D-Rob
Dream
Probably the most hyped player ever... that doesn't take away from his accomplishments because he actually kept winning. See Tiger Woods.
Ever read the Time Magazine article led, "The Jordan Effect". Jordan affected the US Economy to the tune of billions of dollars.
If you can't understand the point I was making then there is seriously no hope for you. And this is coming from someone who actually has respect for Kobe's game.
Mikan above D-Rob?
Seriously?.... Robinson would have run circles around him.
And Moses Malone was not as a complete a player as Robinson was.
Robinson averaged more assists, steals and blocks per game than Malone. Malone was a rebounding freak, with awesome play around the basket, who had a truly great career in both the ABA and NBA.
Yeps. That's an argument that makes sense. Robinson was good, very good, but Hakeem was clearly a better player.
LOl the orginal post stated:
Who was the better player, not who had the better team. LOL
Then everybody started to discuss teams.
If Mikan had the nutrition of today's athelete's, he'd be better than Robinson.
What doesn't get enough attention in a discussion where scoring and personal acccolades receives the most? Is what a great passer David Robinson was at the center spot. From willingness to share to putting your teammates in the best position to score, David was best at it.
One can't have it both ways.... One can't use Hakeem's championships as a measure to suggest that he was better player than David without looking at the context. Championships are won by teams not single players.
The NBA is not 1 vs. 1.
Seriously???
Mikan would be a 2nd tier center in Today's NBA. For that matter, he would have been a 2nd tier center in the 80's and 90's.
Artis Gilmore > George Mikan
Mikan also didn't have as good of coaching as today's players. He also would have improved had he been tested by stronger compe ion.
you have seriously ruined what's left of your reputation on this board.
Funny you provided the list, 4 out of 20 analysts ranked Robinson #5 or higher. I would be shocked there are that many Spurs homers on the national media level.
Also 5, of them ranked Robinson right behind Hakeem. Perhaps this supposed huge divide is not as pronounced as you suggested?
I could not understand the Walton selection. He would have been phenomenal if he played perhaps 3 or 4 more years at the top, but the fact is he had two dominant seasons, and was injury plagued throughout his career. At least Robinson can claim that he had 7 to 8 good years.
And even a hater like you would admit that Robinson would be ranked #8 in the list behind the big 5, Malone and Walton, why would ranking him anywhere between 5 and 7 be such a huge blind homer vote?
I am really unfamiliar in ranking people based on a few isolated incident. So Kobe ripping Spurs in playoffs = Kobe is a beast in the playoffs, despite the fact that his playoff averages were all lower DESPITE such stellar performances in a couple of seasons. The logic of averages would suggest to me that his other series were even WORSE than his overall average if you were to take out the Spurs series, so why was he a beast again?
Hakeem is great while Robinson is terrible because of one playoff series. OK, so what do you make of Robinson's 1st playoff appearance. When he had Rod Strickland, Terry mings around him, he played great. He dominated Golden States the next year, he played quite well in 96, what do we make of those? Because I am quite sure those are not regular season series.
Kobe choked in 04 and 06 finals just as badly as Robinson did in 95. An argument cannot go both ways. If you want to say Robinson sucked in the playoffs, you have to say Kobe did as well, because you can't use selective series to demonstrate Kobe's prowess, while at the same time use selective series to demonstrate Robinson's inep ude.
Hakeem didn't do well in a couple of series in the playoffs either, in fact, he couldn't even make the playoffs in 91-92, why is that? He scored 18.5 ppg on 44.3% in the 90 playoffs vs. the Lakers after averaging 24.3 on 50% in the regular season. Did he choke? Why did he do so poorly in that one series?
And yet the numbers showed otherwise. He did use his speed on transition a lot, and he did get a lot of FTs, but he also had a nice 15 to 18 foot jumper, was great at going around him man, and later on developed a reliable little jump hook. You make him sound like Cedric Ceballos.
Sean Elliott was his best side kick in his career, and there is no doubt about it, but Rodman was a terrible offensive player who would be deadly to any team who had no outside game.
