Hall of Fame

[Dre_7]

http://www.basketballreference.com/leaders/leadershof.htm

This is a pretty cool site. You have to read about how they do the Hall of Fame Monitor, but Tim Duncan is 1st on the list of active players, 3rd on the list of player who have not yet made it to the HOF(behind MJ and Malone), and 11th all time. Not too bad!

http://www.basketballreference.com/ <--I have been spending a lot of time there. My cousin told me about this site. I like it alot.

[spursfaninla]

Yes, interesting that he passed Drob so easily.

I think that should say alot for those who wonder who was the better player.

Further, he passed Shaq on HOF monitor, supposedly a top 5 center of all time.

I love that site, it gives an interesting perspective on players.

[Dex]

The site gives 1 point for each point of the NBA career, and 2.5 points for each point of Career Efficiency...

yet it only gives 3.5 points for each NBA championship!?

I mean...I know championships are really more dependent upon the full effort of a TEAM, and they are only given to one team a season and all that hooplah...

But still...by that accord, scoring a point is 1/3.5ths as difficult as winning a ring. Seems a little skewed, don't you think?

Hell, Duncan's 10.5 points are basically negated because he is a Forward/Center. :oops

Regardless, it seems like a good system, especially since it shows that no Hall of Famers are left out by that formula. Still seems a lil fishy to me, though.

[whottt]

Yes, interesting that he passed Drob so easily.

I think that should say alot for those who wonder who was the better player.

Um...it says a lot for a formula that gives you 75 points for an MVP award, XP for all NBA first team, and a - 20 handicap for being a C VS a -15 handicap for being a F.


Further, he passed Shaq on HOF monitor, supposedly a top 5 center of all time.

And Bob Cousy ranks ahead of Shaq, Drob and Hakeem Olajuwon...

Who are you going to take? If you are ready to swear by that formula than be my guest to have Cousy...just be prepared to lose a lot of games.


I love that site, it gives an interesting perspective on players.


This one is better:

http://www.basketball-reference.com/


Note the hyphen.

[whottt]

By the way...for those of you ready to swear by the HOF monitor at Basketball reference....

Here's an APBRmetric ranking of players who contributed the most to their teams wins, per game, in every game they played in their careers...it's basically the equivalant of win shares for basketball players...

According to this cutting edge statistical analysis...

David Robinson is the best player to play in NBA history, in terms of helping his teams win...at least since the ABA NBA merger...

Those of you listening to my arguments over the years for how under-rated David was, and how much sucess he had with a very limited supporting cast(especially at the guard spots)shouldn't be surprised this finding, ...5 IBM awards...not popularity contests.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/labs/apbr.cgi?franch=All&first=1978&last=2005&minage=0&maxage=99&combine=Yes&stat=PWP&min=10000&sort=desc&limit=50

[ambchang]

Well, but when the site ranks Brad Miller and Sidney Moncrief above Bird and Jordan, you know something is wrong.
I love David, he is my favourite player, but I wouldn't even rank him as the best center, probably 5 or 6 in my book.

[Dre_7]

By the way...for those of you ready to swear by the HOF monitor at Basketball reference....

Here's an APBRmetric ranking of players who contributed the most to their teams wins, per game, in every game they played in their careers...it's basically the equivalant of win shares for basketball players...

According to this cutting edge statistical analysis...

David Robinson is the best player to play in NBA history, in terms of helping his teams win...at least since the ABA NBA merger...

Those of you listening to my arguments over the years for how under-rated David was, and how much sucess he had with a very limited supporting cast(especially at the guard spots)shouldn't be surprised this finding, ...5 IBM awards...not popularity contests.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/labs/apbr.cgi?franch=All&first=1978&last=2005&minage=0&maxage=99&combine=Yes&stat=PWP&min=10000&sort=desc&limit=50

Wow, awesome site!!!

Look at number 1 and 2 in that list!!!

[Dre_7]

Well, but when the site ranks Brad Miller and Sidney Moncrief above Bird and Jordan, you know something is wrong.
I love David, he is my favourite player, but I wouldn't even rank him as the best center, probably 5 or 6 in my book.

Good point. I didnt even see that til I read your post.

Brad Miller over MJ????? I dont think so! :lol

[Dre_7]

BTW my list of best centers ever is:

1. Russell
2. Wilt
3. Jabbar
4. DRob
5. Hakkem

[genghisrex]

According to this cutting edge statistical analysis...
... Steve Kerr did more to help his teams win than Hakeem Olajuwon.

[spursfaninla]

That "player win %" looks ok, but there are some SERIOUS flaws in a system that puts Sabonis above Shaq, Barkley, Bird and MJ.

This system of evaluation that is SO much better than the HOF monitor also put Brad Miller and Dennis Rodman over Kareem.

I think HOF monitor consistently places the best players near the top, whereas this system is VERY spotty.

Sorry, you lose.

[whottt]

... Steve Kerr did more to help his teams win than Hakeem Olajuwon.

Wrong...check it again. You just clicked on a different stat.

My guess is you clicked on offensive rating...Steve Kerr being a guy that did nothing but shoot 3 pointers...and incidentally just happened to be the best NBA history at it...would naturally score high on that stat.

That is not, however, the stat that I lead you too.

Do try and get it together.

[Dre_7]

Wrong...check it again. You just clicked on a different stat.

My guess is you clicked on offensive rating...Steve Kerr being a guy that did nothing but shoot 3 pointers...and incidentally just happened to be the best NBA history at it...would naturally score high on that stat.

That is not, however, the stat that I lead you too.

Do try and get it together.

According to the link you provided, Steve Kerr is ahead of the Dream. :lol

[Sense]

BTW my list of best centers ever is:

1. Russell
2. Wilt
3. Jabbar
4. DRob
5. Hakkem


Shaq has to be 4... and Drob and the dream have to be pulled down.

[whottt]

That "player win %" looks ok, but there are some SERIOUS flaws in a system that puts Sabonis above Shaq, Barkley, Bird and MJ.
Not when you take into account that Shaq, Barkley, Bird and MJ played with Rodman, Parish, Hakeem, Pippen, Kobe and McHale.


Take MJ off the Bulls and they were still a 55 win team.

Unles you are able to grasp the simple concept that teams win championships....not individuals...then this is probably all going to be wasted on you.




This system of evaluation that is SO much better than the HOF monitor also put Brad Miller and Dennis Rodman over Kareem.


Did you or did you not read the part where I said, since the NBA merger, or more specifically, since 1978? Did you think Kareem only played 12 years?

The portion of Kareem's career this measures he was surrounded by 2-3 other HOF'ers every year...one of which definitely was more responsible for the teams success than he was.






I think HOF monitor consistently places the best players near the top, whereas this system is VERY spotty.

I think the HOF monitor rewards popularity...which is usually a good indicator of who will make it into the HOF as well...

But that's got nothing to do with who was actually contributing more to wins.






Sorry, you lose.

Let's talk about it again in 5 years...when you have a better grasp on the game.

[whottt]

According to the link you provided, Steve Kerr is ahead of the Dream. :lol


LMAO...my bad.



Is it that hard to figure out why Kerr ranks higher though?

Hakeem played with a lot of great players and had some really shitty records.

Really Hakeem's teams only won at high rate for like a 5 year period of his career....


Look at the other years of his career...the years where he was at 500%, the year where he failed to make the playoffs...etc. It was rare that a Hakeem team won 50 games...and when it did he usually had Clyde Drexler, Barkley, Pippen, etc...eating into his contributions....and when his team set a 3 point record etc.

[whottt]

Actually, after looking how low Garnett ranks on that list I am more convinced than ever that it is accurate and a good way to measure players.

And BTW...Duncan ranks second on it...Magic Johnson is third....

[IcemanCometh]

who but whott knew that Ed Pinckney was the 50th best player in nba history

[exstatic]

BTW my list of best centers ever is:

1. Russell
2. Wilt
3. Jabbar
4. DRob
5. Hakkem



Shaq has to be 4... and Drob and the dream have to be pulled down.



Not if you include things other than backing people down in the paint with your earthmover-sized butt, like defense and rebounding. Shaq is a superb low post scorer, but so was Antoine Carr. The difference is that Shaq is 7'0" 350 and played for LA, and Carr was 6'9" 260 and played for SA and Utah.

[whottt]

2001 NBA 45-37 5th, Midwest Division
2000 NBA 34-48 6th, Midwest Division
1999 NBA 31-19 3rd, Midwest Division Lost West Conf 1st Rd
1998 NBA 41-41 4th, Midwest Division Lost West Conf 1st Rd
1997 NBA 57-25 2nd, Midwest Division Lost West Conf Finals
1996 NBA 48-34 3rd, Midwest Division Lost West Conf Semis
1995 NBA 47-35 3rd, Midwest Division Won NBA Finals
1994 NBA 58-24 1st, Midwest Division Won NBA Finals
1993 NBA 55-27 1st, Midwest Division Lost West Conf Semis
1992 NBA 42-40 3rd, Midwest Division
1991 NBA 52-30 3rd, Midwest Division Lost West Conf 1st Rd
1990 NBA 41-41 5th, Midwest Division Lost West Conf 1st Rd
1989 NBA 45-37 2nd, Midwest Division Lost West Conf 1st Rd
1988 NBA 46-36 4th, Midwest Division Lost West Conf 1st Rd
1987 NBA 42-40 3rd, Midwest Division Lost West Conf Semis
1986 NBA 51-31 1st, Midwest Division Lost NBA Finals
1985 NBA 48-34 2nd, Midwest Division Lost West Conf 1st Rd

This is a year by year list of the records of Hakeem's teams...

In 18 years 5 times his teams won 50+ games...Look at the guys he played with...Charles Barkley, Scottie Pippen, Clyde Drexler...even Robert Horry. I am sure I left out some others that were good players too...like Cassell and Thorpe.


This is just from David's pre Duncan years:


NBA 59-23 1st, Midwest Division Lost West Conf Semis
1996 NBA 59-23 1st, Midwest Division Lost West Conf Semis
1995 NBA 62-20 1st, Midwest Division Lost West Conf Finals
1994 NBA 55-27 2nd, Midwest Division Lost West Conf 1st Rd
1993 NBA 49-33 2nd, Midwest Division Lost West Conf Semis
1992 NBA 47-35 2nd, Midwest Division Lost West Conf 1st Rd
1991 NBA 55-27 1st, Midwest Division Lost West Conf 1st Rd
1990 NBA 56-26 1st, Midwest Division Lost West Conf Semis


That's 5 times in 7 years he won 50 games...and one of those years he didn't was because he missed the last 3 weeks of the season with torn thumb ligaments(and they lost like a mofo once he went out)..never finished lower than second in the division and finished with a better record than Hakeem's teams in 5 out of those 7 years...and he finished second to Hakeem in those years.

Now look at who David's teamates were during those years...
Rodman
Cummings
Elliott
Dale Ellis?
Chuck Person?

Good players sure...but not exactly Pippen, Drexler, Barkley etc....Hell, in most cases not even Robert Horry.

[whottt]

Um Ice...I never claimed this was the definitive system of who was the greatest players of all time...

It's just my response to someone saying the HOF monitor is....

Believe me...if I thought it was the definitive stat for who was the greatest player of all time...and it's saying David is...

You'd have heard about it the first time I saw it...about 2 years ago.

It's not the definitive stat...but neither is the damn HOF monitor.

[whottt]

By the way...for a guy that was such a post season god...

Hakeem sure did get his fucking ass kicked out in the first round of the playoffs a lot...except for the year he didn't even make the playoffs.

[190 Octane]

If you are ready to swear by that formula than be my guest to have Cousy...just be prepared to lose a lot of games.

You do realize Cousy won 6 NBA championships in his career, right?

He was the most dominant point guard of his era, and how he would hypothetically perform in another era is irrelevant. What is relevant is he averaged 18 ppg, 7 apg, and 5 rpg throughout his career and was named First Team All-NBA 10 times.

[whottt]

Bob Cousy sucked goat ass.


