan.

I think the whole Karl Malone discussion you threw out just proves that you have such a huge chip on the shoulder and wear the "David Robinson was soft" badge of honor. That just totally came out of left field.

Last time I checked, Tim Duncan is a pretty unassuming, non-controversial guy just like David Robinson and is widely recognized as the top PF ever and a top 10-15 player ever. Ditto with Hakeem. So that kills your chip on the shoulder argument that Robinson is underrated because he wasn't vocal, boastful, or brash enough.

Robinson isnt ranked at #7 or #8 because the media thought he was soft. It's because he didnt bring it in crunch time like the true superelites Kareem, Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan, Russell did...

I'm sorry that most aren't biased enough to attribute Robinson's inability to ever develop reliable go to moves in the playoffs to his teammates. Perhaps if he had Kenny Smith and Horry, he'd have developed the unstoppable turnaround Jumper and not Hakeem...

[baseline bum]

bobbyjoe is the Rocket fan equivalent to whottt.

[TDMVPDPOY]

karl malone calling drob soft, is like calling out kmalone not delivering on sunday...

[bobbyjoe]

bobbyjoe is just a hater....

When you give him the info that he's too lazy to look up for himself he spins it around to say what he wants it to say. When you corner him with the data, he's all, "but wait there's this other angle".... He continually leaves out key factors, and has countered his own arguments on at least three occasions. He has ignored the statistics at his convenience and has formulated his arguments on an entirely subjective basis. His best statistical argument has been to use the opinions of 20 ESPN analysts as his trumping 'wild card'... :lol

-- David Robinson is on the same level as Hakeem Olojuwon. No matter what bobbyjoe, or any of these other haters who never saw David play before 1996 say. It's sad that Spurs fans continually undermine David's talent, skillset, level and ultimately his legacy. If you all never saw him play - stay out of the discussion.

-- David's playoff supporting casts sucked. Period. This is huge!!!. No matter how you spin it, no matter who ignores it, David would not have been able to win Championships with his supporting casts. And yet this is used as the primary argument to suggest that he was an inferior player.

-- Every great playoff run in the last 18 years has required at least one series swinging 3pt dagger, or jumper from someone other than the teams' star players.

Jordan was surrounded by: B.J. Armstrong, Craig Hodges, and John Paxon during his first three championship runs. And Steve Kerr, Toni Kukoc and Ron Harper during his last three. Not to be forgotten was the fact that he had Scottie Pippen, a deadly 3pt shooter in his own right, for all 6 championship runs. They all made series changing, game winning shots for him.

Hakeem was surrounded by: Sam Cassell, Robert Horry, Mario Elie, Kenny Smith and Clyde Drexler during his championship runs. They all made series changing, game winning shots for him. An abnormal amount actually.

Shaquille was surrounded by: Robert Horry, Derek Fisher, Glen Rice, Rick Fox, Brian Shaw, Derek Harper, and Jason Kapono during his championship runs. Not to mention Shaq had guys like Kobe Bryant, Penny Hardaway, and Dwayne Wade complementing his inside presence. They all made series changing, game winning shots for him.

Duncan was surrounded by: Steve Kerr, an unlikely hero in Jaren Jackson, a more mature Sean Eliott, Mario Elie, Stephen Jackson, Manu Ginobili, and Robert Horry. They all made series changing, game winning shots for him.

Last years Celtics were a three-headed all-star cast.

While this generation's Pistons have proven to be one of the most balanced teams ever. One greater than the sum of it's parts. Aside from Ben Wallace They all made series changing, game winning shots.

No matter how 'great' anyone tries to pass off Robinson's playoff supporting casts. None of his teammates ever made series changing, or game winning shots for him. Eliott and AJ, spared no self-criticism in suggesting this very truth back in 2003 (I'm trying to find the article).

Unfortunately the media has a lazy habit of defining players' legacies by their post-season accomplishments. Unfairly or not, their arguments mold and shape the nation's perception of athletes to the tune of their own viewpoints. To Robinson's detriment, he could never pull off the ultimate miracle and attain the coveted 'ship without an adequate supporting cast. After the series against the Rockets in 1995, the media threw Robinson under the bus, called him "soft", and hypocritically ignored the obvious: that the Spurs were a one-man team.

Their subjective arguments have unfairly shaped the viewpoints of every casual fan who never saw Robinson play in his heyday, even new generation Spurs fans. Robinson was a beast. He was feared; his 'guns' were huge. He was big, ripped, fast, athletic, versatile, could jump out of the gym, could score from anywhere and recover with the best of them. How he went from 'this' to being perceived as 'soft' just because of his teams' playoff failures is just wrong. Especially when his teams got farther than they ever should have to begin with.

One event that unfairly contributed to this perception was Robinson's reaction to Karl Malone's thuggish elbow (the one that knocked him unconscious); Robinson literally 'turned the other cheek' and publically 'forgave' Malone for it by downplaying his intent. In a world where rash, impulsive, egocentric players let their emotions get the best of them the Admiral did something worthy of admiration but was criticized for it. Unbelievable! The casual fan is ignorant. They prefer to praise crass players rather than one who defines class.

Anyway, not a single NBA champion since 1980 has had less than one star. Not one*. The only exception was Hakeem's first Championship team with the Rockets, but Hakeem was surrounded by the deadliest, clutchest, 3-pt ensemble ever. Not surprisingly, they also met up against one of the weakest finalists ever (statistically speaking) - the '94 Knicks.

BTW, i remember the Malone incident vividly.

Robinson was not criticized for not reacting. The guy was knocked unconscious by the elbow; how in the world could he react when he was lights out? I don't recall any criticism of DRob whatsoever pertaining to this incident.

The only perception outcome of this incident was Malone cementing his legacy as one of the dirtiest players ever to lace em up.

[21_Blessings]

Dream > Shaq > Duncan > D-Rob

But anyone who voted for D-Rob is absolutely retarded and must have repressed the memory of 1995.

[Sissiborgo]

I was 15 when I saw that '95 series between the Spurs/Rockets.:lol

Good for you but they are always showing old games like Lakers-Jazz and classic series so i know what i am saying...;)

[ambchang]

If you plugged Hakeem on any Spurs squad in David Robinsons place the team would be better.This shit should never have made five pages. I like Dave a lot because he was a great person, but as a player he was no Dream. I don't fault anyone for standing up for their favorite players, but if any team had to chose between the two nobody would pick Dave..... well, maybe Isaiah Thomas.

Really? That really explains why the Rockets missed the playoffs in 91-92 (Hakeem missed 12 games that year) with a supporting cast of Thorpe, Maxwell and Kenny Smith, or his 6 1st round exits.

Get this through your head people, EVERYONE, no matter how good, needs a reasonable supporting cast around him. Hakeem blossomed with a group of 3 pt shooters during an era of the shortened 3pt line because of his unbelievable low post game, quick release and crisp passes. But if you put him on a team where everyone around him sucked, he would missed the playoffs or get bounced in the 1st round, just like he demonstrated in his career.

[ambchang]

It proved you wrong actually.

1) Not one out of 20 analysts picked Robinson over Hakeem. If the 2 are as close you contend, surely ONE person would have voted the other way.

Hmmm ... Let's see .... [looking through thread and my arguments], where did I say Robinson is ranked ahead of Hakeem? Oh wait, I can't find that.


2) Hakeem ended with something like 132 pts to Robinson's 51 total. Again, that's not particularly close. You can keep trying to spin, but 132 to 51 is not close.

And yet my argument all along was that Robinson was underrated by the media. I had the statistics and team records to prove it, which interestingly, you somehow didn't address at all afterwards.

So let me track this thread between you and me again.

Me: Robinson was underrated by the media, his career accomplishments aren't as far apart from Hakeem's.

You: No it's not, check the playoff numbers. Ranking Robinson 5 to 7 all-time is what blind homers do.

Me: Really, check the stats? Check the team records, check individual playoff series.

You: Look at this poll by the media. Nobody in the media agrees with you.

Me: Seems like 20% agreed. BTW, I have originally said that the media underrated Robinson, pulling the media rankings really shows that to be true when you put Robinson's career accomplishments alongside Hakeem's.


3) RE Hakeem vs. Shaq. As you can see, many of the 20 analysts did indeed pick Hakeem over Shaq (I believe 6 or 7 total). Their overall #'s were also close at 142 vs. 130 which is again why this is a much more legitimate and actual debate.

For something to be debatable, which is essentially what are you arguing by saying the gap between them is small, there has to be some actual disagreement. There is 0 disagreement on who was better out of Hakeem vs. Robinson amongs the 20 analysts in the ESPN piece.

And yet the stats and overall career accomplishments of the two, who actually when head to head during their primes in the same era of basketball, shows otherwise.

None of the media agreed = media underrates Robinson.


You continue to state that because person A is ranked right behind person B, the gap has to be small. Take a look on the list at #1 Kareem vs. #2 Wilt (173 pts to 172). Then look at#5 Hakeem vs. #6 Moses (130 pts to 76). Thus, the panel overall felt that Kareem vs. Wilt was MUCH closer than Hakeem vs. Moses.

Because you are somehow using this survey as the de facto standard of ranking centers, I would assume that you would agree with their rankings.

But at the same time, 20% of the people YOU chose ranks Robinson in the top 5 of all time, while you are saying that only blind homers would do that. So what is it? Are these panelist accurate and impartial in their rankings? Because I would be hard pressed to find that you would find a ranking containing 20% blind homers would set any kind of standards of accuracy. At the same time, why would those 6 who ranked Robinson totally out of the top 10 not be blind haters? Why should those be taken into consideration, while the other 4 not be?

Or perhaps there is another explanation, which is that you are choosing only parts of survey that speaks to your point, while ignoring the ones that doesn't, much like how you would look at ONE single playoff series in Robinson's career to represent his whole 14-year career, where SIX playoff games should override his work over 987 career regular season games and the other 117 playoff games.


It would be inaccurate and a huge spin job to say that because Wilt was ranked just below Kareem and Moses just below Hakeem that the panel felt the gap between the 2 pairs was equal.

You can't only look at how many rungs on the ladder 2 Centers are separated by, but also how steep the drops on the ladder are. It's not rocket science. Additionally, the bottomline was that Robinson was ranked not 1, but three spots behind Hakeem on an overall basis. It was only 25% who ranked them "right next to each other" but then a larger % ranked them as 5 spots or more apart.

Because ranking Robinson #5 to 7 all-time is a blind homer, yet a panelist YOU chose ranked Robinson #8 overall, with 20% ranking him in the top 5, and 35% ranking him in that range. The nation in general, ranked him #7.

To top this off, the whole argument was that popular media and the average NBA fan underrated Robinson.


-How was Robinson's playoff performances in those years you contend he was "dominant"? Care to post the #'s: Hint, they all decline.

Really, in his 12 playoff appearance, he had better statistics in the playoffs than the regular season:
3 times in FG%, 4 times in FT%, 6 times in rebounds, 7 times in assists, 5 times in steals, 4 times in blocks, and 4 times in points.

I hope this is the last time you come in making empty statements, and have to have me work on the numbers to prove yo wrong once again. If you want to prove something, do it yourself instead of giving incorrectly hints.


-I notice you again fail to account for Walton's injuries. When healthy, he impacted the game in a way David Robinson simply did not. Walton led a very pedestrian supporting cast to a Championship.

Why do injuries only affect David Robinson's all time standings and not Bill Walton's? It makes so sense, which is clearly why you are ignoring it.

Can you honestly tell me with a straight face that Robinson ever approached the level of play that Walton did in 78 for the Blazers?


I didn't realize that a team with 6 players scoring in double figures is pedestrial, or the fact that an offensive system widely recognized as one of the most best passing system was pedestrial (thanks largely to Walton of course), or that a team led by Jack Ramsay should have a same impact as one that was led by Jerry Tarkanian, John Lucas and Bob Hill, or Maurice Lucas, one of the toughest enforcers in league history was terrible. Nice.

[ambchang]

Dream > Shaq > Duncan > D-Rob

But anyone who voted for D-Rob is absolutely retarded and must have repressed the memory of 1995.

Paul Pierce > Kobe Bryant.

You are retarded and must have repressed the memory of 2008 if you voted other wise.

[Phenomanul]

BTW, i remember the Malone incident vividly.

Robinson was not criticized for not reacting. The guy was knocked unconscious by the elbow; how in the world could he react when he was lights out? I don't recall any criticism of DRob whatsoever pertaining to this incident.

The only perception outcome of this incident was Malone cementing his legacy as one of the dirtiest players ever to lace em up.


I guess reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

1) I stated that Robinson was in fact knocked unconscious...

2) I stated that Robinson publically forgave Malone, by downplaying the incident altogether. In using the word 'publically' I implied that it occurred after the game; that context is pretty obvious to me.

3) TV analysts soon criticized his reaction, or 'lack thereof', by suggesting that this was one of the reasons that Robinson was perceived as 'soft'; that he couldn't hold his ground as a player if he allowed others to publically humilate him on the court. Hypocrites. They would have been the first to condemn Robinson if he had retaliated in an Artest-like manner (anachronistic I know) the next time he saw Malone.

4) Vividly??? Please....

Now go ahead and spin it some more.... :downspin:

[Phenomanul]

Having said that, yes... I agree Karl Malone was one of the dirtiest players to ever lace them up...

[mavs>spurs2]

Paul Pierce > Kobe Bryant.

You are retarded and must have repressed the memory of 2008 if you voted other wise.

They didn't guard eachother for the majority of the series, and Paul Pierce played Kobe to a standstill, allowing his teammates to finish the job. A stalemate and getting completely owned are totally different.

[Phenomanul]

They didn't guard eachother for the majority of the series, and Paul Pierce played Kobe to a standstill, allowing his teammates to finish the job. A stalemate and getting completely owned are totally different.

So you are suggesting that teammates matter? Thought so. :wakeup

[Phenomanul]

How could a Spurs fan of all people make that claim?

Good, I'll hold this one in my back pocket the next time you suggest that Shaq is a better all-time great than Duncan.



The Spurs of 2003 had more than 1 star? They had Duncan and a weak Rockets 94 type of supporting cast. But Duncan was so dominant that the Spurs won the Title. No way the Spurs win that title with a prime David Robinson swapping for a prime Tim Duncan.

Robinson at 70% of his former self was still considered a star. In his last NBA game ever he scored 13 points, collected 17 rebounds, dished out 2 assists, and blocked 2 shots. His full versatility was in display. Duncan needed Robinson. Consider this, as bad as Robinson's numbers suffered due to his health, the Spurs still haven't had efficient production from the center spot since his departure (not counting when Timmy plays the 5 in small-ball schemes).

