If you had to chose one David Robinson or Tim Duncan

[00playboy00]

I go with Tim Duncan mainly because i've seen him play throughout his whole career and only caught David Robinson play through his last couple seasons.

[Pushxx]

Almost everyone would and should take Duncan. Better playoff performer and defender.

[ImmortalD24]

No shit sherlock. Pretty sure it's been well established that Tim Duncan > D(twinkle toes)-Rob.

[Kobe 4 The Win]

I loved Robinson as a kid but I think I have to go with Duncan because his teams won so much. That might not be fair because he played with more talent then Robinson did most of his career but to me winning is very important.

[BlackVVaves]

This isn't even debatable, why start a thread about a topic that is probably nearly unanimous in opinion OP?

[Micku]

David Robinson in the regular season. Tim Duncan in the playoffs because he stepped it up more.


Of course if you have to choose without knowing the fact that Duncan steps it up more in the playoffs, I would choose David Robinson. He was better at everything.

But Duncan's legacy might be different if he played more in the 90s like Robinson.

Give me Pop over both tho. :oldlol:

[Cali Syndicate]

No shit sherlock. Pretty sure it's been well established that Tim Duncan > D(twinkle toes)-Rob.

wow.

[Clifton]

Robinson was famous for empty numbers. Duncan is famous for the opposite. And his numbers are almost as good. I'll take Duncan without a second thought.

[Clifton]

But Duncan's legacy would be different if he played in the 90s like Robinson.

Give me Pop over both tho.
Two very good points made here. If I had to choose between Duncan and an above-average coach vs. Pop and an above-average PF, I'd take Pop. Probably just as readily as I'd take Duncan over Robinson. Coaches aren't normally that important, but Pop is the one exception. Perhaps Phil Jackson is another... perhaps. But I don't think so.

And yes... Duncan's era was crap for big men. Imagine if he had to go against Ewing and Rodman and Hakeem all the time whenever he got far into the playoffs. He's still one of the greatest ever, but he should not be understood as "dominant." He's a rock, he's consistent, he beats you with his teammates like few ever have. He's a GREAT defensive player. But his "offensive dominance" wouldn't even have been noticed in the 90s.

[Raz]

Robinson was famous for empty numbers. Duncan is famous for the opposite. And his numbers are almost as good. I'll take Duncan without a second thought.

Really?
1988-89 Spurs went 21-61
1989-90 Spurs went 56-26 and took the Portland Trailblazers to 7 games in the Semis.
That's a 35 game turnaround. Sure there were some other changes, moving a prime Alvin Robertson and Johnny Dawkins, and playing old man Maurice Cheeks and Rod Strickland instead. There was a rookie on the Spurs called Sean Elliot, but the team was mostly the same.

Look at The Spurs over Robinson's reign:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/

He was a match up nightmare, and by far the most athletic center ever.

[Smoke117]

Almost everyone would and should take Duncan. Better playoff performer and defender.

:roll: :roll: :roll:

The only better defensive player to come along in the modern NBA than David Robinson is Hakeem Olajuwon.

[wang4three]

David Robinson. If it came the other way where Robinson came in '97 and Duncan came in '89, Robinson would be remembered as the better player. As far as individual skills, always thought Robinson had much more to bring to the table. Both are phenomenal players though.

[Harison]

Robinson was much better regular season player, Duncan was slightly better in the Playoffs. However considering David was a better defender, its a draw in the Playoffs, and a clear edge for DRob in the RS.

Majority is picking Duncan simply because of the perception of winning, ignoring different circumstances. Swap them, and the same majority would see them in a completely reversed light. Duncan wouldnt had won anything in the Golden age (no rings, no MVPs, no DPOYs), Robinson would had dominated current era much more than Duncan did (DRob would be a perennial MVP, DPOY, and as many rings as Duncan if not more).

[Overdrive]

Robinson was famous for empty numbers. Duncan is famous for the opposite. And his numbers are almost as good. I'll take Duncan without a second thought.

1989-90 & 1996-97 tell a different story.

If both were in the same draft today I'd take Robinson most likely.

Duncan had the better career, but it would've been interesting how Duncan's career start would've turned out if it wasn't for Robinson's injury. He might have ended up on those awful Celtics or Nets squads that weren't going anywhere.

[atljonesbro]

Sorry, basing things off woulda coulda shoulda isn't reputable. Duncan all day.

[pauk]

Tim Duncan had a more accolade filled career, unfortunately David had his prime in the middle of Jordans destiny, so no championships there hypothetically speaking. But in terms of individual talent I am gona go against the flow and pick David Robinson, at his prime i think he was a better overall individual talent on both ends of the floor.... and oh i just so happened to see his 71-14-5 game live.

[Harison]

Sorry, basing things off woulda coulda shoulda isn't reputable. Duncan all day.

Those who dont account for the different situation, shouldnt compare players in the different situations in the first place :confusedshrug:

Cant take out a big part of the equation and simplify to the bones. If you do that, result will most likely be wrong.

[Carbine]

Robinson was much better regular season player, Duncan was slightly better in the Playoffs. However considering David was a better defender, its a draw in the Playoffs, and a clear edge for DRob in the RS.

Majority is picking Duncan simply because of the perception of winning, ignoring different circumstances. Swap them, and the same majority would see them in a completely reversed light. Duncan wouldnt had won anything in the Golden age (no rings, no MVPs, no DPOYs), Robinson would had dominated current era much more than Duncan did (DRob would be a perennial MVP, DPOY, and as many rings as Duncan if not more).

How do you know that? You can't. It's impossible to go back in time and say what would happen.

Second bold - You say Robinson would have been a perennial MVP, DPOY and as many rings as Duncan.....and that he would have dominated this era more.

Duncan ALREADY WAS a perennial MVP contender, was either the first or second best defensive player of his era, and won 4 rings as the man.

Robinson is going to do better than that? That's approaching GOAT status.

[MasterDurant24]

D-Rob was a better player talent wise, but Duncan's career was of course better and the man is a winner, there's no denying it. The problem with D-Rob was his mindset, would of been a top 10 player with a killer instinct.

[Carbine]

Tim Duncan had a more accolade filled career, unfortunately David had his prime in the middle of Jordans destiny, so no championships there. But in terms of individual talent I am gona go against the flow and pick David Robinson, at his prime i think he was a better overall individual talent on both ends of the floor.... and oh i just so happened to see his 71 point game live.

How is this an excuse? He wasn't in Jordan's conference, never played him in a playoff series ever. Jordan and the Bulls weren't stopping him from making the finals, other teams were....not that it was Robinson' fault, I don't think he ever had elite talent around him, but still....Jordan has nothing to do with Robinson' lack of rings as the man.

[pauk]

How is this an excuse? He wasn't in Jordan's conference, never played him in a playoff series ever. Jordan and the Bulls weren't stopping him from making the finals, other teams were....not that it was Robinson' fault, I don't think he ever had elite talent around him, but still....Jordan has nothing to do with Robinson' lack of rings as the man.

My point is hypothetical, even if he had a supporting cast to actually meet this wrath of nature in the Finals, he was most likely not gona do it against Jordan and i think it goes so for anybody.

[AlphaWolf24]

I see Lots of Kids never watched DRob play...

I would take Duncan because he was a better LEADER...

DRob had a much better offensive / defensive talent.

[Overdrive]

Sorry, basing things off woulda coulda shoulda isn't reputable. Duncan all day.

Well if this question is about chosing as a future star for my team, let's say the Bobcats, then it's a shoulda coulda, because I wouldn't know their career success before I draft them and Robinson was the bigger talent.

If it's about chosing the guy with the better career the question is useless.

[Smoke117]

The thing about David Robinson is he made teams look better than they really were. Everyone says he was a regular season player, but the reason the Spurs did so good in the regular season is directly related to how dominant David Robinson was. Like in the 96 season they weren't exactly stacked yet they won 59 games because of how dominant he was. For people that love their Per, he was the one who led the league in per, he was the player who led the league in drating, he led the league in defensive win shares. He was basically the most dominant defensive player that year and should been the DPOY not Gary Payton. People have this perception that the David Robinson Spurs were a lot better than they really were when it was Robinsons dominance which got them all those wins, but come playoff time that doesn't mean a damn thing when you are playing good teams in best of five and best of 7 series.

[rmt]

David Robinson in the regular season. Tim Duncan in the playoffs because he stepped it up more.


Of course if you have to choose without knowing the fact that Duncan steps it up more in the playoffs, I would choose David Robinson. He was better at everything.

But Duncan's legacy might be different if he played more in the 90s like Robinson.

Give me Pop over both tho. :oldlol:

Disagree with the bolded statement. Yes, coaches are important, but in the end, IMO, it's superstars who win championships. Pop maximizes the potential of the players who come through SA. He squeezes the most out of cheap role players - that's why they've managed their financial resources well and been an elite team for so long.

But in the end, when it's crunch-time, it's the play of the superstars that win tight games and championships. That's why, for all the Spurs' great regular seasons recently, they have not been true contenders since Duncan's decline. Superstars must draw the defensive attention to allow role players (who can't create their own shots) to thrive, and TD no longer commands double teams.

That's why I didn't feel upset when OKC back-swept the Spurs. Once they watched tape of Spurs' passing/sharing the ball and started doing that instead of the one-on-one play of KD/Westbrooke/Harden, there was no way SA was going to win against that talent and youth.

As far as DRob is concerned, I don't think he had that single-minded, competitiveness that TD has. DRob had a lot of different things going on and basketball didn't seem like the end-all, be-all that it is for TD. I also prefer TD's more post-oriented game than DRob's more face-up, jump-shooting game. Just think that the post game is more conducive to drawing double-teams and opening up the 3pt shot - which was the staple of SAS's offense for so long.

And DRob, of course, was an athletic beast - you'd be hard pressed to find ANY big man with that kind of speed, athleticism and strength much less TD who couldn't jump, wasn't fast or strong but was blessed with more of the intangibles - mental toughness, leadership, clutchness.

[DatAsh]

Almost everyone would and should take Duncan. Better playoff performer and defender.

Better defender?

Duncan's defense is really starting to get overrated.

[BlackVVaves]

Can't believe people are picking D-Rob.

Not to discredit his greatness. MVP, DPOY. Sensational big man in his prime. But come now. Duncan was more versatile on offense, and just as impactful as the cornerstone of his team's defense. Duncan also developed a better understanding of the game as he career went on in my opinion, as he had the fortune of being mentored by Robinson and Pop at such a young age.

[Clifton]

I love all this "Robinson was a better [blah blah] TALENT."

Yeah great. Duncan went in and won championships. Duncan went in and won championships and I don't think ever once had an all-star level player on his team. And he did this in the 00s Western Conference, which was famously stacked. There were years when 50-win teams would be an 8 seed in the West and he got 5 titles. He had good supporting cast and the best coach ever. Perhaps if he'd had a mediocre coach and uncooperative teammates, or a Tmac-in-Orlando situation, he never would have developed into the solidest and maturest player in the modern era. But he did.

[BlackVVaves]

Better defender?

Duncan's defense is really starting to get overrated.

I wouldn't say he was a better defender. I'd say, in terms of impact as the achor of the Spurs' team defense, Duncan and Robinson were equal. Robinson was a more prolific shot blocker, but Duncan was a tremendous help and team defender. He just always knew where to be and when, and when his body was still healthy, he'd seem to occupy the entire interior everywhere at once.

[Overdrive]

I love all this "Robinson was a better TALENT."

Yeah great. Duncan went in and won championships. Duncan went in and won championships and [b]I don't think ever once had an all-star level player on his team. He had good supporting cast and the best coach ever. Perhaps if he'd had a mediocre coach and uncooperative teammates, or a Tmac-in-Orlando situation, he never would have developed into the solidest and maturest player in the modern era. But he did.

:biggums:



Can't believe people are picking D-Rob.

Not to discredit his greatness. MVP, DPOY. Sensational big man in his prime. But come now. Duncan was more versatile on offense, and just as impactful as the cornerstone of his team's defense. Duncan also developed a better understanding of the game as he career went on in my opinion, as he had the fortune of being mentored by Robinson and Pop at such a young age.

Yeah, we know that in hindsight, but we all wouldn't know that on draft night.

[BlackVVaves]

I love all this "Robinson was a better TALENT."

Yeah great. Duncan went in and won championships. [B]Duncan went in and won championships and I don't think ever once had an all-star level player on his team. And he did this in the 00s Western Conference, which was famously stacked. There were years when 50-win teams would be an 8 seed in the West and he got 5 titles. He had good supporting cast and the best coach ever. Perhaps if he'd had a mediocre coach and uncooperative teammates, or a Tmac-in-Orlando situation, he never would have developed into the solidest and maturest player in the modern era. But he did.

Using facts is always more preferable than just making things up. Makes you look either stupid, or ignorant.

[DatAsh]

I wouldn't say he was a better defender. I'd say, in terms of impact as the achor of the Spurs' team defense, Duncan and Robinson were equal. Robinson was a more prolific shot blocker, but Duncan was a tremendous help and team defender. He just always knew where to be and when, and when his body was still healthy, he'd seem to occupy the entire interior everywhere at once.

To me, Robinson has a clear edge on he defensive end, but it's certainly close. The reason I'd take Duncan over Robinson has more to do with the fact that Duncan's offensive game translated better into playoff basketball. Robinson was very athletic and relied on a lot of transitional opportunities to get his buckets. Those opportunities are harder to come by in the playoffs, and it's a big reason why Duncan was the better playoff performer in my opinion.

[wang4three]

David Robinson was a scoring champion, once scored 71 points in a game, and somehow people are thinking Duncan was a more versatile and complete offensively? How does that work?

Tim Duncan has about 5 post moves. And that's being generous cause he goes to about 3 of them 90% of the time. Granted they're effective as hell and nearly unstoppable, but let's not make it seem like he has this gigantic library of offensive skills. He can make a bank shot and an elbow jumper every now and then.

I've seen David do things that Tim can only dream of. Both offensively and defensively. I've seen David a lot of time go up to block a shot then block the 2nd attempt on the way down. I've seen more face up moves and just as many post moves. He had a more solid jump shot too in my opinion. Tim is a better leader? David was Navy trained and one of the most respected members of the NBA All-time. What leadership qualities did Tim have that David didn't? Tim seemed socially awkward and shy to be infront of people. This may have not affected his leadership to his teammates, but I don't get the impression that what he was doing was any better than David. They're both gracious and push away individual accolades in favor of team success.

Maybe Tim loved the game more than David. That I can believe and can concede. But I don't buy that Tim was better offensively, defensively, and a better leader. I don't buy it one bit.

[Anaximandro1]

Duncan was a superb technician with above-average athleticism and his BB IQ is off the charts ;Robinson was a phenomenal physical specimen and a great man and teammate.

I think Robinson was a better M2M defender.Duncan is a more dominant offensive player in half-court.


Duncan's era was crap for big men.
Shaq,KG,Dirk or Sheed are crap?


Imagine if he had to go against Ewing and Rodman and Hakeem all the time whenever he got far into the playoffs.I don't have any imagination


He's still one of the greatest ever, but he should not be understood as "dominant." He's a rock, he's consistent, he beats you with his teammates like few ever have.
Consistency only wins regular season games (Spurs 2011 and 2012)


He's still one of the greatest ever, but he should not be understood as "dominant."
Individual dominance wins playoff games and championships.Of course you need to stay healthy (Duncan missed the 2000 playoffs) and help (Robinson,Elliot,Avery,Pop,Bowen,Horry,Manu,Parker ...).However those contributions would have been wasted without Duncan's postseason dominance.

He's a GREAT defensive player. But his "offensive dominance" wouldn't even have been noticed in the 90s.
Too bad we don't have a time machine.

