Hakeem or Robinson

[Galileo]

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

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

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

Akeem got better when Rudy T came to town and set up the inside-out offense.

[Obstructed_View]

Akeem got better when Rudy T came to town and set up the inside-out offense.

Yeah, inside out offense only works when you have the outside part. Having an assembly of guys that have proven to be great shooters sure helped with that. Since Rudy T wasn't much of a coach without that cast I'd say they deserve more credit than he does.

Seriously, your argument should be able to withstand facts if it's legit. Your denial of something so obvious doesn't exactly reinforce your side of the discussion.

[Admiral]

Interesting thread. I have not voted yet, because I honestly can't decide who to vote for. It should be a tough call for any rational and logical fan, because both Olajuwon and Robinson were two of the best big men to ever play the game.

I hate the fact that David's career is in many ways defined by that 1995 WCF series against the Rockets. David did not play his best basketball, and Hakeem had one of the best performances ever by an NBA player. As someone else mentioned earlier in this thread, that series caused people to overrate Hakeem and underrate David. One series does not define a career, but it's understandable that it causes people to lean on it when they have nothing else to go on.

And that's precisely the problem. Most fans - even those who "keep up" with the NBA - don't know a whole lot about either player. Instead, they and their attention-deficit disorders seek sound bytes and media clips for "evidence" to form opinions. They probably view David as a gifted athlete who had a great career, but who also didn't care enough about basketball to have the same passion for it that guys like Jordan, Olajuwon, and Bird had. They also probably view Hakeem as a serious, win-at-all-costs player who upped his game when it counts the most. They view his passion for the game as virtually unmatched.

The reality for both players lies somewhere in the middle. I never bought the argument that David is "soft," nor did I believe that he didn't want to win badly. People act like his God-given athleticism allowed him to play basketball with ease. Anyone who watched him play as a freshman or sop re at Navy would be amazed at the player he became as a junior and senior at the Naval Academy. They would also be awestruck by his improvement from his rookie year to his MVP years in the mid-90's. The guy worked really hard to improve his game. He developed his skills in virtually all areas. You don't lead the NBA in points, rebounding, blocks, etc. just because you are a good athlete. It takes a great deal of hard work and dedication to get there, and I think many people fail to see that about David.

The funny thing is that I remember David outplaying Hakeem on many occasions prior to that WCF series in 1995. Those instances are obviously forgotten now, because the 1995 WCF has somehow come to define the careers of both men. I'm not advocating that we should ignore that series, but it's wrong to ignore everything else in their careers. Doing so is buying into the media hype that Hakeem is amazing, and David is soft. Spurs fans, of all people, should know better!

The only area I think Hakeem has a clear advantage over David is the back-to-the-basket game. David gets ripped for "not having a post game," but I remember him backing people down and using several moves with success - baseline spin move, baby hook, and fade away jumpers, to name a few. They were not to the level of Hakeem, but then again nobody's post game can really compare to Hakeem's. David holds his own when it comes to rebounding, blocking shots, and steals. I give David a slight edge when it comes to scoring. David's passing is also an area where he should get a lot more recognition.

I have rambled on way too much. What I'm trying to say is that both players were outstanding, and trying to choose between one or the other is difficult. If the 1995 WCF should define the careers of both men, then you obviously have to go with Hakeem. But when all things are considered - especially the supporting casts and coaching - a very strong argument can be made for David. When you take those things into consideration, David's teams were far better than they should've been. Is it any wonder the playoffs proved so frustrating for those Spurs teams?

[Galileo]

Yeah, inside out offense only works when you have the outside part. Having an assembly of guys that have proven to be great shooters sure helped with that. Since Rudy T wasn't much of a coach without that cast I'd say they deserve more credit than he does.

Seriously, your argument should be able to withstand facts if it's legit. Your denial of something so obvious doesn't exactly reinforce your side of the discussion.

any college player can hit an open effin three, let alone a pro.

[Galileo]

Interesting thread. I have not voted yet, because I honestly can't decide who to vote for. It should be a tough call for any rational and logical fan, because both Olajuwon and Robinson were two of the best big men to ever play the game.

I hate the fact that David's career is in many ways defined by that 1995 WCF series against the Rockets. David did not play his best basketball, and Hakeem had one of the best performances ever by an NBA player. As someone else mentioned earlier in this thread, that series caused people to overrate Hakeem and underrate David. One series does not define a career, but it's understandable that it causes people to lean on it when they have nothing else to go on.