And while I agree that Duncan was dominant, he also required daggers from his perimeter crew to attain the championship in 2003. But thanks for making the argument on my behalf. What? You don't remember the three point barrage against Dallas in the WCF, the 19 point swing in that critical game? Four three pointers by an unlikely hero in Steve Kerr? Two more from Stephen Jackson and two more from Manu Ginobili? As great as Duncan was, the Spurs don't win that game, and the series without those outside shots. Pre-injury Robinson never enjoyed that luxury.

So yes, the comparison to the '94 Rockets is a valid one in that Hakeem also needed outside daggers to get past the WCF to the NBA Finals.

Thanks for playing. :fishing



I think the whole Karl Malone discussion you threw out just proves that you have such a huge chip on the shoulder and wear the "David Robinson was soft" badge of honor. That just totally came out of left field.

It just shows I'm informed about the historical media bias against David. Most people don't even recollect the aftermath of this event.



Last time I checked, Tim Duncan is a pretty unassuming, non-controversial guy just like David Robinson and is widely recognized as the top PF ever and a top 10-15 player ever. Ditto with Hakeem. So that kills your chip on the shoulder argument that Robinson is underrated because he wasn't vocal, boastful, or brash enough.

That's neither here nor there... that wasn't my argument at all. The media used the 'soft' qualifier as a way of shifting how Robinson would be perceived from that point forward. One that has factored into people's claims (without actual knowledge of the subject mind you) that if Robinson was 'soft' that he couldn't have been dominant. Fact of the matter is that Robinson was an MVP level player, who was dominant on both ends of the court. He just ran into a great team at the wrong time.



Robinson isnt ranked at #7 or #8 because the media thought he was soft. It's because he didnt bring it in crunch time like the true superelites Kareem, Shaq, Hakeem, Duncan, Russell did...

Greats who won championships because their teams were better than Robinson's ever were. Greats who required a complimentary outside presence to allow them to work effectively in the post. Thanks again for making the argument on my behalf.



I'm sorry that most aren't biased enough to attribute Robinson's inability to ever develop reliable go to moves in the playoffs to his teammates. Perhaps if he had Kenny Smith and Horry, he'd have developed the unstoppable turnaround Jumper and not Hakeem...

Hakeem rarely took that jumper off of double teams. He always made the correct play and passed it off to wide open three point shooters.... wait a second..... That must have meant that the Spurs couldn't double Hakeem as often as they would have wanted to. Just like Amare got his against the Spurs in 2005, the Spurs wanted to limit Hakeem's role players. Unfortunately they failed miserably at that task. Both Hakeem and Houston's 3pt threats went bonkers in that series. Houston doesn't win that series without the clutch contributions from Horry, Elie, and Cassell. Thanks again for making the argument on my behalf.

Bobbyjoe it looks like you are running out of arguments... All you are left with is what you initially came in here with, opinionated bias against David Robinson. "Oh Noes.... Robinson was actually a greater player than Shaq!!! My brain won't allow for that premise to actually be considered!!!" :smchode:

[Galileo]

1991 is a black mark against D-Rob.

The Spurs had the perfect team, picked by Peterson's magazine to win the NBA Title.

They had:

C DRob
PF Terry Cummings
SF Sean Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_
SG Willie Anderson
PG Rod Strickland

They lost in the first round and I watched the Series.

[21_Blessings]

They didn't guard eachother for the majority of the series, and Paul Pierce played Kobe to a standstill, allowing his teammates to finish the job. A stalemate and getting completely owned are totally different.

Paul Pierce had two hall of famers (one of them DPOY) on his squad that the Lakers had to account for. Kobe had a disappearing Euro who has never won a playoff game without Kobe and zero-time all-starr druggie who couldn't hit a 15 foot jumpshot if is life depended on it.

[mavs>spurs2]

Paul Pierce had two hall of famers (one of them DPOY) on his squad that the Lakers had to account for. Kobe had a disappearing Euro who has never won a playoff game without Kobe and zero-time all-starr druggie who couldn't hit a 15 foot jumpshot if is life depended on it.

Exactly.

My point to ambchang was that Pierce having a good series against Kobe in no way equals the ass whooping Hakeem unleashed on Drob

[Phenomanul]

1991 is a black mark against D-Rob.

The Spurs had the perfect team, picked by Peterson's magazine to win the NBA Title.

They had:

C DRob
PF Terry Cummings
SF Sean Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_
SG Willie Anderson
PG Rod Strickland

They lost in the first round and I watched the Series.

Whatever Jeff.... You seriously want to play the "pick a random postseason to define the career of player x" game?

[baseline bum]

Fucking Laker fans kill me with their revisionist history on the depth around Bryant. That supporting cast was a monster the whole season and the first three rounds of the playoffs.

[Phenomanul]

Exactly.

My point to ambchang was that Pierce having a good series against Kobe in no way equals the ass whooping Hakeem unleashed on Drob

Are you that stupid to make such a bipolar argument?

Um let me see...

Kobe needed his teammates to step up to win a series, they didn't, he lost the series. It's not Kobe's fault.

David needed his teammates to step up to win a series, they didn't, he lost the series. It's David's fault.

And here I was about to post this:

Dirk needed his teammates to step up to win a series, they didn't, he lost the series. It's not Dirk's fault.

[Galileo]

Whatever Jeff.... You seriously want to play the "pick a random postseason to define the career of player x" game?

who's Jeff?

1991 and 1995 add up to 2 of 7 of DRob's prime years.

DRob only won 5 playoff series before Duncan arrived.

5-7

[bobbyjoe]

1991 is a black mark against D-Rob.

The Spurs had the perfect team, picked by Peterson's magazine to win the NBA Title.

They had:

C DRob
PF Terry Cummings
SF Sean Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_
SG Willie Anderson
PG Rod Strickland

They lost in the first round and I watched the Series.

Robinson also was had subpar playoff outings in 94,95, and 96. Everyone remembers 95 but 94 and 96 were probably worse IMO. Robinson really, really struggled against the Jazz when the Jazz put Karl Malone on him. His offensive #'s those years in the playoffs were poor.

Chang and Paul are in serious denial to suggest Robinson was as effective in the postseason as in the regular. Not even close. Let's look at his real prime NBA seasons when the Spurs had their best casts around him.

in 93-94, Robinson avg'd 30 ppg, 11 rpg, 5 apg on 51% shooting in the regular season.

In 4 games aginst the Jazz in the playoffs he drops all the way to 20 ppg, 10 rpg, on 41% shooting.

In 94-95, MVP robinson avg's 27.6 ppg, 10.8 rpg on 53% shooting from the field. In the playoffs, his scoring drops to 25.3 ppg, rpg increased to 12.1 rpg, but his shooting drops all the way to 44.6%. This doesn't even mention his defensive disaster against Hakeem. That's a monumental drop in FG% each year for a superstar smack in his prime. Especially for a bigman. Robinson was equally subpar against the Jazz in the 96 postseason.

Besides 90-91 against a midget GS team where Don nelson was playing smallball, when did Robinson's game actually elevate in the postseason? That's only 1 year out of 7 prime years.

You win titles by stepping UP in the postseason, not regressing. Spare the teammates hyperbole. As Galileo showed, Robinson did play on some teams with good talent. The 93-94 and 94-95 teams Robinson was surrounded by 2 all star players on the front line with him in Elliott and Rodman. These aren't 11 random scrubs from soutside SA surrounding Robinson. These are 2 all star players.

And again, his teammates had nothing to do with Robinson's failure to ever develop a reliable post-up game with go-to moves, something every great Big before and after him has had. THAT was the killer flaw in his game, what prevented him from being in the top tier of C's alltime. To deny that is to try to rewrite history.

I've heard a lot of spin and excuses about teammates, but not a single credible reason for how flawed Robinson's game was in terms of the ability of that game to translate to success in the postseason, when more than quickness and a faceup J are needed to dominate and make those around you better...

[ambchang]

Paul Pierce had two hall of famers (one of them DPOY) on his squad that the Lakers had to account for. Kobe had a disappearing Euro who has never won a playoff game without Kobe and zero-time all-starr druggie who couldn't hit a 15 foot jumpshot if is life depended on it.

Hakeem had a HoF in Clyde Drexler, and clutch shooters in Horry, Cassell and Elie, as well as a decent point guard in Kenny Smith. Robinson had a choking Elliott, quitting Rodman, Vinny Del Negro and Avery Johnson on his.

Perhaps it's time that people finally realized that teammates matter, huh?

[bobbyjoe]

Exactly.

My point to ambchang was that Pierce having a good series against Kobe in no way equals the ass whooping Hakeem unleashed on Drob

Plus it's not like Kobe has a history of his game regressing in the playoffs year in and year out. That's what the problem was for Robinson.

Kobe overall has been a clutch assassin in the playoffs more often than not. Spur fans know this from 01,02,04, and 08. He did have a subpar series against Boston, but that doesn't a career make.

Robinson's 95 series against hakeem doesn't get brought up as much if Robinson had some other great performances in the playoffs. But really, he never did...I think the reason 95 is brought up so much is that it symbolized and epitomized how Robinson's game just wasn't as great as in the regular season when the games really counted...

Ask Bruce Bowen if the playoff Bryant is easier to guard than the regular season Bryant...

[Phenomanul]

Robinson also was had subpar playoff outings in 94,95, and 96. Everyone remembers 95 but 94 and 96 were probably worse IMO. Robinson really, really struggled against the Jazz when the Jazz put Karl Malone on him. His offensive #'s those years in the playoffs were poor.

Chang and Paul are in serious denial to suggest Robinson was as effective in the postseason as in the regular. Not even close. Let's look at his real prime NBA seasons when the Spurs had their best casts around him.

in 93-94, Robinson avg'd 30 ppg, 11 rpg, 5 apg on 51% shooting in the regular season.

In 4 games aginst the Jazz in the playoffs he drops all the way to 20 ppg, 10 rpg, on 41% shooting.

In 94-95, MVP robinson avg's 27.6 ppg, 10.8 rpg on 53% shooting from the field. In the playoffs, his scoring drops to 25.3 ppg, rpg increased to 12.1 rpg, but his shooting drops all the way to 44.6%. This doesn't even mention his defensive disaster against Hakeem. That's a monumental drop in FG% each year for a superstar smack in his prime. Especially for a bigman. Robinson was equally subpar against the Jazz in the 96 postseason.

Besides 90-91 against a midget GS team where Don nelson was playing smallball, when did Robinson's game actually elevate in the postseason? That's only 1 year out of 7 prime years.

You win titles by stepping UP in the postseason, not regressing. Spare the teammates hyperbole. As Galileo showed, Robinson did play on some teams with good talent. The 93-94 and 94-95 teams Robinson was surrounded by 2 all star players on the front line with him in Elliott and Rodman. These aren't 11 random scrubs from soutside SA surrounding Robinson. These are 2 all star players.

And again, his teammates had nothing to do with Robinson's failure to ever develop a reliable post-up game with go-to moves, something every great Big before and after him has had. THAT was the killer flaw in his game, what prevented him from being in the top tier of C's alltime. To deny that is to try to rewrite history.

I've heard a lot of spin and excuses about teammates, but not a single credible reason for how flawed Robinson's game was in terms of the ability of that game to translate to success in the postseason, when more than quickness and a faceup J are needed to dominate and make those around you better...

This entire argument summarizes your obtuse, myopic, denigration of David's game. Why can't you just admit that he was a better player than Shaq? Do you really have to use Hakeem in order to justify the premise that he wasn't?

I never bothered replying to Galileo's argument because it's been destroyed too many times. And yet you are willing to piggy back on it? :lol

Everything you just brought up above was statistically destroyed by amchang several posts ago. But you were too busy back-pedaling from your original arguments to even notice. Now you suggest that Robinson had an awesome squad in '93-'94... hardly, if that were the case why did Robinson lead the team in assists per game? Your arguments hold less merit when you try to pass off these subjective claims with such revisionist context. Great squad indeed... pffft.

And Rodman? Don't even bring him up, he was a huge reason why Houston beat the Spurs in '95; he practically quit on the team. And bringing up the Jazz into this discussion? Thanks again for making arguments on my behalf; the Jazz had two of the greatest 50 players to ever lace them up, and perhaps the greatest, if not the most efficient, pick'n'roll combo in history. Not to mention those Jazz teams commanded respect at the 3pt line.

I'm done discussing this with you. I would throw the, "let's just agree to disagree" phrase at the point of the argument. But you know what? Your dense attitude just doesn't deserve it. How many circular arguments have you used? How many times were you cornered into having to admit to certain flaws and errors in your historical evaluation of Robinson? Not once did you even say, "perhaps I am undermining Robinson's career; in my mind he's still not on Olojuwon's level, but definitely deserving of a top 5-7 spot" NO.... you stubbornly held your ground even when the very own 'subjective' evidence you brought to the table said otherwise (yeah you misinterpreted it big time). You brought up Walton and M. Malone as better players? Seriously??? They were never as versatile or as complete as Robinson. Most uniformed fans when presented with the actual context of David's career will at least admit that the media has vastly underrated him as a player. You can't even get yourself to admit this much. Stubborness is a destructive attribute....

Look, one could understand your opinion if you were using the same standard to evaluate players, but the fact that you don't want accept the context for Robinson's playoff exits, while excusing Kobe's is downright hypocritical to the nth degree.:rolleyes:rolleyes When you understand what that implies, feel free to respond; otherwise don't bother.

:wakeup

[DarkMaverick]

What retards voted for Robinson....stupid homers

Looms, who the fuck do you think you are??? People are entitled to their own opinion. Having said that, i think you are the dumb ass retard here.

[ambchang]

Robinson also was had subpar playoff outings in 94,95, and 96. Everyone remembers 95 but 94 and 96 were probably worse IMO. Robinson really, really struggled against the Jazz when the Jazz put Karl Malone on him. His offensive #'s those years in the playoffs were poor.

Chang and Paul are in serious denial to suggest Robinson was as effective in the postseason as in the regular. Not even close. Let's look at his real prime NBA seasons when the Spurs had their best casts around him.

in 93-94, Robinson avg'd 30 ppg, 11 rpg, 5 apg on 51% shooting in the regular season.

In 4 games aginst the Jazz in the playoffs he drops all the way to 20 ppg, 10 rpg, on 41% shooting.

