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

[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:



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. 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. 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.

[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.