And that's precisely the problem. Most fans - even those who "keep up" with the NBA - don't know a whole lot about either player. Instead, they and their attention-deficit disorders seek sound bytes and media clips for "evidence" to form opinions. They probably view David as a gifted athlete who had a great career, but who also didn't care enough about basketball to have the same passion for it that guys like Jordan, Olajuwon, and Bird had. They also probably view Hakeem as a serious, win-at-all-costs player who upped his game when it counts the most. They view his passion for the game as virtually unmatched.

The reality for both players lies somewhere in the middle. I never bought the argument that David is "soft," nor did I believe that he didn't want to win badly. People act like his God-given athleticism allowed him to play basketball with ease. Anyone who watched him play as a freshman or sop re at Navy would be amazed at the player he became as a junior and senior at the Naval Academy. They would also be awestruck by his improvement from his rookie year to his MVP years in the mid-90's. The guy worked really hard to improve his game. He developed his skills in virtually all areas. You don't lead the NBA in points, rebounding, blocks, etc. just because you are a good athlete. It takes a great deal of hard work and dedication to get there, and I think many people fail to see that about David.

The funny thing is that I remember David outplaying Hakeem on many occasions prior to that WCF series in 1995. Those instances are obviously forgotten now, because the 1995 WCF has somehow come to define the careers of both men. I'm not advocating that we should ignore that series, but it's wrong to ignore everything else in their careers. Doing so is buying into the media hype that Hakeem is amazing, and David is soft. Spurs fans, of all people, should know better!

The only area I think Hakeem has a clear advantage over David is the back-to-the-basket game. David gets ripped for "not having a post game," but I remember him backing people down and using several moves with success - baseline spin move, baby hook, and fade away jumpers, to name a few. They were not to the level of Hakeem, but then again nobody's post game can really compare to Hakeem's. David holds his own when it comes to rebounding, blocking shots, and steals. I give David a slight edge when it comes to scoring. David's passing is also an area where he should get a lot more recognition.

I have rambled on way too much. What I'm trying to say is that both players were outstanding, and trying to choose between one or the other is difficult. If the 1995 WCF should define the careers of both men, then you obviously have to go with Hakeem. But when all things are considered - especially the supporting casts and coaching - a very strong argument can be made for David. When you take those things into consideration, David's teams were far better than they should've been. Is it any wonder the playoffs proved so frustrating for those Spurs teams?

good points.

[bobbyjoe]

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

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

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

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



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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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






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

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

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

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

Self-contradiction much?



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



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



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

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

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





Once again, please exercise your superior comprehension skills.

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



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



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

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

You need to look up the facts before this ridiculous spin-fest.

I am not basing Robinson's postseason resume on 3 series from 94 to 96.

In fact, Robinson actually played 6 series in those 3 years, not 3. These were also the best statistical years of his career. By your own argument, Robinson's #'s post 97 back injury are to be discounted or ignored.

Given that we are ignoring Robinson's dragged down #'s post 97, he played in 53 playoff games from 1989 to 1997.

29 out of 53 or 55% of Robinson's playoff games came from 1994-1996. So calling my analysis cherrypicking is asinine. I picked the majority of Robinson's playoff games during his prime NBA seasons.

For Hakeem you picked out a 4 game series in 89 and a 4 game series in 98 when he was 36 yrs old. 8 games out of a 145 game postseason career.

See the difference?!

-I also did read through your "analysis" and never saw anything resembling a decent argument about Robinson's playoff #'s. All you could cite was that in a few cases some of his #'s went up in the postseason.

Robinson played in the playoffs 6 seasons before his debilitating back injuries. During this time, his #'s decreased from regular season in 3 season (94-95-96; the drops in 94 and 95 were enormous). 1990 was a wash; 1991 saw them increase (small ball GS series); 1992 was down a bit as well (PPG stayed the same, but FG% again declined quite a bit).

So net, net, there's obviously a decline in Robinson's postseason prowess pre back surgery. Stop bringing up the 18.9 ppg overall playoff averages because for the past 50 posts all that is being discussed in Robinson's pre injury #'s. Are you going to actually acknowledge that Robinson's playoff declines can not be completely attributed to playing the majority of his playoff games post back injury? Somehow, I doubt it.

Also, I've seen in these posts from you some of the most bizarre analysis. However, comparing a KJ dunk on Olajuwon (in a playoff loss) to a shot by Barkley that ended the Spurs season, won the series, and shut down Hemisfair Arena may take the cake.

