Give your arguments on why Olajuwon > D Rob

[GeorgeMarcus]

People often reference the 95 playoff series when the Dream got the better of the Admiral, but outside of that series D Rob had a 30-12 record against Hakeem. Olajuwon averaged more points H2H but D Rob scored more efficiently. Otherwise their numbers were very similar. Both were incredible defenders but IMO D Rob was slightly more impactful on that end of the floor.

Olajuwon was definitely better at creating his own shot, but I have a special appreciation for players who excel off ball the way Robinson did. Both players won 2 rings although unlike D Rob, Hakeem did so as the clear best player on his team. The way I see it, that is by far the biggest reason Olajuwon is a consensus favorite in this debate.

You may have picked up on this but I'm not entirely convinced that Olajuwon was better. I've gone back and forth but I don't understand how people can separate them by 10+ spots as they often do. But hey, I'm a very open-minded person As such, please post your best arguments on why Hakeem > D Rob (or argue the opposite if you're so compelled).

[henshao]

Give your arguments on why Playoffs > Regular Season

[LukaTheGOAT]

At the end of the day, most people on this board value PS>RS

For one, Hakeem was a much better scorer in the PS and proved he could be a #1 scoring option on offense, which matters a lot to people.

Read on Twitter

/photo/1

Hakeem has a 5-year PS Prime BPM of 8.05. David Robinson's peak 5-year BPM run is 6.81.

In terms of Backpicks BPM, a metric that is playmaking sensitive (and therefore should favor someone like Robinson who was a better passer), we still get similar results.

Hakeem's 5-year PS Prime Backpicks BPM ranks 7th all-time. David Robinson's 5-year PS Prime Backpicks BPM ranks 29th all-time.

Furthermore, because of Robinson's troubles being a #1 scoring threat, he also seemd to create less shots for teammates in the PS than Olajuawon

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&insightstoken=bcid_Tp9FQKNi0i8DjgUDwBKruXSkcgRN.....3w*ccid_n0VAo2LS&form=ANCMS1&iss=SBIUPLOADGET&selectedindex=0&id=-699750014&ccid=n0VAo2LS&exph=410&expw=600&vt=2&sim=11

I don't believe people would push back on the idea that Robinson was more valuable during the RS. However, I think many people here value the PS more than the RS, and therefore, Hakeem's better play puts him ahead.

[No-more-rings]

I’m surprised it even needs to be explained. The 1994 playoff run is something Drob wasn’t capable of offensively. Hakeem’s whole playoff career crushes Drob’s offensively and is comparable or better defensively. He destroyed him head to head in Drob’s mvp year to go to the finals. He’s just a better player. I don’t care if Drob had better regular PER or BPM, that doesn’t win championships.

[70sFan]

Hakeem's massive edge at creating his own shot and making tough ones is the key. Robinson would thrive as an off-ball player but this is not what was asked from him back then. I also think that his shooting ability is a bit overrated.

I also think that he's better defensively, though I can change my mind after scouting Robinson.

Besides, Hakeem has clear longevity edge. This is not up to debate.

[HeartBreakKid]

People like scoring.

People like post season stuff.

Hakeem was a better post season scorer.

Confirmation bias from Hakeem winning - Robinson did win also, but it's nullified since he is revamped into being Duncan's Pippen.

Head to Head doesn't help Robinson's case much either.


Not saying that Olajuwon is not better than Robinson, but that's pretty much the surface level logic behind it.

[Owly]

Besides, Hakeem has clear longevity edge. This is not up to debate.

I don't think this is wrong but given the absoluteness of the statement (the appearance of confidence) I might be inclined to argue that in terms of meaningful longevity the gap does tighten.

My guess/impression is Olajuwon's final season of being a clearly, meaningfully above average center is 1998 (e.g. his on off thereafter remains below 0 until 2002, but then looking deeper his NPI RAPM that year is, well, bad [-1.4, 324th]). Mind you the overall number on 97-14 RAPM is still solidly good - if not near Robinson - 97 and 98 make up a larger chunk of minutes than raw years would indicate. '99 and 2000 "A Screaming" NPI and https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2001-npi-rapm are all broadly around 0).