H2H - Playoffs (Prime vs Prime)



Duncan vs Shaq (1999 - 2004)

1999 (Spurs 4 - Lakers 0)

Duncan 29.0 pt,10.8 rb,3.3 as,2.0 blk

Shaq 23.8 pt,13.0 rb,0.5 as,1.8 blk


2001 (Lakers 4 - Spurs 0)

Shaq 27.0 pt,13.0 rb,2.5 as,1.3 blk

Duncan 23.0 pt,12.3 rb,4.3 as,4.3 blk

2002 (Lakers 4 - Spurs 1)

Duncan 29.0 pt,17.2 rb,4.6 as,3.2 blk

Shaq 21.4 pt,12.2 rb,3.2 as,3.0 blk

2003 (Spurs 4 - Lakers 2)

Duncan 28.0 pt,11.8 rb,4.8 as,1.3 blk

Shaq 25.3 pt,14.3 rb,3.7 as,2.8 blk

2004 (Lakers 4 - Spurs 2)

Shaq 22.5 pt,14.5 rb,2.0 as,4.3 blk

Duncan 20.7 pt,12.2 rb,4.1 as,2.4 blk


Duncan 40 + pt --> 1 game

Duncan 30 + pt --> 7 times

Shaq 30 + pt --> 4 times

-------------------------------------


Duncan vs Dirk (2001 - 2006)

2001 (Spurs 4 - Mavs 1)

Duncan 27.0 pt,17.4 rb,3.6 as,2.0 blk

Dirk 23.0 pt,8.6 rb,1.2 as,0.8 blk


2003 (Spurs 2 - Mavs 1) - Dirk missed three games

Duncan 35.3 pt,18.0 rb,6.0 as,3.3 blk

Dirk 25.3 pt,11.3 rb,2.0 as,0.7 blk


2006 (Mavs 4 - Spurs 3)

Duncan 32.3 pt,11.7 rb,3.7 as,2.6 blk

Dirk 27.1 pt,13.3 rb,2.7 as,0.4 blk


Duncan 40 + pt --> 2 times

Duncan 30 + pt --> 8 times

Dirk 40 + pt --> 1 game

Dirk 30 + --> 4 times
-------------------------------------

Duncan vs KG (1999 - 2001)

1999 (Spurs 3 - Wolves 1)

KG 21.8 pt,12.0 rb,3.8 as,2.0 blk

Duncan 18.8 pt,10.8 rb,3.3 as,3.0 blk

2001 (Spurs 3 - Wolves 1)

Duncan 22.5 pt,13.0 rb,3.5 as,2.0 blk

KG 21.0 pt,12.0 rb,4.3 as,1.5 blk

Duncan 30 + pt --> 1 game

KG 30 + pt --> never


Dirk vs KG (2001)

2001 (Mavs 3 - Wolves 0)

Dirk 33.3 pt,15.7 pt,0.7 as,1.3 blk

KG 24.0 pt,18.7 rb,5.0 as,1.7 blk


Dirk 30 + pt --> 3 times

KG 30 + pt --> 1 game


Shaq vs KG (2003 - 2001)

2003 (Lakers 4 - Wolves 2)

Shaq 28.7 pt,15.3 pt,3.7 as,2.8 blk

KG 27.0 pt,14.2 rb,5.2 as,1.7 blk

2004 (Lakers 4 - Wolves 2)

KG 23.7 pt,13.5 rb,4.5 as,1.2 blk

Shaq 20.7 pt,15.7 pt,2.8 as,3.0 blk


KG 30 + pt --> 3 times

Shaq 30+pt --> 2 times



H2H-Average

Duncan (48 games)
Duncan 26.7 pt,13.4 rb,4.1 as,2.3 blk FG (50.2%)

Opponents 23.8 pt,12.6 rb,2.5 as,2.1 blk FG (50.6%)


Shaq (37 games)
Opponents 25.6 pt,12.6 rb,4.3 as,2.1 blk FG (48.6%)

Shaq 24.1 pt,14.1 rb,2.7 as,2.8 blk FG (53.6%)


KG (23 games)
Opponents 24.4 pt,14.4 rb,3.0 as,2.6 blk FG (50.9%)

KG 23.8 pt,13.8 rb,4.6 as,1.6 blk FG (47.1%)

Dirk (17 games)
Opponents 29.9 pt,15.5 rb,4.3 as,2.4 blk FG (53.3%)

Dirk 26.7 pt,12.1 rb,1.8 as,0.7 blk FG (48.7%)





40 or + pt --> Duncan 3,Opponents 1

30 or + pt --> Duncan 16,Opponents 8

[Crown&Coke]

I love me some Timmy

both prime would be a good question. But I take Timmy due to his versatility on defense. He could check a player on the perimeter, or bang with Shaq Diesel one on one. That is sick as hell

But Robinson is a top 50 player in his own right. A very good player, but I take Duncan.

Pop put Duncan on Mark Jackson in one of his early years, when Mark Jackson would take pg's down on the block and terrorize the Spurs from the post. Even Mark Jackson was surprised when Duncan called out "I got Jackson," he was looking around to find another Jackson on the court

[Poetry]

Duncan has the team accolades, but Robinson is the better individual talent.

[swi7ch]

Timmay.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Duncan, and I don't have to think twice. Defense is pretty negligible, we're talking about 2 of the absolute best. Robinson was still a comparable defender to Duncan as late as 2001 in his defense.

But I'm taking Duncan because of how much more I like his skill set, especially for the playoffs, which goes hand in hand with Duncan's superior play in the bigger games.

I know both of their games well, I watched Duncan throughout his career and saw a lot of Robinson's.

Robinson's biggest flaw was that he did not have a real go to move or a reliable back to the basket game. He could rack up points in the regular season because he ran the floor better than any 7 footer I've seen, an ideal target for lob passes and he could face up and drive past most big men. When he added a reliable mid-range jumper, it really made him tough facing up, which is why he could get to the line at will. He was also a very good passer from the high post, the Spurs ran much of their offense through him there, particularly in '94. And be became a pretty nice passer from the low post.

So all these skills allowed him to rack up points in the regular season and get to the line at will, and still score in the postseason. But defenses got better in the playoffs, he drove less aggressively, there were less opportunities to run the floor for easy baskets and he didn't have much a back to the basket game to fall back on.

Duncan on the other hand had a very good back to the basket game and he was also a real threat when he faced up in his prime. I'd say he was mid-range shot was better than Robinson, even though he wasn't as quick or athletic(but not lacking in that area either contrary to some of the revisionist history on this board).

Duncan stepped up and was often more aggressive in the playoffs, the polar opposite of Robinson and that is huge, imo.

Granted, there's a difference between having your best years with Gregg Popovich as your coach(one of the 2 best in my time watching the NBA along with Phil Jackson, imo) and a clown like John Lucas who was a set of pom poms away from being a cheerleader.

But I have to go with Duncan. Robinson was a remarkable talent, and I'd have to say he was regularly a top 5 player from his second season on, top 2 in '94 and top 3 in '95 and '96. So this isn't to say Robinson wasn't elite. But there's no way I'm taking Robinson over Duncan to lead my team to a championship, and that makes it impossible for me to call Robinson the better player.


Robinson was much better regular season player, Duncan was slightly better in the Playoffs. However considering David was a better defender, its a draw in the Playoffs, and a clear edge for DRob in the RS.

Duncan wasn't "slightly" better in the playoffs, he was clearly better. And Robinson wasn't much better in the regular season either.


Majority is picking Duncan simply because of the perception of winning, ignoring different circumstances. Swap them, and the same majority would see them in a completely reversed light. Duncan wouldnt had won anything in the Golden age (no rings, no MVPs, no DPOYs), Robinson would had dominated current era much more than Duncan did (DRob would be a perennial MVP, DPOY, and as many rings as Duncan if not more).

It's not even about championships.

Robinson regularly lost with home court advantage.

1991- 55 win Spurs lost in the 1st round to a 47 win Warrior team
1994- 55 win Spurs lost in the 1st round to a 53 win Jazz team (Robinson was shut down, often by Karl Malone and embarrassed)
1995- 62 win Spurs lost to 47 win Rockets in WCF (Records are deceptive, that Rocket team beat other teams that won 60, 59 and 57 games so I'll add that, but Hakeem torched Robinson and really embarrassed him)
1996- 59 win Spurs lost to 55 win Jazz in semifinals (A repeat of '94 vs Utah as Robinson's performance was embarrassing again)

I don't need rings to compare them in the playoffs. Duncan's performances were consistently better. He was in a better situation to win titles, but

[code green]

This has been an argument my friend and I have had with each other literally for years. He's more of a general sports fan to be honest, and is convinced it's David Robinson. I, of course take Tim Duncan. I just don't see how Robinson wins this. He was a bigger defensive presence, yeah, but that's about it.

To give a little perspective on how bad about it was, this year is our 5th annual fantasy football league with pretty much all the same people. I guess this disagreement must have started around the time we started, because the name of the league he created has named "Tim Ducan is a bitch" from the get-go. I always bring up how bullshit it is each year at the draft, so this year he got a custom made professional draft board with the name printed in huge letters across the top. I wonder what the guy whose job it was to print it thought of it. :oldlol:

[bizil]

In my opinion, u could actually go either way. But for me I would go Duncan because he was the most dominant and skilled PF on the block besides McHale of all time. And Timmy also had the midrange faceup game andwas a skilled dribbler for a big man. Timmy athleticism when he was younger was also underrated. He wasn't a freak athlete like Dave, but in my book still very athletic. They are evenly matched in other areas in terms of boards, defense, and passing (even though Dave's assist numbers are better across the board). Scoring wise, Dave put his foot on the gas more throughout the duration of the game.

