Name players alltime that would've done more with what Robinson had

[migya]

I've said it before and not to beat a near dead horse but the "underappreciation", actually "undervaluing" of David Robinson is large.

Many have ranked his peak below more than ten players and it makes no sense. His metrics are among the best and slightly behind Jordan in the 90s.

Name the players that could've performed as well as him and that team win as much as they did.

Give your reasonings. Can't see Olajuwon or Shaq doing it, Russell either. Only Chamberlain is possible and only remotely.

[Jaivl]

Probably none.

[Dutchball97]

Those insane impact metrics are about the regular season. The play-offs are a different story as even in his prime Robinson regularly underperformed and got outplayed by other stars more often than not. Acting like he only didn't have more success due to lackluster teams is disingenuous.

[70sFan]

I wouldn't expect anyone to do far better in Admiral's situation, but it doesn't change the fact that his offensive game didn't translate well into postseason. You can lose while playing excellent, or you can underperform in a winning series. I hold the latter more against ATG players than the former. I would be fine with Robinson not winning anything else if he played better in those losses, but he didn't.

[Owly]

Those insane impact metrics are about the regular season. The play-offs are a different story as even in his prime Robinson regularly underperformed and got outplayed by other stars more often than not. Acting like he only didn't have more success due to lackluster teams is disingenuous.

He's got pretty spectacular impact metrics in playoffs too, for as far as we have them, no?

Edit: To be clear that isn't to say we can infer he necessarily carries those over into earlier years playoffs but ... it does seem to miss as presently phrased that he had what I believe are pretty elite all time playoff impact numbers in the sample we have (playoffs means small samples, uneven samples etc). What we have at present if we are playoff "impact" inclined is missing data for early to mid 90s. I might then argue that talking about "the play-offs are a different story" after addressing an impact argument and especially "even in his prime" as though late or outside main prime Robinson were weaker later ...

... I would more clearly divorce impact measures which seem broadly positive in all areas we have it and otherwise are uncertain from Robinson's box reduction or possible Spurs dropoffs.

[penbeast0]

One note about playoffs. Most players perform worse in the playoffs which is why we give guys like Bill Russell or Hakeem Olujawon so much credit for their stepping it up.

One reason Robinson may have been so dominant in the regular season and slipped more in the postseason is he played at a level closer to his peak on a more consistent basis than many stars who tend to coast unless it's a nationally televised game or against a particular opponent. I remember all the stories of Jordan finding ways to see himself as disrespected to try to get his energy up for those regular season matchups (to the eternal memory of LaBradford Smith).

[Dutchball97]

Those insane impact metrics are about the regular season. The play-offs are a different story as even in his prime Robinson regularly underperformed and got outplayed by other stars more often than not. Acting like he only didn't have more success due to lackluster teams is disingenuous.

He's got pretty spectacular impact metrics in playoffs too, for as far as we have them, no?

Edit: To be clear that isn't to say we can infer he necessarily carries those over into earlier years playoffs but ... it does seem to miss as presently phrased that he had what I believe are pretty elite all time playoff impact numbers in the sample we have (playoffs means small samples, uneven samples etc). What we have at present if we are playoff "impact" inclined is missing data for early to mid 90s. I might then argue that talking about "the play-offs are a different story" after addressing an impact argument and especially "even in his prime" as though late or outside main prime Robinson were weaker later ...

... I would more clearly divorce impact measures which seem broadly positive in all areas we have it and otherwise are uncertain from Robinson's box reduction or possible Spurs dropoffs.

The year that is currently on the bubble of being voted in the top peaks list is his 94 season where the Spurs got beat by a lower seeded Jazz team with Malone thoroughly outperforming Robinson, if that isn't looking completely past the post-season then I don't know what is. It's possible I underrate Robinson's play-off performance somewhat due to a lack of credible defensive metrics when there is very reasonable evidence for Robinson maintaining his level of defense despite taking a couple steps back on the offensive end but even then his overall production dipped to a worrying degree and at least enough for me to take players with less eye popping regular seasons but much more consistently high level play-offs comfortably over Robinson.

[Texas Chuck]

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.

[70sFan]

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.

I don't think everything is based on only one series in this case though. Malone underperformed at least in 4 separate years in postseason as the main guy (1994-96 and 1998).

[AEnigma]

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?).

Ability is not about reliance. Now, many of those factors that boosted Robinson’s regular season value would have still been present during his prime (entering into the postseason does not magically make your backups more competent), but a postseason on/off split like -5 on / -20 off (so net +15) in 1994 does not mean he performed any better, it just means you cannot really fault him outright for losing. Losing on a worse team is fine, it happens a majority of the time, but the expectation is still for stars to play well in them. David Robinson did probably have around a top ten regular season peak. But in a series where opponents most specifically game-planned against him, I am not sure he was a better postseason performer than someone like Karl Malone (whom Robinson struggled to handle on both ends). Too easy to disrupt Robinson’s scoring, and in that Rudy Gobert mould, not dynamic enough against strong offences to be able to consistently take over on that end either. In the regular season he looks like a cross between Malone and Dikembe, but that is absolutely not what we ever got in the postseason.

[Dutchball97]

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.

If the conclusion of people is that 1994 is Robinson's best year then yes people are ignoring play-offs. I'm honestly a bit bewildered at your bewilderment because this sounds way too logical to not get imo. Being outplayed (at the very least by a mile on offense) by an all-time great who himself is the poster boy for taking a step back in the play-offs isn't some 2017 LeBron losing to the Warriors type of scenario. It's also very convenient to point to a guy known for his defense and then say he of course did enough on that end to overcome his significant step back on offense without substantially backing up that claim. The Jazz even shot better against the Spurs than they did against the Nuggets or Rockets so what exactly makes Robinson's defense against the Jazz so amazing that it absolves him of any wrongdoing?

Your conclusion of Robinson not being great is just plainly wrong as I've never said or implied anything close to that. All I'm saying is people are evaluating him based on his regular season dominance and not properly taking into account his post-season performance.

[Texas Chuck]

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.

I don't think everything is based on only one series in this case though. Malone underperformed at least in 4 separate years in postseason as the main guy (1994-96 and 1998).

Do you mean Malone or Robinson? And I was responding to a very specific post listing that one series. And I always find that amusing. Should we dismiss 2011 Lebron who was the best player in the RS and right there with Dirk as the best player in the playoffs right up until the Finals? Then with Dirk do we dismiss his MVP season because he had two tragic games against the Warriors? Do we dismiss 02 KG because Dirk obliterated him in the playoffs? And this is just Dirk-centric.

Now if as you cite a player consistently underperforms(offensively anyway) in the playoffs then I think we do need to explore that. Is it some fatal flaw in their game or is it a fatal flaw in team construction where defenses can sell out to stop one guy knowing the other guys simply can't beat them?

I'm always leery of what we see a lot--did a player have poor TS% in a series? If yes, then that player sucked and had a bad series when that clearly isn't always the case. Take Lebron in the 2015 Finals for instance. TS% under 50%, Iggy winning the Finals MVP for guarding him and thus the easy, lazy narrative is Lebron sucked. But I think most of us here can still remember that series and that wasn't the case. Lebron played great. He just didn't shoot that well all playoffs really. But still did everything else that made him the best player alive.

[AEnigma]

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.

[eminence]

Do we mean more career or more peak/prime?

Career wise I certainly think there are a few guys could've done more simply by hanging around longer (eg a 2nd Tim Duncan could've won a bit more with OG Duncan).

LeBron is the only prime guy I feel good about doing consistently better. He's the best ever at taking underwhelming (not terrible, but underwhelming) casts to more than you'd expect results wise. I'm not sure he'd ever get the Spurs over the hump, but I do think they'd do better. It would take a small amount of roster make-over, but I think that's allowed in these hypotheticals.

Wilt/Hakeem/Duncan/KG are the guys I generally see as slightly better in a very similar role, but I'm unsure if they were better enough to get it done either, I think I generally expect not. I don't think the offense first bigs of KAJ/Shaq showed all that much without strong talent around them to think they'd improve here. No non LeBron perimeter player has ever led a team this relatively short on talent consistently deep enough to make me expect any of them could do it.

So I guess I'll go with those 5: Wilt/Hakeem/Duncan/KG/LeBron

'91 GS/'94 Utah/'95 Houston/'96 Utah I think folks usually point to. Robinson had terrible offensive series against the Jazz, struggled to find impact on defense against the futuristic Warriors, and really I think the Rockets series was the best of those series people traditionally point to. He got outplayed yes, and it wasn't a standout series for a player of his caliber, but it's hard to call it terrible either.

[Dutchball97]

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.

I don't think everything is based on only one series in this case though. Malone underperformed at least in 4 separate years in postseason as the main guy (1994-96 and 1998).

Do you mean Malone or Robinson? And I was responding to a very specific post listing that one series. And I always find that amusing. Should we dismiss 2011 Lebron who was the best player in the RS and right there with Dirk as the best player in the playoffs right up until the Finals? Then with Dirk do we dismiss his MVP season because he had two tragic games against the Warriors? Do we dismiss 02 KG because Dirk obliterated him in the playoffs? And this is just Dirk-centric.

Now if as you cite a player consistently underperforms(offensively anyway) in the playoffs then I think we do need to explore that. Is it some fatal flaw in their game or is it a fatal flaw in team construction where defenses can sell out to stop one guy knowing the other guys simply can't beat them?

I'm always leery of what we see a lot--did a player have poor TS% in a series? If yes, then that player sucked and had a bad series when that clearly isn't always the case. Take Lebron in the 2015 Finals for instance. TS% under 50%, Iggy winning the Finals MVP for guarding him and thus the easy, lazy narrative is Lebron sucked. But I think most of us here can still remember that series and that wasn't the case. Lebron played great. He just didn't shoot that well all playoffs really. But still did everything else that made him the best player alive.

Dismiss from what? If you mean by dismissing completely sweep a season under the rug as if it brought no value then sure but that seems so uncontroversial I doubt you'd bring it up like that. So do you mean that you consider 07 Dirk as arguably his peak despite not playing particularly well in the post-season when he was just as good in the regular season the year before and much better in the post-season? 2011 LeBron is less extreme than 07 Dirk or 94 Robinson's regular season/post-season splits but how do you not see that he has many other seasons that were of a similar or even better level than his 2011 season but with noticeably more consistency in the play-offs?

[Texas Chuck]

Dismiss from what? If you mean by dismissing completely sweep a season under the rug as if it brought no value then sure but that seems so uncontroversial I doubt you'd bring it up like that. So do you mean that you consider 07 Dirk as arguably his peak despite not playing particularly well in the post-season when he was just as good in the regular season the year before and much better in the post-season? 2011 LeBron is less extreme than 07 Dirk or 94 Robinson's regular season/post-season splits but how do you not see that he has many other seasons that were of a similar or even better level than his 2011 season but with noticeably more consistency in the play-offs?

I don't particularly care about arbitrarily defined peak/prime. Take Dirk--he was remarkably consistent for a decade. Whether people cite 06, 07, 11, or any other year as his "peak", there isn't that much separation from his other elite seasons. But I believe if a season is positive value for their team, I'm not writing it off based on one series. But its clear I misunderstood the context of your post. Because as you say that should be a duh.

So I got on my soapbox for nothing. Sorry about that.

[70sFan]

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.

I don't think everything is based on only one series in this case though. Malone underperformed at least in 4 separate years in postseason as the main guy (1994-96 and 1998).

Do you mean Malone or Robinson? And I was responding to a very specific post listing that one series. And I always find that amusing. Should we dismiss 2011 Lebron who was the best player in the RS and right there with Dirk as the best player in the playoffs right up until the Finals? Then with Dirk do we dismiss his MVP season because he had two tragic games against the Warriors? Do we dismiss 02 KG because Dirk obliterated him in the playoffs? And this is just Dirk-centric.

Now if as you cite a player consistently underperforms(offensively anyway) in the playoffs then I think we do need to explore that. Is it some fatal flaw in their game or is it a fatal flaw in team construction where defenses can sell out to stop one guy knowing the other guys simply can't beat them?

I'm always leery of what we see a lot--did a player have poor TS% in a series? If yes, then that player sucked and had a bad series when that clearly isn't always the case. Take Lebron in the 2015 Finals for instance. TS% under 50%, Iggy winning the Finals MVP for guarding him and thus the easy, lazy narrative is Lebron sucked. But I think most of us here can still remember that series and that wasn't the case. Lebron played great. He just didn't shoot that well all playoffs really. But still did everything else that made him the best player alive.

I actually agree with you, we shouldn't dismiss a great season because of one series. The problem in this case is that Robinson consistently underperformed in the playoffs, it happened more times than once. In this case, Dirk or LeBron analogy are not good, because these were outliers for the two, while it wasn't for Admiral.

I am fine with someone taking 1972 as Kareem's peak. I don't mind if someone believes Dirk peaked in 2007. Robinson peaked during 1994-96 period and he consistently showed that he struggled in the playoffs during that period. In Dirk's case, you can call it a fluke or infavorable matchup. In Admiral's case, it's just hard to do the same.

[DraymondGold]

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.

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.

[FuShengTHEGreat]

I think he and Hakeem had roughly the same calibre of talent roster wise in the 93-94 season.

Swap them that year and I think SA wins the title. Robinson played even worse vs the Jazz than he did vs Houston in 95.

The 94 playoffs imho was a bigger setback for Robinson than the fateful 95 WCF.

I think part of the 95 WCF debacle had to do with that overrated Rodman being a complete $^*&÷×^

[Cavsfansince84]

I'm not sure any player takes any of those 90-96 Spurs teams to a finals if that's what we're talking about. I think you could maybe make a case for KAJ, peak Wilt(preferably with a hot ft shooting run), MJ and LeBron doing it just because how impactful they could be in a 7 game series on both ends.