Hakeem Olajuwon vs David Robinson: who was better?

[gouki88]

In terms of purely putting up points they're about even, but I think Hakeem has the better arsenal, including one of the most famous moves in league history.

Hakeem has the edge in rebounding. Passing is probably a tie. Robinson was amazing defensively, as his stats show, but Hakeem was other-worldly.

I think the real difference comes in longevity. Hakeem was an All-NBA caliber centre for over a decade, and an All-Star caliber one for almost 15 years. Robinson had a much shorter time on top

[Moranis]

Hakeem was better. He won a championship while surrounded by role players, and followed it up the next year with another title.  He had a more versatile game, better stats, dominated in their H2H matchup in the playoffs, etc.

But, Robinson was a remarkable player, too. His stats are similar, and he was the same type of elite scorer/rebounder/defender.  His team won 30 out of 42 regular season matchups against Hakeem. I think he unfairly gets knocked down for needing Duncan to win. That’s true if almost everyone, though, including Jordan, Russell, Lebron, etc. Hakeem winning without a great player beside him is a rarity in NBA history, not an expectation anybody should be held to.

It isn't that he needed Duncan to win, it is that Duncan was the better player.  That is why Robinson is different.  He didn't get a second fiddle, he got a 1st fiddle and he became the second fiddle.

Let's also be fair when judging Robinson's championships. Jordan, Pippen and Hakeem were gobbling up all the titles during his prime. When Duncan came along, Robinson was over 32 and recovering from an injury. He wasn't the same player. He helped carry the load for Duncan's first few seasons, but really was past his prime when he took the back seat to Duncan. I don't know that Duncan would have won championships from 1990-1998 on his own either. So I think Robinson was a legit "first fiddle" guy, it's just that not every first fiddle wins the championship.

Actually, Duncan vs. Hakeem might be a more interesting argument.

My point was to Roy's point about Robinson being discredited while others had help.  In that, Robinson's help was a better player.  Both at the time and ultimately in career.  Duncan was the best player on the 99 title team and he ended up with a better career than Robinson.  Duncan was the better player and that is why Robinson having help isn't thought of the same way. 

As to your other points, Robinson didn't even make the Finals until Duncan.  Sure, if he had lost to the Bulls a handful of times that is different, but the Spurs didn't even make it out of the West, which by and large was pretty darn weak in the 90's.  There is a reason the weakest title team, perhaps ever was the Rockets in the 94.  Otis Thorpe was the 2nd best player on that team.  The other 3 starters were Vernon Maxwell, Robert Horry, and Kenny Smith.  I think you need to let that sink in.  That team won a title.  The following season the Rockets added Drexler and won again beating Robinson along the way.  The Spurs meanwhile, made 1 WCF (95 when despite having home court Hakeem's Rockets took them out).  They lost in the 1st round 3 times with Robinson and 2 of those teams were 55 win teams (with home court) (and I'm aware that the Rockets also had a lot of lean years in there, but they also had far higher peak success with the 2 titles and the finals loss in 86).  Sean Elliott was on all those Spurs teams.  He was by far the best player aside from Hakeem and Robinson, until Drexler on either squad during those 90 teams. 

There really is no question.  Hakeem was a superior player to Robinson.  It wasn't really all that close and anyone that really followed the NBA in the 90's knew this. 

[Somebody]

In terms of purely putting up points they're about even, but I think Hakeem has the better arsenal, including one of the most famous moves in league history.

Hakeem has the edge in rebounding. Passing is probably a tie. Robinson was amazing defensively, as his stats show, but Hakeem was other-worldly.

I think the real difference comes in longevity. Hakeem was an All-NBA caliber centre for over a decade, and an All-Star caliber one for almost 15 years. Robinson had a much shorter time on top

Robinson also entered the league really late so he'd naturally have a couple of prime years shaved off at least. And I think Robinson was a better defender than Hakeem, he was the one who was otherworldly with the speed and athleticism of an SF as well as incredible size, and it shows in his advanced stats (ik DRTG was pointed out to not be a stat that teams use for defense, but it's still a decent tool for a fan to use). Also Hakeem the edge in rebounding? I'm not sure about that, I'm pretty sure that DRob is virtually tied with him in that category per 36. And I truly prefer Robinson's offensive game that draws him a ridiculous amount of fouls while being incredibly efficient on offense.

