Hakeem or Robinson

[peskypesky]

I picked Drob.

[bobbyjoe]

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

Also, check this: http://sports.espn.go.com/chat/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.

It proved you wrong actually.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[bobbyjoe]

bobbyjoe is just a hater....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[baseline bum]

bobbyjoe is the Rocket fan equivalent to whottt.

[TDMVPDPOY]

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

[bobbyjoe]

bobbyjoe is just a hater....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

BTW, i remember the Malone incident vividly.

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

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

[21_Blessings]

Dream > Shaq > Duncan > D-Rob

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

[Sissiborgo]

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

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

[ambchang]

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

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

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

[ambchang]

It proved you wrong actually.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

None of the media agreed = media underrates Robinson.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ambchang]

Dream > Shaq > Duncan > D-Rob

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

Paul Pierce > Kobe Bryant.

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

[Phenomanul]

BTW, i remember the Malone incident vividly.

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

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

I guess reading comprehension is not your strong suit.

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

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

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

4) Vividly??? Please....

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

[Phenomanul]

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

[mavs>spurs2]

Paul Pierce > Kobe Bryant.

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

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

[Phenomanul]

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

So you are suggesting that teammates matter? Thought so.

[Phenomanul]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks for playing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Galileo]

1991 is a black mark against D-Rob.

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

They had:

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

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

[21_Blessings]

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

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

[mavs>spurs2]

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

Exactly.

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

[Phenomanul]

1991 is a black mark against D-Rob.

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

They had:

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

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

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

[baseline bum]

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

[Phenomanul]

Exactly.

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

Are you that stupid to make such a bipolar argument?

Um let me see...

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

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

And here I was about to post this:

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

[Galileo]

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

who's Jeff?

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

DRob only won 5 playoff series before Duncan arrived.

5-7

[bobbyjoe]

1991 is a black mark against D-Rob.

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

They had:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ambchang]

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

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

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