Moderators: trex_8063, penbeast0, PaulieWal, Clyde Frazier, Doctor MJ
AEnigma wrote:Woah, dead thread.
DraymondGold wrote:There hasn't been too much discussion yet on Jokic vs Walton. I had been assuming I'd go Walton given the defensive gap, but I'm actually getting less sure. The offensive gap seems larger than I had realized....
Scoring:
77 Walton: 19.8 pts/75 on +5.2% rTS. Playoffs: 17.3 pts/75 on +2.5% rTS.
22 Jokic: +29.7 pts/75 on +9.7% rTS. Playoffs: +33.8 pts/75 on +8.9% rTS.
Jokic's advantage: 9.9 pts/75, +4.5% rTS. Playoffs: 16.5 pts/75, +6.4% rTS.
Creation:
77 Walton: 2.9 ast/75. 2.4 Box Creation. Playoffs: 3.75 ast/75. 2.7 Box Creation.
22 Jokic: +8.7 ast/75, 14.6 Box Creation. Playoffs: 6.30 ast/75. 12.3 Box Creation.
Jokic's advantage: 5.8 ast/75, 12.2 Box Creation. Playoffs: 2.6 ast/75, 10.3 Box Creation.
Now Walton's a great defensive player obviously, but this is quite the large offensive gap! Of course, the single-season postseason sample is tiny for Jokic, so I understand if people want to see another season from Jokic. But still...
AEnigma wrote:Arf arf.
trex_8063 wrote:Calling someone a stinky turd is not acceptable.
PLEASE stop doing that.
One_and_Done wrote:I mean, how would you feel if the NBA traced it's origins to an 1821 league of 3 foot dwarves who performed in circuses?
That makes sense.Proxy wrote:DraymondGold wrote:There hasn't been too much discussion yet on Jokic vs Walton. I had been assuming I'd go Walton given the defensive gap, but I'm actually getting less sure. The offensive gap seems larger than I had realized....
Scoring:
77 Walton: 19.8 pts/75 on +5.2% rTS. Playoffs: 17.3 pts/75 on +2.5% rTS.
22 Jokic: +29.7 pts/75 on +9.7% rTS. Playoffs: +33.8 pts/75 on +8.9% rTS.
Jokic's advantage: 9.9 pts/75, +4.5% rTS. Playoffs: 16.5 pts/75, +6.4% rTS.
Creation:
77 Walton: 2.9 ast/75. 2.4 Box Creation. Playoffs: 3.75 ast/75. 2.7 Box Creation.
22 Jokic: +8.7 ast/75, 14.6 Box Creation. Playoffs: 6.30 ast/75. 12.3 Box Creation.
Jokic's advantage: 5.8 ast/75, 12.2 Box Creation. Playoffs: 2.6 ast/75, 10.3 Box Creation.
Now Walton's a great defensive player obviously, but this is quite the large offensive gap! Of course, the single-season postseason sample is tiny for Jokic, so I understand if people want to see another season from Jokic. But still...
I mean i'd say Jokic could be considered one of the top 5-6 offensive players ever at his peak and i'd struggle to see Walton anything past an all-star level offensive player and would probably not want him as my #1 scoring option, maybe even a #2 but i'd have to examine the league for that. It goes the other way though too where I think you could reasonably argue Nikola could nearing negative impact defensively in the PS whereas like Jokic's offense, Walton is in some rarefied air defensively IMO(Will say Jokic's O > Walton's D), but I also think it's a bit harder to construct a strong defense around Jokic because of how important the position he occupies is. His offense is so good, especially relative to position, that it might just outweigh anything else in this comp but I feel Walton offers more versatility for roster construction(more portability) but maybe that's just me.
EDIT: Also I have a question to you bc i've had this discussion before: Does Jokic's O to you seem to lose any effectiveness in the PS? The numbers you posted seem to decline too(not at all unusual for a star in the PS and Walton declines a bit too), also a major decline in hybrid metrics. I think teams have sold out a bit to reduce his passing value and u can see it in stuff like his box creation and assists going down, his scoring rate definitely ramps up a bit to make up for it as a counter but do u view the trade off as being pretty even when creation has such a somewhat high correlation with team O? They are just reactions to the defense afterall though
https://backpicks.com/2017/08/21/how-valuable-is-creating-open-shots-for-teammates/
3. Oscar Robertson (1964): Basically averaged a triple-double (31-11-9.9) and the Royals had their best season with 55 wins and went toe-to-toe with Russell's Celtics in the second round. Was basically the league's greatest PG in its first 35 years, leading the league in assists as well as FT%. Was efficient from the field for a G (48%) and won the league MVP award in the middle of Wilt and Russell's primes, which is no easy feat.
Honorable mention: (1962, 1965)
As I wrote on the first page, Oscar Robertson is my runoff pick. Might have debated a bit more if the West year were 1968 though.kaima wrote:Starting simply enough, with closeout game numbers between Hakeem and the opposing star:
Game 5, Jazz/Rockets
Malone: 35 points, 10 reb, 3 ast, 2 stl
Olajuwon: 33 points, 10 reb, 4 ast, 1 blk
Game 7, Suns/Rockets
Barkley: 18 points, 23 reb, 5 ast, 1 stl, 1 blk
Olajuwon: 29 points, 11 reb, 4 ast, 1 blk
Game 6, Spurs/Rockets
Robinson: 19 points, 10 reb, 5 ast, 4 stl, 1 blk
Olajuwon: 39 points, 17 reb, 3 ast, 2 stl, 5 blk
Game 4, Magic/Rockets
Shaq: 25 points, 12 reb, 3 ast, 4 blk
Olajuwon: 35 points, 15, reb, 6 ast, 3 stl
By the standard(s) advocated in previous threads, particularly those of NO-KG-AI in the 99-00 thread on KG v Malone, it should be considered that Barkley and Malone's teams pushed the Rockets to the limit, whereas the proceeding two series actually became easier, and that Malone is the only player to play Olajuwon to a standstill in a deciding game that playoffs.
Barkley was limited in game 7, looking at scoring, but he was also battling a serious injury, which makes those 23 rebs all the more staggering.
Now, broader series issues, keyed by the star matchups in the post:
[…]
SA V Houston
Robinson: 23.8 ppg, 11.3 reb, 2.6 ast, 1.5 stl, 2.2 blk
Olajuwon: 35.3 ppg, 12.5 reb, 5 ast, 1.3 stl, 4.2 blk
There has been talk of Robinson lacking help and being swarmed in this series, and I'd have more sympathy if film and stats didn't point to outcome being tilted by Robinson's lacking skillsets on, get this, both sides of the court.
On offense, Robinson was trying to play against a collapsing defense with, far too often, faceup drives that either left him with a shot he was incapable of making or a bad pass that was a likely turnover. He had no back to the basket game which, against a defense that's by definition and design paint-oriented, made it the wrong answer to a remedial math question. A real post player, even with a swarming defense coming at or for him, can find a way to make reads and create some positive result in individual or team counterpoint; Robinson spent the series panicked, because his athleticism could not solve the problem.
He'd go into the post, receive a pass, and pass it back out almost immediately. Why? Because nothing easy would come, and he had no post game to work with.
His jumper was fundamentally shaky. He had no real go-to moves. He wasn't good at all at battling for position, ala Shaq or Karl, and then making an explosive move from the low post to the rim. He was mediocre at sealing his man and receiving a lob. Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
And, as nail (in the coffin, through the heart) or lynchpin to all this, he was a lacking passer. With the defense in a collapse mode, you would think that Robinson's assist numbers would be decent, yet he produced at the worst rate of any of Olajuwon's post opponents with a 2.6 average. But that's only half the story, as he averaged 6.25 turnovers over the 4 losses.
The two games the Spurs won, he averaged one turnover. His assist/TO ratio in the four losses was a 0.42. By comparison, Malone averaged a 1.36 on A/TO ratio, Barkley a 1.15, Olajuwon (in the SA series, in this case) a 1.19 and Shaq a 1.19.