[Androslav]

In terms of purely putting up points they're about even, but I think Hakeem has the better arsenal, including one of the most famous moves in league history.

Hakeem has the edge in rebounding. Passing is probably a tie. Robinson was amazing defensively, as his stats show, but Hakeem was other-worldly.

I think the real difference comes in longevity. Hakeem was an All-NBA caliber center for over a decade, and an All-Star caliber one for almost 15 years. Robinson had a much shorter time on top

Dream shake is more famous, it is even named after his nickname,
but that left side baseline fadeaway shot of his, was more frequent and truly unguardable.
No. 9 & 1:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YS5IjO0PO8M

[Walker Wiggle]

No offense to the OP, but this is not a real question.

Olajuwon. If you weren't around for the 90s... just trust me on this one.

Why not? Robinson holds a general advantage in advanced stats, and it's not like I'm comparing Luc Longley to Hakeem lol, both were great centers.

At the risk of sounding like an old timer, stats do not capture what actually happened during that decade. Olajuwon was absolutely dominant in the playoffs in the middle of that decade to go along with an elite regular season career. He made Shaq look absolutely foolish in the finals in '95.

Bonus: Olajuwon if he played today would have been absolutely tailor-made to play defense in the modern NBA. Besides maybe Bill Russell, you could not genetically engineer a better defensive center who could step out on guards on the perimeter, run back to the paint to block a shot, and still body up a big bruiser down low.

[Somebody]

Hakeem was better. He won a championship while surrounded by role players, and followed it up the next year with another title.  He had a more versatile game, better stats, dominated in their H2H matchup in the playoffs, etc.

But, Robinson was a remarkable player, too. His stats are similar, and he was the same type of elite scorer/rebounder/defender.  His team won 30 out of 42 regular season matchups against Hakeem. I think he unfairly gets knocked down for needing Duncan to win. That’s true if almost everyone, though, including Jordan, Russell, Lebron, etc. Hakeem winning without a great player beside him is a rarity in NBA history, not an expectation anybody should be held to.

It isn't that he needed Duncan to win, it is that Duncan was the better player.  That is why Robinson is different.  He didn't get a second fiddle, he got a 1st fiddle and he became the second fiddle.

Let's also be fair when judging Robinson's championships. Jordan, Pippen and Hakeem were gobbling up all the titles during his prime. When Duncan came along, Robinson was over 32 and recovering from an injury. He wasn't the same player. He helped carry the load for Duncan's first few seasons, but really was past his prime when he took the back seat to Duncan. I don't know that Duncan would have won championships from 1990-1998 on his own either. So I think Robinson was a legit "first fiddle" guy, it's just that not every first fiddle wins the championship.

Actually, Duncan vs. Hakeem might be a more interesting argument.

Robinson didn't even make the Finals though.  Sure, if he lost the Bulls a handful of times that is different, but the Spurs didn't even make it out of the West, which by and large was pretty darn weak in the 90's.  There is a reason the weakest title team, perhaps ever was the Rockets in the 94.  Otis Thorpe was the 2nd best player on that team.  The other 3 starters were Vernon Maxwell, Robert Horry, and Kenny Smith.  I think you need to let that sink in.  That team won a title.  The following season the Rockets added Drexler and won again beating Robinson along the way.  The Spurs meanwhile, made 1 WCF (95 when despite having home court Hakeem's Rockets took them out).  They lost in the 1st round 3 times with Robinson and 2 of those teams were 55 win teams (with home court) (and I'm aware that the Rockets also had a lot of lean years in there, but they also had far higher peak success with the 2 titles and the finals loss in 86).  Sean Elliott was on all those Spurs teams.  He was by far the best player aside from Hakeem and Robinson, until Drexler on either squad during those 90 teams. 