If one is comfortable with wiping those as none-needle movers (arguably generous given his salary) and saying Robinson was a needle mover through to the end (I believe impact data supports this), the minutes are 38466 Hakeem, 34271 Robinson.

Now that's still a clear gap, but it's probably one where if you happen to swing in the pro-Robinson direction on a number of areas you might see him ahead or very close overall: e.g. believe more that playoff differences may be more noisy than others tend to value (including free throw luck versus good defenses), value the greater certainty on Robinson's impact (+/- (more or less) from '94, RAPM from '98 [in his case, functionally], playoff on-off from '97 [caveat emptor on these - small, uneven samples etc]; arrivals and departures at the margin, especially earlier when we don't have other stuff).

Furthermore, because of Robinson's troubles being a #1 scoring threat, he also seemd to create less shots for teammates in the PS than Olajuawon

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&insightstoken=bcid_Tp9FQKNi0i8DjgUDwBKruXSkcgRN.....3w*ccid_n0VAo2LS&form=ANCMS1&iss=SBIUPLOADGET&selectedindex=0&id=-699750014&ccid=n0VAo2LS&exph=410&expw=600&vt=2&sim=11

I would note that the years chosen aren't necessarily typical of Olajuwon's career norms (and perhaps that Houston had more willing and in those prime years, in the playoffs, able shooters ... cause and effect could be argued, but then so could "because of Robinson's troubles being a #1 ..." versus "because of his teammates lack of a credible spacing threat ..."). RS assist % for career pretty much the same, playoffs - where Olajuwon's longest runs are at his peak, Robinson's are later - Olajuwon has an advantage, turn to assists per 100 (to eliminate player usage) and Robinson edges slightly further ahead in the career, and slightly closer in the playoffs.

[migya]

Olajuwon is better, more versatile in offensive moves, though not necessarily better scorer but the rest is very close.

Looking back neither had good teams but Olajuwon had better role players and shooters. Horry was a good two way player and better than Robinson ever had pre Duncan. Swap them and I think Robinson wins one or two championships in 94 and 95, possibly 96 there's a chance.

[70sFan]

Besides, Hakeem has clear longevity edge. This is not up to debate.

I don't think this is wrong but given the absoluteness of the statement (the appearance of confidence) I might be inclined to argue that in terms of meaningful longevity the gap does tighten.

My guess/impression is Olajuwon's final season of being a clearly, meaningfully above average center is 1998 (e.g. his on off thereafter remains below 0 until 2002, but then looking deeper his NPI RAPM that year is, well, bad [-1.4, 324th]). Mind you the overall number on 97-14 RAPM is still solidly good - if not near Robinson - 97 and 98 make up a larger chunk of minutes than raw years would indicate. '99 and 2000 "A Screaming" NPI and https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2001-npi-rapm are all broadly around 0).

If one is comfortable with wiping those as none-needle movers (arguably generous given his salary) and saying Robinson was a needle mover through to the end (I believe impact data supports this), the minutes are 38466 Hakeem, 34271 Robinson.

Now that's still a clear gap, but it's probably one where if you happen to swing in the pro-Robinson direction on a number of areas you might see him ahead or very close overall: e.g. believe more that playoff differences may be more noisy than others tend to value (including free throw luck versus good defenses), value the greater certainty on Robinson's impact (+/- (more or less) from '94, RAPM from '98 [in his case, functionally], playoff on-off from '97 [caveat emptor on these - small, uneven samples etc]; arrivals and departures at the margin, especially earlier when we don't have other stuff).

Well, I didn't want to imply that Hakeem has twice as long prime as Robinson or anything like that. I think that your take on Olajuwon staying relevant until 1999 is fair. That gives him 15 seasons, which is more than Robinson's whole career (only 13 seasons without including 1997). Now, we should also argue the average level of these 15 vs 13 seasons, but as far as I see it, it doesn't help Admiral. Although it's true that Admiral remained an impactful figure until the retirement (unlike Hakeem), his last two seasons came in very limited role and limited minutes. There is very weak case for 2003 Robinson over 1998 Hakeem and the case for 2002 Robinson over 1997 Hakeem is non existent to me. 2001 is a still good, all-star level season for Robinson but at this point we compare that to 1996 Hakeem who was a clear all-nba level. 1995 vs 2000 is another no-contest.

