David Robinson was better than Hakeem Olajuwon

[G.O.A.T]

The Title of this Thread Should have been:

David Robinson Should have been better than Hakeem Olajuwon

He had more natural skill, was taller, had a better body for the game, more speed any more natural quickness (Hakeem more basketball quickness). Huge advantage in not having to adjust to a new culture as well as the best competition in the world like Hakeem had to do. Robinson had two extra years to prepare himself, learn the offense, work with the team etc etc etc. while fulfilling his Naval commitment.

Olajuwon had Sampson, but after he deteriorated never had much around him except role players until Drexler honestly. Robinson had little more but assuming he still gets hurt when he does and SA gets the #1 pick, He as he should have been and Duncan should have won 5 of 7 titles from '98-'04.

[Big#50]

ok..

but anyway

Hakeem > Duncan

4 rings>2 rings

[plowking]

Duncan is better than both.

[juju151111]

Duncan is better than both.

How could a fellow dwade fan be this crazy??? The dream>Duncan.

[CB4GOATPF]

If you wan`t to compare head to head matchups do it for both their primes

Till the 1995-96 season. After that Hakeem slowens down past age 33 (he was already 3 years older than D-Rob) and Robinson gets injured...never playing the same...after that 1995-96 season

1989-1996...would be the Real Comparisson.

[ShaqAttack3234]

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.

Ok I'll use the pace as a reference an use Hakeem's mid 90's peak and Duncan's 3 year peak(2002-2004)

Hakeem's numbers

1992-1993 26.1 ppg, 13 rpg, 3.5 apg, 4.2 bpg, 1.8 spg, 52.9 FG%, 77.9 FT%, 3.2 TO
1993-1994 27.3 ppg, 11.9 rpg, 3.6 apg, 3.7 bpg, 1.6 spg, 52.8 FG%, 71.6 FT%, 3.4 TO
1994-1995 27.8 ppg, 10.8 rpg, 3.5 apg, 3.4 bpg, 1.8 spg, 51.7 FG%, 75.6 FT%, 3.3 TO

1.049

Duncan's 2002 season adjusted to the 1993 Rockets pace- 26.7 ppg, 13.3 rpg, 3.9 apg, 2.6 bpg, 0.7 spg, 50.8 FG%, 79.9 FT%, 3.4 TO
Duncan's 2003 season adjusted to 1994 Rockets pace24.6 ppg, 13.6 rpg, 4.1 apg, 3.1 bpg, 0.7 spg, 51.3 FG%, 71 FT%, 3.3 TO
Duncan's 2004 season adjusted to 1995 Rockets pace 23.5 ppg, 13.1 rpg, 3.3 apg, 2.9 bpg, 1 spg, 50.1 FG%, 59.9 FT%, 2.9 TO

Duncan's 2002 season adjusted to 1993 narrowly edges out Dream in points and rebounds and assists, but that's evened out by the fact that Duncan was less efficient(without even adjusting his FG% which in all probability would go down given more shots) and Duncan's higher turnover average. So we can say that outside of blocks and steals, Tim and Hakeem are virtually even when comparing those seasons. However Dream slaughters Duncan in the blocks and stealsdepartment.

Plus it's not really fair to assume a player will score more at a slightly faster pace, particularly a low post player. Superstars scoring generally doesn't see that much of an increase in scoring at a faster pace because their system is already designed to have the ball go through them as much as possible. I don't have a problem with Duncan's rebounding being slightly higher at the faster pace, but really, how much of a difference does 0.6 extra rebounds make when comparing the seasons? It's safe to say that both are virtually even as rebounders anyway.

When comparing Duncan's 2003 to Hakeem's 1994, Duncan still falls short by almost 3 ppg(even though I explained the flaws when adjusting scoring to pace), he edges him by 0.5 apg and almost 2 rpg, still falls well short in blocks and steals, 0.1 less turnover and less efficient as far a FG% and FT%.

More of the same when comparing Hakeem's 1995 to Duncan's 2004. Hakeem slaughters him in scoring and steals while he was quite a bit more efficient due to his higher FG% and Duncan's sub 60% foul shooting, Duncan easily wins in rebounding, but loses in assists(although he also had fewer turnovers so that evens out) and Hakeem still blocked 0.5 more shots.

So I think we can agree that Hakeem was defintley the better scorer, Duncan was the better passer(something I said even before adjusting the numbers, Hakeem was the better shot blocker and better at getting steals while Duncan in his overall prime as a player was a better rebounder than Hakeem was in his overall prime as a player. But in Hakeem's rebounding prime('89-'91) he averaged 13.5, 14 and 13.8 rebounds respectively leading the league 2 times and Duncan's rebounding numbers adjusted for pace likely wouldn't be higher than that. So in their rebounding primes, Olajuwon was atleast as good of a rebounder as Duncan.

And as far as scoring even Duncan's adjusted 26.7 scoring average would fall short of 3 of Olajuwon's seasons including his '96 season when he played at a slower pace than any of the previous seasons(which also backs up my point about pace having very little to do with individual scoring).

[guy]

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.

No he couldn't. Not going up against teams like the 95 Rockets.

[iamgine]

If you wan`t to compare head to head matchups do it for both their primes

Till the 1995-96 season. After that Hakeem slowens down past age 33 (he was already 3 years older than D-Rob) and Robinson gets injured...never playing the same...after that 1995-96 season

1989-1996...would be the Real Comparisson.