In 94-95, MVP robinson avg's 27.6 ppg, 10.8 rpg on 53% shooting from the field. In the playoffs, his scoring drops to 25.3 ppg, rpg increased to 12.1 rpg, but his shooting drops all the way to 44.6%. This doesn't even mention his defensive disaster against Hakeem. That's a monumental drop in FG% each year for a superstar smack in his prime. Especially for a bigman. Robinson was equally subpar against the Jazz in the 96 postseason.

Besides 90-91 against a midget GS team where Don nelson was playing smallball, when did Robinson's game actually elevate in the postseason? That's only 1 year out of 7 prime years.

You win titles by stepping UP in the postseason, not regressing. Spare the teammates hyperbole. As Galileo showed, Robinson did play on some teams with good talent. The 93-94 and 94-95 teams Robinson was surrounded by 2 all star players on the front line with him in Elliott and Rodman. These aren't 11 random scrubs from soutside SA surrounding Robinson. These are 2 all star players.

And again, his teammates had nothing to do with Robinson's failure to ever develop a reliable post-up game with go-to moves, something every great Big before and after him has had. THAT was the killer flaw in his game, what prevented him from being in the top tier of C's alltime. To deny that is to try to rewrite history.

I've heard a lot of spin and excuses about teammates, but not a single credible reason for how flawed Robinson's game was in terms of the ability of that game to translate to success in the postseason, when more than quickness and a faceup J are needed to dominate and make those around you better...

Hakeem was subpar in the 89-90 postseason vs. the Lakers, when scoring dropped from 24.3 ppg to 18.5 ppg, and shooting went from 50.1% to a shocking 44.3%.

In 95-96, his scoring went from 26.9ppg down to 22.4 ppg, then in 98-99, he went from from 18.9 to 13.3, shooting 42.6%. To top it all off, in the 98 postseason, he shot an atrocious 39.4% fro the field.

But will I say Hakeem is terrible in the playoffs and choked by leading his team to earn the title choke city before his two titles? Of course not, because I chose not to take a tunnel visioned view on his career, and try to look at it with his whole body of accomplishments.

EDIT: I particular like how you jump from one argument to another, because if you throw enough shit on the wall, some of it is going to stick, you have a great career as a politician.

Let us track your assertions and my responses so far, shall we?

You: Robinson did considerably worse in the postseason, check their overall numbers.

Me: Look at individual seasons, because Robinson’s postseason numbers are heavily weighted towards the later half of his career. (Never acknowledged)

You: Robinson-Olajuwon comparison is akin to Kobe-MJ comparison.

Me: Robinson- Olajuwon won 4 1st-team all NBA playing at the same era. Kobe probably would never make all-team all NBA in any seasons over MJ.

You: Look at the per 36.

Me: I did, and the fact is Kobe and MJ are not even close, while Robinson and Hakeem are. I also found that Hakeem did well in the two post season when the NBA had a shorter 3 pt line, and he was surrounded by 3pt shooters. (Both points never acknowledged)

You: (New argument) Kobe did great vs. the Spurs, and Robinson’s supporting casts wasn’t terrible. They had Rodman, Elliott, Ellis, Person, Terry Cummings and Avery Johnson. (wow, really, the 5 best teammates Robinson every had were these players? I mean, compared to Ralph Sampson, Clyde Drexler, Otis Thorpe, Sam Cassell, Robert Horry, Kenny Smith, Scottie Pippen and Charles Barkley, I really don’t see a difference!)

Me: Those players didn’t play with Robinson at the same point, and Robinson did well when he had Cummings as his low post mate.
Also, Kobe’s playoff numbers decline overall, just as Robinson. So if you call Robinson a choker, you would have to call Kobe a choker. (Never acknowledged)

Second stream of arguments:
You: Ranking Robinson #5 to 7 on the all-time greatest center list is homerism at its worst.

Me: The list you provided actually had 20% of the group ranking Robinson in the top 5.

You: More analysts ranked Robinson outside of the top 10. The rankings generally have Hakeem much higher than Robinson, and nobody ranked Robinson higher than Hakeem. Ranking Robinson right behind Hakeem doesn’t mean that they are close.

Me: Thanks for showing me the media keeps underrating Robinson. Besides, you chose the list and 20% of that list showed Robinson in the top 5. I guess the panelist on the list you chose can’t be called homers unless you are willing to disregard the other ones who didn’t choose Robinson in the top 10, or even disregard the list as a whole. (Never acknowledged)

You: Robinson’s numbers all decline in the post season.

Me: No they don’t, many went up in the postseason. (Never acknowledged)

You: Robinson did bad not only vs. Hakeem in 95, but did terribly in 94 and 96 vs. Malone and the Jazz.

Me: Hakeem did poorly in a few postseasons as well, so? (Awaiting response)

[ambchang]

Paul Pierce had two hall of famers (one of them DPOY) on his squad that the Lakers had to account for. Kobe had a disappearing Euro who has never won a playoff game without Kobe and zero-time all-starr druggie who couldn't hit a 15 foot jumpshot if is life depended on it.

Oh yes, I forgot, when Kobe didn’t perform well, it’s because his teammates couldn’t hit a shot, and yet when Robinson didn’t perform well, it’s all Robinson’s fault. Because we all know Rodman and Avery Johnson are exactly the kind of teammates you want on your team to open up the lane for you, or Elliott missing 2 fts at the end of the game was Robinson’s fault.

Hey, at least we know that Robinson has the ability to pass the choke fumes around to his teammates, while Kobe can’t, the Lakers just choked individually on their own.


Exactly.

My point to ambchang was that Pierce having a good series against Kobe in no way equals the ass whooping Hakeem unleashed on Drob


They didn't guard eachother for the majority of the series, and Paul Pierce played Kobe to a standstill, allowing his teammates to finish the job. A stalemate and getting completely owned are totally different.

Teamates? What are those? I thought they don’t matter in the conversation.

Let me see ….
Before the playoffs: Gasol is going to make the Lakers the favourites for the title, because he has great moves around the basket and is such an acute passer.
After the playoffs: Gasol is soft and chokes. The Lakers lost because of him. The past years, the Lakers lost because of Odom.

And maybe I am in the minority, but I would imagine Odom, Gasol, Vujacic and Fisher are better at helping on offense than Rodman, Avery Johnson, Vinny Del Negro and Sean Elliott, eh?

[Galileo]

Hakeem was subpar in the 89-90 postseason vs. the Lakers, when scoring dropped from 24.3 ppg to 18.5 ppg, and shooting went from 50.1% to a shocking 44.3%.



I watched that series. Hakeem had a triple double in one of the games. Triple doubles by post men are extremely rare in the NBA playoffs.

[ambchang]

I watched that series. Hakeem had a triple double in one of the games. Triple doubles by post men are extremely rare in the NBA playoffs.

I watched the 95 series between the Spurs and Rockets. Robinson put up 32 points on 10 of 18 shooting while getting doubled and tripled whole game, then 29 points on 10 of 15 shooting the next game.

So?

[ambchang]

1991 is a black mark against D-Rob.

The Spurs had the perfect team, picked by Peterson's magazine to win the NBA Title.

They had:

C DRob
PF Terry Cummings
SF Sean Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_
SG Willie Anderson
PG Rod Strickland

They lost in the first round and I watched the Series.


The one where Robinson put up 26 on 68% shooting? That one?

[21+20+9=50]

THE DREAM, hands down.........

[Phenomanul]

I watched that series. Hakeem had a triple double in one of the games. Triple doubles by post men are extremely rare in the NBA playoffs.

That is an out-right lie.

What you thought we wouldn't notice???

Hakeem delivered a masterpiece for the ages in that all-Texas playoff clash. But his performances alone do not "tell the entire story" of what happened in that series. Key players stepped up for Hakeem during the clutch. And so despite some relatively good outings from Elliott and Del Negro neither of them managed to many any shots when in mattered most - in the 4th quarter. That was the difference in the series; not the showdown of all-star big men

Game 1 (at San Antonio mind you): Mario Elie makes two three pointers in the last 2 minutes of the game including the game winning dagger (he fininshed 4 of 5 from downtown). The Rockets win 94 to the Spurs' 93. Rodman goes 1 for 7 from the floor, including a miss from 3 point land, he does manage to pull down 20 rebounds however. The Rockets display their better team play by handing out 7 more assists than the Spurs.

Game 2 (also at San Antonio): Robert drains 5 of 9 three pointers to give H-Town a considerable boost from his position. The Rockets win 106 to the Spurs' 96. This time Rodman goes 2 for 6 from the floor, including three misses from 3 point land... that's right... 3!!! The Rockets display their better team play by handing out 10 more assists than the Spurs.

Game 5 (at San Antonio): San Antonio has done the impossible and returned home for the critical swing game with the series tied at 2. The story, however is more or less the same with Houston's role players stepping up. Both Robert Horry and 6th man Sam Cassell go for double-doubles. Horry 14 pts, 13 rbs; Cassell 30 pts, 12 ast. The Rockets win 111 to the Spurs' 90. The Rockets display their better team play by handing out 14 more assists than the Spurs.

Game 6 (at Houston): The clincher. Robert Horry drains 6 out of 11 three point attempts, including the dagger with 16 seconds to play. The Rockets win 100 to the Spurs' 95. The Rockets display their better team play by handing out 5 more assists than the Spurs.

For the series the Rockets drained 38 three pointers out of 104 attempts (36.5% clip), while the Spurs drained 23 three pointers out of 72 attempts (31.9% clip).

What these averages don't "tell" however is that the Rockets were 45.1% from downtown in the 4th quarters (for the series) while the Spurs' outside shooting plummeted to 23.3%. So again, who really choked? Robinson or his supporting cast???

[Galileo]

I watched the 95 series between the Spurs and Rockets. Robinson put up 32 points on 10 of 18 shooting while getting doubled and tripled whole game, then 29 points on 10 of 15 shooting the next game.

So?

I was talking about Hakeem in 1990 vs the Lakers.

[Galileo]

I was talking about Hakeem in 1990 vs the Lakers.

I think I'm mixing up the exact year, but Hakeem had a triple double vs the Lakers in round one in either '88, '89, or '90. I think it was '89.

[ambchang]

I think I'm mixing up the exact year, but Hakeem had a triple double vs the Lakers in round one in either '88, '89, or '90. I think it was '89.

I think he made it with points, rebounds and blocks.
Still didn't change the fact that he performed well under par compared to the regular season.

[bobbyjoe]

Hakeem was subpar in the 89-90 postseason vs. the Lakers, when scoring dropped from 24.3 ppg to 18.5 ppg, and shooting went from 50.1% to a shocking 44.3%.

In 95-96, his scoring went from 26.9ppg down to 22.4 ppg, then in 98-99, he went from from 18.9 to 13.3, shooting 42.6%. To top it all off, in the 98 postseason, he shot an atrocious 39.4% fro the field.

But will I say Hakeem is terrible in the playoffs and choked by leading his team to earn the title choke city before his two titles? Of course not, because I chose not to take a tunnel visioned view on his career, and try to look at it with his whole body of accomplishments.

EDIT: I particular like how you jump from one argument to another, because if you throw enough shit on the wall, some of it is going to stick, you have a great career as a politician.

Let us track your assertions and my responses so far, shall we?

You: Robinson did considerably worse in the postseason, check their overall numbers.

Me: Look at individual seasons, because Robinson’s postseason numbers are heavily weighted towards the later half of his career. (Never acknowledged)

You: Robinson-Olajuwon comparison is akin to Kobe-MJ comparison.

Me: Robinson- Olajuwon won 4 1st-team all NBA playing at the same era. Kobe probably would never make all-team all NBA in any seasons over MJ.

You: Look at the per 36.

Me: I did, and the fact is Kobe and MJ are not even close, while Robinson and Hakeem are. I also found that Hakeem did well in the two post season when the NBA had a shorter 3 pt line, and he was surrounded by 3pt shooters. (Both points never acknowledged)

You: (New argument) Kobe did great vs. the Spurs, and Robinson’s supporting casts wasn’t terrible. They had Rodman, Elliott, Ellis, Person, Terry Cummings and Avery Johnson. (wow, really, the 5 best teammates Robinson every had were these players? I mean, compared to Ralph Sampson, Clyde Drexler, Otis Thorpe, Sam Cassell, Robert Horry, Kenny Smith, Scottie Pippen and Charles Barkley, I really don’t see a difference!)

Me: Those players didn’t play with Robinson at the same point, and Robinson did well when he had Cummings as his low post mate.
Also, Kobe’s playoff numbers decline overall, just as Robinson. So if you call Robinson a choker, you would have to call Kobe a choker. (Never acknowledged)

Second stream of arguments:
You: Ranking Robinson #5 to 7 on the all-time greatest center list is homerism at its worst.

Me: The list you provided actually had 20% of the group ranking Robinson in the top 5.

You: More analysts ranked Robinson outside of the top 10. The rankings generally have Hakeem much higher than Robinson, and nobody ranked Robinson higher than Hakeem. Ranking Robinson right behind Hakeem doesn’t mean that they are close.

Me: Thanks for showing me the media keeps underrating Robinson. Besides, you chose the list and 20% of that list showed Robinson in the top 5. I guess the panelist on the list you chose can’t be called homers unless you are willing to disregard the other ones who didn’t choose Robinson in the top 10, or even disregard the list as a whole. (Never acknowledged)

You: Robinson’s numbers all decline in the post season.

Me: No they don’t, many went up in the postseason. (Never acknowledged)

You: Robinson did bad not only vs. Hakeem in 95, but did terribly in 94 and 96 vs. Malone and the Jazz.

Me: Hakeem did poorly in a few postseasons as well, so? (Awaiting response)

Hakeem had maybe 2-3 years out of his 15-16 year postseason career where his averages went down from regular season to postseason. One of the seasons you cite is in 98 when he was 36 yrs old and in steep decline. LOL.

Regardless, fine 2-3 "bad" postseasons/15-16. Not to even mention how brilliant his postseason were in his prime.

Compare this with Robinson who's postseason #'s improved in what, 2-3 yrs of his 12 yr career? And he never had any extended playoff runs of brilliant play near to what Hakeem had in 86,87,93,94,95,97 etc.

On an overall basis, it's just disingenuous to seriously try to argue that Robinson's #'s increased from the regular season to the postseason whereas Hakeem's went down. That's just absolutely false. Stop cherrypicking a # here and there and look at the overall picture. No one is saying hakeem's #'s went up "all the time". Not even MJ's playoff #'s went up all the time, but it'd be crazy to cherrypick a couple of years here and there out of 18 where they declined to try to actually prove something.

