David Robinson vs Draymond Green

[Blame Rasho]

Well somehow I found this thread... and the takeaway is that lorak isn't meant to be taken seriously given his posts in this thread.

[trex_8063]

fwiw, I investigated some of Draymond's individual offensive stats and team ORtg with the following line-ups:

With Curry, but without Klay and Durant.
With Klay, but without Steph and Durant.
With Durant, but without Steph and Klay.
With Curry and Klay, but without Durant.
With Curry and Durant, but without Klay.
With Klay and Durant, but without Curry.
With all three of them.
Without all three of them.

.....on nbawowy.com, though I corrected their TS% info to be consistent with bbref's method of calculating TS% (because I think that's what most of us refer to).

EDIT: Oops. I somehow had selected for preseason only in my prior numbers (which accounts for the tiny samples sizes). Will update shortly with the rs data.

EDIT2: OK, am back with the rs data to this point in the season......

Draymond on court without any of Curry, Durant, or Thompson (10 possessions)
Green avg 0.0 pts/100 poss @ 0% TS (0/3 FGA, 0/0 FT), 10.0 ast/100 poss, 0.0 tov/100 poss (n/a Ast:TO ratio)
Team ORTG: 70.0

Draymond on court with ONE of the other three stars (326 possessions)
Green avg. 15.0 pts/100 poss @ 52.6% TS (-1.8% rTS), 11.0 ast/100 poss, 10.4 tov/100 poss (1.06 Ast:TO ratio)
Team ORTG: 107.1

Draymond on court with TWO of the other three stars (516 possessions)
Green avg 17.1 pts/100 poss @ 55.6% TS (+1.2% rTS), 6.6 ast/100 poss, 3.3 tov/100 poss (2.94 Ast:TO ratio)
Team ORTG: 118.6

Draymond on court with ALL THREE other stars (1013 possessions)
Green avg. 14.4 pts/100 poss @ 50.8% TS (-3.4% rTS), 10.9 ast/100 poss, 2.4 tov/100 poss (4.58 Ast:TO ratio)
Team ORTG: 124.0

[E-Balla]

How did I not notice this thread and the little argument its created? I'm going with defense. I've said this before and I'll say it again but DRob isn't a first option and in the playoffs when the going gets tough and a good defense is across from you he's about as good as Patrick Ewing as an offensive anchor if not worse. Draymond is below that level but he can always hit open looks, take advantage of Gs inside, and pass so he's always going to be above average.

Defensively though DRob is top 5ish all time. Draymond is very good, great even, but he's not anchoring a top defense by himself and the defense of the Warriors now proves that point. He's just not equal to a great defensive big.

[spearsy23]

Jesus, if lamar odom played with clay/curry/durant people would be arguing he's a top ten offensive player.

[trex_8063]

Quoting myself to re-post the correct data, for anyone that already flew by the stuff I'd presented previously (which was just preseason)....

fwiw, I investigated some of Draymond's individual offensive stats and team ORtg with the following line-ups:

With Curry, but without Klay and Durant.
With Klay, but without Steph and Durant.
With Durant, but without Steph and Klay.
With Curry and Klay, but without Durant.
With Curry and Durant, but without Klay.
With Klay and Durant, but without Curry.
With all three of them.
Without all three of them.

.....on nbawowy.com, though I corrected their TS% info to be consistent with bbref's method of calculating TS% (because I think that's what most of us refer to).

EDIT: Oops. I somehow had selected for preseason only in my prior numbers (which accounts for the tiny samples sizes). Will update shortly with the rs data.

EDIT2: OK, am back with the rs data to this point in the season......

Draymond on court without any of Curry, Durant, or Thompson (10 possessions)
Green avg 0.0 pts/100 poss @ 0% TS (0/3 FGA, 0/0 FT), 10.0 ast/100 poss, 0.0 tov/100 poss (n/a Ast:TO ratio)
Team ORTG: 70.0

Draymond on court with ONE of the other three stars (326 possessions)
Green avg. 15.0 pts/100 poss @ 52.6% TS (-1.8% rTS), 11.0 ast/100 poss, 10.4 tov/100 poss (1.06 Ast:TO ratio)
Team ORTG: 107.1

Draymond on court with TWO of the other three stars (516 possessions)
Green avg 17.1 pts/100 poss @ 55.6% TS (+1.2% rTS), 6.6 ast/100 poss, 3.3 tov/100 poss (2.94 Ast:TO ratio)
Team ORTG: 118.6

Draymond on court with ALL THREE other stars (1013 possessions)
Green avg. 14.4 pts/100 poss @ 50.8% TS (-3.4% rTS), 10.9 ast/100 poss, 2.4 tov/100 poss (4.58 Ast:TO ratio)
Team ORTG: 124.0

[RSCD3_]

How did I not notice this thread and the little argument its created? I'm going with defense. I've said this before and I'll say it again but DRob isn't a first option and in the playoffs when the going gets tough and a good defense is across from you he's about as good as Patrick Ewing as an offensive anchor if not worse. Draymond is below that level but he can always hit open looks, take advantage of Gs inside, and pass so he's always going to be above average.

Defensively though DRob is top 5ish all time. Draymond is very good, great even, but he's not anchoring a top defense by himself and the defense of the Warriors now proves that point. He's just not equal to a great defensive big.

They are currently 5th and we saw in 2012/2013 the heat were around that level with James and Wade as the main perimeter defenders. They are probably better as a defensive pair but the warriors big in lineups is worse at a similar rate.

We've seen two perimeter defenders have this kind of impact on a similar level defensive team.

[therealbig3]

I mean, I used to be the one strongly touting Curry's gravity and Green being the main beneficiary of that, but...we've consistently seen Green play great without Curry. When Curry missed time in the playoffs last year, it was Green that led them to wins, and he played great without him. +/- stats have consistently shown Green to be equal or superior to Curry, even when adjusting for teammates, with a large sample size. That doesn't mean he's better than Curry, but at the very least, his contributions shouldn't be dismissed so easily, just because we think he's not "supposed to" have the impact he's having.

And this is a question of what's more important exactly...a super duper role player, or a guy that's very good at a lot of things, but isn't great enough at anything to be the best offensive player on a championship-level team? That term role player turns people off I guess, but it pretty much refers to anyone that doesn't score a lot of points, and intuitively, I feel like you can definitely equal a volume scorer's impact if you're good enough at everything else...which Green seems to be.

So offensively, I'm more in agreement with lorak and SSB here...if you had to pick their ideal roles, I think I might lean towards Green's skillset. Robinson WOULD play a lot more like Tyson Chandler if you surrounded him with ideal teammates, because his ideal teammates would probably be better offensive players than him. Essentially, both Green and Robinson would be asked to do the bulk of their damage in the non-scoring departments, in which Green is undoubtedly better than Robinson. Better ball handler, better shooter, better passer, better court vision. Overall, a guy that I would say is a far better offensive playmaker than Robinson. Robinson has his own advantages as well, namely his pure athleticism, in which I don't know if anyone in the history of the game could stack up to Robinson in that regard, as well as his size and finishing ability. They would contribute differently, but I'm having a hard time saying who would be better, but Green's skill set is more versatile, so I would probably go with him.

I've generally felt that Robinson's offense gets pretty massively overrated in general, because people just can't imagine that a 30 ppg, 5 apg player could still be a significantly flawed scorer and an average passer, and that asking him to put up 30 ppg and 5 apg is really not the best strategy to maximize his or his team's offensive impact. I've long defended KG's offensive superiority to D-Rob, and I stand by that, without a lot of hesitation. Yeah, he was pretty much forced into being THAT guy on those 90s Spurs teams, but those 90s Spurs teams never really went anywhere, precisely because asking Robinson to be THAT guy was not conducive to playoff success, imo.

Defensively though, Robinson is in the discussion for GOAT. Draymond is the best defensive player in the league today, but he's a tier below Robinson's level. Guys like Russell, Walton, Mutombo, B. Wallace, Duncan, KG, and Hakeem, those are the guys I'd put on Robinson's level defensively. Draymond's not there.

So my answer is, there's a bigger gap on defense. Offense is essentially a wash, but Robinson had more defensive impact.

[EasternHeretic]

For a split second I thought this was going to be a "who's better" thread, and felt I had finally hit the point of spontaneously combusting due to the level at which people continually elevate Draymond to heights he doesn't belong. Good to see this wasn't what I thought it was. You saved my life bro

That was my fear when I read the title too!

Bigger gap offensively (easily to my eye). Not sure if it's underrating David or overrating Draymond offensively to make this a question (or I suppose if one underrates Draymond defensively, that could make it a question too). Draymond's a legitimate DPOY candidate (and probably should have won it in '15, imo). No, he's not quite in the same league defensively as Robinson, who I think can single-handed bring a mediocre defensive squad up to elite. But Draymond's really damn good. So I don't see the gap defensively as too horribly large.

Offense is pretty big, though. Draymond's in a great situation, imo: he's got lots of shooters and scorers and good off-ball movement all around him.......it really facilitates him being able to make the most of his skills. But suppose there were a trade: Draymond for Embiid, and Green now found himself in Philly with that cast. I don't feel he has near the impact or visible offense acumen there, because he simply doesn't have the pieces around him to allow his unique skills to shine. In short, I think he NEEDS talent around him to shine offensively.

Robinson, otoh, was a relatively capable (though not ideal) 1st option, and clearly showed he could potentially REALLY shine in a 2nd-option role (in his prime, may have been the GOAT 2nd option).

It seems to be a case of not trusting DRob's offense while being quite high on Green's offensive value.

[DieYoung]

It seems to be a case of not trusting DRob's offense while being quite high on Green's offensive value.

Let's see Green carry a group of scrubs to 60 wins by himself, then we can talk about how impactful his offense really is.

[Senior]

I mean, I used to be the one strongly touting Curry's gravity and Green being the main beneficiary of that, but...we've consistently seen Green play great without Curry. When Curry missed time in the playoffs last year, it was Green that led them to wins, and he played great without him. +/- stats have consistently shown Green to be equal or superior to Curry, even when adjusting for teammates, with a large sample size. That doesn't mean he's better than Curry, but at the very least, his contributions shouldn't be dismissed so easily, just because we think he's not "supposed to" have the impact he's having.

And this is a question of what's more important exactly...a super duper role player, or a guy that's very good at a lot of things, but isn't great enough at anything to be the best offensive player on a championship-level team? That term role player turns people off I guess, but it pretty much refers to anyone that doesn't score a lot of points, and intuitively, I feel like you can definitely equal a volume scorer's impact if you're good enough at everything else...which Green seems to be.

So offensively, I'm more in agreement with lorak and SSB here...if you had to pick their ideal roles, I think I might lean towards Green's skillset. Robinson WOULD play a lot more like Tyson Chandler if you surrounded him with ideal teammates, because his ideal teammates would probably be better offensive players than him. Essentially, both Green and Robinson would be asked to do the bulk of their damage in the non-scoring departments, in which Green is undoubtedly better than Robinson. Better ball handler, better shooter, better passer, better court vision. Overall, a guy that I would say is a far better offensive playmaker than Robinson. Robinson has his own advantages as well, namely his pure athleticism, in which I don't know if anyone in the history of the game could stack up to Robinson in that regard, as well as his size and finishing ability. They would contribute differently, but I'm having a hard time saying who would be better, but Green's skill set is more versatile, so I would probably go with him.

I've generally felt that Robinson's offense gets pretty massively overrated in general, because people just can't imagine that a 30 ppg, 5 apg player could still be a significantly flawed scorer and an average passer, and that asking him to put up 30 ppg and 5 apg is really not the best strategy to maximize his or his team's offensive impact. I've long defended KG's offensive superiority to D-Rob, and I stand by that, without a lot of hesitation. Yeah, he was pretty much forced into being THAT guy on those 90s Spurs teams, but those 90s Spurs teams never really went anywhere, precisely because asking Robinson to be THAT guy was not conducive to playoff success, imo.

Defensively though, Robinson is in the discussion for GOAT. Draymond is the best defensive player in the league today, but he's a tier below Robinson's level. Guys like Russell, Walton, Mutombo, B. Wallace, Duncan, KG, and Hakeem, those are the guys I'd put on Robinson's level defensively. Draymond's not there.

So my answer is, there's a bigger gap on defense. Offense is essentially a wash, but Robinson had more defensive impact.

Pretty much agree with this - I think people see D-Rob's offensive numbers/box scores and think that he must've been offensively elite. Unfortunately, those numbers almost never held up against quality defenses (peak D-Rob from 94-96 got merked by Utah and Houston) and he was wildly inconsistent. I'm pretty low on D-Rob's offense overall compared to his numbers (sorry t-rex ) and really, we should be diving deeper into how people generated their points instead of just using several slightly different stats to represent offensive ability/impact. 30 points from Shaq or Hakeem isn't the same as 30 from Malone or D-Rob.

An ideal team for D-Rob would have him putting up ~20 a game on like 65+% TS. I don't think replacing D-Rob with Draymond on those Spurs makes them better - probably worse, but it's not an ideal fit for either anyway. On an ideal offensive team, neither guy would be the primary scorer, but I think Draymond's non-scoring skills overall are better than D-Rob's. I'm aware that D-Rob's teammates in the 90s weren't that good and that he was easily the best player, but it's not like they went anywhere in the playoffs. They made the CF once before Duncan and it's only because Seattle got upset by LA in the 1st round. They were an RS team and part of that was because D-Rob's offensive skillset didn't hold up well in the playoffs.

[Ryoga Hibiki]

So offensively, I'm more in agreement with lorak and SSB here...if you had to pick their ideal roles, I think I might lean towards Green's skillset. Robinson WOULD play a lot more like Tyson Chandler if you surrounded him with ideal teammates, because his ideal teammates would probably be better offensive players than him.

I'll repeat myself here.
I think we're not fully understanding how a coach would use Robinson in an offensively loaded team. Yes, there would be many istances he would be asked to roll and finish, and with his speed and finishing abilities he could be goat and that. But some people are going to underrate seriously what kind of havoc a cut of such a player can create, in that kind of situation. Chandler or Jordan must receive the right pass in the right sportto finish. Robinson would just need to cut to the basket to establish position to create opportunity for a high percentage shot or a double team, and good luck keeping him out from there while you have those other guys outside moving the ball. And any team would be forced to put a credible low post defender on him, as it has always been during his career, killing any small ball opportunity, or the missmatch would be enourmous.
I think the fallacy is assuming that GS would use him the way the Spurs used him. That's a guy you can easily put in a complex offense, his skills are easily translatable.

[chrismikayla]

DRob clearly has the advantage in both categories IMO

[te887848]

They're pretty similar defensively, could go either way. Offensively Robinson is far superior. Draymond is a very weak scorer and a 4th option at best while Robinson is a dominant #1 option.

[DROB27]

Lol Imagine those 90's spurs with Draymond instead of David. there offense would be straight up garbage i have a hard time believing they win 25+ games

[EasternHeretic]

It seems to be a case of not trusting DRob's offense while being quite high on Green's offensive value.

Let's see Green carry a group of scrubs to 60 wins by himself, then we can talk about how impactful his offense really is.

Well, can't say I disagree with you there

[bringinhinkie]

Well somehow I found this thread... and the takeaway is that lorak isn't meant to be taken seriously given his posts in this thread.

I was shocked when I clicked the PC board and saw this post 5 pages deep

I mean Draymond is a very very nice player.. but this is David Robinson.. can you imagine a prime Robinson playing in today's league? Or a Ewing, Shaq, Malone, etc..

[EasternHeretic]

I mean, I used to be the one strongly touting Curry's gravity and Green being the main beneficiary of that, but...we've consistently seen Green play great without Curry. When Curry missed time in the playoffs last year, it was Green that led them to wins, and he played great without him. +/- stats have consistently shown Green to be equal or superior to Curry, even when adjusting for teammates, with a large sample size. That doesn't mean he's better than Curry, but at the very least, his contributions shouldn't be dismissed so easily, just because we think he's not "supposed to" have the impact he's having.

And this is a question of what's more important exactly...a super duper role player, or a guy that's very good at a lot of things, but isn't great enough at anything to be the best offensive player on a championship-level team? That term role player turns people off I guess, but it pretty much refers to anyone that doesn't score a lot of points, and intuitively, I feel like you can definitely equal a volume scorer's impact if you're good enough at everything else...which Green seems to be.

So offensively, I'm more in agreement with lorak and SSB here...if you had to pick their ideal roles, I think I might lean towards Green's skillset. Robinson WOULD play a lot more like Tyson Chandler if you surrounded him with ideal teammates, because his ideal teammates would probably be better offensive players than him. Essentially, both Green and Robinson would be asked to do the bulk of their damage in the non-scoring departments, in which Green is undoubtedly better than Robinson. Better ball handler, better shooter, better passer, better court vision. Overall, a guy that I would say is a far better offensive playmaker than Robinson. Robinson has his own advantages as well, namely his pure athleticism, in which I don't know if anyone in the history of the game could stack up to Robinson in that regard, as well as his size and finishing ability. They would contribute differently, but I'm having a hard time saying who would be better, but Green's skill set is more versatile, so I would probably go with him.