Some of that might be countered by Robinson's better rookie season, but then again - sophomore Hakeem took a leap and wasn't clearly worse than sophomore Robinson. This is how I see it - Robinson started his career better, but was quickly caught up by Hakeem (around 2nd or 3rd season, they were on similar level). Meanwhile Admiral's last high level season was his 11th (without counting 1997) and it doesn't compare well to Hakeem's 11th season. The rest of each careers only makes the gap bigger, even with excluding 1999-02 period for Hakeem.

I didn't mean to exaggarate the longevity difference, but it's very clear one to me.

[Owly]

Besides, Hakeem has clear longevity edge. This is not up to debate.

I don't think this is wrong but given the absoluteness of the statement (the appearance of confidence) I might be inclined to argue that in terms of meaningful longevity the gap does tighten.

My guess/impression is Olajuwon's final season of being a clearly, meaningfully above average center is 1998 (e.g. his on off thereafter remains below 0 until 2002, but then looking deeper his NPI RAPM that year is, well, bad [-1.4, 324th]). Mind you the overall number on 97-14 RAPM is still solidly good - if not near Robinson - 97 and 98 make up a larger chunk of minutes than raw years would indicate. '99 and 2000 "A Screaming" NPI and https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2001-npi-rapm are all broadly around 0).

If one is comfortable with wiping those as none-needle movers (arguably generous given his salary) and saying Robinson was a needle mover through to the end (I believe impact data supports this), the minutes are 38466 Hakeem, 34271 Robinson.

Now that's still a clear gap, but it's probably one where if you happen to swing in the pro-Robinson direction on a number of areas you might see him ahead or very close overall: e.g. believe more that playoff differences may be more noisy than others tend to value (including free throw luck versus good defenses), value the greater certainty on Robinson's impact (+/- (more or less) from '94, RAPM from '98 [in his case, functionally], playoff on-off from '97 [caveat emptor on these - small, uneven samples etc]; arrivals and departures at the margin, especially earlier when we don't have other stuff).

Well, I didn't want to imply that Hakeem has twice as long prime as Robinson or anything like that. I think that your take on Olajuwon staying relevant until 1999 is fair. That gives him 15 seasons, which is more than Robinson's whole career (only 13 seasons without including 1997). Now, we should also argue the average level of these 15 vs 13 seasons, but as far as I see it, it doesn't help Admiral. Although it's true that Admiral remained an impactful figure until the retirement (unlike Hakeem), his last two seasons came in very limited role and limited minutes. There is very weak case for 2003 Robinson over 1998 Hakeem and the case for 2002 Robinson over 1997 Hakeem is non existent to me. 2001 is a still good, all-star level season for Robinson but at this point we compare that to 1996 Hakeem who was a clear all-nba level. 1995 vs 2000 is another no-contest.

Some of that might be countered by Robinson's better rookie season, but then again - sophomore Hakeem took a leap and wasn't clearly worse than sophomore Robinson. This is how I see it - Robinson started his career better, but was quickly caught up by Hakeem (around 2nd or 3rd season, they were on similar level). Meanwhile Admiral's last high level season was his 11th (without counting 1997) and it doesn't compare well to Hakeem's 11th season. The rest of each careers only makes the gap bigger, even with excluding 1999-02 period for Hakeem.

I didn't mean to exaggarate the longevity difference, but it's very clear one to me.

Thanks for the response/clarification/thoughts etc

Don't need to get to into it. Much of the above seems reasonable though I don't always agree. Personally I'd be inclined to arrange seasons by quality, though people will differ there so your way is easier to converse about and there isn't a wrong way.

On "sophomore Hakeem took a leap and wasn't clearly worse than sophomore Robinson" given the box-composite gap and the fact that Robinson at least tended to match his production with impact (I would say, otoh, this isn't a calculated thing so much as an impression, don't know if you'd parse his career into different stages on this, or how precise we can be with the 94-96 stuff, but it's pretty good, and I think I'm erring conservative here) I (personally) would be inclined to differ.