Some of the stuff you are posting either indicates a complete lack of reading comprehension. For instance, you keep bringing up how Robinson's postseason #'s are dragged down by the latter half of his career.

We haven't even been discussing that half of his career, so I have indeed acknowledged the impact this had on overall #'s. We're discussing years smack in his prime when his #'s fell dramatically and he was outclassed consistently by his bigman peers in the playoffs (Barkley's J in his face to end the Spurs season in 93, embarassment vs. Malone in 94 and 96, hakeem in 95). You don't even try to explain the declines in these peak years for Robinson because frankly, there is none.

There's a common theme in your posts of trying to change the subject or focus on obscure, outlying statistics to try to belittle what any rational person would consider the overall picture.

Please explain to me what Robinson's latter half of his postseason career has to do with:

1) His poor playoff outings in his early and prime years relative to regular season success (save for the GS series)

2) Name me more than 1 postseason where his overall impact and #'s increased from the regular season, aside from 90-91 against a smallball GS team. I'm not talking about an individual # here and there, but the overall #'s. You have yet to show this, because it's utter BS. Look it up on probasketballreference.com It's plain as day.

How can you say something like Robinson was as good a playoff performer as Kobe Bryant and expect to be taken seriously?

Kobe has had several incredible postseason runs. DRob never had ONE. Kobe "choking" in one or 2 postseasons is a lot different than DRob falling short in the playoffs almost every year and DRob never went nuts in the postseason like Kobe has many, many times.

BTW, the 3 pt shot line was absolutely not moved in during both of Hakeem's titles. Was the 3 pt shot moved in the first 12 yrs of Hakeem's career, when his game improved basically every postseason and in most season's dramatically so? Who were the great 3 pt shooters the 86 Rockets had when they knocked off Magic and Kareem?

The funny thing is earlier in this thread you acknowledged that Robinson's game was not suited for the playoffs. It's like you are arguing with yourself instead of conceding the obvious.

All of this sideshow has tried to derail from the 2 central points when comparing Hakeem and Robinson. I defy you to actually dispute this.

1) Hakeem's #'s in the postseason generally increased

2) David Robinson's #'s in the postseason generally decreased.

It's the postseason resume which separates these 2 players. In the regular seasons, their stats were virtually a wash and as you noted, they almost alternated All-Star and All-NBA honors. And it's not surpising given that one player had a game built for postseason and one had a game built for the regular. This is why 20/20 analysts were on the same side of the argument.

[bobbyjoe]

I think he made it with points, rebounds and blocks.
Still didn't change the fact that he performed well under par compared to the regular season.

OK. So one subpar outing over a 4 game series out of a 15 year postseason career. That was one out of 29 career playoff series Hakeem played in.

Care to discuss 86,87,88,89, 91,93,94,95, and 97?

It ain't about one series, but an entire career.

[Galileo]

D-Rob was taller and a better athlete than Olajuwon, but he didn't step up in the playoffs like the Dream. Even when the Dream lost, he put up monster numbers.

And the Dream had one of the dreamiest 20 game runs in NBA history.

He went up against the three best centers in the NBA in pivitol games; the '94 Finals vs Ewing, the '95 Western Finals vs D-Rob, and the '95 Finals vs Shaq.

17 games

the Dream outscored his opponent IN ALL 17 GAMES (one tie)!!!

The probablilty of that happening is 1 over 2 to the power of 16. That's 64,000 to 1!!!

[ambchang]

Hakeem had maybe 2-3 years out of his 15-16 year postseason career where his averages went down from regular season to postseason. One of the seasons you cite is in 98 when he was 36 yrs old and in steep decline. LOL.

Regardless, fine 2-3 "bad" postseasons/15-16. Not to even mention how brilliant his postseason were in his prime.

Compare this with Robinson who's postseason #'s improved in what, 2-3 yrs of his 12 yr career? And he never had any extended playoff runs of brilliant play near to what Hakeem had in 86,87,93,94,95,97 etc.

I have a better idea, why don’t you run through the numbers yourself, instead of just throwing out wild hypothesis like you always do and have me do the work? Is that OK with you?

It really isn’t that hard, in fact, I have almost done all the work already, just do me a favour and read through the thread instead of ignoring them and act like they were never posted when they prove you wrong, pretty please?

BTW, Hakeem was in steep decline in 98, so what? His averages still drop from 18.9 ppg to 13.3, are average, or even marginal players, not allowed to choke?

BTW2, find me a spot where I said Robinson is a better playoff performer than Hakeem.


On an overall basis, it's just disingenuous to seriously try to argue that Robinson's #'s increased from the regular season to the postseason whereas Hakeem's went down. That's just absolutely false. Stop cherrypicking a # here and there and look at the overall picture. No one is saying hakeem's #'s went up "all the time". Not even MJ's playoff #'s went up all the time, but it'd be crazy to cherrypick a couple of years here and there out of 18 where they declined to try to actually prove something.

Really? We shouldn’t cherrypick? I am just baffled, I mean, I thought the whole argument you ever had on Robinson being a choker was that he performed well under his regular season performance in 94 vs. the Jazz, 95 vs. the Rockets, and 96 vs. the Jazz, while ignoring the fact the Spurs had Avery Johnson and Rodman on the team in 2 of those series so the opposition can collapse the middle.

So basing Robinson’s career on 3 series is not cherry picking.

This just in, Robinson scored 13 points and grabbed 17 rebounds in his last game, which was a victory over the Nets! This proves that he is a great playoff performer who shines brightest on the NBA’s biggest stage!


Some of the stuff you are posting either indicates a complete lack of reading comprehension. For instance, you keep bringing up how Robinson's postseason #'s are dragged down by the latter half of his career.

Keep bringing up? I brought it up when YOU talked about how Robinson averaged 18.9 ppg throughout his playoff career. Check the stuff YOU wrote YOURSELF.

Let me do an illustration for you (find that amusing that somebody with your superior comprehension skills would require this, but whatever).

Player A plays 10 seasons of 82 games, averaging 30 ppg for the 1st 5, then 20 for the 2nd half. Which means he retires averaging 25 ppg.

However, in the first 5 years, his teams played a total of only 20 playoff games, while in the later 5, his teams played a total of 40 games. Even though his playoff and career averages stayed the same, he only had 20 games with averages of 30 ppg, and 40 games of 20 ppg, and that leads to an playoff career average of 23.

Did he perform worse in the playoffs? No, but he did play more games later on in his career, pulling down his average on an overall basis.


We haven't even been discussing that half of his career, so I have indeed acknowledged the impact this had on overall #'s. We're discussing years smack in his prime when his #'s fell dramatically and he was outclassed consistently by his bigman peers in the playoffs (Barkley's J in his face to end the Spurs season in 93, embarassment vs. Malone in 94 and 96, hakeem in 95). You don't even try to explain the declines in these peak years for Robinson because frankly, there is none.

Yes, because you pointing out his career playoff averages is definitely NOT discussing the later half of his career.

And Barkley scoring over Robinson to eliminate the Spurs means Robinson underperformed? Oh wait, wait, I am thinking of something, the image of Kevin Johnson dunking on Hakeem, that surely means Hakeem sucked in the playoffs, not to mention Barkley was the MVP that year.

And I have addressed 94, 95, and 96. Maybe you should exercise your superior comprehension skills and re-read the part where Hakeem underperformed vs. the Lakers, or the part where Hakeem didn’t make the playoffs, or the part where the Rockets got kicked out in the 1st round 6 times, will you.

You were saying something about cherry picking? Could you define it for me? I mean, picking 3 playoff series, and for Pete’s sake ONE play would probably qualify as cherry picking in my dictionary, but what do I know with my lack of comprehension, huh?



There's a common theme in your posts of trying to change the subject or focus on obscure, outlying statistics to try to belittle what any rational person would consider the overall picture.

:lmao

Maybe you should read the post where you responded to, OK?

You brought up Robinson’s career playoff average as an indication of Robinson choking in the playoffs. It was never addressed after I pointed out his averages dipped because of him playing most of his playoff games after he had a career-altering injury.

You brought up the rankings as an indication of ranking Robinson #5 to 7 as a pure homer move. I responded by saying that 20% of the judges YOU selected had Robinson in the top 5. That point was never addressed.

You brought up Robinson choking on individual series. I countered with Kobe Bryant and Hakeem doing the same thing, and that teammates matter. You now accuse of cherry-picking.

Self-contradiction much?


Please explain to me what Robinson's latter half of his postseason career has to do with:

1) His poor playoff outings in his early and prime years relative to regular season success (save for the GS series)

I am not going to post the numbers again, it was in the thread, why don’t you just go read those, OK?


2) Name me more than 1 postseason where his overall impact and #'s increased from the regular season, aside from 90-91 against a smallball GS team. I'm not talking about an individual # here and there, but the overall #'s. You have yet to show this, because it's utter BS. Look it up on probasketballreference.com It's plain as day.

I already did, why don’t YOU exercise your comprehension skills and read them?


How can you say something like Robinson was as good a playoff performer as Kobe Bryant and expect to be taken seriously?

Kobe has had several incredible postseason runs. DRob never had ONE. Kobe "choking" in one or 2 postseasons is a lot different than DRob falling short in the playoffs almost every year and DRob never went nuts in the postseason like Kobe has many, many times.

Why not? Kobe’s averages all dropped on an overall basis, and that is the de facto standard you would use, wouldn’t it?

Tell you what, why don’t you stick to ONE argument in stating Robinson is a choker, and I will once again play by your rules. Just please stick to one, OK?

So far, you have taken:
1) Overall playoff averages vs. regular season averages.
2) Individual playoff series.
3) Individual plays (lol, I mean, seriously, Barkley nailed a J in Robinson’s mug! Wow, just showed what kind of choker Robinson is).


BTW, the 3 pt shot line was absolutely not moved in during both of Hakeem's titles. Was the 3 pt shot moved in the first 12 yrs of Hakeem's career, when his game improved basically every postseason and in most season's dramatically so? Who were the great 3 pt shooters the 86 Rockets had when they knocked off Magic and Kareem?


During the 1994–95, 1995–96, and 1996-97 seasons, the NBA attempted to address decreased scoring (due to tougher style defenses) by shortening the overall distance of the line to a uniform 22 feet (6.7 m) around the basket. Dennis Scott used this rule change to set a record for most three-pointers in a season: 267 in 1995–96

Once again, please exercise your superior comprehension skills.

And wait, wait …. Are you using one series to show Hakeem did great without 3 pt shooters while ignoring the other series where he underperformed under the same team 3 years later? Can we say cherry-picking?


The funny thing is earlier in this thread you acknowledged that Robinson's game was not suited for the playoffs. It's like you are arguing with yourself instead of conceding the obvious.

And I have said Robinson’s game is better suited than Hakeem’s game in the playoffs since ……


All of this sideshow has tried to derail from the 2 central points when comparing Hakeem and Robinson. I defy you to actually dispute this.

1) Hakeem's #'s in the postseason generally increased

2) David Robinson's #'s in the postseason generally decreased.

It's the postseason resume which separates these 2 players. In the regular seasons, their stats were virtually a wash and as you noted, they almost alternated All-Star and All-NBA honors. And it's not surpising given that one player had a game built for postseason and one had a game built for the regular. This is why 20/20 analysts were on the same side of the argument.

Wasn’t that survey used to show that Robinson ranked #5 to 7 was a homer move? It’s not like I came up with this sideshow, it was … who was that person who tried to divert attention and ignore responses when his/her points get shot down ….. wait … it was … oh, that was YOU.

Never mind that Robinson had his best statistical significant regular season when he had Rodman on his side, then teams could figure out it’s easy to take out the Spurs by collapsing the middle by leaving Rodman and Johnson when you can have time to prepare for a team and exploit their weaknesses, such as the playoffs.

[ambchang]

OK. So one subpar outing over a 4 game series out of a 15 year postseason career. That was one out of 29 career playoff series Hakeem played in.

Care to discuss 86,87,88,89, 91,93,94,95, and 97?

It ain't about one series, but an entire career.

Why don't you learn to read? Huh? I was saying that he had a great game in a 4-game series.

And take your own advice and look at Robinson's playoff accomplishments.

[ambchang]

D-Rob was taller and a better athlete than Olajuwon, but he didn't step up in the playoffs like the Dream. Even when the Dream lost, he put up monster numbers.

And the Dream had one of the dreamiest 20 game runs in NBA history.

He went up against the three best centers in the NBA in pivitol games; the '94 Finals vs Ewing, the '95 Western Finals vs D-Rob, and the '95 Finals vs Shaq.

17 games

the Dream outscored his opponent IN ALL 17 GAMES (one tie)!!!

The probablilty of that happening is 1 over 2 to the power of 16. That's 64,000 to 1!!!

While I agree what the Dream did in 94 and 95 was really amazing, I can't help but notice that is the worse use of statistics i have ever seen. Well, it's just plain wrong.

[Galileo]

While I agree what the Dream did in 94 and 95 was really amazing, I can't help but notice that is the worse use of statistics i have ever seen. Well, it's just plain wrong.

I'd say that D-Rob and Hakeem were pretty equal most of the time, with D-Rob being a little taller and more athletic, and Hakeem a little quicker and a better shooter.

But when it came time to step up, Hakeem wanted it more.

[XTah]

And the Dream had one of the dreamiest 20 game runs in NBA history.

He went up against the three best centers in the NBA in pivitol games; the '94 Finals vs Ewing, the '95 Western Finals vs D-Rob, and the '95 Finals vs Shaq.

17 games

the Dream outscored his opponent IN ALL 17 GAMES (one tie)!!!

The probablilty of that happening is 1 over 2 to the power of 16. That's 64,000 to 1!!!

It would be 64,000 to 1 if everything was exactly equal. The two players were equal, the teammates were equal, the circumstances were equal, everything.

[Phenomanul]

I'd say that D-Rob and Hakeem were pretty equal most of the time, with D-Rob being a little taller and more athletic, and Hakeem a little quicker and a better shooter.

But when it came time to step up, Hakeem wanted it more.

So much so that he willed Horry's and Elie's threes to go in. Ultimately, the role players have to step up for teams to win. David's never did when it mattered most. Hakeem's great playoff runs coincided with timely shooting from his role players.

[Obstructed_View]

Here's a fun stat: Three point percentage of teammates, with a minimum 75 attempts. Let's see how many guys shot over 30 percent on each team in a given year. I remembered that the Spurs' three point shooting had always been abysmal and that they suddenly couldn't beat the Rockets once Vernon Maxwell came to town and hit every stinkin' thing he threw up from behind the arc. I'm fairly certain these are correct.

90-91
(52-30) Rockets 3
(55-27) Spurs 0

91-92
(42-40) Rockets 4
(47-35) Spurs 1

92-93
(55-37) Rockets 4
(49-33) Spurs 3

93-94
(58-24) Rockets 6
(55-27) Spurs 2

94-95
(47-35) Rockets 7
(62-20) Spurs 4

95-96
(48-34) Rockets 8
(59-23) Spurs 4

[Galileo]

Here's a fun stat: Three point percentage of teammates, with a minimum 75 attempts. Let's see how many guys shot over 30 percent on each team in a given year. I remembered that the Spurs' three point shooting had always been abysmal and that they suddenly couldn't beat the Rockets once Vernon Maxwell came to town and hit every stinkin' thing he threw up from behind the arc. I'm fairly certain these are correct.

90-91
(52-30) Rockets 3
(55-27) Spurs 0

91-92
(42-40) Rockets 4
(47-35) Spurs 1

92-93
(55-37) Rockets 4
(49-33) Spurs 3

93-94
(58-24) Rockets 6
(55-27) Spurs 2

94-95
(47-35) Rockets 7
(62-20) Spurs 4

95-96
(48-34) Rockets 8
(59-23) Spurs 4

Akeem was a much better post up center. He opened up those shots. That's why dominating low post scorers are the most valuable commodity in basketball.

With all due respect to MJ, I'll take Akeem posting up and Akeem's defense.

[Obstructed_View]

Akeem was a much better post up center. He opened up those shots. That's why dominating low post scorers are the most valuable commodity in basketball.

With all due respect to MJ, I'll take Akeem posting up and Akeem's defense.

So you are suggesting that Vernon Maxwell, Sam Cassell, Robert Horry, Kenny Smith, Clyde Drexler, Mario Elie and Matt Bullard became good shooters because of Hakeem's post play, while David's lack of a post game failed to make Lloyd Daniels, Cory Alexander, Vinny Del Negro, David Wood and Chris Whitney better shooters? You can't really suggest that with a straight face, can you? Funny how the Spurs were better until Hakeem had several of the best playoff three point shooters around him. It's also interesting that the Rockets always suggest that superior teammates are the reason Robinson dominated Hakeem in head to head record.

For real actual shooters, the Spurs had basically Ellis and Elliott, with Doc and Person for two years, when the team suddenly got really good, and the loss of Doc in the '96 playoffs was huge.

And to be perfectly fair, Dennis Rodman opened up as many three point shots than Hakeem did in the series that everyone points to.

[Galileo]

So you are suggesting that Vernon Maxwell, Sam Cassell, Robert Horry, Kenny Smith, Clyde Drexler, Mario Elie and Matt Bullard became good shooters because of Hakeem's post play, while David's lack of a post game failed to make Lloyd Daniels, Cory Alexander, Vinny Del Negro, David Wood and Chris Whitney better shooters? You can't really suggest that with a straight face, can you? Funny how the Spurs were better until Hakeem had several of the best playoff three point shooters around him. It's also interesting that the Rockets always suggest that superior teammates are the reason Robinson dominated Hakeem in head to head record.

For real actual shooters, the Spurs had basically Ellis and Elliott, with Doc and Person for two years, when the team suddenly got really good, and the loss of Doc in the '96 playoffs was huge.

And to be perfectly fair, Dennis Rodman opened up as many three point shots than Hakeem did in the series that everyone points to.

Akeem got better when Rudy T came to town and set up the inside-out offense.

[Obstructed_View]

Akeem got better when Rudy T came to town and set up the inside-out offense.

Yeah, inside out offense only works when you have the outside part. Having an assembly of guys that have proven to be great shooters sure helped with that. Since Rudy T wasn't much of a coach without that cast I'd say they deserve more credit than he does.

Seriously, your argument should be able to withstand facts if it's legit. Your denial of something so obvious doesn't exactly reinforce your side of the discussion.

[Admiral]

Interesting thread. I have not voted yet, because I honestly can't decide who to vote for. It should be a tough call for any rational and logical fan, because both Olajuwon and Robinson were two of the best big men to ever play the game.

I hate the fact that David's career is in many ways defined by that 1995 WCF series against the Rockets. David did not play his best basketball, and Hakeem had one of the best performances ever by an NBA player. As someone else mentioned earlier in this thread, that series caused people to overrate Hakeem and underrate David. One series does not define a career, but it's understandable that it causes people to lean on it when they have nothing else to go on.

And that's precisely the problem. Most fans - even those who "keep up" with the NBA - don't know a whole lot about either player. Instead, they and their attention-deficit disorders seek sound bytes and media clips for "evidence" to form opinions. They probably view David as a gifted athlete who had a great career, but who also didn't care enough about basketball to have the same passion for it that guys like Jordan, Olajuwon, and Bird had. They also probably view Hakeem as a serious, win-at-all-costs player who upped his game when it counts the most. They view his passion for the game as virtually unmatched.

The reality for both players lies somewhere in the middle. I never bought the argument that David is "soft," nor did I believe that he didn't want to win badly. People act like his God-given athleticism allowed him to play basketball with ease. Anyone who watched him play as a freshman or sophomore at Navy would be amazed at the player he became as a junior and senior at the Naval Academy. They would also be awestruck by his improvement from his rookie year to his MVP years in the mid-90's. The guy worked really hard to improve his game. He developed his skills in virtually all areas. You don't lead the NBA in points, rebounding, blocks, etc. just because you are a good athlete. It takes a great deal of hard work and dedication to get there, and I think many people fail to see that about David.

The funny thing is that I remember David outplaying Hakeem on many occasions prior to that WCF series in 1995. Those instances are obviously forgotten now, because the 1995 WCF has somehow come to define the careers of both men. I'm not advocating that we should ignore that series, but it's wrong to ignore everything else in their careers. Doing so is buying into the media hype that Hakeem is amazing, and David is soft. Spurs fans, of all people, should know better!

The only area I think Hakeem has a clear advantage over David is the back-to-the-basket game. David gets ripped for "not having a post game," but I remember him backing people down and using several moves with success - baseline spin move, baby hook, and fade away jumpers, to name a few. They were not to the level of Hakeem, but then again nobody's post game can really compare to Hakeem's. David holds his own when it comes to rebounding, blocking shots, and steals. I give David a slight edge when it comes to scoring. David's passing is also an area where he should get a lot more recognition.

I have rambled on way too much. What I'm trying to say is that both players were outstanding, and trying to choose between one or the other is difficult. If the 1995 WCF should define the careers of both men, then you obviously have to go with Hakeem. But when all things are considered - especially the supporting casts and coaching - a very strong argument can be made for David. When you take those things into consideration, David's teams were far better than they should've been. Is it any wonder the playoffs proved so frustrating for those Spurs teams?

[Galileo]

Yeah, inside out offense only works when you have the outside part. Having an assembly of guys that have proven to be great shooters sure helped with that. Since Rudy T wasn't much of a coach without that cast I'd say they deserve more credit than he does.

Seriously, your argument should be able to withstand facts if it's legit. Your denial of something so obvious doesn't exactly reinforce your side of the discussion.

any college player can hit an open effin three, let alone a pro.

[Galileo]

Interesting thread. I have not voted yet, because I honestly can't decide who to vote for. It should be a tough call for any rational and logical fan, because both Olajuwon and Robinson were two of the best big men to ever play the game.

I hate the fact that David's career is in many ways defined by that 1995 WCF series against the Rockets. David did not play his best basketball, and Hakeem had one of the best performances ever by an NBA player. As someone else mentioned earlier in this thread, that series caused people to overrate Hakeem and underrate David. One series does not define a career, but it's understandable that it causes people to lean on it when they have nothing else to go on.

And that's precisely the problem. Most fans - even those who "keep up" with the NBA - don't know a whole lot about either player. Instead, they and their attention-deficit disorders seek sound bytes and media clips for "evidence" to form opinions. They probably view David as a gifted athlete who had a great career, but who also didn't care enough about basketball to have the same passion for it that guys like Jordan, Olajuwon, and Bird had. They also probably view Hakeem as a serious, win-at-all-costs player who upped his game when it counts the most. They view his passion for the game as virtually unmatched.

The reality for both players lies somewhere in the middle. I never bought the argument that David is "soft," nor did I believe that he didn't want to win badly. People act like his God-given athleticism allowed him to play basketball with ease. Anyone who watched him play as a freshman or sophomore at Navy would be amazed at the player he became as a junior and senior at the Naval Academy. They would also be awestruck by his improvement from his rookie year to his MVP years in the mid-90's. The guy worked really hard to improve his game. He developed his skills in virtually all areas. You don't lead the NBA in points, rebounding, blocks, etc. just because you are a good athlete. It takes a great deal of hard work and dedication to get there, and I think many people fail to see that about David.

The funny thing is that I remember David outplaying Hakeem on many occasions prior to that WCF series in 1995. Those instances are obviously forgotten now, because the 1995 WCF has somehow come to define the careers of both men. I'm not advocating that we should ignore that series, but it's wrong to ignore everything else in their careers. Doing so is buying into the media hype that Hakeem is amazing, and David is soft. Spurs fans, of all people, should know better!

The only area I think Hakeem has a clear advantage over David is the back-to-the-basket game. David gets ripped for "not having a post game," but I remember him backing people down and using several moves with success - baseline spin move, baby hook, and fade away jumpers, to name a few. They were not to the level of Hakeem, but then again nobody's post game can really compare to Hakeem's. David holds his own when it comes to rebounding, blocking shots, and steals. I give David a slight edge when it comes to scoring. David's passing is also an area where he should get a lot more recognition.

I have rambled on way too much. What I'm trying to say is that both players were outstanding, and trying to choose between one or the other is difficult. If the 1995 WCF should define the careers of both men, then you obviously have to go with Hakeem. But when all things are considered - especially the supporting casts and coaching - a very strong argument can be made for David. When you take those things into consideration, David's teams were far better than they should've been. Is it any wonder the playoffs proved so frustrating for those Spurs teams?

good points.

[bobbyjoe]

I have a better idea, why don’t you run through the numbers yourself, instead of just throwing out wild hypothesis like you always do and have me do the work? Is that OK with you?

It really isn’t that hard, in fact, I have almost done all the work already, just do me a favour and read through the thread instead of ignoring them and act like they were never posted when they prove you wrong, pretty please?

BTW, Hakeem was in steep decline in 98, so what? His averages still drop from 18.9 ppg to 13.3, are average, or even marginal players, not allowed to choke?

BTW2, find me a spot where I said Robinson is a better playoff performer than Hakeem.



Really? We shouldn’t cherrypick? I am just baffled, I mean, I thought the whole argument you ever had on Robinson being a choker was that he performed well under his regular season performance in 94 vs. the Jazz, 95 vs. the Rockets, and 96 vs. the Jazz, while ignoring the fact the Spurs had Avery Johnson and Rodman on the team in 2 of those series so the opposition can collapse the middle.

So basing Robinson’s career on 3 series is not cherry picking.

This just in, Robinson scored 13 points and grabbed 17 rebounds in his last game, which was a victory over the Nets! This proves that he is a great playoff performer who shines brightest on the NBA’s biggest stage!



Keep bringing up? I brought it up when YOU talked about how Robinson averaged 18.9 ppg throughout his playoff career. Check the stuff YOU wrote YOURSELF.

Let me do an illustration for you (find that amusing that somebody with your superior comprehension skills would require this, but whatever).

Player A plays 10 seasons of 82 games, averaging 30 ppg for the 1st 5, then 20 for the 2nd half. Which means he retires averaging 25 ppg.

However, in the first 5 years, his teams played a total of only 20 playoff games, while in the later 5, his teams played a total of 40 games. Even though his playoff and career averages stayed the same, he only had 20 games with averages of 30 ppg, and 40 games of 20 ppg, and that leads to an playoff career average of 23.

Did he perform worse in the playoffs? No, but he did play more games later on in his career, pulling down his average on an overall basis.



Yes, because you pointing out his career playoff averages is definitely NOT discussing the later half of his career.

And Barkley scoring over Robinson to eliminate the Spurs means Robinson underperformed? Oh wait, wait, I am thinking of something, the image of Kevin Johnson dunking on Hakeem, that surely means Hakeem sucked in the playoffs, not to mention Barkley was the MVP that year.

And I have addressed 94, 95, and 96. Maybe you should exercise your superior comprehension skills and re-read the part where Hakeem underperformed vs. the Lakers, or the part where Hakeem didn’t make the playoffs, or the part where the Rockets got kicked out in the 1st round 6 times, will you.

You were saying something about cherry picking? Could you define it for me? I mean, picking 3 playoff series, and for Pete’s sake ONE play would probably qualify as cherry picking in my dictionary, but what do I know with my lack of comprehension, huh?




:lmao

Maybe you should read the post where you responded to, OK?

You brought up Robinson’s career playoff average as an indication of Robinson choking in the playoffs. It was never addressed after I pointed out his averages dipped because of him playing most of his playoff games after he had a career-altering injury.

You brought up the rankings as an indication of ranking Robinson #5 to 7 as a pure homer move. I responded by saying that 20% of the judges YOU selected had Robinson in the top 5. That point was never addressed.

You brought up Robinson choking on individual series. I countered with Kobe Bryant and Hakeem doing the same thing, and that teammates matter. You now accuse of cherry-picking.

Self-contradiction much?



I am not going to post the numbers again, it was in the thread, why don’t you just go read those, OK?



I already did, why don’t YOU exercise your comprehension skills and read them?



Why not? Kobe’s averages all dropped on an overall basis, and that is the de facto standard you would use, wouldn’t it?

Tell you what, why don’t you stick to ONE argument in stating Robinson is a choker, and I will once again play by your rules. Just please stick to one, OK?

So far, you have taken:
1) Overall playoff averages vs. regular season averages.
2) Individual playoff series.
3) Individual plays (lol, I mean, seriously, Barkley nailed a J in Robinson’s mug! Wow, just showed what kind of choker Robinson is).





Once again, please exercise your superior comprehension skills.

And wait, wait …. Are you using one series to show Hakeem did great without 3 pt shooters while ignoring the other series where he underperformed under the same team 3 years later? Can we say cherry-picking?



And I have said Robinson’s game is better suited than Hakeem’s game in the playoffs since ……



Wasn’t that survey used to show that Robinson ranked #5 to 7 was a homer move? It’s not like I came up with this sideshow, it was … who was that person who tried to divert attention and ignore responses when his/her points get shot down ….. wait … it was … oh, that was YOU.

Never mind that Robinson had his best statistical significant regular season when he had Rodman on his side, then teams could figure out it’s easy to take out the Spurs by collapsing the middle by leaving Rodman and Johnson when you can have time to prepare for a team and exploit their weaknesses, such as the playoffs.

You need to look up the facts before this ridiculous spin-fest.

I am not basing Robinson's postseason resume on 3 series from 94 to 96.

In fact, Robinson actually played 6 series in those 3 years, not 3. These were also the best statistical years of his career. By your own argument, Robinson's #'s post 97 back injury are to be discounted or ignored.

Given that we are ignoring Robinson's dragged down #'s post 97, he played in 53 playoff games from 1989 to 1997.

29 out of 53 or 55% of Robinson's playoff games came from 1994-1996. So calling my analysis cherrypicking is asinine. I picked the majority of Robinson's playoff games during his prime NBA seasons.

For Hakeem you picked out a 4 game series in 89 and a 4 game series in 98 when he was 36 yrs old. 8 games out of a 145 game postseason career.

See the difference?!

-I also did read through your "analysis" and never saw anything resembling a decent argument about Robinson's playoff #'s. All you could cite was that in a few cases some of his #'s went up in the postseason.

Robinson played in the playoffs 6 seasons before his debilitating back injuries. During this time, his #'s decreased from regular season in 3 season (94-95-96; the drops in 94 and 95 were enormous). 1990 was a wash; 1991 saw them increase (small ball GS series); 1992 was down a bit as well (PPG stayed the same, but FG% again declined quite a bit).

So net, net, there's obviously a decline in Robinson's postseason prowess pre back surgery. Stop bringing up the 18.9 ppg overall playoff averages because for the past 50 posts all that is being discussed in Robinson's pre injury #'s. Are you going to actually acknowledge that Robinson's playoff declines can not be completely attributed to playing the majority of his playoff games post back injury? Somehow, I doubt it.

Also, I've seen in these posts from you some of the most bizarre analysis. However, comparing a KJ dunk on Olajuwon (in a playoff loss) to a shot by Barkley that ended the Spurs season, won the series, and shut down Hemisfair Arena may take the cake.

You realize there is a difference between a facial of a dunk which in a random game which had no effect on the outcome and a series clinching shot, correct?

There's nothing to cherrypick about Hakeem's playoff #'s. They consistently were up big over his regular season #'s. One of the best playoff performers of all time. Bigtime players step up in big games. Go ahead and try to deny it. You can rewrite and falsify history in your mind but realize that the majority of the world sees things through clear, not silver and black tinted lenses.

[bobbyjoe]

Akeem was a much better post up center. He opened up those shots. That's why dominating low post scorers are the most valuable commodity in basketball.

With all due respect to MJ, I'll take Akeem posting up and Akeem's defense.

Exactly. It's not rocket science. Great post basketball opens up wide open looks for shooters.

Hakeem did it. Kareem did it. Shaq did it. Duncan did it.

Guys like Robinson and Garnett and Nowitzki who are turn and faceup players can't do it as effectively.

Defensive schemes are much more compromised and vulnerable to having to concede outside shots when you have a dominant post. It's easier for the big to find open shooters.

While Hakeem did have better shooters than David, David had the better slashers and penetrators. Elliott and AJ could do this for SA where Houston was a poorly composed team with Hakeem, Thorpe, and a bunch of stand still shooters who couldn't drive and finish or drive and kick out (until Drexler changed that and gave them taht balance but at the expense of interior strength).

Hakeem also never palyed with a dominant rebounder/defensive stud big like Robinson did with Rodman for 2-3 seasons. Otis Thorpe was very solid and steady and filled this role very well, but just was not the talent that Rodman was.

[Galileo]

You need to look up the facts before this ridiculous spin-fest.

I am not basing Robinson's postseason resume on 3 series from 94 to 96.

In fact, Robinson actually played 6 series in those 3 years, not 3. These were also the best statistical years of his career. By your own argument, Robinson's #'s post 97 back injury are to be discounted or ignored.

Given that we are ignoring Robinson's dragged down #'s post 97, he played in 53 playoff games from 1989 to 1997.

29 out of 53 or 55% of Robinson's playoff games came from 1994-1996. So calling my analysis cherrypicking is asinine. I picked the majority of Robinson's playoff games during his prime NBA seasons.

For Hakeem you picked out a 4 game series in 89 and a 4 game series in 98 when he was 36 yrs old. 8 games out of a 145 game postseason career.

See the difference?!

-I also did read through your "analysis" and never saw anything resembling a decent argument about Robinson's playoff #'s. All you could cite was that in a few cases some of his #'s went up in the postseason.

Robinson played in the playoffs 6 seasons before his debilitating back injuries. During this time, his #'s decreased from regular season in 3 season (94-95-96; the drops in 94 and 95 were enormous). 1990 was a wash; 1991 saw them increase (small ball GS series); 1992 was down a bit as well (PPG stayed the same, but FG% again declined quite a bit).

So net, net, there's obviously a decline in Robinson's postseason prowess pre back surgery. Stop bringing up the 18.9 ppg overall playoff averages because for the past 50 posts all that is being discussed in Robinson's pre injury #'s. Are you going to actually acknowledge that Robinson's playoff declines can not be completely attributed to playing the majority of his playoff games post back injury? Somehow, I doubt it.

Also, I've seen in these posts from you some of the most bizarre analysis. However, comparing a KJ dunk on Olajuwon (in a playoff loss) to a shot by Barkley that ended the Spurs season, won the series, and shut down Hemisfair Arena may take the cake.

You realize there is a difference between a facial of a dunk which in a random game which had no effect on the outcome and a series clinching shot, correct?

There's nothing to cherrypick about Hakeem's playoff #'s. They consistently were up big over his regular season #'s. One of the best playoff performers of all time. Bigtime players step up in big games. Go ahead and try to deny it. You can rewrite and falsify history in your mind but realize that the majority of the world sees things through clear, not silver and black tinted lenses.

I don't care if Robinson's stats went up in the '91 series vs Golden State. The Spurs had a super team and should have won. They had Cummings, Sean "the assassin" Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_, Willie Anderson, and Rod Strickland. There's no wat an elite center lets that get away.

I think DRob was up against Stanley "eat 'em while theyre hot" Roberts.

[Galileo]

Exactly. It's not rocket science. Great post basketball opens up wide open looks for shooters.

Hakeem did it. Kareem did it. Shaq did it. Duncan did it.

Guys like Robinson and Garnett and Nowitzki who are turn and faceup players can't do it as effectively.

Defensive schemes are much more compromised and vulnerable to having to concede outside shots when you have a dominant post. It's easier for the big to find open shooters.

While Hakeem did have better shooters than David, David had the better slashers and penetrators. Elliott and AJ could do this for SA where Houston was a poorly composed team with Hakeem, Thorpe, and a bunch of stand still shooters who couldn't drive and finish or drive and kick out (until Drexler changed that and gave them taht balance but at the expense of interior strength).

Hakeem also never palyed with a dominant rebounder/defensive stud big like Robinson did with Rodman for 2-3 seasons. Otis Thorpe was very solid and steady and filled this role very well, but just was not the talent that Rodman was.

If you remember, Akeem spent the first half of his career asking management to get him some guards!

"Can you get me some guards?"

[Admiral]

Hakeem also never palyed with a dominant rebounder/defensive stud big like Robinson did with Rodman for 2-3 seasons. Otis Thorpe was very solid and steady and filled this role very well, but just was not the talent that Rodman was.

Um, Otis Thorpe was an All-Star and has over 17,000 career points and 10,000 career rebounds. Plus he never sat on the sidelines with his shoes off in "protest," got ejected from multiple games, created needless distraction, or bailed out on his teammates for selfish reasons like Rodman did.

I would take Otis Thorpe over Dennis Rodman any day. Rodman's rebounding was superior to Thorpe's, but Thorpe was a legitimate threat on both ends.

[Admiral]

I don't care if Robinson's stats went up in the '91 series vs Golden State. The Spurs had a super team and should have won. They had Cummings, Sean "the assassin" Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_, Willie Anderson, and Rod Strickland. There's no wat an elite center lets that get away.

I think DRob was up against Stanley "eat 'em while theyre hot" Roberts.

If you are going to discount Robinson's performance against Golden State because they didn't have a legitimate big man, are you also willing to do the same for Hakeem? How about all of the crappy guards Michael Jordan played against in the playoffs?

[bobbyjoe]

Rodman's defense was also much superior to Thorpe's. The guy has 5 rings, he was a winner.

Rodman wasn't a threat offensively, but he was a beast at creating second chance offensive opportunities by pounding the glass, which increases a team's chances to score.

If his offense was such a liability, he wouldnt have 5 rings. He was a lot like Big Ben Wallace, a guy who could greatly impact a game despite not being a scorer.

[bobbyjoe]

If you are going to discount Robinson's performance against Golden State because they didn't have a legitimate big man, are you also willing to do the same for Hakeem? How about all of the crappy guards Michael Jordan played against in the playoffs?

Huh? Hakeem was at his best against the best competition. Ewing, O'Neal, Robinson, etc. In the playoffs. There's not a similarity here Admiral. For there to be one, Hakeem would have had to have made a living in the postseason fattening up on weak big men. Same for MJ. Did MJ only paly well in the palyoffs against crap guards? C'mon.

Robinson had a great series against GS in a losing effort. Where were these types of efforts on balance in the playoffs though besdies this series? They just weren't there.

No one is saying Robinson wasn't a great player, but on par with Hakeem or O'Neal or Tim Duncan? Nope.

[Galileo]

Rodman's defense was also much superior to Thorpe's. The guy has 5 rings, he was a winner.

Rodman wasn't a threat offensively, but he was a beast at creating second chance offensive opportunities by pounding the glass, which increases a team's chances to score.

If his offense was such a liability, he wouldnt have 5 rings. He was a lot like Big Ben Wallace, a guy who could greatly impact a game despite not being a scorer.

I'm partial to Thorpe. I think he was better than Rodman. He had giant hands and was a great slasher. He was a bad free thorw shooter and shot-blocker, but he could post up on offense. I remember seeing him in games when Akeem was injured.

[bobbyjoe]

Thorpe was solid and underrated, no doubt. He did have a very good post game. Dude was a hoss too, he didnt miss games. I'd still take the Worm, even with his baggage.

I know it's hard for Spurs fans to look at the Worm's career without focusing on the dissapointments in SA, but he was a key piece to title teams the rest of his career. Things just didnt work out in the Alamo City for whatever reason. I think he needed more of a disciplinarian Coach like a Chuck Daly to keep him in line. Bob Hill was too much of a player's coach.

I bet Rodman would have been dynamite under Popovich...

[Phenomanul]

Exactly. It's not rocket science. Great post basketball opens up wide open looks for shooters.

Hakeem did it. Kareem did it. Shaq did it. Duncan did it.

Guys like Robinson and Garnett and Nowitzki who are turn and faceup players can't do it as effectively.

Defensive schemes are much more compromised and vulnerable to having to concede outside shots when you have a dominant post. It's easier for the big to find open shooters.

While Hakeem did have better shooters than David, David had the better slashers and penetrators. Elliott and AJ could do this for SA where Houston was a poorly composed team with Hakeem, Thorpe, and a bunch of stand still shooters who couldn't drive and finish or drive and kick out (until Drexler changed that and gave them taht balance but at the expense of interior strength).

Hakeem also never played with a dominant rebounder/defensive stud big like Robinson did with Rodman for 2-3 seasons. Otis Thorpe was very solid and steady and filled this role very well, but just was not the talent that Rodman was.

You do realize that Drexler was a big offensive part of that series in 1995?

Dammit bobbyjoe, how many factual errors are you allowed to spew before conceding that you may perhaps be underrating David's career?

By the way, the Rockets also had this tricky little guard called Sam Cassell. Um... not to burst your bubble, but Cassell wasn't just a spot up shooter, he has always been crafty. And lastly, this guy called Mario Elie was a fearless slasher.... he didn't have the finesse around the basket that guys like MJ, Kobe or Wade possess.... Elie simply barrelled his way through people to get to the rim...

Also, your insistance on using Rodman as a reason to knock the Admiral's post season performances is simply perplexing. Rodman was a great, actually an elite, complement to teams equipped with all-star guards (i.e. he complemented Dumars and Thomas on the Pistons and MJ on the Bulls). To suggest that he opened up the game for Robinson is simply absurd. It shows a severe lack of understanding of the game of Basketball and ultimately why your perception of David's shortcommings is downright skewed.

As I showed in several of posts, Championship teams require that players actually make their outside shots... clutch shots... game winning jumpers. You insist on slamming David for his teammates' inability to knock them in. Yet every Champion from 1990 to date has required them. Repeat that 50 times, maybe then you will understand why he was unable to carry the Larry O'Brien in his prime.

[Phenomanul]

Huh? Hakeem was at his best against the best competition. Ewing, O'Neal, Robinson, etc. In the playoffs. There's not a similarity here Admiral. For there to be one, Hakeem would have had to have made a living in the postseason fattening up on weak big men. Same for MJ. Did MJ only paly well in the palyoffs against crap guards? C'mon.

Robinson had a great series against GS in a losing effort. Where were these types of efforts on balance in the playoffs though besdies this series? They just weren't there.

No one is saying Robinson wasn't a great player, but on par with Hakeem or O'Neal or Tim Duncan? Nope.

And that's what it boils down to.... your agenda in this thread has been crystal clear throughout. Your feeble mind can't allow for players like Olojuwon and Robinson to be considered equals... because that would then imply that Robinson was actually better than Shaq, and essentially drop 'your boy' lower in the list of all-time great centers. Robinson owned Shaq in the head to head meetings before his injury.

Shaq was an amazing player, no doubt. But one with serious flaws in his game. Having said that, he never had Robinsons versatility or his defensive presence, only better supporting casts. Feel free to look at Robinson's win share percentage (both offensively and defensively) throughout his prime. He had to do more for his teams to win. Shaq however, could rely on better supporting casts to achieve his post-season success.

Just be glad that he had Kobe, and the 2nd most competent outside shooting cast in the history of the playoffs in Horry, Fisher, Shaw, Rice, Fox, and Harper. He needed them as much as Hakeem needed Horry, Cassell, Elie, Drexler, and Kenny Smith.