Dale Ellis played two seasons with the Spurs. The year he shot well, Robinson was opened up and played well, the year he didn't (also when Elliott was traded), Robinson didn't shoot so well because the defense would collapse on him. He also plays minimal defense, and any team with a way over the hill Ellis as your #2 scoring option is not a good thing at all.
Chuck Person was way over the hill as well at that stage of his career, and only played reasonably well in one of his 3 seasons with the Spurs. Notice the two never played together with the Spurs at any given time.
In fact, the Spurs only had two reasonable shooters, max, on their roster playing any significant minutes a handful of times in Robinson's heyday, unlike Hakeem, who was surrounded by 3 to 5 of those players.
Rodman was great on a team when you have perimeter scoring like Thomas and Dumars, or Pippen and Jordan, because his man cannot leave him and clog the lane as much. On a team that has no offense outside the middle, his presence allows the opposition to just leave him and double the other big man. it's no secret, and it's no coincidence that Robinson played his two worse playoffs with Rodman by him.
Avery Johnson is one of the worst outside shooting PG in the history of the league, he was so bad, he couldn't even make it as a 3rd string guard on Hakeem's teams. He is great when a team was flanked with shooters, but that team just wasn't the Spurs.
And thanks for bringing up mings. He had three good years with the Spurs before injuries severely limited his production. Those three years, Robinson did great in the playoffs. So thanks for helping me find evidence to support my claim that teammates actually DOES matter.
As for Rodman
EDIT: Had to step out for a couple of hours.
The Spurs problems have always been outside shooting, and FO tried to address it year after year. Problem was, they only manage to have two quality shooter and two absolutely horrible offensive players that teams could leave wide open for.
Avery Johnson was a self-made player, but he was terrible from the outside. He could finish well around the basket and he rarely forces shots, but he couldn't shoot anywhere outside of 15 feet. He made 27 out 186 3 pters in his career. That is 18.6%. He made ONE out of 16 3 pters in the playoffs for a laughable 6.3%. That is one in 90 games. David Robinson made 2 out of 15 in his career. So you are telling me that this is not some guy who you would double off and leave wide open for jumpers?
Rodman doesn't need to be defended at all.
I am not sure Robinson would be a good #1 option or not with a decent supporting cast around him, but I do know that he never had the chance other than his 1st year in the league, when he took his team to 7 games of the 2nd round against the Blazers. We also do know that his team won 20 games, a drop of 39 games from the previous season, when Robinson got injured, and had the gain of 35 games when he first joined them. I just don't know what kind of 2nd banana could do that outside of David Robinson.
Last edited by ambchang; 09-13-2008 at 11:17 PM.
11 of the 20 experts at ESPN rated Mikan above Robinson.
Mikan
7 championships
6 scoring les
No one else has ever dominated that much.
He played in an era where the dominant athletes hadn't yet entered the fray (i.e. African Americans).
He played in an era with far fewer teams.
This is the prototypical ranking where Championships are used as the sole measure of greatness; or more heavily weighted than they should be... I don't expect any less ignorance from certain "analysts" at BSPN. By that logic:
Robert Horry > Charles Barkley
Except that Mikan was actually a star, whereas Robert is probably the clutchest shooter in the history of the post-season.
Mikan suffered 16 broken bones during his playing days. His stats and NBA les were way down because he didn't have modern medicine like Robinson.
Too bad he didn't have wings and a jet engine either. He could have been a fighter jet.
LOLOLOL
wow
hi jeff
More analysts (6)ranked Robinson as not even being in their top 10 entirely than had him being #5 (4). That should tell you something. Ranking Robinson in the top 5 is an extreme outlier position. The majority of these p5 had Robinson over Bill Russell, who's achievements are easy to belittle by those who never saw him play. You made it sound like prevailing opinion has DR from #5-7 which is ridiculous.
And how in the world does Robinson being ranked "right behind Hakeem" by 5 out of 20 (or a whopping 25%) of people signify that the "gap between them wasn't that significant".
Most consider Phil Mickelson second best in golfing only to Tiger Woods. Does that somehow mean that just because he's "right behind Tiger" the majority of reasonable, sane golf experts dont think there's still a significant distance and divide between the 2?