Olajuwon vs Robinson year 2, PER, WS/48, BPM
24.2 vs 27.4
.186 vs .264
4.0 vs 8.5

Criteria can of course reasonably differ (I know I lean more RS heavy than most on here).

[70sFan]

I don't think this is wrong but given the absoluteness of the statement (the appearance of confidence) I might be inclined to argue that in terms of meaningful longevity the gap does tighten.

My guess/impression is Olajuwon's final season of being a clearly, meaningfully above average center is 1998 (e.g. his on off thereafter remains below 0 until 2002, but then looking deeper his NPI RAPM that year is, well, bad [-1.4, 324th]). Mind you the overall number on 97-14 RAPM is still solidly good - if not near Robinson - 97 and 98 make up a larger chunk of minutes than raw years would indicate. '99 and 2000 "A Screaming" NPI and https://sites.google.com/site/rapmstats/2001-npi-rapm are all broadly around 0).

If one is comfortable with wiping those as none-needle movers (arguably generous given his salary) and saying Robinson was a needle mover through to the end (I believe impact data supports this), the minutes are 38466 Hakeem, 34271 Robinson.

Now that's still a clear gap, but it's probably one where if you happen to swing in the pro-Robinson direction on a number of areas you might see him ahead or very close overall: e.g. believe more that playoff differences may be more noisy than others tend to value (including free throw luck versus good defenses), value the greater certainty on Robinson's impact (+/- (more or less) from '94, RAPM from '98 [in his case, functionally], playoff on-off from '97 [caveat emptor on these - small, uneven samples etc]; arrivals and departures at the margin, especially earlier when we don't have other stuff).

Well, I didn't want to imply that Hakeem has twice as long prime as Robinson or anything like that. I think that your take on Olajuwon staying relevant until 1999 is fair. That gives him 15 seasons, which is more than Robinson's whole career (only 13 seasons without including 1997). Now, we should also argue the average level of these 15 vs 13 seasons, but as far as I see it, it doesn't help Admiral. Although it's true that Admiral remained an impactful figure until the retirement (unlike Hakeem), his last two seasons came in very limited role and limited minutes. There is very weak case for 2003 Robinson over 1998 Hakeem and the case for 2002 Robinson over 1997 Hakeem is non existent to me. 2001 is a still good, all-star level season for Robinson but at this point we compare that to 1996 Hakeem who was a clear all-nba level. 1995 vs 2000 is another no-contest.

Some of that might be countered by Robinson's better rookie season, but then again - sophomore Hakeem took a leap and wasn't clearly worse than sophomore Robinson. This is how I see it - Robinson started his career better, but was quickly caught up by Hakeem (around 2nd or 3rd season, they were on similar level). Meanwhile Admiral's last high level season was his 11th (without counting 1997) and it doesn't compare well to Hakeem's 11th season. The rest of each careers only makes the gap bigger, even with excluding 1999-02 period for Hakeem.

I didn't mean to exaggarate the longevity difference, but it's very clear one to me.

Thanks for the response/clarification/thoughts etc

Don't need to get to into it. Much of the above seems reasonable though I don't always agree. Personally I'd be inclined to arrange seasons by quality, though people will differ there so your way is easier to converse about and there isn't a wrong way.

On "sophomore Hakeem took a leap and wasn't clearly worse than sophomore Robinson" given the box-composite gap and the fact that Robinson at least tended to match his production with impact (I would say, otoh, this isn't a calculated thing so much as an impression, don't know if you'd parse his career into different stages on this, or how precise we can be with the 94-96 stuff, but it's pretty good, and I think I'm erring conservative here) I (personally) would be inclined to differ.

Olajuwon vs Robinson year 2, PER, WS/48, BPM
24.2 vs 27.4
.186 vs .264
4.0 vs 8.5

Criteria can of course reasonably differ (I know I lean more RS heavy than most on here).