[bobbyjoe]

You do realize that Drexler was a big offensive part of that series in 1995?

Dammit bobbyjoe, how many factual errors are you allowed to spew before conceding that you may perhaps be underrating David's career?

By the way, the Rockets also had this tricky little guard called Sam Cassell. Um... not to burst your bubble, but Cassell wasn't just a spot up shooter, he has always been crafty. And lastly, this guy called Mario Elie was a fearless slasher.... he didn't have the finesse around the basket that guys like MJ, Kobe or Wade possess.... Elie simply barrelled his way through people to get to the rim...

Also, your insistance on using Rodman as a reason to knock the Admiral's post season performances is simply perplexing. Rodman was a great, actually an elite, complement to teams equipped with all-star guards (i.e. he complemented Dumars and Thomas on the Pistons and MJ on the Bulls). To suggest that he opened up the game for Robinson is simply absurd. It shows a severe lack of understanding of the game of Basketball and ultimately why your perception of David's shortcommings is downright skewed.

As I showed in several of posts, Championship teams require that players actually make their outside shots... clutch shots... game winning jumpers. You insist on slamming David for his teammates' inability to knock them in. Yet every Champion from 1990 to date has required them. Repeat that 50 times, maybe then you will understand why he was unable to carry the Larry O'Brien in his prime.

You claim that a PF rebounding machine who's capable of defending multiple positions extremely well isnt an asset in terms of complementing a big man and then question someone else's knowledge of basketball? Way to expose your own lack of knowledge.

How the hell did Rodman "open up the game" for MJ? Big men who can receive the ball in the paint off penetration and finish at the rim are ideal complements to elite guards and Rodman was anything but that. Rodman's value to the Bulls was on the glass and on D, not "opening up the game for Jordan".

Guys like Duncan, Robinson, Hakeem, etc need that banger PF to complement them by doing dirty work, being able to guard the other team's bigman at times, crash the boards, and having their back when they go play help D. It helps them conserve energy and roam more defensively.

You'd think a fan of a team that won 2 titles with a combination of Tim Duncan and David Robinson would understand the value of a great complementary bigman to a superstar big!!!!

[Phenomanul]

Anyways... this thread can't go on forever. And I can't waste my time arguing with haters like yourself. If anything, I hope newer Spurs fans get a chance to read it and truly understand how great David Maurice Robinson was...

It's a travesty that Spurs fans continue to undervalue David's legacy.

[bobbyjoe]

And that's what it boils down to.... your agenda in this thread has been crystal clear throughout. Your feeble mind can't allow for players like Olojuwon and Robinson to be considered equals... because that would then imply that Robinson was actually better than Shaq, and essentially drop 'your boy' lower in the list of all-time great centers. Robinson owned Shaq in the head to head meetings before his injury.

Shaq was an amazing player, no doubt. But one with serious flaws in his game. Having said that, he never had Robinsons versatility or his defensive presence, only better supporting casts. Feel free to look at Robinson's win share percentage (both offensively and defensively) throughout his prime. He had to do more for his teams to win. Shaq however, could rely on better supporting casts to achieve his post-season success.

Just be glad that he had Kobe, and the 2nd most competent outside shooting cast in the history of the playoffs in Horry, Fisher, Shaw, Rice, Fox, and Harper. He needed them as much as Hakeem needed Horry, Cassell, Elie, Drexler, and Kenny Smith.

I guess the entire world has an "agenda" then because there isnt even anything to debate regarding Robinson vs. O'Neal. Are you really THAT biased?

Such a ridiculous statement doesn't even merit any serious discussion.

[Phenomanul]

You claim that a PF rebounding machine who's capable of defending multiple positions extremely well isnt an asset in terms of complementing a big man and then question someone else's knowledge of basketball? Way to expose your own lack of knowledge.

How the hell did Rodman "open up the game" for MJ? Big men who can receive the ball in the paint off penetration and finish at the rim are ideal complements to elite guards and Rodman was anything but that. Rodman's value to the Bulls was on the glass and on D, not "opening up the game for Jordan".

:lmao :lmao Seriously????

Dude, Jordan was a perimeter threat.... He needed Rodman's complementary inside presence.

Rodman cluttered the paint for Robinson because he had no jumper of which to speak of. Rodman's entire offensive game was exclusively centered on offensive putbacks, or breakaway dunks as the trailer (since he would usually start the breaks with a rebound).



Guys like Duncan, Robinson, Hakeem, etc need that banger PF to complement them by doing dirty work, being able to guard the other team's bigman at times, crash the boards, and having their back when they go play help D. It helps them conserve energy and roam more defensively.

Which would be a point if Rodman had actually shouldered the defensive load of guarding Hakeem Olojuwon. He hardly covered Olojuwon as the primary defender in the series. Another factual inaccuracy on your part... the list is getting quite long. Your stubborn arrogance is quite laughable at this point.



You'd think a fan of a team that won 2 titles with a combination of Tim Duncan and David Robinson would understand the value of a great complementary bigman to a superstar big!!!!

Robinson and Duncan played a very effective "Hi-Lo" game. When you learn what that is, you may come to the realization that a player with Rodman's skillset could never have been a cog in that scheme. Nice try, but.... ummmm no.

[Phenomanul]

I guess the entire world has an "agenda" then because there isnt even anything to debate regarding Robinson vs. O'Neal. Are you really THAT biased?

Such a ridiculous statement doesn't even merit any serious discussion.



If by entire world you mean the 'media'. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

I believe whottt completely detroyed your last attempt to discuss the matter of Shaq vs. Robinson. I can't believe you would actually show up for some more butt whoopin'.

[ambchang]

You need to look up the facts before this ridiculous spin-fest.

Cute. Try calling out people for doing what you are doing to divert attention, probably the oldest trick on message boards.

Funny thing is that you started doing that the second I pulled out all the stuff you never even responded to and try to change arguments from one post to another.


I am not basing Robinson's postseason resume on 3 series from 94 to 96.

In fact, Robinson actually played 6 series in those 3 years, not 3. These were also the best statistical years of his career. By your own argument, Robinson's #'s post 97 back injury are to be discounted or ignored.

Given that we are ignoring Robinson's dragged down #'s post 97, he played in 53 playoff games from 1989 to 1997.

29 out of 53 or 55% of Robinson's playoff games came from 1994-1996. So calling my analysis cherrypicking is asinine. I picked the majority of Robinson's playoff games during his prime NBA seasons.

Really?


We haven't even been discussing that half of his career, so I have indeed acknowledged the impact this had on overall #'s. We're discussing years smack in his prime when his #'s fell dramatically and he was outclassed consistently by his bigman peers in the playoffs (Barkley's J in his face to end the Spurs season in 93, embarassment vs. Malone in 94 and 96, hakeem in 95). You don't even try to explain the declines in these peak years for Robinson because frankly, there is none.

I really don’t know how to make of this paragraph, on one hand you specifically mentioned 3-series as evidence to Robinson’s decline in those years, on the other …. Oh wait, there isn’t another scenario you were making.

Hold on, hold on, there is one play that you spoke of in addition to the series.


For Hakeem you picked out a 4 game series in 89 and a 4 game series in 98 when he was 36 yrs old. 8 games out of a 145 game postseason career.

See the difference?!

Of course I did. So why don’t you say this earlier instead of citing 3 series and one play as an example? You came up with great numbers to back up your claim didn’t you?

Excuse me, I couldn’t find the numbers from your posts, maybe I went blind. Could you strip out his numbers from series to series?

I mean, like how David Robinson averaged 30ppg vs. the Lakers in 95. Or shot 51% vs. the Nuggets in the same year, or how he scored 30ppg on 56% shooting vs. Barkley and the Suns in 96. I need numbers like those regarding Hakeem as well.

You mentioned something about taking all 29 games in that 3 seasons as an example. Oops, maybe you were really talking about how his averages suffered in only 3 series, namely the 2 Jazz and the one Rockets series, weren’t you?

BTW:

Hakeem was subpar in the 89-90 postseason vs. the Lakers, when scoring dropped from 24.3 ppg to 18.5 ppg, and shooting went from 50.1% to a shocking 44.3%.

In 95-96, his scoring went from 26.9ppg down to 22.4 ppg, then in 98-99, he went from from 18.9 to 13.3, shooting 42.6%. To top it all off, in the 98 postseason, he shot an atrocious 39.4% fro the field.

Maybe you should brush up on your comprehension skills a little, eh?

And for the 15th time, FIND ME WHERE I SAID ROBINONS PERFORMED BETTER, OR EVEN JUST AS WELL IN THE PLAYOFFS AS HAKEEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please?


-I also did read through your "analysis" and never saw anything resembling a decent argument about Robinson's playoff #'s. All you could cite was that in a few cases some of his #'s went up in the postseason.

Robinson played in the playoffs 6 seasons before his debilitating back injuries. During this time, his #'s decreased from regular season in 3 season (94-95-96; the drops in 94 and 95 were enormous). 1990 was a wash; 1991 saw them increase (small ball GS series); 1992 was down a bit as well (PPG stayed the same, but FG% again declined quite a bit).

I hate to quote myself, and I hate to think that you are flat out lying. So I will just pretend that my original “analysis” was never posted, and miraculously can only appear on my computer such that you couldn’t read it. Here it is again.


Really, in his 12 playoff appearance, he had better statistics in the playoffs than the regular season:
3 times in FG%, 4 times in FT%, 6 times in rebounds, 7 times in assists, 5 times in steals, 4 times in blocks, and 4 times in points.

Besides, 50% went up, 50% went down, really shows somebody choking, huh?

I also find it interesting as to putting some sort of an asterisks on the GS series. I can do the same, I will say we should throw out the Jazz and Rockets series, because they were constantly double and triple teaming Robinson, which is not common practice.



So net, net, there's obviously a decline in Robinson's postseason prowess pre back surgery. Stop bringing up the 18.9 ppg overall playoff averages because for the past 50 posts all that is being discussed in Robinson's pre injury #'s. Are you going to actually acknowledge that Robinson's playoff declines can not be completely attributed to playing the majority of his playoff games post back injury? Somehow, I doubt it.

Oh, so you are saying that the 18.9 ppg is NOT a point afterall, that you were wrong to bring it up. Why didn’t you mention that earlier?

Here is an in-depth “analysis” for you. Why don’t you go through all his playoff games from 90 to 96, and see how many games he performed well, and how many he didn’t perform well. I mean, you hate cherrypicking, right?


Also, I've seen in these posts from you some of the most bizarre analysis. However, comparing a KJ dunk on Olajuwon (in a playoff loss) to a shot by Barkley that ended the Spurs season, won the series, and shut down Hemisfair Arena may take the cake.

You realize there is a difference between a facial of a dunk which in a random game which had no effect on the outcome and a series clinching shot, correct?

I am puzzled by the bizarre comment, bizarre how? Care to explain. I find your use of the word bizarre to be quite bizarre.

And I am sure forcing Barkley to shoot a contested 18-foot jumper shows how poorly Robinson choked. I mean, talking about bizarre and cherrypicking. If you seriously believe that Barkley scoring on ONE play shows Robinson choked, then there really isn’t any other way I can prove you are hater more than that.

I will go on the same logic.

Scoring 23 pts on 7-15 shooting in a 3 pt OT loss in a game 7 after averaging 26.1 ppg on 52.9% shooting in the regular season. Hey, at least we can talk about one game instead of one shot, right?


There's nothing to cherrypick about Hakeem's playoff #'s. They consistently were up big over his regular season #'s. One of the best playoff performers of all time. Bigtime players step up in big games. Go ahead and try to deny it. You can rewrite and falsify history in your mind but realize that the majority of the world sees things through clear, not silver and black tinted lenses.

LOL, again, brush up on your comprehension skills. It was a direct refute to your asinine assertion that Robinson choked based on a few games of his career. It was used to illustrate how truly insane it is to look at a few games to draw a conclusion on a person’s career. DO YOU FINALLY GET IT?


Exactly. It's not rocket science. Great post basketball opens up wide open looks for shooters.

Hakeem did it. Kareem did it. Shaq did it. Duncan did it.

Guys like Robinson and Garnett and Nowitzki who are turn and faceup players can't do it as effectively.

Defensive schemes are much more compromised and vulnerable to having to concede outside shots when you have a dominant post. It's easier for the big to find open shooters.

This would have been a point if I hadn’t acknowledge it about 40 posts back. Hey, thanks for regurgitating.


While Hakeem did have better shooters than David, David had the better slashers and penetrators. Elliott and AJ could do this for SA where Houston was a poorly composed team with Hakeem, Thorpe, and a bunch of stand still shooters who couldn't drive and finish or drive and kick out (until Drexler changed that and gave them taht balance but at the expense of interior strength).

Let me see. A bunch of guys slashing into the paint that has been collapsed because nobody can shoot from the outside. Sounds like a great offense to me!

That really explained how Hakeem and his teams did so well with teammates who have to shoot from 23’9” vs. 22” for 3 points. Speaking of which, I am not sure if you saw the part about the shorter NBA three point line.


Hakeem also never palyed with a dominant rebounder/defensive stud big like Robinson did with Rodman for 2-3 seasons. Otis Thorpe was very solid and steady and filled this role very well, but just was not the talent that Rodman was.

Rodman? Are you serious? The same guy that allowed the Spurs to win 12 of 14 when he was injured? The same guy who refused to guard Horry and left him open for the career of his life? The same guy who allowed every single team to double and triple Robinson because of his zero offensive ability? The same guy who was traded for Will Perdue because no team wanted him? That Rodman?

Hey, it’s just a team game, team chemistry is not something you should worry about, you should worry about getting slashers to drive into the teeth of defense, when your biggest issue is not being able to open up the lane because your team can't shoot.

Finally, whatever happened to Robinson’s all-time ranking? I thought you were saying something about having a spinfest earlier on in this thread.

[ambchang]

I don't care if Robinson's stats went up in the '91 series vs Golden State. The Spurs had a super team and should have won. They had Cummings, Sean "the assassin" Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_, Willie Anderson, and Rod Strickland. There's no wat an elite center lets that get away.

I think DRob was up against Stanley "eat 'em while theyre hot" Roberts.

Please do you homework before spewing crap.
Robinson did his share, his teammates didn't.

[ambchang]

Rodman's defense was also much superior to Thorpe's. The guy has 5 rings, he was a winner.

Rodman wasn't a threat offensively, but he was a beast at creating second chance offensive opportunities by pounding the glass, which increases a team's chances to score.