There really is no question.  Hakeem was a superior player to Robinson.  It wasn't really all that close and anyone that really followed the NBA in the 90's knew this.

In a league diluted by expansion and Jordan leaving the NBA, also Otis Thorpe was a very good player, averaging a double double in 94 on 56% shooting with 9.8 WS. Also those pieces fit quite well with Hakeem, with only really Maxwell being high usage, as well as Horry and Smith being good floor spacers for Hakeem to work inside. Also Elliott was traded to the Pistons in 93-94 when Hakeem won the title, and really wasn't all that much better than Thorpe imo from looking at the stats before that, especially when Thorpe had his best season in 92. Imo the Rockets had a better supporting cast around Hakeem as well as better coaching, and it showed in those two playoff runs.

[Somebody]

No offense to the OP, but this is not a real question.

Olajuwon. If you weren't around for the 90s... just trust me on this one.

Why not? Robinson holds a general advantage in advanced stats, and it's not like I'm comparing Luc Longley to Hakeem lol, both were great centers.

At the risk of sounding like an old timer, stats do not capture what actually happened during that decade. Olajuwon was absolutely dominant in the playoffs in the middle of that decade to go along with an elite regular season career. He made Shaq look absolutely foolish in the finals in '95.

Bonus: Olajuwon if he played today would have been absolutely tailor-made to play defense in the modern NBA. Besides maybe Bill Russell, you could not genetically engineer a better defensive center who could step out on guards on the perimeter, run back to the paint to block a shot, and still body up a big bruiser down low.

Pretty sure Wilt Chamberlain would've been a better genetic specimen, and even Robinson too tbh. He was quicker and more athletic than Hakeem imo. Also Shaq getting dominated was a myth, the stats don't tell that at all again. Maybe stats don't tell the whole story, but I would be pretty wary of the eye test when it romanticizes flashy players by that much when compared to cold, hard numbers.

[Moranis]

In terms of purely putting up points they're about even, but I think Hakeem has the better arsenal, including one of the most famous moves in league history.

Hakeem has the edge in rebounding. Passing is probably a tie. Robinson was amazing defensively, as his stats show, but Hakeem was other-worldly.

I think the real difference comes in longevity. Hakeem was an All-NBA caliber centre for over a decade, and an All-Star caliber one for almost 15 years. Robinson had a much shorter time on top

Robinson also entered the league really late so he'd naturally have a couple of prime years shaved off at least. And I think Robinson was a better defender than Hakeem, he was the one who was otherworldly with the speed and athleticism of an SF as well as incredible size, and it shows in his advanced stats (ik DRTG was pointed out to not be a stat that teams use for defense, but it's still a decent tool for a fan to use). Also Hakeem the edge in rebounding? I'm not sure about that, I'm pretty sure that DRob is virtually tied with him in that category per 36. And I truly prefer Robinson's offensive game that draws him a ridiculous amount of fouls while being incredibly efficient on offense.

TRB% was nearly identical but that is in a large part because Hakeem played a lot longer.  Hakeem led the league in DRTG 5 straight years, Robinson led the league 5 times as well.  I'm not sure how that stat favors Robinson over Hakeem given that.  Hakeem had a much higher DWS peak and led the league more times in that than Robinson.  Hakeem led the league in DBPM more times than Robinson.  I really don't see how the advanced defensive metrics actually favor Robinson defensively.

Robinson scored a lot more so the advanced metrics actually show him to be a better offensive player, especially given his insane FTr (57.7%).  That really is the one thing that Robinson did better than Hakeem.  He got to the line at an almost unheard of rate. 

I also think you need to watch some tape on Hakeem in the 80's.  He was every bit as athletic as Robinson was.  He moved like a guard. 

[Somebody]

I do want to reiterate that I'm not making any of this personal, I really appreciate the input and it's interesting to see people who witnessed the games while they were alive say that Hakeem was that much better than Robinson.

