[Another blogger] David Robinson reigns supreme...again

I don't deny that most people wouldn't put Robinson ahead of Shaq or Hakeem. But the analysis/arguments he put forward seems sound to me. I don't like the conclusions any more than you, but I can't fault how he got there.

Comparing Robinson and Shaq, I think Robinson was the better teammate, the more loyal player to his team, and a superior all-around defensive player. I'd personally rank Shaq ahead of him, but I think many of the arguments that people use to put Hakeem ahead of Shaq would apply for Robinson as well.

Honestly, I think Shaq, Hakeem, and Robinson are close enough to where legitimate arguments can be made to put them in any order. It just depends on the criteria we wish to use.

 

Robinson is not better than Hakeem or Shaq. Both of those players had the ability to elevate their games when it mattered most. They could go into superman mode. When everything broke down (as it usually does in the playoffs), you could just dump them the ball and say take over. You could never do that with Robinson. That's the main difference....

 

Sorry, but that is a weak generalization. David Robinson indeed went into "Superman" mode just like Shaq and Hakeem, just not as often and he didn't have the playoff blowups that they did. Be careful with using the word "never".

 

Shaq himself said that one of the reasons they lost to Houston was because he respected Hakeem too much. He would always check and ask Olajuwon if he was ok and stuff like that. Intimidation WAS a factor in the playoff series.

 

Why is this thread here? We should leave this discussion to Spurs and Knicks fans because the only debate left to be had is who was first in line to hold Olajuwon's jock, Robinson or Ewing.

 

I haven't heard that one before. If it's true, so be it. But I've watched the series several times over the years (I have all 4 games on my PC). It sure didn't look like Shaq was intimidated by Hakeem. He was only in his 3rd year but he still played like a champion (28.0/12.5/6.3/2.5). Hakeem was just better and had better teammates.

 

There is no argument that Robinson was even near Dream and Shaq. Come on, is this guy serious? Do you have eyeballs?

Wikipedia says:
"Olajuwon is generally considered one of the five greatest centers to ever play the game, along with Bill Russell, Wilt Chamberlain, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, and Shaquille O'Neal".

Try again, Spurs fans.

 

there is a lot of truth in this. drob was obviously great statistically but no way I would have eva put him over hakeem, even when the rockets were perenial first round losers. hakeem always stepped up his game when competition deemed, that's the difference. clutch

unfortunately its the difference between a certain shooting guard in houston and one in LA. Although unfair to argue championships, one guy has that killer instinct, and one doesn't. its just that simple

 

Here is the 2007 analysis by espn's analysts on the 10 greatest centers of all time. Olajuwon finished 5th is this list, with Kareen, Wilt, and Russell very close at the top, then Shaq and Olajuwon, then everyone else trailing in the distance. Robinson didn't even finish in the top 10 in six of the twenty voters' ballots, and he finished dead last (10th) in another 3 ballots. Robinson was ranked higher than Olajuwon by exactly ZERO of ESPN's analysts.

Kareem 8 9 9 9 9 8 8 10 10 8 8 7 8 8 10 9 10 8 10 8 174
Wilt 9 7 8 10 10 9 9 7 9 10 9 10 9 9 9 7 8 9 9 6 173
Russell 10 10 10 8 7 10 4 8 7 9 10 8 10 10 8 10 5 10 4 10 168
Shaq 6 8 7 7 8 6 10 6 6 5 6 9 7 6 6 8 9 7 6 9 142
Hakeem 7 6 6 6 6 7 7 9 8 7 5 6 6 5 7 6 7 4 8 7 130
Moses -- 5 4 4 5 5 5 5 4 1 -- 5 2 3 5 5 4 6 5 3 76
Walton 5 -- -- 5 1 4 -- 1 5 -- 7 4 5 -- -- 4 3 5 3 4 56
Robinson -- 4 1 1 4 1 6 -- 3 6 -- 3 -- 4 3 2 6 -- 7 -- 51
Mikan 4 1 3 -- -- 2 3 4 2 2 4 1 4 7 4 3 -- 1 -- 1 46
Ewing -- 2 -- 2 3 -- 2 2 1 -- 2 2 -- 1 2 -- -- -- 2 2 23
Others receiving votes (points): Willis Reed (12), Arvydas Sabonis (12), Bob Lanier (8), Dave Cowens (6), Nate Thurmond (6), Robert Parish (4), Bob McAdoo (4), Artis Gilmore (3), Spencer Haywood (3), Wes Unseld (2), Dwight Howard (1)



Don't bring that crap in here about Robinson being even close to Olajuwon, foo'.

 

Well said...

Don't be "bamboozled" in the same manner that Bill Worrell described the admiral when The Dream took back his MVP trophy that night.

 

i think they're close enough in the regular season that you could rank them any which way. hakeem and robinson's career numbers are eerily similar. pts/reb/ast/blk/stl are all within tenths of each other i think and even mpg are damn near equal (robinson is a PER beast b/c the spurs were slower paced).

but i just don't see how robinson can be anything but 3rd once the playoffs are thrown in. it wasn't just the 95 WCF (though that is huge), he just doesn't stack up with hakeem and shaq in terms of numbers or leading teams in the playoffs. he just can't be anywhere but third.

as for hakeem and shaq, i certainly wouldn't say anyone is crazy for putting shaq ahead (and because of his popularity and larger than life persona i have no doubt he will always be ranked higher by the media and fans in general), but it's very close. shaq the scorer with the TS% advantage, hakeem the defender with the huge blocks and steals advantage.

in the playoffs, the scoring and TS% advantages pretty much go away for shaq though, though he does gain in rebounding, and hakeem keeps his dominant defensive edge and even turns turnovers in his favor.

and while he had more success, there's no doubt shaq played on more talented teams throughout his career and always with a superstar wingman to boot. and i've never bought into the less competition theory for shaq's dominance. there's no doubt he played less capable centers, but he dominated even against hakeem/shaq/ewing in the early part of his career as well.

 

Beautiful.

 

When did David Robinson go into superman mode when it mattered (i.e. the playoffs)? You can spit out many times that Hakeem and Shaq elevated their level of play in the postseason, even in losses....

 

I think the point I'm making is that you HAVE TO fault the method if the conclusion is wrong.

Since some somewhat random, complex, advanced statistical formulas are used (and I know you're a fan of these formulas and I agree they have their uses) play a large part in determining these rankings, then I can only think, certainly in relation to the way they are using such stats to compare players, that those stats aren't very useful in this arena.

There are stats I could use to prove Isiah Rider was a better player than Michael Jordan. We know that's wrong. So either the stats are wrong/bad, or being used poorly.

 

I'm weary of faulting any analytical methods simply because I don't like the results. I think that's the wrong way to evaluate them.

We can look at them more closely if they lead to bizarre conclusions. But, ultimately, the criticism should lie with the shortcomings of the methods, not on whether the results go against our intuition.

We tend to remember the big moments more -- great performances in key games, championships, etc. In sports, that's how an athlete builds up a legacy. But, how much should we take that into account when assessing how "good" a player really was? I think we tend to overstate the importance of that stuff in our subjective evaluations, because that's what sticks most clearly in our heads. But if the ball bounces a different way in a few playoff series, it's possible that history takes a very different turn and the "big moments" drastically change to favor other players.

So, I'm partial to evaluations that don't dwell a lot on the "big moments" stuff, but simply try to give an overall summary of the players performance, through the good and the bad. When you look at it that way, I think Olajuwon and Robinson stack up much, much more closely than a lot of us would care to admit.

 

I know exactly what you mean by looking at the overall product of a player, instead of focusing on the big moments...you're right to extent that a player's body of work should be judged on his entire career and not simply the playoffs.


Still, you have to admit the players that win big is separating the line between the great players and the very best players. I even used the Tim Duncan to Karl Malone (and David Robinson) difference earlier. I would say statistically that both players are better than Duncan, but when it comes to winning and playing in big games...Duncan wins in a landslide. If you look at his numbers in the playoffs and progressive efforts into NBA Finals. As far as MVP players go, he is 4th all time behind MJ, Kareem, and Bill Russell. That says alot. It's something in his game (style of play), skills, or mentality that makes him better than both Malone and David Robinson, or makes his team more successful. Sort of like how Dream and Shaq stands over all of the other all-star centers over the past 25 years. The main point of the NBA season (like any other sport) is to win....win a championship. That's why people bring up the big moments all of the time....because it is usually the most important aspect of player is to say was his production succesful enough to help his/her team win as much as possible.

Again the same argument can be used for NFL QBs, look at the good QBs who have won 3 or more Super Bowls compared to the ones who have never won a single championship at all.

Let me see...first group being players, like Joe Montana, Tom Brady, Aikman, or Bradshaw vs. players, like Kelly, Moon, Dan Fouts, or Bert Jones.


Most will say the first group of players had the luxury of playing on a better teams and better complimentary players. At the same time, you could also argue that the players in the first group didn't necessarily have best teams in the seasons they won the Super Bowl...or had the most talented. Also, you could say the first group of players were just more clutch (able to play in tighter games) with more in stake.

 

David Robinson >> Ewing

Rocket River

 

i always thought ewing was over rated but neither of them compare to Hakeem

 

see my sig

I agree with francis fo prez, their numbers are unbelievably similar in the regular season. even though their offense was different, david a more face up shoot or drive, both were athletic freaks for their heights. i say this in full security of my maleness, david's body was impressive, ripped for a guy any size. both could go right by you and both were strong.

 

I'm going to give the edge to Ewing, I thought he was slightly more succesful and even lasted a bit longer the Admiral....Ewing was still 20 and 10 player at the age of 35 and the focal point for the Knicks. I think David was better in his peak years, but longevity favored Ewing. Ewing was primarily a back em down type center with jump shot and couple hooks and few moves. I always thought David Robinson was slightly overrated, even before the 95 playoffs.

People like to criticize Yao and T-Mac for not getting out of 1st Round or going deep into the playoffs and being soft, not being clutch, but when it comes to David Robinson he should take the cake. I've never seen such anti-playoff MVP in my life.

His playoff performances in his first five or six seasons are more similar to Yao Mings than they are to Shaq and Dream...like I said before...Ewing and even TD's playoff numbers are more comparable to Dream's than the Admiral.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/robinda01.html/

http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/e/ewingpa01.html/