If his offense was such a liability, he wouldnt have 5 rings. He was a lot like Big Ben Wallace, a guy who could greatly impact a game despite not being a scorer.

Teams Rodman won on, they have at least TWO great perimeter threat. The Spurs had zero ... well, maybe one, but I wouldn't put Elliott on the same plateau as Dumars, Thomas, Pippen and Jordan, because that's what blind homers do.

[ambchang]

You claim that a PF rebounding machine who's capable of defending multiple positions extremely well isnt an asset in terms of complementing a big man and then question someone else's knowledge of basketball? Way to expose your own lack of knowledge.

How the hell did Rodman "open up the game" for MJ? Big men who can receive the ball in the paint off penetration and finish at the rim are ideal complements to elite guards and Rodman was anything but that. Rodman's value to the Bulls was on the glass and on D, not "opening up the game for Jordan".

Guys like Duncan, Robinson, Hakeem, etc need that banger PF to complement them by doing dirty work, being able to guard the other team's bigman at times, crash the boards, and having their back when they go play help D. It helps them conserve energy and roam more defensively.

You'd think a fan of a team that won 2 titles with a combination of Tim Duncan and David Robinson would understand the value of a great complementary bigman to a superstar big!!!!

Way to expose your own lack of knowledge.
Way to expose your own lack of watching the actual series.

[Slippy]

Thorpe was solid and underrated, no doubt. He did have a very good post game. Dude was a hoss too, he didnt miss games. I'd still take the Worm, even with his baggage.

I know it's hard for Spurs fans to look at the Worm's career without focusing on the dissapointments in SA, but he was a key piece to title teams the rest of his career. Things just didnt work out in the Alamo City for whatever reason. I think he needed more of a disciplinarian Coach like a Chuck Daly to keep him in line. Bob Hill was too much of a player's coach.

I bet Rodman would have been dynamite under Popovich...

:lol he was dyanmite alright . That's why Pop the GM traded the cross-dressing clown out of SA for a reserve in Will Purdue. Rodman was his own team, the distractions weren't worth it.

ESPN is not gospel.

[Phenomanul]

S36g_AZX84M&feature=related

[Rainman]

Regular season, yes.

Post season? Not even close.

Here is the breakdown for career postseason stats:

David Robinson: 18.1 PPG 10.6 RPG 48% FG 2.3 APG 2.3 BPG

Hakeem Olajuwon: 25.9 PPG 11.2 PPG 53% FG 3.2 APG 3.3 BPG

Saying Robinson is on par with Hakeem is as homeristic as a Wolves ban saying KG is on par with Duncan. Same argument, similar careers.

Olajuwon's game was tailor-made for post season success as he was a dominant big.

Robinson at no point in his career was dominant and his game which relied on cheap buckets was clearly inferior in the postseason when his stats consistently dipped from his regular season play each and every year because play was more physical and intense and the guy just had no reliable go to moves. Olajuwon was the opposite.

The Robinson-Olajuwon postseason spread is actually much wider than Kobe-MJ. Kobe does become a beast in the playoffs. David Robinson never did.


I watched both guys in their primes and Dream was the best big man of his era. He was far more skilled than Robinson and became even more dominant in the playoffs as his numbers show. Dream could do pretty much anything Robinson could do on the court. You can't say that Robinson could play like Dream if he wanted to. He just didn't have the same kind of ability on either end of the court. No offense to Spurs fans but Robinson should be compared to Ewing because they played more a face up jump shooter type of game while Dream could hit the J and dominate you in the post and than shut you down on the defensive side of the ball.

[Phenomanul]

I watched both guys in their primes and Dream was the best big man of his era. He was far more skilled than Robinson and became even more dominant in the playoffs as his numbers show. Dream could do pretty much anything Robinson could do on the court. You can't say that Robinson could play like Dream if he wanted to. He just didn't have the same kind of ability on either end of the court. No offense to Spurs fans but Robinson should be compared to Ewing because they played more a face up jump shooter type of game while Dream could hit the J and dominate you in the post and than shut you down on the defensive side of the ball.

Thanks for another subjective viewpoint. Respectfully, however, I'm will continue to disagree.

Just be thankful that Olojuwon was lucky enough to have the cast that he had in the thick of his prime. Without them he doesn't win any championships. Unfortunately for The Admiral, he wasn't as fortunate before his injury.

[Blake]

thanks for keeping this thread going.

hilarious.

[ambchang]

Gee, just when I thought the thread is close, there comes another person who obviously did not read the thread, based his/her arguments strictly on selective memory, and stated everything as facts.

So Rainman, either read through all the posts in the thread, or go look up the stats, career accomplishments, and awards of the three before saying anything, ok?

BTW Phenomanul, I guess haters will always be haters no matter what kind of numbers you bring up. To them, the world is black and white, a player (Hakeem) is absolutely better than another (Robinson) with no exceptions, unless a third player (Kobe) would appear to be largely inferior when using the same metrics as the 2nd player (Robinson).

Even my wife was asking me how many times I could argue on the same freaking topic, with the same arguments. But hey, it's not my fault that people come in with the same crap undermining the career accomplishments of one of the best centers of all-time.

[Many PackYao]

Thanks for another subjective viewpoint. Respectfully, however, I'm will continue to disagree.

Just be thankful that Olojuwon was lucky enough to have the cast that he had in the thick of his prime. Without them he doesn't win any championships. Unfortunately for The Admiral, he wasn't as fortunate before his injury.
And if Duncan never came along, Robinson wouldn't have any either.

[Admiral]

And if Duncan never came along, Robinson wouldn't have any either.

And if Tim had David's supporting cast, he wouldn't have any either. We can play this game all day.

[Phenomanul]

And if Duncan never came along, Robinson wouldn't have any either.

You're missing the point.... in fact you've missed it continually throughout the thread.

The fact that Robinson won championships with Duncan, doesn't make him any less of a player than if he hadn't won any at all.... ever... Think about that.

Unlike BSPN, I don't measure a player's capabilities solely by the number of championship rings on their fingers. Teams win championships; not individual players.

Shaq could have won 10 Championships in his career, and I would still consider Robinson the better player. Pre-injury Ronbinson was a more complete and versatile player than Shaq ever was... and Shaq was an amazing player. Conversely, Shaq has always had the benefit of playing alongside 'elite' teammates. By the same reasoning, if Jordan hadn't been paired up with complimentary and competent teammates, or Tex Winters 'offensive triangle' scheme, he would not have attained any championships either.... And we're talking about the greatest player of all time!!! I've clearly demonstrated that teammates matter, and no one can honestly refute that claim.

And no, the argument is not subjective; I could list every shot that those greats needed from their casts to keep their championship hopes alive during their title runs. In fact I stated that the Spurs have needed such daggers during their runs as well, because Duncan has also benefited from his teammates' clutch shots.

That's why the mindset when factoring the 'championship argument' into such a discussion should be to understand the context of how those championships were attained; and not blow it off altogether. History does matter. Teammates matter.

People quickly rank Olojuwon as being >>>>>>>>>>>>> Robinson simply because Olojuwon's Rockets beat Robinson's Spurs in their lone series back in 1995. Seeing that two of those games were decided by Hakeem's teammates (and not Olojuwon) it's rather ludicrous to suggest that the series outcome ultimately determined that Hakeem was a greater player than Robinson... The media nevertheless, proclaimed that message as truth (and continues to do so to this day). :rolleyes

But yes, I'm glad that David Robinson did work toward two championships, and that he was able to leave the game on top. But those two championships don't exclusively define him as a player, and they definitely don't define the caliber of his abilities.

[Many PackYao]

You're missing the point.... in fact you've missed it continually throughout the thread.

The fact that Robinson won championships with Duncan, doesn't make him any less of a player than if he hadn't won any at all.... ever... Think about that.

Unlike BSPN, I don't measure a player's capabilities solely by the number of championship rings on their fingers. Teams win championships; not individual players.

Shaq could have won 10 Championships in his career, and I would still consider Robinson the better player. Pre-injury Ronbinson was a more complete and versatile player than Shaq ever was... and Shaq was an amazing player. Conversely, Shaq has always had the benefit of playing alongside 'elite' teammates. By the same reasoning, if Jordan hadn't been paired up with complimentary and competent teammates, or Tex Winters 'offensive triangle' scheme, he would not have attained any championships either.... And we're talking about the greatest player of all time!!! I've clearly demonstrated that teammates matter, and no one can honestly refute that claim.

And no, the argument is not subjective; I could list every shot that those greats needed from their casts to keep their championship hopes alive during their title runs. In fact I stated that the Spurs have needed such daggers during their runs as well, because Duncan has also benefited from his teammates' clutch shots.

That's why the mindset when factoring the 'championship argument' into such a discussion should be to understand the context of how those championships were attained; and not blow it off altogether. History does matter. Teammates matter.

People quickly rank Olojuwon as being >>>>>>>>>>>>> Robinson simply because Olojuwon's Rockets beat Robinson's Spurs in their lone series back in 1995. Seeing that two of those games were decided by Hakeem's teammates (and not Olojuwon) it's rather ludicrous to suggest that the series outcome ultimately determined that Hakeem was a greater player than Robinson... The media nevertheless, proclaimed that message as truth (and continues to do so to this day). :rolleyes

But yes, I'm glad that David Robinson did work toward two championships, and that he was able to leave the game on top. But those two championships don't exclusively define him as a player, and they definitely don't define the caliber of his abilities.

I, for one don't care what the media says. As a Rockets fan I'm used to the media denigrating any Houston team's accomplishments.The Spurs of those years were a better overall ballclub because they did not live and die by the 3ball like the Rockets did. From what I saw in their reg season battles, Hakeem n Rob would do their thing while Houston's inconsistant shooters would lose the game.The Rockets had good records during those years because either Hakeem or Maxwell would bail them out on last second shots.You guys always talk about the Rockets' shooters, well Kenny was too inconsistant (30pts one night then 5 the next) and Mad Max was too erratic,although good in the clutch.

In the playoffs it was a combo of Houston's shooters stepping up and Hakeem taking it to another level.In all the times I watched Robinson, I've never seen him take it to the Superstar level when they needed him the most.Rob was a great player and he IS on Hakeems level, he's just lower in the ranking of great centers in my opinion.

[ambchang]

I, for one don't care what the media says. As a Rockets fan I'm used to the media denigrating any Houston team's accomplishments.The Spurs of those years were a better overall ballclub because they did not live and die by the 3ball like the Rockets did. From what I saw in their reg season battles, Hakeem n Rob would do their thing while Houston's inconsistant shooters would lose the game.The Rockets had good records during those years because either Hakeem or Maxwell would bail them out on last second shots.You guys always talk about the Rockets' shooters, well Kenny was too inconsistant (30pts one night then 5 the next) and Mad Max was too erratic,although good in the clutch.

In the playoffs it was a combo of Houston's shooters stepping up and Hakeem taking it to another level.In all the times I watched Robinson, I've never seen him take it to the Superstar level when they needed him the most.Rob was a great player and he IS on Hakeems level, he's just lower in the ranking of great centers in my opinion.


Perhaps you can enlightening us with how Robinson could score 35 ppg in the playoffs when teams are leaving Rodman and AJ wide open so that they could double/triple Robinson, and then leave Vinny Del Negro alone so that they can have a third/fourth player pack then lane and grab rebounds, then they could leave Sean Elliott alone because he couldn't hit any shots under pressure until 1999.

I am taking the effort to post the following for the 3rd or 4th time in this thread, so I would appreciate it if you could at least read it once.

The Spurs had huge trouble scoring from the perimeter in the mid 90s. Teams realized that and understand that the way to beat the Spurs is to leave the guys on the perimeter alone, and double/triple team Robinson. Thus, the lane is packed, and the Spurs can't score in the paint either.

The same exact situation happened in 04 vs. the Lakers. In the first two games, the Lakers did not pack the lane, and Duncan averaged 27 ppg on 64.5% shooting. In the next 4 games (all Spurs losses), Duncan averaged 17.5 ppg on 38.3% shooting.

Did he suddenly started to choke in the same freaking series? NO! The lane was packed, and the perimeter threats did NOTHING to open up the lane for him.

Hakeem didn't become successful without a great perimeter team around him. Shaq always had great shooters around him. Even Kareem and Wilt needed perimeter threats around him to be successful.

This is no secret. So stop pretending that you don't know.

[Many PackYao]

Perhaps you can enlightening us with how Robinson could score 35 ppg in the playoffs when teams are leaving Rodman and AJ wide open so that they could double/triple Robinson, and then leave Vinny Del Negro alone so that they can have a third/fourth player pack then lane and grab rebounds, then they could leave Sean Elliott alone because he couldn't hit any shots under pressure until 1999.

I am taking the effort to post the following for the 3rd or 4th time in this thread, so I would appreciate it if you could at least read it once.

The Spurs had huge trouble scoring from the perimeter in the mid 90s. Teams realized that and understand that the way to beat the Spurs is to leave the guys on the perimeter alone, and double/triple team Robinson. Thus, the lane is packed, and the Spurs can't score in the paint either.

The same exact situation happened in 04 vs. the Lakers. In the first two games, the Lakers did not pack the lane, and Duncan averaged 27 ppg on 64.5% shooting. In the next 4 games (all Spurs losses), Duncan averaged 17.5 ppg on 38.3% shooting.

Did he suddenly started to choke in the same freaking series? NO! The lane was packed, and the perimeter threats did NOTHING to open up the lane for him.

Hakeem didn't become successful without a great perimeter team around him. Shaq always had great shooters around him. Even Kareem and Wilt needed perimeter threats around him to be successful.

This is no secret. So stop pretending that you don't know.

Yeah, Avery was the guy to be left open on all the scouting reports.Sean was a good slasher/decent shooter and Avery could drive as he always gave the Rockets fits.It was just a matter of them stepping up which they didn't.
Anyways those were the same two guys (Avery and Sean) that made clutch shots during their first title run so I'm sure they were capable of doing it in '95.All in all, lets agree to disagree ok?:toast

[ambchang]

Yeah, Avery was the guy to be left open on all the scouting reports.Sean was a good slasher/decent shooter and Avery could drive as he always gave the Rockets fits.It was just a matter of them stepping up which they didn't.
Anyways those were the same two guys (Avery and Sean) that made clutch shots during their first title run so I'm sure they were capable of doing it in '95.All in all, lets agree to disagree ok?:toast

Well, they proved that they were not capable of doing it in 95, and that was it. This is not a subjective matter where we can agree or disagreed on, they did not step up.