If he was playing in todays era he'd be backing up Sarunas Jackoviecieus for McCabi Tel Aviv.

I love it when guys start citing titles as proof of some shit...

So in your next argument you'll be arguing Bill Russell as the greatest of all time because he won 10 or 11....

But guess what...they were both on the same team....so they both can't have been the main reason responsible for those titles...so therefore how much individual credit can you give them for team achievements?

Partial credit?

Full credit?

IF you give them full credit you have to explain why they didn't win every year...or how their teams still continued to make the playoffs after they were no longer there...

If you give them partial credit that opens the door for guys like John Salley to start citing their rings...


Teams win titles not individuals...

Bob Cousy didn't win any championships, and if you can show me the year he is listed as the NBA champion I will acknowledge the point.....but you can't...because he didn't...the Boston Celtics did...and they kept on winning after he left...and they kept on winning after Bill Russell left.

And Michael Jordan's teams continued to make the playoffs after he left.

David's bought the second or third worst record in the NBA...

[190 Octane]

Bob Cousy sucked goat ass.


If he was playing in todays era he'd be backing up Sarunas Jackoviecieus for McCabi Tel Aviv.

I love it when guys start citing titles as proof of some shit...

So in your next argument you'll be arguing Bill Russell as the greatest of all time because he won 10 or 11....

But guess what...they were both on the same team....so they both can't have been the main reason responsible for those titles...so therefore how much individual credit can you give them for team achievements?

Partial credit?

Full credit?

IF you give them full credit you have to explain why they didn't win every year...or how their teams still continued to make the playoffs after they were no longer there...

If you give them partial credit that opens the door for guys like John Salley to start citing their rings...


Teams win titles not individuals...

Bob Cousy didn't win any championships, and if you can show me the year he is listed as the NBA champion I will acknowledge the point.....but you can't...because he didn't...the Boston Celtics did...and they kept on winning after he left...and they kept on winning after Bill Russell left.

And Michael Jordan's teams continued to make the playoffs after he left.


:lol The Celtics pretty much crumbled in the 1970s after Russell left. They didn't win another championship, let alone compete for one again until 1981. Nice try though.

Of course Cousy didn't win a championship on his own, but 18 points per game and 7 assists per game is a pretty big help. But yeah, winning an MVP and 10 First Team All-NBA nominations "sucks goat ass."

Guess what? It doesn't matter how he'd play in this era. He played in the 1950s and 1960s, and he was awesome in that period. End of story. Who is to say any of our NBA greats of today would be good against the players of 2060? If not, who cares? They're great now, that's all that matters.

Last thing - Jordan's teams continued to win after he left? Hmmm, is that why in 1994 they couldn't get to the Conference Finals, or from 1999 to 2004, the Bulls were a complete joke?

[ShoogarBear]

Ahh, whottt's back in form . . .


Actually, after looking how low Garnett ranks on that list I am more convinced than ever that it is accurate and a good way to measure players. Then I guess
-PJ Brown, Tree Rollins > Julius Erving
-Peja Stojakovic > Moses Malone
-Cedric Maxwell > Kevin Garnett
-Dennis Rodman > Kevin McHale

and too many other absurdities to mention


So in your next argument you'll be arguing Bill Russell as the greatest of all time because he won 10 or 11....

the Boston Celtics did...and they kept on winning after he left...and they kept on winning after Bill Russell left. # of Celtic champiohships before Bill Russell arrived: 0
# of Celtic championships in 13 years that Russell played: 11
# of Celtic championships in Russell's last two years: 2
# of playoff games played by Celtics in first two years without Russell: 0

Not only that but the ONLY player who was there for both Russell's first two and last two championships was . . . Bill Russell.

You don't get very far in any of these arguments criticizing Bill Russell.

[190 Octane]

I was going to leave the Bill Russell thing alone, but since you opened it up ShoogarBear:

15 points per game, 22 rebounds per game, 5 assists per game...for his CAREER. Also, take notice of how the Celtics did in the 1970s without him.

[ShoogarBear]

I try not to compare statistics, because the game are so much different.

There are a lot more rebounds when teams are averaging 110 shots per game each as opposed to 85.

I'll never say that Russell would be even close to a dominant player in today's NBA. But he revolutionized the center position more than any player other than Mikan.

[190 Octane]

I try to to compare statistics, because the game are so much different.

There are a lot more rebounds when temas are averaging 110 shots per game each as opposed to 85.

I'll never say that Russell would be even close to a dominant player in today's NBA. But he revolutionized the center position more than any player other than Mikan.

I agree with this entire point. What matters is how a player performed in his own era, otherwise you're left with a debate that's nothing more than speculation. What isn't speculatory are the statistics, and to dismiss stats like Russell's or Cousy's is just plain ignorant - particularly dismissal to the point of saying a player "sucks."

[spursfaninla]

Considering EVERYONE who has read this thread, and responded to it, Disagrees with Whotshisname, I'll just leave it at that.

btw, since i've only been watching the spurs for about 15 years, I'm sure in 5 years i'll have a different perspective on the Spurs and basketball in general, and will surely bring more "knowledge" as well. However, there is little danger of my changing my mind in this instance since your perspective lacks, well, sense.

peace.

[ambchang]

BTW my list of best centers ever is:

1. Russell
2. Wilt
3. Jabbar
4. DRob
5. Hakkem

Tough to argue, but I would put Hakeem at 4, and DRob or Moses Malone at 5. The first 3 are interchangable. Hakeem is the only superstar other than Tim Duncan to win a championship with a very weak supporting cast (Duncan in 03, Hakeem in 94), and his moves down low was plain unstoppable.
Of course, you can make an argument that 94 and 95 were not as competitive as it is now, but this is subjective.

[whottt]

:lol The Celtics pretty much crumbled in the 1970s after Russell left. They didn't win another championship, let alone compete for one again until 1981. Nice try though.

Absolutely and totally false. An incredible oversight on your part. Go back and check it again.


Of course Cousy didn't win a championship on his own, but 18 points per game and 7 assists per game is a pretty big help. But yeah, winning an MVP and 10 First Team All-NBA nominations "sucks goat ass."

So are you saying you'd take Cousy over Shaq, Hakeem or Drob?

Be my guest.

I bet you also think the fatman could step into todays MLB and slug 715 homers while batting 344% for a career...after spending the first 5 years of his career as a pitcher...

And um...Santa doesn't exist either.




Guess what? It doesn't matter how he'd play in this era. He played in the 1950s and 1960s, and he was awesome in that period. End of story. Who is to say any of our NBA greats of today would be good against the players of 2060? If not, who cares? They're great now, that's all that matters.

So do you think it was that they were better defenders back in that era? Or just not as good of offensive players? Cousy being a career 37% FG shooter?

Cousy played on great teams...what you fail to see is that the big teams had a lot more clout to horde the best players back in those days...it was not an even playing field.

The Celtic's success wasn't due to any one great player...it was due to a whole shitload of them.

Russell was probably the main key...but seeing as we just saw a role player by the name of Horry pull Duncan's ass out of the fire in game 5 of the finals...

I don't get how you guys don't see this...

A player can make the maximum contrubitions...but if his team is not good enough...he will not win a championship.

Think about Derek Fisher and .04. Even with all those HOF'ers...if not for that shot LA probably doesn't beat us in that series...if Horry makes the shot in 03 we probably don't win that series...I don't care how fucking good Duncan might be.




Last thing - Jordan's teams continued to win after he left? Hmmm, is that why in 1994 they couldn't get to the Conference Finals,

Um...obviously they weren't as good without Jordan...

But they won 57 games the last year of the first 3 peat..then he left and they won 55 games...

I think it's pretty obvious that if Scottie Pippen had left and Jordan had stayed the result would have been similar.




or from 1999 to 2004, the Bulls were a complete joke?

Um...they lost more than just Jordan...surely you realize this?

[whottt]

Considering EVERYONE who has read this thread, and responded to it, Disagrees with Whotshisname, I'll just leave it at that.

btw, since i've only been watching the spurs for about 15 years, I'm sure in 5 years i'll have a different perspective on the Spurs and basketball in general, and will surely bring more "knowledge" as well. However, there is little danger of my changing my mind in this instance since your perspective lacks, well, sense.

peace.

Hey far be it from me to piss on the latest meeting of the flat earth society...but you're still wrong, no matter how many disagree with me.

[samikeyp]

While I don't agree that Cousy "sucked goat ass" Whottt is right, no player can win a title by himself. IMO also, Russell had more to do with those Celtic titles than Cousy and IMO, Russell is arugably the best ever but not solely because of the titles. If it was just on titles, Robert Horry is the same as MJ.

[IcemanCometh]

not to help whott or anything but the Celtics did kind of win the championship in 74 and 76 while reaching the ECF in 72,73,75.

it helps when you have havlicek cowens and jo jo white you know.

[spursfaninla]

Of course it takes good teams to win championships, and one player alone can't do it.

Of course taking one of the key parts of a championship team off of it probably prevent it from being a champion.

However, we CAN say that certain pieces are relatively more important than others.

We can also say that championships, along with wins during the regular season, prove which team was best that year. Now, the classic example is Wilt. Until he learned to dominate alittle less and help his teammates become better, he didn't win. His most dominant years are not the years he went all the way.

Furthermore,
there are teams that put you close enough to catch the ring, but then special players put their teams on their back and take it home, and I think those types of players deserve a special place in history. Hakeem did it in the playoffs. So did Shaq and Kobe. So did Duncan.

Its hard for me to put David ahead of Hakeem, for example, when I saw Hakeem drop something like 45 on him 3 games in a row on the way to showing him the regular season MVP was not the playoffs MVP. Of course, if Hakeem had much inferior regular season accolades and numbers, it would not be a fair comparison. But in fact they are similar in the points, rebounds and blocks that they had over their careers. Davids were better, but Hakeem was a better PEAK PERFORMER.

Like it or not, a big part of a player's legacy is taking it to that next level, and some great players don't do that when it really counts. David, for the most part, just didn't.

I didnt' watch Russell, but from what I understand he was an INCREDIBLE defender. I do understand that the game has changed significantly (its not that players have fogotten how to rebound, or are greatly inferior rebounders to the best players of the past, its that there are 30 less shots per game to rebound...). However, you also have to judge players against their contemporaries, and the closest players to Russell and Wilt in rebounding are 6 away!! That would be like the best players today rebounding about 13, and then Duncan walking in and averaging 19....It would be evident he was something special.

Hey, popularity isn't everything. Sometimes most of the people ARE wrong. And it is actually very difficult to parse out one player's impact on the game vs. another on their own team, much less players on a completely different team. But to try to put David in the Top 5 of centers, I believe, is not justified in terms of team success. He was never the best player on a championship team, as all of the other guys ahead of him (on the HOF monitor list) were.

If you want to look at peak season efficiency and stuff like that, Garnett should be in the same ballpark as David then. And you hate him, so reconcile that reality my friend. :pctoss

[Mr. Body]

I'm more interested in the fact that guys like Terry Porter and Reggie Miller don't meet the 135 generalized cut off point for scores.

[190 Octane]

No one EVER said one player wins a championship, that's a no-brainer. But to say the best point guard of an era "sucks goat ass" because he's not a Shaq is boneheaded, period. I never suggested Cousy was better than Shaq etc., I was defending the fact he was a great player in his era. whottt, before you go on tirades, check your facts. The Celts didn't compete once Russell left. If you think they did, you're just plain wrong.

[whottt]

No one EVER said one player wins a championship, that's a no-brainer. But to say the best point guard of an era "sucks goat ass" because he's not a Shaq is boneheaded, period. I never suggested Cousy was better than Shaq etc., I was defending the fact he was a great player in his era. whottt, before you go on tirades, check your facts. The Celts didn't compete once Russell left. If you think they did, you're just plain wrong.


Ahem:


not to help whott or anything but the Celtics did kind of win the championship in 74 and 76 while reaching the ECF in 72,73,75.

it helps when you have havlicek cowens and jo jo white you know.

[ShoogarBear]

As I already said: The Celtics won the championship in Russell's last two years.

The first two years after he left, they didn't even make the playoffs.

They had to completely rebuild with Cowens, White, and Silas to become the playoff teams of the 70s. The team that Russell left wasn't shit without him.

[whottt]

Ahem:


:lol The Celtics pretty much crumbled in the 1970s after Russell left. They didn't win another championship, let alone compete for one again until 1981. Nice try though.

[whottt]

Shoogar...I think Willie Naulls was the key...

When Naulls retired in 1966 the Celtics couldn't buy a championship...

[190 Octane]

Ahem:

:lol, ok, you got me. I can admit when I made a mistake. What I should have said, but of course didn't, was the teams immediately following Russell's retirement were out of contention. I'm still not going to agree that Cousy sucks, though :)

[samikeyp]

I'll never say that Russell would be even close to a dominant player in today's NBA. But he revolutionized the center position more than any player other than Mikan.

Well said.

[bobbyjoe]

Of course it takes good teams to win championships, and one player alone can't do it.

Of course taking one of the key parts of a championship team off of it probably prevent it from being a champion.

However, we CAN say that certain pieces are relatively more important than others.

We can also say that championships, along with wins during the regular season, prove which team was best that year. Now, the classic example is Wilt. Until he learned to dominate alittle less and help his teammates become better, he didn't win. His most dominant years are not the years he went all the way.

Furthermore,
there are teams that put you close enough to catch the ring, but then special players put their teams on their back and take it home, and I think those types of players deserve a special place in history. Hakeem did it in the playoffs. So did Shaq and Kobe. So did Duncan.

Its hard for me to put David ahead of Hakeem, for example, when I saw Hakeem drop something like 45 on him 3 games in a row on the way to showing him the regular season MVP was not the playoffs MVP. Of course, if Hakeem had much inferior regular season accolades and numbers, it would not be a fair comparison. But in fact they are similar in the points, rebounds and blocks that they had over their careers. Davids were better, but Hakeem was a better PEAK PERFORMER.

Like it or not, a big part of a player's legacy is taking it to that next level, and some great players don't do that when it really counts. David, for the most part, just didn't.

I didnt' watch Russell, but from what I understand he was an INCREDIBLE defender. I do understand that the game has changed significantly (its not that players have fogotten how to rebound, or are greatly inferior rebounders to the best players of the past, its that there are 30 less shots per game to rebound...). However, you also have to judge players against their contemporaries, and the closest players to Russell and Wilt in rebounding are 6 away!! That would be like the best players today rebounding about 13, and then Duncan walking in and averaging 19....It would be evident he was something special.

Hey, popularity isn't everything. Sometimes most of the people ARE wrong. And it is actually very difficult to parse out one player's impact on the game vs. another on their own team, much less players on a completely different team. But to try to put David in the Top 5 of centers, I believe, is not justified in terms of team success. He was never the best player on a championship team, as all of the other guys ahead of him (on the HOF monitor list) were.

If you want to look at peak season efficiency and stuff like that, Garnett should be in the same ballpark as David then. And you hate him, so reconcile that reality my friend. :pctoss

This is a very good post. There are remarkable similiarities between Garnett and DRob. Both were great athletes who never got beyond the WCF of the playoffs as the #1 options on their teams. Both have been called soft and unclutch. Both have struggled in the playoffs when guys like hakeem, shaq, TD, etc take their games to another level.

Particularly when you look at DRob: Hakeem as KG: TD there are uncanny similarities.

Putting DRob in the top 5 all-time Centers only happens in a Spurs fan forum.

There's no logical way you can argue that he was a better player than Shaq, Hakeem, Wilt, Kareem, Moses, or Russell. He's at best #7 behind those but is surely a top 10 C of all time. Most neutral fans would rate him 7-10.

[samikeyp]

I would put him #7 behind that group....see, not all Spurs fans are homers like you believe. :)

[bobbyjoe]

2001 NBA 45-37 5th, Midwest Division
2000 NBA 34-48 6th, Midwest Division
1999 NBA 31-19 3rd, Midwest Division Lost West Conf 1st Rd
1998 NBA 41-41 4th, Midwest Division Lost West Conf 1st Rd
1997 NBA 57-25 2nd, Midwest Division Lost West Conf Finals
1996 NBA 48-34 3rd, Midwest Division Lost West Conf Semis
1995 NBA 47-35 3rd, Midwest Division Won NBA Finals
1994 NBA 58-24 1st, Midwest Division Won NBA Finals
1993 NBA 55-27 1st, Midwest Division Lost West Conf Semis
1992 NBA 42-40 3rd, Midwest Division
1991 NBA 52-30 3rd, Midwest Division Lost West Conf 1st Rd
1990 NBA 41-41 5th, Midwest Division Lost West Conf 1st Rd
1989 NBA 45-37 2nd, Midwest Division Lost West Conf 1st Rd
1988 NBA 46-36 4th, Midwest Division Lost West Conf 1st Rd
1987 NBA 42-40 3rd, Midwest Division Lost West Conf Semis
1986 NBA 51-31 1st, Midwest Division Lost NBA Finals
1985 NBA 48-34 2nd, Midwest Division Lost West Conf 1st Rd

This is a year by year list of the records of Hakeem's teams...

In 18 years 5 times his teams won 50+ games...Look at the guys he played with...Charles Barkley, Scottie Pippen, Clyde Drexler...even Robert Horry. I am sure I left out some others that were good players too...like Cassell and Thorpe.


This is just from David's pre Duncan years:


NBA 59-23 1st, Midwest Division Lost West Conf Semis
1996 NBA 59-23 1st, Midwest Division Lost West Conf Semis
1995 NBA 62-20 1st, Midwest Division Lost West Conf Finals
1994 NBA 55-27 2nd, Midwest Division Lost West Conf 1st Rd
1993 NBA 49-33 2nd, Midwest Division Lost West Conf Semis
1992 NBA 47-35 2nd, Midwest Division Lost West Conf 1st Rd
1991 NBA 55-27 1st, Midwest Division Lost West Conf 1st Rd
1990 NBA 56-26 1st, Midwest Division Lost West Conf Semis


That's 5 times in 7 years he won 50 games...and one of those years he didn't was because he missed the last 3 weeks of the season with torn thumb ligaments(and they lost like a mofo once he went out)..never finished lower than second in the division and finished with a better record than Hakeem's teams in 5 out of those 7 years...and he finished second to Hakeem in those years.

Now look at who David's teamates were during those years...
Rodman
Cummings
Elliott
Dale Ellis?
Chuck Person?

Good players sure...but not exactly Pippen, Drexler, Barkley etc....Hell, in most cases not even Robert Horry.

Is this some kind of joke? Barkley and Pippen came to Houston when both were five years past their prime. This is absurd as saying "Dave played with Moses Malone" when Malone was in his twilight. Drexler came to Houston on his legs and got carried by Hakeem in the playoffs when hakeem was dropping 35-40 a night on drob and shaq in the conf and nba finals.

Hakeem got to the Finals 3 times as the #1 option, winning twice. Most of those years when u site as houston getting bounced in the first round were when they had lost Sampson and half the team to drug suspensions and were in rebuilding mode. In one of those series, hakeem averaged 39 ppg in the playoffs and they were still bounced, telling you how brutal his supporting cast was.

DRob never ever took the Spurs to the Finals as a #1 option. If Rodman was so bad, why did he win 3 titles after his stint with the spurs and 2 titles before with DET? He's a HOF lock and dave played with him at his peak. Elliott was a damn good SF, and an all-star caliber player. If the talent was the issue, SA wouldn't have won 60 plus games in 95.

Hakeem took a team with kenny smith and vernon maxell, 2 journeymen, to the Finals and won in 94. NO way would a DRob ever have pulled that off.

DRob's game went down several notches in the playoffs whereas hakeem's elevated and the stats clearly bear this out as did human eyes if you watched the one playoff battle between the 2 when both were at their athletic peaks.

No comparison between the 2 players in terms of all-time rank. DRob is clearly behind hakeem.

[bobbyjoe]

I would put him #7 behind that group....see, not all Spurs fans are homers like you believe. :)

LOL. I would put him right at #7 as well. DRob was a great defensive player, had great quickness, a very good midrange jumper, and good overall bball smarts and court sense. There's absolultey no shame in being the 7th best Center in the history of the NBA. And he'd rank higher in a list of just defensive Centers.

One person who really gets underrated in these discussions in Moses Malone. The guy was a beast on the boards and down low and dominated Kareem in their matchups. Was dominant on a really good sixers team and took a weak Houston team to the Finals only to lose to the Celtics. A couple of MVP awards as well.

[samikeyp]

I don't know if its "several notches" but DRob's scoring went down 3pts (21.1 to 18.1) and his blocks went down half a block(3.0 to 2.5) from his regular season totals to his playoff averages. I think the supporting casts did have something to do with it come playoff time. SA had talent but others usually had more and when the Spurs did have more talent (91 against GS) they would get rattled very easily and could not recover. In 95 though...there was no excuse. The Spurs should have and could have won that series. Hakeem was awesome and was not going to be stopped but the Spurs supporting cast could have done more to their Rocket counterparts. The supporting cast of the Spurs lacked, IMO, the scrappyness and grittiness of the Rockets. The Spurs, I think, believed their own hype and I blame that on Bob Hill. He tried to hard to control Rodman and defense was not his forte....Houston was an outstanding defensive team and out worked the Spurs.

[whottt]

Um Bobby Joe...

So let me get this straight...When the Rockets lost...it was all due to teamates...while when they won...it was all due to Hakeem?

Got it.


Drexler was the same age as Olajuwon...32.
Barkley and Pippen were 33.


Moses Malone was 39.

Kenny Smith was a journeyman?

Not as much of one as Avery Johnson...if you doubt this then take a look at who started and who played back up when they both played for the Rockets(it's an easy year to find, because Hakeem didn't make playoffs that year).

And furthermore...Hakeem didn't win until his 10th year in the NBA...David Robinson had already had a basically a career altering injury by his 7th year in the NBA.

What those Rockets team had...that others didn't, was a talented group of 3 point shooters that set an NBA record for 3 pointers made in a season...which made it an unattractive prospect to double team Hakeem.

While David...had a PG that made exactly 1 playoff 3 pointer in his entire 18 year career.

Furthermore...

Hakeem also had a couple of guys named Robert Horry and Mario Elie...both of whom went on to get more rings than Hakeem...both of whom were reasons for it.


Or to put it another way...

Are you trying to say that you'd take Vinny Del Negro over Clyde Drexler?

Please say that.

And yeah...Rodman was great...he was just wasn't a scoring presence, still, it'd have been nice if he played in every game of that series...instead of being benched for 1 game for disciplinary reasons. It'd have been even nicer if he'd been the one guarding Olajuwon, or at least helping...since Olajuwon wasn't the only one guarding David.

In fact there was no truly threatening scoring presence on those Robinson teams other than Robinson...

Unless you want count Elliott...you remember him...he's the guy who missed the game winning FT's in game 1 of the 95 WCF...while his counterpart...Robert Horry, hit the game winner.

You know that Horry guy don't you? You should...because Fatass and rapist would have about 2 fewer rings without him...and Duncan probably would to.

What those other guys, including Duncan, had...that Robinson never did...was Robert Horry going off for 21 points in the 4th quarter of a playoff game...or hitting last second game winners. Or Derek Fisher shooting 70% from 3 point range...Sam Cassell going off for 30 points, off the bench....That kind of stuff...

What they had, what Kareem also had(in every title that he won)...was a great guard...

That year Hakeem and Drob met?

Hakeem had 2 of them, actually...he had 4 of them....not to mention Robert Horry.


Some day I want a Rocket Fan to explain to me how Hakeem was the one shutting David down when David averaged 16 FT per game in that series.


What Hakeem got...was 1 playoff victory over David...and asshwhupping for bascially the rest of the time they played....

What Shaq got..was a losing record against David...and an even record in the playoffs.

In short...