You realize there is a difference between a facial of a dunk which in a random game which had no effect on the outcome and a series clinching shot, correct?

There's nothing to cherrypick about Hakeem's playoff #'s. They consistently were up big over his regular season #'s. One of the best playoff performers of all time. Bigtime players step up in big games. Go ahead and try to deny it. You can rewrite and falsify history in your mind but realize that the majority of the world sees things through clear, not silver and black tinted lenses.

[bobbyjoe]

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

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

Exactly. It's not rocket science. Great post basketball opens up wide open looks for shooters.

Hakeem did it. Kareem did it. Shaq did it. Duncan did it.

Guys like Robinson and Garnett and Nowitzki who are turn and faceup players can't do it as effectively.

Defensive schemes are much more compromised and vulnerable to having to concede outside shots when you have a dominant post. It's easier for the big to find open shooters.

While Hakeem did have better shooters than David, David had the better slashers and penetrators. Elliott and AJ could do this for SA where Houston was a poorly composed team with Hakeem, Thorpe, and a bunch of stand still shooters who couldn't drive and finish or drive and kick out (until Drexler changed that and gave them taht balance but at the expense of interior strength).

Hakeem also never palyed with a dominant rebounder/defensive stud big like Robinson did with Rodman for 2-3 seasons. Otis Thorpe was very solid and steady and filled this role very well, but just was not the talent that Rodman was.

[Galileo]

You need to look up the facts before this ridiculous spin-fest.

I am not basing Robinson's postseason resume on 3 series from 94 to 96.

In fact, Robinson actually played 6 series in those 3 years, not 3. These were also the best statistical years of his career. By your own argument, Robinson's #'s post 97 back injury are to be discounted or ignored.

Given that we are ignoring Robinson's dragged down #'s post 97, he played in 53 playoff games from 1989 to 1997.

29 out of 53 or 55% of Robinson's playoff games came from 1994-1996. So calling my analysis cherrypicking is asinine. I picked the majority of Robinson's playoff games during his prime NBA seasons.

For Hakeem you picked out a 4 game series in 89 and a 4 game series in 98 when he was 36 yrs old. 8 games out of a 145 game postseason career.

See the difference?!

-I also did read through your "analysis" and never saw anything resembling a decent argument about Robinson's playoff #'s. All you could cite was that in a few cases some of his #'s went up in the postseason.

Robinson played in the playoffs 6 seasons before his debilitating back injuries. During this time, his #'s decreased from regular season in 3 season (94-95-96; the drops in 94 and 95 were enormous). 1990 was a wash; 1991 saw them increase (small ball GS series); 1992 was down a bit as well (PPG stayed the same, but FG% again declined quite a bit).

So net, net, there's obviously a decline in Robinson's postseason prowess pre back surgery. Stop bringing up the 18.9 ppg overall playoff averages because for the past 50 posts all that is being discussed in Robinson's pre injury #'s. Are you going to actually acknowledge that Robinson's playoff declines can not be completely attributed to playing the majority of his playoff games post back injury? Somehow, I doubt it.

Also, I've seen in these posts from you some of the most bizarre analysis. However, comparing a KJ dunk on Olajuwon (in a playoff loss) to a shot by Barkley that ended the Spurs season, won the series, and shut down Hemisfair Arena may take the cake.

You realize there is a difference between a facial of a dunk which in a random game which had no effect on the outcome and a series clinching shot, correct?

There's nothing to cherrypick about Hakeem's playoff #'s. They consistently were up big over his regular season #'s. One of the best playoff performers of all time. Bigtime players step up in big games. Go ahead and try to deny it. You can rewrite and falsify history in your mind but realize that the majority of the world sees things through clear, not silver and black tinted lenses.

I don't care if Robinson's stats went up in the '91 series vs Golden State. The Spurs had a super team and should have won. They had mings, Sean "the assassin" Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_, Willie Anderson, and Rod Strickland. There's no wat an elite center lets that get away.

I think DRob was up against Stanley "eat 'em while theyre hot" Roberts.

[Galileo]

Exactly. It's not rocket science. Great post basketball opens up wide open looks for shooters.

Hakeem did it. Kareem did it. Shaq did it. Duncan did it.

Guys like Robinson and Garnett and Nowitzki who are turn and faceup players can't do it as effectively.