Timmy on the other hand played more in the flow. But when it was time to takeover or when he DAMN WELL felt like it, I feel Timmy turned into a killer in a heartbeat. So for me the clutch factor and back to the basket game inclines my to go with Timmy. But Big Dave redefined the center position and in the all around sense I think Walton, Dave, and Hakeem are the best centers ever. If somebody picked Dave over Tim, I wouldn't complain to loudly.

[Clifton]

sing facts is always more preferable than just making things up. Makes you look either stupid, or ignorant.
Well, I've checked the rosters, and what you usually have is Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili as the top 3 scorers, and then a bunch of defensive-minded role players and guys who can hit open 3s. Parker had ONE 22/7 year (which are stats that the likes of Mike James have achieved) but for the most part Parker scored between 16 and 18 a year, and Ginobili between 14 and 18. If you go back to 2003, then you start to see other names above the big 3. Stephen Jackson gave Duncan 12 a game in 03; Steve Smith the same in 02, and then to pre-Parker times: in 2001, Derek Anderson gave him 15/4/4 and David Robinson 14/9. In 99 and 00, Robinson gave him 16/10 and 18/10 respectively.

Now when I say "all-star level player," I don't mean a guy who is a good player on a very good team and made the all-star game. I mean a guy who is all-star level, period, who an all-star game without him would be a mistake. I'm talking about prime Paul Pierce. In today's league, I'm talking about the likes of Westbrook, Deron Williams, Dirk. I don't mean Lebron and Durant; I don't even mean Paul and Dwight and Kobe. I mean the level below that. I submit that Duncan never once in his career had someone on that level. Never had a Russ Westbrook. He had guys on the level below that all throughout... but guys like that are not rare. Manu was better than Parker and better than his numbers... but even he was not there. He was a Joe Johnson not a Paul Pierce, and yes there is a big difference. These players get credit because they played well in a great system with a great player and a great coach. But anyone could've done it. And I think that's credit that should be given more to Duncan than to Parker, Ginobili, and Old David Robinson.

[bizil]

Well, I've checked the rosters, and what you usually have is Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili as the top 3 scorers, and then a bunch of defensive-minded role players and guys who can hit open 3s. Parker had ONE 22/7 year (which are stats that the likes of Mike James have achieved) but for the most part Parker scored between 16 and 18 a year, and Ginobili between 14 and 18. If you go back to 2003, then you start to see other names above the big 3. Stephen Jackson gave Duncan 12 a game in 03; Steve Smith the same in 02, and then to pre-Parker times: in 2001, Derek Anderson gave him 15/4/4 and David Robinson 14/9. In 99 and 00, Robinson gave him 16/10 and 18/10 respectively.

Now when I say "all-star level player," I don't mean a guy who is a good player on a very good team and made the all-star game. I mean a guy who is all-star level, period, who an all-star game without him would be a mistake. I'm talking about prime Paul Pierce. In today's league, I'm talking about the likes of Westbrook, Deron Williams, Dirk. I don't mean Lebron and Durant; I don't even mean Paul and Dwight and Kobe. I mean the level below that. I submit that Duncan never once in his career had someone on that level. Never had a Russ Westbrook. He had guys on the level below that all throughout... but guys like that are not rare. Manu was better than Parker and better than his numbers... but even he was not there. He was a Joe Johnson not a Paul Pierce, and yes there is a big difference. These players get credit because they played well in a great system with a great player and a great coach. But anyone could've done it. And I think that's credit that should be given more to Duncan than to Parker, Ginobili, and Old David Robinson.

I agree with u! Most of the dynasties in NBA history had MULTIPLE HOFers, not just All Stars. The Showtime Lakers had five HOFers in Magic, Worthy, Wilkes, Kareem, and McAdoo. All five were in their primes, even McAdoo in the tailend sense. Look at the Lakers with West, Wilt,and Gail. Knicks with Frazier, Reed, Monroe, Dave D. and Bradley. Even the Big Three Celtics with Allen, KG,and Pierce. Duncan never really played with these kind of casts. Now I actually wouldn't be surprised if Tony and Manu make the HOF. Because of team success. But if they were on other teams that NEVER won a ring, would they be in the HOF? Timmy would have been an HOFer if he NEVER won a ring!

When certain guys happen to win a ring, they can become overrated to a degree. I think that's the case with Manu and Tony. Manu is injury hobbled. While Tony is finally starting to grasp the concept of dropping dimes at the PG. And while a very good-great scorer at PG, he's not on that Westbrook-Rose level in terms of being a dominant scorer.

[bukowski81]

I really like David Robinson, but I take Duncan. Cant believe a lot of people see Robinson as the most talented, thats just not true, he was more athletic and a bit more flashy than Duncan, thats it.

And regarding Popovich, he is no doubt a great coach but IMO Duncan has more to do with his success than the other way around.

[JMT]

This isn't even debatable, why start a thread about a topic that is probably nearly unanimous in opinion OP?

Well, it does give him a chance to discuss a player he barely saw play. ISH can always use more of that.

[Clifton]

And regarding Popovich, he is no doubt a great coach but IMO Duncan has more to do with his success than the other way around.
It's tough to say. Can anyone give an account of either one of these guys without the other? When was Pop hired as Spurs coach? What did he do before that? How was Duncan at Wake Forest? I know he was damn good, but what *kind* of damn good was he perceived as?

[bukowski81]

It's tough to say. Can anyone give an account of either one of these guys without the other? When was Pop hired as Spurs coach? What did he do before that? How was Duncan at Wake Forest? I know he was damn good, but what *kind* of damn good was he perceived as?

Pop was hired as the coach the year before Duncan got drafted, and Duncan was perceived as the next big thing when he was at Wake Forest, he was really good.

I know its hard to say but i believe Duncan would be an ATG with any decent coach while im not sure Pop will be regarded as one of the best coaches ever without Duncan, just my opinion.

[magnax1]

Robinson was much better regular season player, Duncan was slightly better in the Playoffs. However considering David was a better defender, its a draw in the Playoffs, and a clear edge for DRob in the RS.

Majority is picking Duncan simply because of the perception of winning, ignoring different circumstances. Swap them, and the same majority would see them in a completely reversed light. Duncan wouldnt had won anything in the Golden age (no rings, no MVPs, no DPOYs), Robinson would had dominated current era much more than Duncan did (DRob would be a perennial MVP, DPOY, and as many rings as Duncan if not more).
This is definitely true (I don't agree Robinson was the better defender though). While Duncan was the better player, there isn't exactly a big gap between the two, and I don't think there is really any question that if you switched their places Robinson would be the one with more titles, and Duncan definitely wouldn't get any pre Jordan.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Well, I've checked the rosters, and what you usually have is Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili as the top 3 scorers, and then a bunch of defensive-minded role players and guys who can hit open 3s. Parker had ONE 22/7 year (which are stats that the likes of Mike James have achieved) but for the most part Parker scored between 16 and 18 a year, and Ginobili between 14 and 18. If you go back to 2003, then you start to see other names above the big 3. Stephen Jackson gave Duncan 12 a game in 03; Steve Smith the same in 02, and then to pre-Parker times: in 2001, Derek Anderson gave him 15/4/4 and David Robinson 14/9. In 99 and 00, Robinson gave him 16/10 and 18/10 respectively.

Now when I say "all-star level player," I don't mean a guy who is a good player on a very good team and made the all-star game. I mean a guy who is all-star level, period, who an all-star game without him would be a mistake. I'm talking about prime Paul Pierce. In today's league, I'm talking about the likes of Westbrook, Deron Williams, Dirk. I don't mean Lebron and Durant; I don't even mean Paul and Dwight and Kobe. I mean the level below that. I submit that Duncan never once in his career had someone on that level. Never had a Russ Westbrook. He had guys on the level below that all throughout... but guys like that are not rare. Manu was better than Parker and better than his numbers... but even he was not there. He was a Joe Johnson not a Paul Pierce, and yes there is a big difference. These players get credit because they played well in a great system with a great player and a great coach. But anyone could've done it. And I think that's credit that should be given more to Duncan than to Parker, Ginobili, and Old David Robinson.

David Robinson was definitely a top 10 player during Duncan's rookie season, and top 15 in '99 and '00. He was a 20/10 caliber big man those first 3 seasons and also one of the top 3-5 defensive players.

Top 15 is legitimate all-star level for sure. Even in '01, I'd say he was top 20, but one player does not sum up a cast and merely how good the individual player is does not tell us how much he helped his team.

Even as late as 2001, Robinson gave the Spurs a second mobile 7 footer capable of passing or hitting 15 footers. Duncan and Robinson fit together extremely well, and that caused so many match up problems, especially with their defense with two 7 foot shot blockers in the paint, as well as giving them a significant match up advantage.

Beyond the impact of the twin towers, the 2001 Spurs complemented their inside game with the best 3P% in the league at 40.7%.

And Derek Anderson gave them a well rounded guard who was a legitimate perimeter scorer either with his ability to create off the dribble, or his 3 point shooting(40%). And he was also a good playmaker who played solid defense for that team. 16/4/4 aren't amazing numbers, but they're very solid, especially with context. First of all, this was 2001 and offensive numbers were significantly lower, and he also had to learn a new system, a system that wasn't good for perimeter players to put up numbers.

Not a legit all-star, but very nice for your 3rd best player. And they had another perimeter threat offensively in Antonio Daniels, who averaged 17 ppg and 4 apg on 49% in 8 playoff games after Derek Anderson's injury vs Dallas. And 2 scoring threats on perimeter while being the league's best 3 point shooting team is a very nice complement to such a dominant advantage inside.

So you have to look beyond just a team's top 2 player to judge a team. The 2001 Spurs were a very good team, although Anderson's injury really hurt in the playoffs as well as some match up problems with the Lakers.

I started with '01, because that's the first year you could say that by your definition, Duncan didn't have a legit all-star. Though I'm not sure that Robinson as a top 20 player shouldn't qualify.

In '02, his team definitely wasn't as good. They weren't bad, but nothing any special, and despite Duncan's greatness, I think they needed a bit more to win a championship. That was probably Duncan's worst team.

His '03 team didn't have an all-star either, but they were a good team. They had quite a few talented players who could have big games depending on the night, solid depth and were pretty well rounded. Of course, the main thing that stood out was Duncan's amazing season, but I do see a lot of revisionist history with people now labeling this as a weak team. Not the best to win a title, but it gets underrated because people on this board seem to just focus on the top 2 players.

But Manu emerged as an all-star in '05. He's been a legitimate all-star since then. He's been a top 15 player and made a couple of all-nba teams.

Parker emerged as an all-star himself in '06 and he's also made all-nba teams.

So from '06 on, Duncan's had 2 all-star caliber teammates. And for the most part, especially from '05-'08, neither of them were in the best positions to put up numbers with the offense revolving around Duncan and the Spurs slow, defensive-minded style, as well as neither playing big minutes, especially Manu who accepted a role as a sixth man.

So why is having a player a tier above either, but no 3rd all-star caliber player better than having 2 all-star caliber players even if neither is top 10?

Duncan's winning can't be diminished, that's not the point of this post. But I don't agree with the point you're making at all. Like pretty much every top 10 player, he's had good teams that could contend throughout his career. It doesn't take away from winning, Magic, Bird, Russell, Shaq and Kobe have had that too. Winning multiple championships and playing at the level speaks for itself. I just don't think we should pretend that he did it against all odds.

I'm not sure Duncan ever had the most talented team in the league, I know he's certainly won titles without that, and his teams have had flaws. But these 2 things can be said about almost any of the true greats at Duncan's level.


This is definitely true (I don't agree Robinson was the better defender though). While Duncan was the better player, there isn't exactly a big gap between the two, and I don't think there is really any question that if you switched their places Robinson would be the one with more titles, and Duncan definitely wouldn't get any pre Jordan.

Duncan would have had opportunities to win titles, and he wouldn't have to face Jordan in '90, '94 and '95 to win a title. I'm not sure he wins any, but I doubt Robinson wins 4 like Duncan too. And none of the years would have been guaranteed titles for Robinson.

But it's not even necessary, imo to compare team success. As I said, I just have to look at how they performed in the playoffs to tell me that Duncan is more likely to win titles if their situations were even too.

[rmt]

Well, I've checked the rosters, and what you usually have is Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili as the top 3 scorers, and then a bunch of defensive-minded role players and guys who can hit open 3s. Parker had ONE 22/7 year (which are stats that the likes of Mike James have achieved) but for the most part Parker scored between 16 and 18 a year, and Ginobili between 14 and 18. If you go back to 2003, then you start to see other names above the big 3. Stephen Jackson gave Duncan 12 a game in 03; Steve Smith the same in 02, and then to pre-Parker times: in 2001, Derek Anderson gave him 15/4/4 and David Robinson 14/9. In 99 and 00, Robinson gave him 16/10 and 18/10 respectively.

Now when I say "all-star level player," I don't mean a guy who is a good player on a very good team and made the all-star game. I mean a guy who is all-star level, period, who an all-star game without him would be a mistake. I'm talking about prime Paul Pierce. In today's league, I'm talking about the likes of Westbrook, Deron Williams, Dirk. I don't mean Lebron and Durant; I don't even mean Paul and Dwight and Kobe. I mean the level below that. I submit that Duncan never once in his career had someone on that level. Never had a Russ Westbrook. He had guys on the level below that all throughout... but guys like that are not rare. Manu was better than Parker and better than his numbers... but even he was not there. He was a Joe Johnson not a Paul Pierce, and yes there is a big difference. These players get credit because they played well in a great system with a great player and a great coach. But anyone could've done it. And I think that's credit that should be given more to Duncan than to Parker, Ginobili, and Old David Robinson.

Manu and Parker can't carry a team day in, day out, season after season the way others do. Manu's too fragile and TP's game is not versatile enough (stop him from driving and he really can't do anything else as seen in the OKC series). TP wouldn't be the player he is now if not for Pop who really rode him hard. People forget that he's been in the league for 11 years and it's only this past year that Spurs has officially been "his team" (at least, offensively).

I wouldn't say that anyone could've done it (as they compliment each other well), but it is clear that Timmy was the foundation on which it all works. I think too that being foreign helps - they seem to be less ego-centric and more team-oriented. The 3 have been together for 10 years - an eternity in today's NBA. Manu didn't blossom until '05 and TP in '06. But they aren't the talent that the other consensus top 10 GOAT (outside of Hakeem) had on their teams or even say Celtics' Pierce/Allen (in addition to the all round talent Rondo has turned out to be).

[Big#50]

Tim Duncan. DROB is the best second fiddle ever. Better than Kobe playing Robin to Shaw during the three peat. **** ya'll.

[necya]

While 1991 was inexcusable, the Jazz series in 94 and 96 were a different task mister SHAQATTACK. You always fit discreetly your little agenda, making your point as it was a logic reasoning. You show brillantly the fact that the Spurs got home court advantage but do you really think that the Spurs was better that the 90 Blazers, 93 Suns, 94 Jazz, 95 Rockets and 96 Jazz ? for me it's like blaming DRose in 2011 cause they had the best record and lose to the Heat. The Spurs OVERARCHIEVED during the 90's thanks to Robinson and nothing else. i only see a toss up in 95, but i think the Spurs while being torched had at least, responded by winning 2 straight games in Houston. It's not like the Spurs always chocked having the best team like it happened to the 94 Sonics, the 95 Suns, Jazz 95 and yeah, the 91 Spurs.

I would also add in your reasoning how the Spurs showed no answer during the playoffs when they got the smart Lucas and Bob Hill as their head coach. They had no experience and were not Rudy T. or Sloan don't you think ?
In the 90's the West were strong with Seattle, Utah, Phoenix and Houston, San Antonio was the worst team in fact of this elite group, i think it's clear. Unfortunately, when they got a chance to reach the finals in 95, Rodman went nuts and was on every halftime report during April and the playoffs with Doc Rivers always trying to tell people nicely that Dennis was an asshole. I hoped that Larry Brown just stayed in San Antonio or Popovich came before cause Lucas and Bob Hill was totally lost with Rodman case.

I'm sure you will understand what i'm talking about when you think about Shaq's Lakers situation in 1999 under the great Rambis...

Back to Robinson, he was better on both sides of the floor.
I wish he could have the Spurs team of the 00's who was more homogeneous and balanced. It's funny how people would not see Duncan as a winner if he played in Jordan's league.

Finally, you pointed his lack of back to basket moves and his stat padding in his 71pts game and his 50pts game vs the poor Wolves (which was clearly uninterested). Then i would remind his stat padding, being the only one who scored 40pts vs Mutombo, Olajuwon (the only one to do it vs prime version), Ewing and Mouning. Also, we could add his multiple 35pts games vs Shaq and say that he could adapt on the offensive hand against the best centers of the mid 90's.

sorry, i don't like to do that, but i had to defend him cause he is too much direspected here.

[Dragonyeuw]

Honestly, I think the perception of David Robinson was adversely affected by what Hakeem did to him in the 95 playoffs( on the flipside, I think Hakeem's legacy was greatly enhanced by that series, and in the bigger picture those back to back titles, specifically the 95 run).

Duncan obviously has the more distinguished career and I'd pick him as he's a proven leader and winner, but I feel prime David Robinson was a more prolific scorer and defender if we're speaking strictly talent and ability. I think Duncan's ability to dominate out of the lowpost is what made him the more effective post-season player, and I think that's the main difference. But David Robinson in his prime was a lot better than he's given credit for, easily a top-5 player from the early 90's right until Duncan came on-board( which coincided with the Admiral exiting his prime years).

[ShaqAttack3234]

Manu and Parker can't carry a team day in, day out, season after season the way others do. Manu's too fragile and TP's game is not versatile enough (stop him from driving and he really can't do anything else as seen in the OKC series). TP wouldn't be the player he is now if not for Pop who really rode him hard. People forget that he's been in the league for 11 years and it's only this past year that Spurs has officially been "his team" (at least, offensively).

I wouldn't say that anyone could've done it (as they compliment each other well), but it is clear that Timmy was the foundation on which it all works. I think too that being foreign helps - they seem to be less ego-centric and more team-oriented. The 3 have been together for 10 years - an eternity in today's NBA. Manu didn't blossom until '05 and TP in '06. But they aren't the talent that the other consensus top 10 GOAT (outside of Hakeem) had on their teams or even say Celtics' Pierce/Allen (in addition to the all round talent Rondo has turned out to be).

I agree with most of what you said, but I have to comment on the bold part.

No, neither of them are as good as the "sidekicks" the top 10 players had most years(though Manu had an '05 playoff run as good as most), but why compare each of them to the 2nd options the other guys had? Isn't it significant that he had both of them? I mean aren't both of them clearly superior to the 3rd options on most championship teams the last 20 years? That's as notable as both falling short of many second options, imo.


While 1991 was inexcusable, the Jazz series in 94 and 96 were a different task mister SHAQATTACK. You always fit discreetly your little agenda, making your point as it was a logic reasoning. You show brillantly the fact that the Spurs got home court advantage but do you really think that the Spurs was better that the 90 Blazers, 93 Suns, 94 Jazz, 95 Rockets and 96 Jazz ? for me it's like blaming DRose in 2011 cause they had the best record and lose to the Heat. The Spurs OVERARCHIEVED during the 90's thanks to Robinson and nothing else. i only see a toss up in 95, but i think the Spurs while being torched had at least, responded by winning 2 straight games in Houston. It's not like the Spurs always chocked having the best team like it happened to the 94 Sonics, the 95 Suns, Jazz 95 and yeah, the 91 Spurs.

Several things here.

First, I don't have an agenda, but this isn't really worth debating. You may think I have one, but I happen to think you have an agenda. That's pointless though since we'll just end up going in circles with that.

As far as the Utah series in '94 and '96? I agree that Utah had better teams, particularly in '94 so that does make the Spurs having home court advantage a little misleading, especially since Jeff Hornacek was a great addition to the '94 Jazz that came late in the season and a took a while to get adjusted in Utah's system, but Utah entered the playoffs hot.

But the most important thing is Robinson's performances. Malone just shut him down when they were matched up, and in general, Robinson played as weak in those Utah series as I've seen a superstar play.

That's the real problem. I could deal with losing if Robinson had played at his regular season level, but he didn't come close. Part of that is because the Spurs didn't do a great job building around Robinson. Their team relied on him to score too much, and he just didn't have the back to the basket game or a go to move to live up to that in the playoffs.

And let me address several other things. I never mentioned the '90 series vs Portland and the '93 series vs Phoenix. '90 was the one year that I thought Robinson played fine in the playoffs, and I think that's because he had plenty of other scorers, and he was also a rookie making Robinson's performance more impressive since he had one of the great rookie seasons ever. Blazers were just a better team, but the Spurs were impressive taking them to 7.

And in '93, I also think Robinson played well vs Phoenix. I don't blame him, Phoenix was just better with Barkley having a monster series and KJ was also torching the Spurs. Commentators also mentioned that the Spurs didn't do a great job of getting Robinson the ball. So in general, the Suns were just a much better team, but I give Robinson credit for competing.

As far as '95? I also think Houston was a better team, so it's not as much the issue of Robinson losing, but more of an issue that Robinson did not play up to his standards in the Western Conference Finals and was embarrassed by Hakeem. In fairness, Hakeem was playing as well as any player I've seen in '95, but Hakeem had his best series vs anyone doing whatever he wanted, while Robinson's offense was limited. There were other factors in the series such as Rodman not doing his job, but I'm just talking about Robinson's performance, not even the result of the series.


I would also add in your reasoning how the Spurs showed no answer during the playoffs when they got the smart Lucas and Bob Hill as their head coach. They had no experience and were not Rudy T. or Sloan don't you think ?

I'll agree that Robinson didn't have the coaches other greats have had, especially John Lucas who was a clown. But that doesn't excuse some of Robinson's subpar performances. And Robinson did have Larry Brown early in his career.


In the 90's the West were strong with Seattle, Utah, Phoenix and Houston, San Antonio was the worst team in fact of this elite group, i think it's clear. Unfortunately, when they got a chance to reach the finals in 95, Rodman went nuts and was on every halftime report during April and the playoffs with Doc Rivers always trying to tell people nicely that Dennis was an asshole. I hoped that Larry Brown just stayed in San Antonio or Popovich came before cause Lucas and Bob Hill was totally lost with Rodman case.

This is a valid point for the Spurs not winning more with Robinson, but do you agree that Robinson's individual play in quite a few series didn't live up to his MVP-caliber regular season level.


I'm sure you will understand what i'm talking about when you think about Shaq's Lakers situation in 1999 under the great Rambis...

Well, the Lakers are a good example of the value of a coach. The late 90's Lakers were more talented than the early 00's teams, but the early 00's teams won 3 consecutive championships while the late 90's teams didn't even reach the finals. This is because Phil Jackson made an enormous impact, and Phil also did contribute to Shaq reaching his peak.

But there were more problems with the '99 Lakers than just the coach. Rodman was a big distraction, the Lakers made a bad trade giving up Eddie Jones and Elden Campbell for a past his prime Glen Rice who was never the same after the elbow surgery in '99. Also, Shaq did not have his best season, Kobe hadn't matured yet and both Shaq/Kobe weren't really getting along that season. So I can't completely blame Rambis.


Back to Robinson, he was better on both sides of the floor.
I wish he could have the Spurs team of the 00's who was more homogeneous and balanced. It's funny how people would not see Duncan as a winner if he played in Jordan's league.

I don't agree that Robinson was better at both ends. I think they were about even defensively, but I've always preferred Duncan's offense because of his low post game. And also Duncan's leadership since he stepped up his game in the postseason while Robinson's play declined. That's why I'd rather have Duncan.

As I said, I'm not judging most of this on championships because


Finally, you pointed his lack of back to basket moves and his stat padding in his 71pts game and his 50pts game vs the poor Wolves (which was clearly uninterested). Then i would remind his stat padding, being the only one who scored 40pts vs Mutombo, Olajuwon (the only one to do it vs prime version), Ewing and Mouning. Also, we could add his multiple 35pts games vs Shaq and say that he could adapt on the offensive hand against the best centers of the mid 90's.

Lets not kid ourselves, Robinson DID stat-pad in the '94 season. David still had a remarkable season, he was the second best player that year behind only Hakeem. But John Lucas wanted Robinson to get the scoring title and Lucas was pretty much a Robinson fanboy who would leave him in blowouts and cheer as he added to his stats. I know you've seen a lot of games so I'm sure you must have seen some examples of this.

I'm not saying Robinson wasn't a great player, but his offense wasn't as good as his regular season stats suggest. This was proven year after year in the playoffs when his offense declined greatly.

[rmt]

I agree with most of what you said, but I have to comment on the bold part.

No, neither of them are as good as the "sidekicks" the top 10 players had most years(though Manu had an '05 playoff run as good as most), but why compare each of them to the 2nd options the other guys had? Isn't it significant that he had both of them? I mean aren't both of them clearly superior to the 3rd options on most championship teams the last 20 years? That's as notable as both falling short of many second options, imo.

Since you agree that Manu didn't blossom till 05 and TP till 06, then it's only since 06 that TD has had both of them at that level. 06 was so close - overtime in game 7, 07 they won, 08 Manu was injured. Since then TD has declined.

So, of the 4 championships, it's really only the 07 championship that TD had that level of help. I certainly don't consider Manu in 05 at the level of a Kobe in the last 2 years of the 3 peat or even both Manu and TP at the level of Magic/Kareem and Worthy or McHale and Parrish.

[Owl]

While 1991 was inexcusable, the Jazz series in 94 and 96 were a different task mister SHAQATTACK. You always fit discreetly your little agenda, making your point as it was a logic reasoning. You show brillantly the fact that the Spurs got home court advantage but do you really think that the Spurs was better that the 90 Blazers, 93 Suns, 94 Jazz, 95 Rockets and 96 Jazz ? for me it's like blaming DRose in 2011 cause they had the best record and lose to the Heat. The Spurs OVERARCHIEVED during the 90's thanks to Robinson and nothing else. i only see a toss up in 95, but i think the Spurs while being torched had at least, responded by winning 2 straight games in Houston. It's not like the Spurs always chocked having the best team like it happened to the 94 Sonics, the 95 Suns, Jazz 95 and yeah, the 91 Spurs.

I would also add in your reasoning how the Spurs showed no answer during the playoffs when they got the smart Lucas and Bob Hill as their head coach. They had no experience and were not Rudy T. or Sloan don't you think ?
In the 90's the West were strong with Seattle, Utah, Phoenix and Houston, San Antonio was the worst team in fact of this elite group, i think it's clear. Unfortunately, when they got a chance to reach the finals in 95, Rodman went nuts and was on every halftime report during April and the playoffs with Doc Rivers always trying to tell people nicely that Dennis was an asshole. I hoped that Larry Brown just stayed in San Antonio or Popovich came before cause Lucas and Bob Hill was totally lost with Rodman case.

I'm sure you will understand what i'm talking about when you think about Shaq's Lakers situation in 1999 under the great Rambis...

Back to Robinson, he was better on both sides of the floor.
I wish he could have the Spurs team of the 00's who was more homogeneous and balanced. It's funny how people would not see Duncan as a winner if he played in Jordan's league.

Finally, you pointed his lack of back to basket moves and his stat padding in his 71pts game and his 50pts game vs the poor Wolves (which was clearly uninterested). Then i would remind his stat padding, being the only one who scored 40pts vs Mutombo, Olajuwon (the only one to do it vs prime version), Ewing and Mouning. Also, we could add his multiple 35pts games vs Shaq and say that he could adapt on the offensive hand against the best centers of the mid 90's.

sorry, i don't like to do that, but i had to defend him cause he is too much direspected here.
At a team level I'd agree with the sentiment (though inexcusable is a tad strong).

But for Robinson? He shot 68.6% from the field with a true shooting % of .760 and a PER of 26.1.

That series was lost on the perimeter. In game one Strickland and Willie Anderson played well, combined for 68 points and filled their boxscores (though they also combined for 10 turnovers).

Anyway apparently, though Timmy and Mitch played well on offense apparently Nelson called them out on their D, iirc Richmond recalls this in the Run TMC roundtable, I think in the 2nd part http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NuK-HkcymM&feature=plcp .

Thereafter they (Anderson and Strickland) got shut down.
For the remainder of the series:

Willie Anderson shot 15 of 43 from the field 34.8837209%. He added 2 three point baskets, and 6 points from 9 trips to the line.

Rod Strickland shot 17 of 47 from the field 36.1702128%. He added no three point baskets, and 11 points from 11 trips to the line.


Also I think the "he didn't have a low post game" is being overstated. He didn't have a low post game on a par with the elite centers. He didn't have a signature go to move. Still looking year after year at the Rick Barry scouting reports of a prime Robinson, yes, there are consistently suggestions it could be better, particularly with regard to a go to move but also statements that it is at the very least "solid", and more generously "a major threat in the post" and "a big-time scorer down lown".

Moreover the notion that Malone singlehandedly stopped Robinson seems misleading, per the 1996-97 Pro Basketball Bible "it was a collective effort, Utah's swarming double- and triple-teaming, that flustered the Admiral"


Anyway, to general debate, overall I lean towards Duncan because he has been so impressive in the playoffs (not a shot at Robinson, but simply on his own terms Duncan was excellent). But I don't think taking Robinson is at all unreasonable.

[Optimus Prime]

The only way in which I would ever have to "choose one" between these hypothetical NBA greats discussions is in NBA2K, in which case, I would take the one with the highest rating. :hammerhead:

:kobe:

[Da KO King]

David Robinson

[Anaximandro1]

And also Duncan's leadership since he stepped up his game in the postseason
During the RS,Pop and Duncan make sure that everybody contributes to the team.It's the right approach in order to build great team chemistry.

As the Spurs got deeper into the PO, the elite competition demands a different approach,so Tim becomes more aggressive in order to take over the game and the series.It's when you see Duncan at his best.

A couple of examples during the Spurs' championship run in 2005.


2005 WCSF - SAS @SEA (Game 6)

Tim scored 12 points in the final 11 minutes,including the game- winning shot to clinch the series.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-MtQjNWfhBnU/UEH8whyrGvI/AAAAAAAABuE/W5PJR3WKKpY/s1600/1_thumb.jpg


2005 NBA Finals - SAS DET (Game 7)

The Pistons led 48-41 with 6 minutes to play in the third quarter.That triggered the alarm,so Tim started playing hero ball and scored 12 points in the final 6 minutes.In the fourth quarter, Larry Brown panicked and decided to double team Duncan and the rest is history.

Duncan scored 17 points and dished 2 assists in the final 17 minutes of game 7.He generated 23 of the Spurs' 32 points.Then,in the final seconds Manu made a bunch of FTs to close the game.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DdHurT6z-yo/UEH8zrPLmAI/AAAAAAAABuM/lf0GKiMRKL0/s1600/2_thumb.jpg



On a side note, I think fans are fascinated with RS averages,ignore the context and draw false conclusions.

It's hard to outscore Duncan during a playoff series.Once you face the Spurs (when Tim was young), it's a half-court battle,and that's where Duncan is extremely dominant. In fact,Tim has played 18 series against Shaq,Dirk,Amare and KG.

Duncan outscored his opponents in 12 series

[RaininTwos]

Better defender?

Duncan's defense is really starting to get overrated.
Seriously.

[Freedom Kid7]

http://0-media-cdn.foolz.us/ffuuka/board/sp/image/1340/72/1340728199249.jpg
One of the most fundamentally sound post players of all time.

[StateOfMind12]

Duncan is better but not by a whole lot. He was a better offensive player/scorer in particular but Robinson was just as good at everything else, if not better. It's almost like comparing KG to Duncan really.

[rmt]

During the RS,Pop and Duncan make sure that everybody contributes to the team.It's the right approach in order to build great team chemistry.

As the Spurs got deeper into the PO, the elite competition demands a different approach,so Tim becomes more aggressive in order to take over the game and the series.It's when you see Duncan at his best.

A couple of examples during the Spurs' championship run in 2005.

2005 WCSF - SAS @SEA (Game 6)

Tim scored 12 points in the final 11 minutes,including the game- winning shot to clinch the series.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-MtQjNWfhBnU/UEH8whyrGvI/AAAAAAAABuE/W5PJR3WKKpY/s1600/1_thumb.jpg

2005 NBA Finals - SAS DET (Game 7)

The Pistons led 48-41 with 6 minutes to play in the third quarter.That triggered the alarm,so Tim started playing hero ball and scored 12 points in the final 6 minutes.In the fourth quarter, Larry Brown panicked and decided to double team Duncan and the rest is history.

Duncan scored 17 points and dished 2 assists in the final 17 minutes of game 7.He generated 23 of the Spurs' 32 points.Then,in the final seconds Manu made a bunch of FTs to close the game.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DdHurT6z-yo/UEH8zrPLmAI/AAAAAAAABuM/lf0GKiMRKL0/s1600/2_thumb.jpg

On a side note, I think fans are fascinated with RS averages,ignore the context and draw false conclusions.

It's hard to outscore Duncan during a playoff series.Once you face the Spurs (when Tim was young), it's a half-court battle,and that's where Duncan is extremely dominant. In fact,Tim has played 18 series against Shaq,Dirk,Amare and KG.

Duncan outscored his opponents in 12 series

So true. In game 7 when they were down 9, Pop kept going to Duncan over and over again, fouls and double teams came, opening up the shooters.

Dislike when posters look at the box score and say TD went 10-27 without looking at context and that he's playing against 4 time DYOP, Rasheed and McDyess. Those 17 points/2 asst in last 17 mins. and 23 of last 32 points came at the crucial point of game 7. Then they point to Manu's 4th quarter points when he was the beneficiary of all the attention TD was getting and of course, when the game is out of reach, Manu gets the ball because of his free-throw shooting.

[Boston C's]

During the RS,Pop and Duncan make sure that everybody contributes to the team.It's the right approach in order to build great team chemistry.

As the Spurs got deeper into the PO, the elite competition demands a different approach,so Tim becomes more aggressive in order to take over the game and the series.It's when you see Duncan at his best.

A couple of examples during the Spurs' championship run in 2005.


2005 WCSF - SAS @SEA (Game 6)

Tim scored 12 points in the final 11 minutes,including the game- winning shot to clinch the series.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-MtQjNWfhBnU/UEH8whyrGvI/AAAAAAAABuE/W5PJR3WKKpY/s1600/1_thumb.jpg


2005 NBA Finals - SAS DET (Game 7)

The Pistons led 48-41 with 6 minutes to play in the third quarter.That triggered the alarm,so Tim started playing hero ball and scored 12 points in the final 6 minutes.In the fourth quarter, Larry Brown panicked and decided to double team Duncan and the rest is history.

Duncan scored 17 points and dished 2 assists in the final 17 minutes of game 7.He generated 23 of the Spurs' 32 points.Then,in the final seconds Manu made a bunch of FTs to close the game.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-DdHurT6z-yo/UEH8zrPLmAI/AAAAAAAABuM/lf0GKiMRKL0/s1600/2_thumb.jpg



On a side note, I think fans are fascinated with RS averages,ignore the context and draw false conclusions.

It's hard to outscore Duncan during a playoff series.Once you face the Spurs (when Tim was young), it's a half-court battle,and that's where Duncan is extremely dominant. In fact,Tim has played 18 series against Shaq,Dirk,Amare and KG.

Duncan outscored his opponents in 12 series

that seattle game gave me nightmares especially because duncan was playing horribly all game long somethin like 1-12 from the field and was lacking in the rebounding department as well i just kept thinkin why aren't we pulling away since duncan is having like the worst game of his life and when he went down with the ankle injury (which disgusted me when some sonic fans cheered) and came back to lead his team to victory that was incredible...i knew deep down during the game that if the spurs were in striking distance that tim duncan would sooner or later come alive because thats what franchise players do

[ShaqAttack3234]

Since you agree that Manu didn't blossom till 05 and TP till 06, then it's only since 06 that TD has had both of them at that level. 06 was so close - overtime in game 7, 07 they won, 08 Manu was injured. Since then TD has declined.

Yeah, Parker didn't truly become an all-star caliber player until '06, imo, but he was already quite good for a 3rd option in '05. He was a legitimate scoring and playmaking threat who averaged 17/6 in a system that wasn't ideal for him to put up big numbers.


So, of the 4 championships, it's really only the 07 championship that TD had that level of help. I certainly don't consider Manu in 05 at the level of a Kobe in the last 2 years of the 3 peat

True, Manu was definitely never on '01 and '02 Kobe's level, but those teams didn't have a 3rd guy comparable to even '05 Parker. The '05 Spurs also had the best role player from those Laker teams in Horry, plus Bruce Bowen widely regarded as the game's perimeter defender who was also a specialist on those corner 3s which allowed him to contribute as a productive 3 point shooter(40.3 3P%, 1.3 3PM). Easily a more talented back up guard in Brent Barry than what those Laker teams had off the bench as well as Nazr Mohammed who was a legit center who rebounded and blocked shots very well and was a decent offensive center. I'd say he was better than the supporting big man the Lakers than the Lakers had except for maybe 2001 Horace Grant. And the '05 Spurs were a better 3 point shooting team than those 3peat Lakers with the 8th best 3P% at 36.3%.

So to me, the comparison doesn't end at just Shaq/Kobe vs Duncan/Manu. There's no question the Lakers had a big advantage in their 2nd best player, but there's also no question to me that the Spurs had a big advantage from their 3rd best player on compared to the Lakers.

I think it depends on what you think is most important in a supporting cast. Shaq had a rarity in '01 and '02 since he played with a player who could be an MVP candidate or franchise player on another team, Something Duncan didn't have. But Duncan had multiple scorers, something Shaq didn't have and a more well rounded team. I can't argue with those that would take Shaq's help in '01 and '02 as long as they look at the entire teams before coming to a conclusion. I'm not sure myself, though I'd say that in '01, with everyone firing on all cylinders, Shaq got more support than Duncan in '05, but the result was an all-time best 15-1 playoff record so more support isn't necessarily negative, it depends on what you do with it. But I'd definitely take Duncan's '05 support over Shaq's in '00.

However because truly judging how much "help" a player has is so difficult and subjective, I find it better to look at those player's performances during the championship run and judge by that.


or even both Manu and TP at the level of Magic/Kareem and Worthy or McHale and Parrish.

It's tough to compare 2 players to 1, it's always subjective, but I would never suggest Duncan had as much help as Magic, Kareem or Bird. Though it is worth noting that those great Laker and Celtic teams often had to face each other to win a championship which is a factor. They also had to face teams with more talent than any team in recent history like the '83 and '85 Sixers and the late 80's Pistons.

It's hard to imagine casts today like the one Kareem had in '82, Moses hadin '83, Kareem/Magic had in '85, Bird had in '86 and Magic in '87. Multiple superstars and 4-5 all-star caliber players total as well as super role players like Michael Cooper or '86 Bill Walton.


At a team level I'd agree with the sentiment (though inexcusable is a tad strong).

But for Robinson? He shot 68.6% from the field with a true shooting % of .760 and a PER of 26.1.

That series was lost on the perimeter. In game one Strickland and Willie Anderson played well, combined for 68 points and filled their boxscores (though they also combined for 10 turnovers).

Anyway apparently, though Timmy and Mitch played well on offense apparently Nelson called them out on their D, iirc Richmond recalls this in the Run TMC roundtable, I think in the 2nd part http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6NuK-HkcymM&feature=plcp .

Thereafter they (Anderson and Strickland) got shut down.
For the remainder of the series:

Willie Anderson shot 15 of 43 from the field 34.8837209%. He added 2 three point baskets, and 6 points from 9 trips to the line.

Rod Strickland shot 17 of 47 from the field 36.1702128%. He added no three point baskets, and 11 points from 11 trips to the line.

For the most part, you make valid points, but I don't think you can put too much into Robinson's stats in '91. If you watch the series, he didn't dominate that team, even commentators when stating his stats would say things like "a quiet 26 points" for example, or a quiet game for Robinson.

He wasn't bad, but pretty much every star put up monster numbers vs those Don Nelson Warrior teams. They played at an insane pace, were one of the worst defensive teams to make the playoffs and often played without a player over 6'7".

They did also take away a lot of Robinson's usual defensive impact by having their center out on the perimeter.

[Owl]

For the most part, you make valid points, but I don't think you can put too much into Robinson's stats in '91. If you watch the series, he didn't dominate that team, even commentators when stating his stats would say things like "a quiet 26 points" for example, or a quiet game for Robinson.

He wasn't bad, but pretty much every star put up monster numbers vs those Don Nelson Warrior teams. They played at an insane pace, were one of the worst defensive teams to make the playoffs and often played without a player over 6'7".

They did also take away a lot of Robinson's usual defensive impact by having their center out on the perimeter.
Quiet goes both ways. It can be that it percieved somehow to have had lower impact than the totals suggest (which I don't totally get unless the points are in garbage time), or it can mean scoring within the flow of the offense, not dominating the ball, not taking a lot of shots, not scoring in flashy manner, not going on streaks but just consistently scoring, scoring off broken plays and offensive rebounds rather than extended isos etc. Certainly Robinson wasn't dominating the offense.

So would I have liked Robinson to take a couple more shots a game? Yes, but your Golden State defense point just makes the Spurs wings alarmingly bad numbers worse.

Playoff PER is calculated from within series so is effectively accounting for pace.

Can't argue with the defensive impact thing, but I would say that it's the coaches responsibility to ensure that Robinson is matched up defending the player/position that is most useful to the Spurs. It certainly isn't on Robinson that a team cleverly used the rules to limit (to 1.5 steals and almost 4 blocks a game though obviously D is more than stats, and pace inflates these) his defensive impact, because there's literally nothing he can do about illegal defense rules.

There's this idea that the best player should or is the one who does, win the series. David Robinson looks like the best player in that series both statistically, and certainly in the big picture, but it's not easy to overcome the fact that the 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th both within the series and on the season's play. I wouldn't argue Robinson's performance as dominant, because as you say it was versus a very small, poor defensive team. But it stretches credibility to have 1991 on a list of playoff failures or to suggest Robinson was responsible for the loss. The contrast between the outside players production on the two teams is huge.