Yeah, it all depends on how you value RS vs PS. I don't think it's unreasonable to at least consider 1986 Hakeem case over 1991 Robinson, given his postseason run.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

I have another question, who would do better today?

Sent from my Nokia 3210 using RealGM mobile app

[Owly]

Well, I didn't want to imply that Hakeem has twice as long prime as Robinson or anything like that. I think that your take on Olajuwon staying relevant until 1999 is fair. That gives him 15 seasons, which is more than Robinson's whole career (only 13 seasons without including 1997). Now, we should also argue the average level of these 15 vs 13 seasons, but as far as I see it, it doesn't help Admiral. Although it's true that Admiral remained an impactful figure until the retirement (unlike Hakeem), his last two seasons came in very limited role and limited minutes. There is very weak case for 2003 Robinson over 1998 Hakeem and the case for 2002 Robinson over 1997 Hakeem is non existent to me. 2001 is a still good, all-star level season for Robinson but at this point we compare that to 1996 Hakeem who was a clear all-nba level. 1995 vs 2000 is another no-contest.

Some of that might be countered by Robinson's better rookie season, but then again - sophomore Hakeem took a leap and wasn't clearly worse than sophomore Robinson. This is how I see it - Robinson started his career better, but was quickly caught up by Hakeem (around 2nd or 3rd season, they were on similar level). Meanwhile Admiral's last high level season was his 11th (without counting 1997) and it doesn't compare well to Hakeem's 11th season. The rest of each careers only makes the gap bigger, even with excluding 1999-02 period for Hakeem.

I didn't mean to exaggarate the longevity difference, but it's very clear one to me.

Thanks for the response/clarification/thoughts etc

Don't need to get to into it. Much of the above seems reasonable though I don't always agree. Personally I'd be inclined to arrange seasons by quality, though people will differ there so your way is easier to converse about and there isn't a wrong way.

On "sophomore Hakeem took a leap and wasn't clearly worse than sophomore Robinson" given the box-composite gap and the fact that Robinson at least tended to match his production with impact (I would say, otoh, this isn't a calculated thing so much as an impression, don't know if you'd parse his career into different stages on this, or how precise we can be with the 94-96 stuff, but it's pretty good, and I think I'm erring conservative here) I (personally) would be inclined to differ.

Olajuwon vs Robinson year 2, PER, WS/48, BPM
24.2 vs 27.4
.186 vs .264
4.0 vs 8.5

Criteria can of course reasonably differ (I know I lean more RS heavy than most on here).

Yeah, it all depends on how you value RS vs PS. I don't think it's unreasonable to at least consider 1986 Hakeem case over 1991 Robinson, given his postseason run.

Granting the aforementioned reasonable differences (trying to clarify why I'm more sympathetic on DR in general, possibly allow for some to Olajuwon as a bit better than RS numbers), that I'm not that into rating individual seasons etc ...

Given the aforementioned gaps and how well Robinson (distinct from, the Spurs) played in his own playoffs (better, numerically, though versus worse average opponents, though Houston's fluctuates a lot), I would really struggle to see a case of Hakeem "over" Robinson. It's a larger sample, but Robinson's can't control that.

Then too there's the minutes gap 2467 (HO), 3095 (DR). I'm really struggling to see the "over" case. I don't think it's there.

[Texas Chuck]

People like scoring.

People like post season stuff.

Hakeem was a better post season scorer.

Confirmation bias from Hakeem winning - Robinson did win also, but it's nullified since he is revamped into being Duncan's Pippen.

Head to Head doesn't help Robinson's case much either.


Not saying that Olajuwon is not better than Robinson, but that's pretty much the surface level logic behind it.

Perfect summary. Though as one who has been pointing out here for 5 years now what the OP did, about how outside of one series, the H2H edge clearly goes to Robinson so that's slightly less about h2h and more about how we let a narrative take hold and nobody bothers to challenge it/research the truth of it.

It's like when Dirk fans claim he put up huge numbers on KG in the playoffs when we know KG barely defended him in that series. Or the totally fake Kobe clutch reputation. People get these narratives in their head and time passes and....