[Donoghus]

Hakeem was better. He won a championship while surrounded by role players, and followed it up the next year with another title.  He had a more versatile game, better stats, dominated in their H2H matchup in the playoffs, etc.

But, Robinson was a remarkable player, too. His stats are similar, and he was the same type of elite scorer/rebounder/defender.  His team won 30 out of 42 regular season matchups against Hakeem. I think he unfairly gets knocked down for needing Duncan to win. That’s true if almost everyone, though, including Jordan, Russell, Lebron, etc. Hakeem winning without a great player beside him is a rarity in NBA history, not an expectation anybody should be held to.

It isn't that he needed Duncan to win, it is that Duncan was the better player.  That is why Robinson is different.  He didn't get a second fiddle, he got a 1st fiddle and he became the second fiddle.

Let's also be fair when judging Robinson's championships. Jordan, Pippen and Hakeem were gobbling up all the titles during his prime. When Duncan came along, Robinson was over 32 and recovering from an injury. He wasn't the same player. He helped carry the load for Duncan's first few seasons, but really was past his prime when he took the back seat to Duncan. I don't know that Duncan would have won championships from 1990-1998 on his own either. So I think Robinson was a legit "first fiddle" guy, it's just that not every first fiddle wins the championship.

Actually, Duncan vs. Hakeem might be a more interesting argument.

Robinson didn't even make the Finals though.  Sure, if he lost the Bulls a handful of times that is different, but the Spurs didn't even make it out of the West, which by and large was pretty darn weak in the 90's.  There is a reason the weakest title team, perhaps ever was the Rockets in the 94.  Otis Thorpe was the 2nd best player on that team.  The other 3 starters were Vernon Maxwell, Robert Horry, and Kenny Smith.  I think you need to let that sink in.  That team won a title.  The following season the Rockets added Drexler and won again beating Robinson along the way.  The Spurs meanwhile, made 1 WCF (95 when despite having home court Hakeem's Rockets took them out).  They lost in the 1st round 3 times with Robinson and 2 of those teams were 55 win teams (with home court) (and I'm aware that the Rockets also had a lot of lean years in there, but they also had far higher peak success with the 2 titles and the finals loss in 86).  Sean Elliott was on all those Spurs teams.  He was by far the best player aside from Hakeem and Robinson, until Drexler on either squad during those 90 teams. 

There really is no question.  Hakeem was a superior player to Robinson.  It wasn't really all that close and anyone that really followed the NBA in the 90's knew this.

In a league diluted by expansion and Jordan leaving the NBA, also Otis Thorpe was a very good player, averaging a double double in 94 on 56% shooting with 9.8 WS. Also those pieces fit quite well with Hakeem, with only really Maxwell being high usage, as well as Horry and Smith being good floor spacers for Hakeem to work inside. Also Elliott was traded to the Pistons in 93-94 when Hakeem won the title, and really wasn't all that much better than Thorpe imo from looking at the stats before that, especially when Thorpe had his best season in 92. Imo the Rockets had a better supporting cast around Hakeem as well as better coaching, and it showed in those two playoff runs.

Coaching, sure.  Supporting cast, certainly debatable.

Let's not diminish what Hakeem was doing in those two playoff runs, though. He was the clear alpha and carrying that team.

'93-94:  28.9 ppg 11 rpg 4 bpg .519 FG%
'94-95:  33.0 ppg 10.3 rpg 2.9 bpg .531 FG%

That's a dominant basketball player helping lead his team to back to back titles.

[Somebody]

In terms of purely putting up points they're about even, but I think Hakeem has the better arsenal, including one of the most famous moves in league history.

Hakeem has the edge in rebounding. Passing is probably a tie. Robinson was amazing defensively, as his stats show, but Hakeem was other-worldly.

I think the real difference comes in longevity. Hakeem was an All-NBA caliber centre for over a decade, and an All-Star caliber one for almost 15 years. Robinson had a much shorter time on top

Robinson also entered the league really late so he'd naturally have a couple of prime years shaved off at least. And I think Robinson was a better defender than Hakeem, he was the one who was otherworldly with the speed and athleticism of an SF as well as incredible size, and it shows in his advanced stats (ik DRTG was pointed out to not be a stat that teams use for defense, but it's still a decent tool for a fan to use). Also Hakeem the edge in rebounding? I'm not sure about that, I'm pretty sure that DRob is virtually tied with him in that category per 36. And I truly prefer Robinson's offensive game that draws him a ridiculous amount of fouls while being incredibly efficient on offense.

TRB% was nearly identical but that is in a large part because Hakeem played a lot longer.  Hakeem led the league in DRTG 5 straight years, Robinson led the league 5 times as well.  I'm not sure how that stat favors Robinson over Hakeem given that.  Hakeem had a much higher DWS peak and led the league more times in that than Robinson.  Hakeem led the league in DBPM more times than Robinson.  I really don't see how the advanced defensive metrics actually favor Robinson defensively.

Robinson scored a lot more so the advanced metrics actually show him to be a better offensive player, especially given his insane FTr (57.7%).  That really is the one thing that Robinson did better than Hakeem.  He got to the line at an almost unheard of rate. 

I also think you need to watch some tape on Hakeem in the 80's.  He was every bit as athletic as Robinson was.  He moved like a guard.

I did look at his 80s tape-he was obviously more atheltic than when he was in the 90s, but Robinson was still the better athlete imo when it comes to running and jumping, Hakeem moved like a guard in terms of fluidity and had great athleticism but Robinson moved like an SF who could jump out of the gym every night in his prime. And sure Hakeem played for a lot longer, but a good part of that came from his early playing days since Robinson entered the league at age 24/25, so I'd say rebounding is about equal. As for DRTG, I looked at career averages, and haven't realized that Hakeem had a better peak DWS.

[gift]

Hakeem was better. He won a championship while surrounded by role players, and followed it up the next year with another title.  He had a more versatile game, better stats, dominated in their H2H matchup in the playoffs, etc.

But, Robinson was a remarkable player, too. His stats are similar, and he was the same type of elite scorer/rebounder/defender.  His team won 30 out of 42 regular season matchups against Hakeem. I think he unfairly gets knocked down for needing Duncan to win. That’s true if almost everyone, though, including Jordan, Russell, Lebron, etc. Hakeem winning without a great player beside him is a rarity in NBA history, not an expectation anybody should be held to.

It isn't that he needed Duncan to win, it is that Duncan was the better player.  That is why Robinson is different.  He didn't get a second fiddle, he got a 1st fiddle and he became the second fiddle.

Let's also be fair when judging Robinson's championships. Jordan, Pippen and Hakeem were gobbling up all the titles during his prime. When Duncan came along, Robinson was over 32 and recovering from an injury. He wasn't the same player. He helped carry the load for Duncan's first few seasons, but really was past his prime when he took the back seat to Duncan. I don't know that Duncan would have won championships from 1990-1998 on his own either. So I think Robinson was a legit "first fiddle" guy, it's just that not every first fiddle wins the championship.

Actually, Duncan vs. Hakeem might be a more interesting argument.

My point was to Roy's point about Robinson being discredited while others had help.  In that, Robinson's help was a better player.  Both at the time and ultimately in career.  Duncan was the best player on the 99 title team and he ended up with a better career than Robinson.  Duncan was the better player and that is why Robinson having help isn't thought of the same way. 

As to your other points, Robinson didn't even make the Finals until Duncan.  Sure, if he had lost to the Bulls a handful of times that is different, but the Spurs didn't even make it out of the West, which by and large was pretty darn weak in the 90's.  There is a reason the weakest title team, perhaps ever was the Rockets in the 94.  Otis Thorpe was the 2nd best player on that team.  The other 3 starters were Vernon Maxwell, Robert Horry, and Kenny Smith.  I think you need to let that sink in.  That team won a title.  The following season the Rockets added Drexler and won again beating Robinson along the way.  The Spurs meanwhile, made 1 WCF (95 when despite having home court Hakeem's Rockets took them out).  They lost in the 1st round 3 times with Robinson and 2 of those teams were 55 win teams (with home court) (and I'm aware that the Rockets also had a lot of lean years in there, but they also had far higher peak success with the 2 titles and the finals loss in 86).  Sean Elliott was on all those Spurs teams.  He was by far the best player aside from Hakeem and Robinson, until Drexler on either squad during those 90 teams. 