So we've got another key stat as to W/Ls, and it's centered, appropriately, on Robinson.
Now, a mediocre or even bad passing big man could be defensible if he had fundamental talent for any real type of post play. Unfortunately, this is a non-starter for Robinson.
Meaning that another star, having a ridiculously bad series passing the ball, could a find a way to create offense for his team that doesn't lead directly back to his statline; rotational feeds, where it's passed out of the post and moved around would be an easy example. But because of Robinson's other limitations, this type of offensive creation is not likely to be there.
All this, and I haven't mentioned the most staggering ratio in the series yet. 11.5. The difference in scoring average. How did this happen?
Well, it would be reasonable enough to expect that this was a result of Robinson's lacking offensive aresenal.
But that's only part, maybe half, the story. A ratio within a ratio, i.e. offense+(-?)defense.
Shocking as it may seem, a frontcourt with Dennis Rodman and David Robinson gave up the most points in the playoffs to Olajuwon. This is in comparison to a Utah frontcourt with Karl Malone and a non-NBA Center, Charles Barkley and Joe Kleine, and Shaq plus Horace Grant.
How can this be? I think it falls within the same paradigm as Robinson's offensive flaws: a mix of mental frailty and lack of fundamentals.
For all the hype about Robinson's defense, Olajuwon did whatever he wanted in this series. He didn't have it as easy against Barkley/Klein/AC, Shaq or Malone+a-guy-from-the-local-Y.
If Robinson's defense is not overhyped, then there has to be a dichotomy here. Either between regular season worth and playoff failure, or man to man post defense as opposed to being the Center in a team scheme.
Robinson was wonderful at rim protection, which was mostly timing and innate physical gifts. But positional defense requires a lot more. It's a game of chess, and Robinson was playing checkers against Bobby Fischer in the post. He wasn't good at countering Olajuwon's footwork (and considering the hype about his defense, isn't that another negative?), he often let him set up too deep, and he would give Olajuwon way too much room, as a last defense (bomb shelter D), on his 15 foot jumper.
If Robinson deserves praise for his award-laden regular season, then the matchup game means he should be excoriated, rather than exhonerated, for his post-season play.
Second year in a row, and again at his absolute peak, he allows himself to be dominated on both ends. In 94, against Malone, the ratio was 9. This time it's over 11.
Dreadful. Disgusting.
[…]
But what proved Olajuwon was the best? The context and carrythrough of head to head matchups won, not just team outcome. By that same standard, I have trouble seeing Robinson as the superior player, certainly overall but, yet still, in this season, to names like Malone and Shaq, two players that actually played damned good basketball against Olajuwon and the Rockets.
Otherwise, we're just looking at the serendipity of playoff brackets. Even there, Robinson fails. For if a supporter of his cries "if not for Olajuwon" I reply, what about Malone? Robinson is in the same XXX position at that point.
And despite regular season stats (after all, those looked decent against Hakeem and Mail as well), I have no faith that Robinson would have been dominant or even very good in a contrasted matchup with Shaq.
drza wrote:Call for David Robinson supporters to addressE-Balla wrote:Also you mention his faceup game being deadly? Couldn't be further from the truth. It was useful in the regular season but in a 7 game series against great defenders its not trustworthy. His performances against good defenses in the playoffs are historically disappointing outside of his rookie season.
From 93-96 he played 8 series. He played good defenses 3 times (Portland in 93, Utah in 94 and 96). Outside of that he also played 2 ATG Cs (Hakeem and Mutombo in 95) and here's how he performed:
vs Portland 93 (4th ranked defense): 19.3 ppg, 2.3 orpg, 4.8 apg, 2.0 topg, 48.7 TS%, 107 ORTG. This 4 game series included a 6/20 performance and a 4/11 performance in games 1 and 2.
vs Utah 94 (7th ranked defense): 20 ppg, 3.3 orpg, 3.5 apg, 2.3 topg, 47.1 TS%, 104 ORTG. Again they lost in 4. This time lost games 2 and 3 (in a best to 3) with Robinson shooting 10-35 for 28 points in those games combined.
vs Denver 95 (with Deke): 19 ppg, 1.7 orpg, 3.3 apg, 2.0 topg, 49.3 TS%, 105 ORTG. They swept but he did struggle against Deke and they won mostly due to the offense which was flourishing despite bad performances from Robinson.
vs Houston 95 (with Hakeem) has been a topic of conversation for a minute now so I won't list the numbers totally (23.8 ppg for DR). I'd just like to mention again that he shot under 40% 3 games in this series and had under a 90 ORTG in all 3 games.
vs Utah 96 (8th ranked defense): 19.3 ppg, 3.7 orpg, 2.0 apg, 2.3 topg, 52.6 TS%, 107 ORTG. Looks better than the rest on paper but he had under a 50 TS% in 4 games and the other 2 games were blowout losses (73 TS% in a game 1 20 point loss and 74 TS% in only 24 minutes of a game 4 15 point loss). Honestly outside of games 1 and 2 he was flat out bad.
I don't think a player like him can really be relied on in the postseason offensively. Now defensively there's another issue: in series where he disappointed offensively (is the 5 above) more often than not his team also underperformed defensively. In 93 they held Portland better than expected (-2.5) but Clyde missed game 1 (Portland's worst offensive performance of the series with a 95.0 ORTG). Take out that game and San Antonio performed worse than expected defensively. San Antonio also performed well against Denver (-4.2) but they were led by rookie Jalen Rose offensively by the time the playoffs came.
In 95 Houston performed better than expected (+3.0) mainly because of Hakeem's play and Utah killed them in 94 and 96 with the PNR (+4.0 in 94 and +5.7 in 96). TBH I'm not sure if I trust his defense to stand when he's taken out of the game offensively. I want to say its a small sample but 23 games is a pretty large postseason sample for Robinson to look so unspectacular in during his "peak" years.
This, in a nutshell, is the type of post that always puts me back on my heels in these projects. I come into each one thinking that Robinson has a case to move up a level, but every time someone puts a post like this together that I can't ignore.
I wanted to blame Robinson's slide in the rankings to perception (e.g. based off the Hakeem series) that isn't fair...then in the RPoY Kaima just point-by-point hammered home that Malone in 94 and 96 was outplaying Robinson just as badly as Hakeem did...and I couldn't argue it.
By the time we got to the top-100 projects I was ready to argue for Robinson again, but this time guys like ElGee and Doc Mustafa and others had a narrative that worked about how Robinson's face-up offensive style didn't work in the postseason, and some suggested that his playoff defense was also shaky by looking at things like opponent's performance vs. expectation, and...it was difficult for me to argue against it.
Now, in this project, Dr. Spaceman has pushed the envelope. He's had several people voting for Robinson for several threads now, and he's got Robinson on everyone's radar. But again, I run into a post like this and...it's hard for me to argue. So I need someone else to do it for me.
The situation
1) The offense. I'm one of the most outspoken people around about how we can over-emphasize a player's scoring efficiency in trying to evaluate his level. Thus, I'm more than open to the idea that a player can be having just as large an impact, if not larger, in the postseason even if his TS% drops a few points. However, in these examples (which apparently contain both his most difficult defenses as well as the teams that eliminated his squads over his peak seasons) not only is Robinson's TS% down a few points...based on the numbers that E balla posted (plus me guestimating that Robinson averaged 23.8 pts on about 55% TS against Hakeem), counting each series equally (e.g. not going per-game or shot-for-shot for true averages, just ball-parking it) Robinson is around 20 points on about 51% TS over those 5 series. That's down like 6 points and 8% TS points from his regular season averages over that stretch. That's a huge drop-off in both scoring volume and scoring efficiency.
So, what I need from a Robinson supporter (or even just an interested an energetic bystander who has insight and is willing to build the case, is an explanation that makes sense. Does a) Robinson's offense have a larger non-boxscore impact than I was previously crediting him for that would allow him to maintain offensive impact in the face of such a large drop-off in both scoring volume and efficiency? Was he drawing so much defensive attention in these match-ups that he was able to warp the defense to a larger than normal degree and set-up his teammates with much easier shots? Was he distracting the opposing interior defenders to the degree that their help defense suffered, thus allowing his teammates to thrive? Something. Just some logical, reasonable explanation besides "the regular season counts too". I know the regular season counts, and I know that in bad situations playoff boxscores can be misleading but...whenever someone really goes in depth on Robinson's playoffs, it doesn't seem misleading or flukish. It seems more like something that could be a significant impediment to his ability to lead teams to a title, at least on the level of the other guys with top-10 type peaks like Russell, Magic, Bird or Walton. So I'd love it if someone could break it down for me and help me believe that it isn't the impediment that, on first blush, it might seem to be.
2) The defense. The main argument for Robinson's offensive struggles not being so damning, for me, is that even with just solid offense you'd still be getting one of the best defenders of all time with him. I've seen the question of Robinson's team defensive efforts in the playoffs raised, including in this project, but Spaceman and others have raised enough doubts about the methodology and that the questionable series might average out with the better-than-expected series to not matter so much. But again, here, E-balla is specifically arguing that it is the series in which Robinson is struggling offensively that the team's defense underperforms. And he makes the case that 4 of these 5 series (if you correct for Drexler's 1 game absence) match up with 4 of the series where Robinson's team defenses under-achieved expectation. And again, the 4 series that he amplifies as the team's defense struggling include: all three series that Robinson's teams were eliminated in his 3 peak 94 - 96 seasons, each of which marked a match-up with another ATG big, each of which also corresponded to lower than usual offensive output.
Again, it's one thing for me to forgive a few points of TS%, especially in cases when closer examination of the situation reveals other ways in which the player is making their impact. But if the case is made, as Robinson's critics have made it in every big project we've done on this board since 2011, that Robinson's game SPECIFICALLY ...on offense (but perhaps, apparently on defense too)...that his game has SPECIFIC weaknesses that translated to the playoffs and directly prevented him from being successful against teams of similar caliber to his own, which then translated directly into his lack of team success at his peak...then that's a much stronger case that, to me, should be addressed and put into perspective before I can rank Robinson above the Magics, Birds, Waltons and Oscars of the world.
E-Balla wrote:RSCD3_ wrote:So it looks like Bird Vs Magic vs Robinson vs Russell
I think an important question we need debated on is what is it easier to build a team around a defensive Center with offensive pieces to pick up the slack or surround a dominant offensive player with defense to help them out. I fall into more of the latter stage but I dont see either Bird or Magic having defense equal to the offensive impact of Robinson and if he defense is as good as believed, I think it can be almost as impactful as bird or magic's offense, although we've seen plenty of good defenders with average defenses yet a strong offensive player like kobe can will odom and some bums into almost a top 5 offense,the idea that a player can lend more impact to his teammates on O rather than D is something I'm not opposed to listening to.
Here's an argument I find myself getting into often: Offense vs Defense.
Personally I think offense matters way more especially on an individual level but also on a team level. Here are the top offenses in league history (by z-score) up until 2010:Code: Select all
Year Team Pts ePoss eORtg Offense
2007 Phoenix Suns 10182 8775.7 116 3.25
2005 Phoenix Suns 10734 9245.7 116.1 2.92
1971 Milwaukee Bucks 11237 10385.1 108.2 2.72
2010 Phoenix Suns 10753 9241.6 116.4 2.59
1982 Denver Nuggets 10729 9463.4 113.4 2.56
2004 Dallas Mavericks 9124 8231.5 110.8 2.49
1975 Houston Rockets 9389 9015.3 104.1 2.4
1987 Los Angeles Lakers 11826 10204.9 115.9 2.34
2004 Sacramento Kings 9575 8677.1 110.3 2.33
2006 Phoenix Suns 11030 9748.3 113.1 2.31
2009 Phoenix Suns 8974 7845.5 114.4 2.13
1988 Boston Celtics 11074 9655.8 114.7 2.12
1998 Seattle Supersonics 9198 8125 113.2 2.07
1996 Chicago Bulls 10378 8925.2 116.3 2.02
1985 Los Angeles Lakers 12096 10552.3 114.6 2.01
1978 San Antonio Spurs 10032 9395.3 106.8 2
1995 Seattle Supersonics 9444 8142.5 116 2
2004 Seattle Supersonics 7964 7289.2 109.3 1.99
2002 Dallas Mavericks 9501 8602.3 110.4 1.98
1997 Seattle Supersonics 9535 8331.9 114.4 1.94
1951 Rochester Royals 6930 7595.4 91.2 1.93
1993 Phoenix Suns 11813 10403 113.6 1.92
1986 Los Angeles Lakers 11235 9921.6 113.2 1.86
1994 Phoenix Suns 9940 8867.8 112.1 1.85
1962 Cincinnati Royals 10314 10483.5 98.4 1.84
And the top defenses:Code: Select all
Year Team oppPts ePoss eDRtg Defense
1993 New York Knicks 9315 9409.9 99 2.72
1984 Milwaukee Bucks 9952 9693.9 102.7 2.31
1963 Boston Celtics 10437 11799.9 88.5 2.24
2004 San Antonio Spurs 7771 8211.1 94.6 2.19
1965 Boston Celtics 9669 11360.6 85.1 2.14
1962 Boston Celtics 10489 12120.7 86.5 2.13
1975 Washington Bullets 9700 10395.6 93.3 2.13
2008 Boston Celtics 9712 9633.4 100.8 2.11
1970 New York Knicks 10712 11259.6 95.1 2.08
1952 Minneapolis Lakers 6276 7742.7 81.1 2.06
1990 Detroit Pistons 9952 9779.1 101.8 2.05
2003 New Jersey Nets 9198 9374.3 98.1 2.04
1964 Boston Celtics 9382 11140.7 84.2 2.02
2007 Cleveland Cavaliers 9353 9320.3 100.4 2
1999 San Antonio Spurs 5617 5914.5 95 1.99
2005 Detroit Pistons 9476 9485.3 99.9 1.99
1989 Utah Jazz 8518 8283.9 102.8 1.98
2000 Los Angeles Lakers 9807 10111.8 97 1.97
1989 Detroit Pistons 9843 9566.1 102.9 1.96
2008 Houston Rockets 8090 7985.3 101.3 1.94
2002 Miami Heat 7276 7359.3 98.9 1.93
1959 Boston Celtics 9183 10757.3 85.4 1.93
1957 Boston Celtics 8258 9839.1 83.9 1.92
1994 New York Knicks 9696 9729 99.7 1.92
2004 Detroit Pistons 8765 9161.8 95.7 1.92
The first thing that stands out to me is that there are 9 offenses better than the number 2 defense. The second thing is the massive difference between the z-scores of the GOAT defensive dynasty and the GOAT offensive dynasty. The Nash Suns have an average z-score of 2.64 in their top 5 years and the Russell Celtics have an average z-score of 2.09 in their top 5 years. That doesn't sound like much but that's the difference between the 99.2nd percentile and the 96.3rd percentile. These numbers show there's a real cap on how good a defense can be and it follows the logic of the game. You can play perfect defense but it means nothing if a lucky shot goes in.
For another quick comparison on the individual impact of offense vs defense let's use prime Ewing vs Nash as they've led what are probably the best defensive and offensive dynasties since Russell was patrolling Boston. Nash on average from 02-10 (across 2 different teams) had an average 7.1 offense. Ewing on the same team (with 3 different coaches) from 92-99 had an average -5.6 defense with only 2 seasons above the 7.1 mark (93 and 94).
When I first noticed this I thought both sides were equal and I tried to come up with reasons why its easier to break away from the mean offensively compared to defensively and I came to a few conclusions.
The first, as mentioned above, is that perfect offense beats perfect defense. You can stop a team from advancing past the baseline but if they're perfect (meaning they keep their handle) they can still make a half court heave. Extreme example I know but we all know there's some things you can't stop with great defense. Look at Melo and Lebron's 60 point games against Charlotte. MKG guarded both well and was still getting burnt. They didn't do as well against him as they did against other guys but in a vacuum they were still very good.
The second conclusion is that one man can make a great offense but not a defense. To illustrate this point I'll use the GOAT defender of the last 40 years (IMO) Deke. Towards the end of his tenure with Denver, Bernie Bickerstaff, and the worst defensive supporting cast in the league outside of Antonio McDyess, the Nuggets struggled to be average defensively. He goes to the Hawks (who were previously an average defense more or less) and they're a top 3 defense his first season with him while Denver dropped to the bottom 5 of the league. With other great defenders that were stuck with a terrible supporting cast and coach we see the same thing. KG was leading average defenses most years and Zo was leading some mediocre defenses until he went to Miami and immediately started leading top 5 level defenses. Meanwhile we can look at a guy like T-Mac, Harden, and Melo all of whom were not GOAT level offensive players consistently (because 03 T-Mac is up there) but they all have always had top 10 offenses and sometimes top 5 offenses (mainly thinking of the 13 Knicks and Rockets here) despite not having much to work with.
The third conclusion I came to and the one that most changed my mind on defensive players is that defensive coaches get good defensive production out of some bad teams. Doc Rivers is never usually seen as a defensive savant but with some of the stinker teams he's had you'd think he's had some bad defenses when the worst defense he's ever coached (or a full season because 11 games in 04 isn't a large enough sample) was only +1.4 (03 Magic). Outside of that his teams at worst have been around 15th on defense (once they finished 20th but were only +0.9 compared to league average). Meanwhile you look at a guy like D'antoni and he's had some pretty bad offenses. You look at a guy like JVG and notice the worst defense he's ever coached was still a -2.9 team that finished 6th. You look at a guy like Pat Riley and notice he once led a +2.5 defense (on a 17 win Miami team with a -7.0 offense) but outside of that always had an average level defense at worst. You can also look at ATG defenders that had good teams around them and notice that without a great defensive coach they never were first on defense.
Another post in the last thread I quoted mentioned David Robinson going from leading 2 1st ranked defenses under Larry Brown (another ATG defensive coach who's first #1 defense came his first year in the NBA) to leading a 9th ranked defense under John Lucas and peaking at 3rd under Hill before finally going back to number one defenses after Popvich (and Duncan) came. Look at Hakeem rarely having a top 3 defense and always having a ton of defensive talent around him and decent (but not great) defensive coaches like Don Chaney (5x all defense in his playing career) and Bill Fitch. Look at a team like the [2015] Bucks going from the bottom of the barrel to the top with a coaching change (yes the players improved some as they were all young but they didn't improve enough to go from 30th to 4th).
On the other end of the floor you notice great PGs usually don't need coaches to implement strategy. Nash still led great teams without D'antoni and Magic notoriously got Westhead fired because he felt he was stepping on his toes (which led to LA hiring a defensive coach and going on to having one of the GOAT dynasties). Chris Paul just recently went from VDN to Doc and the offense improved with Doc telling Chris to push the pace a little more but that's probably more of a result of the Clippers dumping some offensive dead weight for guys like JJ Redick and Blake Griffin taking that next step in his game to become a legit MVP level player.
As far as what this means for Magic and Bird vs Robinson I think Magic and Bird's offense easily trumps his defense and while Robinson's offense might beat both of their defenses in the regular season Bird at least has shown more defense than you can expect from Robinson's offense in the playoffs.
FrogBros4Life wrote:Long post incoming....this discussion has piqued my interest and I wanted to chime in with a few things...
90 Ewing Playoffs Per Game: 29.4 ppg, 10.5 rpg, 3.1 ast, 1.3 stl, 2 blks, 2.7 TO, 58%TS
95 Robinson Playofffs Per Game: 25.3ppg, 12.1 rpg, 3.1 ast, 1.5 stl, 2.6 blks, 3.7 TO 54%TS
=======================
90 Ewing Playoffs Per36: 26.8ppg, 9.6 rpg, 2.8 apg, 1.2 stl, 1.8 blks, 2.5 TO, 58%TS
95 Robinson Playoffs Per36: 22ppg, 10.5 rpg, 2.7apg, 1.3 stl, 2.3 blks, 3.2 TO, 54%TS
========================
90 Ewing Playoffs Per100: 37.5ppg, 13.4 rpg, 4apg, 1.7 stl, 2.6 blks, 3.4 TO, 58%TS
95 Robinson Playofffs Per100: 32.6ppg, 15.6 rpg, 4apg, 1.9 stl, 3.4 blks, 4.8 TO, 54%TS
===========================
Whether you look at per game, per36 or per100, Ewing appears to have a clear edge in production offensively regardless of what BPM and WS yield as outputs. This falls in line with E-Balla's original claim even before we take into account that Ewing played against better defenses at a slower pace. In 90, Ewing played the Celtics who were 12th in DRTG, and the Pistons who were 2nd in DRTG (1st in playoff DRTG). In 95, Robinson played the Nuggets who were 14th in DRTG, the Lakers who were 16th in DRTG, and the Rockets who were 12th. In 90, The Celtics were 13th in Pace and the Pistons were 26th (2nd to last). In the playoffs the Celtics were 3rd in pace and the Pistons 15th. In the 95 regular season, the Nuggets were 20th in pace, but the Rockets were 10th and the Lakers were 4th. In the playoffs, Denver was 4th in pace, the Lakers were 8th and Houston was 2nd. The pace here clearly favors Robinson, even before we consider that in 95 Robinson played 15 postseason games to 10 for Ewing in 1990.
Robinson did have a slight edge in overall REB% (16.6 to 15.7), but Ewing had the edge in DEFREB% (26% to 22%), and with the increase in pace of play in Robinson's favor, it makes the slight rebounding edge for Robinson less impactful.
Over their entire primes, Ewing's overall playoff PPG increased from his regular season average 3 times. Robinson's overall playoff PPG increased from his regular season average once. Over their entire primes, Ewing's overall playoff APG increased from his regular season average 6 times. Robinson's overall playoff APG increased from his regular season average 4 times. Over the course of their entire primes Robinson's turnovers increased in the playoffs from his regular season average 4 times. Over the course of their entire primes Ewing's turnovers increased in the playoffs from his regular season average just twice (one of which was a 0.1 increase). And this is against ALL defenses....not just good ones, and we know that Ewing played in the harder of the two conferences during his time and routinely played more difficult defenses than Robinson did (again, as E-balla pointed out, Robinson never played an elite defense). With all of these factors, it's not a stretch at all to say that Ewing was a more resilient #1 option on offense in the playoffs, especially when you consider his raw stats will be somewhat deflated due to the slower pace at which his teams played. As for sacrificing his defense, I agree that 1990 was not Ewing's best defensive year, but over the course of their entire primes (as was how the original argument was framed), Ewing did this while managing to lead a defense that was top 5 in the league for about 8 straight years, 2 of which were among the best of all time.
Between 90-98, the relative difference in playoff points per 100 compared to actual playoff ppg favors Ewing in all but 2 seasons.
When we adjusted for minutes AND possessions in 90 Ewing vs 95 Robinson, we see that Ewing still appears to come out ahead on the offensive end any way you slice it. And again, when adjusting for pace for every year from 1990-1998, Ewing has better relative scoring numbers when comparing per100 possessions to actual playoff ppg (because Ewing was playing at a slower tempo than Robinson) in all but 2 seasons.
A few other things stood out to me while reading this discussion. Mainly...euroleague wrote:DRob was often doubled while teams rarely needed to double Ewing.
This is just not true. If anything Ewing may have been double teamed more.liamliam1234 wrote:Give me Robinson’s offensive performance against Hakeem over Ewing’s any day.
This is more than likely a fair statement, but just to add some perspective I will say this as matter of factly as possible:
Robinson against Hakeem in 95 scored ~5 more ppg than Ewing against Hakeem in 94, and Robinson did so on better efficiency (because Ewing was double teamed with regularity). To score those extra 5 points however, the Spurs/Rockets series was at a faster pace and Robinson attempted FIFTY free throws more (in a 6 game series) than Ewing did (in a 7 game series).
In 1995 Oljauwon averaged 27.8 ppg in the regular season, 33ppg in the playoffs and 35.3 pgg against the Spurs (Olajuwon was +2.3 ppg better against the Spurs than the postseason as a whole, and a whopping +7.5 ppg better against the Spurs than his regular season average). Robinson averaged 27.6 ppg for the regular season, 25.3 for the playoffs, and 23.8 ppg vs. the Rockets. (Robinson was -2.3ppg for the playoffs compared to his regular season, and -3.8ppg against the Rocket compared to his regular season). In 94, Olajuwon averaged 27.3 ppg in the regular season, 28.9 ppg in the playoffs, but only 26.9 vs the Knicks. (Ewing held Olajuwon not only below his regular season scoring average, but his scoring average for the playoffs that year as well). And while the Rockets routinely double teamed Ewing, The Knicks pretty much opted for single coverage against Olajuwon more than they doubled him. Ewing certainly got outplayed by Olajuwon, but Olajuwon ran Robinson out of the gym, dropping at least 39 (!) points on him in 4 of the 6 games.
In terms of overall play, Ewing out-rebounded Robinson (and Hakeem, in either series), had a better assist to turnover ratio than Robinson, and had more blocks by a significant margin (steals were roughly even). Ewing set a Finals record for both most blocks in a game and most blocks in a 7 game series. Ewing had more blocks through 2 and a half games in 94 than Robinson did all series in 95. Ewing's DRTG in the NY/HOU series was a 95 while Robinson's DRTG in the Rockets/Spurs series was a 107.
So...Robinson scored 5 more ppg on FIFTY more free throw attempts, but Ewing probably played him better overall, and the Knicks certainly gave the Rockets a much tougher series.
Again, Ewing's playoff PPG, APG and TO economy all increased from the regular season to the postseason with more frequency than so for Robinson over the course of their careers. If you are talking strictly regular season numbers, sure, Robinson was more productive on offensive, but he played the majority of his career at a faster pace of play with a style that didn't revolve around pounding the the air out of the ball for the first 20 seconds of the shot clock with a bunch of bricklayers around him.
Here is a rough breakdown of defenses Ewing faced every year in the playoffs from 90-00:
89-90: Detroit (2nd best defense in the regular season) (Playoffs: 1st in Opponent FG%, 1st in Opponent PPG, 1st in DRTG, 2nd in TO forced)
90-91: Chicago (7th best defense in the regular season) (Playoffs: 2nd in Opponent FG%, 1st in Opponent PPG, 1st in DRTG, 5th in TO forced)
91-92 Detroit (6th best defense in the regular season) (Playoffs: 1st in Opponent FG%, 2nd in Opponent PPG, 3rd in DRTG, 8th in TO forced)
91-92 Chicago (4th best defense in the regular season) (Playoffs: 2nd in Opponent FG%, 6th in Opponent PPG, 2nd in DRTG, 6th in TO forced)
92-93 Charlotte (5th in playoff DRTG and 2nd in TO forced despite not ranking out well in either Opponent PPG or Opponent FG%)
92-93 Chicago (7th best defense in the regular season) (Playoffs: 10th in Opponent FG%, 4th in Opponent PPG, 10th in DRTG, 5th in TO forced)
93-94 New Jersey (10th best defense in the regular season) (Playoffs: 6th in Opponent FG%, 6th in Opponent PPG, 5th in DRTG, 4th in TO forced)
93-94 Chicago (6th best defense in the regular season) (Playoffs: 9th in Opponent FG%, 4th in Opponent PPG, 9th in DRTG, 6th in TO forced)
93-94 Indiana (8th best defense in the regular season) (Playoffs: 4th in Opponent FG%, 1st in Opponent PPG, 1st in DRTG, 2nd in TO forced)
93-94 Houston (2nd best defense in the regular season) (Playoffs: 1st in Opponent FG%, 7th in Opponent PPG, 6th in DRTG)
94-95 Cleveland (3rd best defense in the regular season) (Playoffs: 2nd in Opponent PPG, 4th in DRTG, 1st in TO forced)
94-95 Indiana (6th best defense in the regular season) (Playoffs: 10th in Opponent FG%, 8th in Opponent PPG, 8th in DRTG, 8th in TO forced)
95-96 Chicago (1st best defense in the regular season) (Playoffs: 5th in Opponent FG%, 1st in Opponent PPG, 1st in DRTG, 1st in TO forced)
96-97 Miami (1st best defense in the regular season) (Playoffs: 1st in Opponent FG%, 1st in Opponent PPG, 1st in DRTG, 8th in TO forced)
97-98 Indiana (5th best defense in the regular season) (Playoffs: 5th in Opponent FG%, 7th in Opponent PPG, 8th in DRTG, 1st in TO forced)
98-99 Miami (8th best defense in the regular season, Alonzo Mourning DPOY) (Playoffs: 8th in Opponent FG%, 5th in Opponent PPG)
98-99 Atlanta (2nd best defense in the regular season) (Playoffs: 3rd in Opponent PPG, 4th in DRTG)
99-00 Miami (7th best defense in the regular season, Alonzo Mourning DPOY) (Playoffs: 3rd in Opponent FG%, 1st in Opponent PPG, 2nd in DRTG)
So, yes, he literally was facing top 5ish defenses in the playoffs almost every year. Certainly better than what Robinson was facing year in and year out in the Western Conference playoffs.euroleague wrote:On DRob vs Ewing - the arguments are quite laughable regarding team defenses. When each player is a first option, playing the ball through them and being defended m2m, the team defense of the opposition isn't that important so much as how often they help. DRob was often doubled while teams rarely needed to double Ewing.
In 95, DRob's peak season, he was defended by …peak Hakeem, peak Mutombo, prime Divac and in 96 he was defended by Karl Malone (who had to take DRob quite a bit) and Felton Spencer.
In 90, Ewin'g peak, he dominated against 36 year old Robert Parish and had a bad series with 1 good game and 1 empty stats game while getting blown out against the bad boy pistons...defended by Laimbeer.
DRob's competition at Center was so much higher, the comparison is absurd. Even in 1990, DRob held his own as a rookie head to head. In 95, DRob was blowing Ewing out of the water.
I already addressed the claim about Ewing not getting double teamed, but I'll provide some extra "context" to the rest of this quote....
As for Ewing having a "bad" series against the Pistons, he averaged 27, 10reb and 2ast with 2 blocks on 56%TS on a much better turnover economy than his regular season averages that year. He also had the highest GMscore of any player on either team that series. And this again, was against a historically great defensive team, who were the defending champs en route to a repeat. I wouldn't say Ewing had a bad series so much as he simply lost to a better team.
As for man defense outweighing team defense...
It was claimed in 90 that Ewing dominated a washed up 36 year old Robert Parish and an (implied to be) defensively deficient Bill Laimbeer. Laimbeer had a playoff DRTG of 96 and a DBPM of 4.9 (both better than his regular season DRTG and DBPM). Parish meanwhile, while not necessarily "impressive" by any defensive metrics, still had the best postseason DRTG on his team (116) and was the only player on the roster with a positive DBPM in the playoffs. Kevin McHale also spent time guarding Ewing this series and he was 2nd team All Defense this season.
In 95 Robinson was guarded primarily by Mutombo, Divac/Elden Campbell and Olajuwon. Mutombo, while the DPOY only had a regular season DRTG of 103 (worse than Laimbeer) and a DBPM of 4.4. In the playoffs, Mutombo's DRTG was 117 (!) and his DBPM was 1.7. So Mutombo's playoff DRTG and DBPM were both SIGNIFICANTLY worse than Laimbeer, and his playoff DRTG was worse than "36 year old washed up Robert Parish" as well.
Seeing that Mutombo's defensive metrics were not only bad in a vacuum, but also much worse than his regular season marks, you would think that Robinson dragged him all over the court. But Robinson's averages that series? 19ppg, 6.7 rpg, 3.3 apg, 2 steals and 1.3 blocks on 43% FG. I wouldn't exactly call this blowing anybody out of the water.
Against the Lakers, Divac and Elden Campbell both had playoff DRTG's of 106, and DBPMs of 3.4 and 4.1 respectively. Both still inferior to Laimbeer. Robinson spanked the Lakers front court (as he should have), but the Lakers were not a great defensive team and actually had an expected W-L this year that was BELOW .500 (40-42). So again, Robinson was feasting on a not great team, that also lacked great individual post defenders to offset that by virtue of man to man coverage on Robinson. Good for Robinson, but this is what E-balla was talking about with Robinson beating up on "cupcake teams".
Against the Rockets, Houston as a team was 5th in playoff points allowed and 9th in team DRTG. Hakeem's regular season DRTG (100) and DBPM (4.0) were both better than his playoff DRTG (108) and DBPM (3.7). Yet, in the postseason he still held Robinson below his season averages in Points, Assists, and TS% with Robinson playing almost 4 more minutes per game in this series compared to his regular season allotment. Robinson also committed almost 2 more turnovers per game while seeing a reduction in USG.
So the Pistons in 90 were better as a defensive unit as a team than any squad Robinson played in the playoffs in 95. And Laimbeer had better individual defensive impact stats than any player who guarded Robinson that postseason. And Ewing still outplayed Robinson from a box score standpoint, while also playing at a much slower pace (Detroit played at the 2nd slowest pace of any playoff team in 90....15th out of 16, Boston was 3rd out of 16). In 95, the slowest paced team the Spurs played were the Lakers who were 8th out of 16. Denver was 4th and Houston was 2nd.
And this is before we even take into account that Robinson's supposedly superior postseason run of 95 came against 3 sub-50 win teams. Granted, the 95 Rockets were much better than their 47-35 record indicated. But both the Nuggets and the Lakers that year were inferior to either the 90 Celtics (52 wins) or the 90 Pistons (59 wins). Ewing and the Knicks came back from an 0-2 deficit to beat the Celtics in an elimination game on the road. The Spurs had homecourt advantage against the Rockets, dropped both of the first 2 games in San Antonio, and lost the series in 6.
I'm not sure you can paint Robinson's 95 playoff run as better than Ewing's 90 run in any way other than trying to boil everything down to BPM or WS and then saying "See! This magic number says Robinson was better so it must be true". Absent of context, those numbers do not tell the entire story.
And this STILL does not explain why Robinson's 95 playoffs vs. Ewing's 90 playoffs was even brought up in the first place in an attempt to debunk the entirely different claim that over the course of their entire primes, Ewing played better than Robinson did against upper tier defenses. It was a silly thing to use as a counterpoint, but even in doing so, upon close examination, we can see that even in those individual years Ewing played as well or better against good defenses as Robinson did against bad and mediocre ones. And that is irrespective of whether you are defining a defense as being good based on the team's overall defense ranking or the individual man defenders that were guarding each player (in so far as we can quantify such things).
Also FWIW in comparing them as franchise players...Ewing lost a series as a higher seed 3 times (twice against Jordan). Robinson lost a series as a higher seed 5 times. Ewing won a series as a lower seed 6 times. Robinson won a series as a lower seed ZERO times. Ewing also has a better record in game 7's (and game 5's when the first round was best 3 out of 5), and close out games in general. None of that proves anything definitively of course, but it's an additional point to ponder when thinking about them in terms of "leaders" on teams that were expected to contend for championships.
Basketball is not played in an excel spreadsheet and BPM and WS are not magic numbers that somehow refute claims where other pieces of evidence might lead us to a different conclusion. If any of you want to nitpick any of this additional context, feel free (I personally am not a fan of using DBPM for example), but at least now some more "context" has been provided.
FrogBros4Life wrote:You say that the overall weighted defensive showing of Ewing's Knicks through the 92-93 season was but "a fraction" of Robinson's, before summarily glossing over the fact that "it probably gets a lot better if you extend through the rest of Ewing's career"......Gee....ya think? I feel like you shouldn't have posted incomplete data on Ewing that leaves out the entire back half of his career after he became a much more intelligent defender (despite being less athletic) and switched playing styles altogether to one that was more defensive oriented. By focusing primarily on the earliest of Ewing's playoff series, where 1.) He had a weaker supporting cast than Robinson had in his first few years (they had about equal supporting casts by 91-92) and 2.) The average regular season rank for the oRTG of Ewing's playoff opponents for the years you listed was 6th. The average regular season rank for the oRTG of Robinson's playoff opponents for the years you listed was 8th (8.3 to be precise), it appears falsely framed. Ewing had a more difficult task in so far as he was trying to stop more potent offenses than Robinson was in just the years you cited. But lets extend the numbers for Ewing's entire Knick career and see what we find....
For starters.....here are Robinson's pre-Duncan numbers again
Robinson
==================
89-90 Nuggets (Reg Season oRTG = 108) 14th in league (Series oRTG = 105.2) = 3 games (won series) Diff = -2.8
89-90 Blazers (Reg Season oRTG = 110.5) 9th in league (Series oRTG = 107.2) = 7 games (lost series) Diff = -3.3
90-91 Warriors (Reg Season oRTG = 111.9) 6th in league (Series oRTG = 111.7) = 4 games (lost series) Diff = -0.2
*92-93 Blazers (Reg Season oRTG = 108.3) 14th in league (Series oRTG = 105.1) = 4 games (won series) Diff = -3.2
* (if we exclude game 1 where Drexler did not play then (Series oRTG = 108.5 in games 2-4) Diff = +0.2
92-93 Suns (Reg Season oRTG = 113.3) 1st in league (Series oRTG = 109.9) = 6 games (lost series) Diff = -3.4
93-94 Jazz (Reg Season oRTG = 108.6) 7th in league (Series oRTG = 110.6) = 4 games (lost series) Diff = +2
94-95 Nuggets (Reg Season oRTG = 109.1) 11th in league (Series oRTG = 103.1) = 3 games (won series) Diff = -6
94-95 Lakers (Reg Season oRTG = 109.1) 12th in league (Series oRTG = 97.9) = 6 games (won series) Diff = -11.2
94-95 Rockets (Reg Season oRTG = 109.7) 7th in league (Series oRTG = 110.6) = 6 games (lost series) Diff = +0.9
95-96 Suns (Reg season oRTG = 110.3) 8th in league (Series oRTG = 109.3) = 4 games (won series) Diff = -1
95-96 Jazz (Reg Season oRTG = 113.3) 2nd in league (Series oRTG = 114.1) = 6 games (lost series) Diff = +0.8
Avg oRTG faced: 110.2
Avg oRTG rank faced: 8.3
Avg oRTG diff = -2.57
Avg oRTG diff (adjusted for Drexler missing game 1 of the 93 Portland series) = -2.36
Faced the #1 oRTG in the league: one time
Lost all 3 series where his opponent's oRTG for their playoff series increased from their regular season oRTG
Now here's Patrick.....
Ewing
==========
87-88: Celtics (Reg Season oRTG = 115.4), 1st in league (Series oRTG = 117.3) = 4 games (lost series) Diff = +1.9
88-89: Sixers (Reg Season oRTG = 113.1), 3rd in league (Series oRTG = 107.5) = 3 games (won series) Diff = -5.6
88-89: Bulls (Reg Season oRTG = 109.1), 12th in league (Series oRTG = 115.8) = 6 games (lost series) Diff = +6.7
89-90: Celtics (Reg Season oRTG = 112), 6th in league (Series oRTG = 119.3) = 5 games (won series) Diff = +7.3
89-90: Pistons (Reg Season oRTG = 109.9) 11th in league (Series oRTG = 114.5) = 5 games (lost series) Diff = +4.6
90-91: Bulls (Reg Season oRTG = 114.6) 1st in league (Series oRTG = 116.1) = 3 games (lost series) Diff = +1.5
91-92: Pistons (Reg Season oRTG = 107.5) 15th in league (Series oRTG = 97.6) = 5 games (won series) Diff = -9.9
91-92 Bulls (Reg Season oRTG = 115.5) 1st in league (Series oRTG = 111.2) = 7 games (lost series) Diff = -4.3
92-93 Pacers (Reg Season oRTG = 111.9) 5th in league (Series oRTG = 111.7) = 4 games (won series) Diff = -0.2
92-93 Hornets (Reg Season oRTG = 109.5) 9th in league (Series oRTG = 100.5) = 5 games (won series) Diff = -9
92-93 Bulls (Reg Season oRTG = 112.9) 2nd in league (Series oRTG = 112.4) = 6 games (lost series) Diff = -0.5
93-94 Nets (Reg Season oRTG = 107.2) 13th in league (Series oRTG = 95.9) = 4 games (won series) Diff = -11.3
93-94 Bulls (Reg Season oRTG = 106.1) 14th in league (Series oRTG = 106.7) = 7 games (won series) Diff = +0.6
93-94 Pacers (Reg Season oRTG = 107.8) 11th in league (Series oRTG = 100.1) = 7 games (won series) Diff = -7.7
93-94 Rockets (Reg Season oRTG = 105.9) 15th in league (Series oRTG = 100.1) = 7 games (lost series) Diff = -5.8
94-95 Cavs (Reg Season oRTG = 105.3) 22nd in league (Series oRTG = 97.6) = 4 games (won series) Diff = -7.7
94-95 Pacers (Reg Season oRTG = 109.6) 8th in league (Series oRTG = 106.9) = 7 games (lost series) Diff = -2.7
95-96 Cavs (Reg Season oRTG = 109.9) 10th in league (Series oRTG = 99.9) = 3 games (won series) Diff = -10
95-96 Bulls (Reg Season oRTG = 115.2) 1st in league (Series oRTG = 105.2) = 5 games (lost series) Diff = -10
96-97 Hornets (Reg Season oRTG = 110.9) 4th in league (Series oRTG = 110.4) = 3 games (won series) Diff = -0.5
96-97 Heat (Reg Season oRTG = 106.8) 12th in league (Series oRTG = 99.2) = 7 games (lost series) Diff = -7.6
97-98 Pacers (Reg Season oRTG = 108.4) 4th in league (Series oRTG = 106.5) = 5 games (lost series) Diff = -1.9
98-99 Heat (Reg Season oRTG = 104.7) 9th in league (Series oRTG = 98.4) = 5 games (won series) Diff = -6.3
98-99 Hawks (Reg Season oRTG = 100.5) 19th in league (Series oRTG = 89.3) = 4 games (won series) Diff = -11.2
*98-99 Pacers (Reg Season oRTG = 108.7) 1st in league (Series oRTG = 106.15) = 2 games (of 6) (won series) Diff = -2.6
*Ewing played in games 1 and 2 of this series, before injuring himself at the end of game 2 and missing the rest of the playoffs. The series oRTG here is for the 2 games in which he played.
99-00 Raptors (Reg Season oRTG = 104.7) 15th in league (Series oRTG = 98.1) = 3 games (won series) Diff = -6.6
99-00 Heat (Reg Season oRTG = 104.5) 17th in league (Series oRTG = 96.9) = 7 games (won series) Diff = -7.6
99-00 Pacers (Reg Season oRTG = 108.5) 1st in league (Series oRTG = 109.5) = 6 games (lost series) Diff = +1
Avg oRTG faced: 109.2
Avg oRTG rank faced: 8.6
Avg oRTG diff: -3.68
Faced #1 regular season oRTG: six times
Won 2 series where his playoff opponent's oRTG for their series increased from the regular season
So we see that despite Ewing's entire Knick playoff record, and Robinson's entire pre-Duncan playoff record has them facing about the same strength of offensive opponent on average, by both actual oRTG (110.2 to 109.2) and oRTG rank relative to the league (8.6 to 8.3, or, both roughly faced the 8th best oRTG on average), Ewing comes out more than a full point better in oRTG point differential (-3.68 to -2.57), and if we use the adjusted difference that accounts for Drexler missing part of the 93 series, it's (-3.68 to -2.36).
Not only does looking at the complete picture show us that Ewing's average playoff oRTG differential wasn't "a fraction" of Robinson's as you claimed....but rather, his -3.68 mark is outright better than both Robinson (adjusted or unadjusted) and Mourning's. And if we just look at the playoff point differentials for Ewing during the Riley/Van Gundy years it becomes much more pronounced, but we don't have to only look at the Riley/Van Gundy years. Ewing still comes out ahead even when we include the Stu Jackson, Rick Pitino, and John MacLeod years (by a comfortable margin).
Furthermore, Robinson's best point differential in any given series was the 95 Lakers at -11.2. Ewing's best mark of -11.3 (against the Nets in 94) not only beats this, but he has another differential equal to Robinson's best, of -11.2 vs. the Hawks in 99 (with none of the same teammates!). In fact, after the Lakers series in 95, Robinson's next best single season oRTG point differential was a -6, against the Nuggets that same year. Ewing has TWELVE (!!!!) single series that are better than Robinson's second best of -6, six of which are -9 or better. Also, Robinson's Spurs held the league best oRTG Phoenix Suns to a -3.6 in their 93 playoff series. Impressive for sure. Now let's note that Ewing's Knicks held the league best oRTG Chicago Bulls to a -4.3 in their 1992 playoff series, and the league best oRTG 72 win 1996 Chicago Bulls to a -10 in their 1996 playoff series.
Of course, Robinson starts to look better as a playoff defender once Duncan arrives, but Ewing never had the luxury of playing with another top 10 player so it's only fair that we look at their results when both Ewing and Robinson were the most important players on their teams. So the idea that Robinson was vastly superior as a playoff defensive anchor to Ewing just doesn't seem to hold water. And, if you've been reading the previous threads regarding Robinson and his pre-Duncan playoff foibles, you'll remember that Ewing was going up against much better playoff defenses on a yearly basis than Drob, and still performing better offensively. So....Robinson's offense suffered more against easier defenses.....Robinson's defense (in the context that you have presented: regular season to playoff oRTG differentials) is worse despite them both playing relatively equal offensive units....so what exactly is the argument for pre-Duncan Robinson being a better playoff performer (or even a better player period) than Ewing agian?
Oh, that's right....cecilthesheep wrote:However I also think it's important to note that the Knicks had other defensive impact players like Starks, Oakley, etc. What great defenders did the Spurs have but Robinson? Was one year of old Rodman the best it got?
As usual, people want to assign the lion's share of that defensive impact to the schemes and style of play, to his coaches, and/or his teammates instead of giving it to, you know, the only single person (player or coach) who was there for every one of these seasons.
FWIW, Rodman was 1st team All D in 95 and 2nd team All D in 94 (also for the Spurs). Starks was 2nd team all D in 94. Oakley was 1st team all D in 94 and 2nd team all D in 98. It wasn't like either Ewing or Robinson had a roster overflowing with perennial All D selections as teammates. Starks had a positive DBPM once his entire career....a 0.2 in 93-94. Robinson had SIX teammates playing at least 15mpg with a DBPM greater than that in the 1991 season alone. He had four teammates playing at least 14 mpg per game in 1995 with a DBPM above Starks career high. Oakley and Mason were legitimately great defensive players, and while Starks was good he certainly wasn't Bruce Bowen. Ewing did have more defensive minded teammates over the course of both of their careers, Robinson had more offensive help to balance that out.
As for Oakley and Mason...Mason was no longer a Knick by 96-97 and Oakley was traded in 98-99. Ewing's avg playoff oRTG differential after Mason was traded: -4.83 (!!!), and Ewing's avg playoff oRTG differential after Oakley was traded: -5.5 (!!!!).....but yea, let's give all that credit to Starks, Oakley and Mason.
And on the topic of credit and blame....if we are going to place all of the blame on Rodman for the Spurs losing to the Rockets in 95, are we also going to give him any of the credit for that -11.2 differential vs the Lakers or the -6 differential vs the Nuggets that same postseason where he played well in both of those series?
AEnigma wrote: Seeing as posting a link last time did little good, this time I will use direct quotations.
Owly wrote:AEnigma wrote: Seeing as posting a link last time did little good, this time I will use direct quotations.
Sounds like you want to argue against Robinson?
If so (and perhaps I am wrong or it's more nuanced or whatever) suggest you engage with the arguments of those putting him forward. Posting multiple separate older, and sometimes - at a very cursory glance - bitty, ad hoc anti-Robinson arguments seems like it's something hard to engage with, to get a foothold on, even if they are taking the time to read multiple long old posts (and perhaps old threads for context) which itself is not a small ask. Alternately if you don't want to address those voting's pro arguments, I might suggest that you edit, summarize reform these with your own thoughts to something more coherent, digestible, created to be directly relevant to the specific context (as I say I just skimmed, and I had looked back from the last link, but I'm seeing assist to turnover ratio in losses in a single series and raw Drtg comparisons across eras and then I'm wondering "was Laimbeer even primarily on Ewing, wasn't James Edwards the starting center, Laimbeer starter at PF?" ...) because again if you want a debate it seems a lot (and a bit of a mess) to dump as if to say "answer this". Just my opinion though.
LA Bird wrote:There is a tie between 66 West, 94 Robinson, 64 Robertson so we have a runoff between the three seasons. If you didn't vote for any of these seasons or you haven't voted in this round at all yet, please do so before 9am ET tomorrow. If there is still a tie as at the end of the runoff, a winner will be determined according to the tiebreak rule in the project thread.
AEnigma wrote:Owly wrote:AEnigma wrote: Seeing as posting a link last time did little good, this time I will use direct quotations.
Sounds like you want to argue against Robinson?
If so (and perhaps I am wrong or it's more nuanced or whatever) suggest you engage with the arguments of those putting him forward. Posting multiple separate older, and sometimes - at a very cursory glance - bitty, ad hoc anti-Robinson arguments seems like it's something hard to engage with, to get a foothold on, even if they are taking the time to read multiple long old posts (and perhaps old threads for context) which itself is not a small ask. Alternately if you don't want to address those voting's pro arguments, I might suggest that you edit, summarize reform these with your own thoughts to something more coherent, digestible, created to be directly relevant to the specific context (as I say I just skimmed, and I had looked back from the last link, but I'm seeing assist to turnover ratio in losses in a single series and raw Drtg comparisons across eras and then I'm wondering "was Laimbeer even primarily on Ewing, wasn't James Edwards the starting center, Laimbeer starter at PF?" ...) because again if you want a debate it seems a lot (and a bit of a mess) to dump as if to say "answer this". Just my opinion though.
Yes I must have forgotten to engage with Robinson arguments, thank you for that valuable addition clearly based in a consistent following of this project.
Maybe you would find it easier to follow if you chose to actually read rather than cursorily skim. Just my opinion though!
Affect being a key word here. I think this information is worthwhile for them to read, and not only will it not change their vote but they will be unaffected as ... I guess they won't consider it ... why even bother?I doubt will affect anyone already voting for him, but could be worth reading through for more skeptical others
AEnigma wrote:Consistency is something I have seen harped on repeatedly, in this project and in most prior projects. Often when it is brought up, I think it relies too sincerely on the questioner’s own feelings of consistency (e.g. Garnett should be right by Duncan) rather than on how other people might pursue internal consistency.
AEnigma wrote:DraymondGold wrote:A Case for Robinson > Giannis
This really irks me, and is part of a broader pattern that I find particularly annoying with data obsessives.
Owly wrote:AEnigma wrote:Owly wrote:Sounds like you want to argue against Robinson?
If so (and perhaps I am wrong or it's more nuanced or whatever) suggest you engage with the arguments of those putting him forward. Posting multiple separate older, and sometimes - at a very cursory glance - bitty, ad hoc anti-Robinson arguments seems like it's something hard to engage with, to get a foothold on, even if they are taking the time to read multiple long old posts (and perhaps old threads for context) which itself is not a small ask. Alternately if you don't want to address those voting's pro arguments, I might suggest that you edit, summarize reform these with your own thoughts to something more coherent, digestible, created to be directly relevant to the specific context (as I say I just skimmed, and I had looked back from the last link, but I'm seeing assist to turnover ratio in losses in a single series and raw Drtg comparisons across eras and then I'm wondering "was Laimbeer even primarily on Ewing, wasn't James Edwards the starting center, Laimbeer starter at PF?" ...) because again if you want a debate it seems a lot (and a bit of a mess) to dump as if to say "answer this". Just my opinion though.
Yes I must have forgotten to engage with Robinson arguments, thank you for that valuable addition clearly based in a consistent following of this project.
Maybe you would find it easier to follow if you chose to actually read rather than cursorily skim. Just my opinion though!
Okay so briefly
1) The above was a sincere attempt to faciilitate the debate I believed you wanted.
2) It was not a personal criticism, accusation, claim to have closely followed the project.
3) I don't see any engagement with Robinson voter in this thread. I still think I see signs that you wanted this though openly stating that you expect those on the other side of the debate to be close-minded probably didn't helpAffect being a key word here. I think this information is worthwhile for them to read, and not only will it not change their vote but they will be unaffected as ... I guess they won't consider it ... why even bother?I doubt will affect anyone already voting for him, but could be worth reading through for more skeptical others
4) No, I hadn't memorized your posting history. As above this was based on an attempt to get you the debate you seemed to want, not some weird critique of past posting. If indeed you truly did still want the debate then what happened in previous threads hadn't sated that desire and would seem of limited relevance.
5) That said given the anticipation of close-mindedness noted above, plus suggestions that people don't mean what they sayAEnigma wrote:Consistency is something I have seen harped on repeatedly, in this project and in most prior projects. Often when it is brought up, I think it relies too sincerely on the questioner’s own feelings of consistency (e.g. Garnett should be right by Duncan) rather than on how other people might pursue internal consistency.
or generalizing from a critical response to one poster to a group/class with a dismissive term attached (clarity not helped by not statement of what the "this" is, given it seems to be in response merely a heading)AEnigma wrote:DraymondGold wrote:A Case for Robinson > Giannis
This really irks me, and is part of a broader pattern that I find particularly annoying with data obsessives.
in engagement with one Robinson voter in the last thread and then tone here I understand why one might give engaging a wide berth regardless of how points were presented, as indeed I intend to.
Doctor MJ wrote:1. '66 West
2. '64 Robertson
3. '94 Robinson
I think Oscar has a strong case for having the better career than West, but I think that West was able to do more things at an elite level when given the chance.
Robinson vs these two is tricky. Can definitely make the argument that if Wilt's ahead of them, Robinson should be too, but I have more faith in West & Oscar as alphas.
Incidentally, I ended up procrastinating on the vote because I'm thinking more about my choice of Erving. He's fallen in my lists over time, but I found myself thinking he might need to fall more. I tend to see the '75-76 year as a bigger accomplishment than West or Oscar's peaks, but I'd draft West & Oscar ahead of him probably in any era, so do I really think Erving peaked higher?