[Sublime187]

Why make it complicated? In Hakeem you have an offensive and defensive anchor. Legit playoff number 1 option. With D Rob you need an number one O option. That puts them in totally different league. Additionally, there is data that shows D Rob defense wasn't all time level in the playoffs.

[henshao]

Olajuwon is better, more versatile in offensive moves, though not necessarily better scorer

Hakeem Olawon was a better scorer than David Robinson and there's no point in mincing words about it

[migya]

Olajuwon is better, more versatile in offensive moves, though not necessarily better scorer

Hakeem Olawon was a better scorer than David Robinson and there's no point in mincing words about it

Olajuwon had more moves but wasn't a clear better scorer.

[Owly]

Why make it complicated? In Hakeem you have an offensive and defensive anchor. Legit playoff number 1 option. With D Rob you need an number one O option. That puts them in totally different league. Additionally, there is data that shows D Rob defense wasn't all time level in the playoffs.

I'm not sure about the logic on the first point. You could make it against Bill Russell versus any really good two-way player but he seems a lock for most people's top 4.

Could you share the data on Robinson? In the era in which we have his specific impact (i.e. '97 and on) his playoff overall impact looked pretty strong to my understanding (with my guess being that it was primarily defense driven).

[DQuinn1575]

No matter what else anyone says, it is the two titles. Make it 2-0 the other way and Robinson would rank higher, and be a Top 10 player all-time.
Make it 1-1 and they would probably be next to each other, with the one series by Olajuwon making his supporters more vocal, and Hakeem finishing higher all-time by maybe 2 slots.

Hakeem really benefits from people looking at the stats by having 40% of his playoff games during his 3 year peak - so his totals look better because he has so many good seasons included. The opposite is Oscar Robertson, whose longest playoff run came in his last year, so 40% of his playoff games are in his last 3 years, where he was definitely past prime.

But when I have 2 guys who are somewhat close, and 1 was the Number 1 guy on 2 title teams; well guys like Robinson and Karl Malone just have a ceiling on the all-time rankings.

Guys like Kobe and Hakeem don't have that ceiling, so a few people feel comfortable rating them in the Top 5-6.
Nobody would put Robinson or the Mailman in that rating.

[No-more-rings]

Olajuwon is better, more versatile in offensive moves, though not necessarily better scorer

Hakeem Olawon was a better scorer than David Robinson and there's no point in mincing words about it

Olajuwon had more moves but wasn't a clear better scorer.

In the playoffs, it's obvious who a better scorer was.

No matter what else anyone says, it is the two titles. Make it 2-0 the other way and Robinson would rank higher, and be a Top 10 player all-time.
Make it 1-1 and they would probably be next to each other, with the one series by Olajuwon making his supporters more vocal, and Hakeem finishing higher all-time by maybe 2 slots.

Hakeem really benefits from people looking at the stats by having 40% of his playoff games during his 3 year peak - so his totals look better because he has so many good seasons included.

Sometimes there's truth about some winning championships because they had better casts than someone else, but sometimes it's also that one guy won titles and other didn't because he was just a better player. No one is granted anything just because they might have proper casts, actually going out and earning it definitely counts for something.

I notice some in here seem to be acting like scoring isn't a big deal between the 2, well if it's not then what other major areas does Robinson have a clear advantage? I think most would consider them comparable defenders and rebounders, and Robinson is usually considered a better passer, but his passing numbers are actually a bit worse than Hakeem's in the postseason. Their scoring numbers are not even close in the playoffs.

i don't get what difference it makes that Hakeem played more playoff games when he was at his best compared to earlier on, prior to his 1st championship run he was averaging 26.8 ppg on 58.5 ts%.

Drob has had very few if any memorable playoff series in his career. You can probably point to as many as 6 or 7 series in Hakeem's career that were better than anything Drob put up. The series where they went head to head is certainly one.

I'd find it very questionable for anyone to think Drob wins if they switch places in 1994. Offensively i think Drob would've buckled going against that Knicks defense in a 7 game series, the 94 Knicks were one of the best defenses ever, and Hakeem still managed 27 ppg on 56 ts% while also helping to hold Ewing to 19 ppg on 39 ts%. What makes you think Drob could've done that?