In the last thread, I decided to introduce David Robinson to the discussion. I'm going to expand a little on my thinking at this point of the voting process.
First, while my occasional posts on this forum usually involve defending an older player from hyperbolic diminishment of their abilities, I actually do have a bit of a preference for post-merger players.
Second, I also have a preference for bigs who dominate both offensively and defensively. In my view, Jordan and James are the only wings who have been able to break out of that value ceiling dominated by the two-way big men, and that's largely due to their own outlier athletic traits.
In narrowing down the best two-way bigs of the post-merger NBA (minus Kareem, who was just selected), we're left with a high tier of greats (in sequential order of debut): Olajuwon, Robinson, Garnett, and Duncan. I believe the differences between them are marginal, so I take no umbrage with how they are ranked.
When I'm evaluating them, I look at how they performed, and I also look at their situation and whether they were optimized. It's subjective, but I attempt to balance their attributes with the context. To lay it on the table, I don't believe Robinson was ever properly utilized in his prime. I don't believe Olajuwon was properly utilized until after he was 30. Ditto Garnett. I believe Duncan, while not perfectly utilized, had by far the best situation of the quartet.
So, I tend to pair Robinson and Garnett together. I view them as the best combinations of athleticism and BBIQ. I don't view their playoff exits as personal failings, but the final exhaustion of the extent that they could make their poorly constructed teams overachieve. They did a tremendous amount of carrying. Both were good passers, though Garnett was better. Both were good shooters, though Garnett was better.
Two areas that put the Admiral a bit ahead for me. One, his rim pressure. Robinson was fouled on 58% of his shot attempts. He was no flopper. That's the same frequency as Shaq (I'll use him for comparison here), and much, much higher than KG, Tim, and Hakeem. From the data we have, roughly 94% of Shaq's recorded shots came within 10 feet of the rim, while 62% of Robinson's recorded shots came within 10 feet.
Let's assume 90% of Robinson's shooting fouls came within 10 feet. I think that's fair. That means 85% of his shot attempts within 10 feet resulted in fouls. Using the same formula, we'd find that Shaq was fouled on 61% of his shot attempts within 10 feet. And while Shaq was a 53% FT shooter, Robinson knocked them down 74% of the time.
I think this tells us that Robinson was a generational finisher, and teams were helpless if he got free. Which is why teams had no choice but to double team him. Because the Spurs didn't have a great facilitator, Robinson's finishing ability was underutilized. Because the Spurs didn't have another scoring threat or particularly good outside shooting, that made those doubles unpunishable. Despite that, look at what he did. This is some of that context I mentioned.
OK, the other differentiator between Robinson and Garnett is their style of defense. Both were mobile, and both protected the rim. But while Garnett was a better perimeter defender, Robinson was a better rim protector and that is more valuable. He also had tremendous hands. Only Hakeem is the better stocks compiler; he and David stand above the rest.
Others are going to go into more detail with KG, his skills and team deficiencies, and I look forward to it!
2. David Robinson: 1994 (1995>1996)
He led his team in assists, led the league in points, and was arguably the best defender in the league. Rodman swallowed up some of his rebounds, otherwise he probably would have led that too.
3. Kevin Garnett: 2004 (2003>2005)
MVP. Similarly dominant in all facets of the game. Led the league in points and rebounds. Over 5 APG.
Coming up next: Olajuwon, then Duncan.
Why did I rank those two lower? No slams here. Again, I'm trying to distinguish on the margins. I have Hakeem a little bit lower on the BBIQ scale and Tim a little lower on the ability scale.
