Author Topic: Hakeem Olajuwon vs David Robinson: who was better?  (Read 7888 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Re: Hakeem Olajuwon vs David Robinson: who was better?
« Reply #45 on: April 09, 2019, 12:15:27 PM »

Online Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
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.
I think Robinson probably could have been the best player on a title team, but there really isn't anything I can point to to say that for sure.  At least with guys like Barkley, Malone, and even Ewing, they made the Finals and Conference Finals on separate playoff runs.  They showed an ability to lead teams on deep playoff runs and Robinson really doesn't have that.  And while Malone had Stockton, it isn't like any of their respective teams were loaded to the gills, which is pretty similar to Robinson with very similar prime years for all of them. 

I think the knock on a guy like Karl Malone not having a title is silly, given just how great he was and the overall playoff success he had, but at some point winning does matter and Robinson never showed himself to be a winner when it truly mattered.  His teams constantly and consistently flamed out of the playoffs, losing to inferior teams when he had home court advantage a lot.  You can overlook that if you surround the flame outs with success, but Robinson didn't have the success needed to overshadow the failures in my opinion.  Robinson was a great player.  An easy HOFer, but he just wasn't in Hakeem's class.  There are 5 Tier 1 Level Centers in my opinion.  Wilt, Bill, Kareem, Hakeem, and Shaq.  I think Moses stands alone in 6 and DRob is in the next tier down with guys like Cowens, Mikan, and Walton (I don't think anyone else is in that class, though I'd listen to arguments on Pettit, Reed, Ewing, and Howard).   
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Hakeem Olajuwon vs David Robinson: who was better?
« Reply #46 on: April 09, 2019, 12:35:23 PM »

Offline bknova

  • Bill Walton
  • *
  • Posts: 1103
  • Tommy Points: 73
Hakeem Olajuwon is the best two way big man in NBA history. 

Re: Hakeem Olajuwon vs David Robinson: who was better?
« Reply #47 on: April 09, 2019, 12:37:46 PM »

Offline CF033

  • Jaylen Brown
  • Posts: 664
  • Tommy Points: 74
David Robinson was a great player but IMO Hakeem was easily the better of the two.

Re: Hakeem Olajuwon vs David Robinson: who was better?
« Reply #48 on: April 09, 2019, 01:04:49 PM »

Online gift

  • NCE
  • Ray Allen
  • ***
  • Posts: 3984
  • Tommy Points: 291
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.
I think Robinson probably could have been the best player on a title team, but there really isn't anything I can point to to say that for sure.  At least with guys like Barkley, Malone, and even Ewing, they made the Finals and Conference Finals on separate playoff runs.  They showed an ability to lead teams on deep playoff runs and Robinson really doesn't have that.  And while Malone had Stockton, it isn't like any of their respective teams were loaded to the gills, which is pretty similar to Robinson with very similar prime years for all of them. 

I think the knock on a guy like Karl Malone not having a title is silly, given just how great he was and the overall playoff success he had, but at some point winning does matter and Robinson never showed himself to be a winner when it truly mattered.  His teams constantly and consistently flamed out of the playoffs, losing to inferior teams when he had home court advantage a lot.  You can overlook that if you surround the flame outs with success, but Robinson didn't have the success needed to overshadow the failures in my opinion.  Robinson was a great player.  An easy HOFer, but he just wasn't in Hakeem's class.  There are 5 Tier 1 Level Centers in my opinion.  Wilt, Bill, Kareem, Hakeem, and Shaq.  I think Moses stands alone in 6 and DRob is in the next tier down with guys like Cowens, Mikan, and Walton (I don't think anyone else is in that class, though I'd listen to arguments on Pettit, Reed, Ewing, and Howard).

I think I pretty much agree for the most part. One last thing I'll put out there in favor of Robinson, though, is that you might be overrating his supporting cast a bit. In 1995-1996 they won 59 games. The next year without Robinson (and reserve Chuck Person) they won 20 games. It's not like he was surrounded with high-level talent. You could argue he was dragging a non-playoff team to the playoffs and home court advantage much of that time in the first place.