1989 Drob was an NBA Rookie while Hakeem was at his prime.

Even then, head to head from 1989-1996, Drob won 20 games shooting 48% while Hakeem only won 12 games while shooting only 44%.

Robinson > Olajuwon.

[ShaqAttack3234]

No he couldn't. Not going up against teams like the 95 Rockets.

2003 Duncan might be able to with homecourt advantage. He was a monster that year, he averaged 25, 15, 5 and 3 in the playoffs on 53% shooting while knocking out the Shaq/Kobe Lakers. That'd be a great series IMO.

[juju151111]

Ok I'll use the pace as a reference an use Hakeem's mid 90's peak and Duncan's 3 year peak(2002-2004)

Hakeem's numbers

1992-1993 26.1 ppg, 13 rpg, 3.5 apg, 4.2 bpg, 1.8 spg, 52.9 FG%, 77.9 FT%, 3.2 TO
1993-1994 27.3 ppg, 11.9 rpg, 3.6 apg, 3.7 bpg, 1.6 spg, 52.8 FG%, 71.6 FT%, 3.4 TO
1994-1995 27.8 ppg, 10.8 rpg, 3.5 apg, 3.4 bpg, 1.8 spg, 51.7 FG%, 75.6 FT%, 3.3 TO

1.049

Duncan's 2002 season adjusted to the 1993 Rockets pace- 26.7 ppg, 13.3 rpg, 3.9 apg, 2.6 bpg, 0.7 spg, 50.8 FG%, 79.9 FT%, 3.4 TO
Duncan's 2003 season adjusted to 1994 Rockets pace24.6 ppg, 13.6 rpg, 4.1 apg, 3.1 bpg, 0.7 spg, 51.3 FG%, 71 FT%, 3.3 TO
Duncan's 2004 season adjusted to 1995 Rockets pace 23.5 ppg, 13.1 rpg, 3.3 apg, 2.9 bpg, 1 spg, 50.1 FG%, 59.9 FT%, 2.9 TO

Duncan's 2002 season adjusted to 1993 narrowly edges out Dream in points and rebounds and assists, but that's evened out by the fact that Duncan was less efficient(without even adjusting his FG% which in all probability would go down given more shots) and Duncan's higher turnover average. So we can say that outside of blocks and steals, Tim and Hakeem are virtually even when comparing those seasons. However Dream slaughters Duncan in the blocks and stealsdepartment.

Plus it's not really fair to assume a player will score more at a slightly faster pace, particularly a low post player. Superstars scoring generally doesn't see that much of an increase in scoring at a faster pace because their system is already designed to have the ball go through them as much as possible. I don't have a problem with Duncan's rebounding being slightly higher at the faster pace, but really, how much of a difference does 0.6 extra rebounds make when comparing the seasons? It's safe to say that both are virtually even as rebounders anyway.

When comparing Duncan's 2003 to Hakeem's 1994, Duncan still falls short by almost 3 ppg(even though I explained the flaws when adjusting scoring to pace), he edges him by 0.5 apg and almost 2 rpg, still falls well short in blocks and steals, 0.1 less turnover and less efficient as far a FG% and FT%.

More of the same when comparing Hakeem's 1995 to Duncan's 2004. Hakeem slaughters him in scoring and steals while he was quite a bit more efficient due to his higher FG% and Duncan's sub 60% foul shooting, Duncan easily wins in rebounding, but loses in assists(although he also had fewer turnovers so that evens out) and Hakeem still blocked 0.5 more shots.

So I think we can agree that Hakeem was defintley the better scorer, Duncan was the better passer(something I said even before adjusting the numbers, Hakeem was the better shot blocker and better at getting steals while Duncan in his overall prime as a player was a better rebounder than Hakeem was in his overall prime as a player. But in Hakeem's rebounding prime('89-'91) he averaged 13.5, 14 and 13.8 rebounds respectively leading the league 2 times and Duncan's rebounding numbers adjusted for pace likely wouldn't be higher than that. So in their rebounding primes, Olajuwon was atleast as good of a rebounder as Duncan.

And as far as scoring even Duncan's adjusted 26.7 scoring average would fall short of 3 of Olajuwon's seasons including his '96 season when he played at a slower pace than any of the previous seasons(which also backs up my point about pace having very little to do with individual scoring).

[guy]

2003 Duncan might be able to with homecourt advantage. He was a monster that year, he averaged 25, 15, 5 and 3 in the playoffs on 53% shooting while knocking out the Shaq/Kobe Lakers. That'd be a great series IMO.

It might be a great series, but no he wouldn't. Hakeem was an absolute monster in those playoffs, and Duncan has never really approached the dominance Hakeem had in that run.

[magnax1]

In his prime, Robinson was better than Hakeem, but Hakeem had more longevity, and was more clutch, so career wise hes better. Though I can completely understand why you'd chose David.

[White Chocolate]

In his prime, Robinson was better than Hakeem, but Hakeem had more longevity, and was more clutch, so career wise hes better. Though I can completely understand why you'd chose David.

Robinson was the better scorer and shooter. Hakeem was far superior on D, was more clutch, and had more moves in the post.

[Shep]

what else is new?

[magnax1]

Robinson was the better scorer and shooter. Hakeem was far superior on D, was more clutch, and had more moves in the post.

He had more moves in the post, but it doesn't really matter how you score, if you score more at similar efficiency. I said Hakeem was better, but hes not better by a large margin, and Robinson was better in his prime.