If prime Robinson and prime Duncan switched era's

[ambchang]

And to wekko368, do you know who guarded Olajuwon in the 94 finals? It was Anthony Mason and Charles Oakley, two guys who are about the same height and strength as Rodman.

Do you know why the Knicks stretched the series to 7 games? It wasn’t because Ewing outplayed or matched Olajuwon, it was because players like Starks, Harper, Anthony, Davis, Oakley, Smith, and Mason actually played like NBA players in the series.

Do you know why the Knicks lost game 7? It’s because Starks shot 2 for 18, including 0-11 from 3.

Do you know why Olajuwon didn’t go for 40 a game in that series? It’s not because Ewing was a better defender than Robinson, it’s because his PF, Oakley and Mason, actually decided that defending was more important than grabbing rebounds.

[wekko368]

And to wekko368, do you know who guarded Olajuwon in the 94 finals? It was Anthony Mason and Charles Oakley, two guys who are about the same height and strength as Rodman.

I youtubed "1994 nba finals" and clicked on the first video I saw. It was the first 3 minutes of game 5. Out of the first 8 Rockets' possessions, Ewing guarded Olajuwon for 7 of them. The only exception occurred when Olajuwon was running the floor in on a fast break and was picked up by Charles Smith.

You know, when I allude to David Robinson (or anyone for that matter), I use statistics or video to back up my contentions. Some of you people are simply making things up and trying to pass them off as fact.

[wekko368]

One thing Rockets fans really have to understand, and I thought that with two championships and so many playoff games over the years that you would have gotten it, is that the playoffs revolves around matchup and exploiting weaknesses.

Rockets fan understand this. The arguments occur b/c Spurs fans feel the Rockets won b/c the Rockets' supporting cast had a huge advantage over the Spurs' supporting cast whereas Rockets fans feel that they won b/c Olajuwon had a huge advantage over Robinson (for that series).

Any objective fan outside of San Antonio would agree with Rocket fans.

[anonoftheinternets]

I youtubed "1994 nba finals" and clicked on the first video I saw. It was the first 3 minutes of game 5. Out of the first 8 Rockets' possessions, Ewing guarded Olajuwon for 7 of them. The only exception occurred when Olajuwon was running the floor in on a fast break and was picked up by Charles Smith.

You know, when I allude to David Robinson (or anyone for that matter), I use statistics or video to back up my contentions. Some of you people are simply making things up and trying to pass them off as fact.

some people have actually watched the games rather than youtube clips. We all know how highlights can be very different from actual games. But then again if this was clear cut, it wudnt be very interesting to discuss.

[ambchang]

I youtubed "1994 nba finals" and clicked on the first video I saw. It was the first 3 minutes of game 5. Out of the first 8 Rockets' possessions, Ewing guarded Olajuwon for 7 of them. The only exception occurred when Olajuwon was running the floor in on a fast break and was picked up by Charles Smith.

You know, when I allude to David Robinson (or anyone for that matter), I use statistics or video to back up my contentions. Some of you people are simply making things up and trying to pass them off as fact.

And instead of watching tidbits of video, I actually watched the series.

While Olajuwon caused most of Ewing's shooting problems, the Knicks sent a squadron of defenders at Olajuwon, the most effective of whom was Anthony Mason, their muscular, 6'7", 250-pound forward. Mason has a résumé that reads like a soldier of fortune's, and a mentality to match. "Have gun, will travel, baby," he says. "I'll take anybody they ask me to—guard, forward, center—and try to lock 'em up. Olajuwon's a great player, but it doesn't matter who I guard. I've played in Turkey, Austria, Venezuela, the CBA, the USBL, West 4th Street Park. I had to travel a long way. It keeps you hungry. You know that you never want to go back."

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vau...5308/index.htm

You know what? there are over 100 possessions per team in every single game. You had 8 and that was supposed to be some kind of significant statistics? Do you even know how statistics work?

I watched some highlights of Jordan, and he dunked in 80% of his shots, does that mean he scored 80% of his points on dunks?

[ambchang]

Rockets fan understand this. The arguments occur b/c Spurs fans feel the Rockets won b/c the Rockets' supporting cast had a huge advantage over the Spurs' supporting cast whereas Rockets fans feel that they won b/c Olajuwon had a huge advantage over Robinson (for that series).

Any objective fan outside of San Antonio would agree with Rocket fans.

