Why is David Robinson's 1999 ring not counted as a superstar ring?

[tpols]

David Robinson had a better '99 playoff VORP (value over replacement) and splits than

'08 Kevin Garnett
'11 Dirk Nowitzki
'00 Shaq
'91 MJ

...better than his own teammate in that playoff run Tim Duncan too. You get the picture. He played 35 mpg in games that ended in the 70s and 80s. You cant compare today's volume numbers.

How does a guy having that type of impact not count as a superstar ring?

Because he wasn't doing it with flashy scoring?

He had an 87 DRTG.

Absurd.

[Roundball_Rock]

Not in the real world, no. :lol Why? He stopped being a superstar after his 97' injury and he was on the wrong side of 30. By 99' he was 33.

[1987_Lakers]

Did Robinson even make an All-NBA Team in '99? He was great defensively, but up to that point he had he worst year in his career in '99, clearly past his prime. This thread doesn't make sense.

[RRR3]

Not in the real world, no. :lol Why? He stopped being a superstar after his 97' injury and he was on the wrong side of 30. By 99' he was 33.
Pretty hard to argue he wasn’t a superstar in 98. 21.6/10.6/2.7/0.9/2.6 (per 36: 23.1/11.4/2.9/0.9/2.8) on 58.1 TS%. And he led the league in BPM and WS/48, 2nd team all NBA and 7th in MVP voting. TBH he was still a superstar by some metrics in 99 but 98 is really hard to argue against.

[Carbine]

Because people watched the games while they happened and didn't need to come up with some statistic 20 years after the fact to paint a narrative that he was on the same level as '91 MJ or peak Shaq for that playoff run.

[tpols]

Did Robinson even make an All-NBA Team in '99?

Who cares about bullshit voted on accolades when he factually dominated the playoffs?

I just found this.


All NBA voting is conducted by a panel of 123 writers and broadcasters. Prior to the 2013–14 NBA season, voting was performed by the NBA head coaches, who were restricted from voting for players on their own team. The players each receive two points for each first team vote and one point for each second team vote.

:oldlol:

They don't even let coaches vote on it anymore. It's straight media execs telling their writers to go one way or another. And even when the coaches did vote on it, I bet they just veiwed it as sidework. Like when you get a task at work you know you can slide by with not doing or just half assing.

[Smoke117]

Did Robinson even make an All-NBA Team in '99? He was great defensively, but up to that point he had he worst year in his career in '99, clearly past his prime. This thread doesn't make sense.


Robinson was very clearly the best defensive player in the league throughout that 99 season. He still had a massive impact.

[Roundball_Rock]

Did Robinson even make an All-NBA Team in '99? He was great defensively, but up to that point he had he worst year in '99, clearly past his prime. This thread doesn't make sense.

Nope. He was 1st/2nd team all-NBA his entire career (except 93') up to that point so there was a clear drop-off. He was 1st in 95', 96' before his injury.

He did make the 3rd team in 00' and 01' but that had more to do with other centers than him. Hakeem, Ewing were done by 00' and Zo' missed basically all of 01'.

We have the OP because OP boils every player to ORTG/DRTG (not grasping the two aren't equal--you can have a 150 ORTG but in practice not a 50 DRTG, given how they are calculated)along with PPG (somehow PPG doesn't matter for Robinson, though). He thinks 99' Robinson was some GOAT level performer.


Pretty hard to argue he wasn’t a superstar in 98. 21.6/10.6/2.7/0.9/2.6 (per 36: 23.1/11.4/2.9/0.9/2.8) on 58.1 TS%. And he led the league in BPM and WS/48, 2nd team all NBA and 7th in MVP voting. TBH he was still a superstar by some metrics in 99 but 98 is really hard to argue against.

I have a tighter definition of superstar than most. To me it is a player who plausibly could win MVP in that season (so a top 5ish player). Robinson was still top 10 or so but not a MVP caliber guy anymore in 98'. If people want to say there are 10-12 superstars, yeah, then 98' D Rob makes it.


Because people watched the games while they happened and didn't need to come up with some statistic 20 years after the fact to paint a narrative that he was on the same level as '91 MJ or peak Shaq for that playoff run.

Exactly.

[1987_Lakers]

Who cares about bullshit voted on accolades when he factually dominated the playoffs?

I just found this.



:oldlol:

They don't even let coaches vote on it anymore. It's straight media execs telling their writers to go one way or another. And even when the coaches did vote on it, I bet they just veiwed it as sidework. Like when you get a task at work you know you can slide by with not doing or just half assing.
So coaches voted for the teams in 1999? I don't see how this helps your argument.

[Roundball_Rock]

So coaches voted for the teams in 1999? I don't see how this helps your argument.

16/10/3=91' MJ or 00' Shaq for the purposes of hyping Robinson to argue if Robinson was that great, and if Anthony "Kareem" Davis>Robinson, then...you know the rest. :oldlol:

[MadDog]

Raw stats aren't everything but Robinson averaged 16 & 10 in the postseason. Kind of tough to sell him as a superstar. Then again Russell was mostly praised for his defense (among other intangibles), and he was considered a superstar too. I agree that an 87 DRTG is pretty absurd.

[tpols]

Raw stats aren't everything but Robinson averaged 16 & 10 in the postseason. Kind of tough to sell him as a superstar. Then again Russell was mostly praised for his defense (among other intangibles), and he was considered a superstar. I agree that an 87 DRTG is pretty absurd.

16/10 but games were ending in the 60s, 70s, and 80s!

There needs to be some context applied when today we regularly see 110+. D-Rob was shutting offenses down at a GOAT level, and scoring very efficiently.

[MadDog]

16/10 but games were ending in the 60s, 70s, and 80s!

There needs to be some context applied when today we regularly see 110+. D-Rob was shutting offenses down at a GOAT level, and scoring very efficiently.

True. Never really thought about Robinson being a superstar in 99, but hindsight is 20/20. That was also a lockout year and I only watched a handful of their games. The impact and data absolutely checkout though. Good thread. When you rustle feathers, you know you're dropping truth bombs :oldlol:

[Phoenix]

So when 99 David Robinson's vorp is higher than peak Shaq and MJ, do you run with some batshit idea that this makes him somehow equitable to their runs ( if this is somehow the parallel you are trying to draw), or do you take the more logical position that not every stat can be taken at face value? I mean you make a point to bring in those names so I have to assume you're trying to say his value in that title run was at worst equal to theirs.

99 Robinsin was very good, but better versions of him in prior years didnt win a title. The Spurs in 99 were not gonna win a chip if Duncan is not there and Admiral is your best player. I can get with the idea that he was still a 'star' but 'superstar' is being cheapened by overuse.

[Roundball_Rock]

So when 99 David Robinson's vorp is higher than peak Shaq and MJ, do you run with some batshit idea that this makes him somehow equitable to their runs ( if this is somehow the parallel you are trying to draw), or do you take the more logical position that not every stat can be taken at face value? I mean you make a point to bring in those names so I have to assume you're trying to say his value in that title run was at worst equal to theirs.

99 Robinsin was very good, but better versions of him in prior years didnt win a title. The Spurs in 99 were not gonna win a chip if Duncan is not there and Admiral is your best player. I can get with the idea that he was still a 'star' but 'superstar' is being cheapened by overuse.

Yeah, especially when you look at the hypocrisy involved in the OP. On and on about the importance of winning as a #1 option, then creates a thread about a #2 option winning. :lol

VORP is cumulative so you have to do the per game calculation. BPM is not so lets use playoff BPM. 00' Robinson>99'Robinson per BPM. 94' Robinson is the 7th best Robinson, 95' Robinson the 9th best. These are ridiculous conclusions. This is where you need to look under the hood and see how those stats are calculated and judge them against what was going on to weed out outlier results like this.

In 94' and 95' many people thought Robinson was the best player in the NBA (it was between him and Hakeem). By 99' and 00' he was a good player but not anywhere close to the best player conversation by then. Yet supposedly 99' Robinson>peak Robinson and 99' Robinson=peak MJ, peak Shaq? :wtf:

[Kblaze8855]

Because nobody in the real world gives a single **** about VORP and those of us old enough noticed he was in decline from his prime even if virtually everyone in 1999 had a bad offensive year and some teams were scoring 84ppg.

The real David Robinson wasn’t playing in 1999. He would have still been an all star and worth remembering if that’s who he always was but he wouldn’t have been who we now know as David Robinson.

If you had been there to see how freakish the real Drob was you wouldn’t ask why that version wasn’t looked at the same.

That was Tim Duncan’s team and the finals made that clear. They just stood back and watched him take on doubles to win the ring. Drob handed it over graciously and focused on defense and he deserves a lot of credit for both. He could still score of course but he gave it up and he and Tim both shut down the lane. Add the outlier bad 1999 offenses from the lockout and no preparation with guys out of shape? You can get some wild defensive numbers.

Doesnt mean he was actually playing better D than usual. David Robinson in his prime had GOAT defender potential. His declined form may have shown it in metrics but if you wanna talk about 60-70 point games for his lack of offense factor in the bad offenses in his defensive impact. People were grinding games to a halt and nobody could score.

I think(feel free to check) the Hawks had the best defense by ppg since the shot clock that year and I know the Bulls had the worst offense maybe ever.

99 is an outlier for any number of reasons.

[Kblaze8855]

Heat holding us to 49 points in 1999:



https://youtu.be/bDQwLaq5poU

[Shooter]

Because nobody in the real world gives a single **** about VORP and those of us old enough noticed he was in decline from his prime even if virtually everyone in 1999 had a bad offensive year and some teams were scoring 84ppg.

The real David Robinson wasn’t playing in 1999. He would have still been an all star and worth remembering if that’s who he always was but he wouldn’t have been who we now know as David Robinson.

If you had been there to see how freakish the real Drob was you wouldn’t ask why that version wasn’t looked at the same.

That was Tim Duncan’s team and the finals made that clear. They just stood back and watched him take on doubles to win the ring. Drob handed it over graciously and focused on defense and he deserves a lot of credit for both. He could still score of course but he gave it up and he and Tim both shut down the lane. Add the outlier bad 1999 offenses from the lockout and no preparation with guys out of shape? You can get some wild defensive numbers.

Doesnt mean he was actually playing better D than usual. David Robinson in his prime had GOAT defender potential. His declined form may have shown it in metrics but if you wanna talk about 60-70 point games for his lack of offense factor in the bad offenses in his defensive impact. People were grinding games to a halt and nobody could score.

I think(feel free to check) the Hawks had the best defense by ppg since the shot clock that year and I know the Bulls had the worst offense maybe ever.

99 is an outlier for any number of reasons.

The Sheriff is in town.

Pipe down and learn OP

[Phoenix]

Yeah, especially when you look at the hypocrisy involved in the OP. On and on about the importance of winning as a #1 option, then creates a thread about a #2 option winning. :lol

VORP is cumulative so you have to do the per game calculation. BPM is not so lets use playoff BPM. 00' Robinson>99'Robinson per BPM. 94' Robinson is the 7th best Robinson, 95' Robinson the 9th best. These are ridiculous conclusions. This is where you need to look under the hood and see how those stats are calculated and judge them against what was going on to weed out outlier results like this.

In 94' and 95' many people thought Robinson was the best player in the NBA (it was between him and Hakeem). By 99' and 00' he was a good player but not anywhere close to the best player conversation by then. Yet supposedly 99' Robinson>peak Robinson and 99' Robinson=peak MJ, peak Shaq? :wtf:

This brings back to the point I made in the other thread. Looking in the advanced numbers section of basketball reference and trying to have some drop the mic moment. No context to the numbers or as you say, 'looking under the hood' to see if those numbers reach even remotely reasonable conclusions( like 99 Robinson over peak Robinson on that basis). Its just picking numbers out of a hat...."oh that looks good". Applicable? Make any sense of it? Nope, but it sounds good on paper I guess?? VORP data means sweet **** all to how good David Robinson was in 99, either with respect to younger versions of him, his pecking order in the league at that point, or relative to the absolute primes of guys like MJ and Shaq. And this is why I hate these kinds of discussions. I like David Robinson alot as a player. He wasn't perfect, but he was an entertaining watch in the 90s. These insane takes based on numbers used to try telling us something our own eyes apparently couldn't decipher by watching the ****ing games as they happened 20 years ago? FFS.....

[tpols]

Because nobody in the real world gives a single **** about VORP and those of us old enough noticed he was in decline from his prime even if virtually everyone in 1999 had a bad offensive year and some teams were scoring 84ppg.

The real David Robinson wasn’t playing in 1999. He would have still been an all star and worth remembering if that’s who he always was but he wouldn’t have been who we now know as David Robinson.

If you had been there to see how freakish the real Drob was you wouldn’t ask why that version wasn’t looked at the same.

That was Tim Duncan’s team and the finals made that clear. They just stood back and watched him take on doubles to win the ring. Drob handed it over graciously and focused on defense and he deserves a lot of credit for both. He could still score of course but he gave it up and he and Tim both shut down the lane. Add the outlier bad 1999 offenses from the lockout and no preparation with guys out of shape? You can get some wild defensive numbers.

Doesnt mean he was actually playing better D than usual. David Robinson in his prime had GOAT defender potential. His declined form may have shown it in metrics but if you wanna talk about 60-70 point games for his lack of offense factor in the bad offenses in his defensive impact. People were grinding games to a halt and nobody could score.