Robinson has a winning record

Against Hakeem
Against Shaq
Against Ewing

Before Duncan...what he didn't have was a team with large financial resources to put a winner around him...


And anyone that doesn't realize that, has a shallow understanding of the game.

Try watching this past years finals...maybe you'll start to get it.

[bobbyjoe]

Barkley's peak years were from 88-93. He played in Houston from 96-00, after having several knee surgeries and several almost retirements. He was a declining player. Players don't peak in their mid 30's. To give an example, Barkley from 88-93 had yrs where he shot 56, 58, 59, and 60% from the field and scored 25, 26, 26, and 28 ppg.

His last yrs in Phoenix before the trade to Houston his ppg had dipped to the lower 20's and his FG% had just plummeted to 48.6%. He was without a doubt well past his prime. Hakeem and Charles in their primes would have been just ridiculous. Plus, Barkley's first year in Houston they did get to the WCF, which is as far as Big Dave ever took the spurs as the #1 option and you seem to not give him any grief for that despite having 2 all star forwards besides him in 95, a team good enough to win 62 games.

Hakeem and Charles were both 36 years old and in severe decline mode when Pippen was traded to Houston and Pippen had had several health issues as well and was not close to the player he was when he led the Bulls to 55 wins without Mike at his peak in the mid 90's. It's just a joke to evaluate a guy at the tail end of his career like you are inexplicably trying to do. Players peak generally in their mid to late 20's not in their mid 30's.

Drexler scored 19.2 ppg and shot 42% from the field the year before being traded to Houston. In his peak he consistently scored between 25-27 ppg and shot close to 50%. He was a shell of his former self by the time he got to Houston.

Big Dog Robinson is 32. Is he in his prime right now? Van Exel's 33 right now. Jason Kidd is 32. Most in the league think these 3 are in the noticeably declining stages of their careers. Not everyone can have the longevity of a Karl Malone.

You say Hakeem didn't win until his 10th year in the NBA? I guess you weren't watching but in his second season he led the Rockets past one of the truly great teams in league history, the Showtime Lakers in 5 games to the NBA Finals. They didn't win the Finals, but they had to face Bird's best Celtics team in 1986, a team that only lost 2 games all postseason, both to Houston.

You need a reality check if you think Kenny Smith or Mario Elie or Sam Cassell were "great" guards. Clyde, yes. Even at 32, he was still a very good player. The other 3 were role players.

As for Rodman, you take the good with the bad with him. No one complained about his tough interior defense or his ability to grab 20-25 rebounds a game and play mental games with his opponents. Sure, he wasn't a scorer, but he still won 5 titles and was a very valuable component in each run so that right there tells me when surrounded by the right guys, he can be a key piece in winning, plus he got you so many 2nd chance opportunities on offense.

It'd be nice if he guarded Hakeem? If you have the MVP, the Defensive Player of the Year (not sure that's the year Dave won it, but he was either #1, 2 or 3 for that category almost every year) why do you need Rodman to guard Hakeem? I'll admit that would have been interesting because Rodman did have a way of frustrating most guys mentally but when you have a 7 footer who's best move is a fallaway jumper it doesn't really make much sense to put a shorter guy on him when you have a 7'2" ridiculously athletic Center.

Robinson's problem that series was going for every fake Hakeem threw at him and he has no one but himself to blame for that. You seem to make every excuse in the book for Robinson and try to grasp at straws to downplay the achievements of Shaq and Hakeem, etc by giving it all to role players like Horry and Fisher.

What did horry do the 1 year he didn't play with hakeem, shaq, or duncan, the year he was with phoenix?

What did Fisher do this year when he left LA? Did we ever hear from K. Smith, the "great" guard after Hakeem left? How bout that stud Otis Thorpe, did he just fall off the face of the earth after not being paired with hakeem? Did we ever hear anything from Elie besides the years he was with Hakeem or the twin towers?

Superstars make role players, not the other way around. If Horry hadn't had the good fortune of playing with the 5 all-time greats he did, he'd clearly have 0 rings.

[bobbyjoe]

I don't know if its "several notches" but DRob's scoring went down 3pts (21.1 to 18.1) and his blocks went down half a block(3.0 to 2.5) from his regular season totals to his playoff averages. I think the supporting casts did have something to do with it come playoff time. SA had talent but others usually had more and when the Spurs did have more talent (91 against GS) they would get rattled very easily and could not recover. In 95 though...there was no excuse. The Spurs should have and could have won that series. Hakeem was awesome and was not going to be stopped but the Spurs supporting cast could have done more to their Rocket counterparts. The supporting cast of the Spurs lacked, IMO, the scrappyness and grittiness of the Rockets. The Spurs, I think, believed their own hype and I blame that on Bob Hill. He tried to hard to control Rodman and defense was not his forte....Houston was an outstanding defensive team and out worked the Spurs.

Robinson's FG% also drops in the playoffs from 52 to 48%. His FT% drops from 74 to 71%, but the main stats really are FG% and PPG.

Conversely, Hakeem's playoff stats elevate from 51 to 53%. His ppg goes up from 21.8 to 25.9 ppg. He also has slight increases in BPG, RPG, and his APG go up nearly 1 full assist per game. That's called taking your game to the next level when it counts.

O'Neal's playoff stats slightly decline but are still absurd. His PPG in the playoffs is 26.8 ppg, his FG% is 56.2%, down from reg season but still significantly higher than DRob's. He does slightly increase his RPG and APG.

Lookign back though, you are probably right. His game goes down a notch, not several, in the postseason, but still postseason is obviously what any pro sports league is all about when it's all said and done. You don't remember the Warren Moon's and Karl Malone's and Peyton Manning's, the great regular season performers who just couldn't get it done in the postseason. I believe Robinson would be in that group if not for Timmah.

You can clearly see that Robinson is on par with Hakeem and shaq in the reg season statistically (his #'s and hakeem's are unbelievably close in the reg season) but in the playoffs there's a distinct and very significant difference in performance levels.

[whottt]

So let me get this straight...Barkley, Pippen and Drexler were all old and washed up at the age of 32...

Yet Dennis Rodman who was the same age when he played with Robinson was the greatest player in NBA history?

And BTW...Barkley scored 19ppg and pulled down 13 rebounds per game that first year with Hakeem...I want you to find another player that ever did anything remotely close to that for Drob. I'll give you the only guy that came close...Terry Cummings and it wasn't that close.

Here's the deal...Kenny Smith was better than Avery Johnson...Clyde Drexler was better than Vinny Del Negro...hell, Mario Elie was better than Vinny Del Negro...we replaced Vinny with Mario and won a freaking title.

Yeah it makes sense to put a Defensive player of the year on Hakeem...unless you want him to carry your offense as well...in which case foul troubles can hurt you worse than anything...which I guess is why the Rockets double teamed Robinson, rather than putting DPOY Hakeem on him. Robinson being one of the best in NBA history at getting to the FT line.

That's also why you never saw Tim Duncan guarding Shaq very often or vice versa.

And BTW...Rodman was a 2 time defensive player of the year...the 2 years before David won it.


And his lack of scoring did not make it easier for David like Hakeem being surrounded with the most prolific 3 point shooting team in history did...not to mention clutch...Horry and Elie.

David had a PG with back up talent that had the most limited J of any PG I have ever seen...his 2 guard would have been a back up on just about any team in the NBA he damn sure wasn't Clyde Drexler...I don't care if you look at his best year VS Drexler's worst. So David had basically one other offensive threat...Elliott...the guy who choked the 2 game winning FT's in game 1...of a series lost 4 games to 2, with Rodman, the second best player on the team, missing one game.

And that's the only time Hakeem ever got over on Drob. Drob owned him in their career head to head matchups...in the regular season...when double teams are seldom used.

The degree to which a player gets double teamed in the playoffs is entirely dependent upon his teamates performance.


No...the role players make all the difference in the world on title teams....

You could say...replace Horry with Charles Barkley or Karl Malone and still not win a title.

I mean were you paying attention in 03? Shaq outscored Duncan....

[TDMVPDPOY]

I mean were you paying attention in 03? Shaq outscored Duncan....

Yeh and duncan won his 2nd ring n finals mvp.

[whottt]

Yeh and duncan won his 2nd ring n finals mvp.


Yeah remember when Duncan came off the bench against Dallas and hit all those threes? Remmber when he did it in game 6 of the finals?

Remember the 19-2 run that gave us the lead, and the win, in which Duncan did not score a single point?

I remember Duncan's D on Shaq in those playoffs as well...it was outstanding.


It's too bad Duncan has sucked in 5 of his 8 years in the NBA...think of all those other titles we could have won if only Duncan had played better.

[ambchang]

Robinson's FG% also drops in the playoffs from 52 to 48%. His FT% drops from 74 to 71%, but the main stats really are FG% and PPG.

Conversely, Hakeem's playoff stats elevate from 51 to 53%. His ppg goes up from 21.8 to 25.9 ppg. He also has slight increases in BPG, RPG, and his APG go up nearly 1 full assist per game. That's called taking your game to the next level when it counts.

O'Neal's playoff stats slightly decline but are still absurd. His PPG in the playoffs is 26.8 ppg, his FG% is 56.2%, down from reg season but still significantly higher than DRob's. He does slightly increase his RPG and APG.

Lookign back though, you are probably right. His game goes down a notch, not several, in the postseason, but still postseason is obviously what any pro sports league is all about when it's all said and done. You don't remember the Warren Moon's and Karl Malone's and Peyton Manning's, the great regular season performers who just couldn't get it done in the postseason. I believe Robinson would be in that group if not for Timmah.

You can clearly see that Robinson is on par with Hakeem and shaq in the reg season statistically (his #'s and hakeem's are unbelievably close in the reg season) but in the playoffs there's a distinct and very significant difference in performance levels.

This of course, all comes with averages.
Robinson played MANY playoff games during the years of his decline, when the Spurs actually have a good team with Tim Duncan. While during his early years, the Spurs were kicked out of the playoffs relatively early due to lack of a good supporting cast.
To illustrate:
From 90-97, Robinson played 563 regular season games, and 53 playoff games (I just took the Spurs playoffs history, and assumed Robinson played every game except the 92 playoffs), after Duncan arrived (from 98 to 03), Robinson played 424 regular season games and 77 playoff games.
His total for the career is 987 regular season games, and 130 playoff games, with the split of
57% of regular season games before his back injury, and 43% after, and
41% of playoff games before his back injuryl and 59% after.
Clearly, Robinson's effectiveness decreased after the back injury, and the substantial drop in average numbers in his playoff statistics could be attributed to them being skewed towards the later part of his career.

[Extra Stout]

Wrong...check it again. You just clicked on a different stat.

My guess is you clicked on offensive rating...Steve Kerr being a guy that did nothing but shoot 3 pointers...and incidentally just happened to be the best NBA history at it...would naturally score high on that stat.

That is not, however, the stat that I lead you too.

Do try and get it together.The stat to which you linked (PWP) lists Steve Kerr 29th and Hakeem 31st.

Consider yourself bitchslapped.

[xcoriate]

Wow Extra Stout you were a tad late coming to the party on that one.

[Extra Stout]

Taking into account the pre-injury, pre-Duncan years, here are Dave's statistics:

Regular season: 25.6 ppg, 53% fg%, 11.7 rbg
Playoffs: 24.0 ppg, 48% fg%, 11.7 rbg

The noticeable dropoff was in his offensive performance. David Robinson did not have a sound fundamental offensive game; he depended primarily on his explosive athleticism to blow by other big men. The best move he ever developed was his semi-reliable herky-jerky jumper which he released on the way down.

In the regular season, with limited preparation and practice time, teams can't pick out all the weaknesses in a superstar, or in a team, so teams can rack up gaudy win totals with their strengths, even if their holes will eventually be their undoing in the playoffs. So it was with David Robinson, and so it was with those Spurs.

When David Robinson absolutely, positively had to get a basket in crunch time of a close playoff game, he had nothing on which to rely except his athleticism, and when teams compensated to get the ball out of his hands, he wasn't the kind of passer who would get his teammates shots in rhythm.