There really is no question.  Hakeem was a superior player to Robinson.  It wasn't really all that close and anyone that really followed the NBA in the 90's knew this.

Oh I agree Hakeem was better. I just think David Robinson was a legit best player on a championship contender. I just observe that a lot goes into winning a championship and that those guys don't always get to the finals or win championships as the best player on their teams.

[slamtheking]

saw both of their careers.  It's Hakeem all day, every day.  that's not a knock on Robinson who was a great player but Hakeem was better on offense and defense.

Interesting, I wasn't old enough to witness their careers but from the tape I watched Hakeem was the flashier one, while Robinson had more substance to his play imo. Hakeem had some games where he scored 9 or 10 due to his flashy moves not working, but Robinson kept pouring in 20 point bombs with his simple but devastatingly effective and low-key aesthetically pleasing offensive game. That jumper was a work of art for a lefty 7'1 behemoth lol. On defense I thought Robinson was clear cut better and more versatile, not a significant difference but it was pretty to clear to me.

watching tapes aren't the same as seeing them first hand.  like I said, Robinson was a great player, Hakeem was better though.

I mean no disrespect, but how is it different? It's still a digital show of basketball game, and from what I've seen I think both are close, with David holding a slight edge. Contrary to popular opinion, I think seeing the games firsthand might make people more subjective as the "playoff factor" bias could be stronger. It's still one series and it doesn't define a career, and David actually holds a head to head advantage against Hakeem (30-12) in the RS.

the question on the tapes is this: what tapes are you seeing?  obviously they don't show the good and bad unless you're watching game tapes of every game they played which doesn't seem likely.  typically tapes stick to highlights.

just saying, as someone who's seen their full careers, Hakeem was the better player on both sides of the ball.  That doesn't mean Robinson wasn't a great player because he was.

I mean it's unlikely that you've watched games like the way you described watching tape, I don't think living in that career equals watching every game they played against each other unless you're a Spurs/Rockets fan. And I searched up full game tapes to watch/had the luck to have NBA TV replay some of the matches in full.
Here's a full game of Robinson (albeit not against Hakeem):
https://youtu.be/mOdqC3Fbgww

no, I didn't watch all their games but saw enough of each of their games to have developed a very good sense of how good each of them were.   as you can see in the vast majority of posts here, no one is downplaying Robinson's talent, just stating that as good as Robinson was, Hakeem was better.  I know that's not your opinion after watching after-the-fact tapes but that does seem to be the prevailing opinion of those of us who saw their careers live.

Here's something to consider.  if everyone got the chance to play GM and had the chance to draft Hakeem or Robinson as rookies (we'll make the timelines the same for this argument), no one would take Robinson over Hakeem.   

[Moranis]

Hakeem was better. He won a championship while surrounded by role players, and followed it up the next year with another title.  He had a more versatile game, better stats, dominated in their H2H matchup in the playoffs, etc.

But, Robinson was a remarkable player, too. His stats are similar, and he was the same type of elite scorer/rebounder/defender.  His team won 30 out of 42 regular season matchups against Hakeem. I think he unfairly gets knocked down for needing Duncan to win. That’s true if almost everyone, though, including Jordan, Russell, Lebron, etc. Hakeem winning without a great player beside him is a rarity in NBA history, not an expectation anybody should be held to.

It isn't that he needed Duncan to win, it is that Duncan was the better player.  That is why Robinson is different.  He didn't get a second fiddle, he got a 1st fiddle and he became the second fiddle.