I came up with the statistics to back up the effect of the supporting cast. Saying that a single player won a championship, or even a series by minimizing the contributions of a supporting cast in a team game is extremely funny.

And your objective fan comment has 2 issues:
1) How do you define objective?
2) You didn't come up with statistics like you claimed.

[wekko368]

some people have actually watched the games rather than youtube clips. We all know how highlights can be very different from actual games. But then again if this was clear cut, it wudnt be very interesting to discuss.

It wasn't a youtube clip. It was the entire game broken into 8 different youtube videos.

I went back and watched pieces of each video. It looks like Ewing stopped guarding Olajuwon when he got into foul trouble (picked up his 3rd foul at the beginning of the 3rd quarter).

[wekko368]

I came up with the statistics to back up the effect of the supporting cast. Saying that a single player won a championship, or even a series by minimizing the contributions of a supporting cast in a team game is extremely funny.

Of course the Rockets' role players stepped their game up a few notches. That goes without saying. But the key to the series was that Olajuwon's game went up to a whole new level.

And your objective fan comment has 2 issues:
1) How do you define objective?
2) You didn't come up with statistics like you claimed.

An objective person is one with no bias.

Actually, I provided many statistics throughout this thread. Feel free to scroll back and read them.

[kingmalaki]

And to wekko368, do you know who guarded Olajuwon in the 94 finals? It was Anthony Mason and Charles Oakley, two guys who are about the same height and strength as Rodman.

Do you know why the Knicks stretched the series to 7 games? It wasn’t because Ewing outplayed or matched Olajuwon, it was because players like Starks, Harper, Anthony, Davis, Oakley, Smith, and Mason actually played like NBA players in the series.

Do you know why the Knicks lost game 7? It’s because Starks shot 2 for 18, including 0-11 from 3.

Do you know why Olajuwon didn’t go for 40 a game in that series? It’s not because Ewing was a better defender than Robinson, it’s because his PF, Oakley and Mason, actually decided that defending was more important than grabbing rebounds.

Ewing was the primary defender on Hakeem, not Mason or Oakley. And Hakeem didn't put up 40 a night, but he put up around 27 a night on 50%, even though the average score was in the 80s. He put up over 30% of the Rockets offense. The Spurs series was just a higher scoring one.

Since the series was so tight, do you think it's probable that SA advances if Robinson brings his normal production on either side of the ball in the last two games? The Spurs weren't a great shooting team all season, yet they won when Robinson dominated. He was no longer the best player on the court and that was the main difference. When you go from typically dominating a matchup every night to the opposite, it makes a big difference. It seems like you are deflecting Robinson from his share of the blame for underperforming on both sides of the ball. Giving up 40 a night on a blistering 60% is not acceptable. Shooting 37% on the final game is not acceptable. This is your STAR player!!

[kingmalaki]

some people have actually watched the games rather than youtube clips. We all know how highlights can be very different from actual games. But then again if this was clear cut, it wudnt be very interesting to discuss.

I have the series on DVD. I don't see how anyone could say Ewing wasn't the primary defender on Hakeem. At times Mason and Oakley got turns on him to give Pat a break, or due to foul concerns.

[ambchang]

It wasn't a youtube clip. It was the entire game broken into 8 different youtube videos.

I went back and watched pieces of each video. It looks like Ewing stopped guarding Olajuwon when he got into foul trouble (picked up his 3rd foul at the beginning of the 3rd quarter).

You are really confusing me here, in the previous post, you said:

I youtubed "1994 nba finals" and clicked on the first video I saw. It was the first 3 minutes of game 5. Out of the first 8 Rockets' possessions, Ewing guarded Olajuwon for 7 of them. The only exception occurred when Olajuwon was running the floor in on a fast break and was picked up by Charles Smith.

The whole game, broken into 8 different youtube videos, had 8 Rocket's posessions, and Ewing guarded Olajuwon in 7 of them? What? The Rockets scored 15 points in that game, or did they have a lot of 12 point possessions?

[ambchang]

Of course the Rockets' role players stepped their game up a few notches. That goes without saying. But the key to the series was that Olajuwon's game went up to a whole new level.

The key of the whole series is that the Rockets were simply a better team. I noticed you somehow couldn't see the post where I broke down the results compared to the Rockets vs. Spurs 3 pt shooting.

An objective person is one with no bias.

You find me such a person, and I will give you the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

Actually, I provided many statistics throughout this thread. Feel free to scroll back and read them.

But then again, I was referring to the one where you said "Most" objective people would agree with you.

EDIT: I actually scrolled back and see what kind of grand statistics you came up with, and in most cases, you were basically saying Hakeem scoring a whole lot of points shooting a high % is proof that he is opening up the outside for his shooters.

That's the whole point of the thread, and that is whether Olajuwon going off is a result or a cause of the Rocket's potent 3 pt shooting. You can't use what people are arguing about as some sort of proof.

What I can say though, is that that Rockets team was a great system, and the Lakers and Spurs have since tried to copy and improve on that system.

BTW, I also went check on the Olajuwon foul situation vs. the Spurs in the 95 regular season. In 6 regular season games, Olajuwon had 4+ fouls in 5 of them, including one game where he had to play lower minutes because of foul trouble.

[ambchang]

Ewing was the primary defender on Hakeem, not Mason or Oakley. And Hakeem didn't put up 40 a night, but he put up around 27 a night on 50%, even though the average score was in the 80s. He put up over 30% of the Rockets offense. The Spurs series was just a higher scoring one.

Perhaps I wasn't making myself clear. I was responding directly to the point where wekko368 asked how Rodman could have guarded Olajuwon, when a taller, stronger Robinson couldn't.

Oakley and Mason was very effective (and effective as in compared to Ewing) despite being shorter and about as strong. A player defending the post could be voracious if he puts his heart to it, Rodman could be such a player if he decided to.

Since the series was so tight, do you think it's probable that SA advances if Robinson brings his normal production on either side of the ball in the last two games? The Spurs weren't a great shooting team all season, yet they won when Robinson dominated. He was no longer the best player on the court and that was the main difference. When you go from typically dominating a matchup every night to the opposite, it makes a big difference. It seems like you are deflecting Robinson from his share of the blame for underperforming on both sides of the ball. Giving up 40 a night on a blistering 60% is not acceptable. Shooting 37% on the final game is not acceptable. This is your STAR player!!

Since the series was so tight, do you think it's probable that SA advances if the spurs supporting casts could actually hit some wide open jumpshots when the Rockets double and triple Robinson? The Rockets had the whole gameplan designed around leaving the Spurs open for open shots and stopping Robinson, and it worked. The only game the Spurs were nailing 3 pters better than the Rockets, the Spurs won by 22 points. The only game where the Spurs shot a decent % from 3, the Spurs won by 5, and Robinson shot 10 for 15. You think that was a coincidence?

You think Rodman deciding not to guard Horry and hang around the basket for rebounds have absolutely no effect on how Robinson guarded Olajuwon? You think Del Negro letting Drexler go past him on every damned drive had no effect on Robinson, especially when he was the only one protecting the paint?

You know what happened the only time a team decided to shut down Olajuwon and let his teammates beat them? The Rockets lost, and Olajuwon scored 18.5 ppg on 44% shooting. You know why they can do that? Because that Houston team shot 11-40 on 3pters in the whole series, and they let a player like Vernon Maxwell outshoot Olajuwon.

In the 95 series, Robinson shot about the same amount of shots as AJ, Elliott, or in some cases Doc Rivers. You know why? Because the Rockets defense was letting them, and it worked. Olajuwon, on the other hand, was shooting far more shots than his teammates, because the Spurs head coach was too stupid to see that single teamming Olajuwon, and leaving Horry open for wide open shots by leaving Rodman in the game is killing the Spurs.

[Phenomanul]

EDIT: BTW, do you know how Robinson did the game the Spurs made 9 3pters? He made 10 of 15 shots, scoring 29 points. Do you know why he was able to do that? Maybe because the lanes got wider because he wasn't constantly being doubled and tripled because the Rockets player had to get back on their man.

Rockets fans are not going to admit this into the discussion... they come in here blasting about an inside/outside offense and pretend that it only works because the post player makes it work... I have yet to see an unbiased response that admits that the viability of such a scheme also depends on the execution of the perimeter players...

That if the perimeter core doesn't contribute on par... the inside game collapses... when that happens it doesn't matter how great the post player is, the scheme will no longer work...

