RealGM Top 100 List #17

[lorak]

Moses, Karl, Barkley, and Robinson are all right around the same level for me, so it's fitting that they are the group up for discussion. All of them have a fairly significant flaw - Moses and Barkley on defense, Barkley Moses, and Robinson in longevity, and Robinson and Karl in postseason play. By postseason play, I don't mean they shrank in the moment, but that their types of offensive games weren't necessarily ideal for leading championship offenses. Two of this group stand out over the rest, because he has an asset that the rest of them don't come close to matching. Robinson is one of the GOAT defenders in his short prime, and Karl Malone's prime play stretches FAR longer than any of the others. Because Karl was also a good defender, although not as elite as Robinson, and their postseason disappointments cancel out to an extent (and I think Karl's are more understandable/forgivable)...

I'm voting for Karl Malone at #17.

So if you value defense, longevity, long prime and "an asset that the rest of them don't come close to matching", then why Malone over Stockton?

VOTING KARL MALONE

I was looking for reasons to have one of Moses, Karl, or DRob stand out from that trio. ThaRegul8r's defensive playoff numbers hurt the main reason I was leaning David Robinson;

Why that hurts him more than Malone's offensive playoffs numbers? And are you sure it was flaw in Robinson's game than rather in Spurs defensive system (for example like Brown's inability to adjust against GSW)? Because as for Karl's offense I'm 100% sure it was essential flaw in his game, in his biggest strength actually, because in no other aspect of the game he was better than in scoring.

[ChiTown6rings]

So, what are the thoughts and opinions on David Robinson. Interesting that I lived in Texas for 22 years and I'm not sure that I've ever heard or have seen an analysis on his game and career.

[lukekarts]

I've been strongly against Karl Malone until this point though he gets my vote here.

His lacklustre post-season only really counts against him against the guys who've gone before, his game was better rounded than Moses Malone (who was somewhat a flawed defender) and against David Robinson he shares a similar flaw but greater longevtiy (and arguably better peak accolades).

Apologies for missing the last couple of rounds, I moved home and broadband is only up and running today. However I'm pleased to say my vote would've only strengthened the winning voters from the past rounds.

[Basketballefan]

If we're discussing Nash here, I want to hear some analysis on Walt Frazier, given that he was voted above Nash last time around. Frazier, now that I think about it, is a bit of an odd choice, as he's never really discussed in the same avenue as other great point guards like Stockton, Payton, Kidd, etc. So, what is he like, and what's the argument for him over Nash?

How Frazier would be discussed before Drob, Wade, Pettit, Hondo etc is beyond me. I don't see what argument he has over Nash, stockton, pippen, Drexler either.

[HeartBreakKid]

People just forget about Frazier because the guy played for the NBA in the 70s, not exactly a memorable era for most people.

I dont understand basketballefans post at all. Frazier was considered one of the best players in the league during his prime, half of the guys he mentioned weren't. He was the best point guard by a large amount for years, was probably the best two way perimeter player in the league, was the leader of two championship teams, he was pretty much good-great in every area of basketball.

[Quotatious]

So, what are the thoughts and opinions on David Robinson. Interesting that I lived in Texas for 22 years and I'm not sure that I've ever heard or have seen an analysis on his game and career.

One of the best defenders of all-time (I think he's top 5, but top 10 at absolute worst) and an excellent offensive player. Could even be a very good volume scorer in the regular season, when needed (even won the scoring title in 1994, averaging 29.8 PPG, on excellent efficiency - almost 58% TS), although it definitely wasn't his best role. He could fill the stat sheet with the best of 'em - also a really good, and very willing passer for a bigman, very good rebounder, could knock down the 15 footer, pretty consistently, and also one of the most athletic players in NBA history, the way he ran the floor, both running fasbreaks and getting back on defense, was awe-inspiring for a guy who was 7'1''.

His weakness was a relatively poor post game, and that's why he often declined in the playoffs, in terms of his scoring. He was more of a face-up player, relying on his athleticism to beat single coverage and finish at rim, or knock down midrange jumpers, but that's not a reliable way to score in the postseason, when defenses become a lot more intense, and usually focus on opposing star players even more than in the regular season, plus prime D-Rob was the sole focal point of his team's offense, so the amount of pressure he faced was even bigger than many other superstar bigmen, who had the luxury of playing with another star(s) on his team, to take some of that pressure off of them.

Advanced stats also love him - boxscore stats like PER (he's 4th all-time in career regular season PER, at 26.2) and WS/48 (2nd all-time, basically tied with Jordan as the best), and despite his playoff decline, he's 7th in career WS/48 in the postseason, and 15th in PER.

He also looks very well in RAPM, even past his prime.

His longevity is really unimpressive when you compare him to Karl and Moses though. In his prime, between 1989-90 and 1997-98, he played just 26247 minutes. For example, prime Karl Malone, between 1987-88 and 2000-01, played 48582 minutes. That's a HUGE difference. Moses, Barkley and Nash, so the other top candidates for #17, also played more minutes than Robinson.

Honestly, I think that Robinson had the highest peak of the remaining players (except Bill Walton, but Walton's longevity is so bad that he's not even taken into consideration yet), and I'd take Robinson's top 3 consecutive seasons (1994-96) over the top 3 consecutive seasons of a player like Kevin Garnett (2003-05), who's already in since the #11 thread, but longevity really hurts him. His playoff scoring decline, at least to me, isn't really an important factor, because he makes up for it with other things - he's on a totally different planet defensively than guys like Moses, Barkley or Nash, even much better than Karl Malone, who was a very good defender in his own right.