Defensive schemes are much more compromised and vulnerable to having to concede outside shots when you have a dominant post. It's easier for the big to find open shooters.

While Hakeem did have better shooters than David, David had the better slashers and penetrators. Elliott and AJ could do this for SA where Houston was a poorly composed team with Hakeem, Thorpe, and a bunch of stand still shooters who couldn't drive and finish or drive and kick out (until Drexler changed that and gave them taht balance but at the expense of interior strength).

Hakeem also never palyed with a dominant rebounder/defensive stud big like Robinson did with Rodman for 2-3 seasons. Otis Thorpe was very solid and steady and filled this role very well, but just was not the talent that Rodman was.

If you remember, Akeem spent the first half of his career asking management to get him some guards!

"Can you get me some guards?"

[Admiral]

Hakeem also never palyed with a dominant rebounder/defensive stud big like Robinson did with Rodman for 2-3 seasons. Otis Thorpe was very solid and steady and filled this role very well, but just was not the talent that Rodman was.

Um, Otis Thorpe was an All-Star and has over 17,000 career points and 10,000 career rebounds. Plus he never sat on the sidelines with his shoes off in "protest," got ejected from multiple games, created needless distraction, or bailed out on his teammates for selfish reasons like Rodman did.

I would take Otis Thorpe over Dennis Rodman any day. Rodman's rebounding was superior to Thorpe's, but Thorpe was a legitimate threat on both ends.

[Admiral]

I don't care if Robinson's stats went up in the '91 series vs Golden State. The Spurs had a super team and should have won. They had mings, Sean "the assassin" Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_, Willie Anderson, and Rod Strickland. There's no wat an elite center lets that get away.

I think DRob was up against Stanley "eat 'em while theyre hot" Roberts.

If you are going to discount Robinson's performance against Golden State because they didn't have a legitimate big man, are you also willing to do the same for Hakeem? How about all of the crappy guards Michael Jordan played against in the playoffs?

[bobbyjoe]

Rodman's defense was also much superior to Thorpe's. The guy has 5 rings, he was a winner.

Rodman wasn't a threat offensively, but he was a beast at creating second chance offensive opportunities by pounding the glass, which increases a team's chances to score.

If his offense was such a liability, he wouldnt have 5 rings. He was a lot like Big Ben Wallace, a guy who could greatly impact a game despite not being a scorer.

[bobbyjoe]

If you are going to discount Robinson's performance against Golden State because they didn't have a legitimate big man, are you also willing to do the same for Hakeem? How about all of the crappy guards Michael Jordan played against in the playoffs?

Huh? Hakeem was at his best against the best compe ion. Ewing, O'Neal, Robinson, etc. In the playoffs. There's not a similarity here Admiral. For there to be one, Hakeem would have had to have made a living in the postseason fattening up on weak big men. Same for MJ. Did MJ only paly well in the palyoffs against crap guards? C'mon.

Robinson had a great series against GS in a losing effort. Where were these types of efforts on balance in the playoffs though besdies this series? They just weren't there.

No one is saying Robinson wasn't a great player, but on par with Hakeem or O'Neal or Tim Duncan? Nope.

[Galileo]

Rodman's defense was also much superior to Thorpe's. The guy has 5 rings, he was a winner.

Rodman wasn't a threat offensively, but he was a beast at creating second chance offensive opportunities by pounding the glass, which increases a team's chances to score.

If his offense was such a liability, he wouldnt have 5 rings. He was a lot like Big Ben Wallace, a guy who could greatly impact a game despite not being a scorer.

I'm partial to Thorpe. I think he was better than Rodman. He had giant hands and was a great slasher. He was a bad free thorw shooter and shot-blocker, but he could post up on offense. I remember seeing him in games when Akeem was injured.

[bobbyjoe]

Thorpe was solid and underrated, no doubt. He did have a very good post game. Dude was a hoss too, he didnt miss games. I'd still take the Worm, even with his baggage.

I know it's hard for Spurs fans to look at the Worm's career without focusing on the dissapointments in SA, but he was a key piece to le teams the rest of his career. Things just didnt work out in the Alamo City for whatever reason. I think he needed more of a disciplinarian Coach like a Chuck Daly to keep him in line. Bob Hill was too much of a player's coach.

I bet Rodman would have been dynamite under Popovich...

[Phenomanul]

Exactly. It's not rocket science. Great post basketball opens up wide open looks for shooters.

Hakeem did it. Kareem did it. Shaq did it. Duncan did it.

