David Robinson was better than Hakeem Olajuwon

[Bush4Ever]

The players in the 99th percentile are usually separated by their playoff performances, not their regular seasons ones.

Hakeem won 2 rings with arguably as little help as any player since Rick Barry, while Robinson's FG and FT percentages dropped by 4 and 3 percentage points respectively (from the regular season).

Hakeem in an absolute walk.

[icemanfan]

this thread is stupid

David had Tim Duncan in his last 5 years in the league when Hakeem was declining so Robinson winning more is a bit pointless.

First let me say both are all time greats. As a Spurs fan I got to see these two play often. Hakeem, Tim Duncan , Jordan all have something that David did not. Its not something that can be found on a stat sheet or a piece of paper. They belong to that super rare top tier group of superstars who can force their will on a game when its really needed. The last year the Rockets won the NBA championship Hakeem did this pretty much the entire playoffs. No way they should have slipped past the Spurs. No way they should have taken the Knicks but they did because Hakeem changed the game by sheer force of will. David could never do this. For that he was called a choaker but that is not at all accurate. He was and is a great player, a HOF player but NOT on that very top tier like Hakeem, Tim Duncan, Jordan, Magic , Kareem, Larry Bird and the others who could change the outcome of a major game by taking the game over. So as one of the biggest David Robinson fans ever I must say no, he was not better than Hakeem at basketball. That is ok because damn few were.

Ice

[Big#50]

First let me say both are all time greats. As a Spurs fan I got to see these two play often. Hakeem, Tim Duncan , Jordan all have something that David did not. Its not something that can be found on a stat sheet or a piece of paper. They belong to that super rare top tier group of superstars who can force their will on a game when its really needed. The last year the Rockets won the NBA championship Hakeem did this pretty much the entire playoffs. No way they should have slipped past the Spurs. No way they should have taken the Knicks but they did because Hakeem changed the game by sheer force of will. David could never do this. For that he was called a choaker but that is not at all accurate. He was and is a great player, a HOF player but NOT on that very top tier like Hakeem, Tim Duncan, Jordan, Magic , Kareem, Larry Bird and the others who could change the outcome of a major game by taking the game over. So as one of the biggest David Robinson fans ever I must say no, he was not better than Hakeem at basketball. That is ok because damn few were.

Ice

Said the same thing many times. Robinson couldn't handle pressure like those you named. He stepped up a lot of times but vanished much more times.

[beasly15]

even david robinson would be like WTF at this...

[Da_Realist]

First let me say both are all time greats. As a Spurs fan I got to see these two play often. Hakeem, Tim Duncan , Jordan all have something that David did not. Its not something that can be found on a stat sheet or a piece of paper. They belong to that super rare top tier group of superstars who can force their will on a game when its really needed. The last year the Rockets won the NBA championship Hakeem did this pretty much the entire playoffs. No way they should have slipped past the Spurs. No way they should have taken the Knicks but they did because Hakeem changed the game by sheer force of will. David could never do this. For that he was called a choaker but that is not at all accurate. He was and is a great player, a HOF player but NOT on that very top tier like Hakeem, Tim Duncan, Jordan, Magic , Kareem, Larry Bird and the others who could change the outcome of a major game by taking the game over. So as one of the biggest David Robinson fans ever I must say no, he was not better than Hakeem at basketball. That is ok because damn few were.

Ice

Very good post

[guy]

I think Hakeem is better, but I don't think saying Robinson was better then Hakeem is as ridiculous a thing to say as people are making it out to be. For much of their careers, Robinson was considered the greater player. From 1990-1999, Robinson actually beats him in MVP voting 7 out of those 10 seasons, and one of the seasons he didn't beat him he was out of the entire year. Now, Hakeem obviously sets himself apart with his playoff performances, and cause of that plus the fact that he's better at most aspects of the game I say Hakeem is clearly greater, but I wouldn't say he is THAT much greater.

And as far as Duncan vs. Robinson goes, I would say Duncan holds the edge here, however, thats not as clear as people imply either. Robinson is arguably just as great of a scorer, rebounder, and defender then Duncan ever was. In fact, the main reason IMO that Duncan is clearly ahead is cause of his titles, which is the result of better teams. Duncan isn't winning titles in the 90s with any of the teams Robinson had, and I doubt that Robinson couldn't have won 3-4 titles in the 00s with the teams Duncan has had. But as unfair as it sounds, I'll give the edge to the guy who is more proven, even if he had a much better situation, cause I can't just give credit to someone who I THINK would've done the same thing and the only reason he didn't was cause he was in a worse situation. Anyway, Duncan also stepped up in the playoffs alot more, which I think does not have much to do with the teammates around him.

[bdreason]

No, he wasn't.

[Da_Realist]

I think Hakeem is better, but I don't think saying Robinson was better then Hakeem is as ridiculous a thing to say as people are making it out to be. For much of their careers, Robinson was considered the greater player. From 1990-1999, Robinson actually beats him in MVP voting 7 out of those 10 seasons, and one of the seasons he didn't beat him he was out of the entire year. Now, Hakeem obviously sets himself apart with his playoff performances, and cause of that plus the fact that he's better at most aspects of the game I say Hakeem is clearly greater, but I wouldn't say he is THAT much greater.

And as far as Duncan vs. Robinson goes, I would say Duncan holds the edge here, however, thats not as clear as people imply either. Robinson is arguably just as great of a scorer, rebounder, and defender then Duncan ever was. In fact, the main reason IMO that Duncan is clearly ahead is cause of his titles, which is the result of better teams. Duncan isn't winning titles in the 90s with any of the teams Robinson had, and I doubt that Robinson couldn't have won 3-4 titles in the 00s with the teams Duncan has had. But as unfair as it sounds, I'll give the edge to the guy who is more proven, even if he had a much better situation, cause I can't just give credit to someone who I THINK would've done the same thing and the only reason he didn't was cause he was in a worse situation. Anyway, Duncan also stepped up in the playoffs alot more, which I think does not have much to do with the teammates around him.

I think Ice Man said it best. In terms of skills, athletic ability and all the quantitative things you can measure, David Robinson can be placed near the top of any list. But Hakeem was able to use his abilities to control the game beyond what stats can measure. Lately I've been watching Hakeem play in the 94 Finals. He had Ewing so confused with his defensive play. Ewing actually averaged more blocks and rebounds (I think) but when you watch, there is no doubt the imprint Hakeem left on the floor defensively outshined what Ewing did. His timing and anticipation put himself in a position on the floor that bothered Ewing at all times -- even if he didn't get a block, steal or rebound. His presence pushed Ewing further and further away from the basket and forced the Knicks to play outside-in instead of inside-out. That cost the Knicks the series. Hakeem was the reason for this.

To make another comparison...Duncan has the same ability. I remember as a college student watching Duncan play in his first playoffs (97 or 98) and was amazed at how he was putting in work. It was very obvious that he was the best player on the floor, even in his rookie (or 2nd) year. David could do all things well, but he never controlled the game like that.

You have to look beyond head-to-head matchups because in my opinion David had better teams until maybe 1993 or so. The 95 series between the Spurs and Rockets is and should be the main reason people view Hakeem > Robinson. I know that it is only one series but Hakeem showed in these 6 games why he was a better player. When they had similarly talented teams facing each other for all the marbles, Hakeem embarrassed Robinson. That was an a$$ kicking that nullified all the other regular season games.

To use a tennis example... I'm a big Sampras fan, but Andy Roddick had his number for a number of years playing in minor tournaments on the tour. But when they faced off under the lights at the US Open (2001, I think) Sampras wiped the floor with him so bad that it left little doubt who was the smarter and better player. Roddick's game just didn't match up well to Sampras' when he was motivated. I feel the same way with Robinson in respect to Hakeem.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Shut up. Put a young Timmy in 80's basketball and he'd get 30/15/4 like it ain't ****. Hakeem was good but not that good. 4 titles>2 titles and it does matter. Hakeem outplays DROB in 3 games and all of a sudden he is the GOAT. GTFO with that silly **** you nostalgic fool.