Many analysts have Kobe as the 2nd best shooting guard ever in NBA history to MJ. This doesnt state anything as to the feelings that are held with regards to the performance gap between the 2.
You love putting a bigtime silver n black spin on things as such an intentionally deceptive statement proves. Since you want to play that game, here are some other facts to consider:
1) 10 out of the 20 experts had Hakeem ranked at least 5 spots higher than Robinson on the alltime list vs. only the 5 you mentioned who had Robinosn only one spot behind Hakeem.
2) Your argument seems to be moving from "Robinson was as good or better than Hakeem" to "Hakeem wasnt that much better". If that is indeed true and the gap between them was so small, it's pretty damn hard to believe that not ONE out of the 20 experts polled on this ranked Robinson over Hakeem. NOT ONE. What does that tell you? That outside of SA, there's not much to debate...
RE Walton vs. Robinson? Walton at his peak was just a dominant force. David Robinson never dominated the NBA. This shows the hypocrisy in your argument. When it comes to Robinson's playoff #'s, you love to point out his injuries as an excuse. Yet when it comes to a guy like Walton who's career was derailed by injuries, that shouldn't come into play? Do injuries only matter when it comes to Robinson?!
As you can see in the rankings, most did have Walton over Robinson. At his peak, he was dominant. David never was.
Saying Robinson never dominated the NBA is simply an inane statement - he had a scoring le, block le a MVP and a quadruple double. In his prime David Robinson no worse than #7 all time - the ESPN poll is consistent with media bias against an all time great.
look at the stats when he had the quadruple double...he almost did it Three times in the same month!!!!
look this, if even he had a bettr team around him....like TD....damn....like i say to david robinson when i met him...you are the player who gave me love for basketball!
If you plugged Hakeem on any Spurs squad in David Robinsons place the team would be better.This should never have made five pages. I like Dave a lot because he was a great person, but as a player he was no Dream. I don't fault anyone for standing up for their favorite players, but if any team had to chose between the two nobody would pick Dave..... well, maybe Isaiah Thomas.
bobbyjoe is just a hater....
When you give him the info that he's too lazy to look up for himself he spins it around to say what he wants it to say. When you corner him with the data, he's all, "but wait there's this other angle".... He continually leaves out key factors, and has countered his own arguments on at least three occasions. He has ignored the statistics at his convenience and has formulated his arguments on an entirely subjective basis. His best statistical argument has been to use the opinions of 20 ESPN analysts as his trumping 'wild card'...
-- David Robinson is on the same level as Hakeem Olojuwon. No matter what bobbyjoe, or any of these other haters who never saw David play before 1996 say. It's sad that Spurs fans continually undermine David's talent, skillset, level and ultimately his legacy. If you all never saw him play - stay out of the discussion.
-- David's playoff supporting casts sucked. Period. This is huge!!!. No matter how you spin it, no matter who ignores it, David would not have been able to win Championships with his supporting casts. And yet this is used as the primary argument to suggest that he was an inferior player.
-- Every great playoff run in the last 18 years has required at least one series swinging 3pt dagger, or jumper from someone other than the teams' star players.
Jordan was surrounded by: B.J. Armstrong, Craig Hodges, and John Paxon during his first three championship runs. And Steve Kerr, Toni Kukoc and Ron Harper during his last three. Not to be forgotten was the fact that he had Scottie Pippen, a deadly 3pt shooter in his own right, for all 6 championship runs. They all made series changing, game winning shots for him.
Hakeem was surrounded by: Sam Cassell, Robert Horry, Mario Elie, Kenny Smith and Clyde Drexler during his championship runs. They all made series changing, game winning shots for him. An abnormal amount actually.
Shaquille was surrounded by: Robert Horry, Derek Fisher, Glen Rice, Rick Fox, Brian Shaw, Derek Harper, and Jason Kapono during his championship runs. Not to mention Shaq had guys like Kobe Bryant, Penny Hardaway, and Dwayne Wade complementing his inside presence. They all made series changing, game winning shots for him.