Guys like Robinson and Garnett and Nowitzki who are turn and faceup players can't do it as effectively.

Defensive schemes are much more compromised and vulnerable to having to concede outside shots when you have a dominant post. It's easier for the big to find open shooters.

While Hakeem did have better shooters than David, David had the better slashers and penetrators. Elliott and AJ could do this for SA where Houston was a poorly composed team with Hakeem, Thorpe, and a bunch of stand still shooters who couldn't drive and finish or drive and kick out (until Drexler changed that and gave them taht balance but at the expense of interior strength).

Hakeem also never played with a dominant rebounder/defensive stud big like Robinson did with Rodman for 2-3 seasons. Otis Thorpe was very solid and steady and filled this role very well, but just was not the talent that Rodman was.

You do realize that Drexler was a big offensive part of that series in 1995?

Dammit bobbyjoe, how many factual errors are you allowed to spew before conceding that you may perhaps be underrating David's career?

By the way, the Rockets also had this tricky little guard called Sam Cassell. Um... not to burst your bubble, but Cassell wasn't just a spot up shooter, he has always been crafty. And lastly, this guy called Mario Elie was a fearless slasher.... he didn't have the finesse around the basket that guys like MJ, Kobe or Wade possess.... Elie simply barrelled his way through people to get to the rim...

Also, your insistance on using Rodman as a reason to knock the Admiral's post season performances is simply perplexing. Rodman was a great, actually an elite, complement to teams equipped with all-star guards (i.e. he complemented Dumars and Thomas on the Pistons and MJ on the Bulls). To suggest that he opened up the game for Robinson is simply absurd. It shows a severe lack of understanding of the game of Basketball and ultimately why your perception of David's shortcommings is downright skewed.

As I showed in several of posts, Championship teams require that players actually make their outside shots... clutch shots... game winning jumpers. You insist on slamming David for his teammates' inability to knock them in. Yet every Champion from 1990 to date has required them. Repeat that 50 times, maybe then you will understand why he was unable to carry the Larry O'Brien in his prime.

[Phenomanul]

Huh? Hakeem was at his best against the best compe ion. Ewing, O'Neal, Robinson, etc. In the playoffs. There's not a similarity here Admiral. For there to be one, Hakeem would have had to have made a living in the postseason fattening up on weak big men. Same for MJ. Did MJ only paly well in the palyoffs against crap guards? C'mon.

Robinson had a great series against GS in a losing effort. Where were these types of efforts on balance in the playoffs though besdies this series? They just weren't there.

No one is saying Robinson wasn't a great player, but on par with Hakeem or O'Neal or Tim Duncan? Nope.

And that's what it boils down to.... your agenda in this thread has been crystal clear throughout. Your feeble mind can't allow for players like Olojuwon and Robinson to be considered equals... because that would then imply that Robinson was actually better than Shaq, and essentially drop 'your boy' lower in the list of all-time great centers. Robinson owned Shaq in the head to head meetings before his injury.

Shaq was an amazing player, no doubt. But one with serious flaws in his game. Having said that, he never had Robinsons versatility or his defensive presence, only better supporting casts. Feel free to look at Robinson's win share percentage (both offensively and defensively) throughout his prime. He had to do more for his teams to win. Shaq however, could rely on better supporting casts to achieve his post-season success.

Just be glad that he had Kobe, and the 2nd most competent outside shooting cast in the history of the playoffs in Horry, Fisher, Shaw, Rice, Fox, and Harper. He needed them as much as Hakeem needed Horry, Cassell, Elie, Drexler, and Kenny Smith.

[bobbyjoe]

You do realize that Drexler was a big offensive part of that series in 1995?

Dammit bobbyjoe, how many factual errors are you allowed to spew before conceding that you may perhaps be underrating David's career?

By the way, the Rockets also had this tricky little guard called Sam Cassell. Um... not to burst your bubble, but Cassell wasn't just a spot up shooter, he has always been crafty. And lastly, this guy called Mario Elie was a fearless slasher.... he didn't have the finesse around the basket that guys like MJ, Kobe or Wade possess.... Elie simply barrelled his way through people to get to the rim...

Also, your insistance on using Rodman as a reason to knock the Admiral's post season performances is simply perplexing. Rodman was a great, actually an elite, complement to teams equipped with all-star guards (i.e. he complemented Dumars and Thomas on the Pistons and MJ on the Bulls). To suggest that he opened up the game for Robinson is simply absurd. It shows a severe lack of understanding of the game of Basketball and ultimately why your perception of David's shortcommings is downright skewed.

As I showed in several of posts, Championship teams require that players actually make their outside shots... clutch shots... game winning jumpers. You insist on slamming David for his teammates' inability to knock them in. Yet every Champion from 1990 to date has required them. Repeat that 50 times, maybe then you will understand why he was unable to carry the Larry O'Brien in his prime.

You claim that a PF rebounding machine who's capable of defending multiple positions extremely well isnt an asset in terms of complementing a big man and then question someone else's knowledge of basketball? Way to expose your own lack of knowledge.

How the did Rodman "open up the game" for MJ? Big men who can receive the ball in the paint off penetration and finish at the rim are ideal complements to elite guards and Rodman was anything but that. Rodman's value to the Bulls was on the glass and on D, not "opening up the game for Jordan".

Guys like Duncan, Robinson, Hakeem, etc need that banger PF to complement them by doing dirty work, being able to guard the other team's bigman at times, crash the boards, and having their back when they go play help D. It helps them conserve energy and roam more defensively.

You'd think a fan of a team that won 2 les with a combination of Tim Duncan and David Robinson would understand the value of a great complementary bigman to a superstar big!!!!

[Phenomanul]

Anyways... this thread can't go on forever. And I can't waste my time arguing with haters like yourself. If anything, I hope newer Spurs fans get a chance to read it and truly understand how great David Maurice Robinson was...

It's a travesty that Spurs fans continue to undervalue David's legacy.

[bobbyjoe]

And that's what it boils down to.... your agenda in this thread has been crystal clear throughout. Your feeble mind can't allow for players like Olojuwon and Robinson to be considered equals... because that would then imply that Robinson was actually better than Shaq, and essentially drop 'your boy' lower in the list of all-time great centers. Robinson owned Shaq in the head to head meetings before his injury.

Shaq was an amazing player, no doubt. But one with serious flaws in his game. Having said that, he never had Robinsons versatility or his defensive presence, only better supporting casts. Feel free to look at Robinson's win share percentage (both offensively and defensively) throughout his prime. He had to do more for his teams to win. Shaq however, could rely on better supporting casts to achieve his post-season success.

Just be glad that he had Kobe, and the 2nd most competent outside shooting cast in the history of the playoffs in Horry, Fisher, Shaw, Rice, Fox, and Harper. He needed them as much as Hakeem needed Horry, Cassell, Elie, Drexler, and Kenny Smith.

I guess the entire world has an "agenda" then because there isnt even anything to debate regarding Robinson vs. O'Neal. Are you really THAT biased?

Such a ridiculous statement doesn't even merit any serious discussion.

[Phenomanul]

You claim that a PF rebounding machine who's capable of defending multiple positions extremely well isnt an asset in terms of complementing a big man and then question someone else's knowledge of basketball? Way to expose your own lack of knowledge.

How the did Rodman "open up the game" for MJ? Big men who can receive the ball in the paint off penetration and finish at the rim are ideal complements to elite guards and Rodman was anything but that. Rodman's value to the Bulls was on the glass and on D, not "opening up the game for Jordan".

Seriously????

Dude, Jordan was a perimeter threat.... He needed Rodman's complementary inside presence.

Rodman cluttered the paint for Robinson because he had no jumper of which to speak of. Rodman's entire offensive game was exclusively centered on offensive putbacks, or breakaway dunks as the trailer (since he would usually start the breaks with a rebound).

Guys like Duncan, Robinson, Hakeem, etc need that banger PF to complement them by doing dirty work, being able to guard the other team's bigman at times, crash the boards, and having their back when they go play help D. It helps them conserve energy and roam more defensively.

Which would be a point if Rodman had actually shouldered the defensive load of guarding Hakeem Olojuwon. He hardly covered Olojuwon as the primary defender in the series. Another factual inaccuracy on your part... the list is getting quite long. Your stubborn arrogance is quite laughable at this point.

You'd think a fan of a team that won 2 les with a combination of Tim Duncan and David Robinson would understand the value of a great complementary bigman to a superstar big!!!!

Robinson and Duncan played a very effective "Hi-Lo" game. When you learn what that is, you may come to the realization that a player with Rodman's skillset could never have been a cog in that scheme. Nice try, but.... ummmm no.

[Phenomanul]

I guess the entire world has an "agenda" then because there isnt even anything to debate regarding Robinson vs. O'Neal. Are you really THAT biased?

