Hakeem or Robinson

[bobbyjoe]

Exactly.

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

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

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

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

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

[Phenomanul]

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

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

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

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

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

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

You win 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...

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

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

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

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

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

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

[DarkMaverick]

What re s voted for Robinson....stupid homers

Looms, who the do you think you are??? People are en led to their own opinion. Having said that, i think you are the dumb ass re here.

[ambchang]

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

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

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

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

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

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

You win 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...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You: Look at the per 36.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[ambchang]

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

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

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

Exactly.

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

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

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

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

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

[Galileo]

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

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

[ambchang]

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

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

So?

[ambchang]

1991 is a black mark against D-Rob.

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

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

[21+20+9=50]

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

[Phenomanul]

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

That is an out-right lie.

What you thought we wouldn't notice???

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Galileo]

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

So?

I was talking about Hakeem in 1990 vs the Lakers.

[Galileo]

I was talking about Hakeem in 1990 vs the Lakers.

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

[ambchang]

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

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

[bobbyjoe]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You: Look at the per 36.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[bobbyjoe]

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

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

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

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

[Galileo]

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

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

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

17 games

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

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

[ambchang]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Self-contradiction much?

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

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

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

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

I already did, why don’t YOU exercise your comprehension skills and read them?

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

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

Why not? Kobe’s averages all dropped on an overall basis, and that is the de facto standard you would use, wouldn’t it?

Tell you what, why don’t you stick to ONE argument in stating Robinson is a choker, and I will once again play by your rules. Just please stick to one, OK?

So far, you have taken:
1) Overall playoff averages vs. regular season averages.
2) Individual playoff series.
3) Individual plays (lol, I mean, seriously, Barkley nailed a J in Robinson’s mug! Wow, just showed what kind of choker Robinson is).

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

During the 1994–95, 1995–96, and 1996-97 seasons, the NBA attempted to address decreased scoring (due to tougher style defenses) by shortening the overall distance of the line to a uniform 22 feet (6.7 m) around the basket. Dennis Scott used this rule change to set a record for most three-pointers in a season: 267 in 1995–96

Once again, please exercise your superior comprehension skills.

And wait, wait …. Are you using one series to show Hakeem did great without 3 pt shooters while ignoring the other series where he underperformed under the same team 3 years later? Can we say cherry-picking?

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

And I have said Robinson’s game is better suited than Hakeem’s game in the playoffs since ……

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

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

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

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

Wasn’t that survey used to show that Robinson ranked #5 to 7 was a homer move? It’s not like I came up with this sideshow, it was … who was that person who tried to divert attention and ignore responses when his/her points get shot down ….. wait … it was … oh, that was YOU.

Never mind that Robinson had his best statistical significant regular season when he had Rodman on his side, then teams could figure out it’s easy to take out the Spurs by collapsing the middle by leaving Rodman and Johnson when you can have time to prepare for a team and exploit their weaknesses, such as the playoffs.

[ambchang]

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

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

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

Why don't you learn to read? Huh? I was saying that he had a great game in a 4-game series.

And take your own advice and look at Robinson's playoff accomplishments.

[ambchang]

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

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

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

17 games

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

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

While I agree what the Dream did in 94 and 95 was really amazing, I can't help but notice that is the worse use of statistics i have ever seen. Well, it's just plain wrong.

[Galileo]

While I agree what the Dream did in 94 and 95 was really amazing, I can't help but notice that is the worse use of statistics i have ever seen. Well, it's just plain wrong.

I'd say that D-Rob and Hakeem were pretty equal most of the time, with D-Rob being a little taller and more athletic, and Hakeem a little quicker and a better shooter.

But when it came time to step up, Hakeem wanted it more.

[XTah]

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

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

17 games

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

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

It would be 64,000 to 1 if everything was exactly equal. The two players were equal, the teammates were equal, the cir stances were equal, everything.

[Phenomanul]

I'd say that D-Rob and Hakeem were pretty equal most of the time, with D-Rob being a little taller and more athletic, and Hakeem a little quicker and a better shooter.

But when it came time to step up, Hakeem wanted it more.

So much so that he willed Horry's and Elie's threes to go in. Ultimately, the role players have to step up for teams to win. David's never did when it mattered most. Hakeem's great playoff runs coincided with timely shooting from his role players.

[Obstructed_View]

Here's a fun stat: Three point percentage of teammates, with a minimum 75 attempts. Let's see how many guys shot over 30 percent on each team in a given year. I remembered that the Spurs' three point shooting had always been abysmal and that they suddenly couldn't beat the Rockets once Vernon Maxwell came to town and hit every stinkin' thing he threw up from behind the arc. I'm fairly certain these are correct.

90-91
(52-30) Rockets 3
(55-27) Spurs 0

91-92
(42-40) Rockets 4
(47-35) Spurs 1

92-93
(55-37) Rockets 4
(49-33) Spurs 3

93-94
(58-24) Rockets 6
(55-27) Spurs 2

94-95
(47-35) Rockets 7
(62-20) Spurs 4

95-96
(48-34) Rockets 8
(59-23) Spurs 4

[Galileo]

Here's a fun stat: Three point percentage of teammates, with a minimum 75 attempts. Let's see how many guys shot over 30 percent on each team in a given year. I remembered that the Spurs' three point shooting had always been abysmal and that they suddenly couldn't beat the Rockets once Vernon Maxwell came to town and hit every stinkin' thing he threw up from behind the arc. I'm fairly certain these are correct.

90-91
(52-30) Rockets 3
(55-27) Spurs 0

91-92
(42-40) Rockets 4
(47-35) Spurs 1

92-93
(55-37) Rockets 4
(49-33) Spurs 3

93-94
(58-24) Rockets 6
(55-27) Spurs 2

94-95
(47-35) Rockets 7
(62-20) Spurs 4

95-96
(48-34) Rockets 8
(59-23) Spurs 4

Akeem was a much better post up center. He opened up those shots. That's why dominating low post scorers are the most valuable commodity in basketball.

With all due respect to MJ, I'll take Akeem posting up and Akeem's defense.

[Obstructed_View]

Akeem was a much better post up center. He opened up those shots. That's why dominating low post scorers are the most valuable commodity in basketball.

With all due respect to MJ, I'll take Akeem posting up and Akeem's defense.

So you are suggesting that Vernon Maxwell, Sam Cassell, Robert Horry, Kenny Smith, Clyde Drexler, Mario Elie and Matt Bullard became good shooters because of Hakeem's post play, while David's lack of a post game failed to make Lloyd Daniels, Cory Alexander, Vinny Del Negro, David Wood and Chris Whitney better shooters? You can't really suggest that with a straight face, can you? Funny how the Spurs were better until Hakeem had several of the best playoff three point shooters around him. It's also interesting that the Rockets always suggest that superior teammates are the reason Robinson dominated Hakeem in head to head record.

For real actual shooters, the Spurs had basically Ellis and Elliott, with Doc and Person for two years, when the team suddenly got really good, and the loss of Doc in the '96 playoffs was huge.

And to be perfectly fair, Dennis Rodman opened up as many three point shots than Hakeem did in the series that everyone points to.