[wekko368]

You are really confusing me here, in the previous post, you said:


The whole game, broken into 8 different youtube videos, had 8 Rocket's posessions, and Ewing guarded Olajuwon in 7 of them? What? The Rockets scored 15 points in that game, or did they have a lot of 12 point possessions?

Sorry, I didn't realize my post was so confusing.

The whole game was broken down into 8 different youtube videos. I watched the first video which showed the game introduction as well as the first 3 minutes of play. During those three minutes, the Rockets had the ball 8 times. For 7 of those 8 possessions, Ewing guarded Olajuwon. The exception occurred when Olajuwon ran the floor on a fast break and was picked up by Charles Oakley.

Does that make more sense?

[wekko368]

The key of the whole series is that the Rockets were simply a better team. I noticed you somehow couldn't see the post where I broke down the results compared to the Rockets vs. Spurs 3 pt shooting.

What's the point? The Rockets' 3 point shooters were generally open because Olajuwon required extra defensive attention. However, there seems to a number of Spurs fans who would rather believe that Horry, Cassell, and K.Smith were playmakers.

You find me such a person, and I will give you the pot of gold at the end of a rainbow.

Why not go to another team's board and ask them whether they think the 95 Rockets/Spurs series was determined more by the matchup of the supporting casts or the matchup between Olajuwon/Robinson?

But then again, I was referring to the one where you said "Most" objective people would agree with you.

EDIT: I actually scrolled back and see what kind of grand statistics you came up with, and in most cases, you were basically saying Hakeem scoring a whole lot of points shooting a high % is proof that he is opening up the outside for his shooters.

Actually, given the Rockets' style of inside-out play, that should be all the proof you need. Additionally, I gave statistics showing how Robinson's production declined when compared to his regular season numbers.

That's the whole point of the thread, and that is whether Olajuwon going off is a result or a cause of the Rocket's potent 3 pt shooting. You can't use what people are arguing about as some sort of proof.

Use common sense. Why would Spurs' defenders leave their man to help Olajuwon? Obviously, it was because Olajuwon was being dominant.

Can you give me one example in NBA history where a team used long range shooting as a means to create space for their post player?

Also, the Rockets' offense at the time was inside-out....not outside-in.

BTW, I also went check on the Olajuwon foul situation vs. the Spurs in the 95 regular season. In 6 regular season games, Olajuwon had 4+ fouls in 5 of them, including one game where he had to play lower minutes because of foul trouble.

True, he never fouled out. Also, in that one game where he played fewer minutes, he played about the same number of minutes as Robinson.

[wekko368]

Rockets fans are not going to admit this into the discussion... they come in here blasting about an inside/outside offense and pretend that it only works because the post player makes it work... I have yet to see an unbiased response that admits that the viability of such a scheme also depends on the execution of the perimeter players...

That if the perimeter core doesn't contribute on par... the inside game collapses... when that happens it doesn't matter how great the post player is, the scheme will no longer work...

If you're using a train to transport cargo from Point A to Point B, both the locomotive and the railcars are essential.

But no one in their right mind would say that the railcars are anywhere near as important as the locomotive.

[Phenomanul]

What's the point? The Rockets' 3 point shooters were generally open because Olajuwon required extra defensive attention. However, there seems to a number of Spurs fans who would rather believe that Horry, Cassell, and K.Smith were playmakers.

ummm... no... we're contending that they were shotmakers... BIG difference. Seems to be the crux of our disagreement.

Why not go to another team's board and ask them whether they think the 95 Rockets/Spurs series was determined more by the matchup of the supporting casts or the matchup between Olajuwon/Robinson?

Other boards or the general NBA community has no incentive for picking that series apart. They simply know the outcome and regurgitate the prevailing theories of how it played out...

This argument is irrelevant.

Actually, given the Rockets' style of inside-out play, that should be all the proof you need. Additionally, I gave statistics showing how Robinson's production declined when compared to his regular season numbers.

Seems to me you didn't watch the series... No one's numbers get better when the other teams guards are sagging off of their men to guard you up close... just ask Wilt Chamberlain. The Rockets help defenders had every reason in the world to leave the Spurs' shooters wide open... Their focus was on crowding Robinson... why do you think he got to the free-throw line so often???

The only valid non-argument you'll get from Spurs' fans is the concession of the egg that Robinson laid in Game 5.

Use common sense. Why would Spurs' defenders leave their man to help Olajuwon? Obviously, it was because Olajuwon was being dominant.

