Retro POY '90-91 (Voting Complete)

[An Unbiased Fan]

Robinson was better: .615 and 750 TS%
And of course he played defense.

IMO top 3 has to be: MJ, Magic and Robinson - in that order. After that fun starts.

Barkley as a PF had a higher TS% than DRob did. 64% vs 61%

And while DRob put up a ridiculous 75% TS against the Warriors, that was by Nelson's design. That was Run TMC, they were a run & gun team. They were HORRIBLE on defense, and had zero paint presence, so I have to take DRob's series against them with a grain of salt. Run TMC gave up 115 ppg, and had the #2 pace in the league.

Barkley led Philly to a 1st round upset of the Bucks, who only gave up 104 ppg, and #17 in pace.

Barkley's numbers are more impressive.

These numbers are only about one side of the floor. What with the other - defense?

But GS ran circles around DRob though. He couldn't handle the 4 guard line up at all on the defensive side.

So we again ignore 82 games of regular season? And no matter that Robinson was way better defender than Barkley and on offense they were comparable...

Not at all. DRob's defense is a major plus for his case. I just feel that Barkley's overall year was better. Especially leadership-wise.

[JordansBulls]

I almost forget the Spurs lost to the Warriors in the 1st round that year.

But the man shot 69% in the playoffs and still got the same numbers he got in the season. But still he should never have lost to the Warriors that year.

[JordansBulls]

Win Shares isn't determining which player was or is "better".

If WS is an estimate of how many wins a player contributed, then it claims Horace Grant had a better rate of contributing wins than did Scottie Pippen, every year until 1994, when Pippen barely edges Grant.

WS loves Horace enough to list his career WS/48 rate (.147) as greater than that of Pippen, Sikma, Ben and Rasheed Wallace, Cousy, Mullin, Havlicek, Kidd, Cummings, English, Iverson, Greer, Hayes, Billy C, Cowens, Twyman, Webber, Worthy, Haywood, Archibald, McGinnis, Monroe, Bernard King, ...

In 1992 and 1993 Grant was 2nd on the Bulls in both the season and playoffs. And even in 1994 in the playoffs he was ahead of Scottie.

[Doctor MJ]

So we again ignore 82 games of regular season? And no matter that Robinson was way better defender than Barkley and on offense they were comparable...

I don't advocate ignoring anything.

Here's what I'll say: Barkley's team did better than Robinson's. Not only did his team get further, than Robinson's, but they gave the eventual champions arguably their toughest challenge, whereas Robinson's team's first round loss came at the hands of a mediocre team that honestly scares no one.

So there's a few places you can go with this:

-Treat the playoffs purely as a low sample size fluky thing, and simply treat them as more games in the season.

-Treat the playoffs as the true testament of how good a team is, and base team-success evaluations totally on that.

-Be wary of either extreme, give players and teams the benefit of the doubt, and only adjust conclusions only when you see a continued trend.

Obviously if you believe something like the first option, then we can stop the discussion.

For the other two, given Robinson's track record, it does make sense to talk about whether Robinson deserves to be ranked above Barkley despite leading a less successful team.

The offense-defense thing is still a good argument. However, I find myself wondering about Robinson's total impact given his struggles when it's all on the line. Barkley is leading a weak supporting cast here too (as mentioned before, the Sixers were tuurrible for a half decade after he left), he's providing big lift - and over the course of years it seems pretty clear that Barkley's teams do fine when matched up against the big centers of the era. How certain are we that "Robinson does everything Barkley does, plus all-world defense?"

I think it's worth noting that while Barkley scores like a big man, he lacks the dependence on perimeter players big men typically have because of his ability to handle the ball and make great passes on the fly. Rebound-wise, Barkley's absolutely stellar - note how his offense rebounding is better than Robinson's despite the fact that Barkley had more of an outside game. Barkley was able to force his will on the game in these ways more so than Robinson.

Now Robinson's got the D advantage, but a huge question all through this project is how tough his D really is. If you sold strongly enough, I'd expect you to pick Robinson.

[mysticbb]

Win Shares isn't determining which player was or is "better". ;)

If WS is an estimate of how many wins a player contributed, then it claims Horace Grant had a better rate of contributing wins than did Scottie Pippen, every year until 1994, when Pippen barely edges Grant.

On a per minute rate? Yes, but you should probably look more at the overall picture. Pippen beats out Grant in terms of WS per 82 games, because Pippen played more minutes per game. Assuming that coaches aren't idiots that might have had a reason.
Anyway, looking at Grant with 0.147 and Pippen with 0.146 I would rather say they contributed about the same per minute (especially when we apply that 5% human error I pointed out before). Which isn't unreasonable at all, because Grant was the better rebounder per minute and was more efficient in terms of using his possessions (slightly higher ts%, lower to-r). Now you might think that this will overrate Grant, but you should keep in mind that a simple combination of the team's ts% and to-r will explain the team's ORtg rather good.

Now you might answer that Pippen was the better playmaker, which is true. But that doesn't make him necessarily the more contributing player after all. Especially in an offensive system like the TPO. That system actually helped Grant more than Pippen. Keeping that in mind can explain that Grant is on par with Pippen in WS/48.

Overall only because the WS/48 are equal doesn't make Grant equal to Pippen as an overall player. That example also shows that relying just on one stats can give a misleading impression. In that case a look at PER will give us some more informations. Pippen clearly scores better in PER than Grant, while in WS both are fairly equal. My overall conclusion taking those two numbers into account: Pippen > Grant

WS loves Horace enough to list his career WS/48 rate (.147) as greater than that of Pippen, Sikma, Ben and Rasheed Wallace, Cousy, Mullin, Havlicek, Kidd, Cummings, English, Iverson, Greer, Hayes, Billy C, Cowens, Twyman, Webber, Worthy, Haywood, Archibald, McGinnis, Monroe, Bernard King, ...

I assume you are listed players who are scoring better in your eWin thing. Now my question would be: How much can eWins explain the team's overall wins? Is there a correlation?

It is also necessary to keep in mind that the boxscore stats are usually more accurate in terms of offense than defense, just due to the fact that the boxscore has more numbers regarding offense than defense (and the defensive numbers aren't even great in terms of correlation to DRtg).

Anyway, only because you might have found an example in which WS overrates a player in comparison to another, doesn't make it a bad stats. I personally wouldn't use it as the EOD number anyway.

[mysticbb]

Now Robinson's got the D advantage, but a huge question all through this project is how tough his D really is. If you sold strongly enough, I'd expect you to pick Robinson.

Well, in comparison to Barkley? Easy choice for me. ;)

[tkb]

Ive got

1. Michael Jordan
2. Magic Johnson
3. Charles Barkley
4. David Robinson
5. Scottie Pippen

[JordansBulls]

I am kinda surprised Pippen is getting more votes this year than he was getting in any other year other than 1998.

[ronnymac2]

Charles Barkley is like a combination of Shaq and Larry Bird on offense. He is sort of like Shaq with his offensive rebounding, insane ability to get deep post position and back people down for easy layups, and soft touch around the rim. Plus he gets to the line a lot. He's like Larry Bird in that he shoots his free throws way better than Shaq, has full-court ball-handling ability, and can pass the ball and create for others anywhere in the halfcourt. Throw in Lebron James's ability in the open floor, and you've got Charles Barkley.

[kaima]

[*] David Robinson - Pretty stellar season, especially considering it was just his 2nd year in the league. This time he actually played well in the post-season, but ultimately it wasn't enough to advance to the 2nd round.


[*] Karl Malone - Great RS, but disappointing finish in the playoffs. This time we can't blame Stockton as he played pretty well against the Blazers, so I think it just boils down to Malone not having that great of an impact -- at least not as great as his numbers would suggest.

I have some real problems with this.

The first is that Malone is getting docked for not having enough impact against a loaded Portland team when considering help to his side -- the reason this is a problem is because Robinson arguably had as much or more help against a less talented, much softer team in the Warriors and yet he gets praised for his playoff performance even though SA lost in the first round.

Consider, in game 1 the Spurs had three players score 30+ -- Robinson had 30, Strickland as well, and Willie Anderson went for nearly 40. In game 2, Robinson scored 28, with 26 from Terry Cummings and 19 from Anderson; game 3, sees all five starters score in double figures, with Elliot scoring 24; game 4 sees two guys over 20, neither of them named David Robinson (18 points), when Rod Strickland and Sean Elliot score 21 and 23 respectively.