Re: Hakeem Olajuwon vs David Robinson: who was better?
« Reply #49 on: April 09, 2019, 01:36:09 PM »

Offline bdm860

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5952
  • Tommy Points: 4586
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. 

I disagree that the West was pretty weak then.  I feel like at the time, the East was more like LeBron's East.  You had that 1 dominate team/player with Jordan/LeBron and maybe 1 quasi-competitor in any given season like the Knicks/Pacers, while the West felt more like today's East where you have several teams that could come out on top.

From '91-'96, the West had 5 different teams with 60+ wins (UTA, PHO, SAS, POR, SEA x2) while the East had only 3 (CHI 3x, NYK, ORL).  The West also had more teams in the 55-59 win range (15 vs 8 ).

Then look at All-NBA, West had 51 vs 39 total selections.  19 vs 11 first team selections.   The West was tough, they had the better top end teams talent outside of Bulls/Jordan.  (And part of this is what makes Hakeem's '95 run all the more impressive as they ran through such a strong West, beating the top 4 teams in the league along the way.  Basically what Boston's going to have to do this year.)


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.

Also surprised so many think it wasn't close.  Hey, I'm with the majority here, Hakeem was the better player.  But from '91-'96 when both seemed to be at the top of their games, it was close (unfortunately it doesn't look like bball-ref has a tool to let you compare stretches in the middle of careers, only single seasons or from beginning of career to random point).  From '91-'96,  Robinson was 1st team All-NBA 4x's to Haleem's 2x.  Robinson was 1st team All-Defense 4x to Hakeem's 2x, though Hakeem won 2 DPOY to Robinson's 1. Each won 1 MVP.  Robinson finished higher than Hakeem in MVP voting 4 of those 6 years.

Maybe it's not fair to judge Robinson from ages 25-30 and compare against Hakeem ages 28-33.  But during that period it was very close. 

Hakeem had the longer career, was better for longer, and did some amazing things in the playoffs (where all time greats are made).  No question about it.  But from '91-'96, it was close.

After 18 months with their Bigs, the Littles were: 46% less likely to use illegal drugs, 27% less likely to use alcohol, 52% less likely to skip school, 37% less likely to skip a class

Re: Hakeem Olajuwon vs David Robinson: who was better?
« Reply #50 on: April 09, 2019, 01:46:35 PM »

Offline slamtheking

  • NCE
  • Red Auerbach
  • *******************************
  • Posts: 31869
  • Tommy Points: 10047
Hakeem Olajuwon is the best two way big man in NBA history. 
I'd take Wilt, Russell and Kareem over Hakeem in that debate without thinking twice. 

Re: Hakeem Olajuwon vs David Robinson: who was better?
« Reply #51 on: April 09, 2019, 01:48:28 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5308
  • Tommy Points: 862
I think folks are just forgetting just how good Robinson was during his peak because his titles were won later.   But that's a reflection on his team, not on how good he was as an individual.

Robinson played far fewer games due to (a) starting at age 24 due to his Naval commitment and (b) injury curbing his later career a bit short.  He played in just 987 regular season games compared to 1238 for Olajuwon. 

But during his peak years, Robinson was absurdly dominant in ways that I don't think Olajuwan ever quite reached.  His 93-94 season was just insane.  He scored 29.8 to go with 10.7 rebounds, 4.8 assists and 3.3 blocks per game.  He accrued 20 Win Shares at an absurd .296 WS/48 rate!   The only players ever to post seasons with a higher WS/48 rate are Wilt, Kareem, Lebron, Jordan and Curry (Al Cervi also did so way back in 1951).

Robinson posted 7 seasons with a WS/48 rate of .260 or higher and 5 seasons with 15+ total Win Shares.  That's seven of the top 75 seasons ever posted by WS/48 rate and 5 of the top 58 seasons ever posted by Win Share total!!!