Duncan was surrounded by: Steve Kerr, an unlikely hero in Jaren Jackson, a more mature Sean Eliott, Mario Elie, Stephen Jackson, Manu Ginobili, and Robert Horry. They all made series changing, game winning shots for him.
Last years Celtics were a three-headed all-star cast.
While this generation's Pistons have proven to be one of the most balanced teams ever. One greater than the sum of it's parts. Aside from Ben Wallace They all made series changing, game winning shots.
No matter how 'great' anyone tries to pass off Robinson's playoff supporting casts. None of his teammates ever made series changing, or game winning shots for him. Eliott and AJ, spared no self-criticism in suggesting this very truth back in 2003 (I'm trying to find the article).
Unfortunately the media has a lazy habit of defining players' legacies by their post-season accomplishments. Unfairly or not, their arguments mold and shape the nation's perception of athletes to the tune of their own viewpoints. To Robinson's detriment, he could never pull off the ultimate miracle and attain the coveted 'ship without an adequate supporting cast. After the series against the Rockets in 1995, the media threw Robinson under the bus, called him "soft", and hypocritically ignored the obvious: that the Spurs were a one-man team.
Their subjective arguments have unfairly shaped the viewpoints of every casual fan who never saw Robinson play in his heyday, even new generation Spurs fans. Robinson was a beast. He was feared; his 'guns' were huge. He was big, ripped, fast, athletic, versatile, could jump out of the gym, could score from anywhere and recover with the best of them. How he went from 'this' to being perceived as 'soft' just because of his teams' playoff failures is just wrong. Especially when his teams got farther than they ever should have to begin with.
One event that unfairly contributed to this perception was Robinson's reaction to Karl Malone's thuggish elbow (the one that knocked him unconscious); Robinson literally 'turned the other cheek' and publically 'forgave' Malone for it by downplaying his intent. In a world where rash, impulsive, egocentric players let their emotions get the best of them the Admiral did something worthy of admiration but was criticized for it. Unbelievable! The casual fan is ignorant. They prefer to praise crass players rather than one who defines class.
Anyway, not a single NBA champion since 1980 has had less than one star. Not one*. The only exception was Hakeem's first Championship team with the Rockets, but Hakeem was surrounded by the deadliest, clutchest, 3-pt ensemble ever. Not surprisingly, they also met up against one of the weakest finalists ever (statistically speaking) - the '94 Knicks.
Last edited by Phenomanul; 09-13-2008 at 11:57 PM.
20% of the population being called extreme outlier would signify a huge variance. But the funny thing is, YOU selected this poll as some sort of guide. Robinson ranked #8 when I said he would rank #5 to 7, of which 20% of the people YOU picked to be the guide agreed. So you are saying 20% of the people YOU chose as a standard of evalutation are extreme homers and ridiculous?
Also, check this: http://sports.espn.go.com/chat/sport...tranker?id=688
The nation also ranked Robinson #7. There really ARE that many homers in throughout the nations huh? And I thought the Spurs were boring and disliked.
25% of the people YOU chose ranked Robinson right behind Hakeem and that isn't significant? Really? Only 7 out of 20 of them ranked Shaq and Hakeem right to next other, is their gap significant? I would imagine that extra 10% wouldn't turn the gap from significant into insignificant.
I don't follow golf, and I don't care about it.
I didn't realize Kobe and Jordan went head to head, with each winning 4 1st team all-nbas during their times together.
And what is the problem? It WOULD be a problem if I said only a blind homer would rank Hakeem significantly better than Robinson. But I didn't do that now did I? It was you who said only a blind homer would say Robinson is #5 to 7 alltime.
Quote me, quote me where I said Robinson was better than Hakeem, or even as good as. I have been saying all along the two aren't as far apart as popular media think. And thanks for pulling the poll to prove me right with the rankings.
Robinson had 7 good years, Walton had 2. Robinson won an MVP, scoring le, block shot le, rebounding le, ranked top 5 in 3 stats category and top 10 in 5 in the same year. I don't what you call that other than dominant.
I saw the rankings, I just got puzzled over it.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
