David Robinson has a better PER than Wilt, Cap and Dream. I/m not a big believer in PER with results like that. That wasn't his only flop. Robinson's lack of a post game was more exposed in the playoffs than the regular season. I don't think any GM or coach would rather have Robinson over Dream offensively. EVER.
It was far superior to Hakeem's - he did a lot more passing AND a lot more scoring on about the same number of touches - I don't really get what other offensive categories there are other than passing and scoring. It wasn't superior that series, in which Hakeem averaged 40 points instead of his normal 25 - he did this often in the playoffs in many years, managing to raise both his production and his efficiency, which makes him a rare specimen...but it wasn't because of any magical inherent superiority of "post" vs. non post. Just ones that prefer a more productive offense. "I don't care what the stats [points] say - Hakeem was better at offense [points]!"
It wasn't superior, because one player had the ability to be dominant in the post and the other didn't. If you think David Robinson was a better offensive player than Hakeem then we will just agree to disagree. I don't see how anyone that ever saw either play could come to that conclusion. That isn't the homer in me talking either. Robinson was not a better offensive player than any of the dominant centers that had a post game (Cap, Shaq, Duncan). He has a better PER than 2 of those guys. Most folks want their big men inside the paint, not outside shooting jumpers and driving. A big with a legit post game is the most coveted asset in all of basketball. Similar to Howard of today, you can get away with bullying everyone in the regular season because most of the good teams can't match up to stop you. But come playoff time it matters. The teams are good and driving or just shooting jumpers....from your center....won't cut it. Your center not being able to score in the post won't cut it (if he is your main option). Riddle me this. If Robinson was so much better offensively then why did he shoot under 50% in every playoff season but 4? It's because jumpers don't go in as much in the postseason, so having a big that can actually dominate down low becomes more important. Those easy drive/dunk opportunities don't happen as much in playoff basketball, hence a post game. Even LeBron had to add a post game to get over the top. That's why I would never choose a perimiter based jumpshooting center over one that can dominate inside, especially if that guy can hit shots on the perimiter as well (Dream and Duncan). Stats don't always tell the truth bro.
No, it was because one player was playing much better than the other player and because it was simply a bad matchup for Robinson. You ever hear the term "styles make fights"? Mark Eaton had limited success vs. Hakeem. Does that mean Mark Eaton is better than Hakeem? Yao got trucked by Stromile Swift on a regular basis. Does that make Swift better than Yao? Hakeem was a bad matchup for Robinson that year - but Robinson didn't have to play 82 games a year vs. Hakeem so that's not what the standard is. Even then it didn't always work out. In the regular season in their last meeting in 1995, Robinson put up 31 points on 63% shooting, Hakeem 25 on 43% shooting. The Spurs blew the Rockets out of the gym. What happened to the vaunted post vs. non-post game then? Or are you telling me that the sample size is too small (whereas 6 games is enough to make itfor all time) I dont' think, I just know that in his prime he was better at scoring points and creating point-scoring opportunities for his team - that's what actually happened. And I don't see how anyone who watched the 1995 WCF's could make a rational decision on the two that wasn't obscenely colored by watching it (witness your "post is the most!' theory. This is the Chris Paul argument all over again - Robinson had a relatively short career, and his drastsically limited minutes at the end saved him some damage on his career efficiency rating. Even then, not sure why you bring up Shaq. Shaq's PER absolutely blows Robinson away. He had 8 years of being in the 28-30 range. That's Wilt/MJ/LeBron territory. Robinson had 3 - it's not even close. The only reason why is career numbers are lower than Robinson (though still very high) is because he played so many more games and minutes at the end - basically the opposite path that Robinson took.
Lots of guys' field goal % goes down in the playoffs, post players included. Shaq's drops from 58% to 56%. Is that because his jumper-focused game wasn't good enough? It's kind of absurd for you to extrapolate Olajuwon's anomlous performance in this regard (his % went up in the playoffs) to the rest of the league.
I'm not only referring to one playoff series, or to when he played Hakeem. Robinson's lack of a post game and it's impact on how his team did in the playoffs compared to the regular season was on display every postseason. Come playoff time, when you don't see pansy teams and the defense intensifies, having a C who can post is better than having one who can't. It's a weakness that gets exposed come playoff time, same with Howard when he finally ran into LA in the Finals and C's that could guard him 1-1 because he has no moves. Robinson has broken PER of 30 twice (94 and 97). Dream never. Duncan never. Kareem never. Shaq broke it 3 times but never reached 31 like Robinson. I brought him up as another example of a C with post game. They are close in PER though. Yes, and with his decrease he was still shooting a % that you want from your pivot. David Robinson was not. In 94 (his high in PER year) he went from shooting 51% in the regular season to 41% in the playoffs. That happens to a lot of guys? What he shot in the playoffs happens to a lot of guys? http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/robinda01.html Dream is just one example, but he is the one we are mainly comparing. There is a reason why teams want a guy with post skills as opposed to one who relies on his jumpshot. Why do you think it was so important for LeBron to develop as a post player? Why are bigs that can score in the post so coveted? Why don't teams covet bigs who can shoot open jumpers and drive?
It's amazing then taht Olajuwon didn't win 9 rings according to this thoroughly well-researched corollary. There may be some validity, but pretty much your entire thesis of why Robinson wasn't that good or PER sucks revolves around "Hakeem did X!" - you need to develop it further. So that tells me that Robinson was a better offensive player that year. I know it's crazy talk for you to accept that there's a stat that shows that a center who scores 29.8, wins the scoring title and tosses out 4.8 assists a game had a more productive offensive season than two guys who never achieved that level of production (Shaq won a few scoring titles, but that's it)...but it's really not enough for me to throw PER out the window. To me it's validating factor. To you it's "agree to disagree" - again I don't know what besides points and points created we're supposed to measure with. It remains that Shaq was consistently better for the majority of his career in PER if you actually take into account context and not intentially sandbag it like you are here. Which is one of many reasons why Shaq outranks both Dream and Robinson on the alltime lists according to most neutrals. Uh, if your'e actually using a 4 game sample size (the entirety of his 1994 playoff experience) as a data point comparable to 82 in the regular season and 987 over his career, I don't think any further comment is needed.
You say this, but you still place him at the bottom of your list. Although I agree he would need maybe just one more championship to inch into the top 5, spots 2-5 are highly subjective.
Yes, no further comment is needed in response to David Robinson being a better offensive option that centers like Cap, Dream or Duncan. I've already commented too much on that notion. I'm fairly confident that no coach or GM would prefer him over any of those guys if they needed to get a bucket or get a teammate a wide open shot.
Yes, most coaches and GM opt for the player who scores less points and created fewer point scoring opportunities for his team in this situation. David Robinson may have scored 71 points in an NBA game, but that simply doesn't beat the explosive 19-20 points a prime Tim Duncan can get you. (I know how you like small sample sizes...) To be fair though Duncan and Shaq played in pretty offensively challenged eras. Though, obviously PER tells us that Shaq was vastlly superior to Robinson.
Might depend on how many rings he wins. Hopefully only 1, for startin the whole super team crap that's gonna ruin the league.
