RealGM

How many titles would they win?

'60 Celics-'90 Robinson
'61 Celtics-'91 Robinson
'62 Celtics-'92 Robinson
'63-Celtics-'93 Robinson
'64-Celtics-'94 Robinson
'65 Celtics-'95 Robinson
'66 Celtics-'96 Robinson
'67 Celtics-'97 Robinson
'68 Celtics-'98 Robinson
'69 Celtics-'99 Robinson

No 57, 58, 59 and counting Robinson's 6 game season in 97? Robinson remained a defensive force for his last 4 seasons you can add at the end since each player played 13 strong seasons.

And, is this time travel Robinson or Robinson compared to the big men of his day v. Russell compared to the big men of his day?

Robinson's short faceup game and even his post game is more advanced than anyone (even Wilt) in the early 60s but not compared to the Shaq/Hakeem/Ewing peers of his day. He isn't the rebounder that Russell was from what I can tell, though he's as comparable as any center in history in terms of being a great shotblocker that was also a ball thief (though Hakeem did a bit more of that). Not the innovator or on court coach to Russell's degree nor a great passer (though Russell gets overrated in that respect I tend to believe) nor does he have Russell's motor/stamina out there.

If it's time machine DRob, you also have to factor in whether he would be able to deal with the much more overt racism of his era and whether he would even choose a public field like basketball when the pay was more equivalent to staying in the Navy or taking a normal job.

The most glaring difference between Bill Russell and David Robinson is what they could contribute as a leader. Celtics win dramatically less without Bill involved. He was the Optimus Prime of those teams. I mean no disrespect to the Admire-able, whom I'm sure would pile up tremendous, comparable box score stats. Celtics would take a few chips with a swap, but not 11.

penbeast0 wrote:No 57, 58, 59 and counting Robinson's 6 game season in 97? Robinson remained a defensive force for his last 4 seasons you can add at the end since each player played 13 strong seasons.

If one believes in the viability of that year's Celtics and doesn't mind playing with hypotheticals in assessing the player (which if they're in this thread ...) you can argue for including '97 Robinson, injuries are complex but there's early suggestions Robinson's foot injury could have had him back in plenty of time for the playoffs if the team was motivated (and in a decent position) to get to that. Over to past me

Owly wrote:I don't know about '97 but I don't know that it's a given that he couldn't have played in the playoffs ... just looking this up and one source gives the timeline (written 24th Dec. published 25th):

"Now he has a broken left foot, and the San Antonio Spurs' star center will be out six weeks."

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/25/sports/spurs-robinson-breaks-his-foot.html

Maybe there were genuine complications as to why he couldn't get back around circa 4th February, that's entirely possible ... maybe it's in a grey area, e.g. where multiple factors ... if there's any risk of re-aggravating or putting pressure on something else ... it's not worth it for wins in this season ...

As above I'm not saying I know he doesn't aggravate it or it heals slow or he injures something else. There are reasons/incentives not to hurry him back on those Spurs.

Working backward, automatically cannot see wins after 1966. The Celtics barely won in 1968 and 1969, and diminished Robinson (who might be their coach too???) is not the guy to hold that.

In 1966, normally I would say that Robinson has some room to improve on Russell’s scoring… but that Finals was probably his best scoring series ever. With the margins as close as they are, I can attribute that to a maybe leaning no.

In 1965, the 76ers almost upset them as is, and I think Robinson loses more ground to any Wilt matchup. Maybe leaning no.

1964 was a strong year. No one really pushed them… but I think Robinson would be a disaster against the Wilt/Thurmond frontcourt. All the same, can call this a probably.

1963 has no Wilt. However, the Royals brought it to seven games, and the Finals featured three three-point wins. If we are directly translating years, 1993 was one of Robinson’s weaker efforts. So small fluctuations could lead to a loss, and those fluctuations can come via defensive weaknesses or just poorer leadership. Calling that a probably if only because Robinson in theory should be able to pressure both these teams with his scoring.

1962, Robinson was injured, but regardless, here I am calling a maybe leaning no because the margins against both the Warriors and the Lakers were tight.

1961: The only easy yes. Celtics had no real challenges this year.

1960: Probably. Toughest opponent is rookie Wilt, but the team was not suited for a serious upset bid, and the Celtics would be fine with some performance drop-off.