Olajuwon never came close to dominating the regular season like that.  His highest WS/48 rate was .234 and only crossed the .200+ threshold three times.  He had only one season totaling above 15 Win Shares (15.8 in '93).

Olajuwon was dominant in the first of two title-winning playoff runs and deserves his legendary status for that.  However, I'm a little confused that guys like Otis Thorpe, Kenny Smith, Clyde Drexler, Vernon Maxwell, Robert Horry and Sam Cassell are being portrayed as a bunch of nobodies.   Tough crowd here I guess.   

I mean, seriously, Drexler was imho the team's best player during the playoffs for that second championship and Horry was arguably almost as important as Hakeem in that run.

Robinson didn't win back-to-back titles, but come on, he did also win two rings.  And he played outstanding basketball in both title runs as well as in almost all his playoff appearances.   His WS/48 rate in the '99 playoffs was a dominant .243 and even at age 37 in his last playoffs (and title) he posted a .204 WS/48 rate.   He was a true stud to the end.

Imho, Olajuwon was a better low-post player and slightly better rebounder.  But Robinson was a much more complete offensive player with that beautiful jump shot, while still being nearly as good as Olajuwon in everything else.   

And it's hard to look past the fact that Robinson owned their head-to-head match ups 32-16.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Hakeem Olajuwon vs David Robinson: who was better?
« Reply #52 on: April 09, 2019, 01:57:13 PM »

Online Moranis

  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 33461
  • Tommy Points: 1533
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. 

I disagree that the West was pretty weak then.  I feel like at the time, the East was more like LeBron's East.  You had that 1 dominate team/player with Jordan/LeBron and maybe 1 quasi-competitor in any given season like the Knicks/Pacers, while the West felt more like today's East where you have several teams that could come out on top.

From '91-'96, the West had 5 different teams with 60+ wins (UTA, PHO, SAS, POR, SEA x2) while the East had only 3 (CHI 3x, NYK, ORL).  The West also had more teams in the 55-59 win range (15 vs 8 ).

Then look at All-NBA, West had 51 vs 39 total selections.  19 vs 11 first team selections.   The West was tough, they had the better top end teams talent outside of Bulls/Jordan.  (And part of this is what makes Hakeem's '95 run all the more impressive as they ran through such a strong West, beating the top 4 teams in the league along the way.  Basically what Boston's going to have to do this year.)
The 90's are by far the weakest decade in the sport.  The Bulls are the only truly great team for the vast majority of that decade.  There was a general lack of depth, so very weak teams historically speaking ended up winning a lot of games because someone has to win every game and without a dominant team like the Bulls, there was more parity in the West, but almost none of those mid-90's teams are any good from a historical standpoint.  Even a team like the 97 Jazz that had 2 HOFers was very weak overall with Bryon Russell, Jeff Hornacek, and Greg Ostertag rounding out the starting 5 and a bench of Greg Foster, Shandon Anderson, Antoine Carr, Howard Eisley, and Chris Morris (that was their playoff rotation).  That team had no real business being in back to back finals, even with as great as Karl Malone was.  For example, I'd argue they are at least a comparable if not a worse team then the Thunder are this year.  The Thunder are an upper 40's win team that is going to be on the road in the 1st round, while the Jazz were a 64 win team that cruised to the Finals.    The majority of the 90's was a truly awful decade of basketball.  Jordan and the Bulls were just so good, I think people don't quite appreciate just how awful the 90's was in retrospect. 
2023 Historical Draft - Brooklyn Nets - 9th pick

Bigs - Pau, Amar'e, Issel, McGinnis, Roundfield
Wings - Dantley, Bowen, J. Jackson
Guards - Cheeks, Petrovic, Buse, Rip

Re: Hakeem Olajuwon vs David Robinson: who was better?
« Reply #53 on: April 09, 2019, 02:11:29 PM »

Offline Big333223

  • NCE
  • Tiny Archibald
  • *******
  • Posts: 7489
  • Tommy Points: 741
I think folks are just forgetting just how good Robinson was during his peak because his titles were won later.   But that's a reflection on his team, not on how good he was as an individual.

Robinson played far fewer games due to (a) starting at age 24 due to his Naval commitment and (b) injury curbing his later career a bit short.  He played in just 987 regular season games compared to 1238 for Olajuwon. 

But during his peak years, Robinson was absurdly dominant in ways that I don't think Olajuwan ever quite reached.  His 93-94 season was just insane.  He scored 29.8 to go with 10.7 rebounds, 4.8 assists and 3.3 blocks per game.  He accrued 20 Win Shares at an absurd .296 WS/48 rate!   The only players ever to post seasons with a higher WS/48 rate are Wilt, Kareem, Lebron, Jordan and Curry (Al Cervi also did so way back in 1951).

Robinson posted 7 seasons with a WS/48 rate of .260 or higher and 5 seasons with 15+ total Win Shares.  That's seven of the top 75 seasons ever posted by WS/48 rate and 5 of the top 58 seasons ever posted by Win Share total!!!

Olajuwon never came close to dominating the regular season like that.  His highest WS/48 rate was .234 and only crossed the .200+ threshold three times.  He had only one season totaling above 15 Win Shares (15.8 in '93).

Olajuwon was dominant in the first of two title-winning playoff runs and deserves his legendary status for that.  However, I'm a little confused that guys like Otis Thorpe, Kenny Smith, Clyde Drexler, Vernon Maxwell, Robert Horry and Sam Cassell are being portrayed as a bunch of nobodies.   Tough crowd here I guess.   

I mean, seriously, Drexler was imho the team's best player during the playoffs for that second championship and Horry was arguably almost as important as Hakeem in that run.

Robinson didn't win back-to-back titles, but come on, he did also win two rings.  And he played outstanding basketball in both title runs as well as in almost all his playoff appearances.   His WS/48 rate in the '99 playoffs was a dominant .243 and even at age 37 in his last playoffs (and title) he posted a .204 WS/48 rate.   He was a true stud to the end.

Imho, Olajuwon was a better low-post player and slightly better rebounder.  But Robinson was a much more complete offensive player with that beautiful jump shot, while still being nearly as good as Olajuwon in everything else.   

And it's hard to look past the fact that Robinson owned their head-to-head match ups 32-16.

In an otherwise really nice post presenting a strong dissenting opinion with some good statistical information you drop in this bit about Horry being, arguably, almost as important as Hakeem during their playoff run? I'm sorry but that's nonsense.
1957, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968, 1969, 1974, 1976, 1981, 1984, 1986, 2008

Re: Hakeem Olajuwon vs David Robinson: who was better?
« Reply #54 on: April 09, 2019, 03:24:25 PM »

Offline bdm860

  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5952
  • Tommy Points: 4586
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. 

I disagree that the West was pretty weak then.  I feel like at the time, the East was more like LeBron's East.  You had that 1 dominate team/player with Jordan/LeBron and maybe 1 quasi-competitor in any given season like the Knicks/Pacers, while the West felt more like today's East where you have several teams that could come out on top.

From '91-'96, the West had 5 different teams with 60+ wins (UTA, PHO, SAS, POR, SEA x2) while the East had only 3 (CHI 3x, NYK, ORL).  The West also had more teams in the 55-59 win range (15 vs 8 ).

Then look at All-NBA, West had 51 vs 39 total selections.  19 vs 11 first team selections.   The West was tough, they had the better top end teams talent outside of Bulls/Jordan.  (And part of this is what makes Hakeem's '95 run all the more impressive as they ran through such a strong West, beating the top 4 teams in the league along the way.  Basically what Boston's going to have to do this year.)
The 90's are by far the weakest decade in the sport.  The Bulls are the only truly great team for the vast majority of that decade.  There was a general lack of depth, so very weak teams historically speaking ended up winning a lot of games because someone has to win every game and without a dominant team like the Bulls, there was more parity in the West, but almost none of those mid-90's teams are any good from a historical standpoint.  Even a team like the 97 Jazz that had 2 HOFers was very weak overall with Bryon Russell, Jeff Hornacek, and Greg Ostertag rounding out the starting 5 and a bench of Greg Foster, Shandon Anderson, Antoine Carr, Howard Eisley, and Chris Morris (that was their playoff rotation).  That team had no real business being in back to back finals, even with as great as Karl Malone was.  For example, I'd argue they are at least a comparable if not a worse team then the Thunder are this year.  The Thunder are an upper 40's win team that is going to be on the road in the 1st round, while the Jazz were a 64 win team that cruised to the Finals.    The majority of the 90's was a truly awful decade of basketball.  Jordan and the Bulls were just so good, I think people don't quite appreciate just how awful the 90's was in retrospect.

Players and teams aren't bad because you say so.  You're whole rationale seems to be naming names and leaving it at that.  Jeff Hornacek was the 3rd best Jazz player so Jazz weren't that good!  Those same Jazz beat several teams with more big name players (Lakers with 4 All-Stars, Rockets with 3 HOFers, Spurs).

Different eras, different styles, different media coverage, different popularity, different name recognition.

And I feel like it's hard to say the Bulls were great if we're crapping on their competition.  The '96 Bulls won 72 and '96 Sonics won 64 (10th best all time at the time). The '98 Jazz won 62 games the '98 Bulls won 62 games.  The '92 Knicks and the '98 Pacers took the Bulls to 7 games, and the '95 Magic actually beat the Bulls (I have arguments for not giving Jordan a pass that year, but that's another discussion).  The Bulls only had the best record 3 of their 6 years (lost a tie breaker 1 year).  And Jordan had a reputation for never taking games off.  I just doesn't compute with me how people can say Jordan was that great and the league was that bad.

Even still you're talking about late 90's, I'm talking more about the early/mid 90's for the Hakeem/Robinsion debate.  The West was tougher than the East.  If you're crapping on that whole period then maybe neither Hakeem or Robinson are that good to begin with.


After 18 months with their Bigs, the Littles were: 46% less likely to use illegal drugs, 27% less likely to use alcohol, 52% less likely to skip school, 37% less likely to skip a class

Re: Hakeem Olajuwon vs David Robinson: who was better?
« Reply #55 on: April 09, 2019, 03:46:33 PM »

Offline mmmmm

  • NCE
  • Rajon Rondo
  • *****
  • Posts: 5308
  • Tommy Points: 862
I think folks are just forgetting just how good Robinson was during his peak because his titles were won later.   But that's a reflection on his team, not on how good he was as an individual.

Robinson played far fewer games due to (a) starting at age 24 due to his Naval commitment and (b) injury curbing his later career a bit short.  He played in just 987 regular season games compared to 1238 for Olajuwon. 

But during his peak years, Robinson was absurdly dominant in ways that I don't think Olajuwan ever quite reached.  His 93-94 season was just insane.  He scored 29.8 to go with 10.7 rebounds, 4.8 assists and 3.3 blocks per game.  He accrued 20 Win Shares at an absurd .296 WS/48 rate!   The only players ever to post seasons with a higher WS/48 rate are Wilt, Kareem, Lebron, Jordan and Curry (Al Cervi also did so way back in 1951).

Robinson posted 7 seasons with a WS/48 rate of .260 or higher and 5 seasons with 15+ total Win Shares.  That's seven of the top 75 seasons ever posted by WS/48 rate and 5 of the top 58 seasons ever posted by Win Share total!!!

Olajuwon never came close to dominating the regular season like that.  His highest WS/48 rate was .234 and only crossed the .200+ threshold three times.  He had only one season totaling above 15 Win Shares (15.8 in '93).

Olajuwon was dominant in the first of two title-winning playoff runs and deserves his legendary status for that.  However, I'm a little confused that guys like Otis Thorpe, Kenny Smith, Clyde Drexler, Vernon Maxwell, Robert Horry and Sam Cassell are being portrayed as a bunch of nobodies.   Tough crowd here I guess.   

I mean, seriously, Drexler was imho the team's best player during the playoffs for that second championship and Horry was arguably almost as important as Hakeem in that run.

Robinson didn't win back-to-back titles, but come on, he did also win two rings.  And he played outstanding basketball in both title runs as well as in almost all his playoff appearances.   His WS/48 rate in the '99 playoffs was a dominant .243 and even at age 37 in his last playoffs (and title) he posted a .204 WS/48 rate.   He was a true stud to the end.

Imho, Olajuwon was a better low-post player and slightly better rebounder.  But Robinson was a much more complete offensive player with that beautiful jump shot, while still being nearly as good as Olajuwon in everything else.   

And it's hard to look past the fact that Robinson owned their head-to-head match ups 32-16.

In an otherwise really nice post presenting a strong dissenting opinion with some good statistical information you drop in this bit about Horry being, arguably, almost as important as Hakeem during their playoff run? I'm sorry but that's nonsense.

You might want to review just how well Horry played during those playoffs.   No one is saying he is anywhere within a million miles as great a player as Olajuwon was.   But in that second title playoff run, Horry played some of the best basketball of his own career.  In particular he shot really well.  He posted a red-hot 59.2% scoring efficiency in those playoffs.   Hakeem in turn played well, but by his own standards that was not his most dominant playoffs.  He played a ton of minutes and had huge USG, but his production was a good-but-not-great .143 WS/48.  Almost all of his relevant rates and efficiencies in those playoffs were below his career playoff averages.
NBA Officiating - Corrupt?  Incompetent?  Which is worse?  Does it matter?  It sucks.

Re: Hakeem Olajuwon vs David Robinson: who was better?
« Reply #56 on: April 09, 2019, 04:00:14 PM »

Offline Ogaju

  • Bill Sharman
  • *******************
  • Posts: 19479
  • Tommy Points: 1871
Really? Is this even a question. Hakeem arguably the best center of the post Wilt/Russell era.

Re: Hakeem Olajuwon vs David Robinson: who was better?
« Reply #57 on: April 09, 2019, 04:00:24 PM »

Online Roy H.

  • Forums Manager
  • James Naismith
  • *********************************
  • Posts: 58538
  • Tommy Points: -25636
  • Bo Knows: Joe Don't Know Diddley
Quote
Drexler was imho the team's best player during the playoffs for that second championship and Horry was arguably almost as important as Hakeem in that run.

Quote
You might want to review just how well Horry played during those playoffs.   No one is saying he is anywhere within a million miles as great a player as Olajuwon was.   But in that second title playoff run, Horry played some of the best basketball of his own career.  In particular he shot really well.  He posted a red-hot 59.2% scoring efficiency in those playoffs.   Hakeem in turn played well, but by his own standards that was not his most dominant playoffs.  He played a ton of minutes and had huge USG, but his production was a good-but-not-great .143 WS/48.  Almost all of his relevant rates and efficiencies in those playoffs were below his career playoff averages.

Above is a great example of the over-use of advanced stats.

1995 Playoff Stats:

Hakeem:  33.0 points / 10.3 rebounds / 4.5 assists / 2.8 blocks / 1.2 steals / .533 eFG%

Horry:  13.1 points / 7.0 rebounds / 3.5 assists / 1.2 blocks / 1.5 steals / .550 eFG%

Anybody who looks at that those numbers and sees similar production -- or "importance" -- has a fundamental misunderstanding of basketball.  Generally, scoring about 20 more points on similar efficiency in only four more minutes of action is a pretty good indicator who the more productive player is.  If WS/48 suggests those two players are even, it's a broken metric.



I'M THE SILVERBACK GORILLA IN THIS MOTHER——— AND DON'T NONE OF YA'LL EVER FORGET IT!@ 34 minutes

Re: Hakeem Olajuwon vs David Robinson: who was better?
« Reply #58 on: April 09, 2019, 04:01:52 PM »

Offline johnnygreen

  • Bailey Howell
  • **
  • Posts: 2259
  • Tommy Points: 298
I think folks are just forgetting just how good Robinson was during his peak because his titles were won later.   But that's a reflection on his team, not on how good he was as an individual.