Let's also be fair when judging Robinson's championships. Jordan, Pippen and Hakeem were gobbling up all the titles during his prime. When Duncan came along, Robinson was over 32 and recovering from an injury. He wasn't the same player. He helped carry the load for Duncan's first few seasons, but really was past his prime when he took the back seat to Duncan. I don't know that Duncan would have won championships from 1990-1998 on his own either. So I think Robinson was a legit "first fiddle" guy, it's just that not every first fiddle wins the championship.

Actually, Duncan vs. Hakeem might be a more interesting argument.

Robinson didn't even make the Finals though.  Sure, if he lost the Bulls a handful of times that is different, but the Spurs didn't even make it out of the West, which by and large was pretty darn weak in the 90's.  There is a reason the weakest title team, perhaps ever was the Rockets in the 94.  Otis Thorpe was the 2nd best player on that team.  The other 3 starters were Vernon Maxwell, Robert Horry, and Kenny Smith.  I think you need to let that sink in.  That team won a title.  The following season the Rockets added Drexler and won again beating Robinson along the way.  The Spurs meanwhile, made 1 WCF (95 when despite having home court Hakeem's Rockets took them out).  They lost in the 1st round 3 times with Robinson and 2 of those teams were 55 win teams (with home court) (and I'm aware that the Rockets also had a lot of lean years in there, but they also had far higher peak success with the 2 titles and the finals loss in 86).  Sean Elliott was on all those Spurs teams.  He was by far the best player aside from Hakeem and Robinson, until Drexler on either squad during those 90 teams. 

There really is no question.  Hakeem was a superior player to Robinson.  It wasn't really all that close and anyone that really followed the NBA in the 90's knew this.

In a league diluted by expansion and Jordan leaving the NBA, also Otis Thorpe was a very good player, averaging a double double in 94 on 56% shooting with 9.8 WS. Also those pieces fit quite well with Hakeem, with only really Maxwell being high usage, as well as Horry and Smith being good floor spacers for Hakeem to work inside. Also Elliott was traded to the Pistons in 93-94 when Hakeem won the title, and really wasn't all that much better than Thorpe imo from looking at the stats before that, especially when Thorpe had his best season in 92. Imo the Rockets had a better supporting cast around Hakeem as well as better coaching, and it showed in those two playoff runs.

Elliott spent 1 year in Detroit.  Yes it was 93-94, but he was on the Spurs every other season in the 90's.  That year the Spurs had Dennis Rodman, Dale Ellis, and Terry Cummings.  It wasn't like Robinson didn't have some quality players around him, including a HOFer in his prime in Rodman (who was better than Otis Thorpe).  The Jazz beat the Spurs 3-1 and when they faced the Rockets in the WCF got blitzed themselves losing 4-1.  The reason for those results is in a large part because Hakeem was better than Robinson.

As for coaching, Rudy T was probably an excellent coach (though he really only coached Hakeem so was it coaching or Hakeem) and he provided stability in the 90's that wasn't in San Antonio, but it isn't like the Spurs had a bunch of terrible coaches.  I mean Robinson was coached by Larry Brown to start his career with Popovich and Buford on that staff. 

[Somebody]

Hakeem was better. He won a championship while surrounded by role players, and followed it up the next year with another title.  He had a more versatile game, better stats, dominated in their H2H matchup in the playoffs, etc.

But, Robinson was a remarkable player, too. His stats are similar, and he was the same type of elite scorer/rebounder/defender.  His team won 30 out of 42 regular season matchups against Hakeem. I think he unfairly gets knocked down for needing Duncan to win. That’s true if almost everyone, though, including Jordan, Russell, Lebron, etc. Hakeem winning without a great player beside him is a rarity in NBA history, not an expectation anybody should be held to.

It isn't that he needed Duncan to win, it is that Duncan was the better player.  That is why Robinson is different.  He didn't get a second fiddle, he got a 1st fiddle and he became the second fiddle.

