If you're trying to calculate a portion of their playoff stats, don't use game logs. Go to the playoff section on their main page and they have the raw numbers of each playoff. It's not each game, but it's the entire playoffs. That will make it easier for you to calculate what you think are their respective "primes." It shouldn't take more than 5 minutes, 10 minutes at most.
Tougher league back then. Less teams, more concentrated talent. Hakeem did beat the 80s Lakers in the WCF and only lost to a monster Celtic team in the Finals.
More teams now, teams are more diluted. Hakeem played in a tougher era with alot more great big men.
Honestly, other than Shaq, how many great big men were there during Duncan's era?
Hakeem shot 37% in the 3 games in 1990/1991 against San Antonio as well. Robinson shot 54% with 21/11. To be fair, it looks like Hakeem was injured for 2 of those games. Robinson played 5 vs Hakeem's 3.
I'm not looking at playoffs. I'm looking at the 42 games they played against each other in the regular seasons of their careers to show that "prime" Hakeem still didn't fare well against a young Robinson.
He doesn't need to. you think a prime Hakeem wouldn't dominate him again?
I dunno. Going on several seasons versus 1 playoff series makes it hard to say. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY I ASKED.
I never said the word dominated!! Still Hakeem was slightly better in other playoffs.
And i was talking about 95 dude!! 95!!
I guess than you're making a different argument.
I think my point would be when they faced each other, both well in their prime (late 20s, early 30s), in the playoffs when games actually really matter, Hakeem dropped a steaming hot load on David Robinson.
It was one playoff series, yes. But that's when it truly mattered.
If your argument is that in the regular season, David Robinson fared well against Hakeem, I wouldn't argue that.
In their primes, facing each other head-to-head when every game and every possession mattered, that's where it counts. You look at your Spurs now with the way Pop plays Manu and Duncan in the regular season, and how they perform in the playoffs, you know it's simply not the same to compare regular season games and playoff games.
And I'll clarify this again for all the people who won't read the entire thread. I'm not saying Robinson was better than Hakeem. What I'm calling into question is Hakeem's consistency. If he was such a dominant figure, why couldn't he outplay these guys in the regular season? I think everyone agrees he was more skilled than Robinson. Why did it only really show in one playoff series?
You should know playoffs put more emphasis on matchups, still Hakeem would have dominated him again
Well, first it only showed in one playoff series because they only played one playoff series. If they met more times in the playoffs, both in their prime, I think the same would have happened.
There could be a number of reasons why players play well or poorly in the regular season. Fatigue from back-to-backs and travel, playing through injury, any number of personal issues. That's why playoff stats are much more important and much better a gauge. That's when players really show their mettle and talent.
Do you look at Manu's regular season stats to determine how good a player he is?
I'm making a different argument to the same end though.
What I'm getting at is the sample size is too large to ignore. 6 vs 42 for Robinson. I might just look up other big men.I think my point would be when they faced each other, both well in their prime (late 20s, early 30s), in the playoffs when games actually really matter, Hakeem dropped a steaming hot load on David Robinson.
It was one playoff series, yes. But that's when it truly mattered.
Here's where Hakeem's two year dominance makes me wonder. Why did he only dominate others in those two years? He made the playoffs every year except one. I haven't looked but I doubt if you go back you can say he took apart other big in other playoff years.If your argument is that in the regular season, David Robinson fared well against Hakeem, I wouldn't argue that.
In their primes, facing each other head-to-head when every game and every possession mattered, that's where it counts. You look at your Spurs now with the way Pop plays Manu and Duncan in the regular season, and how they perform in the playoffs, you know it's simply not the same to compare regular season games and playoff games.
Probable. But I don't like probabilities when they're used as certainties.
And later on I'll look to see how he did against other bigs in playoff series throughout his career.There could be a number of reasons why players play well or poorly in the regular season. Fatigue from back-to-backs and travel, playing through injury, any number of personal issues. That's why playoff stats are much more important and much better a gauge. That's when players really show their mettle and talent.
In the seasons that he's been relatively healthy? Absolutely. Regular seasons help define players as well and I don't just discount them because I feel like it.Do you look at Manu's regular season stats to determine how good a player he is?
Hakeem got hot one series.
Saying regular season head to head match-ups doesn't matter is ridiculous.
It's like saying Sasha Vujacic is so much better than Manu Ginobili because in 2008 Vujacic got the better of Manu for 5 games.
Ignoring the regular season head to head matches is stupid and ignorant for any objective fan with an opinion. Especially considering they've only played 6 playoff games where the sample size is extremely small.
Prime Hakeem got hot for one series? Oh lawd, please tell me you aren't this biased....You're making Yaofans look decent
I know you didn't just ing compare Hakeem to Sasha and Ginobli to Robinson
Last edited by djohn2oo8; 05-23-2010 at 01:48 PM.
Maybe your comprehension skills need some work?
You think I'm too ignorant to understand that he's a Hall of Fame player?
Grow up. And have a decent take on your own for once instead stupid sop ric one-liners.
I know Olajuwon had many great performances in the playoffs, just like any Hall of Famer. I respect Olajuwon for what he's done in the league. He's a top 25 player to ever play in the NBA, that I'm sure.
I'm just saying it's ignorant to ignore the other times him and Robinson faced each other.
Vujacic averaged 7 points on 30% FG shooting for that series. Ginobili, as bad as he played, average 13 points on 36% shooting.
They both sucked. But it certainly isn't anywhere near the hot Hakeem took on D-Rob in 1995.
Regular season matters. But I don't think it matters nearly as much as the playoffs.
Matchups are going to be different each time, but the playoffs is where it matters the most. Unfortunately, that's the only time they played each other in the playoffs. Sure they had good matchups, but nobody remembers matchups in the regular season.Maybe your comprehension skills need some work?
You think I'm too ignorant to understand that he's a Hall of Fame player?
Grow up. And have a decent take on your own for once instead stupid sop ric one-liners.
I know Olajuwon had many great performances in the playoffs, just like any Hall of Famer. I respect Olajuwon for what he's done in the league. He's a top 25 player to ever play in the NBA, that I'm sure.
I'm just saying it's ignorant to ignore the other times him and Robinson faced each other.
So do we go around remembering all the times Duncan faced Shaq? No, we know how great he was in his prime
This thread is too long. I'm very inclined to say Olajuwon, at least if we're comparing primes, but I'm not entirely sure. Cliff notes with the best arguments of both sides? # of the best posts from either side?
I'm clearly talking about Sasha's defense limiting Manu in the playoff series. I'm not talking about Sasha's offensive output.
I'm using the metaphor that Sasha's defense got the better of Manu, such as Olajuwon's offense got the better of Robinson.
Not Sasha's overall offensive output got the better of Manu, such as Olajuwons offense got the better of Robinson.
I agree playoffs mean more than the regular season, but when the sample size is so small (6 games) in relation to the total amount of games they actually played (42) it's not fair to base Robinson vs. Olajuwon because of 6 games. Did Olajuwon's offense get the better of Robinson for 6 games, you bet it did. Just like it did to many other teams, during the 1994-1995 run when the top 25 player of all time was at his ultimate peak.
Still think you came with a pretty far fetched analogy to make the point.
Hakeem and D-Rob only met in the playoffs once. Had they met more times, we could use those series to evaluate as well. But their one meeting in the playoffs was at a time where both players were in their prime. It's a good evaluation.
Don't ignore regular season stats. I can give you that. But most people would likely agree that the playoffs give a much better gauge of player evaluations, even if the sample size is small.
And Hakeem is only a top 25 player of all time for you?
Just curious, where would you rank him?
Well, he dominated Kareem in the 1986 WCF as a second-year player. And he was a monster in a losing cause against Boston's great front line in the Finals that year. Houston lost that series because the Celtics were a better team and because Ralph Sampson vanished off the face of the earth- not because of Hakeem.
I wasn't really deliberating on where he ranked all time when I posted previously, since I was dealing with another subject. I threw out a number that I was completely sure of (Top 25).
But since you now ask me where he ranks.
IMO Best Centers of All-Time:
1. Wilt Chamberlain
2. Abdul-Jabbar
3. Russel
4. Shaq
5. Olajuwon
6. Robinson
7. Moses Malone
8. George Mikan
9. Patrick Ewing
10. Bill Walton
Now if you ask me where I'd put Duncan in this list? I'd put him at number 4 with Shaq.
I'm giving Russel the benefit of the doubt, due to the respect he has around the league.
I truly believe 5 players on that list where better all around players (6 if you include Duncan).
That's fair. Disagree, but it's fair. I'd put Hakeem ahead of Shaq and Duncan (if you listed him among centers). But I wouldn't make a huge deal if you think either are better. I just found it odd you mentioned "top 25" when I thought most people considered Hakeem a top 10 player of all time, maybe top 15 at worst.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote