RealGM

Obviously dominant defensively so doesn't need the ball to make an impact, but absolutely capable of putting the ball in the hoop a LOT when needed.

No, he's not dominant with his back to the basket and is more of a faceup guy, but that's fine because that's not what's needed. Would also be a tremendous PnR partner.

Is there seriously anyone who would be a better fit with a Jordan, Kobe or LeBron?

KG or even Duncan to an extent

ardee wrote:Obviously dominant defensively so doesn't need the ball to make an impact, but absolutely capable of putting the ball in the hoop a LOT when needed.

No, he's not dominant with his back to the basket and is more of a faceup guy, but that's fine because that's not what's needed. Would also be a tremendous PnR partner.

Is there seriously anyone who would be a better fit with a Jordan, Kobe or LeBron?

Yes, Shaq! And we already watched it in real time.

Aside from early Russell, Oscar with young KAJ, the only 'test subjects' we've seen at peak/superstar levels play and win together, without holding back, is Shaq/Kobe. In my opinion, the only duo where both players are in the top 10 to do this as a big/guard. And Shaq also did it with Wade on the tail end and with Penny in the beginning (finals). Shaq's game allowed the perimter player to play at 100 while he also played at 100, that's why I luv his portability. And while there was drama, as there always will be with the A-dog's, it worked and worked decently well.

Shaq/MJ probably last even longer and that is because MJ was much more extrovert than Kobe and he and Shaq would have done well off the court together. MJ enjoyed his off time, like O'Neal. Public comments most likely don't come out and Shaq has total respect for MJ which helps keep him more balanced than a young Kobe who later earned that respect.

Especially with LBJ, you're not going to play the same when he is on your team, Le-system only, so I have no idea how D-Rob would look like in prime because older Shaq/LBJ didn't mesh well at all based on his play style and spacing required.

D-Rob was a great talent, 2-way earlier on, but I question how his game would look paired with an MJ/Kobe, epsecially on D-Rob's style of play. Superstar/All-star tandems tend to work best or on a rare case all drafted together and bought into the team concept. I think Duncan would be a far better choice as a superstar to pair them with than D-Rob & KG has always been my ideal PF next to Shaq. Just remember, I doubt any of these players play as you saw them with the changes, think Wade/Bosh pre/post Miami, because the style of plays need to mesh and be efficient. Shaq/Kobe is the only duo that went full super sayian at the same time!

Robinson with a perimeter star would've been even more off the charts. Elliott was allstar and peaked in the 1996 season and it opened things up for Robinson so well. He's faster, more agile and athletic than any other Center and would fit well with someone like Jordan.

No, but he is one of the ideal bigs to put next to a P&R Maestro.

ardee wrote:Obviously dominant defensively so doesn't need the ball to make an impact, but absolutely capable of putting the ball in the hoop a LOT when needed.

No, he's not dominant with his back to the basket and is more of a faceup guy, but that's fine because that's not what's needed. Would also be a tremendous PnR partner.

Is there seriously anyone who would be a better fit with a Jordan, Kobe or LeBron?

LeBron + DRob would be just unfair, because not only would they likely be the two best players in the league most years (and probably wouldn't need much help to be title favs), but LeBron can also work the pnr superbly, which I think really potentiates Robinson on offense (Kobe and Jordan feel like a lesser fit).

Though wrt to the latter (and bolded statement), I even think DRob + prime Harden might be world-beaters. That pnr action would be hard to stop.

Hmmm.

Ideal?

I don't know about that. Also, what are we calling a perimeter "superstar?"

Like, are we being very, very inclusive and including healthy versions of dudes like Paul George and Jayson Tatum? Or are we explicitly focusing on guys with a more complete game who can effectively attack off the dribble and are 3-level scorers? Do they need to be focal initiators, in other words, or are we okay with guys who are primarily scorers who can also move the ball instead of letting it stick?

Either way, Robinson was good with off-ball movement, he was a quality offensive rebounder, ran well in transition. Ran well in transition... with the ball, too. He could coast-to-coast on you in a heartbeat off a steal or a corralled block or whatever. He had enough handles to confidently blaze down the court, he could cross-step and then finish with a two-handed flush. Like, he could basically Euro step in transition, which was rude for a 7'1 dude. He also cut around penetration well.

In the post, he had reasonable fundamentals. He knew how to get a deep seal, he knew how to get a guy on his back. He knew how to get a seal and then spin off the seal to go for the lob. He was an absolute nightmare lurking in and around the dunker spot.

He didn't NEED to score a billion points per game, he was more forced into that type of role. And of course as a defensive anchor (one of the very best), he'd add that critical component teams are always looking for. He was an elite defender, and not just as a rim protector. He was an excellent rim protector, but he had great hands and anticipation in the passing lanes, and he was quite mobile. He'd be just fine in today's environment, which asks so much of frontcourt mobility. Very good at attacking entry passes and hi-los, too.

What he did not have was the ability to really assert himself against high-end defenses. He had a shaky mid-range jumper, did most of his back-down work against guys a half-foot shorter than him as the Spurs used cross-screens to hunt for mismatches.

In a word, "isolation." That was his offensive weakness. He was a little out of control driving in traffic. His handle, confident in the open court, was a lot less so under pressure. He struggled a bit under defensive pressure. He was great when all he had to do was catch and move, or move and catch, and then get that in-motion action to dunk or whatever. Sometimes on the right block, you'd get him catching the pass and quickly turning over his shoulder for the jumper and that worked out well. He had a drop step (more from the left block). He sometimes could hit that elbow jumper. But isolation was definitely not his friend. And that's the main reason he struggled against certain matchups in the playoffs. Still hella athletic, so he could drive and draw fouls and stuff, but his ability to actually finish shots diminished because it stressed out his weakest skill. And that's why in 6 of 8 postseasons from 90-99, he shot under 50% from the field and his scoring volume dipped from 25.1 ppg on 52.4% FG (59.0% TS) to 23.4 ppg on 48.0% (54.9% TS; a little bit propped up by that 91 series vs. the Warriors). And you can see the trend. In 93, he was dreadful against the Blazers but got it back against the Suns; folded in Game 6. Quite rough against the Jazz in 94. Quite rough against the Nuggets in 95, mediocre versus the Lakers. That's the year he got rooked by Olajuwon in the WCFs. He went from 27.6 ppg on 60.2% TS in the RS to 23.8 ppg on 55.3% TS in the WCFs, which wasn't awful, but again, he shot 44.9% FG in the series vs 53% in the RS. .724 FTr against the Rockets (.570 in the RS), but he couldn't put down a shot. That was his forever issue against defensive pressure; he could maintain his ability to draw fouls, but he couldn't make shots. Absolutely blotto'd the Suns in 96; 30 ppg on 62% TS, 55.6% FG. Rough against the Jazz right after in the semis, held under 20 ppg on the series after a 25 ppg RS (shot under 48% from the field, shot 51.6% in the RS). Injured himself in the preseason the year after, then broke his foot. Back in 98 with Duncan. Unremarkable against Phoenix (52.1% TS, 20.3 ppg, 46.6% FG, 60% FT). Then he stank like ass against Utah again, shooting 39.5% FG and rocking < 19 ppg on 47.7% TS.

He perennially struggled with physical frontcourts. And that particular series was at 81.8 possessions per game; Robinson's game wasn't set up to initiate the attack in the half court. He needed to get out ahead of the defense, or he needed to act around someone else's action, because he didn't have the skill set to create effectively for himself in the halfcourt under pressure.

Anyway. All that to say, if you have a strong focal scorer from the perimeter and good playmaking (either from them or from a PG or whatever), then you're in good shape. If you don't look to him for take-over isolation scoring, you're in even BETTER shape.

You get yourself a perimeter which knew what it was doing and could initiate everything, and he's about as good a #2 on offense as you're going to find. He was the ultimate garbage man. That sounds dismissive, but I mean it in the best of ways. You didn't want to have him as your focal attacker, but he was a MONSTER around someone else's initial attack, and when the game was up tempo. And of course he's one of the greatest defenders in league history, which remains the case against anyone.


So yeah, circling back to the original premise, he's right up there. You can make your arguments about better isolation scorers, but then you have to even out differences in defense and rebounding. Young and healthy (even better if he didn't have that initial Naval committment), he's a monster. Hell, even old and broken, he was a useful roleplayer. But you didn't really want to throw him the ball and ask him to attack a set defense. That's all. He'd THRIVE with guys like Wade or Kobe or Jordan, and especially with a lot of today's guys who love to attack from the PnR.

Can you imagine Robinson inside Utah's system even in the 90s? Corner spacers, a two-man game which doesn't require him to attack a set defender but rather has him attacking space with movement? Enough of a J to pop and cause problems? Oh, man... Now make that PnR handler a much better scorer than Stockton, even at the expense of playmaking ability? Hoof, that's dangerous.

trex_8063 wrote:LeBron + DRob would be just unfair, because not only would they likely be the two best players in the league most years (and probably wouldn't need much help to be title favs), but LeBron can also work the pnr superbly, which I think really potentiates Robinson on offense (Kobe and Jordan feel like a lesser fit).