Let's also be fair when judging Robinson's championships. Jordan, Pippen and Hakeem were gobbling up all the titles during his prime. When Duncan came along, Robinson was over 32 and recovering from an injury. He wasn't the same player. He helped carry the load for Duncan's first few seasons, but really was past his prime when he took the back seat to Duncan. I don't know that Duncan would have won championships from 1990-1998 on his own either. So I think Robinson was a legit "first fiddle" guy, it's just that not every first fiddle wins the championship.

Actually, Duncan vs. Hakeem might be a more interesting argument.

Robinson didn't even make the Finals though.  Sure, if he lost the Bulls a handful of times that is different, but the Spurs didn't even make it out of the West, which by and large was pretty darn weak in the 90's.  There is a reason the weakest title team, perhaps ever was the Rockets in the 94.  Otis Thorpe was the 2nd best player on that team.  The other 3 starters were Vernon Maxwell, Robert Horry, and Kenny Smith.  I think you need to let that sink in.  That team won a title.  The following season the Rockets added Drexler and won again beating Robinson along the way.  The Spurs meanwhile, made 1 WCF (95 when despite having home court Hakeem's Rockets took them out).  They lost in the 1st round 3 times with Robinson and 2 of those teams were 55 win teams (with home court) (and I'm aware that the Rockets also had a lot of lean years in there, but they also had far higher peak success with the 2 titles and the finals loss in 86).  Sean Elliott was on all those Spurs teams.  He was by far the best player aside from Hakeem and Robinson, until Drexler on either squad during those 90 teams. 

There really is no question.  Hakeem was a superior player to Robinson.  It wasn't really all that close and anyone that really followed the NBA in the 90's knew this.

In a league diluted by expansion and Jordan leaving the NBA, also Otis Thorpe was a very good player, averaging a double double in 94 on 56% shooting with 9.8 WS. Also those pieces fit quite well with Hakeem, with only really Maxwell being high usage, as well as Horry and Smith being good floor spacers for Hakeem to work inside. Also Elliott was traded to the Pistons in 93-94 when Hakeem won the title, and really wasn't all that much better than Thorpe imo from looking at the stats before that, especially when Thorpe had his best season in 92. Imo the Rockets had a better supporting cast around Hakeem as well as better coaching, and it showed in those two playoff runs.

Elliott spent 1 year in Detroit.  Yes it was 93-94, but he was on the Spurs every other season in the 90's.  That year the Spurs had Dennis Rodman, Dale Ellis, and Terry Cummings.  It wasn't like Robinson didn't have some quality players around him, including a HOFer in his prime in Rodman (who was better than Otis Thorpe).  The Jazz beat the Spurs 3-1 and when they faced the Rockets in the WCF got blitzed themselves losing 4-1.  The reason for those results is in a large part because Hakeem was better than Robinson.

As for coaching, Rudy T was probably an excellent coach (though he really only coached Hakeem so was it coaching or Hakeem) and he provided stability in the 90's that wasn't in San Antonio, but it isn't like the Spurs had a bunch of terrible coaches.  I mean Robinson was coached by Larry Brown to start his career with Popovich and Buford on that staff.

Rodman was a huge problem for the Spurs' locker room and honestly I'd take Thorpe over him lol, Rodman caused more problems than he was worth to San Antonio. And the Spurs' "quality players" to me were worse than the Rockets' in the sense that Hakeem had players who fit him better, like Horry who was a stretch 4 pioneer to give Hakeem the space needed to operate down low, Maxwell who was a perimeter gunner that could lift Houston when needed (not a perfect fit since theoretically he's taking away shots from Hakeem, but Hakeem still took like 17-20 shots per game iirc so it was a positive to me) and of course Otis Thorpe/Clyde Drexler.

And Larry Brown didn't coach the Spurs long enough to really get them contending imo, Robinson needed a couple of years to get some experience under his belt even when he entered the league late and was physically ready, and when the time he was a bit more familiar with the league he entered a revolving door of coaches that included Bob "can't stop making bad coaching decisions" Hill who effectively cost them the 95 WCF imo.