Russell was an elite high jumper at the time (6'9") and pretty fast (50 second 440). I think those would hang with any NBA bigs today. FYI I just checked and his high jump would quality him for the NCAA nationals in 2007. Hard to refute he is just a great athlete, even for today. I will say Russell played with great players. Even in college he had great players there. So it does beg the question did he always others to turn to for offense. But lots of players came and went, and he kept winning, he was the one constant across all the titles.
an example of a hall of famer bill russell played with, k. c. jones is in the hall of fame as a player. do you know what k.c. jones averaged, 7 points and 4 assists in a career. is jones a hall of famer on his own merrit or do you think he is one because he played with russell?
Just to clear things up, I'm using your standard here, aamir. See, I just took Robinson's three best statistical games from that series and totally ignored the other beatings, therein I can argue that he played pretty damned well. By that standard (aamir's standard), he played pretty damned well, averaging 27.6 PPG against Hakeem. Hell, considering that, I can't imagine why that series is known as a one-sided massacre. Oh. Right. Reality. Something that runs counter/paradoxical to the arguments aamir's been throwing around here. The reason I go on about this, as stated before, is because Robinson gets far more credit than he deserves and many write that series off as merely some kind of "fluke". But it wasn't. Hakeem was dominate in a way that Robinson never was, and the fact is that David's name only comes up, in truth, as far as dominant matchups when he was being dominated. As it was with Karla's O and D versus that pansy-ass, in multiple post-seasons. Here's an example of what gets to me: http://www.insidehoops.com/forum/showthread.php?t=11195&page=5 Granted, I just started browsing it, but already I've come upon multiple posts that act as if David was equal, or maybe even superior to Hakeem. Bull and ****. Ridiculous arguments such as aamir's don't help the situation, as practically no star in NBA history could be argued to have had a bad series with the cherry picking of results and stats he was using. Robinson was second class, as proven by the three post-seasons where he was supposedly at the very peak of his game. The result? In all three he was badly manhandled by far superior players, one who was at a legendary high that many casuals and plain dishonest people are now trying to reconstruct as something far less. Screw Robinson. That's even what the base stats and on-court results have to say.
and the look at the hofers he played with is as weak a card as well. your card doesn't even work considering he has the "rings" in college.
wilt chamberlain played with some great teams, playing with jerry west (one of the greatest sgs of all time) and elgin baylor (one of the greatest pfs of all time). do you realize baylor averaged 27/13 for an entire career. he was probably greater than any player russell played with. wilt also played with incredible teams in philly.
Another example: http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache...hakeem+robinson+1995&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us Hakeem v. Robinson I: The 1995 Playoffs 1994-95 was the first time that the Spurs had the best record in the conference. They seemed like they were on the express into the Finals before running into the crazy Rockets. Hakeem outplayed Robinson in that series and it is traditional lore that Hakeem was inspired by watching Robinson be presented with the MVP Trophy in front of him. Rocket announcer Bill Worrell described the scene thusly: "They gave David his award on the floor right before the game started. When [Robinson] got the trophy, he said it was such an honor to receive an award that so many other great centers had won. He didn't name Hakeem. I always thought that was David's biggest mistake in the series." In other words, Hakeem went out and schooled him over the perceived slight. "Schooled" isn't exactly accurate. Hakeem averaged an awesome 35.3 ppg in the series but Robinson, himself, almost average 30 ppg. The even more prominent fact was that a team led by Hakeem beat a team led by Robinson. This is a simplistic syllogism. Fact is, Robinson was a incredible player and six games in 1995 is not necessarily a fair basis of comparison. (Incredibly, this series was the only time that Robinson faced Hakeem in the playoffs). ]b]Hakeem v. Robinson II: Who was Better?[/b] Okay, the 1995 Playoffs was only six games, so who was better? The numbers are very close: Robinson 21.1 ppg, 10.6 rpg, 2.5 apg, .518% FG (14 Seasons) Olajuwon 21.8 ppg, 11.1 rpg, 2.5 apg, .512% FG (18 Seasons) Granted that is a very cursory look at the numbers favors Hakeem. He put up slightly better stats in a longer period of time. Of course, it is difficult to penalize Robinson for missing two years serving in the Navy but hey it was his decision. But as we said, this is only raw numbers. When we look at some analytical stats, Robinson has the edge. His career efficiency is slightly higher than Hakeems at 29.0 versus 28.0. Further, if you look at John Hollinger's PER stats, you see that Robinson had higher numbers than Hakeem head-to-head every year but one (excluding the injury years later in their careers). In fact, these numbers rate Robinson as the best player in the NBA three times. Overall rating formulas have their flaws but they tend not to miss the best players in the league. But the real problem is that the formula debate, like the raw career total debate is so close that it determines nothing. So, let's compare intangibles: 1. Hakeem has two rings as a featured player, Robinson has two only as a complementary player 2. Hakeem has a better post game then Robinson 3. Hakeem outplayed Robinson head-to-head in their one playoff match up These are the reasons that people cite as reasons why it is a foregone conclusion that Hakeem was better than Robinson. These reasons are overstated and the two are actually almost a dead heat. Still, I think that they are just enough to tip the scales in Hakeem's favor. Wow. I think we have our next ESPN "expert". Certainly he could rival Hollinger's Spurs' homerism. Hell, he takes it a step further and plain lies about certain statistical facts above -- not just taking the stats and creating convenient narratives with them, but instead making up new stats for David against Hakeem in the 95 playoffs (23 ppg is now "nearly 30"?!?!).
It was a suggestion, which you chose to ignore, thus I will reply. I never said to ignore the 17/6 game -- this is your own doing. That is a contradiction. After all, you are "ignoring the facts that you find inconvenient, for whatever reason." The ignored games were not inconvenient, they were anomalies. A 24-minute performance from a 37min/game player is not a very relevant statistic. I wasn't selling any stories. I haven't made a single claim towards DRs defense, that -- once again -- is your presumption. Having played only 24 minutes to Karla's 40, it would be a rather stupid assumption to give credit to DR for KM's shooting or turnover issues that game. Not being able to review the game, I can only look at the box score, and DRs line for his first 11pt game only has one glaring flaw in his free throw shooting. It has the same "moderate to poor" that you've made ignorable. I don't see any reason to credit Karla for a 40% drop in free throw shooting by DR. Again, anomaly. We disagree on the labeling. That's fine. To say what I said is a contradiction is fool's talk, however. You're generalizing a specific condition (labels after a loss), placing two things together that do not belong (labels after a loss, and a general description). You're taking "it's raining outside today" and making it "it's raining outside everyday." I've already agreed, 29-20 certainly is ownage. Even looking at every game, 25.0 to 19.3 (not 25+ to 19, making up stats are we ) is a sub-par series by DR, and an average series for Karla. You are way over-crediting Karla to call that owning. Particularly in existence of statistical anomalies. Making what Hakeem did seem like common occurrence is undermining.
I went back and looked at an old playoff game where Wilt and Russell were interviewed. They were asked: Reporter: "What do you think of Kobe, is he comparable to Jordan"? Wilt: "He doesn't compare to Jordan, not even close." Russell: "Of course not." Reporter: "What about Shaq, where does he rank all time at the center position?" Wilt: "About 5 or 6." Russell: "I'd agree, he might be a top 5 ever. " Reporter: "Could you handle Shaq?" Wilt: "Please, I would have eaten him alive." Russell: "[Laughs], yea he's not The Big Dipper that's for sure. It would be hard to match up with him of course, but I think I'd do pretty well, I'd just have to play him and get a feel of how I needed to guard him." Reporter: "What about Shaq's size and strength how would you guys match this on the defensive end?" Russell: "Well you just have to do what you can, you know often after playing Wilt I thought hey I really played a hell of a game on D, then I'd see the box score and he scored 45 and I'd kind of just shrug. If I could hold Wilt in his day to 45 guarding him by myself, then I could probably hold Shaq now to 30 by myself." Wilt: "Shaq would not know what hit him if he had to face me when I was young." Reporter: "Bill is this true?" Russell: "Oh yes, absolutely it is. I doubt Shaq's even close to Wilt's power and strength. Shaq's really quick, but Wilt was much quicker. But you know Shaq is much bigger, they said he weighs what 360? That's a problem for me and probably for Wilt even." Reporter: "How much did you weigh in your prime Wilt, could you handle Shaq backing you down at 360?" Wilt: "Well I was about 275 when I came into the league. When I had the 100 point game I was about 300. When I went to the Lakers I was about 330. I guess it depends, but when I was around age 25 about 300 pounds or so, I don't think he could have moved me an inch, I was at my strongest then." Reporter: "So Bill you think Wilt is right about that?" Russell: "Wilt was probably almost as strong as two Shaq's." Reporter: "Give me a top 5 list of NBA players at any position without counting yourself." Wilt: "Hmm, I'd probably go with Bill, Kareem, Jordan, Bird, and Magic." Russell : "Oh, that's hard. Let me see, Wilt of course, and Abdul-Jabbar, Jordan, and of course Bird and Magic and Hakeem. Reporter: "That's 6 guys Bill." Russell: "Well Bird and Magic are even, so Hakeem's in there then right?" Reporter: "Sure." Wilt: "Yes, Bird and Magic is a wash, so put Hakeem or Oscar in there since Bird and Magic is a tie." Russell: "Can I have a another guy?" Reporter: "Sure, who?" Russell : "Bob Petit." Reporter: "Wilt you have the same list so far, you agree with Bill about Bob Petit?" Wilt: "Well him, Oscar Robertson, or Havlicek, would be the next guys but there not as good as the other ones." Russell: "Yep, that's a good list there 1-7 counting me then those other 3 guys after that 8- 10, let's go with that." Reporter: "That's 10 guys counting both of you then. Is that the top 10 then?" Wilt: "Yes, but if Walton didn't get hurt he would be in there somewhere." Russell: "I agree that's the list and Walton would be there if he stayed healthy, wait and Jerry West and Elgin Baylor of course." Wilt: "Yes Jerry West and Elgin Baylor are in there with Petit, Roberston, and Havlicek forgot them there." Reporter: "If you could pick a top 5 ever excluding both of you and not counting Magic Johnson and Larry Bird as one place, but two places, what's the list then?" Russell: "It would be Kareem, Magic, Larry Bird, Michael Jordan, and Hakeem. But John Havlicek, Oscar Roberston, Elgin Baylor, Jerry West, and Bob Petit are close." Wilt: "Kareem, Larry Bird, Magic Johnson, Jordan and Olajuwon. Like he said, Petit, Roberston, Jerry West and Elgin Baylor and Havlicek. Although I'm partial to Havlicek." Reporter: "May I ask neither of you mentions George Mikan, Moses Malone, Elvin Hayes, Dr. J, John Stockton, Karl Malone, Patrick Ewing, David Robinson, Charles Barkley, Nate Thurmond or Shaq and Kobe? Wilt: "There in there right after those other guys and Dave Cowens, McHale and Parrish are in there too." Russell: "Yep, can't argue that, but I do like Stockton and Malone, and of course Mikan a lot." Wilt: "Their the best of that group other than Shaq certainly, then Kobe, maybe them and McHale, and of course got to go Mikan with 5 championships." Russell: "Can't argue with that either." Reporter: "Bill you seem to say Bob Petit is your first guy on that second list, and Wilt you seem to say Havlicek, which one is better and why?" Russell: "Well John Havlicek was the best player I ever played with but Bob Petit is the best player I ever played against aside from Wilt. I take Petit." Wilt: "I played against both. Unlike Bill I actually had to play against Havlicek. I take Havlicek." Reporter: "Best player ever who you got?" Wilt: "You mean 2nd best player ever right?" Russell: [laughs] Reporter: "2nd best after who Wilt?" Wilt: "Me of course." Reporter: "Serious or joking?" Wilt: "No one is close to me. 2nd best player ever Kareem, then Bill, then Jordan." Russell: "Wilt absolutely #1, hands down not even debatable. Then Kareem, then me, then Jordan." Reporter: "Magic and Bird, or Hakeem?" Wilt: "Magic and Bird" Russell: "Same." Reporter: "Walton or Hakeem?" Wilt: "Hakeem." Russell: "Yep, Olajuwon." Reporter: "If Walton never got hurt, he'd be where exactly on an all-time list of all positions?" Russell: "Right after Olajuwon." Wilt: "Exactly." So about late 90s era this was there list: To Tier in order: 1. Wilt 2. Kareem 3. Russell 4. Jordan In order 2nd tier: 5. Bird/Magic "even" 7. Hakeem 8. Walton 3rd tier: 9. (tie) Petit (Russell) Havlicek (Wilt) no order specified Oscar Roberstson Jerry West Elgin Baylor fourth tier: 1. Shaq 2. Kobe 3. Stockton 4. McHale small gap to lower part of fourth tier: no order specified Moses Malone Elvin Hayes Dr. J Karl Malone Patrick Ewing David Robinson Charles Barkley Nate Thurmond Robert Parrish Dave Cowens Now this was BEFORE Duncan won 4 titles and Shaq won 4 and Kobe 3. So the question is now where do Shaq and Duncan rank adding 4 titles, and now where does Kobe rank adding 3 titles? RECENTLY I found where Russell was asked about Duncan and Shaq (this after the 4 titles each). When asked where Duncan and Shaq ranked all time among big men: Russell: "Duncan's 5, Shaq's 6. Wilt, Kareem, me, Hakeem, Duncan, Shaq. Walton would be 5 if he didn't get hurt though. Duncan and Shaq are top 10 all time at any position though." When asked where Kobe rated compared to Michael Jordan: "Let's not be foolish now, but he's in the top 15 players ever." So I assume Shaq, Kobe, Duncan are now in his 3rd tier. So I am extrapolating a bit here, from those comments recently and from before and going by how Wilt and Russell agreed on everything except who was #8 Havlicek or Petit........ I extrapolate Wilt/Russell list of in order: 1. Wilt 2. Kareem 3. Russell 4. Jordan 5. Bird/Magic 7. Hakeem 8. Walton 9. Duncan 10. Shaq 11. Havlicek/Petit 13. Kobe (because he has no titles without a dominant big next to him and Havlicek and Petit do) no order 14./15. Jerry West/Oscar Roberston (because both have 1 title playing with a dominant big, but Kobe had 3 playing with one) in order: 16. George Mikan (because he has 5 titles) 17. Kevin McHale (because he has 3 titles) 18. Elgin Baylor (7 Finals appearances) 19. John Stockton/Karl Malone (2 Finals appearances) So I've discerned a top 20 all-time list based on Wilt/Russell opinion and in order something like this: 1. Wilt Chamberlain 2. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar 3. Bill Russell 4. Michael Jordan 5. (tie) Larry Bird/Magic Johnson 7. Hakeem Olajuwon 8. Bill Walton 9. Tim Duncan 10. Shaquille O'Neal 11. (tie) John Havlicek/Bob Petit 13. Kobe Bryant 14. (tie) Jerry West/Oscar Roberston 16. George Mikan 17. Kevin McHale 18. Elgin Baylor 19. (tie) John Stockton/Karl Malone Perhaps this list will be more agreed upon then since it comes from 2 of the universally ranked top 5 bigs ever? Bigs: 1. Wilt 2. Kareem 3. Russell 4. Hakeem 5. Duncan 6. Shaq If Walton stayed healthy: 1. Wilt 2. Kareem 3. Russell 4. Hakeem 5. Walton 6. Duncan 7. Shaq
good stuff bball scientist. thanks for looking that up. i'd take dream, magic, and bird over russell but their list isn't bad.
I have to disagree with two things you said here. First, we never faced Jordan's Bulls in the Finals. It was Ewings Knicks and Shaq's Magic. I have no doubt though that going against Jordan's Bulls would have produced to epic finals series where we would have won in seven both times. Also, Duncan was a rookie in 97, so he did face, with the exception of a Barkley led Suns team and the Bulls in the finals, all those afforementioned teams. In 98 San An played PHX and then UTAH before getting beat by Malone and Stockton. In 99, Duncan faced KG's Wolves, the Lakers and Portland before taking Ewing's Knicks in 5. All I'm Saying is that Duncan AND Robinson had chances to shine together with more of a supporting cast and couldn't even do what Dream did mostly by hisself. The other thing is, I believe D Robinson got 2 before he retired. 99 and 03 wasn't it? But, you are right in the since that 80's early 90's NBA was a lot different than it is now. Just to make myself clear though, I am in belief that Hakeem is one of the top 4 Centers of all time and Duncan and Robinson don't make my list.
In other words, the suggestion was a one-way street in which you're supposed to be left with the last word. Gotcha. I pretty much had that figured from the outset. Certainly you were transparent enough. As you've shown elsewhere throughout this debate, you're not one for following your own standards. Just another example. Do you know what it is to ignore? Well certainly that's what you've been doing as argumentation for Robinson's game in 96 against Malone -- i.e. if it's bad it doesn't count. You acted as if he played Malone evenly...well just as long as we ignore the games where he didn't. Of course they are. You're trying to craft a storyline counter to reality in regards to how badly Robinson played, so therefore pieces of that same reality really must be thrown to the wayside. Well thank you for acknowledging, no matter the vernacular used for the excuse, that you are indeed ignoring specific games Robinson played. In other words, you ignore the reality of the situation to defend his **** play. That's been the entirety of your argument here -- even or especially for a game where Malone plays 33 minutes and scores 32 points versus David playing 35 and...managing 11. DOESN'T COUNT because David missed a couple more FTs than should be expected. Yeah. It's not much of an anomaly considering the fact that Robinson put up the exact same numbers with 35 (oooh, 2 less than 37) minutes on the floor the previous game. Nor that he played awful in 50% of the games -- 50% that you choose to write off as not counting, though you never make a case for why this is. As I said, if I use the standard you're going with for Robinson's 96 meltdown for the 95 WCF (ignoring the worst games, only acknowledging the best), I come up with Robinson playing even better in that series. Which shows just how ridiculous your argument is. Your point was that for some reason Malone scoring 22 should be played up more as a problem, even while you think it's to be ignored that Robinson had two games in a row at 11 points per, closing the series out with a miserable (though, sadly, improved) 17, and averaging 19 per in the series proper. Now what I find hilarious about that is somehow the former, your point, is supposed to be an indictment on the media for crafting tall tales wherein they play up one angle and ignore the other, all the while the entirety of your argument is that DRob's awful play in the series should be swept under the rug as "out of the ordinary" or somesuch -- but, uh, that's rather the point against Robinson, in case you missed it. As in, just how badly he'd play against a guy like Malone in the playoffs. Your response to that? That somehow these games don't count. Right. If holding Malone to 22 once is somehow noteworthy (his worst game in that series offensively), then how could Robinson averaging 3 points less that throughout the series be anything other than the top headline? It's a strikingly bad statline he took out of that series, plain and simple. And we're talking about what Malone and Robinson did against each other, and it's verifiable that they guarded one another the brunt of the time they both were on the floor -- Robinson coming out far worse for wear in the matchup. As far as what the team did defensively against Malone with Robinson on the bench, that's rather a large bit of sidetracking -- ironically, truly irrelevant to what's being argued here, and brought forth, appropriately (as to go with your theme of argument structure on this thread), by you -- though I suppose it does make an interesting argument implicitly even against Robinson's D on Malone when role players handle his assignment better than he ever did. So. Thanks for that. Go look at so many of the posts on GG from that time period. The ones about Malone intimidating and railroading Robinson right out of the playoffs. Might give you a clue. It's pretty funny that you have the nerve to complain about stats/facts being ignored by my side, considering that's the entirety of your argument in this. Again, as far as factual basis, it was not an anomaly for Robinson to have terrible games against Malone in the playoffs. It was a trend. No matter what excuse you want to backload on it to make it somehow "not count". You seem to be missing the point. That point centrally being how bad Robinson was against prime competition. But, um, by your own argument above, Robinson's "anomaly", if we go purely by FT% in that year's playoffs, was to miss 3 more FT's than should be expected (what are you, John ****ing Hollinger? That would make sense, actually), as his shooting percentage was 67% throughout. In which case, DRob "should" have scored 14 points against the Jazz that game. So, without crediting Karla with those extra FT misses, I can see how you'd believe that Robinson put in a passable performance that game. Yep, those missed FTs sure made his play out to be something it wasn't Right. Actually, you disagree with yourself. I can't tell you how worried I've been that it wouldn't be. If you want to see foolish talk, you should try reading your own writings. Uh, in case you didn't know, they're all labels. And sure as **** have not made a good case for why post-loss labels are to be ignored over and above general labels -- other than the fact, as stated before, that you find it convenient in this instance. Further, in the context of sports, general labels are taken from many post-loss labels anyway. Instead of broadly railing against labels in a specific context, maybe you should try fully explaining why the Robinson label is or was ever false. Certainly its ridiculous to say that Robinson ever fully shook the label of being soft, if at all. So to act as if the Mermaid moniker was only specific to his losing is another in the long line of mendacities you've attempted to pass off here through your half-cocked argumentation. As usual, a ludicrous contradiction, as you label freely and broadly where you see fit, yet act as if it's merely on the other side. And, also as usual, you can't live up to your own standard or be bothered to figuratively look in the mirror. Further isn't that generally the trend of labels? To broadly make a point for or against an entity or person? Certainly the latter analogy fits far better with your description of Malone. My question is how calling Robinson soft is any less valid than calling Malone "ugly"? Both labels were created through their on-court play, no matter how much you seemingly would prefer to believe otherwise with the former. Actually, looking at Robinson's play against both Hakeem and Malone in the playoffs, it's more like he was the prison b****. You're sure? You never know how many games Robinson missed 3 or 4 FTs he "should" have made. It's called that because it was that. From a defensive standpoint is a pretty severe beatdown, and for Malone to also hit his average or pretty close to it off of such defensive focus is all the more impressive. And all the more pathetic for Robinson who, if I recall, was also a DPOY winner. Yeah, I know. The games where Robinson played so badly simply don't count, though Malone scoring 22 against the Spurs (to Dave's irrelevant 11) should have been the top story out of that series. I'm sorry, anybody who's truly a fan of Hakeem would know better. Just as anybody who looks at Robinson's stats against Malone can tell that being owned was a regular duty for that pansy, not any various or sundry "anomaly". Saying otherwise doesn't give more credit to Hakeem, rather it gives far too much undue credit to Robinson, as if being b**** slapped was another one of your "anomalies", therefore not really counting -- that's actually a talking point, I've taken note, of the pro-Robinson forces against Hakeem. And here you are using it. Appropriate. Hakeem's ownage was of the entire league; certainly not limited to or accredited to one series against a second rate star center. Having said all that, I very much have had enough of you and the moronic, contradictory and dishonest lengths you'll go to to excuse the Mermaid's laughable play. After all, what's the point of arguing the semantics of points already proven? The stats say it all, and the best you can do is find the aforementioned bits of foolishness to ignore them. That's stance. In other words, a big nothing making me foolish to have gone this far with you and certainly all the more if I attempt to do so further. Ciao.
And some of these teams won titles and some consider them the best ever. But most of Wilt's career he had nowhere near the support of Russell. Russell had great player on his college team too. Nonetheless you can't discount that he ended up on top 13 of 16 years and he was always the best player on his team. I agreed, that was good stuff. Interesting that both Bill and Wilt are crystal clear that Wilt was the best. Thats a pretty thorough job. Personally I can't imagine either saying Kobe is ahead of Mr Clutch, Robertson, Moses Malone (really underappreciated) or possibly Karl Malone or Baylor (I think Russell lost his count when he was saying "Kobe as top 15"), obviously only Russell could further clarify today. Malone (both of them) and Charles Barkley would have to be ahead of secondary stars of Stockton, Kobe and McHale too. I don't want to mention it, but I couldn't tell you in all honesty Stockton was better than Pippen or Steve Nash as well. Though not the defender, Nash is a little bit Stockton, little bit Jerry West. Nash I think will go down as the #1 best pure PG (after Magic), certainly he has it cemented if he can deliver a title to Phx. The other contention is Shaq. While they both have 4 titles and 3 playoff MVPs, when Shaq and Duncan's prime's overlapped Shaq had his 3 peat and Shaq's peak seasons are just a lot more impressive statically. I think it is tough call whether Shaq or Hakeem have the #4 center spot nailed down, it is not a tough call that both are a notch above Duncan, outside of Duncan adding quite a bit more to his resume (e.g., more playoff and regular season MVPs the next couple of years, etc).
jimprofit, the funny thing is that you have posted 3 times after aamir found it useless to continue the debate, 2 of which you directed at aamir. what did you expect him to do? not respond after you directed 2 more of your posts towards him? yes you do downplay hakeems dominance of drobs by saying drob continually gets owned by superstars. just think about it. malone outplayed robinson dream dominated robinson big difference in how words can seem. malone had a center which helped in the middle dream had horry (who was concerned with rodman) at pf
jimprofit, I don't know where your grudge of DR comes from, it is not his fault idiots try to make a case for him with Hakeem. He averaged about 23-12-3 in his prime in the playoffs. So he got outplayed by Hakeem and Karl Malone in some series. Still, he was getting his team usually out the 1st round in a deep Western conference (which say Kobe and Tmac seem to have trouble doing as leaders). He was a great player. Not close to the level of Hakeem or Shaq, below the level of Duncan or Moses Malone. Right in the mix of Karl Malone and Barkley though (lets remember Karl Malone had low points in elimination games versus Shawn Kemp and the Sonics in game 7 and games 6s versus the Bulls--doesn't take away everything he did), and DR is certainly ahead of Kevin McHale or Kevin Garnett or Pat Ewing in the peaking (sp?) order of all-time bigs.
If they were to play 1 on 1 in the best years of their careers I would have to say Hakeem would do to him what he did to Drob. Little pump fake here little shake there and Duncan would fold. Hakeem was faster and more athletic. Plus he could shoot free throws which Duncan needs practice in. Face to face hakeem could stop TD.
The suggestion was that we drop it. You replied, twice, with your senseless babble. Thus we did not drop it. Surprise, more poor comprehension from little jimmy. Your entire argument against me, in that I am ignoring what is being said out of convenience, is the entirety of your own responses. Did I say to ignore "bad games"? NO, only anomalies. A horribly off night in free throw shooting and a 24-minute night are anomalies. They are relatively controllable efforts which happened wrong, and are of no respect to KMs performance against DRob. But you ignore that, and choose to read it as "all bad games should be ignored" while continuously claiming I'm ignoring 50% of his games (2/6 = ). Did I say Malone's negatives in the 22pt game needed more emphasis? NO, I said exactly why it is not emphasized. It is journalism. Yet you ignore that, in favor of creating a story about me creating a story about me raving about Robinson's defense (in the 16 minutes they couldn't possibly have been on the floor at the same time, no less!) Did I say all labels were irrelevant? NO, I said (and have repeatedly explained to you how I have said) that labels that the media uses after losses are irrelevant. Again, it is journalism. Yes, they are all labels, but it is not all labels that I have been referring too. There is a distinction made, that you have, again, ignored in favor of your own story. And you ignore your the relevance of your own words towards Hakeem's performance. You attempt to lambast me for ignoring two games, yet your entire argument is nothing but fabrications, fallacies, and false understandings/judgments contrived from ignoring what's said. You see what you want to see. You've continuously failed at understanding qualifications, you've continuously failed at comprehension, you've continuously failed at understanding the implications of your own words, and you've continuously failed miserably at abiding by your own argument. You have, however, successfully exposed yourself as the overly self righteous prick that you are. Congrats.