Though wrt to the latter (and bolded statement), I even think DRob + prime Harden might be world-beaters. That pnr action would be hard to stop.

Harden and Robinson would be interesting. I think the one problem there is that Harden's game was also so fickle in terms of actually making shots that it wasn't ideal. But it would still be brutally effective against most, regardless.

Lebron and D-Rob would be insane. That would be so amazing to watch.

He is really high up there, but I would say Shaq would be the best big next to a perimeter superstar

wafflzgod wrote:He is really high up there, but I would say Shaq would be the best big next to a perimeter superstar

Shaq's an interesting one to consider. Especially younger Shaq, when he was more mobile.

He gives up a lot relative to someone like Robinson on defense, but he's obviously a much more stable half-court weapon while still evidencing a lot of the same off-ball action, where he can work around a perimeter scorer very effectively. He doesn't have that foul line J, which closes some doors, and of course he was quite rough at the foul line.

So now it becomes an examination of scoring force versus defensive force, right? It's an interesting look.

MacGill wrote:

ardee wrote:Obviously dominant defensively so doesn't need the ball to make an impact, but absolutely capable of putting the ball in the hoop a LOT when needed.

No, he's not dominant with his back to the basket and is more of a faceup guy, but that's fine because that's not what's needed. Would also be a tremendous PnR partner.

Is there seriously anyone who would be a better fit with a Jordan, Kobe or LeBron?

Yes, Shaq! And we already watched it in real time.

Aside from early Russell, Oscar with young KAJ, the only 'test subjects' we've seen at peak/superstar levels play and win together, without holding back, is Shaq/Kobe. In my opinion, the only duo where both players are in the top 10 to do this as a big/guard. And Shaq also did it with Wade on the tail end and with Penny in the beginning (finals). Shaq's game allowed the perimter player to play at 100 while he also played at 100, that's why I luv his portability. And while there was drama, as there always will be with the A-dog's, it worked and worked decently well.

Shaq/MJ probably last even longer and that is because MJ was much more extrovert than Kobe and he and Shaq would have done well off the court together. MJ enjoyed his off time, like O'Neal. Public comments most likely don't come out and Shaq has total respect for MJ which helps keep him more balanced than a young Kobe who later earned that respect.

Especially with LBJ, you're not going to play the same when he is on your team, Le-system only, so I have no idea how D-Rob would look like in prime because older Shaq/LBJ didn't mesh well at all based on his play style and spacing required.

D-Rob was a great talent, 2-way earlier on, but I question how his game would look paired with an MJ/Kobe, epsecially on D-Rob's style of play. Superstar/All-star tandems tend to work best or on a rare case all drafted together and bought into the team concept. I think Duncan would be a far better choice as a superstar to pair them with than D-Rob & KG has always been my ideal PF next to Shaq. Just remember, I doubt any of these players play as you saw them with the changes, think Wade/Bosh pre/post Miami, because the style of plays need to mesh and be efficient. Shaq/Kobe is the only duo that went full super sayian at the same time!

I don't think judging LeBron by his fit with ancient Shaq is fair, but that aside, good post. Shaq certainly did prove his ability to thrive with superstar guards in his first three stops. He even had a resurgent year playing with Nash at his fourth. Stylistically, you'd think he isn't an ideal match for playmaking guards -- we're used to thinking of him backing down in isolation -- but he took all three partners to the Finals, beating Jordan/Pippen, Duncan/Robinson, Dirk's Mavs, the (Jail) Blazers, the Kings, the Pistons... lots of great teams fell to Shaq and his running mates. Impossible to deny that Shaq, ego and all, could get it done sharing the spotlight with an elite guard.

I mean I’d take someone like Garnett or Porzingis.
Versatile bigs that can shoot and act as vertical spacing threats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Tim Lehrbach wrote:
I don't think judging LeBron by his fit with ancient Shaq is fair

2010 Shaq didn't really look like much compared to his younger selves. He was much larger, much slower, much more injured, etc. He was a guaranteed bucket inside 8 feet pretty much, but he didn't have any of the dynamic action which made him so threatening earlier on.

we're used to thinking of him backing down in isolation

But Shaq, like Jordan, has often been overlooked in terms of what he actually did well. Everyone remembers the flashy stuff but forgets the other stuff. In general, I mean.

Shaq, for instance, was exceptional at moving without the ball in many of the same ways as David Robinson. Hovering in the dunker spot and darting in late. Trailing in the secondary and cutting in after dribble penetration. Working position for offensive rebounds. He was especially good at getting deep seals for a quick catch to shot possession, or spinning off for the lob, or just getting a guy on his back for the hi-lo. He was good in transition. He just ALSO isolated a lot more effectively, so he was a more stable option, particularly as he started having better passing options with better coaching than Brian Hill.