Not once in the Portland series did Malone have a teammate score as many as 25 points. Malone had 3 games where he scored between 30 and 40 points, while also having three straight performances where he averaged no fewer than 16 rebounds. Robinson scored 30 once, and not once did he hit 16 on rebounding.

Now, you can say that Robinson had more impact in other places, but where? When we look at defense, the Warriors did pretty much whatever they wanted; the Warriors of 92, without Mitch but with a record that was 11 games better and an SRS that was more than doubled, were taken apart by George Karl's muppet baby (Kemp, Payton) Sonics. The Spurs did nothing to effect the Warriors' ORtg in the playoffs: it was 111.9 in the regular season, and 111.8 against DRob's Spurs.

This is another Nellie smallball team, where nobody over 6'7" played more than 13.75 minutes per night. The Blazers had a Buck Williams (6'8"), a real defensive banger, and Duckworth (7'0") each playing 35 per night against Malone, in a starting lineup that included two other guys at 6'7" and averaged out to a height that matched; that's not including bench players like Cliffy (6'10") and Mark Bryant (6'9").

Run TMC's main rotation guys, averaging between 11 (Petersen) and 44.75 (Mullin) minutes per, had an aggregate of 233.25 minutes over the 4 games. Players 6'7" and over lay claim to 58.5 of those minutes; 6'6" and under, basically perimeter players, played 174.75 minutes per game.

Guys 6'7" or higher (two players over that mark; Petersen at 6'10" played about 11 minutes, and Hill at 6'9" got 13.75) averaged 25% of those main rotation minutes, while guys 6'6" and under took 75%.

For Portland against Utah, the aggregate for main rotation guys (10 minutes or above was my cutoff) was 230.8. Players 6'8" and taller played 101.8 of those minutes; at 6'7" and taller, the number is 176.2, while guys 6'6" or shorter played 54.6 minutes in a five game span.

Guys 6'8" or taller (Williams, Duckworth, Bryant, Robinson) took 44.1% of those minutes; 6'7" or taller were on the floor for 76.3% of that time.

Some voted Drexler over Malone in the prior thread, even when it was obvious that Malone's Jazz were outmanned in depth and his star PG teammate was thoroughly outplayed; meaning Malone is punished when he's the only one that man's up against a loaded opponent one year and, then, is punished explicitly, as a base argument, the previous or (in this case) next year because his star teammate plays better against that same loaded opponent, even while Malone still puts up big stats. It seems that Malone can't win with some people.

If Stockton plays like crap? Doesn't matter, somehow it's assumed that he's giving Malone his stats (even when he misses a full half and Malone scores nearly 30 in that same span). Stockton plays well? Then Malone's stats, likewise, don't count, at least as much as they otherwise would.

The basis for the argument is constant, but not fair.

My feeling on it is similar to how I see Shaq against Utah in 98 or Houston in 95: a star performer that played damn good basketball in a futile effort. I wouldn't tend to dock Shaq too much in either instance, and in Malone's case there isn't even a star post player that you can say went toe to toe with or outplayed him in these Portland series, even as it's obvious that the Blazers were very talented up front.

Getting back to Malone V Robinson directly, Karl scored 29.1 per against Portland which had strong interior D and a lot of length, while Robinson scores 25.8 per against a team that doesn't play anyone over 6'7" more than 13-14 minutes (Tyrone Hill, 6'9") a night. Malone also averaged 14.6 rebounds per night against Portland, while Robinson averaged 13.5 against a team of SFs and guards when considering size.

I don't understand how Malone is seen in a bad light while Robinson gets praise for that, relatively speaking. Are we now going to rank Robinson higher just as long as he's reasonably good, no matter if the other guy's performance is better?

[kaima]

Yeah, I'm with AUB fan. Classic Nellie. I have to say though, I respect his creativity and willingness to do different things with his lineups.

Robinson played really well, but I mean, I honestly wouldn't expect anything less against such an awfully designed defensive team. Robinson gets credit for doing what he was supposed to do as an individual. That won't automatically put him at three for me.

I don't blame Robinson, necessarily, for losing to the Warriors. Nellie has pulled this sort of thing many times over.

It seems his ideology is great for upsets, but lousy at contention.

My problem with Robinson goes back to his supporters' arguments for him, in this case. We hear constantly about his defensive ability, yet I can't find a playoff series from his prime or peak where he took apart the opposing squad on D.

Same thing with the Warriors. They matched their high-powered regular season ORtg. Yet Robinson's defenders keep telling us that he's better than Barkley, or Malone, because of his ability to negatively impact an entire opposing squad through his defense.

It seems this is a hypothetical ideal rather than reality.

Then, you compare his ability to, say, Barkley as an offensive anchor, and there's no doubt as to who the better player was.

And Malone? I've seen his positional defense literally destroy Robinson and thus his team in head to head battles. On offense? Please!

[sp6r=underrated]

I don't understand how Malone is seen in a bad light while Robinson gets praise for that, relatively speaking. Are we now going to rank Robinson higher just as long as he's reasonably good, no matter if the other guy's performance is better?

I try to avoid answering a question with a question, but in this case it is reasonable. You are a big Malone supporter. You are also a Robinson critic due to his playoff failures.

Malone also has a negative rap in the PS. His claim to fame in the RS above all is his monstrous scoring/efficiency. There was a clear trend of a decline in his efficiency in the PS.

From 88-00, his TS% declined in the PS in average of 0.056. His per 36 ppg, declined by 2.4 ppg over that span. This is a clear trend that Malone was not able to sustain his scoring efficiency in the PS.

Why do you generally avoid criticizing Malone for this?

[kaima]

I am kinda surprised Pippen is getting more votes this year than he was getting in any other year other than 1998.

I don't know if he'll make my cut (tough year, lots of high-powered alpha players at or near peak), but his performance on Magic after game 1 (where, as I recall, Jordan tried guarding him which led to Magic facilitating LA's only win in the series) was impressive, and may be a very underrated part of the Bulls' relative ease in defeating LA.

Couple of articles that deal with this:

Lakers must react to Bulls' tactics/Series key becomes defense
EDDIE SEFKO Staff

INGLEWOOD, Calif. - It was hard to tell whether Byron Scott really was irritated or if he merely had reached the breaking point in frustration and overreacted. But he obviously didn't appreciate what he saw.

The Los Angeles Lakers' guard had just been called for a flagrant foul in Game 2 of the NBA Finals on Wednesday night. Then he watched Chicago's Michael Jordan, the foulee, start jawing near the Lakers' bench.

"We noticed Michael taunting our bench," Scott said. "That's not something you do early in the series.

"But since he's Michael, I guess he feels like he can get away with it. I've seen him do it before, so it doesn't surprise me.

"But it's got us all upset and we'll be ready at home."

OK, so now the Lakers are back home after achieving a split in the opening two games at Chicago. Even if the 107-86 blowout loss in Game 2 bruised egos, the Lakers control the series.

If they win their three home games, the Lakers will be NBA champions Wednesday. Game 3 tips off tonight at 8 p.m. at the Forum.

Even though the Lakers are happy to be home with the series knotted at 1, they have reason to be worried, and not just because of Jordan's taunting. If the Lakers only had to deal with a little gamesmanship, they would be thrilled.

Jordan said he meant no disrespect, but then, what else would hesay?

"I never taunted anyone," he said. "Anything I did was more or less motivational, all the stuff players do to motivate themselves and their teammates.

"I never said anything to anyone. I felt it was misinterpreted, but then, they can use that as motivation.

"But both sides show emotion and I think Byron took it out of context."

Other than Scott, most of the Lakers were willing to dismiss Jordan's rather harmless antics as just that.

The greater concern, they said, is defense - Scott's ability to play it against Jordan and Magic Johnson's ability to get around Chicago's. Jordan obliterated the Lakers as both a point guard and a scoring guard in Game 2; Scottie Pippen shackled Johnson. Pippen anchored the Bulls' defense, which has limited the Lakers to an average of 89.5 points in the first two games of the series.

In fact, there were references going around in the postgame revelry that he had turned into Scottie Rodman, a compliment that Pippen had pulled off a defensive assignment with the sort of vigor expected out of Detroit's Dennis Rodman, the league's Defensive Player of the Year the past two seasons.