Already been addressed... it's because they were employing the wrong defensive strategy throughout the series... They should have stayed on the perimeter shooters and let Olojuwon get his...

Can you give me one example in NBA history where a team used long range shooting as a means to create space for their post player?

The 1994 Rockets
The 1995 Rockets
The 2001 Lakers
The 2002 Lakers
The 2003 Spurs
The 2008 Magic

Also, the Rockets' offense at the time was inside-out....not outside-in.

Ummm... they are the same damn thing. Ultimately however, the scheme doesn't work if either the inside or outside presence doesn't establish itself. In the lone game that the Spurs were able to establish both the Spurs blew out the Rockets... Robinson shot 66% from the field in that game, and the Spurs doubled their production of 3 point makes. Robinson established his end of the bargain in the first four games... the rest of the Spurs only managed to do so in one of those.... Fortunately for Rockets fans, the Rockets effectively established that offense in every game but one.

[Phenomanul]

If you're using a train to transport cargo from Point A to Point B, both the locomotive and the railcars are essential.

But no one in their right mind would say that the railcars are anywhere near as important as the locomotive.

Irrelevant metaphor...

My original point still stands... and there's really no way of refuting it. This is Basketball 101 material...

Rockets fans are not going to admit this into the discussion... they come in here blasting about an inside/outside offense and pretend that it only works because the post player makes it work... I have yet to see an unbiased response that admits that the viability of such a scheme also depends on the execution of the perimeter players...

That if the perimeter core doesn't contribute on par (by making shots)... the inside game collapses... when that happens it doesn't matter how great the post player is, the scheme will no longer work...

[wekko368]

ummm... no... we're contending that they were shotmakers... BIG difference. Seems to be the crux of our disagreement.

Yes, they hit the open shots that were generally created by Olajuwon.

Other boards or the general NBA community has no incentive for picking that series apart. They simply know the outcome and regurgitate the prevailing theories of how it played out...

This argument is irrelevant.

In other words, they'd disagree with you.

The Rockets help defenders had every reason in the world to leave the Spurs' shooters wide open... Their focus was on crowding Robinson... why do you think he got to the free-throw line so often???

Yeah, it was unfortunate for the Spurs. Olajuwon was destroying everyone in his path. If the Spurs tried to double team him, he'd kick it out to a teammate for an open look.

Already been addressed... it's because they were employing the wrong defensive strategy throughout the series... They should have stayed on the perimeter shooters and let Olojuwon get his...

Yes, wrong defensive strategy. You'd rather let Rodman guard Olajuwon and let him average 60 ppg.

The 1994 Rockets
The 1995 Rockets
The 2001 Lakers
The 2002 Lakers
The 2003 Spurs
The 2008 Magic

You think those teams are outside-in? No, No, No, No, No, No.

Ummm... they are the same damn thing. Ultimately however, the scheme doesn't work if either the inside or outside presence doesn't establish itself.

No, inside-out and outside-in are not the same thing. Inside-out is predicated on having a post presence so strong that it demands a double team. The post player then passes it out for an open 3 pt shot. If the double team doesn't come, the post player usually scores.

In an outside-in system, the perimeter shooters are so effective that their defenders refuse to leave them which allows the post player to go one on one.

[wekko368]

Irrelevant metaphor...

My original point still stands... and there's really no way of refuting it. This is Basketball 101 material...

It was actually a great analogy.

Btw, don't quote me and put words in my mouth at the same time.

[Phenomanul]

Yes, they hit the open shots that were generally created by Olajuwon.

Kenny Smith
Mario Elie
Robert Horry
Sam Cassell

all made their own damn shots... How difficult is that to understand??? Unless of course you are advocating some telekinetic ability Olojuwon had that we didn't know about.

In other words, they'd disagree with you.

Do I care??? Not everyone cares for the truth... they'd rather have a distorted view of reality that the series was played out by only two men. Yeah, real enlightning...

Yeah, it was unfortunate for the Spurs. Olajuwon was destroying everyone in his path. If the Spurs tried to double team him, he'd kick it out to a teammate for an open look.

Which is why you'd rather let Olojuwon get 2... instead of falling behind by 3 more... real smart there, buddy.

Yes, wrong defensive strategy. You'd rather let Rodman guard Olajuwon and let him average 60 ppg.