Robinson played far fewer games due to (a) starting at age 24 due to his Naval commitment and (b) injury curbing his later career a bit short.  He played in just 987 regular season games compared to 1238 for Olajuwon. 

But during his peak years, Robinson was absurdly dominant in ways that I don't think Olajuwan ever quite reached.  His 93-94 season was just insane.  He scored 29.8 to go with 10.7 rebounds, 4.8 assists and 3.3 blocks per game.  He accrued 20 Win Shares at an absurd .296 WS/48 rate!   The only players ever to post seasons with a higher WS/48 rate are Wilt, Kareem, Lebron, Jordan and Curry (Al Cervi also did so way back in 1951).

Robinson posted 7 seasons with a WS/48 rate of .260 or higher and 5 seasons with 15+ total Win Shares.  That's seven of the top 75 seasons ever posted by WS/48 rate and 5 of the top 58 seasons ever posted by Win Share total!!!

Olajuwon never came close to dominating the regular season like that.  His highest WS/48 rate was .234 and only crossed the .200+ threshold three times.  He had only one season totaling above 15 Win Shares (15.8 in '93).

Olajuwon was dominant in the first of two title-winning playoff runs and deserves his legendary status for that.  However, I'm a little confused that guys like Otis Thorpe, Kenny Smith, Clyde Drexler, Vernon Maxwell, Robert Horry and Sam Cassell are being portrayed as a bunch of nobodies.   Tough crowd here I guess.   

I mean, seriously, Drexler was imho the team's best player during the playoffs for that second championship and Horry was arguably almost as important as Hakeem in that run.

Robinson didn't win back-to-back titles, but come on, he did also win two rings.  And he played outstanding basketball in both title runs as well as in almost all his playoff appearances.   His WS/48 rate in the '99 playoffs was a dominant .243 and even at age 37 in his last playoffs (and title) he posted a .204 WS/48 rate.   He was a true stud to the end.

Imho, Olajuwon was a better low-post player and slightly better rebounder.  But Robinson was a much more complete offensive player with that beautiful jump shot, while still being nearly as good as Olajuwon in everything else.   

And it's hard to look past the fact that Robinson owned their head-to-head match ups 32-16.

In an otherwise really nice post presenting a strong dissenting opinion with some good statistical information you drop in this bit about Horry being, arguably, almost as important as Hakeem during their playoff run? I'm sorry but that's nonsense.

You might want to review just how well Horry played during those playoffs.   No one is saying he is anywhere within a million miles as great a player as Olajuwon was.   But in that second title playoff run, Horry played some of the best basketball of his own career.  In particular he shot really well.  He posted a red-hot 59.2% scoring efficiency in those playoffs.   Hakeem in turn played well, but by his own standards that was not his most dominant playoffs.  He played a ton of minutes and had huge USG, but his production was a good-but-not-great .143 WS/48.  Almost all of his relevant rates and efficiencies in those playoffs were below his career playoff averages.

My memory isn't the greatest, but I thought I remember Hakeem being double teamed, especially using Horry's defender. This is why I have a hard time relying on data, as it doesn't tell the whole story.

Re: Hakeem Olajuwon vs David Robinson: who was better?
« Reply #59 on: April 09, 2019, 04:22:57 PM »

Offline Surferdad

  • Cedric Maxwell
  • **************
  • Posts: 14456
  • Tommy Points: 972
  • "He fiddles...and diddles..."
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.
4 pages of posts in this thread, but I only had to get to this, the 4th post (on page 1) to see one that is exactly how I feel.

I saw both players back in the day.  My GOAT sweepstakes opinion: Olajuwon is arguably top-12 but probably no lower than 16.  Robinson may be top-20, maybe not.  I'm looking at advanced stats now and it's not particularly close.