And those Spurs, even the 1995 team with its awesome frontcourt, had fatal flaws that made them easy to unravel in the postseason. Any team starting as lousy and one-dimensional a basketball player as Vinny Del Negro has no business in the NBA Finals. He would have been marginal as a backup on an 8th seed.

Those Spurs were analogous like the current Dallas Mavericks, who despite winning 58 games, didn't scare anyone in the playoffs.

Here's a question: who had the worse supporting cast, David Robinson in any pre-injury season, or Tim Duncan in 2001-02?

[SWC Bonfire]

Here's a question: who had the worse supporting cast, David Robinson in any pre-injury season, or Tim Duncan in 2001-02?

DRob had less to work with, simply because TD had DRob (barring injury).

The early-90's DRob teams would have been waxed even harder by the 2001-2002 Lakers IMO.

[ambchang]

Taking into account the pre-injury, pre-Duncan years, here are Dave's statistics:

Regular season: 25.6 ppg, 53% fg%, 11.7 rbg
Playoffs: 24.0 ppg, 48% fg%, 11.7 rbg

The noticeable dropoff was in his offensive performance. David Robinson did not have a sound fundamental offensive game; he depended primarily on his explosive athleticism to blow by other big men. The best move he ever developed was his semi-reliable herky-jerky jumper which he released on the way down.

In the regular season, with limited preparation and practice time, teams can't pick out all the weaknesses in a superstar, or in a team, so teams can rack up gaudy win totals with their strengths, even if their holes will eventually be their undoing in the playoffs. So it was with David Robinson, and so it was with those Spurs.

When David Robinson absolutely, positively had to get a basket in crunch time of a close playoff game, he had nothing on which to rely except his athleticism, and when teams compensated to get the ball out of his hands, he wasn't the kind of passer who would get his teammates shots in rhythm.

And those Spurs, even the 1995 team with its awesome frontcourt, had fatal flaws that made them easy to unravel in the postseason. Any team starting as lousy and one-dimensional a basketball player as Vinny Del Negro has no business in the NBA Finals. He would have been marginal as a backup on an 8th seed.

Those Spurs were analogous like the current Dallas Mavericks, who despite winning 58 games, didn't scare anyone in the playoffs.

Here's a question: who had the worse supporting cast, David Robinson in any pre-injury season, or Tim Duncan in 2001-02?

All true, Robinson has been blessed, or cursed, with amazing atheleticism, and he has never had a good enough coach to develop his game (what the hell was Larry Brown doing at the beginning).
But a FG% and FT% drop in the playoffs is not that uncommon, in fact, a FG% drop in the playoffs is expected.
I would be included to say that the 01-02 Duncan support cast is inferior to the 95 team. Sean Elliott and Rodman, at least when he falls in line, complements an awesome frontcourt. The problem with all the Robinson team is the lack of a point guard to distribute the basketball. I think Duncan being able to win a championship in 03 with a weak cast really shows how amazing he really is.

[whottt]

David had a great supporting cast in 90-01....Unfortunately...they were also responsible for the no look pass in game 7 of the 90 WCSF.

Take a look at David's numbers from those first two post seasons and they are drastically different than they were when he had no talent around him.

As for David's numbrers dropping in the playoffs...Admittedly they did drop...

But if you look...Tim Duncan's playoff numbers are lower than David's regular season numbers in some categories as well.

Matter of fact...Tim Duncan is now a sub 50% FG shooter for his postseason career.

By the way..

This is what Duncan shot this post past post season, as he won the finals MVP:
PPG: 23
FG% 46%

In the NBA finals:
PPG: 20
FG%: 419%


Against Seattle:
PPG: 25
FG%: 46%


Against Denver:
PPG: 22
FG%: 47%

In 04 VS LA:
PPG: 20
FG%: 47%

Amazingly...Duncan's postseason numbers..after the retirement of Drob...are almost Drob like. I wonder why?

As for the talent...

Let me direct you guys back a to blast from the past...



Box Score

SAN ANTONIO (85)
fg ft rb
min m-a m-a o-t a pf tp
Duncan 20 2-7 1-2 3-8 1 5 5
Elliott 32 3-5 3-4 1-5 0 4 10
Robinson 36 3-7 9-10 0-9 5 3 15
Elie 28 3-7 0-0 2-3 3 2 6
Johnson 33 7-13 0-0 0-1 8 3 14
J Kersey 9 1-2 2-2 1-1 1 0 4
Perdue 21 1-1 1-2 2-6 0 2 3
S Kerr 12 2-5 0-0 1-4 1 0 5
Jackson 27 6-14 1-1 0-5 1 0 19
Rose 15 0-5 2-2 1-2 1 5 2
King 4 1-2 0-0 0-1 1 1 2
Daniels 3 0-0 0-0 0-0 0 0 0
_______________________________________________
TOTALS 240 29-68 19-23 11-45 22 25 85
_______________________________________________

Percentages: FG-.426, FT-.826. 3-Point Goals:
8-18, .444 (Elliott 1-3, Elie 0-1, S Kerr 1-3,
Jackson 6-11). Team rebounds: 9. Blocked shots:
12 (Robinson 7, Duncan 2, Johnson, J Kersey,
King). Turnovers: 18 (Robinson 7, Duncan 3,
Jackson 3, Daniels, Elie, Johnson, S Kerr).
Steals: 7 (Robinson 2, Elie, J Kersey, Jackson,
Johnson, S Kerr).

PORTLAND (63)
fg ft rb
min m-a m-a o-t a pf tp
B Grant 40 0-5 5-8 2-13 0 3 5
Wallace 28 7-11 8-10 2-5 1 6 22
Sabonis 30 2-9 2-2 1-7 1 4 6
Rider 36 3-11 3-3 3-5 1 3 10
Stoudamire 29 1-12 0-0 1-3 3 1 2
Augmon 15 1-4 2-2 1-1 2 3 4
Anthony 19 2-8 0-0 1-2 2 1 5
Oneal 6 1-3 0-0 0-1 0 1 2
Williams 13 1-6 0-2 1-1 3 0 2
Jackson 21 1-6 2-2 1-2 0 2 5
Cato 3 0-2 0-0 1-1 0 1 0
G Grant DNP - coach's decision
_______________________________________________
TOTALS 240 19-77 22-29 14-41 13 25 63
_______________________________________________

Percentages: FG-.247, FT-.759. 3-Point Goals:
3-14, .214 (Rider 1-2, Stoudamire 0-1, Anthony
1-5, Williams 0-3, Jackson 1-3). Team rebounds:
13. Blocked shots: 2 (Sabonis, Oneal). Turnovers:
15 (B Grant 4, Wallace 3, Jackson 2, Rider 2,
Anthony, Oneal, Sabonis, Stoudamire). Steals: 6
(Sabonis 2, Anthony, B Grant, Wallace, Williams).
____________________________________________
San Antonio 22 18 24 21 - 85
Portland 26 12 8 17 - 63
____________________________________________
Technical fouls: San Antonio 3 (Perdue, 2:14 1st;
Illegal Defense 2, 11:48 4th, 8:11 4th).
Portland 1 (Wallace, 11:03 4th). Flagrant fouls:
None. A: 20,732. T: 2:29. Officials: Mike
Mathis, Ronnie Nunn, Bernie Fryer.


That's a boxscore from the 99 playoffs, game 3 VS Portland, in Portland...

Now if you think David could have pulled off a 5 point performance back on his teams...and still won the game by 20 points?

You are on crack.

[whottt]

I applaud Hakeem for leading the Rockets to the 86 Finals...

I also applaud Ralph Sampson for hitting the fucking game winner that put them in the finals, over Kareem, with Olajuwon ejected from the fucking game.

[spursfaninla]

I remember hakeem averaging something like 10-15 pts more than david did when he lead his team against the spurs in the 1995 wc finals. Sure, the Spurs tried to play him single coverage, but for the most part so did the Rockets. And when the rockets were able to crowd David, it was his fault that he didn't pass it out for more open jumpers or mid-range shots himself.

It wasn't until later in his career that David developed range. As it was said earlier, his offense was predicated on his athleticism, and when that went we saw his effectiveness drop significantly.

David was a great athelete, but not the peak performer that Hakeem was, and not the clutch player that Duncan was.

[ambchang]

I remember hakeem averaging something like 10-15 pts more than david did when he lead his team against the spurs in the 1995 wc finals. Sure, the Spurs tried to play him single coverage, but for the most part so did the Rockets. And when the rockets were able to crowd David, it was his fault that he didn't pass it out for more open jumpers or mid-range shots himself.

It wasn't until later in his career that David developed range. As it was said earlier, his offense was predicated on his athleticism, and when that went we saw his effectiveness drop significantly.

David was a great athelete, but not the peak performer that Hakeem was, and not the clutch player that Duncan was.

Robinson passed, but the team clanked shot after shot in 95. You can't simply blame the whole series on Robinson, and credit Hakeem for the Rockets win.
Hakeem was incredible in that series, and he proved it again in the next series by torching Orlando with a Shaq and Grant double team for 33 ppg, but Robinson did everything that was humanly possible. What else could he have done with Rodman hanging around the basket waiting for a rebound, leaving Robert Horry wide open for 3 pters? What could he have done to see Del Negro brick jumper after jumper? What was he supposed to do with no point guard?
Hakeem was great in 94 and 95, but Robinson was great from 90 to 96.

[spursfaninla]

I don't mind saying that David was a better regular season player for more years, but it matters in the playoffs.

And again, you cant' blame Robert Horry or the Worm's play for Hakeem's point differential over David in that series.

Hakeem had one of the best playoff series of ALL TIME.

It was one of the top 5 UPSETS OF ALL TIME (one of a few 6 seeds taking out a 1 seed...)

[ShoogarBear]

As for the talent...

Let me direct you guys back a to blast from the past...



Box Score

SAN ANTONIO (85)
fg ft rb
min m-a m-a o-t a pf tp
Duncan 20 2-7 1-2 3-8 1 5 5
Elliott 32 3-5 3-4 1-5 0 4 10
Robinson 36 3-7 9-10 0-9 5 3 15
Elie 28 3-7 0-0 2-3 3 2 6
Johnson 33 7-13 0-0 0-1 8 3 14
J Kersey 9 1-2 2-2 1-1 1 0 4
Perdue 21 1-1 1-2 2-6 0 2 3
S Kerr 12 2-5 0-0 1-4 1 0 5
Jackson 27 6-14 1-1 0-5 1 0 19
Rose 15 0-5 2-2 1-2 1 5 2
King 4 1-2 0-0 0-1 1 1 2
Daniels 3 0-0 0-0 0-0 0 0 0



Now if you think David could have pulled off a 5 point performance back on his teams...and still won the game by 20 points?

Fortunately, AJ was around once again to pull everyone's fat out of the fire.

(:lmao that whottt happened to pick this boxscore.)

[whottt]

Uh...Shoogar...

Drob had 15 points, 9 rebounds, 7 blocks, 5 assists, and 2 steals...

Jaren Jackson's 6-11 3 point shooting was also a big help...

But you miss the point...the point is that, that team was good enough for Duncan to have a 5 point performance on the road and still win...None of Drob's teams were ever good enough to where that could have happened to him and they would have still won.

And he never tanked like that anyway...then again, he couldn't.

And Rasheed isn't exactly Hakeem if you know what I mean.

[whottt]

I don't mind saying that David was a better regular season player for more years, but it matters in the playoffs.

And again, you cant' blame Robert Horry or the Worm's play for Hakeem's point differential over David in that series.

Hakeem had one of the best playoff series of ALL TIME.

It was one of the top 5 UPSETS OF ALL TIME (one of a few 6 seeds taking out a 1 seed...)


Um...yes you can. Horry drew a defender WAY OUT there and Rodman didn't.

Hakeem had one of the best playoff series of all time because he didn't have to worry about defense like Drob did. They could just save Hakeem for scoring. Like the Spurs do with Duncan every playoff series.