Such a ridiculous statement doesn't even merit any serious discussion.

If by entire world you mean the 'media'. Whatever helps you sleep at night.

I believe whottt completely detroyed your last attempt to discuss the matter of Shaq vs. Robinson. I can't believe you would actually show up for some more butt whoopin'.

[ambchang]

You need to look up the facts before this ridiculous spin-fest.

Cute. Try calling out people for doing what you are doing to divert attention, probably the oldest trick on message boards.

Funny thing is that you started doing that the second I pulled out all the stuff you never even responded to and try to change arguments from one post to another.

I am not basing Robinson's postseason resume on 3 series from 94 to 96.

In fact, Robinson actually played 6 series in those 3 years, not 3. These were also the best statistical years of his career. By your own argument, Robinson's #'s post 97 back injury are to be discounted or ignored.

Given that we are ignoring Robinson's dragged down #'s post 97, he played in 53 playoff games from 1989 to 1997.

29 out of 53 or 55% of Robinson's playoff games came from 1994-1996. So calling my analysis cherrypicking is asinine. I picked the majority of Robinson's playoff games during his prime NBA seasons.

Really?

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

I really don’t know how to make of this paragraph, on one hand you specifically mentioned 3-series as evidence to Robinson’s decline in those years, on the other …. Oh wait, there isn’t another scenario you were making.

Hold on, hold on, there is one play that you spoke of in addition to the series.

For Hakeem you picked out a 4 game series in 89 and a 4 game series in 98 when he was 36 yrs old. 8 games out of a 145 game postseason career.

See the difference?!

Of course I did. So why don’t you say this earlier instead of citing 3 series and one play as an example? You came up with great numbers to back up your claim didn’t you?

Excuse me, I couldn’t find the numbers from your posts, maybe I went blind. Could you strip out his numbers from series to series?

I mean, like how David Robinson averaged 30ppg vs. the Lakers in 95. Or shot 51% vs. the Nuggets in the same year, or how he scored 30ppg on 56% shooting vs. Barkley and the Suns in 96. I need numbers like those regarding Hakeem as well.

You mentioned something about taking all 29 games in that 3 seasons as an example. Oops, maybe you were really talking about how his averages suffered in only 3 series, namely the 2 Jazz and the one Rockets series, weren’t you?

BTW:

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

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

Maybe you should brush up on your comprehension skills a little, eh?

And for the 15th time, FIND ME WHERE I SAID ROBINONS PERFORMED BETTER, OR EVEN JUST AS WELL IN THE PLAYOFFS AS HAKEEM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Please?

-I also did read through your "analysis" and never saw anything resembling a decent argument about Robinson's playoff #'s. All you could cite was that in a few cases some of his #'s went up in the postseason.

Robinson played in the playoffs 6 seasons before his debilitating back injuries. During this time, his #'s decreased from regular season in 3 season (94-95-96; the drops in 94 and 95 were enormous). 1990 was a wash; 1991 saw them increase (small ball GS series); 1992 was down a bit as well (PPG stayed the same, but FG% again declined quite a bit).

I hate to quote myself, and I hate to think that you are flat out lying. So I will just pretend that my original “analysis” was never posted, and miraculously can only appear on my computer such that you couldn’t read it. Here it is again.

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

Besides, 50% went up, 50% went down, really shows somebody choking, huh?

I also find it interesting as to putting some sort of an asterisks on the GS series. I can do the same, I will say we should throw out the Jazz and Rockets series, because they were constantly double and triple teaming Robinson, which is not common practice.

So net, net, there's obviously a decline in Robinson's postseason prowess pre back surgery. Stop bringing up the 18.9 ppg overall playoff averages because for the past 50 posts all that is being discussed in Robinson's pre injury #'s. Are you going to actually acknowledge that Robinson's playoff declines can not be completely attributed to playing the majority of his playoff games post back injury? Somehow, I doubt it.

Oh, so you are saying that the 18.9 ppg is NOT a point afterall, that you were wrong to bring it up. Why didn’t you mention that earlier?

Here is an in-depth “analysis” for you. Why don’t you go through all his playoff games from 90 to 96, and see how many games he performed well, and how many he didn’t perform well. I mean, you hate cherrypicking, right?

Also, I've seen in these posts from you some of the most bizarre analysis. However, comparing a KJ dunk on Olajuwon (in a playoff loss) to a shot by Barkley that ended the Spurs season, won the series, and shut down Hemisfair Arena may take the cake.

