David Robinson vs Draymond Green

[dautjazz]

Robinson's gap on offense was much bigger. The guy led the freaking league in scoring and still got about 5apg too from the center position, incredibly difficult to do. Green is a great passing PF, but that's about it, as a scorer he's nothing special, not even really efficient, which he should be since he doesn't draw double coverage.

[EasternHeretic]

DRob is nowhere near Durant in terms of offensive skills. He would be more like Tyson Chandler, because he didn't have good offensive moves, but offensive rebounding and moving were his strengths.

I help you out with font color.

Is Chandler the go to guy for comparisons, I saw someone comparing Wilt to him as well.

[Phreak50]

Worst thread I've seen in a long time.

Robinson is one of the all-time great defenders and offensive players during his peak.

[PaulieWal]

Yes, offensive gap is bigger, as Green's skills are more valuable and thus he is better offensive player.

Are you saying that Drob>Green on defense, but Green>>Drob on offense?

I do. Robinson wasn't as good offensive player as his PPG suggests, while Draymond is extremely valuable with playmaking and spacing he provides. He just isn't go to guy, but it's not like DRob was very good in that role either.

Draymond doesn't provide spacing as much as he is left alone because teams rather stick like glue to Klay, Curry, and now KD. Draymond and Iggy are the beneficiary of the insane spacing that Curry and Klay provide and the former two cannot be classified as spacers.

[Quotatious]

Scoring ability is not nearly a large a part of offense as some are making it out to be. Klay is way ahead of Dray as a scorer as well, but despite that we have multiple seasons of evidence suggesting that Dray is easily the more critical player for the Warriors offensive success.

I always like to compare offensive players by trying to imagine who would be better as a focal point, as #1 option on a team, and I would take Klay over Draymond as #1 option on a random team. He could average 25-26 ppg on good efficiency with more shot attempts than he's actually taking in Golden State, while Green really isn't the type of player you want as an offensive centerpiece. He's like 2006 Boris Diaw - extremely valuable offensive player in a proper context, but really more of a 3rd option, a complementary star who can take over a game once in a while when his shot from outside gets hot - game 7 of 2016 finals is the perfect example, but he needs other guys with significant gravity (high volume scorers/playmakers, Curry is the perfect example, or Nash in Diaw's case). Green's offensive success is situational to some extent, more so than Klay's.

Green is a lot better overall player because of his defense, but offensively I would take Klay in a primary role over Dray.

[eminence]

Ehh, I give up. A team with Draymond on it scores more points than the same team with Klay. But Klay is still a better offensive player because he's the one doing the scoring. It really really doesn't make sense to me.

[LoyalKing]

The gap is pretty big on both ends, but I'd say offense.

I don't think DG is good enough even to be a 2nd option offensively on a contender. He is perfect for his role with GS, but we're talking about D-Rob here, an all-time great.

[lorak]

The same arguments are used against Green since he became superstar, but with time, with every new point of data available, we see that his impact is independent from Curry or Klay. That was clearly seen last year, when the same people predicted that without Steph Green's impact would go down, but that didn't happen.

[pelifan]

This is like which is bigger the universe or the highest number you can imagine? both are too huge for human comprehension.

[Texas Chuck]

Ehh, I give up. A team with Draymond on it scores more points than the same team with Klay. But Klay is still a better offensive player because he's the one doing the scoring. It really really doesn't make sense to me.

That's not exactly what Q is saying tho. He's simply saying he thinks Klay Thompson would be more effective on a team with less weapons than Draymond Green would be. Feel free to disagree with him, but he's not saying Klay averages more points so he's a better offensive player. Cmon you know Q is better than that.

[Johnny Firpo]

I'd go with defense in Robinson's favor. Offensively I'm not sure if there's a gap at all, Robinson is obviously the better scorer but isn't what I would classify as a super elite guy in that category (playoff woes), while Dray is a far superior lead playmaker and just team ball movement guy in general.

Ding, ding, ding, I think we have a winner. Robinson is arguably the GOAT defensive center, and no matter how versatile Green is there, he cannot hope to match Robinson's DPOY impact. And it's not like Robinson had trouble switching and guarding smaller guys if needed, all while being much bigger and stronger than Green.

[bondom34]

Just a side note but over 2 seasons, Green played 250 minutes without either Curry or Klay on court.

[Johnny Firpo]

Worst thread I've seen in a long time.

Robinson is one of the all-time great defenders and offensive players during his peak.

You don't understand the question then. OP simply asked where is the bigger gap, on offense, or defense. He never implied Green is close in either category.

[eminence]

Ehh, I give up. A team with Draymond on it scores more points than the same team with Klay. But Klay is still a better offensive player because he's the one doing the scoring. It really really doesn't make sense to me.

That's not exactly what Q is saying tho. He's simply saying he thinks Klay Thompson would be more effective on a team with less weapons than Draymond Green would be. Feel free to disagree with him, but he's not saying Klay averages more points so he's a better offensive player. Cmon you know Q is better than that.

You're right, I was unfair to Q. I do think he is incorrect in his assessment though, as the best approximation we have for the situation he describes points us in the opposite direction of his conclusion.

[Dr Spaceman]

Scoring ability is not nearly a large a part of offense as some are making it out to be. Klay is way ahead of Dray as a scorer as well, but despite that we have multiple seasons of evidence suggesting that Dray is easily the more critical player for the Warriors offensive success.

I always like to compare offensive players by trying to imagine who would be better as a focal point, as #1 option on a team, and I would take Klay over Draymond as #1 option on a random team. He could average 25-26 ppg on good efficiency with more shot attempts than he's actually taking in Golden State, while Green really isn't the type of player you want as an offensive centerpiece. He's like 2006 Boris Diaw - extremely valuable offensive player in a proper context, but really more of a 3rd option, a complementary star who can take over a game once in a while when his shot from outside gets hot - game 7 of 2016 finals is the perfect example, but he needs other guys with significant gravity (high volume scorers/playmakers, Curry is the perfect example, or Nash in Diaw's case). Green's offensive success is situational to some extent, more so than Klay's.

Green is a lot better overall player because of his defense, but offensively I would take Klay in a primary role over Dray.

People repeat this all the time as if it's some kind of proven fact that's beyond debate. It's not. You need to elaborate. Why would being on a worse team make him worse?

He's not going to suddenly stop doing the things that make him good, so why would that go away? People really, really underestimate how easy it is to be mediocre in the NBA- and by the way Memphis has a much better record than OKC right now. I guess they missed the memo that you can't call someone a star if they don't volume score.

[bondom34]

At the same time, there's no definite proof Klay is the worse offensive player. RPM has flipped the two from last year to this year. Multiyear RAPM gives Dray a slight advantage. Single year gave him a huge advantage. In reading that, it feels like to me he's benefiting somewhere from a lineup change between the two, or the spacing offered by a higher volume high efficiency shooter being in the lineup alongside him (Klay). As said above, Green is playing almost exclusively w/ at least one if not both of Curry and Klay (250 minutes total with neither over an entire 2 seasons). That's opening a ton of space that not a single other player in the league is capable of providing via shooting. Klay on the other hand doesn't have as much help from spacing provided by others, since he's actually the focus of the defense. Or in short Dray benefits somewhat from spacing Klay provides. Klay doesn't benefit from that same luxury.

Just my 2 cents.

[weekend_warrior]

I don't want to open a case for Green over Robinson, because I really don't see it. But just the assumption that someone (DRob) could be "galaxies" better at defense than Green, who is at worst a top 2 defender in the league over the last three years in a really talented era I find incredibly dumb. And this seems to be a common stance in here. Nostalgia is out of control.

[Soulcatcher33]

Offense is obviously the bigger gap, but he has nothing on David Robinson in either category. David Robinson is the 2nd greatest defensive player of the modern era after Dream. I don't understand what the point of this poll is? It seems so random to ask this question with these two players. Also, is this Lorak character serious with his nonsense? Draymond Green is better offensively than David Robinson? Jesus christ.

[mischievous]

I don't want to open a case for Green over Robinson, because I really don't see it. But just the assumption that someone (DRob) could be "galaxies" better at defense than Green, who is at worst a top 2 defender in the league over the last three years in a really talented era I find incredibly dumb. And this seems to be a common stance in here. Nostalgia is out of control.

Who said anything about Drob being galaxies better defensively?

[Soulcatcher33]

I don't want to open a case for Green over Robinson, because I really don't see it. But just the assumption that someone (DRob) could be "galaxies" better at defense than Green, who is at worst a top 2 defender in the league over the last three years in a really talented era I find incredibly dumb. And this seems to be a common stance in here. Nostalgia is out of control.

Who said anything about Drob being galaxies better defensively?

...he is galaxies better defensively. I'm not sure what the poster you are quoting is talking about when he says this is a "talented era" when there is no one close to David Robinson's level defensively in the league right now. The last player to be so was probably Dwight before his back and that is over 5 year ago.