I think(feel free to check) the Hawks had the best defense by ppg since the shot clock that year and I know the Bulls had the worst offense maybe ever.

99 is an outlier for any number of reasons.

You don't put any stock in David Robinson having better splits and VORP than Tim Duncan, his very own teammate who played under exactly the same circumstances?

[tpols]

That was Tim Duncan’s team and the finals made that clear.

Against the 8 seed Knicks?

:roll:

They swept Shaq and Kobe.

:biggums:

[Phoenix]

:facepalm

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/ce/e2/07/cee207bc5993e10dd60a48c417e8f988.gif

I'll open a tab fellas.

[MadDog]

I see "VORP" being used all the time to boost LeBron over AD. So why is OP being treated like a criminal? :oldlol:

[Stanley Kobrick]

i feel like op likes the abuse :(

[Shooter]

You sure you want to use VORP?

#1 LBJ
#3 Duncan
#28 D-Rob

https://i.postimg.cc/Bn9HM5Z3/dont-use-vorp-woops.png

[Lebron23]

Yeah, especially when you look at the hypocrisy involved in the OP. On and on about the importance of winning as a #1 option, then creates a thread about a #2 option winning. :lol

VORP is cumulative so you have to do the per game calculation. BPM is not so lets use playoff BPM. 00' Robinson>99'Robinson per BPM. 94' Robinson is the 7th best Robinson, 95' Robinson the 9th best. These are ridiculous conclusions. This is where you need to look under the hood and see how those stats are calculated and judge them against what was going on to weed out outlier results like this.

In 94' and 95' many people thought Robinson was the best player in the NBA (it was between him and Hakeem). By 99' and 00' he was a good player but not anywhere close to the best player conversation by then. Yet supposedly 99' Robinson>peak Robinson and 99' Robinson=peak MJ, peak Shaq? :wtf:


You sure you want to use VORP?

#1 LBJ
#3 Duncan
#28 D-Rob

https://i.postimg.cc/Bn9HM5Z3/dont-use-vorp-woops.png

Tpols went crazy after lebron won his 4th finals mvp.

[Phoenix]

You sure you want to use VORP?

#1 LBJ
#3 Duncan
#28 D-Rob

https://i.postimg.cc/Bn9HM5Z3/dont-use-vorp-woops.png

And funny enough, Scottie at #8, a player OP is routinely non-complimentary of. Whoops.

[DMAVS41]

Interesting.

Should we take another look at the 2010 Lakers and evaluate Gasol as a superstar?

Pretty sure we'll find Gasol outpacing his teammate in ws/48, ortg, drtg, TS%, assist to turnover ratio, rebounds, dbpm, and game 7 play in the Finals.

:confusedshrug:

[tpols]

That's a falsified image.

I just looked up the all time VORP (https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/vorp_career.html) leaders.

David Robinson is ranked 10th.

I'll give it to the bran gang... He's ranked number 1.

Jordan would totally punk him head to head but he is a better QB.

[Roundball_Rock]

This brings back to the point I made in the other thread. Looking in the advanced numbers section of basketball reference and trying to have some drop the mic moment. No context to the numbers or as you say, 'looking under the hood' to see if those numbers reach even remotely reasonable conclusions( like 99 Robinson over peak Robinson on that basis). Its just picking numbers out of a hat...."oh that looks good". Applicable? Make any sense of it? Nope, but it sounds good on paper I guess?? VORP data means sweet **** all to how good David Robinson was in 99, either with respect to younger versions of him, his pecking order in the league at that point, or relative to the absolute primes of guys like MJ and Shaq. And this is why I hate these kinds of discussions. I like David Robinson alot as a player. He wasn't perfect, but he was an entertaining watch in the 90s. These insane takes based on numbers used to try telling us something our own eyes apparently couldn't decipher by watching the ****ing games as they happened 20 years ago? FFS.....

Keep in mind OP did the same thing to tell us Reggie Miller was a superstar. :lol

Advanced stats are good supplementary information. You have to look at what their components are and be able to distinguish between them and the purpose of them. OP is notorious for boiling players to their ORTG and DRTG (not grasping they don't work the same way--you can have a 150 ORTG but realistically no one will have a 50 DRTG). Kerr had a 141 ORTG and a 106 DRTG in 96'. According to ttrolls' logic, that means Kerr had a +35 per 100 possession impact on the game. That is downright insane. But you have to understand the stat, who Kerr was, etc. to understand that.

99' Robinson>94'/95' Robinson is crazy talk. Then again, this same poster hours ago said 91' Pippen was peak Pippen. It never ends with this tool.


Should we take another look at the 2010 Lakers and evaluate Gasol as a superstar?

Pretty sure we'll find Gasol outpacing his teammate in ws/48, ortg, drtg, TS%, assist to turnover ratio, rebounds, dbpm, and game 7 play in the Finals.

:lol Good catch. Let's use his favorite stats.

Gasol 10' in the PO: 126 ORTG, 107 DRTG. "Split": Gasol +19
Kobe 10' in the PO: 115 ORTG, 109 DRTG. "Split": Kobe +6

Gasol 09' in the PO: 124 ORTG, 102 DRTG. "Split": Gasol +22
Kobe 09' in the PO: 117 ORTG, 104 DRTG. "Split": Kobe +13

Damn, Gasol was not only the best player based on his "splits", these are GOAT type impacts since tpols thinks these "splits" are the same as plus/minus impact.

[Stanley Kobrick]

Tpols went crazy after lebron won his 4th finals mvp.
i agree with you Lebron23, the Tpols user has been mentally collapsing since Lakers recent championship. hopefully he finds peace next year in rooting for the Nets and Warriors again. Clippers didn't give him much solace

[tpols]

Interesting.

Should we take another look at the 2010 Lakers and evaluate Gasol as a superstar?

Pretty sure we'll find Gasol outpacing his teammate in ws/48, ortg, drtg, TS%, assist to turnover ratio, rebounds, dbpm, and game 7 play in the Finals.

:confusedshrug:

Kobe had a higher VORP than Pau in 2008, 2009, and 2010.

Kobe had a better VORP than Shaq in 2001.

Oh man.... :lol :facepalm

What?

https://media2.giphy.com/media/3ohc0Tf0tljNH9jiP6/giphy.gif

[DMAVS41]

You've mentioned things other than VORP and you don't get to determine what is and isn't used.

On your own logic and arguments...Pau Gasol was a clear superstar in 09 and 10.

Is what it is.

[Phoenix]

Pau had a higher Ortg than Kobe in 2010 finals. Interesting stuff.

[rmt]

Who cares about bullshit voted on accolades when he factually dominated the playoffs?

I just found this.



:oldlol:

They don't even let coaches vote on it anymore. It's straight media execs telling their writers to go one way or another. And even when the coaches did vote on it, I bet they just veiwed it as sidework. Like when you get a task at work you know you can slide by with not doing or just half assing.

Well, isn't your point that the coaches voted on All-NBA teams back then and the fact that DRob wasn't on any All-NBA team imply that he wasn't that good in 1999? It was the coaches (who supposed know more than media writers/journalists) who didn't vote him in.

[tpols]

Well, isn't your point that the coaches voted on All-NBA teams back then and the fact that DRob wasn't on any All-NBA team imply that he wasn't that good in 1999? It was the coaches (who supposed know more than media writers/journalists) who didn't vote him in.

I mean you're a spurs fan right? You weren't impressed with David Robinsons all time elite defense and high efficiency scoring? You don't give kudos for sweeping Shaq & Kobe? Shaq was +1 in that series and averaged 23 PPG. For his standards he got locked down and David Robinson was the one guarding him. You don't appreciate that?

[Shooter]

That's a falsified image.

I just looked up the all time VORP (https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/vorp_career.html) leaders.

David Robinson is ranked 10th.

I'll give it to the bran gang... He's ranked number 1.

Jordan would totally punk him head to head but he is a better QB.

No it's real. It's called PLAYOFFS. That is what we're talking about, right cupcake?

https://i.postimg.cc/Bn9HM5Z3/dont-use-vorp-woops.png

[Shooter]

Keep in mind OP did the same thing to tell us Reggie Miller was a superstar. :lol

Advanced stats are good supplementary information. You have to look at what their components are and be able to distinguish between them and the purpose of them. OP is notorious for boiling players to their ORTG and DRTG (not grasping they don't work the same way--you can have a 150 ORTG but realistically no one will have a 50 DRTG). Kerr had a 141 ORTG and a 106 DRTG in 96'. According to ttrolls' logic, that means Kerr had a +35 per 100 possession impact on the game. That is downright insane. But you have to understand the stat, who Kerr was, etc. to understand that.

99' Robinson>94'/95' Robinson is crazy talk. Then again, this same poster hours ago said 91' Pippen was peak Pippen. It never ends with this tool.



:lol Good catch. Let's use his favorite stats.

Gasol 10' in the PO: 126 ORTG, 107 DRTG. "Split": Gasol +19
Kobe 10' in the PO: 115 ORTG, 109 DRTG. "Split": Kobe +6

Gasol 09' in the PO: 124 ORTG, 102 DRTG. "Split": Gasol +22
Kobe 09' in the PO: 117 ORTG, 104 DRTG. "Split": Kobe +13

Damn, Gasol was not only the best player based on his "splits", these are GOAT type impacts since tpols thinks these "splits" are the same as plus/minus impact.

So based on Tpols own analysis, Gasol was FMVP in 2009 and 2010. Interesting.

[MadDog]

Didn't the OP use DRTG in his analysis too? I realize that it can be dependent on teammates, but by most measures, an "87 DRTG" is world-class.

[Roundball_Rock]

So based on Tpols own analysis, Gasol was FMVP in 2009 and 2010. Interesting.

Yup. :lol If Gasol is that far ahead of Kobe, can you imagine how far ahead Shaq was?


Didn't the OP use DRTG in his analysis too? I realize that it can be dependent on teammates, but by most measures, an "87 DRTG" is world-class.

DRTG and ORTG are useless since they aren't sides of the same coin. It was never intended to be what ttrols thinks it is (he thinks it is a version of plus-minus while eschewing actual advanced plus-minus stats) and isn't set up that way. 87 DRTG is GOAT level; 113 ORTG is good but not a GOAT #. Therein lies the problem. It is much easier to post big numbers in ORTG than DRTG.

Case in point: the all-time career high ORTG is 122; for DRTG it is 95. 95 is analogous to an ORTG of 105. The problem is obvious to anyone but the OP.

[tpols]

Gasol didn't produce on the volume Kobe did. You can't compare efficiency 30 PPG to 19 PPG.

That's not apples to apples.

Kobe always had a higher VORP. Robinson had a higher VORP than Tim Duncan. Why? He played better defense. Duncan was nice, but D-Rob was a Bill Russell level defender.

[Shooter]

Gasol didn't produce on the volume Kobe did. You can't compare efficiency 30 PPG to 19 PPG.

That's not apples to apples.

Kobe always had a higher VORP. Robinson had a higher VORP than Tim Duncan. Why? He played better defense. Duncan was nice, but D-Rob was a Bill Russell level defender.
"Didn't Produce on the same volume." Hmm, and would you add passing and rebounding as producing volume as well? Please let us know so we can easily crown LeBron as Goat load carrier

[Stanley Kobrick]

oh wow, i didn't realise Tpols was just an ordinary Kobe stan.

[Roundball_Rock]

"Didn't Produce on the same volume." Hmm, and would you add passing and rebounding as producing volume as well? Please let us know so we can easily crown LeBron as Goat load carrier

Gasol produced on a higher volume than 99' Robinson. :lebronamazed:

#Hypocrisy

[MadDog]

Yup. :lol If Gasol is that far ahead of Kobe, can you imagine how far ahead Shaq was?



DRTG and ORTG are useless since they aren't sides of the same coin. It was never intended to be what ttrols thinks it is (he thinks it is a version of plus-minus while eschewing actual advanced plus-minus stats) and isn't set up that way. 87 DRTG is GOAT level; 113 ORTG is good but not a GOAT #. Therein lies the problem. It is much easier to post big numbers in ORTG than DRTG.

Case in point: the all-time career high ORTG is 122; for DRTG it is 95. 95 is analogous to an ORTG of 105. The problem is obvious to anyone but the OP.

I wouldn't call them useless, but if the OP used DRTG/ORTG as "splits" then that would be impractical. You'd get odd outcomes as a result. I think DRTG is alright to use but not perfect, and there are better stats out there for sure. I saw you posting on/off data for AD/LeBron and while I can accept that, measures like real plus minus and predictive plus minus are better. Most people know these stats in and out, but are lazy to look them up. So I wont get into the specifics there.

[Roundball_Rock]

I wouldn't call them useless, but if the OP used DRTG/ORTG as "splits" then that would be impractical.

That is his shtick and his "analysis" of every player boils down to that.


I think DRTG is alright to use but not perfect, and there are better stats out there for sure. I saw you posting on/off data for AD/LeBron and while I can accept that, measures like real plus minus and predictive plus minus are better. Most people know these stats in and out, but are lazy to look them up. So I wont get into the specifics there.

Yeah, advanced plus-minus is much better (RAPM, APM, etc.). I use them often. OP doesn't like them, though, because it doesn't comport with his agenda. :oldlol:

[Phoenix]

Gasol didn't produce on the volume Kobe did. You can't compare efficiency 30 PPG to 19 PPG.
.

Except when the topic is Reggie, in which case you hype his Ortg and efficiency on 13-14 shots a game into the next solar system even when the person he's being argued against was scoring on higher volume, like those 25 page threads from 2 months ago. I can't wait for your input when L.Kizzle does his top 25 shooting guard thread.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Clearly a superstar, he led playoffs in defensive win shares and DBPM. His impact was like a tall Scottie Pippen. Spurs had the 2 best players in the finals that year, he put up 17 points 12 rebounds 3 blocks in finals. Per minute I would say Robinson was arguably better then Duncan.

[Phoenix]

Per minute I would say Robinson was arguably better then Duncan.

So you're saying the voters for FMVP were too dumb back then to not vote for Robinson, because some stat nerds who can spell google has numbers telling them something different from those who actually saw it back then?

[HBK_Kliq_2]

So you're saying the voters for FMVP were too dumb back then to not vote for Robinson, because some stat nerds who can spell google has numbers telling them something different from those who actually saw it back then?

Yes. Duncan had the 1st overall pick hype, that wasn't an all-time great playoff run or anything close to it. Beat a 8th seed in finals is like how LeBron beat a crippled 5th seed.

[Real14]

Even tho it should be an asterisk ring, David Robinson was part of the twin towers for a reason. Of course he was a superstar.

[Phoenix]

Yes. Duncan had the 1st overall pick hype, that wasn't an all-time great playoff run or anything close to it. Beat a 8th seed in finals is like how LeBron beat a crippled 5th seed.

Duncan was first team All-NBA as a rookie and an immediate impact player. 1st pick hype my ass, he lived up to the hype. What an asinine take. You have this odd fascination with tearing him down, and it has something to do with Kawhi because everything with you does. Who they beat in the finals isn't the point, the point is Duncan was the best player in said finals and was correctly awarded the FMVP. The Knicks being a 8th seed doesn't change regardless of who the FMVP was so your final sentence, like most of what you say, is a stupid non-point.

[Roundball_Rock]

Except when the topic is Reggie, in which case you hype his Ortg and efficiency on 13-14 shots a game into the next solar system even when the person he's being argued against was scoring on higher volume, like those 25 page threads from 2 months ago. I can't wait for your input when L.Kizzle does his top 25 shooting guard thread.

:roll:

Yup. Ttrols has no consistency whatsoever. Great catch. When Miller is operating on 3rd/4th volume we are supposed to assume he could shift to elite #1 option volume (we never heard what contender would make him a #1 option in this era :oldlol: )and generate the same scoring and efficiency of peak Bird, Dirk, KD, and Curry. The only players to do what he and others claimed Miller would do.

He goes on and on about ORTG. ORTG is supposedly an estimate of points scored per 100 possessions (100 used as a proxy for 48 minutes). In other words, ORTG is saying if a team gave 96' Kerr the ball on every possession the team would score 141. No sane person believes that. If that were the case, Jackson should have funneled the offense through Kerr, not MJ and Pippen.


Duncan was first team All-NBA as a rookie and an immediate impact player.

Yup, and 5th in MVP as a rookie and 3rd in 99'.

[Phoenix]

:roll:

Yup. Ttrols has no consistency whatsoever. Great catch. When Miller is operating on 3rd/4th volume we are supposed to assume he could shift to elite #1 option volume (we never heard what contender would make him a #1 option in this era :oldlol: )and generate the same scoring and efficiency of peak Bird, Dirk, KD, and Curry. The only players to do what he and others claimed Miller would do.

He goes on and on about ORTG. ORTG is supposedly an estimate of points scored per 100 possessions (100 used as a proxy for 48 minutes). In other words, ORTG is saying if a team gave 96' Kerr the ball on every possession the team would score 141. No sane person believes that.



:oldlol:

It has to be trolling surely, or can he really not keep track of his own arguments? After what I've seen from him regarding Reggie's efficiency and Ortg when you take volume into account, looking at season and playoff sample sizes over a period......NOW all of a sudden a large difference in volume matters ( white knighting for Kobe, naturally)? Oh no my friend, these hilarious inconsistencies need to be called out.

[Roundball_Rock]

:oldlol:

It has to be trolling surely, or can he really not keep track of his own arguments? After what I've seen from him regarding Reggie's efficiency and Ortg when you take volume into account, looking at season and playoff sample sizes over a period......NOW all of a sudden a large difference in volume matters ( white knighting for Kobe, naturally)? Oh no my friend, these hilarious inconsistencies need to be called out.

He does it all the time. :lol Every opinion he seems to have is agenda driven so whatever the topic du jour, he works backwards from his constant MJ/LeBron/Kobe angle. Robinson has been "discovered" 25 years later by these people because they want to prop him up to say look how great Robinson was and AD>Robinson so AD must be Kareem or Hakeem (depending on the day :oldlol: ). He doesn't think anything through, though. So his own reverse engineered logic in one thread will be the exact opposite in another thread, or as you noted, even in the same thread at times. :oldlol:

I think this is why he clings to 3ball so much. He needs the guidance/marching orders. When 3ball isn't around, he winds up in spots like this thread.

[dankok8]

Robinson was terrific and definitely a superstar in 1999. The gap between him and Duncan isn't as big as people think although Duncan was better. Robinson did a terrific job defending Shaq in the second round which I don't think anyone mentioned specifically. In fact over Shaq's entire career, I think Robinson is the one guy that I've seen actually defend Shaq well at times. 7 feet, tall, athletic, and most importantly smart.

[tpols]

Robinson did a terrific job defending Shaq in the second round which I don't think anyone mentioned specifically.

Yea I brought that up earlier. It still hasn't been addressed.


I mean you're a spurs fan right? You weren't impressed with David Robinsons all time elite defense and high efficiency scoring? You don't give kudos for sweeping Shaq & Kobe? Shaq was +1 in that series and averaged 23 PPG. For his standards he got locked down and David Robinson was the one guarding him. You don't appreciate that?

[RRR3]

Nothing better than seeing Phoenix and Roundball expose ttrolls :oldlol:

[tpols]

Reggie Miller scored 24 PPG on 120+ ORTG as a first option. In a tougher defensive era. Pau Gasol averaged 19 PPG as pure 2nd option. Apples to Oranges...

It is cute that you guys think that's a "gotcha" moment. Pau played great. Kobe played better. Reggie also played better.

And David Robinson played like a superstar in the 1999 playoffs and we have to give him his due for it.

[tpols]

Even tho it should be an asterisk ring, David Robinson was part of the twin towers for a reason. Of course he was a superstar.

True, but the general sentiment is that Robinson was a pure 2nd option... but the metrics shows he was at least tied, and in some ways better.

The was a Co-Alpha ring.

It wasn't a MJ Pippen or Kobe Pau alpha beta situation.

[Roundball_Rock]

More hypocrisy. :oldlol: Now the 90's were a "tougher defensive era." File that away when the same poster discusses MJ's teammates in the next thread. Also, note that Gasol being a 2nd option negates his performance but somehow that same logic does not apply to 99' Robinson. He is flip flopping in the very same thread, on the next page.

Miller had the entire offense hijacked to screen him open, which is a losing style of play, and he still had 3rd/4th option volume because you can screen him open only so often. His ORTG is a joke. Gasol was a legitimate #1 option in Memphis who could operate independently offensively (which in his case including playmaking and offensive rebounding). You didn't need to send armies to screen Gasol open. He had the skills to get open himself.

Anyway, per your own logic, Gasol>Kobe. Gasol had much better "splits" and a much higher ORTG.

[tpols]

Again, you have to compare players based on their roles on the team. Tyson Chandler had a way higher ORTG and better splits than Dirk in 2011... but he wasn't close to the 1st option, so only a moron would even make the comparison between players with different roles. You have to compare first options to first options. Second options to second options. Third to third and so on and so forth.

Rockhead... say it with me "Apples to Apples".

David Robinson's defense was so dominant and his impact still superstar even though he was older. So it was a superstar ring. Pau Gasol was never a David Robinson level impact player. He was nice for sure, but man you are really really earning your nickname if you think Pau and D-Rob are on the same plane as basketball players.

:lol

[RRR3]

More hypocrisy. :oldlol: Now the 90's were a "tougher defensive era." File that away when the same poster discusses MJ's teammates in the next thread. Also, note that Gasol being a 2nd option negates his performance but somehow that same logic does not apply to 99' Robinson. He is flip flopping in the very same thread, on the next page.

Miller had the entire offense hijacked to screen him open, which is a losing style of play, and he still had 3rd/4th option volume because you can screen him open only so often. His ORTG is a joke. Gasol was a legitimate #1 option in Memphis who could operate independently offensively (which in his case including playmaking and offensive rebounding). You didn't need to send armies to screen Gasol open. He had the skills to get open himself.

Anyway, per your own logic, Gasol>Kobe. Gasol had much better "splits" and a much higher ORTG.
He also claims Bird is the GOAT despite him having an ORTG 3 points lower than LeBron (who he claims isn’t even a Ewing level player) in the playoffs

[Phoenix]

Reggie Miller scored 24 PPG on 120+ ORTG as a first option. In a tougher defensive era. Pau Gasol averaged 19 PPG as pure 2nd option. Apples to Oranges...

It is cute that you guys think that's a "gotcha" moment. Pau played great. Kobe played better. Reggie also played better.

And David Robinson played like a superstar in the 1999 playoffs and we have to give him his due for it.

One season of 24ppg on an average team and 10 others of 18-21ppg, right in the range of 2nd option Pau. That's like saying Kobe was a 35ppg scorer because he had one year of that and like 12 other years doing 25-30. You play fast and loose with sample size bud.

[Roundball_Rock]

He also claims Bird is the GOAT despite him having an ORTG 3 points lower than LeBron (who he claims isn’t even a Ewing level player) in the playoffs

:lol

He also doesn't know what Ewing's ORTG was. Ewing's career PO ORTG was 104--tpols would rip any other player for a rating like that as being offensively incompetent. LeBron is at 117.

Is there a single thing tpols is consistent on? He has been exposed as inconsistent half a dozen times it seems in this thread alone.


One season of 24ppg on an average team and 10 others of 18-21ppg, right in the range of 2nd option Pau. That's like saying Kobe was a 35ppg scorer because he had one year of that and like 12 other years doing 25-30. You play fast and loose with sample size bud.

Exactly. :roll:

He wants to present Miller as a Curry, Bird, KD, Dirk level offensive player when his scoring was along the lines of a guy like Gasol (who scored about the same as a #1 or as a #2). Except Gasol was an elite playmaker for his position. Miller wasn't. Of course, to ttrols, offense is only about PPG.

[tpols]

Reggie averaged 24 PPG from 1990 to 2002 in the playoffs... it wasn't one year.

If I wanted to pick one year I could pull up runs where he went 30+ PPG.

You guys need to stick to the subject though.

Focus.

[RRR3]

Reggie averaged 24 PPG from 1990 to 2002 in the playoffs... it wasn't one year.

If I wanted to pick one year I could pull up runs where he went 30+ PPG.

You guys need to stick to the subject though.

Focus.
Roundball already told you those numbers are skewed by a few huge series he had in which he lost in the first round.

Mate you’re getting absolutely bullied. Just stop.

[Phoenix]

Pau Gasol 2010 finals- 19/12/ 4/ 3 48% ( 56% TS) 122 Ortg, 101 Drtg, 18.6 GmSc ( Kobe 18.7). Beta Ring.

David Robinson 1999 finals- 17/12/2/3 42% ( 52% TS), 108 Ortg, 86 Drtg, 15.7 GmSc. Co alpha ring/equal to Duncan.

Tim Duncan 1999 finals - 27/14/2/2 54% (60% TS),112 Ortg, 89 Drtg, 22.6 GmSc

What the literal fukk.

[RRR3]

Pau Gasol 2010 finals- 19/12/ 4/ 3 48%( 56% TS) 122 Ortg, 101 Drtg, 18.6 GmSc( Kobe 18.7). Beta Ring.

David Robinson 1999 finals- 17/12/2/3 42%( 52% TS), 108 Ortg, 85 Drtg, 15.7 GmSc. Co alpha ring/equal to Duncan.

Tim Duncan 1999 finals - 27/14/2/2 54% (60% TS),112 Ortg, 89 Drtg, 22.6 GmSc

What the literal fukk.
Have you not realized OP is sexually attracted to Kobe yet?

[Phoenix]

Reggie averaged 24 PPG from 1990 to 2002 in the playoffs... it wasn't one year.

If I wanted to pick one year I could pull up runs where he went 30+ PPG.

You guys need to stick to the subject though.

Focus.

24 over 100 plus playoff games. Compared to nearly 1000 regular season games where he didnt average that.

He averaged 31 in the 2001 playoffs against Philly and in 93. Both 4 game series. Two playoff series in an 18 year career where he averaged 30 over 8 games. Captivating stuff.

The next time you want to google your opinion, stop by your online dictionary of choice and look up 'sample size'.

Focus

[tpols]

So you lied. You said it was one year when it was 100+ playoff games lol.

I'm going to need you fellas to stop derailing every thread though. It's frankly unprofessional.

Time to grow up.

[Phoenix]

So you lied. You said it was one year when it was 100+ playoff games lol.

I'm going to need you fellas to stop derailing every thread though. It's frankly unprofessional.

Time to grow up.

Actually the 24 I was referring to was his 90 season average so no, I didn't lie. I specifically said '24 in one season on an average team'. I know what I meant. You shifted it to 24 during the playoffs.

Didn't derail the thread either, I made one mention of Reggie and you instantly started bleeding. Sorry if you didnt have a pad in place.

[Smoke117]

Robinson was terrific and definitely a superstar in 1999. The gap between him and Duncan isn't as big as people think although Duncan was better. Robinson did a terrific job defending Shaq in the second round which I don't think anyone mentioned specifically. In fact over Shaq's entire career, I think Robinson is the one guy that I've seen actually defend Shaq well at times. 7 feet, tall, athletic, and most importantly smart.

Robinson basically stepped aside offensively in 99 and just completely dominated the defensive end. If this was Ben Wallace people would be calling him a star while he was ****ing useless offensively. Robinson was still giving you 16 efficient points while being the best defensive player in the world. He was absolutely still a star in 99. I don't want to delve into this superstar crap, but everyone acts like Duncan carried the Spurs or something when that isn't even close to being true. Robinson's impact was still massive at this time.

[RRR3]

Wait a minute, fellas.


Playoff ORTG

LeBron: 117
Kobe: 110


Playoff DRTG

LeBron: 103
Kobe: 106





According to ttrolls’ own logic, LeBron shits on Kobe. And yet he tries to argue otherwise :biggums:

[Roundball_Rock]

Pau Gasol 2010 finals- 19/12/ 4/ 3 48% ( 56% TS) 122 Ortg, 101 Drtg, 18.6 GmSc ( Kobe 18.7). Beta Ring.

David Robinson 1999 finals- 17/12/2/3 42% ( 52% TS), 108 Ortg, 86 Drtg, 15.7 GmSc. Co alpha ring/equal to Duncan.

Tim Duncan 1999 finals - 27/14/2/2 54% (60% TS),112 Ortg, 89 Drtg, 22.6 GmSc

What the literal fukk.

:lol



Roundball already told you those numbers are skewed by a few huge series he had in which he lost in the first round.

Yup, he put up 26 PPG in the first round for his prime. He was 21-22 PPG in the ECSF or ECF as the bright lights came on. Not much different than Gasol's 20 PPG as a #1 option.

He also arbitrarily includes 01' and 02' because it is convenient (but not the years after), even though his last all-star season was 00'.

[RRR3]

Kobe’s career regular season ORTG is actually only ONE point higher than Westbrook’s. And yet he’s arguably GOAT and WB is trash if we are to take ttrolls seriously.

[Phoenix]

Have you not realized OP is sexually attracted to Kobe yet?

I'm imagining he has Reggies basketball reference advanced stat page blown up on his wall and a bottle of Jergens nearby.

[RRR3]

I'm imagining he has Reggies basketball reference advanced stat page blown up on his wall and a bottle of Jergens nearby.
He Constantly picks and chooses statistics that make his loverboys (Kobe, Kyrie, Reggie, Ewing, Dirk, Curry, Bird) look better than they are and ignores statistics that refutes his dumb conclusions. Meanwhile when the stats he jerks off to tell him LeBron is top 3 at worst he suddenly hates those stats.

[Roundball_Rock]

Kobe’s career regular season ORTG is actually only ONE point higher than Westbrook’s. And yet he’s arguably GOAT and WB is trash if we are to take ttrolls seriously.

Damn, so Kobe is the GOAT and Westbrook the WOAT based on his be all end all metric? How about comparing some of his favorites? Since he likes PO ORTG, I'll use that (career, not prime numbers).

Kobe: 110
Pippen: 108
Ewing: 104
LeBron: 117
Gasol: 116
Shaq: 110
Duncan: 110
Dirk: 117

So Shaq and Duncan have the same ORTG as Kobe? The prime numbers would likely skew against Kobe because Kobe avoided the playoffs in his later years while Duncan and Shaq made the playoffs their entire careers (except Shaq's rookie year).

Pippen>Ewing and it isn't even close?

LeBron>>>>Kobe?!


I'm imagining he has Reggies basketball reference advanced stat page blown up on his wall and a bottle of Jergens nearby.

:lol

[tpols]

but everyone acts like Duncan carried the Spurs or something when that isn't even close to being true. Robinson's impact was still massive at this time.

Yup.

That's all I was trying to say.

His numbers were staggering and don't match perception.

[light]

David Robinson had a better '99 playoff VORP (value over replacement) and splits than

'08 Kevin Garnett
'11 Dirk Nowitzki
'00 Shaq
'91 MJ

...better than his own teammate in that playoff run Tim Duncan too. You get the picture. He played 35 mpg in games that ended in the 70s and 80s. You cant compare today's volume numbers.

How does a guy having that type of impact not count as a superstar ring?

Because he wasn't doing it with flashy scoring?

He had an 87 DRTG.

Absurd.

Robinson averaged 15.6 points, 9.9 rebounds on .483 shooting in the 1999 playoffs.
Duncan averaged 23.2 points, 11.5 rebounds on .511 shooting.

Duncan was the franchise. Robinson was the older sidekick on the downside of his career.

Also, '08 KG, '11 Dirk, '00 Shaq and '91 MJ were the unquestioned alphas of their teams, while Robinson was not.

'08 KG: 20/11/3
'11 Dirk: 28/8/3
'00 Shaq: 31/15/3
'91 MJ: 31/6/8

[Roundball_Rock]

People love to go on and on about "sidekicks"--but as soon as a player they like was a "sidekick" suddenly the term is contorted to the point that it becomes meaningless. If 99' Robinson wasn't a "sidekick", that term means nothing because that scenario was as clear as could be--Robinson handing over the keys willingly and graciously was a story line of the Spurs at the time. Duncan was a MVP candidate and first team all-NBA. Robinson did not make all-NBA at all.

[Smoke117]

People love to go on and on about "sidekicks"--but as soon as a player they like was a "sidekick" suddenly the term is contorted to the point that it becomes meaningless. If 99' Robinson wasn't a "sidekick", that term means nothing because that scenario was as clear as could be--Robinson handing over the keys willingly and graciously was a story line of the Spurs at the time. Duncan was a MVP candidate and first team all-NBA. Robinson did not make all-NBA at all.

Why are you trying to downplay Big Dave so much? He was, at the very LEAST, still a top 15 player in the league in 99.

[Roundball_Rock]

Why are you trying to downplay Big Dave so much? He was, at the very LEAST, still a top 15 player in the league in 99.


Robinson was a top 15-20 player by 99'; Duncan was a top 2-3 player. That is the difference. Even if you stretch it to top 10 (questionable), that isn't the same as what Duncan was. Either way, if "the man" and "sidekick" have any meaning, this is a classic case of it. If it isn't, then those terms are useless if any all-star caliber player automatically is not a sidekick because they were good.

[Smoke117]

Robinson was a top 15-20 player by 99'; Duncan was a top 2-3 player. That is the difference. Even if you stretch it to top 10 (questionable), that isn't the same as what Duncan was. Either way, if "the man" and "sidekick" have any meaning, this is a classic case of it. If it isn't, then those terms are useless if any all-star caliber player automatically is not a sidekick because they were good.

You’ve been arguing with that half a retard 3ball too much...it’s starting to get to your head.

[Roundball_Rock]

I've been talking about the "sidekick" stuff since 2009. I notice people simply say players they like were not sidekicks on the basis that they were good. As if title winning teams don't have HOF sidekicks 90-95% of the time. :lol

[Smoke117]

I've been talking about the "sidekick" stuff since 2009. I notice people simply say players they like were not sidekicks on the basis that they were good. As if title winning teams don't have HOF sidekicks 90-95% of the time. :lol

The whole idea of "sidekicks" is idiotic in general. This isn't tennis. It's a team game. Regulating a great player to some kind of "sidekick" definition is just moronic and always will be.

[Roundball_Rock]

The whole idea of "sidekicks" is idiotic in general. This isn't tennis. It's a team game. Regulating a great player to some kind of "sidekick" definition is just moronic and always will be.

Yeah, what I threw out was "indispensable players." The Spurs could not have won without Robinson so he was indispensable. Same with Gasol, who was the most discussed "sidekick" in the NBA at the time for obvious reasons. Gasol should be treated differently than, say, Derek Fisher.

But ISH disagreed and here we are. The people pushing Robinson here will be quick to point out "sidekicks" when it is a player they don't like. Look at what was said as soon as Gasol came up in this thread, for example.

[Smoke117]

Yeah, what I threw out was "indispensable players." The Spurs could not have won without Robinson so he was indispensable. Same with Gasol, who was the most discussed "sidekick" in the NBA at the time for obvious reasons. Gasol should be treated differently than, say, Derek Fisher.

But ISH disagreed and here we are. The people pushing Robinson here will be quick to point out "sidekicks" when it is a player they don't like. Look at what was said as soon as Gasol came up in this thread, for example.

Gasol is downplayed because fanboys (as we've all seen) can't handle any other player on the team getting any recognition. 3ball is of course the biggest offender on here these days. Scottie Pippen is universally considered a top 30 player all time and he'll go on and on about how he's garbage. lol

Paul Gasol got it even worse than Pippen. The Kobe stans on here basically downplayed his impact at every opportunity. That's what's amusing...I've seen bran haters go on about how it was never like this when all this stanning for LeBron was for Kobe before hand. Those posters were just as big as idiots if not even worse. Most of them just don't post anymore, but they were just as insufferable if not more so.

[Roundball_Rock]

Yeah, Kobe stans were very active when they were around and 10 years ago instead of LJ vs. MJ it was Kobe vs. MJ.

A difference is Kobe stans don't go around dissing Gasol 10 years later. We see MJ fans going after Pippen 24/7, and the Bulls' chips came 22-29 years ago. 3ball is the most annoying but plenty of others agree with them. For instance, the whole Irving>Pippen thing. Irving is what-all-time? He isn't relevant enough to even be included in the rankings. ESPN did a top 74 list this spring and Irving wasn't on it. If Irving>Pippen, then that means Pippen shouldn't have been on the list (he actually was 21st on it). Nearly every MJ fan here would tell you Irving>Pippen. 3ball is one of the few dumb enough to say the quiet part out loud and tell you Pippen isn't top 100. The others will merely imply it.

[Kblaze8855]

And David Robinson played like a superstar in the 1999 playoffs and we have to give him his due for it.


Eh. The people who played like 99 Drob and were widely considered superstars? Not many.

But it’s such a subjective thing. “Superstar” doesn’t mean anything.

It’s like saying “____ was a monster in 03”. Ok. How do you dispute that?

Nobody with a brain think Drob wasn’t still nice. He just wasn’t the real David Robinson anymore.

The real David Robinson would look like the equal of almost anyone in history on the same floor over a good period of time.

99 David Robinson was a great defender in a special situation where nobody could score the whole year. Gives better advanced numbers than usual. He wasn’t playing special D by his standards.

Almost nobody ever played much better D than young David Robinson. The better numbers in 99 are era related.

92 Davis would have had monster ratings too only he would have been scoring a lot more.

[Phoenix]

This thread boiled down is people arguing about what the term 'superstar' means. That's all subjective bullshit. Who was the clear cut best player on the team? Duncan. He was the finals MVP, third in MVP voting and all-nba/all-defense. Call him whatever the fukk helps you sleep at night but he was a top 3 player at worst. 99 Robinson was probably like top 15. 12th, 15th. 14th. Whatever. Was he instrumental in the Spurs winning it all? Of course. Was his defense vital to that run? Absolutely. Who is disputing otherwise? Is he a 'superstar'? Again, whatever terminology gets you through the night. It's just clear by that point he had passed the torch and he wasnt the Robinson of the early to mid 90s. I would still classify him as a 'star' if you feel compelled to label him something but again, that's all bullshit.

[HoopsNY]

Not in the real world, no. :lol Why? He stopped being a superstar after his 97' injury and he was on the wrong side of 30. By 99' he was 33.

So Wilt gets superstar status for 14.8 PPG in the '71 season, but Robinson doesn't get the same respect given his contribution to what was a dominating playoff run?

Robinson will get disrespected due to the numbers he put up (16/10/2 on 51%, 2.4 blks). But let's look at him and Duncan's exact PER 100 that season.

Duncan '99: 29.9/15.8/3.3/1.2/3.5 with 4.0 TOs
Robinson '99: 27.0/17.1/3.6/2.4/4.1 with 3.8 TOs

Robinson edges on just about everything except for scoring. And that is in large part due to FGA where Duncan's PER 100 FGA is 5 more than Robinson's.

The numbers are skewed because the '99 season was the lockout season, and statistical output had fallen off a map all together. It was arguably the worst offensive season in NBA history.

[HoopsNY]

Did Robinson even make an All-NBA Team in '99? He was great defensively, but up to that point he had he worst year in his career in '99, clearly past his prime. This thread doesn't make sense.

The NBA was still a very Center centric league back then. Hakeem, Zo, Shaq were all still there and going strong, not to mention Mutombo. Robinson gave his role to Tim Duncan at that point, and that was what was best for the team.

He could have taken a more active role in scoring and rebounding, but would that have yielded better results?

Not to mention, he won All-NBA honors in 2000. So he was a superstar then but not 1999? :confusedshrug:

Duncan missed 8 games in 1999-00. Let's look at Robinson's numbers:

23/10/0/1/2 on 73%
29/9/2/2/1 on 53%
19/8/1/0/4 on 42%
24/5/0/0/2 on 58%
16/9/2/2/3 on 70%
19/12/2/2/4 on 46%
27/10/1/1/3 on 53%
17/7/1/2/0 on 44%

So he averaged 22/9/1/1/2.5 on high efficiency in the games Duncan wasn't present.

1st round without Duncan, Robinson averaged 23.5/14/2.5/2/3. He shot the ball poorly (37%), but clearly he was still a great player.

[HoopsNY]

Because nobody in the real world gives a single **** about VORP and those of us old enough noticed he was in decline from his prime even if virtually everyone in 1999 had a bad offensive year and some teams were scoring 84ppg.

The real David Robinson wasn’t playing in 1999. He would have still been an all star and worth remembering if that’s who he always was but he wouldn’t have been who we now know as David Robinson.

If you had been there to see how freakish the real Drob was you wouldn’t ask why that version wasn’t looked at the same.

That was Tim Duncan’s team and the finals made that clear. They just stood back and watched him take on doubles to win the ring. Drob handed it over graciously and focused on defense and he deserves a lot of credit for both. He could still score of course but he gave it up and he and Tim both shut down the lane. Add the outlier bad 1999 offenses from the lockout and no preparation with guys out of shape? You can get some wild defensive numbers.

Doesnt mean he was actually playing better D than usual. David Robinson in his prime had GOAT defender potential. His declined form may have shown it in metrics but if you wanna talk about 60-70 point games for his lack of offense factor in the bad offenses in his defensive impact. People were grinding games to a halt and nobody could score.

I think(feel free to check) the Hawks had the best defense by ppg since the shot clock that year and I know the Bulls had the worst offense maybe ever.

99 is an outlier for any number of reasons.

I was there. And I was still amazed at how well Robinson was playing. This was evident when he filled Duncan's role in his absence in the 2000 season.

The problem is the '99 season is an outlier because players numbers fell to record levels. And why should greatness be evaluated against the same player's own accomplishments, rather than what is relative to the league?

Wilt was a great player in 1972. His production wasn't what it was earlier on in his career. Not even close. But we still regard him to be elite up to that point.

[HoopsNY]

I mean you're a spurs fan right? You weren't impressed with David Robinsons all time elite defense and high efficiency scoring? You don't give kudos for sweeping Shaq & Kobe? Shaq was +1 in that series and averaged 23 PPG. For his standards he got locked down and David Robinson was the one guarding him. You don't appreciate that?

Kids who didn't watch that series won't understand the level of Robinson's play. He was elite that year.

[Roundball_Rock]

This thread boiled down is people arguing about what the term 'superstar' means. That's all subjective bullshit. Who was the clear cut best player on the team? Duncan. He was the finals MVP, third in MVP voting and all-nba/all-defense. Call him whatever the fukk helps you sleep at night but he was a top 3 player at worst. 99 Robinson was probably like top 15. 12th, 15th. 14th. Whatever. Was he instrumental in the Spurs winning it all? Of course. Was his defense vital to that run? Absolutely. Who is disputing otherwise? Is he a 'superstar'? Again, whatever terminology gets you through the night. It's just clear by that point he had passed the torch and he wasnt the Robinson of the early to mid 90s. I would still classify him as a 'star' if you feel compelled to label him something but again, that's all bullshit.

Yup. We need a separate thread to discuss how people define it but I am not sure how useful it would be because people are all over the map based on whether they like a player/agenda/etc. This thread is a prime example. Gasol is a "sidekick" whose performance is negated by virtue of that--from the person who made this very thread. :lol

Either way, as Blaze said, 99' Robinson was not the "real" Robinson. That guy was gone after that 97' injury.


So Wilt gets superstar status for 14.8 PPG in the '71 season

You meant 72'--Wilt was a MVP candidate that year (3rd, got about as many first place votes as West behind MVP KAJ). Robinson wasn't even all-NBA in 99'. These are comparable?

[Phoenix]

Yup. We need a separate thread to discuss how people define it but I am not sure how useful it would be because people are all over the map based on whether they like a player/agenda/etc. This thread is a prime example. Gasol is a "sidekick" whose performance is negated by virtue of that--from the person who made this very thread. :lol

Either way, as Blaze said, 99' Robinson was not the "real" Robinson. That guy was gone after that 97' injury.



You meant 72'--Wilt was a MVP candidate that year (3rd, got about as many first place votes as West behind MVP KAJ). Robinson wasn't even all-NBA in 99'. These are comparable?

If forced to define what a 'superstar' is for the sake of this conversation, I would say if you're a MVP level player, all-nba first team or at worst 2nd team. It's all subjective of course, but that would be my definition. I think the term is thrown around too loosely and as you pointed out, can be subject to agenda. 99 Robinson was a 'superstar' and co-alpha but Gasol, who was .1 off Kobe's GmSc in 2010 finals and All-NBA 3rd team that year? Beta. That's the kind of shit that makes it impossible to reasonably discuss these things.

[MadDog]

Tough to compare Gasol and David Robinson when Robinson also had the impact of 04 Ben Wallace, defensively. And even more than that depending on the metric. Gamescore is an OK "catch all" stat. Just like PER is. Both include raw blocks and steals, but are hardly indicative of defensive impact.

[tpols]

Eh. The people who played like 99 Drob and were widely considered superstars? Not many.

But it’s such a subjective thing. “Superstar” doesn’t mean anything.

It’s like saying “____ was a monster in 03”. Ok. How do you dispute that?

Nobody with a brain think Drob wasn’t still nice. He just wasn’t the real David Robinson anymore.

The real David Robinson would look like the equal of almost anyone in history on the same floor over a good period of time.

99 David Robinson was a great defender in a special situation where nobody could score the whole year. Gives better advanced numbers than usual. He wasn’t playing special D by his standards.


Shaq couldn't score the whole year? Really? Because D-Rob held him to way lower numbers than what he averaged usually. 30 PPG in the first round of the '99 playoffs, 23 PPG on worse efficiency in the second round vs Robinson. In a sweep. Prime Shaq I guess forgot how to score only against him. 80% of David Robinson is still a superstar so it doesn't matter if he wasn't his peak self.

[Phoenix]

@Maddog
Point isn't really about comparing 2010 Gasol and 99 Robinson head to head ( for me anyway). Its about the relative importance to their teams during the championship runs in question. Gasol was about as vital to the 2010 Lakers title as Robinson was to the 99 Spurs title. Robinson was obviously the greater impact defender while Gasol was better in terms of scoring and playmaking.

The point is that Gasol is being called 'beta' by Tpols because he's a major Kobe stan so undervaluing his supporting cast elevates Kobe. He does the same thing with Shaq. Robinson is being used here in this way because in other threads Anthony Davis is being called > than him. Why? Because by hyping up AD to that level( we've even had rumblings of him having Kareem like impact this playoffs), it infers says that Lebron had a 'Kareem' level teammate by his side this year winning the title. And Tpols will argue all day long for Kobe over Lebron. In actuality this has sweet fukk all to do with David Robinson. This board barely talks about him and when we do, it usually about him getting mollywhopped by Hakeem in 95 more than anything positive. You likely wouldn't even have this thread had the Lakers lost to the Heat. This is covertly ( or maybe not so covertly for the initiated) about Lebron and Kobe for this poster, but he's trying to be coy about it.

[MadDog]

@Maddog
Point isn't really about comparing 2010 Gasol and 99 Robinson head to head ( for me anyway). Its about the relative importance to their teams during the championship runs in question. Gasol was about as vital to the 2010 Lakers title as Robinson was to the 99 Spurs title. Robinson was obviously the greater impact defender while Gasol was better in terms of scoring and playmaking.

The point is that Gasol is being called 'beta' by Tpols because he's a major Kobe stan so undervaluing his supporting cast elevates Kobe. He does the same thing with Shaq. Robinson is being used here in this way because in other threads Anthony Davis is being called > than him. Why? Because by hyping up AD to that level( we've even had rumblings of him having Kareem like impact this playoffs), it infers says that Lebron had a 'Kareem' level teammate by his side this year winning the title. And Tpols will argue all day long for Kobe over Lebron. In actuality this has sweet fukk all to do with David Robinson. This board barely talks about him and when we do, it usually about him getting mollywhopped by Hakeem in 95 more than anything positive. You likely wouldn't even have this thread had the Lakers lost to the Heat. This is covertly ( or maybe not so covertly for the initiated) about Lebron and Kobe for this poster, but he's trying to be coy about it.

I wont pretend to know the agendas circulating this forum, so while I get what you're saying and can't really disagree, his point about Robinson is fair. At face value anyway. With AD though we just saw him outscore and defend LeBron for an entire playoff run (for the advanced stat fan AD also had more winshares). Now that LA has another title, LeBron is now being argued "GOAT" by his followers, but if that's the case, what is AD? A supernova? :oldlol:

[Charlie Sheen]

David Robinson had a better '99 playoff VORP (value over replacement) and splits than

'08 Kevin Garnett
'11 Dirk Nowitzki
'00 Shaq
'91 MJ

...better than his own teammate in that playoff run Tim Duncan too. You get the picture. He played 35 mpg in games that ended in the 70s and 80s. You cant compare today's volume numbers.

How does a guy having that type of impact not count as a superstar ring?

Because he wasn't doing it with flashy scoring?

He had an 87 DRTG.

Absurd.

What type of impact? You just threw a VORP stat out there without bothering to explain why it is significant.

[Phoenix]

I wont pretend to know the agendas circulating this forum, so while I get what you're saying and can't really disagree, his point about Robinson is fair. At face value anyway. With AD though we just saw him outscore and defend LeBron for an entire playoff run (for the advanced stat fan AD also had more winshares). Now that LA has another title, LeBron is now being argued "GOAT" by his followers, but if that's the case, what is AD? A supernova? :oldlol:

In any event, refer to my post #68 which snapshots Gasols production in the 2010 finals and Robinsons in the 99 finals. Its either they're both superstars for the year in question, or neither are. They're either both alpha, or they both aren't( and for the record the whole alpha/beta thing thrown around this forum is bullshit too). Theres no way anyone objectively can look at Gasol in the 2010 playoffs/finals and say oh yeah, pure Beta, then look at Robinson in 99 and say on yeah, co-alpha/superstar ring.

[tpols]

Kids who didn't watch that series won't understand the level of Robinson's play. He was elite that year.

What makes it really sad is I dont think these are kids... but grown adults with, unfortunately, mental handicaps. Not everybody, but the circle jerkers in here.

[tpols]

What type of impact? You just threw a VORP stat out there without bothering to explain why it is significant.

You can pretty much look at any advanced statistic and it would tell you the same thing.

For the whole season, across the whole league D-Rob was:

3rd in PER
3rd in BPM
4th in Win Shares
7th in VORP

I'm not saying any one stat is totally paramount to another, of course context has to be applied ~ roles, rules, competition, extenuating circumstances etc. but if a guy is ranking ~ top 5 in every single category what conclusion are we expected to come to?

There are clowns in here saying he was only top 15 player in the game, and that flies in the face of all evidence.

[Kblaze8855]

Shaq couldn't score the whole year? Really? Because D-Rob held him to way lower numbers than what he averaged usually. 30 PPG in the first round of the '99 playoffs, 23 PPG on worse efficiency in the second round vs Robinson. In a sweep. Prime Shaq I guess forgot how to score only against him. 80% of David Robinson is still a superstar so it doesn't matter if he wasn't his peak self.


Obviously someone could score. Also obviously...scoring was way down which obviously impacts defensive numbers which you cited without context while somehow still wanting scoring numbers put in context.


As for Shaq....you know those games are available to watch right?



https://youtu.be/vt-6dG_dKjM



People didn’t guard Shaq alone.

You can see 3 people guarding him individually in there Tim being one of them plus usual collapsing on him.

Sure David did a good job. He often did. I don’t think anyone disputes that. But your numbers aren’t that telling. 1999 just had weird defensive numbers. People were out of shape. Just the way it is.

People been making those numbers out to be insane on here for years several times over Drob in particular as if they don’t see 83ppg teams and teams not making it to 50 points.

Either include context or don’t.

[tpols]

Blaze from '98 to '03 he posted defensive numbers like that.

He led the playoffs in DRTG for 4/6 of those years.

Is every year a fluke?

[Roundball_Rock]

If forced to define what a 'superstar' is for the sake of this conversation, I would say if you're a MVP level player, all-nba first team or at worst 2nd team. It's all subjective of course, but that would be my definition. I think the term is thrown around too loosely and as you pointed out, can be subject to agenda. 99 Robinson was a 'superstar' and co-alpha but Gasol, who was .1 off Kobe's GmSc in 2010 finals and All-NBA 3rd team that year? Beta. That's the kind of shit that makes it impossible to reasonably discuss these things.

My definition is basically the same as yours: a player who is good enough that he plausibly could win MVP in that year. This is purely a measure of ability, not situation. Actual MVP voting depends on team context. What I mean, and presumably you as well, are players who played at a high enough level that they could win a MVP that year in the right situation. That usually is 6-8 players in any given years. This year it was Luka, Harden, "Kareem", LeBron, Kawhi, and Giannis. Last year George was on that list. Lillard, Butler, Jokic types are close but come in in the next tier.

Yup, it is subject to agendas. Gasol is a "beta" for doing it but Robinson a "superstar" and "alpha" and equal to prime Duncan. :lol


Point isn't really about comparing 2010 Gasol and 99 Robinson head to head ( for me anyway). Its about the relative importance to their teams during the championship runs in question. Gasol was about as vital to the 2010 Lakers title as Robinson was to the 99 Spurs title. Robinson was obviously the greater impact defender while Gasol was better in terms of scoring and playmaking.

Yeah, and part of it was to expose Tpol's idiocy with his "splits" talk so Gasol's "splits", which crushed Kobe's were used. He backpedaled fast into Gasol's ORTG doesn't count because he was a 2nd option, "beta", etc.


Robinson is being used here in this way because in other threads Anthony Davis is being called > than him. Why? Because by hyping up AD to that level( we've even had rumblings of him having Kareem like impact this playoffs), it infers says that Lebron had a 'Kareem' level teammate by his side this year winning the title.

Yeah, it is weird they are using Robinson this way. "Super Robinson" has a name: Hakeem Olajuwon. I suspect the reason they are doing is calling AD Kareem quickly became an ISH punchline and there was pushback against the Hakeem talk too. So they are saying Davis is Hakeem without saying it explicitly to avoid further mockery.


This board barely talks about him and when we do, it usually about him getting mollywhopped by Hakeem in 95 more than anything positive.

Yup. That is basically the only time he ever came up in the past decade on ISH. Now he is a popular topic because of him being a tool to use in the AD agenda.


People didn’t guard Shaq alone.

You can see 3 people guarding him individually in there Tim being one of them plus usual collapsing on him.

Damn, that is a lot of coverage on a "1b" option! :lol

[Phoenix]

Pau Gasol 2010 finals- 19/12/ 4/ 3 48% ( 56% TS) 122 Ortg, 101 Drtg, 18.6 GmSc ( Kobe 18.7). Beta Ring.

David Robinson 1999 finals- 17/12/2/3 42% ( 52% TS), 108 Ortg, 86 Drtg, 15.7 GmSc. Co alpha ring/equal to Duncan.

Tim Duncan 1999 finals - 27/14/2/2 54% (60% TS),112 Ortg, 89 Drtg, 22.6 GmSc

What the literal fukk.

I'm going to leave this here again. We have morons in here calling Gasol beta but Robinson 'alpha' when this kind of information above is readily available. Kids with agendas skimming over the inconvenient tidbits.

[Kblaze8855]

Did I say any year was a fluke? I said 99 was an outlier yes but the whole run was unusual historically. There’s a reason I’m always pointing out that you can’t compare guys numbers now to the early ISH swing men like Kobe, AI, Tmac and so on. The nba stopped allowing defenses like that for the express purpose of creating the kinda game we have now.

You’re quite selective in your acknowledgment of such things though. Not that you’re alone.

Most of ISH wants to talk about shooting numbers while ignoring the situation.

[tpols]

If anything I'd see Robinson's numbers going up today... given the lack of big man competition and rules like you pointed out. Not seeing how that takes away from anything, since it was technically harder to produce back then, 90s and early 00s that being. D-Rob's defense due to his speed would still be optimal too. I could see slower types like Ewing struggling to close out some with today's spacing.

[Phoenix]

My definition is basically the same as yours: a player who is good enough that he plausibly could win MVP in that year. This is purely a measure of ability, not situation. Actual MVP voting depends on team context. What I mean, and presumably you as well, are players who played at a high enough level that they could win a MVP that year in the right situation. That usually is 6-8 players in any given years. This year it was Luka, Harden, "Kareem", LeBron, Kawhi, and Giannis. Last year George was on that list. Lillard, Butler, Jokic types are close but come in in the next tier.

Yup, it is subject to agendas. Gasol is a "beta" for doing it but Robinson a "superstar" and "alpha" and equal to prime Duncan. :lol



Yeah, and part of it was to expose Tpol's idiocy with his "splits" talk so Gasol's "splits", which crushed Kobe's were used. He backpedaled fast into Gasol's ORTG doesn't count because he was a 2nd option, "beta", etc.








Yes that's basically what I mean regarding MVP caliber. And if certain people are arguing that 99 David Robinson falls under this category, this is serious revisionism. But it's not enough to say he was very very good, but short of MVP level or this vaunted 'superstar' label. Some have to fly right to the utmost extreme at warp nine. Again, all of these google numbers imply that everybody who didnt place him on any of the All-NBA teams or consider him a MVP candidate in 99 ( he was 12th in voting) didn't know what they were seeing then. Bear in mind that alot of those same advanced numbers being thrown around here bite Kobe in the ass when comparing to Lebron, but..........ahhh fukk it lol.

Gasols 19ppg on 122 Ortg suddenly didn't matter, not enough volume you see. Unless a certain you know who is dropping those numbers.

[Roundball_Rock]

I'm going to leave this here again. We have morons in here calling Gasol beta but Robinson 'alpha' when this kind of information above is readily available. Kids with agendas skimming over the inconvenient tidbits.

:lol

Here is a performance tpols would hail:

Player X: 23/6/5/1/1 44% FG, 16.4 GS
Player Y: 21/8/8/2/1 48% FG, 18.1 GS

Player X is awesome and a "superstar", Player Y "beta."

Gasol vs. Howard (then a legit superstar/top 5 player)--same series.

Gasol: 19/9/2 on 60%, 17.6 GS
Howard: 15/15/2 on 49%, 15.6 GS


Yes that's basically what I mean regarding MVP caliber. And if certain people are arguing that 99 David Robinson falls under this category, this is serious revisionism. But it's not enough to say he was very very good, but short of MVP level or this vaunted 'superstar' label. Some have to fly right to the utmost extreme at warp nine. Again, all of these google numbers imply that everybody who didnt place him on any of the All-NBA teams or consider him a MVP candidate in 99 ( he was 12th in voting) didn't know what they were seeing then. Bear in mind that alot of those same advanced numbers being thrown around here bite Kobe in the ass when comparing to Lebron, but..........ahhh fukk it lol.


Yup. These people never explain how everybody back then got it so badly wrong. 99' Robinson superstar, equal to prime Duncan. Reggie Miller was a superstar--even though Dumars, Richmond were considered better prime vs. prime not to mention at times lesser players. People didn't realize Reggie was KD?

Why are we to believe people 20, 25, 30 years later over people who watched these things live with no agenda other than simply analyzing what happened in real time?

[Kblaze8855]

None of which even considers the many problems with individual defensive rating use in the first place. If Bruce Bowen is in a guys jersey on an iso and he misses a pull-up in a play I’m 18 feet away....

Sometimes I’d be a factor because I may have contributed to the pull-up instead of a drive. Sometimes I’m just standing there not involved. Who knows when you have just the number? Might have 3-4 guys doing all time numbers just because they are on the same team, in the right era, mostly playing in the same lineups. Doesn’t make all of them special.

The whole thing reeks of the usual stat nerd desire to replace observation with the objective with basketball not being a priority.

In the end you saw a play or you have no idea. But we get decades later and people act like they have more information not less....

Drob was a great defender. All agree. He’s not as good or bad as his defensive ratings though. Nobody is.

He was always great on D. He had given up a lot of his offensive role. A player like David Robinson was not getting superstar talk when he has 13/7 series taking a step back isn’t shocking. It’s....basketball. Individual defensive ratings never have and never will determine superstar status.

People just don’t care. Mutombo didn’t get much superstar talk and that’s as a guy actually noted for his defense not a 30ppg spectacular guy known for his total game like David. He just didn’t play like the real Drob at the time so he didn’t get the same recognition.

[Kblaze8855]

If anything I'd see Robinson's numbers going up today... given the lack of big man competition and rules like you pointed out. Not seeing how that takes away from anything, since it was technically harder to produce back then, 90s and early 00s that being. D-Rob's defense due to his speed would still be optimal too. I could see slower types like Ewing struggling to close out some with today's spacing.

The arrival of young David Robinson today would be an extinction level event. Very few who saw him would dispute that.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

If anything I'd see Robinson's numbers going up today... given the lack of big man competition and rules like you pointed out. Not seeing how that takes away from anything, since it was technically harder to produce back then, 90s and early 00s that being. D-Rob's defense due to his speed would still be optimal too. I could see slower types like Ewing struggling to close out some with today's spacing.

Yeah Robinson would be a monster in coach buds system if you replace him with Giannis. Anchored the beat defense in the last two years.

Robinson/Giannis also don't love to post up like Tim Duncan. This era frowns on low post players. So Robinson would probably be more effective then Duncan in this era. Duncan wants to run a low post offense and that never translated to elite top 3 offense until Parker/Manu had to take over around 2011.

[Phoenix]

Duncan wants to run a low post offense and that never translated to elite top 3 offense until Parker/Manu had to take over around 2011.

He won 4 chips before 2011 doing that.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

He won 4 chips before 2011 doing that.

1999 - Robson was a superstar and all the bulls alphas left

2001/2002 - embarrassing himself

2003 - Chris Webber and Dirk got hurt in playoffs

2005 - Manu was the best player and led playoffs in VORP

2007 - Parker won finals MVP, suspension suns, LeBron in High school

So most of the time, Duncan was just a defensive anchor. Manu had to take over on offense in 05 and parker had to take over on offense in 07. His low post game wasn't why they won titles.

[Roundball_Rock]

None of which even considers the many problems with individual defensive rating use in the first place. If Bruce Bowen is in a guys jersey on an iso and he misses a pull-up in a play I’m 18 feet away....

Sometimes I’d be a factor because I may have contributed to the pull-up instead of a drive. Sometimes I’m just standing there not involved. Who knows when you have just the number? Might have 3-4 guys doing all time numbers just because they are on the same team, in the right era, mostly playing in the same lineups. Doesn’t make all of them special.

The whole thing reeks of the usual stat nerd desire to replace observation with the objective with basketball not being a priority.


Yeah, DRTG is a poor stat. There really is no statistical way to "score" defense. ORTG is poor as well, for different reasons, unless you think 96' Kerr was GOAT level offense because that is what ORTG tells us. Give Kerr the ball on every play and the result would be 141 points.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

If Robinson and Giannis had closers like Kobe/Manu/Kawhi, he would win rings too.

Shaq also always needed Kobe to close for him. Duncan was about to have a stroke vs Rasheed/Ben pistons until Manu saved him.

Low post big men always need that superstar closer.

[Roundball_Rock]

If Robinson and Giannis had closers like Kobe/Manu/Kawhi, he would win rings too.

Shaq also always needed Kobe to close for him. Duncan was about to have a stroke vs Rasheed/Ben pistons until Manu saved him.

Low post big men always need that superstar closer.

Except AD, right? :lol I saw Kobe stans complaining elsewhere that he wasn't getting the ball at all at the end of finals games.

KAJ (the real Kareem--the GOAT) is an exception. KAJ was the closer for his teams. :bowdown:

[tpols]

Drob was a great defender. All agree. He’s not as good or bad as his defensive ratings though. Nobody is.

I remember posting a thread about this once...

link (https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/def_rtg_yearly.html)

Telling me DRTG wasn't accurately portraying who the best defenders were... when it was Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson on repeat. Pippen being the only perimeter player to lead the league in it. That wasn't reality? I really am having a hard time understanding why you would discredit it when it matches even your own individual eye test perception so exactly. David Robinson was exactly as good as his DRTG... which by your own admission would be one of if not the best in the league. Which is exactly what the stat ended up showing. So what's there to dispute? I notice you do this with all stats though... never seen you not criticize one whether it be TS, DRTG, ORTG or any other pretty much. Context has to be applied but contextually David Robinson was a monster defensive anchor lol. There's no hidden trickery behind why his numbers were so great.

[Phoenix]

1999 - Robson was a superstar and all the bulls alphas left

2001/2002 - embarrassing himself

2003 - Chris Webber and Dirk got hurt in playoffs

2005 - Manu was the best player and led playoffs in VORP

2007 - Parker won finals MVP, suspension suns, LeBron in High school

So most of the time, Duncan was just a defensive anchor. Manu had to take over on offense in 05 and parker had to take over on offense in 07. His low post game wasn't why they won titles.

2019- lucky bounce and no KD, Klay and Iggy injured

2020- lost to Brian Windhorst choking 3-1 lead in mickey mouse bubble

Your hero ain't flawless, champ.

[HBK_Kliq_2]

Except AD, right? :lol I saw Kobe stans complaining elsewhere that he wasn't getting the ball at all at the end of finals games.

KAJ (the real Kareem--the GOAT) is an exception. KAJ was the closer for his teams. :bowdown:

AD did make the game winner buzzer beater when Lakers backs were against the wall vs nuggets

[HBK_Kliq_2]

2019- lucky bounce and no KD, Klay and Iggy injured

2020- lost to Brian Windhorst choking 3-1 lead in mickey mouse bubble

Your hero ain't flawless, champ.

Iggy was playing and guarding kawhi all series, that's a flat out lie. Still beat the KD less warriors aka same team that LeBron beat and claimed himself goat for doing it.

Lucky bounce is also a myth, kawhi had a very similar game winner vs blazers earlier in season (YouTube it)

[Roundball_Rock]

AD did make the game winner buzzer beater when Lakers backs were against the wall vs nuggets

Look at the 4th quarter scoring. I did for the finals. It was LeBron by a mile.

[Phoenix]

Iggy was playing and guarding kawhi all series, that's a flat out lie. Still beat the KD less warriors aka same team that LeBron beat and claimed himself goat for doing it.

Lucky bounce is also a myth, kawhi had a very similar game winner vs blazers earlier in season (YouTube it)

Klay got injured halfway through and I didnt say Iggy wasnt playing, I said he was injured. The 2016 Warriors that Lebron beat was better than the 2019 finals team sans KD. Had more depth in 2016.

And yeah it was a lucky bounce. Could have gone either way.

