AEnigma wrote:I also think it is pretty fallacious to continually refer to numbers Robinson put up next to Tim Duncan as an analogue for what he likely did in his prime. He played fewer minutes than Duncan, was only lightly staggered from Duncan, and for the most part faced easier lineups than Duncan did when they were staggered (also, the backup centres on the Spurs throughout this period were significant liabilities — which is of course the easiest way to boost your on/off numbers). It is a strong proof of concept that Robinson could thrive next to other stars, but no I do not really see it as particularly meaningful to how he performed when asked to be a true lead, nor do I think thriving next to Tim Duncan is wholly innate to him alone (would a Karl Malone / Tim Duncan frontcourt not dominate the league too?).
Hi Enigma -- if this is directed at me, I definitely never used Robinson's on/off numbers with Tim Duncan to say this is exactly what he'd do during his peak, with no further contextual analysis. But I'm also not saying this data shouldn't make us any more confident in playoff Robinson either.
There's a clear trend with a better fit / more talented team, basically every stat we have for Robinson shoots up in the playoffs (vs his younger self or vs what we might expect for an older player). You probably saw in the other discussion, Robinson's 4-year on/off sample from 98-01 is literally the GOAT in the playoffs. His 3-year PIPM sample would be Top ~15 all time among 3-year peaks (and remember, this is playoffs only!).
Is the minute sample smaller than ideal, and is the fit favorable? Absolutely, which I've said myself. But considering he shows this level of impact in the regular season (so it's not like he's never capable of this impact), and considering he showed it after his peak in the playoffs when granted a better team (despite being older and a supposed playoff "choker"), I have a hard time thinking the older playoff bump is entirely fake. He improved in the playoffs when he had a better fit when he was older, so why shouldn't we expect him to show playoff improvements if he happened to have better fit when he was during his peak?
The question then becomes how much would improved fit / improved team change his impact. Let's say he gets a better team during his peak, but not as good as 99-01. To me, he'd improve with better fit, but perhaps not as much as he would if if his team were as good as 99-01. But I also see his playoff impact increasing if we're looking at his peak years vs his older years. To me, these factors (better player, not quite as good situation as 99-01 though better than the terrible fit he actually in 94-96) balance out, which puts him around the same playoff level in impact as he actually showed in 99-01 with a moderately better team in 94-96. That's a ~top 10 regular season peak (per you) and a ~top 15 playoff peak (per 99-01 PIPM) (or maybe top 20ish if you want to downgrade him more for fit concerns and upgrade him less for his peak years vs older years)
Question for you: If he was given a better fit from 94-95 (say a better offensive costar / depth, who could help score and playmake for him), do you not think his impact would improve? If it did improve, how much by (e.g. if his playoffs is ~30-40th GOAT with the atrocious fit he had per PIPM, what would it be with better fit?) ?
As for your discussion of needing to perform "when asked to be a true lead", I'm personally not tied to needing to be a true lead on offense. He's clearly 1st option on defense, and was fine as a 1st option on offense but IMO would have been better as an offensive costar/1b. That's leader enough for me. Why? Well, Thinking Basketball estimates ~ 50% of NBA champions have a clear defensive first option and offensive costar. That seems like pretty common rate, absolutely beneficial to a championship team. Bill Russell's probably the quintessential example.
Question for you: do you downgrade players who are this archetype vs an offensive 1st option who's a worse defender? In theory, this should make you lower on players like peak Russell, 67/72 Wilt, Walton, Garnett, young Hakeem without good passing, etc.
As for your Karl Malone comment, he would definitely do better with Tim Duncan. To me, many of the people who the media crown as inherent "playoff chokers" can often be partially explained by situation. That's not to say nobody get's worse in the playoffs, just that supposed "playoff chokers" are often overblown. Karl Malone's biggest problem was that his offensive load was slightly higher than he was comfortable with, which became exploitable in the playoffs. And his team’s defense wasn’t a huge help. With a better scoring co-star and defensive anchor like Duncan, many of his key playoff issues would be solved. That said, Karl Malone's defense is clearly below Robinson's, and Malone never showed Robinson's regular season impact, or Robinson's playoff impact when Robinson had that favorable situation. So I don't see Karl Malone being as good as Robinson playing with Duncan.
AEnigma wrote:Texas Chuck wrote:Wait so Robinson gets outplayed(and what you actually mean is had worse offensive stats lets be clear) by an all-time great in one series and now the conclusion we must reach is that we are ignoring playoffs and thus Robinson isn't that great?
Yeah that feels like the wrong way to evaluate any player to me.
Karl Malone may as well have outplayed him defensively too, at least in 1994. And if notorious playoff “choker” Karl Malone is outperforming and holding up better than you in the playoffs on both ends, in your “peak” season, what does that say? Robinson’s offence was poorly suited for the postseason and his defence could be successfully schemed against by most good offences (which for me significantly calls into question those generous projections so many make of his ability to thrive in the modern NBA). That does not mean he is not a valuable player — with any top twenty co-star (e.g. Tim Hardaway or Mitch Richmond), he probably could have pushed for a title — but it does mean calls that
he had a top ten peak are getting way too lost in the on/off weeds.
Like, no one said the 1994 Jazz series alone discredits Robinson. It was not a one-off… but to that point, yes, people do very much dismiss 2007 Dirk and 2011 Lebron as all-time seasons, so not really sure why you even are offering that level of mock surprise.
I'd love to hear a more in-depth argument for Malone's defense > Robinson's, at least in this small sample. Specifically -- do you have any film evidence (e.g. plays from highlights or film analysis from full games) to suggest that his man defense declined more than just a bad matchup, or that his general rim protection / team defense / help defense declined at all?
Was it Robinson's best man-defense performance? Of course not. But 1) Man defense was never Robinson's greatest strength. Stats put him clearly below tier 1 (Robinson, Russell, Thurmond) in Tier 2 (Walton, Robinson, Wilt, ~Ewing) above Mutombo/Mourning (source: Hakeem's Greatest Peaks video, minute 19:37). Which is good, but not his greatest strength for being a Tier 1/2 All Tome defender. Plus: 2) people are usually more accommodating with bad man matchups.
To me, Robinson's greater strength is rim protection and team defense, which I personally saw less film evidence of declining in this small sample. And if we're worried about this being too small a sample, I haven't seen that much evidence that his defense declines in-era in larger samples. Now you might cite his man defense against Hakeem, but 1) that's also a bad man matchup, and 2) there's pretty clearly extenuating circumstances, with the Spurs' second best defender actively rebelling against the defensive game plan and not aiding the Hakeem matchup either with man defense or help defense.