KingofTheClay wrote:I mean I’d take someone like Garnett or Porzingis.
Versatile bigs that can shoot and act as vertical spacing threats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would take D-Rob over Porzingis any day on the basis of defense and rebounding alone.

tsherkin wrote:

Tim Lehrbach wrote:
I don't think judging LeBron by his fit with ancient Shaq is fair

2010 Shaq didn't really look like much compared to his younger selves. He was much larger, much slower, much more injured, etc. He was a guaranteed bucket inside 8 feet pretty much, but he didn't have any of the dynamic action which made him so threatening earlier on.

we're used to thinking of him backing down in isolation

But Shaq, like Jordan, has often been overlooked in terms of what he actually did well. Everyone remembers the flashy stuff but forgets the other stuff. In general, I mean.

Shaq, for instance, was exceptional at moving without the ball in many of the same ways as David Robinson. Hovering in the dunker spot and darting in late. Trailing in the secondary and cutting in after dribble penetration. Working position for offensive rebounds. He was especially good at getting deep seals for a quick catch to shot possession, or spinning off for the lob, or just getting a guy on his back for the hi-lo. He was good in transition. He just ALSO isolated a lot more effectively, so he was a more stable option, particularly as he started having better passing options with better coaching than Brian Hill.

Yeah, all this, and it's worth noting that (pre-2001, at least) Shaq had a much better motor than he was given credit for. He was doing all the things you mention relentlessly for 36-40 minutes a night while also playing (mostly) elite defense.

Tim Lehrbach wrote:Yeah, all this, and it's worth noting that (pre-2001, at least) Shaq had a much better motor than he was given credit for. He was doing all the things you mention relentlessly for 36-40 minutes a night while also playing (mostly) elite defense.

Another excellent point. I dunno about "elite" defense for a lot of that, but certainly in 2000, he was, and he was also generally a pretty strong rim protector. Better in his earliest seasons, but still. And yeah, certainly in Orlando, his motor was a whole different kettle of fish, so to speak. And even early on in LA.

tsherkin wrote:

KingofTheClay wrote:I mean I’d take someone like Garnett or Porzingis.
Versatile bigs that can shoot and act as vertical spacing threats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I would take D-Rob over Porzingis any day on the basis of defense and rebounding alone.

Bigs dont need to play back to the basket defense in the modern NBA. Just need to rim protect. You shove an Aaron Gordon or Horford on Embiid/Jokic.

If Porzingis is healthy I’d take Porzingis in today’s league, easy.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

KingofTheClay wrote:Bigs dont need to play back to the basket defense in the modern NBA. Just need to rim protect. You shove an Aaron Gordon or Horford on Embiid/Jokic.

If Porzingis is healthy I’d take Porzingis in today’s league, easy.

I'd take D-Rob all day because his defensive value doesn't come from post isolation defense as you're errantly implying, lol. If you grasp what he was good at on defense, it's applicable in all eras. He'd instantly be one of the 2 or 3 best defenders in the league conservatively. And while he doesn't have KP's range, he isn't any less valuable on offense.

KingofTheClay wrote:I mean I’d take someone like Garnett or Porzingis.
Versatile bigs that can shoot and act as vertical spacing threats.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

KP is 2, maybe 3 tiers below DRob. We're talking about a guy who won MVP over guys like Hakeem, Barkley, Karl Malone and Shaq in the mid 90s.

tsherkin wrote:

KingofTheClay wrote:Bigs dont need to play back to the basket defense in the modern NBA. Just need to rim protect. You shove an Aaron Gordon or Horford on Embiid/Jokic.

If Porzingis is healthy I’d take Porzingis in today’s league, easy.

I'd take D-Rob all day because his defensive value doesn't come from post isolation defense as you're errantly implying, lol. If you grasp what he was good at on defense, it's applicable in all eras. He'd instantly be one of the 2 or 3 best defenders in the league conservatively. And while he doesn't have KP's range, he isn't any less valuable on offense.

Am not implying that that’s his primary defensive value. I think that’s obviously one area where he has a significant leg up over Porzingis, arguably blows him out of the water there. That skill is not really in demand today. Rim protection is.

Let’s be real, Porzingis is a great rim protector, his rim protection stats are similar to Goberts. DRob is elite but I don’t think the gap is anything to write home about.

No ones quaking in their boots at the sight of DRob with the ball in his hands. He’s not Embiid or Jokic, heck not even KAT on that end. No back to the basket game, funky jumper.

But pair a premier star wing or guard like Booker with a healthy Porzingis and every team is toast.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk