Comments on: Inner-Circle Hall of Famers: 1990s NBA & ABA Basketball Statistics & History Mon, 21 Nov 2011 20:56:04 +0000 hourly 1 By: John Saucedo Fri, 20 Aug 2010 01:27:49 +0000 Who was the only Center to post a 20, 20, 10 triple double and make every free throw attempt?

That Center should be mentioned on this list!

By: GURU Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:31:49 +0000 Hakeem / DRObinson
KMalone / CBarkley
Pippen / CMullin
Jordan / Drexler
JStock / G Payton

By: Tyler Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:33:22 +0000 For what it's worth, I think the major problem for Robinson in the playoffs was very much his face-up style versus Hakeem's backdown style (and Hakeem's greater range on his J).

Robinson never flagged as a defender or rebounder in the postseason to any significant extent, but his scoring volume and efficiency (even if you exclude his years with Duncan) definitely dropped. He flat-out wasn't as good in the playoffs at putting the ball through the hoop as was Olajuwon. In the regular season, they were very much neck-and-neck.

In the playoffs, I take Dream. EVERY time. You didn't lose anything on defense or the glass, but you gain so much with his considerably more advanced and effective offensive game. Robinson attacked the basket like a combo forward, not like a center, and at his size, that was not the optimum way to exploit his physical tools in a playoff situation, which is at least part of why he consistently failed to perform at a dominant level in the playoffs except against weak competition.

That's not to say that he didn't do pretty well, of course. Even against Hakeem in the much-touted 95 series, Robinson did something like 24/12/3 on decent efficiency. He was a great player. But Olajuwon was definitely a far better playoff performer.

By: AYC Wed, 06 Jan 2010 01:44:22 +0000 "Per game stats can be interpreted a BUNCH of different ways, and often without reason."

That's the point; WS, PER and +/- are subjective ways of interpreting real stats. I'm not saying it's not a worthwhile enterprise to develop these methods, but we shouldn't look at these metrics uncritically; WS and +/- are tied too much to how good a player's teammates are for my taste; PER assumes a linear correlation between minutes (and pace) and production, an assumption I don't share. I don't mind using these metrics to inform the debate, but let's not pretend that they end the debate. You wouldn't be willing to do that with ESPN's Player Rating System, would you?

By: Anon Tue, 05 Jan 2010 18:29:20 +0000 "Frankly, Anon, I think that's a load of BS; Win Shares (like PER) is a subjective formula for interpreting objective stats; I'll take those unadulterated stats over treating WS like the Gospels any day..."

You had better think again. Per game stats can be interpreted a BUNCH of different ways, and often without reason. That's way stats such as win shares, +/-, and PER are more useful to use; they're simply more informative metrics.

By: Romain Tue, 05 Jan 2010 09:42:59 +0000 To #31.
Look at the teammates Hakeem had in 1994, they were not much better than Robinson's I would say: Otis Thorpe (legitimate starter, good rebounder, reliable for 13-15 ppg but no All-Star), Maxwell (trigger happy), Kenny Smith, rookie Sam Cassell, 2nd year Horry, Mario Elie and that's about it.

Clearly one of the weakest supporting cast ever for a championship team.
I think that says a lot about Hakeem's worth.

That same year the Spurs were crushed by the Jazz in the 1st round and Robinson was a no show during the series: 20 ppg, 10 rpg, .411 FG. I was a fan of Robinson at the time and it was painful to watch completely collapse against the Jazz mediocre centers. Especially after scoring 71 pts in the last game of the regular season.

By: Raj Mon, 04 Jan 2010 21:40:15 +0000 Full disclosure: I am as big an Hakeem fan as anyone. Ever. I grew up in Houston, was 8 and 9 when the Rockets won, stood in parades, bought those outrageously overpriced cable boxes when the playoffs were PPV and STILL have a Dream poster in my apartment now.

With that in mind, Robinson's biggest failing to me is that his GM sucked. Seriously, look at the other starters when he was in his prime: Rodman right as he started going insane (and actually found a way to make rebounding a selfish act), Sean Elliott, who was a legitimate starter but never anyone who should be a #2 scorer (esp. when the other side is bringing Clyde Drexler) on a great team, Avery (a backup PG at best) and Vinny Del Negro, who I suppose people at the time must have (incorrectly we know now) thought had a high basketball IQ because he too was at best an 8th or 9th man from a production perspective. Toss in a washed up Terry Cummings and the wholly replaceable coaching talent of Bob Hill, and the Admiral was pretty much manning the SS Minnow. This cannot be debated.

It's hard even for someone like me who does believe Hakeem was better (basically Robinson's "consistent" WS/3K doesn't override the fact that Hakeem was the dominant force on 2 title teams and almost singlehandedly destroyed Kareem in handing the Lakers their only playoff loss between 1985 and 1988) to believe that if the Admiral had a better late game scorer around him (ala Pierce with Garnett), he couldn't have won the '95 series.

Sorry if this rambled on. Also TRad, you got the comparisons backwards: Robinson had the stats like Wilt. Dream and Russell got the rings.

By: TRad Mon, 04 Jan 2010 16:46:15 +0000 Olajuwon=Chamberlain, Robinson=Russell?

By: AYC Sun, 03 Jan 2010 23:39:04 +0000 "I'd rather build a team around Hakeem because he's got that primary scorer mentality. I'd rather have Robinson on a truly great team because he's ego-free. Like the Magic / Larry debate though, it's a no-lose either way."

Great post Jason J, but I think you're straining to be even-handed at the end there; having a "primary scorer mentality" didn't prevent MJ from having 3 different all-time great teams. The same ego that leads to scoring titles applies to winning championships (wanting YOUR team to beat their team is a selfish act).

Kareem and Magic were both strong-willed alpha-males who coexisted well enough to win 5 titles; Shaq and Kobe got along well enough to win 3 titles; so I don't think DRob's lack of fire is in any way a virtue. Bird and Magic were both great clutch performers who were willing and able to carry their teams on their backs (even though they are both known for their passing); Hakeem was that type of personality, Robinson was not.

By: Jason J Sun, 03 Jan 2010 19:28:01 +0000 I'm not real big on the whole Robinson / Hakeem debate. Like Neil, I don't think there's a definitive answer to be found. Robinson's numbers are a little odd overall because he came into the league so late - at age 24. He sort of skipped the early stumbles most rookies and second year players go through by coming into the league a grown-ass man. He also dropped off pretty dramatically after his tenth season because he was already 34 years old, and Tim Duncan was fully capable of assuming his role as a first option. Kudos to David for being willing and able to assume the Pippen role and dedicate himself to the success of Duncan.

Through Age 33 (Robinson's last season where you can argue he was the best player on his team):

Robinson has much better advanced stats in the regular season largely because he got to line more and had fewer turnovers - not dramatically so, but enough to make a significant difference in PER and WS. In total production, they are virtually even. Olajuwon's playoff numbers are pretty clearly better. Hakeem's WS is .166 per game. Robinson's is .159 - over a 7 game series that's really no different. However, the point production and PER favor Hakeem pretty dramatically (which is not surprising since scoring is one of the biggest elements in PER).

In terms of play-style I think Hakeem's back to the basket game may have made it easier for his catch and shoot teammates than David's face up first step style (sort of the difference between Duncan and Amare), but they were both spectacular. Robinson was bigger, faster end to end, and a better jumper. Hakeem was quicker laterally, had better balance, and held position better. I actually think they both have a good arguments. I'd rather build a team around Hakeem because he's got that primary scorer mentality. I'd rather have Robinson on a truly great team because he's ego-free. Like the Magic / Larry debate though, it's a no-lose either way.