"When Scottie plays defense like that, it motivates all the other guys," teammate Horace Grant said. "For now, Scottie Pippen is going to be on Magic."

Coach Phil Jackson would neither confirm nor deny that possibility. But it was obvious Pippen was the cornerstone to the Bulls' defense in Game 2.

But it is Jackson's philosophy to have a strong defense and take what he can get on offense.

"My rewards to my players are very simple," Jackson said. "If my guys play defense, then I allow them to play basketball. If I can trust a guy out there on the floor defensively, then I can play him."

So far in the playoffs, Jackson hasn't found anybody he can't trust. The Bulls have held opponents to fewer than 100 points 12 times in 14 playoff games.

In Game 2 against LA, the Bulls did a superb job of making Johnson give up the ball or force difficult shots on the move. It developed into a situation where Johnson seemed to be looking for fouls more than trying to convert shots.

If the Bulls have proven anything during their 12-2 run through the playoffs, it is they will not let teams get into a scoring derby against them.

The Lakers have suffered a fast-break drought so far in the Finals. The root of this evil is the Bulls' quickness defensively, Johnson said.

"Their team quickness is unbelievable," Johnson said. "You have to play them to appreciate just how good their team defense is. They play better team defense than Detroit."

Jordan, who spent the first two games meandering in and out of foul trouble, said he has come to appreciate the Bulls' defensive attitude.

"It's a great feeling knowing that somebody is watching your back for you," he said.

Meanwhile, it remains to be seen who will start watching Scott's back against Jordan. Not that it is a crime to get lit up by Jordan, who has scored 36 and 33 points in the first two games.

But it is how Jordan has done his damage that should frighten the Lakers. He loaded up the bulk of his points in quick style, triggering the runs that gave the Bulls a big lead in Game 2.

"I looked up at one point in the second quater and we were up by five points and Michel had only scored two," Jackson said. "He made an effort to get everybody else involved."

But there came a time when Jordan decided he would blow the game open. And he did.

Scott picked up four fouls in less than four minutes during the third quarter of Game 2. Up to that point, he had done a decent job on Jordan.

"When Michael gets it going, he can roll over teams," Jackson said.

And he can let them know about it as well.

Jordan made gestures and mouthed a few words at the Lakers' bench on several occasions in Game 2. Once, after he hit a jumper, he raised his arms out, palms up, as if to say, "What are you going to do to stop this?"

The Lakers don't have an answer. But rest assured they won't forget Jordan's actions.

No help for Magic

The Los Angeles Lakers feel at fault for allowing Magic Johnson to be manhandled by Scottie Pippen in Game 2 Wednesday night, and they don't expect it to happen again.

James Worthy said he thought the Lakers did a poor job of relieving the pressure Pippen put on Johnson. Pippen limited Johnson, a 22-point scorer in the playoffs, to 14 points.

"We've got to set some picks for him when Pippen's on him like that," Worthy said. "To allow your point guard to be handled like that is not right."

Pippen was jamming his body against Johnson and it obviously bothered the Lakers' guard. "It was nothing like Boston (in the Finals during the '80s)," Johnson said. "Some nights, you're going to get your butt kicked. That's what happened.

"We've been able to bounce back before. The Bulls made their adjustments. Now it's our turn."

[kaima]

I don't understand how Malone is seen in a bad light while Robinson gets praise for that, relatively speaking. Are we now going to rank Robinson higher just as long as he's reasonably good, no matter if the other guy's performance is better?

I try to avoid answering a question with a question, but in this case it is reasonable.

So in other words, you're trying to switch pace. You want to see me on defense rather than offense.

I'd really like an answer as far as Robinson's playoff issues; it's not a case where his efficiency drops but he still shows good results. He played like trash in the playoffs at his peak.

You are a big Malone supporter. You are also a Robinson critic due to his playoff failures.

Malone also has a negative rap in the PS. His claim to fame in the RS above all is his monstrous scoring/efficiency. There was a clear trend of a decline in his efficiency in the PS.

From watching Malone, I generally saw a player that played well in the playoffs.

I would criticize him for three big chokes (FTs game 7 against Seattle; FTs game 1 against CHI; tantric choke that would have turned David Carradine on against Portland in game 6 of 99) in his career, but saw a guy that typically played some very good basketball during his peak when the playoffs rolled around.

I thought Malone was the best player for most of 99; but I would take him down a spot, possibly two, for that game 6 against Portland alone.

Consistent with my arguments for Robinson, though Rob's failiures were typically more matchup-specific and series-long.

From 88-00, his TS% declined in the PS in average of 0.056. His per 36 ppg, declined by 2.4 ppg over that span. This is a clear trend that Malone was not able to sustain his scoring efficiency in the PS.

Why do you generally avoid criticizing Malone for this?

Simply, as I've stated, I'm a bigger believer in on-court action than advanced metrics. When Malone's TS% is low for, say, the 96 playoffs, but his performance in the games I watch show me a player that's dominating, and arguably the second best of the post-season behind Jordan, I'll trust my knowledge of skillsets over advanced formulas.

Further, despite what stats may tell you, Malone was often good when things got ugly, both statistically or on-court. His game was based largely around an effectiveness that wouldn't necessarily comply with or collate well as "efficiency" -- partial reverse-angle Knicks, in that Malone would often manipulate and force action to create, for instance, foul trouble; sometimes this would result in wild shots that missed and were counted against him as the officials swallowed their whistles, but it often would likewise create an overall atmosphere and pace to the game that favored Malone and Utah.

Under this, I think Malone was built for playoff baskeball in a way that many weren't.

It also returns to my argument about efficiency ratings being worth far less than skillsets, and how the two are often at odds.

All this is to say, I think I've been explaining my stance for a long time now.

Robinson's entire argument is counter to skillsets. It's one of efficiency that overcomes lack of skillsets. But I see that this usually turns in the playoffs.

I've yet to hear a good explanation from his supporters for this. Particularly since they tend to go purely to advanced metrics the rest of the time.

And again, there's little to no evidence that his defense makes up for his offense in the playoffs. It often seems obviated.

[TrueLAfan]

In general, I agree that a player can be dominant while having less than stellar numbers according to one or more advanced statistical metrics. And I think one of the first things I'd look at to show that is the idea that Scottie Pippen “shackled” Magic Johnson. Don't get me wrong—Pippen did a fine job on Magic in games 2-5 of the Finals in terms of keeping Magic's shooting % down. I am sure that Magic's PER or whatever dropped to some degree, since Magic shot 40% in those games. He also went to the line 8 times a game (and hit 97% of his free throws) and averaged 8 boards and 13 assists. During the season, Magic averaged 19.4 points a game, and took 12.4 shots to do it. In games 2-5, Magic averaged 18.5 points and took about 13 shots a game to do it. I remember a guy talking to a Chicago fan in a the bat I was at after game 5. He kept saying “Pippen this, Pippen that.” I didn't have and box scores or advanced stats on me at the moment, and I was pretty hammered, but I remember saying that if Byron F---ing Scott hadn't torn his hammy and Terry Teagle hadn't decided to lie down and die, the Lakers would have had a fighting change. Now, of course, I have the stats. And I can see that Byron Scott and Terry Teagle shot a combined 12-39...that's under 31%...for the series, and scored 43 points. Combined. In the series. And had more turnovers than assists. And combined for under 2 boards a game. Yet what I heard—what I still hear—is about Pippen on Magic. And I've seen people use stats to “show” it. Ha.

Anyway...

1. Michael Jordan. Had better numbers in other years, but this may have been his best year.
2. Magic Johnson. Suffers only by comparison to a peak Michael Jordan. I'll still take a guy that averages 19-8-12 in the Finals and can do it with Scottie Pippen on him and the other big perimeter player—a pretty good defender with the initials MJ—able to help and crowd lanes because he doesn't have to worry about his matchup doing anything.
3. Karl Malone. Malone came to play in 1991. Did it in the RS, did it in the playoffs. Locked up Buck Williams in the Portland series, and Buck Williams was a very good player. (ON the other hand, I thought Terry Porter had a better series than Stockton. See below.)
4. Charles Barkley. Okay, he missed 17 games, and I ding him for that. But I have to put him ahead of Robinson. I have to. When Barkley played, he was great. And against Chicago, on a 44 win team, he went down swinging. Averaged 28 points, 11.5 boards, and 6.5 assists in the last two games of the Bulls playoff series. That makes me push him ahead of the guy at number 5.
5. David Robinson. Yeah, Nellie is good at pulling upsets. But this Spurs team was loaded. Terry Cummings, Sean Elliot, Rod Strickland, Paul Pressey...you can't ask for a much better supporting cast. Or a better coach than Larry Brown. And that series against the Warriors...this is one of the benefits of having been there at the time. Alton Lister went down in game 1. Out for the series. You look at Drob's numbers—25.8 points and 13.5 rebounds and 67% shooting—and you think, “My God, he was great!” His PER score is huge; I'm sure advanced stats say he was huge. Except he playing against Jim Peterson, who was at the end of his line (he scored a total of 43 points in his career after this series), Tyrone Hill (who became a good defender...but was a rookie and out of position at C), and Tom Tolbert, who was a turnstile on D. David Robinson averaged less than 13 shots a game in the series. He knew he was being guarded by chumps, and he averaged less than 13 shots a game. In the elimination game, he took 11 shots. Something is seriously wrong with that. His teammates played well. What the Spurs needed was for their star, who had the greatest mismatch(es) on the court, to dominate. He didn't. Pull out all the statistics you want. David Robinson screwed the pooch big time in the 1991 playoffs.

[lorak]

Barkley is leading a weak supporting cast here too (as mentioned before, the Sixers were tuurrible for a half decade after he left),

But they weren't terrible that season!
Hawkins was All Star, they had Giliam and Mahorn, solid Green and good role players like Anderson.

Now Robinson's got the D advantage, but a huge question all through this project is how tough his D really is.

We are talking only about 1991. Besieds it kind of funny how Robinson's HUGE advantage on D is ignored here, while for example in All Time League no way Barkley 1991 wuld be pick before Robinson 1991. I remember some ATL threads and Barkley defense was criticized as much as possible. Now suddenly it doesn't matter.

BTW, even people at the time think that Robinson was much better:
MVP voting:
Magic 497 pts
Robinson 476
Barkley 222

So Robinson was closer to Magic than Barkley to him. And suddenly 4 post season games are supposed to change that? And Robinson even didn't played bad in post season...

[sp6r=underrated]

And suddenly 4 post season games are supposed to change that? And Robinson even didn't played bad in post season...

True brings up a good point about Robinson not shooting enough. For anyone who saw that series, Was Robinson unable to get the ball for some reason?

[Jimmy76]

And suddenly 4 post season games are supposed to change that? And Robinson even didn't played bad in post season...

True brings up a good point about Robinson not shooting enough. For anyone who saw that series, Was Robinson unable to get the ball for some reason?

just speculating but from the little ive seen of Robinson they likely just packed the paint and gave him no choice but to pull up for a jumper (not he was prone to do) or pass out

[TrueLAfan]

And suddenly 4 post season games are supposed to change that? And Robinson even didn't played bad in post season...

True brings up a good point about Robinson not shooting enough. For anyone who saw that series, Was Robinson unable to get the ball for some reason?

just speculating but from the little ive seen of Robinson they likely just packed the paint and gave him no choice but to pull up for a jumper (not he was prone to do) or pass out

Pack the paint with who?? Tyrone Hill is 6'9” (and he's a PF). Tom Tolbert is 6'7”. With Lister out, the Warriors had to go small. Hill and Tolbert played 39 minutes at C in Game 4. David Robinson was a young, athletic, 7'1” C. He should have been to go over and around those guys at will.

I just looked at Robinsons's usage in the playoffs that year...down from 26.6 during the season to 20.7 in the playoffs. That sort of thing happened to Wilt in the playoff series against Boston. But it's one thing to have your usage reduced by Bill Russell--probably the greatest defensive C of all time--and another to be limited by a combo of Jim Petersen, a rookie PF in Tyrone Hill, and Tom Tolbert.

[Baller 24]

Don't have much time to put in any input, but based on what I've read:
1) Michaell Jordan
2) Magic Johnson
3) Charles Barkley
4) Karl Malone
5) David Robinson