cecilthesheep wrote:FrogBros4Life wrote:As someone who watched the entirety of David Robinson's career, I'm surprised so many people are ranking him this highly. I'm curious as to whether most of you actually watched him play or if you are only going off of his stats. He only anchored one "elite" defense before the Spurs got Duncan. Not sure how you can vote anyone other than Wilt or Thurmond here. I'm not sure Olajuwon should have gone before those two either, but Hakeem at #2 is much easier to argue than Robinson at #3. After Olajuwon/Wilt/Thurman, I think the next 3 are probably Mutombo/Ewing/Wallace (in some order). Robinson would be in the next tier with Howard/Mourning and Wes Unseld. Then you also have guys like KAJ and Shaq, both of whom impacted defenses with their sheer presence in ways that stats and boxscores can't properly capture (though I'd put Robinson above them both defensively).
Robinson was a very good defender overall, and an elite shot blocker/rim protector, but there's more to defense than blocking shots. I'll again point to the fact that the Spurs didn't really turn into a truly great defensive team until Duncan's arrival. Robinson wasn't as good of a man to man defender as Mutombo/Ewing/Wallace, though he was the best at jumping the passing lanes. He wasn't as good at switching on pick and rolls as he's getting credit for either. And in crunch time during the post season, he was actually targeted more than he was feared.
This isn't just about the one series vs. Hakeem either. Shaq and Karl Malone both ate his lunch repeatedly, and who can forget Charles Barkely with Robinson on an island...sizing him up at the end of game 6 in the 93 playoffs before sending the Spurs home. That's the matchup Charles and the Suns wanted on that possession. Chuck had been lighting up Robinson all game. I'm not sure you can take any of the other guys mentioned and think of a time where another superstar player deliberately wanted them to guard them. But with Robinson in the playoffs that was often the case.
As a Spurs fan, this is definitely a big part of why I'm staying away from the Admiral for now. I think he was an underrated team defender and the matchup exploitation makes him look worse than he really was, but it still happened. One-on-one defense is an important part of defense too. David's defensive reputation didn't really solidify as positive, let alone great, until Duncan arrived to complete the back line and help out with some of the tougher matchups.
I don't know what to say (but I'm going to try to find the words). I watched most of his career unfold in realtime, too (for whatever that's worth, given most of us were kids/teenagers for his pre-injury career--->don't know that age 16 me had more valid opinions than old me watching the same player on YouTube; EDIT: in fact, I almost guarantee the opposite is true), and I got a different opinion regarding his team defense and pnr defense and switchability.
These kinds of exchanges illustrate the problem with the "eye-test" as the sole component (or perhaps even a majority component) of any basketball opinion. Don't get me wrong: it's needed, definitely a
necessary component of any criteria.
But here we are, both watching the same player(s) [probably in many of the same games], and arriving at different conclusions.
Either one of us is wrong,
or both of us are wrong......otherwise we'd arrive at the same conclusions. And that (50+% of participants being "wrong") is true of any major disagreement on this forum. This is where some objective indicators are handy, especially if you can correlate them to what you see. Not every bit of evidence needs to agree with a person to "validate" his opinion; but if nearly every bit of evidence contradicts what he thinks......idk, that probably should give one pause.
I'm next going to address a few specific statements made.....
Re: Robinson "only anchored one "elite" defense before the Spurs got Duncan"Semantics are important. In the previous thread we had a poster declare Hakeem could "make defenses elite basically by himself". FrogBros is saying Robinson only anchored ONE "elite" defense prior to Duncan.
Well, Hakeem only anchored THREE defenses (in 18 seasons) that were better than what the Spurs AVERAGED in Robinson's SEVEN full seasons before Duncan arrived. To say the least, there must be a significant semantic disagreement on the meaning of "elite" between these two posters.
Or maybe the problem/discrepancy lies elsewhere; in a misconception, perhaps. FrogBros also goes on to say Robinson has no place being ahead of Nate Thurmond. Well, if Robinson only anchored one "elite" defense prior to Duncan, then technically, Thurmond anchored precisely ZERO elite defenses in his career. He appears to have only been a part of ONE "elite" defense in his career (playing alongside Wilt in his rookie season; probably can't be called the "anchor" with Wilt being there, and with Thurmond playing just 25.9 mpg that season).
Hakeem anchored only two "elite" defenses, too, I guess. For one of them he had solid defensive teammates in Vernon Maxwell and Robert Horry at least. For Robinson's one elite defense (I assume it's got to be the best one of his pre-Duncan years, '91), his only really notable defensive teammate was 32-yr-old Paul Pressey (who played 24 mpg).
Re: "Chuck had been lighting him up all game."Hmm.....in that game Barkley had 28 pts on just 50.1% TS (45.8% eFG%), 4 ORebs, 4 ast, 4 tov; and that was in 42 minutes playing time; his individual ORtg was 100 in that game (poor, and below even the team average). Prior to that shot he had 26 pts on 48.2% TS (43.5% eFG%). Wouldn't exactly call that "lighting him up". And looking at the play again [I did so just now], I can't see that as any kind of poor defense or misplay on Robinson's part. It's a lightly contested pull-up jumper from 20 ft......that's pretty much the shot you
want Barkley taking, no?. Should Robinson have played him tighter? Risk allowing him to get into the painted area [where he's most dangerous, and not remotely close], or put greater risk of fouling him in a tie game?
So the shot went in......that doesn't equal poor defense (thinking so is result-oriented thinking). And the above stat-line indicates Barkley wasn't exactly "lighting up" anyone.
The Suns as a team had a 103.8 ORtg that game (they were 113.3 ORtg in the rs). The Suns had a 102.8 ORtg for the series (
-10.5 from rs standard).
Can't remember if Barkley was being primarily guarded by Robinson much of the series, tbh, but Barkley for the series avg 26.2 ppg @ 53.8% TS (46.7% eFG%), 2.8 oreb, 3.3 apg, 2.8 topg in 40.2 mpg. In the rs he'd averaged 25.6 ppg (in just 37.6 mpg) @ 59.6% TS, 3.1 oreb, 5.1 apg, 3.1 topg.
"The fact that a proposition is absurd has never hindered those who wish to believe it." -Edward Rutherfurd
"Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities." - Voltaire