And it wasn't one of the biggest upsets of all time...the Rockets were the defending champions....and their team was improved over the previous year with the addition of Drexler.

[bobbyjoe]

Robinson passed, but the team clanked shot after shot in 95. You can't simply blame the whole series on Robinson, and credit Hakeem for the Rockets win.
Hakeem was incredible in that series, and he proved it again in the next series by torching Orlando with a Shaq and Grant double team for 33 ppg, but Robinson did everything that was humanly possible. What else could he have done with Rodman hanging around the basket waiting for a rebound, leaving Robert Horry wide open for 3 pters? What could he have done to see Del Negro brick jumper after jumper? What was he supposed to do with no point guard?
Hakeem was great in 94 and 95, but Robinson was great from 90 to 96.

This is just a colossal joke.

Why is every failure endured in the Robinson era everyone's fault BUT Robinson? It's the coach's fault that robinson was too lazy to ever develop go-to moves that would help him in the playoff in crunch time? Do you think MJ became so great because of awesome coaching or because of desire and skill?

Robinson was ABUSED that series. It's the PG's fault or Rodman's fault that he was twisted around like a pretzel on every single hakeem up fake, allowing hakeem uncontested layup after layup, allowing him to shoot 56% for the series to Robinson's subpar 44%? It's the PG's fault Dave blocked 2.0 shots per game that series to Hakeem's 4.2 BPG? It's the PG's fault Robinson bricked 2 huge free throws at the end of Game 6 to get SA within 2 with a minute left? He got taken to the woodshed, plain and simple.

Avery Johnson outscoring Smith that series 18 ppg to 6 ppg is what prevented it from being a sweep. David's inability to contain Hakeem was far and away the #1 reason for the loss. Not the only reason, but far and away #1. It's tough to win when the best player from the other team is just going off every night. Just like it was tough when Bryant was going off in the 2001 WCF before Bowen came to town.

If you think that Dave was great for 6 years of his career and hakeem only 2, you are really delusional. Look at the stats. Look at the playoff ones in particular where Hakeem just totally outclassed David. David never ever came remotely close to reaching the level of hakeem 93-95 or shaq 00-02 or Duncan 03.

WHy is it so hard to accept that Dave isnt in the tier of Duncan, Hakeem, MJ, Shaq, Bird, Kareem, etc? Those guys all managed to win titles as the #1 options. Hakeem and DUncan did it with relatively weak supporting casts in 1994 and 2003. Those aforementioned greats don't see their playoff FG% drop a full FIVE percent in the postseason, when the real games are played. The true super elites have go to moves to rely on in crunch time. Dave never had one. Oh wait, it's the PG or Coach's fault. Of course.

[bobbyjoe]

Uh...Shoogar...

Drob had 15 points, 9 rebounds, 7 blocks, 5 assists, and 2 steals...

Jaren Jackson's 6-11 3 point shooting was also a big help...

But you miss the point...the point is that, that team was good enough for Duncan to have a 5 point performance on the road and still win...None of Drob's teams were ever good enough to where that could have happened to him and they would have still won.

And he never tanked like that anyway...then again, he couldn't.

And Rasheed isn't exactly Hakeem if you know what I mean.

Let me ask you point blank to rank these 4 players in the order you'd pick em:

Hakeem
Shaq
DRob
TD

Please tell me you don't have DRob #1 on that list.

[bobbyjoe]

I don't mind saying that David was a better regular season player for more years, but it matters in the playoffs.

And again, you cant' blame Robert Horry or the Worm's play for Hakeem's point differential over David in that series.

Hakeem had one of the best playoff series of ALL TIME.

It was one of the top 5 UPSETS OF ALL TIME (one of a few 6 seeds taking out a 1 seed...)

That's not true at all. Look at the actual stats, not the post of a biased fan. He says Hakeem was only great in 94 and 95 and conveniently ignores 93 and 96, years where his stats were basically the exact same as 94-95. He also leaves out Hakeem's stats in his early years where was displaying crazy RPG and BPG stats and putting up the exact same #'s DRob did during this stretch from 90-96. Hakeem did have 2 years of relatively soft production in 91 and 92 but other than that and the years where he was way past his prime, his reg season stats meet or exceed DRob's and his playoff stats are much better than DRob's.

[samikeyp]

I know I am a Spurs fan so in bobbyjoes mind I am automatically biased...but here are the stats for Robinson and Olajuwon from the 92-93 season through the 95-96 season. Everyone can judge as they wish.


Robinson: 26.4ppg, 11.3rpg, 3.6apg, 3.2bpg
Olajuwon: 26.9ppg, 11.6rpg, 3.5apg and 3.4bpg

Hakeem did have better stats but IMO not dominating over David. These are regular season stats only.

[samikeyp]

playoff stats for the same years...again from a biased Spurs fan. :)

Robinson: 23ppg, 11.2rpg, 3.3apg, 2.8bpg
Olajuwon: 27.5ppg, 11.1rpg, 4.3apg, 3.9bpg

[FromWayDowntown]

Let me ask you point blank to rank these 4 players in the order you'd pick em:

Hakeem
Shaq
DRob
TD

Please tell me you don't have DRob #1 on that list.

I don't think there's any way, other than blind homerism or a complete disregard for what goes on after mid-April in the NBA, that you could put David Robinson anywhere other than last on that list. There's no shame in being the 4th guy listed on a list of no brainer, first-ballot Hall of Famers. David is one of those guys, but he's not the best of that bunch.

You can point to IBM awards (btw -- if the absence of serviceable teammates explains David's playoff struggles, doesn't that same problem also explain David's regular season statistical greatness; I mean, isn't he, in a sense, the Kelly Leak of the mid-90's NBA?). You can concoct all types of ratios, you can disregard post-season win/loss evidence but point to regular season win/loss evidence (that makes absolutely no sense to me, but if you're hellbent on making a case, so be it), and you can devise all sorts of retrospective explanations. But the proof is in the pudding. When push came to shove, Hakeem, Shaq, and Timmy have all gotten it done and gotten it done consistently when it mattered most. There are absolutely no empirical means of denying that truth.

I watched the Spurs very closely throughout David's career, often embarrassed (1996 WCSF v. Utah, for example; 1991 WCFR v. Golden State), occasionally proud (1990 WCSF v. Portland; 1993 WCFR v. Portland; 1995 WCSF v. LA), and often heartbroken. I have watched almost every game of Tim Duncan's career. I have absolutely no doubt that Tim Duncan is a better player than David Robinson. None.

You can point to sheer numbers all you want and say, well, Timmy's per game scoring averages aren't as good, but you also can't ignore the fact that Tim has never played for a team that averaged 100 points per game or averaged more than 80 shots per game.

I also don't think that you can completely ignore votes for league honors. I don't think those results are always gospel truth about players, but they tend to balance out over time. Tim plays in an era of great forwards (particularly PF) but he is a no-brainer First Team All-NBA player every year. David played in an era of great centers (himself, Shaq, Hakeem, Ewing, Mourning) and while there wasn't any doubt that he was an All-NBA guy (which is why I'd always argue that Dave was greater than Ewing, for example), he was rarely a no-brainer for the First Team. That, to me at least, is a dramatic difference.

[samikeyp]

While I don't think every case of propping a player from your favorite team automatically makes you a homer....I would agree with Dave being 4th among those 4.

In relation to 1st team all-NBA selections of that 4:

TD 8
Hakeem 6
DRob 4
Shaq 4

[whottt]

Sayind David Robinson is one of the greatest players ever is not homerism...

Thinking the players he was surrounded with were good enough to win a championship with...is.

[whottt]

Let me ask you point blank to rank these 4 players in the order you'd pick em:

Hakeem
Shaq
DRob
TD

Please tell me you don't have DRob #1 on that list.


I'll tell you what...I'll do your ranking if you do mine:

Rank these 4:
Clyde Drexler
Manu Ginobili
Kobe Bryant
Vinny Del Negro


And these 4:
Derek Fisher
Kenny Smith
Tony Parker
Avery Johnson


And these 4:
Robert Horry
Robert Horry
Chucky Brown
Dennis Rodman

And these 4:
Robert Horry
Rick Fox
Bruce Bowen
Sean Elliott

[whottt]

You can point to IBM awards (btw -- if the absence of serviceable teammates explains David's playoff struggles, doesn't that same problem also explain David's regular season statistical greatness; I mean, isn't he, in a sense, the Kelly Leak of the mid-90's NBA?). You can concoct all types of ratios, you can disregard post-season win/loss evidence but point to regular season win/loss evidence (that makes absolutely no sense to me, but if you're hellbent on making a case, so be it), and you can devise all sorts of retrospective explanations. But the proof is in the pudding. When push came to shove, Hakeem, Shaq, and Timmy have all gotten it done and gotten it done consistently when it mattered most. There are absolutely no empirical means of denying that truth.

Then explain why they didn't win every year...

Why didn't we win a title in 04?

And the regular season is totally different in the playoffs.

In the playoffs the teams know how to take the best player out....and they will do so...whether his name is Wilt, Shaq or Duncan.






I watched the Spurs very closely throughout David's career, often embarrassed (1996 WCSF v. Utah, for example; 1991 WCFR v. Golden State), occasionally proud (1990 WCSF v. Portland; 1993 WCFR v. Portland; 1995 WCSF v. LA), and often heartbroken. I have watched almost every game of Tim Duncan's career. I have absolutely no doubt that Tim Duncan is a better player than David Robinson. None.



You can point to sheer numbers all you want and say, well, Timmy's per game scoring averages aren't as good, but you also can't ignore the fact that Tim has never played for a team that averaged 100 points per game or averaged more than 80 shots per game.


Yeah? And Timmy also hasn't had a new head coach virtually every year of his career....







I also don't think that you can completely ignore votes for league honors. I don't think those results are always gospel truth about players, but they tend to balance out over time. Tim plays in an era of great forwards (particularly PF) but he is a no-brainer First Team All-NBA player every year. David played in an era of great centers (himself, Shaq, Hakeem, Ewing, Mourning) and while there wasn't any doubt that he was an All-NBA guy (which is why I'd always argue that Dave was greater than Ewing, for example), he was rarely a no-brainer for the First Team. That, to me at least, is a dramatic difference.


If Tim Duncan had been playing C in the early 90's he wouldn't have 8 consectuve All NBA selections.

[whottt]

Someone needs to tell Duncan he didn't know what he was doing when he contemplated leaving San Antonio via Free Agency...twice...because he questioned the Spurs commitment/ability to win a title...someone needs to tell him that he is all we need. Because he obviously doesn't get it....then again...I imagine the buttfucking he got against LA in 2001 and 2002 probably gives him a different perspective on things.


Just be glad we got David first...if Duncan had been in David's situation...

#1. He would have never signed with us in the first place. He'd have a lot more $$$$$$ and a better team and been playing with Magic Johnson in LA. And won a title as a rookie.

#2. He damn sure wouldn't have stayed here in the early and mid 90's if he had been a FA.


Spurs fans don't deserve David Robinson....

One thing is for certain...David is certainly stupider than any of those other 3 ...none of those others would have stayed in SA through that era.


I'll end my participation in this argument with a quote from Michael Jordan...

What did Michael Jordan say when told he didn't make his teamates better?


"Get me better teamates"...

Now take a poll on this forum asking who the greatest player ever is...

[Dex]

This post is starting to make my brain seize. :bang

[bobbyjoe]

I'll tell you what...I'll do your ranking if you do mine:

Rank these 4:
Clyde Drexler
Manu Ginobili
Kobe Bryant
Vinny Del Negro


And these 4:
Derek Fisher
Kenny Smith
Tony Parker
Avery Johnson


And these 4:
Robert Horry
Robert Horry
Chucky Brown
Dennis Rodman

And these 4:
Robert Horry
Rick Fox
Bruce Bowen
Sean Elliott

1) Kobe
2) Clyde
3) Manu
4) Vinny

1) T.P.
2) A.J.
3) Kenny Smith
4) Derek Fisher

1) Rodman
2) Horry young
3) Horry old
4) Chucky Brown

1) Elliott
2) Bruce Bowen
3) Fox
-Horry unranked because is it young or old horry? Yount horry #2 and old horry #3 behind bowen.

[whottt]

1) Kobe
2) Clyde
3) Manu
4) Vinny

1) T.P.
2) A.J.
3) Kenny Smith
4) Derek Fisher

1) Rodman
2) Horry young
3) Horry old
4) Chucky Brown

1) Elliott
2) Bruce Bowen
3) Fox
-Horry unranked because is it young or old horry? Yount horry #2 and old horry #3 behind bowen.


Houston Horry was a SF...that's why he is listed with SF's.

The two Horry's that were listed in the PF section were the ones that played with Shaq and Duncan.


I hope it isn't lost on you that the only one of those centers that didn't play with Horry was David Robinson, and neither Shaq nor Hakeem won titles without him...while he won multiple titles without them. And don't even say he nutrode...because he made pivotal championship determining plays for every one of them. He might not have been a franchise player..but he is one hell of a Championship Accessory.


I can understand you putting AJ ahead of the far and away superior Kenny Smith...even though the Rockets had both of them and chose Smith over AJ....because Kenny Smith was used a decoy in the 94-95 finals and spent most of his time camped out at the 3 line pumping it into Hakeem ad the defense being played by the Spurs demanded...

I cannot understand you putting Derek Fisher over him...DFish destroyed AJ.


As for my list...I'll give you my alltime list...

Wilt
Kareem
Haeem
Drob
Shaq

Duncan is not a C so he is not on my list. Neither is Russell a C in the sense we are talking about...besides if you are going to count Drob's low shooting PCT's against him...you damn sure need to count Russell's or else the inconsistent position you shallow analysts have will be even more so.


And why did Hakeem shoot so poorly in the 89 playoffs? Didn't feel like playing god that year?

David's career playoff PCT actually got worse with Duncan...


As for me...I can see that David's worst post season occurred after his most maginificent regular season...one that none of these other guys can match...and it's not hard to figure out why....because his team had no talent and none of those other guys wouldn't have even gotten that team to the post season.


I can also look and see that the teams of Shaq, Hakeem and yes even Duncan...were capable posting winning records without those guys, and did so from time to time...while the Spurs never posted a winning record without David in any season he missed more than 1 game.


Or IOW...

I know the difference between Manu Ginobili and fucking Vinny Del Negro...and I truly feel sorry for ya'll that ya'll don't.

[Dex]

.....jee-no-billy?

Whottt's making up words again!

[ambchang]

This is just a colossal joke.

Why is every failure endured in the Robinson era everyone's fault BUT Robinson? It's the coach's fault that robinson was too lazy to ever develop go-to moves that would help him in the playoff in crunch time? Do you think MJ became so great because of awesome coaching or because of desire and skill?

Where did I say it wasn't Robinson's fault. All I am saying is that Robinson's teammates were just as responsible as he was, but all the blame has fallen on his shoulders all these years.
Then why are all the failures Robinson's fault? Are you trying to tell me that Rodman's explosion, the lack of talent, and a coach who never found a gig after he was fired were all free of faults in those years?


Robinson was ABUSED that series. It's the PG's fault or Rodman's fault that he was twisted around like a pretzel on every single hakeem up fake, allowing hakeem uncontested layup after layup, allowing him to shoot 56% for the series to Robinson's subpar 44%? It's the PG's fault Dave blocked 2.0 shots per game that series to Hakeem's 4.2 BPG? It's the PG's fault Robinson bricked 2 huge free throws at the end of Game 6 to get SA within 2 with a minute left? He got taken to the woodshed, plain and simple.

I even said as much, Robinson was outplayed in that series, no question about it. But he just wasn't outplayed to a level you indicated. Stats were nice, but I wouldn't expect anybody to play well when his opponent is spending all their efforts in stopping him.


Avery Johnson outscoring Smith that series 18 ppg to 6 ppg is what prevented it from being a sweep. David's inability to contain Hakeem was far and away the #1 reason for the loss. Not the only reason, but far and away #1. It's tough to win when the best player from the other team is just going off every night. Just like it was tough when Bryant was going off in the 2001 WCF before Bowen came to town.

The far and away #1 reason is because Rodman was not guarding anyone in the series, forcing his team to cover up his mistakes. Hakeem was great in the playoffs, and no doubt Robinson was outplayed in that series, but making it sound like Robinson was not doing his job, while Hakeem averaged 33ppg (2 points less) in the next series' sweep over Orlando with Shaq and Grant doubling him, is not being objective.


If you think that Dave was great for 6 years of his career and hakeem only 2, you are really delusional. Look at the stats. Look at the playoff ones in particular where Hakeem just totally outclassed David. David never ever came remotely close to reaching the level of hakeem 93-95 or shaq 00-02 or Duncan 03.
If I remember correctly, that series was the ONLY series where Hakeem and Robinson met in the playoffs, where Hakeem was at his absolute peak. I have already said Hakeem had a higher peak, and that series proved it.


WHy is it so hard to accept that Dave isnt in the tier of Duncan, Hakeem, MJ, Shaq, Bird, Kareem, etc? Those guys all managed to win titles as the #1 options. Hakeem and DUncan did it with relatively weak supporting casts in 1994 and 2003. Those aforementioned greats don't see their playoff FG% drop a full FIVE percent in the postseason, when the real games are played. The true super elites have go to moves to rely on in crunch time. Dave never had one. Oh wait, it's the PG or Coach's fault. Of course.

Playername PO FG%/Reg FG% PO FT% RS FT%
Shaq - 56.2%/57.9% 51.5%/53.1%
Duncan - 49.7%/50.7% 70.2%/69.2%
Jordan - 48.7%/49.7% 82.8%/83.5%
Robinson - 47.9%/51.8% 70.8%/73.6%
Hakeem - 52.8%/51.2% 71.9%/71.2%

Other than Hakeem, everybody had their FG% drop in the playoffs, and even though Robinson's drop was dramatic, so was Shaq's. Just to single out Robinson while ignoring others is presenting one side of the argument.
Yes, Robinson does not have a go to move, but it is also true that Robinson never had any sort of supporting cast.
I have said it before, Hakeem and Duncan were the ONLY two superstars to have won a championship without a significant supporting cast.

[samikeyp]

I know the difference between Manu Ginobili and fucking Vinny Del Negro...and I truly feel sorry for ya'll that ya'll don't.

well, they both have cool hair. :)

[FromWayDowntown]

I can understand you putting AJ ahead of the far and away superior Kenny Smith...even though the Rockets had both of them and chose Smith over AJ....because Kenny Smith was used a decoy in the 94-95 finals and spent most of his time camped out at the 3 line pumping it into Hakeem ad the defense being played by the Spurs demanded...

Yes, I guess that strategy by the Rockets is borne out by Smith's 3.7 assists per game in the 1995 West Finals. The truth of the matter is that by the 1995 West Finals, Smith started, but played fewer minutes in that series than his backup. Smith averaged 23.8 minutes per game in that series; Cassell averaged 27.3 minutes per game in that series. AJ, by contrast, averaged 37.2 minutes per game.

What is ludicrous about this point is that it presumes that players remain static in their skills and abilities once they've crossed paths. When AJ and Kenny played together in Houston (1991-92), Smith had an established career and AJ was looking for a place to stick. Smith was a first round pick of the Kings in 1986, so in 1991-92, he'd been in the league for 5 seasons and had never played fewer than 1000 minutes in any season. He also had been acquired by Houston in a trade involving Ralph Sampson (IIRC) in 1990 AJ, by contrast, hadn't played a total of 2000 minutes in his career by the time he and Smith crossed paths in Houston. I'd agree that AJ's being Smith's backup in 1991-92 is indicative of the idea that AJ wasn't as good as Smith at that time. But, if you compare just their 1994-95 numbers, that notion seems absurd:

1994-95

AJ: 82 gm; 36.7 mpg, .519 FG, 670 ast (8.2 apg), 3.24 a/to, 13.4 ppg
KS: 82 gm; 25.1 mpg, .484 FG, 323 ast (4.0 apg), 2.63 a/to, 10.4 ppg

My point is that you can't look to one season, when players are at different points in their careers, and conclude that one was better than the other. I doubt that anyone truly believes that any of the players who started ahead of McGrady in Toronto (Tracy started 17 games in 1997-98, 2 games in 1998-99, and 34 games in 1999-2000) will end up being historically better, even though when those players were on the same team, the other guys started and McGrady didn't. AJ got better after 1991-92 and improved enough that he put up better numbers than the guys who once started ahead of him. I can't see that it is preposterous that anyone would choose AJ ahead of Kenny Smith. I would.


I cannot understand you putting Derek Fisher over him...DFish destroyed AJ.

When exactly did that happen? Are you positing that Derek Fisher owned AJ for his entire career? Because that would be incorrect. In the only series in which both guys started every game, AJ had better numbers than Fisher and the Spurs swept the Lakers (and AJ drained the one 3 pointer you're always banging on).

1999 WCSF

AJ: 4 gm (4), 39.3 mpg, 17-39 FG (.436), 1-1 3pt (1.000), 8-13 FT (.615), 10.8 ppg, 8.8 apg

DF: 4 gm (4), 30.3 mpg, 12-31 FG (.387), 2-11 3pt (.182), 7-8 FT (.875), 8.3 ppg, 5.3 apg

In the 2001 West Finals, AJ didn't start any games. Terry Porter started all 4 games opposite Fisher. Here's the head-to-head between AJ and Fisher:

2001 WCF

AJ: 4 gm (0), 22.3 mpg, 11-30 FG (.367), 0-1 3pt (.000), 3-6 FT (.500), 6.3 ppg, 2.3 apg

DF: 4 gm (4), 39.3 mpg, 27-44 FG (.614), 15-20 3pt (.750), 1-3 FT (.333), 17.5 ppg, 3.3 apg

I don't have either the time or the inclination to go back and watch the tape to break down Fisher's play against AJ, but the "matchup" as most think of such things, wasn't between AJ and Fisher. It is clear that Terry Porter got absolutely destroyed by Fisher in that series, though.


And why did Hakeem shoot so poorly in the 89 playoffs? Didn't feel like playing god that year?

Perhaps because he had a bad playoff series. Who knows. What history says, though, is that Hakeem's shooting percentage went up at playoff time over the course of his career. You point to an exception as if it proves your theory. Generally, that's not the way that logical arguments work.

[bobbyjoe]

Great post Downtown:

I took it as sarcasm by Whott about the K Smith/AJ argument. Anyone who watched bball back then knew the Spurs had the edge at that position. Smith was a much better outside shooter, but AJ was quicker, a much better passer and creator as the stats show, and much better defensively than Kenny and he also ran the break much better. AJ-K Smith that series was a lopsided matchup in SA's favor. Really the only one.

[bobbyjoe]

Where did I say it wasn't Robinson's fault. All I am saying is that Robinson's teammates were just as responsible as he was, but all the blame has fallen on his shoulders all these years.
Then why are all the failures Robinson's fault? Are you trying to tell me that Rodman's explosion, the lack of talent, and a coach who never found a gig after he was fired were all free of faults in those years?



I even said as much, Robinson was outplayed in that series, no question about it. But he just wasn't outplayed to a level you indicated. Stats were nice, but I wouldn't expect anybody to play well when his opponent is spending all their efforts in stopping him.



The far and away #1 reason is because Rodman was not guarding anyone in the series, forcing his team to cover up his mistakes. Hakeem was great in the playoffs, and no doubt Robinson was outplayed in that series, but making it sound like Robinson was not doing his job, while Hakeem averaged 33ppg (2 points less) in the next series' sweep over Orlando with Shaq and Grant doubling him, is not being objective.


If I remember correctly, that series was the ONLY series where Hakeem and Robinson met in the playoffs, where Hakeem was at his absolute peak. I have already said Hakeem had a higher peak, and that series proved it.