You'd really think anybody can average 60 ppg for a series??? Especially when Olojuwon never managed to score 60 points in an NBA game for his career (maybe once)... Yeah... again you don't know what you're talking about... This ridiculous notion confirms it.

You think those teams are outside-in? No, No, No, No, No, No.

That settles it... you are being obtuse...

No, inside-out and outside-in are not the same thing. Inside-out is predicated on having a post presence so strong that it demands a double team. The post player then passes it out for an open 3 pt shot. If the double team doesn't come, the post player usually scores.

In an outside-in system, the perimeter shooters are so effective that their defenders refuse to leave them which allows the post player to go one on one.

Both are predicated on the effectiveness of their execution... And the dynamics for one often leads to the other... which is why at the point of execution either a three is released or a layup is taken.... Both Olojuwon and his three point shooters were damn effective in that series...

But... feel free to think it was all about Olojuwon and his telekinetic abilities.... I no longer care to discuss the matter with you.

[kingmalaki]

Kenny Smith
Mario Elie
Robert Horry
Sam Cassell

all made their own damn shots... How difficult is that to understand??? Unless of course you are advocating some telekinetic ability Olojuwon had that we didn't know about.

He isn't denying that they made their own shots. He is saying they got those open shots because of the attention that Hakeem demanded. You are trying to give more credit to the role players making shots, as opposed to the star who requires a double team to get other guys looks. Sorry, but that makes no sense, especially when every guy you mention, outside of Drexler and maybe Cassell, really wasn't that great at creating their own shots. Like I mentioned earlier, this argument is as silly as me saying the Spurs role players in 2003 made the engine go, as opposed to Duncan who led the team in everything and got those dudes wide open shots because of the attention that he demanded.

As far as deciding who makes the engine go, you go with the player that requires the most attention. Do Elie, Horry, Cassell, or Smith require a double team to contain them? How often do they score when they aren't shooting wide open shots? How in the do they get wide open shots in the first place? What player can you not contain 1-1? What player creates open looks for other players? You know the answer to all of these questions. To assert that Hakeem wasn't the player making the system go makes absoultely no sense.

As far as the scheme to contain Robinson....was Robinson not double teamed in the regular season? Did he receive a level of attention in the 95 WCF's that he never had before? The answer to both of those questions is no. He just was facing a dude that he couldn't dominate, and his play suffered. Again, your star player is not supposed to allow a dude to score 40 a night on him on 60% shooting to close a series. Your star player is not supposed to shoot 37% in an elimination game, even when he is being double teames (what stars receive single coverage in the first place????). Will you please address these points, that you keep glossing over.

I am not trying to say all of the blame is on David. You win and lose as a team. But it's silly to sit here and keep saying his teammates let him down when his level of production took a big decrease, while the dude that he was holding had a career series. That makes no sense!!

Which is why you'd rather let Olojuwon get 2... instead of falling behind by 3 more... real smart there, buddy.

No coach would agree with you. A 2 pointer on 60% is worse than a 3 pointer at best, 40%.

Oakley and Mason was very effective (and effective as in compared to Ewing) despite being shorter and about as strong. A player defending the post could be voracious if he puts his heart to it, Rodman could be such a player if he decided to.

How were they that effective? Hakeem put up 27 a night on 50% shooting, and 30% of the teams offense. That's a very good scoring series. I don't see how you can conclude any defender was effective on him.

Since the series was so tight, do you think it's probable that SA advances if the spurs supporting casts could actually hit some wide open jumpshots when the Rockets double and triple Robinson?

Yep, completely possible. However, players did hit shots (Game 6 for example). The Spurs still lost with Robinson playing worse on both sides of the ball (shooting under 50% and giving up 40+ again). So are you saying Robinson received more defensive attention in the 95 WCF then he did during the regular season when he won the MVP?

[Admiral]

A different twist would be to ask how Tim Duncan would've fared against Hakeem in 1995. My guess is not much better than DRob. Hakeem was just lights out in the postseason that year.

[kingmalaki]

A different twist would be to ask how Tim Duncan would've fared against Hakeem in 1995. My guess is not much better than DRob. Hakeem was just lights out in the postseason that year.

I think Duncan would have actually done worse on Hakeem, but better against some of those other bigs. I don't see his production taking a dip in the postseason like Robinson's did. That's not to say Robinson was a slouch. I just think Tim was more reliable.