[Kblaze8855]

I remember posting a thread about this once...

link (https://www.basketball-reference.com/leaders/def_rtg_yearly.html)

Telling me DRTG wasn't accurately portraying who the best defenders were... when it was Hakeem, Ewing, Robinson on repeat. Pippen being the only perimeter player to lead the league in it. That wasn't reality? I really am having a hard time understanding why you would discredit it when it matches even your own individual eye test perception so exactly. David Robinson was exactly as good as his DRTG... which by your own admission would be one of if not the best in the league. Which is exactly what the stat ended up showing. So what's there to dispute? I notice you do this with all stats though... never seen you not criticize one whether it be TS, DRTG, ORTG or any other pretty much. Context has to be applied but contextually David Robinson was a monster defensive anchor lol. There's no hidden trickery behind why his numbers were so great.



Fairly simple. As with all other advanced stat pushers you only want to show things that suggest its doing it right and calling the far more prevalent examples of "WTF?" results outliers to be ignored. Yes Defensive rating will usually have a great defender at the top. Like Giannis now. But guess what?

Brook Lopez is second in the NBA and Donte DiVincenzo is third. Which shows the obvious problem.

The Bucks great D elevates the entire teams D ratings. So why am I looking at it individually? Two teams really have the 5 best defenders in the NBA? Of course not.

But instead of taking the obvious from that(The ratings cant be applied individually when teams contribute so much to getting stops) you would rather disregard all that and take the narrow view of who is on top.

#1 is no more statistically significant than #2 or #14. It makes sense or it doesnt. And too many results no matter the stat fly in the face of common sense.

David Robinson was always a great defender. I could see that. There is no real way to say exactly what his defensive contribution was though because no number can isolate you from your team and coaching. He was a beast on D. All agree. But using these numbers while ignoring both the massive era issue when comparing all time and the fact that the numbers themselves arent individually earned?

It just doesnt much help. Its just reaching for a way to quantify stardom when it cant easily be done.

[HoopsNY]

Yup. We need a separate thread to discuss how people define it but I am not sure how useful it would be because people are all over the map based on whether they like a player/agenda/etc. This thread is a prime example. Gasol is a "sidekick" whose performance is negated by virtue of that--from the person who made this very thread. :lol

Either way, as Blaze said, 99' Robinson was not the "real" Robinson. That guy was gone after that 97' injury.



You meant 72'--Wilt was a MVP candidate that year (3rd, got about as many first place votes as West behind MVP KAJ). Robinson wasn't even all-NBA in 99'. These are comparable?

I meant the '71-72 season yes. My point wasn't to say they were the same. Furthermore, Wilt played on an all-time great team. That Lakers team won 69 games. Tim Duncan didn't even win the MVP that year for SA. Malone did. And SA won the title.

Robinson finished 12th in MVP voting, but in a league with 29 teams. Wilt finished 3rd in a league with 17 teams. Some context has to count for something, because you're comparing the two with all other factors being equal, when they weren't.

I'm not saying '99 Robinson > '72 Wilt. I'm saying you could be out of your prime, older, not having numbers resemble anything of what you once produced, and still be elite.

Robinson was elite. His numbers just didn't show it.

[HoopsNY]

People are focusing too much on DRTG. Go look at Robinson's PER 100 numbers with Duncan's in '99. Go look at what Robinson did in Duncan's absence in the regular season and playoffs. People are acting like Robinson wouldn't be putting up 22/10/2 with 3 blks on 50% regularly if Duncan wasn't there.

And all the while, he won All-NBA honors in 2000. Robinson did what was best for the team. It was Pop's system at the end of the day and it yielded Robinson 2 championships. Good for him.

[Honor Boost]

If Robinson and Giannis had closers like Kobe/Manu/Kawhi, he would win rings too.

Shaq also always needed Kobe to close for him. Duncan was about to have a stroke vs Rasheed/Ben pistons until Manu saved him.

Low post big men always need that superstar closer.

Kareem showed this need as well

[Kblaze8855]

People are focusing too much on DRTG. Go look at Robinson's PER 100 numbers with Duncan's in '99. Go look at what Robinson did in Duncan's absence in the regular season and playoffs. People are acting like Robinson wouldn't be putting up 22/10/2 with 3 blks on 50% regularly if Duncan wasn't there.

And all the while, he won All-NBA honors in 2000. Robinson did what was best for the team. It was Pop's system at the end of the day and it yielded Robinson 2 championships. Good for him.


Im acting like even if he did do those numbers...it wouldnt be David Robinson. The worst numbers he did pre injury was like 23/12/5 blocks and 2+ steals a game. Thats the low point for David Robinson. And he was the DPOY that year.

Youre talking about him still being able to produce. Of course he could. But im talking about him still being David Robinson.

The real David Robinson kicks 99 Drobs ass. And he should. He was older. Almost 34. And post injury.

It wasnt David Robinson anymore. It looked a lot like him because he was obviously still in shape...but it wasnt him.

It wasnt superstar Drob anymore and few if anyone has gotten superstar credit while playing the way he was at the time.

[HoopsNY]

Im acting like even if he did do those numbers...it wouldnt be David Robinson. The worst numbers he did pre injury was like 23/12/5 blocks and 2+ steals a game. Thats the low point for David Robinson. And he was the DPOY that year.

Youre talking about him still being able to produce. Of course he could. But im talking about him still being David Robinson.

The real David Robinson kicks 99 Drobs ass. And he should. He was older. Almost 34. And post injury.

It wasnt David Robinson anymore. It looked a lot like him because he was obviously still in shape...but it wasnt him.

It wasnt superstar Drob anymore and few if anyone has gotten superstar credit while playing the way he was at the time.

I addressed this before. It is unfair to say that Robinson wasn't "elite" because he wasn't the same David Robinson circa 1995. He was elite, despite what his numbers show and despite the drop off.

Tiny Archibald wasn't the same player he was in 1981. He was still elite. And I'd say his drop off was as big if not greater than Robinson's.

[Kblaze8855]

That’s a fairly good example. And Tiny in the 80s wasn’t elite either.

In 94 elite was David Robinson Hakeem and so on. In 99 it was Shaq, Duncan, and so on. He was on one list. Not the other...much like peak Tiny would be in talks among the best in the world and 80s Tiny like 70s Oscar was a step slower and in his veteran leader wind down stage.

The player David Robinson was in 99 would have been an all star in any time.

He wouldn’t have been some kinda all time elite center like he was.

How far we taking “elite”?

Elite to me is the top tier of players. He wasn’t that in 99. Not anymore. He was two or three rungs down like older players generally are.

[HoopsNY]

That’s a fairly good example. And Tiny in the 80s wasn’t elite either.

In 94 elite was David Robinson Hakeem and so on. In 99 it was Shaq, Duncan, and so on. He was on one list. Not the other...much like peak Tiny would be in talks among the best in the world and 80s Tiny like 70s Oscar was a step slower and in his veteran leader wind down stage.

The player David Robinson was in 99 would have been an all star in any time.

He wouldn’t have been some kinda all time elite center like he was.

How far we taking “elite”?

Elite to me is the top tier of players. He wasn’t that in 99. Not anymore. He was two or three rungs down like older players generally are.

I meant to say 1980, but we can go with 1981, too. Archibald finished 5th in MVP voting in 1980 and 9th in 1981. I agree for the 80s as a whole that he wasn't elite. But those two years? Sure. Why not?

[Kblaze8855]

Because of Moses Malone, Kareem, Bird and Doc. A class of player above yours means you aren’t elite. Mvp voting is a whole other thing. I like Peja but that doesn’t mean his 4th place mvp finish makes him elite along with Duncan, Kg, Kobe and whoever that year.

[HoopsNY]

Because of Moses Malone, Kareem, Bird and Doc. A class of player above yours means you aren’t elite. Mvp voting is a whole other thing. I like Peja but that doesn’t mean his 4th place mvp finish makes him elite along with Duncan, Kg, Kobe and whoever that year.

I agree. Perhaps we're playing semantics. It's tough to clearly define these parameters but I get you. I do believe that you can be elite, but still have some players above you. If you have 5-10 players above you, you're still elite in my book. The league had 400 players in 1999.

[Kblaze8855]

Well yea if you don’t mean within a basketball context. You could call elite whatever you want. It just starts losing meaning at some point.

[HoopsNY]

Well yea if you don’t mean within a basketball context. You could call elite whatever you want. It just starts losing meaning at some point.

I think we can agree on this. Robinson's contributions in that year and the subsequent year are GREATLY underrated. I literally never hear anyone laud his performance in that playoffs, ever. I do believe he was a lot better than what people are willing to give him credit for.

[Kblaze8855]

That’s entirely reasonable.

[L.Kizzle]

I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but is Clyde Drexler's 1995 ring counted as a Superstar ring or no?

[paksat]

the fact that analytic numbers suggest he's on the same level as 00 shaq or 91 jordan should prove everything about analytics.

[HoopsNY]

the fact that analytic numbers suggest he's on the same level as 00 shaq or 91 jordan should prove everything about analytics.

It's not a fair comparison, obviously. And analytics should be used in connection with other things. But the eye test, PER 100 statistics, and analytics tell us that Robinson had an amazing year in '99.

He followed it up by putting up 22-23 PPG 10/11 Rebounds 2-3 Blks in Duncan's absence in 2000, landing him All-NBA honors. Robinson gave up his role to Duncan and that has to be considered.

This doesn't mean he could be the same David Robinson from '89-'96, but he was still a great player. Most people don't say that, though.

[Phoenix]

It's not a fair comparison, obviously. And analytics should be used in connection with other things. But the eye test, PER 100 statistics, and analytics tell us that Robinson had an amazing year in '99.

He followed it up by putting up 22-23 PPG 10/11 Rebounds 2-3 Blks in Duncan's absence in 2000, landing him All-NBA honors. Robinson gave up his role to Duncan and that has to be considered.

This doesn't mean he could be the same David Robinson from '89-'96, but he was still a great player. Most people don't say that, though.

All of these superlatives 'star', 'superstar' and 'great' mean different things to different people. The fact that Robinson handed off the keys to a 2nd year Duncan does suggest he knew the Spurs weren't going to win the title if he was the best player. Could he have put up another 20/10 season in 99? Probably, he did it in 98 ( and over a stretch in 2000 as you pointed out) and I don't think there was any tangible drop-off in ability between the 2 years. It just wasn't in the teams best interests with the goal of winning a title. Reminds me of Wade and Lebron in a way. Could Wade have come back in 2012 after the finals loss and produced another 25/5/5 season? Most likely. Would it have been in the teams best interest with a peaking Lebron at that point? Not really.

The question to ponder is why we are having this conversation 21 years later. What new piece of evidence has revealed itself that should have us all reconsidering the hows and whats of the 99 Spurs? The idea that someone looked up Vorp and then concluded that he was equitable to Duncan for that run is odd to me.

[Roundball_Rock]

Kareem showed this need as well

No he didn't. He was the closer for his teams.


Go look at Robinson's PER 100 numbers with Duncan's in '99.

We keep saying stats used deceptively or misused to convey things they were never meant to capture. Duncan played 40 MPG, Robinson 32 MPG. Fatigue, loss of efficiency and overall production as you tire, injury risk, etc. don't exist. PER 100 says if Robinson went from 32 MPG to 48 MPG his per minute production would remain the same. Which is absurd.

A tip for ISH'ers: if you see "PER 100" used go check the minutes the two players involved played. There usually is a large gap, which deflates the per minute production of the superior player. If Robinson was Robinson, he would have played 40 MPG too like he did in his prime.


Robinson finished 12th in MVP voting, but in a league with 29 teams. Wilt finished 3rd in a league with 17 teams.

This is fine grade BS. There are only 5-8 players capable of winning MVP in any given year. Having 10 teams or 20 or 30 doesn't change who they are. To believe otherwise, you have to believe a MVP caliber guy would be on a roster if there are 29 teams but if there are 17 teams that guy wouldn't be in the NBA. Which is crazy.


Wilt played on an all-time great team

Which drags stats down.


Tim Duncan didn't even win the MVP that year for SA. Malone did.

And? West didn't win it either. Kareem did.


Some context has to count for something, because you're comparing the two with all other factors being equal, when they weren't.

You are comparing a 3rd place MVP candidate who got 36 first place vote and was 2nd team all-NBA behind prime Kareem to Robinson who wasn't even all-NBA in 99'. Talk about context.


Robinson was elite. His numbers just didn't show it.

Yeah--and the entire world just missed that he was "elite" then but 21 years later the truth comes out, right?


How far we taking “elite”?

Elite to me is the top tier of players.

It is something else, just like "superstar." The same poster can hype a guy who was 12th in MVP and go into another thread and complain about the lack of help a guy who was 5th in MVP provided.

Case in point:


Archibald finished 5th in MVP voting in 1980 and 9th in 1981. I agree for the 80s as a whole that he wasn't elite. But those two years?

5th in MVP is elite now and not "poor help"? :lol


I don't know if this has been mentioned yet, but is Clyde Drexler's 1995 ring counted as a Superstar ring or no?

He has a stronger case than Robinson. Drexler was a top 10 player in 95'. Then you have Pippen who was better than 95' Drexler for nearly all of his chips. Let me guess: Pippen doesn't count as a superstar. Am I right tpols?


He followed it up by putting up 22-23 PPG 10/11 Rebounds 2-3 Blks in Duncan's absence in 2000, landing him All-NBA honors

This is shameless deception. Duncan played 74 games. This guy is trying to make it sound as if Duncan missed most of the season, Robinson put up those numbers and via that he made all-NBA.

Robinson's actual line in 2000? 18/12/3.


All of these superlatives 'star', 'superstar' and 'great' mean different things to different people.

And even to the same people apparently, depending on who is being discussed at a given time.


The question to ponder is why we are having this conversation 21 years later. What new piece of evidence has revealed itself that should have us all reconsidering the hows and whats of the 99 Spurs? The idea that someone looked up Vorp and then concluded that he was equitable to Duncan for that run is odd to me.

You know the answer: LeBron James won a ring and that broke a lot of people. :lol We know why they suddenly care about Robinson 25 years after his peak.

[HoopsNY]

All of these superlatives 'star', 'superstar' and 'great' mean different things to different people. The fact that Robinson handed off the keys to a 2nd year Duncan does suggest he knew the Spurs weren't going to win the title if he was the best player. Could he have put up another 20/10 season in 99? Probably, he did it in 98 ( and over a stretch in 2000 as you pointed out) and I don't think there was any tangible drop-off in ability between the 2 years. It just wasn't in the teams best interests with the goal of winning a title. Reminds me of Wade and Lebron in a way. Could Wade have come back in 2012 after the finals loss and produced another 25/5/5 season? Most likely. Would it have been in the teams best interest with a peaking Lebron at that point? Not really.

The question to ponder is why we are having this conversation 21 years later. What new piece of evidence has revealed itself that should have us all reconsidering the hows and whats of the 99 Spurs? The idea that someone looked up Vorp and then concluded that he was equitable to Duncan for that run is odd to me.

I think it's good to bring it up, but not solely relying on a few analytics to tell the story. When you dig deeper, there is some merit to tpol's claim.

Robinson is under appreciated. And his contributions to the Spurs title runs are overlooked largely due to what happened in '95. Having said that, I have never in my life heard anyone praise his regular season/playoff contributions between 1999-00. And that just isn't fair.

[Roundball_Rock]

Having said that, I have never in my life heard anyone praise his regular season/playoff contributions between 1999-00. And that just isn't fair.

Yet he is getting all this love 20 years later "out the blue."

[HoopsNY]

No he didn't. He was the closer for his teams.

We keep saying stats used deceptively or misused to convey things they were never meant to capture. Duncan played 40 MPG, Robinson 32 MPG. Fatigue, loss of efficiency and overall production as you tire, injury risk, etc. don't exist. PER 100 says if Robinson went from 32 MPG to 48 MPG his per minute production would remain the same. Which is absurd.

You're right about that. My point wasn't to say that Robinson's '99 season = Duncan's. You're looking too deeply into what I said.


A tip for ISH'ers: if you see "PER 100" used go check the minutes the two players involved played. There usually is a large gap, which deflates the per minute production of the superior player. If Robinson was Robinson, he would have played 40 MPG too like he did in his prime.


Again, you're looking too deeply into what I said.



This is fine grade BS. There are only 5-8 players capable of winning MVP in any given year. Having 10 teams or 20 or 30 doesn't change who they are. To believe otherwise, you have to believe a MVP caliber guy would be on a roster if there are 29 teams but if there are 17 teams that guy wouldn't be in the NBA. Which is crazy.

It most certainly does affect the MVP voting. You mentioned Wilt finishing 3rd, I pointed out that he did that on a 17 team league on an all-time great team. That has some effect on how his season is viewed, don't you think?

If Robinson is placed on the '71-72 team, with the higher pace of play and no lockout (which ultimately dropped statistics significantly), You think he puts up his 16/10/2? C'mon. Who are we kidding?

League pace was 112 in '71-72, it was 89 in 1999. See the difference? If Robinson gets the opportunity to play on a 69 win team and put up comparable numbers (I dunno, 20 pts and 15 rebounds sound fair to you?) You don't see him getting some more MVP votes? I do. And it's perfectly reasonable to think so.


Which drags stats down.

See my previous comment


You are comparing a 3rd place MVP candidate who got 36 first place vote and was 2nd team all-NBA behind prime Kareem to Robinson who wasn't even all-NBA in 99'. Talk about context.

I'll repeat. I'm not saying Robinson circa 1999 > Wilt 1972. My point was that:

a) A player cannot resemble his former self and still be amongst the elite players
b) Despite lower production, Wilt was highly recognized. Guess what, Robinson gets ZERO, ZILCH, NADA credit for his contributions to the '99 chip


Yeah--and the entire world just missed that he was "elite" then but 21 years later the truth comes out, right?


Not only did the entire world miss it, the entire world can't even be bothered to give substantial credit where credit is due.


Case in point:

5th in MVP is elite now and not "poor help"? :lol

I don't follow. Please explain.


This is shameless deception. Duncan played 74 games. This guy is trying to make it sound as if Duncan missed most of the season, Robinson put up those numbers and via that he made all-NBA.

Robinson's actual line in 2000? 18/12/3.

Not deception at all. You might be the only one who doesn't think Robinson is at least a 20/10/3 player with 3 blks on high efficiency without Duncan. I think he sustains a 21-22 PPG total with 11-12 rebounds. How is that not 'elite' and how is it unreasonable?

Who was putting up those numbers amongst centers in 2000 other than Shaq and Zo? And I'd say that would make Zo and Robinson almost equal, with Zo having a slight advantage.

[Phoenix]

I think it's good to bring it up, but not solely relying on a few analytics to tell the story. When you dig deeper, there is some merit to tpol's claim.

Robinson is under appreciated. And his contributions to the Spurs title runs are overlooked largely due to what happened in '95. Having said that, I have never in my life heard anyone praise his regular season/playoff contributions between 1999-00. And that just isn't fair.

95 really did a number on his legacy, I don't disagree there. Around 92 or 93 alot of people were saying once Jordan left his prime that he was going to take over the league( this is before Shaq asserted himself and Hakeem had his run). After 95 he just wasn't looked at in the same light, and not being the definitive best player on a title team is unfortunately held against him in a sport where alot of emphasis in placed on winning titles as a measure of greatness ( a bit too much considering it's a team sport, but there it is).

[Roundball_Rock]

95 really did a number on his legacy, I don't disagree there. Around 92 or 93 alot of people were saying once Jordan left his prime that he was going to take over the league( this is before Shaq asserted himself and Hakeem had his run). After 95 he just wasn't looked at in the same light, and not being the definitive best player on a title team is unfortunately held against him in a sport where alot of emphasis in placed on winning titles as a measure of greatness ( a bit too much considering it's a team sport, but there it is).

Yeah we have talked about this several times--before people "discovered" Robinson this fall.

I think there is some merit to it. Those 94'/95' runs cemented the "playoff decliner" reputation he has. Going into 94' he had only been in the playoffs 3x, one which was his rookie year so there wasn't enough to make a definitive judgement anyway. 95' was the coup de grace but it wouldn't have been in 94' didn't happen to set the table, where he did even worse. Could he have turned it around? Who knows. The real Robinson had only one more playoff run. Maybe if he doesn't get hurt in 97' he could have pulled a Dirk and change the narrative with one amazing run but we will never know.

When you start getting to the level of legends Robinson is compared to the hair splitting picks up more. Robinson is generally top 20-25 all-time. If the playoffs didn't exist he would be knocking on the top 10 door. Hakeem>Robinson but the gap isn't actually large but when you are talking 10th best or 20th best of the thousands of players all-time there isn't a substantively large difference between 10th and 20th (or 30th and 40th or 60th and 70th, etc.).

Before the AD thing, Robinson was the least talked about of the 90's big superstars (unless you count Payton in that category). That is a shame but there are benefits to that. He was locked in 20th-25th all-time without getting any scrutiny like his peers get (to varying degrees). I wonder if the AD thing changes that. Perhaps that depends on who they finally settle on between KAJ, Hakeem, and Robinson as the AD comp.

[Phoenix]

Yeah we have talked about this several times--before people "discovered" Robinson this fall.

I think there is some merit to it. Those 94'/95' runs cemented the "playoff decliner" reputation he has. Going into 94' he had only been in the playoffs 3x, one which was his rookie year so there wasn't enough to make a definitive judgement anyway. 95' was the coup de grace but it wouldn't have been in 94' didn't happen to set the table, where he did even worse. Could he have turned it around? Who knows. The real Robinson had only one more playoff run. Maybe if he doesn't get hurt in 97' he could have pulled a Dirk and change the narrative with one amazing run but we will never know.

When you start getting to the level of legends Robinson is compared to the hair splitting picks up more. Robinson is generally top 20-25 all-time. If the playoffs didn't exist he would be knocking on the top 10 door. Hakeem>Robinson but the gap isn't actually large but when you are talking 10th best or 20th best of the thousands of players all-time there isn't a substantively large difference between 10th and 20th (or 30th and 40th or 60th and 70th, etc.).

Before the AD thing, Robinson was the least talked about of the 90's big superstars (unless you count Payton in that category). That is a shame but there are benefits to that. He was locked in 20th-25th all-time without getting any scrutiny like his peers get (to varying degrees). I wonder if the AD thing changes that. Perhaps that depends on who they finally settle on between KAJ, Hakeem, and Robinson as the AD comp.

Yep, Admiral came in as an older rookie (24) and didn't really establish enough of a playoff legacy independent of Duncan to counter-balance the 94 and 95 runs. There's a reason people dont talk much about his playoff career outside of Hakeem spinning him like a top in 95, because he doesn't really have many notable series or moments. Hell, what about this:


https://youtu.be/QgLln0Akgls

That was 93. Then the poor series in 94. Then Hakeem in 95. A threepeat of unceremonious playoff exits at the very apex of his prime, and on the wrong end of a highlight. This, unfortunately for him, is what people most identify him with as a playoff performer.

[Roundball_Rock]

Yeah, and his numbers dropped across the board--especially at his peak. The 94' playoff "run" was an all-time bad one in terms of level of decline. Granted, it was only 4 games but Robinson couldn't get out the first round with a 56 win team and having a second HOF player in Rodman (few teams had multiple HOF back then) on his team.

These are the things that happened and what he is defined by. So it is amusing to see a bunch of MJ/Kobe fans hyping him up as a great playoff performance a quarter century later. :oldlol: OP a few days ago was talking about how great Robinson was as a playoff player--which is insane revisionism.

In Robinson's defense, he is being measured against himself, which was basically Hakeem in the RS. He didn't suck in the PO. He just fell off considerably from his normal level and it happened often enough it couldn't be ignored any longer. Giannis is at risk of going down this route.

[Smoke117]

Yeah, and his numbers dropped across the board--especially at his peak. The 94' playoff "run" was an all-time bad one in terms of level of decline. Granted, it was only 4 games but Robinson couldn't get out the first round with a 56 win team and having a second HOF player in Rodman (few teams had multiple HOF back then) on his team.

These are the things that happened and what he is defined by. So it is amusing to see a bunch of MJ/Kobe fans hyping him up as a great playoff performance a quarter century later. :oldlol: OP a few days ago was talking about how great Robinson was as a playoff player--which is insane revisionism.

In Robinson's defense, he is being measured against himself, which was basically Hakeem in the RS. He didn't suck in the PO. He just fell off considerably from his normal level and it happened often enough it couldn't be ignored any longer. Giannis is at risk of going down this route.

You realize The Spurs only won so many games because of Robinson right? You take him off those 90s Spur teams and they aren't even winning 30 games...as we've seen from the Spurs before Robinson to his rookie season and then 96 to 97. In the playoffs teams just threw everything at the Admiral as they knew nobody else on the team was going to do anything worthy of shit. He completely carried those Spur teams like only a handful of players ever have. The fall from 96 to 97 is especially noteworthy. Spurs went from 3rd in defense to DEAD LAST without Robinson. As I've said for years now, Robinson really is the player who should have been the DPOY in 96.

[Roundball_Rock]

All legit points but like I said, we are splitting hairs when we get to the Robinson-type level of greatness.

Why do you guys think Robinson is ranked 20th-25th all-time and not a candidate for 10th-12th? The answer is the playoffs. Is there a light years difference between Hakeem and Robinson? No, but that slight difference is why one guy is 10th or so and the other more like 22nd.

If you guys want to argue that is incorrect, that Robinson should be up there with Hakeem types (as his RS record suggests), go ahead, but that isn't what the historical verdict on him has been to date. Maybe AD can vault him, though. :oldlol:

[HoopsNY]

Ben Wallace finished 7th in MVP voting in 2004. He was a ferocious defensive stopper and I'd argue he was an elite center at the time. Yet Robinson gets shitted on for finishing 12th in 1999, despite being a better combination package of offense and defense.

"Superstar" is a tough word because it implies off the court features of a player's career, I think. While Robinson may not have been a prototypical superstar in 1999, I do believe he was certainly elite.

I find it strange that I get crucified for thinking Robinson would have been a 21/11 player in 2000 without Duncan. Roundball likes to conveniently use small sample sizes to prove how well teams would have played for an entire season when a player misses 10-15 games in a season, but me using Robinson's numbers in Duncan's absence for the 1999-00 season and playoffs is suddenly a crime!

Adjust for pace and the lockout season, which posted the worst offensive numbers in NBA history, and place Robinson on the '71-72 Lakers (a 69 win All-Time great team), and it's impossible to think that Robinson becomes a 22-24 PPG/13-15 RBPG player.

In fact, you're a criminal for even thinking so.