I've generally felt that Robinson's offense gets pretty massively overrated in general, because people just can't imagine that a 30 ppg, 5 apg player could still be a significantly flawed scorer and an average passer, and that asking him to put up 30 ppg and 5 apg is really not the best strategy to maximize his or his team's offensive impact. I've long defended KG's offensive superiority to D-Rob, and I stand by that, without a lot of hesitation. Yeah, he was pretty much forced into being THAT guy on those 90s Spurs teams, but those 90s Spurs teams never really went anywhere, precisely because asking Robinson to be THAT guy was not conducive to playoff success, imo.

Defensively though, Robinson is in the discussion for GOAT. Draymond is the best defensive player in the league today, but he's a tier below Robinson's level. Guys like Russell, Walton, Mutombo, B. Wallace, Duncan, KG, and Hakeem, those are the guys I'd put on Robinson's level defensively. Draymond's not there.

So my answer is, there's a bigger gap on defense. Offense is essentially a wash, but Robinson had more defensive impact.

Pretty much agree with this - I think people see D-Rob's offensive numbers/box scores and think that he must've been offensively elite. Unfortunately, those numbers almost never held up against quality defenses (peak D-Rob from 94-96 got merked by Utah and Houston) and he was wildly inconsistent. I'm pretty low on D-Rob's offense overall compared to his numbers (sorry t-rex ) and really, we should be diving deeper into how people generated their points instead of just using several slightly different stats to represent offensive ability/impact. 30 points from Shaq or Hakeem isn't the same as 30 from Malone or D-Rob.

An ideal team for D-Rob would have him putting up ~20 a game on like 65+% TS. I don't think replacing D-Rob with Draymond on those Spurs makes them better - probably worse, but it's not an ideal fit for either anyway. On an ideal offensive team, neither guy would be the primary scorer, but I think Draymond's non-scoring skills overall are better than D-Rob's. I'm aware that D-Rob's teammates in the 90s weren't that good and that he was easily the best player, but it's not like they went anywhere in the playoffs. They made the CF once before Duncan and it's only because Seattle got upset by LA in the 1st round. They were an RS team and part of that was because D-Rob's offensive skillset didn't hold up well in the playoffs.

I think that's a definitely

[GMATCallahan]

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.

... maybe you are thinking of the late-career David Robinson who won two championships with Tim Duncan, as opposed to the David Robinson of 1989-1998 who received an MVP Award (and a Defensive Player of the Year Award), led San Antonio to the best record in the NBA one year, and won a scoring title.

I happen to feel that even though he is not a "superstar" or a natural scorer, Draymond Green easily constitutes one of the ten best players in the NBA, basically a fusion of Anthony Mason and Jason Kidd. But David Robinson was on a whole other level. He was a dominant scorer and, although not a playmaker per se like Green, a good passer in his own right. When Robinson led the NBA in points per game in '93-'94 at 29.8, he also averaged 4.8 assists—an extremely high figure for a center. Somehow, without Avery Johnson (who spent the year in Golden State, leaving the Spurs without a starting-caliber true point guard) and Sean Elliott (who spent the year in Detroit after being swapped for Dennis Rodman), San Antonio ranked fourth in the NBA in Offensive Rating (points scored per possession) that season.

http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/SAS/1994.html

Obviously, Robinson constituted the overwhelming reason for that elite offense. I mean, examine that roster. With Terry Cummings well past his prime, there was not much there offensively: a couple of fine shooters in Dale Ellis and Vinny Del Negro (although the latter was certainly not much of a three-point shooter that year), a versatile swingman in Willie Anderson, and then Dennis Rodman to give you offensive rebounds and some good passing. But Rodman, of course, constituted a liability as a scorer.

You could fully build an elite offense around David Robinson, whereas Draymond Green is much more questionable in that regard. Maybe Robinson was not the best "go-to guy," but was Shaquille O'Neal? The truth is that Robinson was a generally unstoppable offensive player with tremendous versatility as a scorer and pretty good passing ability, too. Overall, Green is not nearly the offensive force that Robinson happened to be. He is a fine complementary player on offense, but not a powerhouse.

Frankly, I do not see how this question is even a question, so to speak.

[GMATCallahan]

An ideal team for D-Rob would have him putting up ~20 a game on like 65+% TS. I don't think replacing D-Rob with Draymond on those Spurs makes them better - probably worse, but it's not an ideal fit for either anyway. On an ideal offensive team, neither guy would be the primary scorer, but I think Draymond's non-scoring skills overall are better than D-Rob's. I'm aware that D-Rob's teammates in the 90s weren't that good and that he was easily the best player, but it's not like they went anywhere in the playoffs. They made the CF once before Duncan and it's only because Seattle got upset by LA in the 1st round. They were an RS team and part of that was because D-Rob's offensive skillset didn't hold up well in the playoffs.

Really? You know that how? The Spurs won the most games in the NBA that season; the basic reason why they failed to win the West was because Hakeem Olajuwon was just on another level—for peak value arguably the greatest player ever (note that I said, "arguably").

And, yes, Green's non-scoring offensive skills are better than Robinson's, but Green does not begin to approach Robinson as a scorer. Even if Robinson struggled in some playoff series, there is no comparison in that regard. Frankly, Green is easily a worse scorer than such Robinson teammates as Sean Elliott and Dale Ellis, let alone Robinson himself.

[Senior]

An ideal team for D-Rob would have him putting up ~20 a game on like 65+% TS. I don't think replacing D-Rob with Draymond on those Spurs makes them better - probably worse, but it's not an ideal fit for either anyway. On an ideal offensive team, neither guy would be the primary scorer, but I think Draymond's non-scoring skills overall are better than D-Rob's. I'm aware that D-Rob's teammates in the 90s weren't that good and that he was easily the best player, but it's not like they went anywhere in the playoffs. They made the CF once before Duncan and it's only because Seattle got upset by LA in the 1st round. They were an RS team and part of that was because D-Rob's offensive skillset didn't hold up well in the playoffs.

Really? You know that how? The Spurs won the most games in the NBA that season; the basic reason why they failed to win the West was because Hakeem Olajuwon was just on another level—for peak value arguably the greatest player ever (note that I said, "arguably").

And, yes, Green's non-scoring offensive skills are better than Robinson's, but Green does not begin to approach Robinson as a scorer. Even if Robinson struggled in some playoff series, there is no comparison in that regard. Frankly, Green is easily a worse scorer than such Robinson teammates as Sean Elliott and Dale Ellis, let alone Robinson himself.

The 90s Spurs almost always underperformed in the playoffs. They lost in the 1st round in 1994/1996 to Utah because Utah was a terrible matchup for them - slow, grinder, intelligently coached, took care of the ball (huge problem for D-Rob as he relied significantly on transition points), plus Malone was probably the worst matchup in the league for D-Rob apart from Hakeem because Malone's physicality and strength made D-Rob tentative and his offense fell off a cliff from the regular season. At no point during the 90s did I think the Spurs beat an evenly matched team or won a series they shouldn't have. And when you say "Hakeem was on another level" well, the other premier players such as Barkley and Malone seemed to outplay D-Rob by significant margins as well.

Again, those Spurs were built for the RS. D-Rob's strengths played to the tone of a regular season - amazing athleticism and always took the effort to pick up the easy points such as transition buckets, dump offs/alley oops and such. Most teams either couldn't handle the athleticism or didn't have the time/willingness to deploy specific coaching plans against the Spurs. When those Spurs ran into title contenders that could gameplan for D-Rob's weaknesses and handle his athleticism, they crashed hard.

Even though Seattle and SA never played in the playoffs, Seattle was the kind of team that would give D-Rob a lot of trouble because their team defense was excellent at rotating to the post and then coming back out to challenge shooters/guards, which is kind of what the Spurs thrived on. Seattle's offense was kind of spotty because they didn't have otherworldly talent or a defined offensive system (part of why they were upset in 1994 and 1995) and D-Rob could own them on the defensive side, but I don't see D-Rob having a good offensive series at all against the mid 90s Sonics. FWIW the 93-96 Spurs were 5-7 vs the 93-96 Sonics...but D-Rob's offense looks inconsistent. The Sonics roster changed quite a bit over that era but the basic defense was in place.

I agree that D-Rob's a way better scorer than Green. What I disagree is how much that matters because on an ideal team, D-Rob wouldn't be putting up 25-30 a game, more like 18-22. I already know Green can put up 14 a game, but he's a way better passer + playmaker than D-Rob. I do think D-Rob's defense is better than Green but I'd rather have Green on a team with championship-level offensive players (and a team that doesn't need absolutely elite rim protection).