Playername PO FG%/Reg FG% PO FT% RS FT%
Shaq - 56.2%/57.9% 51.5%/53.1%
Duncan - 49.7%/50.7% 70.2%/69.2%
Jordan - 48.7%/49.7% 82.8%/83.5%
Robinson - 47.9%/51.8% 70.8%/73.6%
Hakeem - 52.8%/51.2% 71.9%/71.2%

Other than Hakeem, everybody had their FG% drop in the playoffs, and even though Robinson's drop was dramatic, so was Shaq's. Just to single out Robinson while ignoring others is presenting one side of the argument.
Yes, Robinson does not have a go to move, but it is also true that Robinson never had any sort of supporting cast.
I have said it before, Hakeem and Duncan were the ONLY two superstars to have won a championship without a significant supporting cast.

Shaq's drop of 1.5% is not nearly as dramatic as Robinson's of 3.9%. Obviously, you also have to consider absolute levels as ell and Shaq is second to none there. Robinson has the lowest FG% on the list, the largest dropoff on the list, and is also the 1 name on the list that sticks out like a sore thumb.

I'll ask again. What exactly does your supporting cast have to do with YOUR Go-to move. Did Hakeem have an unstoppable turnaround J because of the wizardry of his great PG's like Kenny Smith, Sleepy Floyd, Matt Maloney, etc or because of his individual skill?

Does Tim Duncan have an extensive repertoire of post up moves because of the great PG's A. Daniels, T. Porter, and T. Parker that he's played with or because he's invested the time and dedication to developing those moves individually?

Saying Robinson had no talent when he played with Elliott and Rodman is just disingenuous. Those guys were both all-star caliber players and DRob played with both for many stretches during his peak years. And AJ was an above average PG. The SPurs were always a good to very good regular season team in the DRob era but an underachieving playoff team. They took on the persona of their leader and star: David RObinson. If the talent was that bad, SA wouldn't have won 50 plus games every year in a very competitive era of MJ, Barkley, Malone, Hakeem, Shaq, etc.

[ambchang]

Shaq's drop of 1.5% is not nearly as dramatic as Robinson's of 3.9%. Obviously, you also have to consider absolute levels as ell and Shaq is second to none there. Robinson has the lowest FG% on the list, the largest dropoff on the list, and is also the 1 name on the list that sticks out like a sore thumb.

I'll ask again. What exactly does your supporting cast have to do with YOUR Go-to move. Did Hakeem have an unstoppable turnaround J because of the wizardry of his great PG's like Kenny Smith, Sleepy Floyd, Matt Maloney, etc or because of his individual skill?

Does Tim Duncan have an extensive repertoire of post up moves because of the great PG's A. Daniels, T. Porter, and T. Parker that he's played with or because he's invested the time and dedication to developing those moves individually?

Saying Robinson had no talent when he played with Elliott and Rodman is just disingenuous. Those guys were both all-star caliber players and DRob played with both for many stretches during his peak years. And AJ was an above average PG. The SPurs were always a good to very good regular season team in the DRob era but an underachieving playoff team. They took on the persona of their leader and star: David RObinson. If the talent was that bad, SA wouldn't have won 50 plus games every year in a very competitive era of MJ, Barkley, Malone, Hakeem, Shaq, etc.

Just try to read better next time, OK? Robinson does not have a goto move, and he is also a part with the Spurs playoff demise, but he is not the ONLY one, there are other reasons.
I have no problem saying that Hakeem outplayed Robinson in 95 playoffs, absolutely none whatsoever, because that is what happened. But to say that that is the only/major reason is just plain wrong. Rodman continuously refusing to guard Horry is a one of the major reasons the Spurs lost. If you are telling me that the Spurs can win a series vs. the eventual champs playing 4 on 5 on both offense and defense, then we will just have to disagree.
Yes the Spurs won 50+ games every season with a weak supporting cast. It just speaks to how important Robinson was to the Spurs. Is it a coincidence the year a whole bunch of Spurs players (Johnson, Elliott, Del Negro) had career years was Robinson's MVP year? Is it coincidence that the Spurs won only 20 games the year Robinson was injured? How would a team with Sean Elliott (only 39 games), Vinny Del Negro, Avery Johnson win only 20 games? I am not even asking for a playoff berth, I am saying 20 games, the 2nd worse in the league. And that is basically the exact same team from the year before that won 59 games, finishing first in the Midwest. Know what happened to the Bulls after Jordan went play baseball? They won TWO less games, not 39. And when a team is so overly reliant on ONE player, the team is going to be stopped (see Spurs from 00 to 02). How do you figure the Spurs could still have won the championship this year despite struggles from Duncan (I am taking the twisted ankles in account)? Manu Ginobili, Robert Horry, Bruce Bowen and Tony Parker. Role players have to step up for the team to win as well.
Let's look at the 95:
Robert Horry (PO): 13.5ppg/7RPG/3.5APG/40% 3pt. (2 for 5)
Robert Horry (RS): 10.5ppg/5.1rpg/ 3.4APG/37%3pt (1.3 for 3.5)
Cassell (PO): 11 ppg/4apg
Cassell (RS):9.5 ppg/4.9apg
while for the Spurs, Elliott, Del Negro and Rodman all see their production drop. (Just check basketball-reference, I am too lazy to type them all out)
Saying a certain superstar won more rings as the primary option is definitely the better player and ignoring the supporting cast is just plain wrong. By that logic, Gus Williams is better than John Stockton, Elvin Hayes is better than Malone and Barkley, and Shaq is better than Hakeem and Wilt.
Fact is Shaq had Bryant, Jordan had Pippen, Magic and Kareem and Worthy, Isiah had Dumars, Bird had McHale and Parish, and teams win championships.
And finally, when your teammates suck eggs, the other team will collapse on you to stop you. Scoring is much easier with a single-team than constant double/triple-teaming.

[whottt]

Yes, I guess that strategy by the Rockets is borne out by Smith's 3.7 assists per game in the 1995 West Finals. The truth of the matter is that by the 1995 West Finals, Smith started, but played fewer minutes in that series than his backup. Smith averaged 23.8 minutes per game in that series; Cassell averaged 27.3 minutes per game in that series. AJ, by contrast, averaged 37.2 minutes per game.


Kenny was used as a shooter.

The Spurs of the Pop era were a carbon copy of those Rockets teams offensively and similar in that they were tough defensively. Right down to Mario Elie.




What is ludicrous about this point is that it presumes that players remain static in their skills and abilities once they've crossed paths. When AJ and Kenny played together in Houston (1991-92), Smith had an established career and AJ was looking for a place to stick. Smith was a first round pick of the Kings in 1986, so in 1991-92, he'd been in the league for 5 seasons and had never played fewer than 1000 minutes in any season. He also had been acquired by Houston in a trade involving Ralph Sampson (IIRC) in 1990 AJ, by contrast, hadn't played a total of 2000 minutes in his career by the time he and Smith crossed paths in Houston. I'd agree that AJ's being Smith's backup in 1991-92 is indicative of the idea that AJ wasn't as good as Smith at that time. But, if you compare just their 1994-95 numbers, that notion seems absurd:

1994-95

AJ: 82 gm; 36.7 mpg, .519 FG, 670 ast (8.2 apg), 3.24 a/to, 13.4 ppg
KS: 82 gm; 25.1 mpg, .484 FG, 323 ast (4.0 apg), 2.63 a/to, 10.4 ppg

Um...AJ was dishing it into a guy that was a near automatic assist...Kenny Smith was throwing it into a guy that would put it on the floor.

Kenny Smith was also the guy that lead the Rockets on an 18 game winning streak or something like that when Hakeem got his skull cracked by Bill Cartwright.



My point is that you can't look to one season, when players are at different points in their careers, and conclude that one was better than the other.

Why can't I? You guys are looking at one playoff series to judge Drob.



I can't see that it is preposterous that anyone would choose AJ ahead of Kenny Smith. I would.

Um...Rudy T would have...he loves the 3. He surrounded Hakeem with shooters that punished teams that doubled him...

It's really not Rocket science.


Look at what Rudy tried to do in LA this year...

Look at the fact that Hakeem's teams started winning titles after they made more 3 pointers than any team in NBA history.


How hard is this stuff to see really?

Hakeem's title teams punished double teams...just like the Spurs title winning teams have done...

Drob never had anyone that punished a double team...and if you think AJ and Vinny D did this then your knowledge of the game is more limited than I realized.




When exactly did that happen? Are you positing that Derek Fisher owned AJ for his entire career? Because that would be incorrect. In the only series in which both guys started every game, AJ had better numbers than Fisher and the Spurs swept the Lakers (and AJ drained the one 3 pointer you're always banging on).

1999 WCSF

AJ: 4 gm (4), 39.3 mpg, 17-39 FG (.436), 1-1 3pt (1.000), 8-13 FT (.615), 10.8 ppg, 8.8 apg

DF: 4 gm (4), 30.3 mpg, 12-31 FG (.387), 2-11 3pt (.182), 7-8 FT (.875), 8.3 ppg, 5.3 apg


Yeah...DFish sucked so bad that Pop tried to sign him the first chance he got.


In the 2001 West Finals, AJ didn't start any games. Terry Porter started all 4 games opposite Fisher. Here's the head-to-head between AJ and Fisher:

2001 WCF

AJ: 4 gm (0), 22.3 mpg, 11-30 FG (.367), 0-1 3pt (.000), 3-6 FT (.500), 6.3 ppg, 2.3 apg

DF: 4 gm (4), 39.3 mpg, 27-44 FG (.614), 15-20 3pt (.750), 1-3 FT (.333), 17.5 ppg, 3.3 apg

I don't have either the time or the inclination to go back and watch the tape to break down Fisher's play against AJ, but the "matchup" as most think of such things, wasn't between AJ and Fisher. It is clear that Terry Porter got absolutely destroyed by Fisher in that series, though.


Yeah...that's why the Spurs kept Porter and let AJ go.




Perhaps because he had a bad playoff series. Who knows. What history says, though, is that Hakeem's shooting percentage went up at playoff time over the course of his career. You point to an exception as if it proves your theory. Generally, that's not the way that logical arguments work.


Um...logic would dictate that you look at Drob's first two playoff series...

What is your reasoning behind him shooting so well?

He played good?

So he got worse when he played with the great AJ?

He got softer?

He turned into a choker?


Explain it...

I think it's a simple matter...he had guards that couldn't shoot and couldn't create, and would have been....no scratch that...were back ups on any team that didn't feature David Robinson.

Meanwhile...David had his greatest individual season..without AJ...without Elliott....yet it was also his most disappointing post season...why? Because it was the least talented team he ever played on.

And Duncan didn't win any titles with the Vinny AJ combo either, not even when he had David Robinson which is a hell of a lot more than Drob ever had. . They got Jazzed just like Drob's teams...and kinda like the Lakers did to us last year......

[FromWayDowntown]

Kenny was used as a shooter.

The Spurs of the Pop era were a carbon copy of those Rockets teams offensively and similar in that they were tough defensively. Right down to Mario Elie.

I'll respond to the rest of the post later. For now, though, reading this got me to wondering if you base your assertions about Smith on his 39 total shots over 6 games in the 1995 West Finals? (6 shots per game), or on his 13 total three pointers (2+ 3ptA per game)?

If the Rockets were using Smith as a shooter in that series, he seemed to have not gotten that message.

Gm 1: 2-7 FG; 0-1 3pt
Gm 2: 2-4 FG; 1-2
Gm 3: 4-8 FG; 4-5
Gm 4: 6-12 FG; 1-3 (Spurs blowout win)
Gm 5: 0-0 FG; 0-0
Gm 6: 2-8 FG; 1-7

[j-6]

You can point to IBM awards (btw -- if the absence of serviceable teammates explains David's playoff struggles, doesn't that same problem also explain David's regular season statistical greatness; I mean, isn't he, in a sense, the Kelly Leak of the mid-90's NBA?).

That's funny, comparing Saint David to the juvenile delinquent Bad News Bears outfielder.

(I have nothing constructive to add to this argument.)