Hakeem fominated the toughest era of big men. GTFO with this weak era BS. Hakeem won 2 titles and he had to outplay Ewing, Robinson and Shaq to do that. He averaged 33/10/4.5/3 in the entire 1995 playoffs! You're opinion doesn't count because you're a delusional Duncan fanboy. The only era Duncan could average 30/15/4 in would be the late 60's, maybe early 70's.

And as far as Duncan vs. Robinson goes, I would say Duncan holds the edge here, however, thats not as clear as people imply either. Robinson is arguably just as great of a scorer, rebounder, and defender then Duncan ever was. In fact, the main reason IMO that Duncan is clearly ahead is cause of his titles, which is the result of better teams. Duncan isn't winning titles in the 90s with any of the teams Robinson had, and I doubt that Robinson couldn't have won 3-4 titles in the 00s with the teams Duncan has had. But as unfair as it sounds, I'll give the edge to the guy who is more proven, even if he had a much better situation, cause I can't just give credit to someone who I THINK would've done the same thing and the only reason he didn't was cause he was in a worse situation. Anyway, Duncan also stepped up in the playoffs alot more, which I think does not have much to do with the teammates around him.

I defintley think Duncan could win a title with Sean Elliott, Avery Johnson, Vinny Del Negro and Dennis Rodman all in their primes. It wasn't like Robinson played with scrubs for all of his prime. Duncan's 2003 team had one of the weaker supporting casts of any title team as well. Of course teams were better in 1995 than 2003 so that has to be a factor as well.

[Big#50]

Hakeem fominated the toughest era of big men. GTFO with this weak era BS. Hakeem won 2 titles and he had to outplay Ewing, Robinson and Shaq to do that. He averaged 33/10/4.5/3 in the entire 1995 playoffs! You're opinion doesn't count because you're a delusional Duncan fanboy. The only era Duncan could average 30/15/4 in would be the late 60's, maybe early 70's.



I defintley think Duncan could win a title with Sean Elliott, Avery Johnson, Vinny Del Negro and Dennis Rodman all in their primes. It wasn't like Robinson played with scrubs for all of his prime. Duncan's 2003 team had one of the weaker supporting casts of any title team as well. Of course teams were better in 1995 than 2003 so that has to be a factor as well.

Duncan averaged 25 and 12 in a slow tempo team. He can get 30 and 15 in a different system. I wasn't calling the Hakeem era weak. Just saying Tim would get better numbers.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Duncan averaged 25 and 12 in a slow tempo team. He can get 30 and 15 in a different system. I wasn't calling the Hakeem era weak. Just saying Tim would get better numbers.

Even if you adjust for pace, Duncan's 2002 and 2003 seasons placed on Hakeem's 1993-1995 Rockets don't match Hakeem's numbers.

[Big#50]

Even if you adjust for pace, Duncan's 2002 and 2003 seasons placed on Hakeem's 1993-1995 Rockets don't match Hakeem's numbers.

1994-95
Rockets scored 106 allowed 101
Hakeem 27.8 on 21 shots. 10.8 rebounds and 3.4 blocks.
2002 spurs scored 96 allowed 90.
Duncan 25.5 on 18 shots. 12.7 and 2.5.
Adjust.

[Bigsmoke]

1994-95
Rockets scored 106 allowed 101
Hakeem 27.8 on 21 shots. 10.8 rebounds and 3.4 blocks.
2002 spurs scored 96 allowed 90.
Duncan 25.5 on 18 shots. 12.7 and 2.5.
Adjust.

Hakeem was hurt for 10 games and they traded their 2nd best defender Otis Thorpe for Drexler. Hakeem never had Bruce Bowen.

[Big#50]

Hakeem was hurt for 10 games and they traded their 2nd best defender Otis Thorpe for Drexler. Hakeem never had Bruce Bowen.

I used those numbers to show how slow a tempo Tim played in. Thanks for your input though.

[Bigsmoke]

I used those numbers to show how slow a tempo Tim played in. Thanks for your input though.

ok..

but anyway

Hakeem > Duncan