i assume you meant '99, the year they went to the finals? that was the year he missed pretty much all the playoffs right? even then, they were facing the spurs, who were on one of the crazier rolls of all time (i think 31-6 to end the season, then 15-2 in the playoffs) and ewing would've made no difference.
I was thinking the same thing. I think because HIS teams never won it, I thought of him. It was clear by the time the Spurs won their championships it was TIM's team. So I give DR the honory nod.
I'm certainly no Spurs fan, but I disagree, especially about the first one. That was Duncan's second year in the league, and yes, he was dominant and it was more his team. But I think Robinson was important. The guy still put up 16 and 10 and nearly 2 assists per game. Combine that with Duncan, and that's where there is trouble. I'm just saying, the guy has not one, but 2 rings, and while he certainly wasn't the number 1 guy on either of those teams, the argument can easily be made that without him, they wouldn't have won it.
Yeah thanks, I meant '99. I always think '98 since the lockout and how Ewing was what, a players' union rep? I still believe that the Knicks could have thrown San Antonio away with Ewing in that series. He would have stepped up and taken Robinson out of the picture. And Duncan wasn't quite as great as he is now, considering it was only his second year. But whatever, it's not like the Spurs really won a championship that year. Forever * thanks to the lockout.
Wilt won the title and playoff MVP in 72. I think you made my point well, it is a close call between DR and SE as who was the 2nd most key player on that title team, and it is NOT a close call who was the best player and whose team it was--that was Tim Duncan. Thhink about it, 16&10, that isn't what Yao or Z is doing, and there is a big gap between those two and elite centers. Yes he was important just as we don't win rings without the play of Kenny Smith, Mario Elie and Robert Horry from 93-95. Like I said, DR is the "honorary" best center to never win a title. Or if you don't like that title, he certainly has the title of "best center to ride another's coattails to a title because he could not do it himself." At least Moses, Wilt, even Walton, were the key players on title winning teams.
Robinson didn't lead the Spurs to a title, but neither championship team wins without him. I don't recall Duncan banging Shaq in the paint all night.
funny story about him (or at least i thought it was)....im sitting 1st row under the basket at a Nets- heat game when Mclvaine was on NJ....and he is just playing like a disaster...no points, rebounds...nothing....so i scream "Block a shot for 7 million for christ sakes" (he was making a ton of cash )....so the next time down the floor, he swats brian grant's shot into the 3rd row and looks at me and says "Anything else?"
But he was not the man in both title teams. Billups won the final MVP last year, but the heart and soul of Pistons was still Big Ben.
Isn't this just: Greatest Center without a Ring? When did it become: Greatest Center not to be the Best or Second Best Player on a Title Team?
Come on now on Wilt. His team won the title, he was the freaken playoff MVP that year. I would think that qualifies as "leading" your team to the title--at least the people of his day must have thought he was the most important player during the run for the ring. Well, to make the thread a little more interesting we broadened it a little. Nothing wrong with having multiple "titles" within the spirit of the thread topic, I suppose Ewing gets the initial one from a strict perspective. However: "Best center to ride another's coattails to a title because he could not do it himself." --That title hands down goes to: DAVID "LITTLE MERMAID" ROBINSON.
Wilt averaged 24 ppg and 24 rpg in 1967. With all due respect to Hal Greer and his 22 ppg that year, I'm pretty sure that, Wilt Chamberlin was the Man that year for Philadelphia. It's pretty f'n hard to average 24-24 over the course of an NBA season and not be the man.
this thread is greatest center W/O a ring, thus desert scar is wrong. how are you going to argue david is when he clearly has his ring. really stupid argument. it reminds me of the who's on first comedy bit.
I agree b/c the year they won it was a strike year. They season was short and not real season. The only time I agree with Phil Jackson that they should put a * by their championship title.
I disagree. I'll give those Rockets their dues...they played key roles on those teams. But I think you could have plugged in other solid role players and still won. A lot of solid roles players over the history of the league have championship rings. If you are going to use whetehr or not they were on a team that won as a factor in whether or not that team would have won with someone else in their place, the argument could end. My point was that, even at that later stage of his career...D-Rob was not replaceable on that team. Could you have put another great center on that team to replace him...sure. Exchange Robinson with Alonzo Mourning and they may have still won. But you could have replaced Duncan with Alonzo and they still may have won, too. I think Robinson was clearly the 2nd best, and DEFINITELY the 2nd most important player on that team and replacing him with any other "role" player (cough, cough...Nesterovic), and they would have fizzled for sure. Also, 16 & 10, combined with Robinson's blocking, passing and overall defensive presence, is better than what either Yao or Ilgauskas are doing this year, imo, both all-star centers.