You realize there is a difference between a facial of a dunk which in a random game which had no effect on the outcome and a series clinching shot, correct?

I am puzzled by the bizarre comment, bizarre how? Care to explain. I find your use of the word bizarre to be quite bizarre.

And I am sure forcing Barkley to shoot a contested 18-foot jumper shows how poorly Robinson choked. I mean, talking about bizarre and cherrypicking. If you seriously believe that Barkley scoring on ONE play shows Robinson choked, then there really isn’t any other way I can prove you are hater more than that.

I will go on the same logic.

Scoring 23 pts on 7-15 shooting in a 3 pt OT loss in a game 7 after averaging 26.1 ppg on 52.9% shooting in the regular season. Hey, at least we can talk about one game instead of one shot, right?

There's nothing to cherrypick about Hakeem's playoff #'s. They consistently were up big over his regular season #'s. One of the best playoff performers of all time. Bigtime players step up in big games. Go ahead and try to deny it. You can rewrite and falsify history in your mind but realize that the majority of the world sees things through clear, not silver and black tinted lenses.

LOL, again, brush up on your comprehension skills. It was a direct refute to your asinine assertion that Robinson choked based on a few games of his career. It was used to illustrate how truly insane it is to look at a few games to draw a conclusion on a person’s career. DO YOU FINALLY GET IT?

Exactly. It's not rocket science. Great post basketball opens up wide open looks for shooters.

Hakeem did it. Kareem did it. Shaq did it. Duncan did it.

Guys like Robinson and Garnett and Nowitzki who are turn and faceup players can't do it as effectively.

Defensive schemes are much more compromised and vulnerable to having to concede outside shots when you have a dominant post. It's easier for the big to find open shooters.

This would have been a point if I hadn’t acknowledge it about 40 posts back. Hey, thanks for regurgitating.

While Hakeem did have better shooters than David, David had the better slashers and penetrators. Elliott and AJ could do this for SA where Houston was a poorly composed team with Hakeem, Thorpe, and a bunch of stand still shooters who couldn't drive and finish or drive and kick out (until Drexler changed that and gave them taht balance but at the expense of interior strength).

Let me see. A bunch of guys slashing into the paint that has been collapsed because nobody can shoot from the outside. Sounds like a great offense to me!

That really explained how Hakeem and his teams did so well with teammates who have to shoot from 23’9” vs. 22” for 3 points. Speaking of which, I am not sure if you saw the part about the shorter NBA three point line.

Hakeem also never palyed with a dominant rebounder/defensive stud big like Robinson did with Rodman for 2-3 seasons. Otis Thorpe was very solid and steady and filled this role very well, but just was not the talent that Rodman was.

Rodman? Are you serious? The same guy that allowed the Spurs to win 12 of 14 when he was injured? The same guy who refused to guard Horry and left him open for the career of his life? The same guy who allowed every single team to double and triple Robinson because of his zero offensive ability? The same guy who was traded for Will Perdue because no team wanted him? That Rodman?

Hey, it’s just a team game, team chemistry is not something you should worry about, you should worry about getting slashers to drive into the teeth of defense, when your biggest issue is not being able to open up the lane because your team can't shoot.

Finally, whatever happened to Robinson’s all-time ranking? I thought you were saying something about having a spinfest earlier on in this thread.

[ambchang]

I don't care if Robinson's stats went up in the '91 series vs Golden State. The Spurs had a super team and should have won. They had mings, Sean "the assassin" Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Lu ck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_Luck_The_Fakers_, Willie Anderson, and Rod Strickland. There's no wat an elite center lets that get away.

I think DRob was up against Stanley "eat 'em while theyre hot" Roberts.

Please do you homework before spewing crap.
Robinson did his share, his teammates didn't.

[ambchang]

Rodman's defense was also much superior to Thorpe's. The guy has 5 rings, he was a winner.

Rodman wasn't a threat offensively, but he was a beast at creating second chance offensive opportunities by pounding the glass, which increases a team's chances to score.

If his offense was such a liability, he wouldnt have 5 rings. He was a lot like Big Ben Wallace, a guy who could greatly impact a game despite not being a scorer.

Teams Rodman won on, they have at least TWO great perimeter threat. The Spurs had zero ... well, maybe one, but I wouldn't put Elliott on the same plateau as Dumars, Thomas, Pippen and Jordan, because that's what blind homers do.