On a sidenote, I feel the same way about Robinson as I feel about Wade - both guys were amazing at their best, but neither sustained that super high level of play for nearly as long as the Malones, Barkley or even Nash.

[PCProductions]

Vote: Karl Malone

I'm actually shocked to see how low he's dropped. Though I haven't necessarily disagreed with any of the above picks, it still feels wrong to have Malone at #17. This is arguably the most consistent player ever and his level of play was elite for, like, 16 years.

Anyway, this was the guy people called the greatest PF ever until Duncan came along. Though his playoff performances tend to damage his reputation as a dependable player, he still led his team to back to back finals and the juggernaut Bulls all they could handle.

I'm not gonna go too in depth since he's been talked about for over 10 threads now. Great cases have been made for him, and he deserves this spot

[Basketballefan]

People just forget about Frazier because the guy played for the NBA in the 70s, not exactly a memorable era for most people.

I dont understand basketballefans post at all. Frazier was considered one of the best players in the league during his prime, half of the guys he mentioned weren't. He was the best point guard by a large amount for years, was probably the best two way perimeter player in the league, was the leader of two championship teams, he was pretty much good-great in every area of basketball.

I'm just not convinced his impact and numbers stand out compared to the guys i mentioned.

For example, was he a better 2-way player than Drob, Pippen, Drexler, Stockton? I don't see what makes him better than those guys i mentioned. I suppose if you really value point guard defense you could put him over Nash but i think the longevity and gap in offense is too large. As for Wade, Frazier doesn't have the better peak or better accomplishments and had a short prime just like him.

I could be convinced that Frazier belongs in the 23-27 range but it'll take more that what you mentioned to do so.

[penbeast0]

Walt Frazier

Strengths:
One of the two best defensive PGs in history (I favor Payton at #1 but they are the consensus choices)
Extremely efficient scorer for his era -- more efficient than Havlicek for example
Monster finals performances in both 1970 and 1973 where he was clearly the best player out there despite Reed getting the awards (had more to do with marketing; Frazier's street style and look was something the NBA was trying to avoid a perception of).
Generally conceded to be an excellent floor general despite less than overwhelming assist numbers (Willis Reed's comment was something like: "It's Walt's ball, he just lets us play with it sometimes."
Leader of a Knicks team that is still used as an exemplar for team play.
(His longevity -- a 9 year prime -- is solid but not up to the standards of a Stockton/Malone type and his assist numbers were low for a PG since he was running the 70s equivalent of the triangle.)

Why Frazier is better than Nash and Stockton -- Defense obviously; took over games with both his scoring and his defense; led his team to 2 titles over Jerry West and the Lakers with great individual perfomances.
Peak Frazier numbers 1972 21pts 6reb 5ast .576ts% without a 3 point line, led NBA in playoff scoring (lost in finals)
Peak Nash numbers 2006 19pts 4reb 11ast .632ts% led playoffs in assist % (lost in WCF) MVP!
Peak Stockton numbers 1997 14pts 3reb 11ast led playoffs in assist % (lost in finals)

Why Frazier is better than Isiah or Kidd -- Defense and efficiency plus both had some issues with teammates where Clyde always pulled his teams together. Efficient scoring is the big one though; Frazier was far more individually efficient despite playing in the pre-3 point era and maximized the abilities of his teammates as much as any PG in history.

Why Frazier is better than Havlicek -- Scoring efficiency and outstanding offense throughout his career. Frazier was terrific from year one in the league; Hondo always had that great motor but was a below average shooter for his first few years. Frazier is able to guard either guard spot so Hondo doesn't have as big a versatility edge on him as on many PGS; even 70s Havlicek is probably a hair below prime Frazier though it is much closer.

Why Frazier is better than Dwyane Wade -- Defense, reliability, and portability. Wade is a very good defender, Frazier is a great one. Wade is more explosive but Frazier is injured less and has no seasons where his team imploded. Frazier also can be successful in a PG dominant system, in a triangle system, has an excellent long to midrange game as well as being a very good postup PG; generally a player with no weaknesses.

Anyone that is talking about all time PGs and mentions Kidd and Payton without mentioning Frazier is either limiting himself to just the PGs he actually watched or doesn't know much about NBA history.

[Quotatious]

Monster finals performances in both 1970 and 1973 where he was clearly the best player out there

I think his best finals performance against the Lakers was actually the year when they lost, 1972 - 23/8/8 on 58.5% FG, and locked down Jerry West (West averaged just 19.8 on 32.5% FG) - that's unbelievable.

I see that I'm a little lower on Frazier than penbeast, though, as I don't think he's better than Wade or Nash, but I still have him pretty high, around 25. Frazier is IMO pretty similar to Wade and Robinson in the sense that his peak/prime was GREAT, but his longevity is lacking, compared to some other comparable players. I know that I'm inconsistent with my criteria though, as I have Frazier slightly ahead of Stockton, despite his way inferior longevity, and not THAT much higher peak (and Stockton certainly played defense, too), and have Nash ahead of both as I really believe that Nash is one of the GOAT offensive players, with higher impact than Stockton, despite his much worse defense. It's just very difficult for me to be satisfied with whatever criteria I'd choose.

[DayofMourning]

On a sidenote, I feel the same way about Robinson as I feel about Wade - both guys were amazing at their best, but neither sustained that super high level of play for nearly as long as the Malones, Barkley or even Nash.

Give me a team highlighted with Robinson and Wade over Malone and Nash any day;)

Injuries and other circumstances suck, but both Admiral and Wade had excellent peaks. Higher than those of others. Had they stayed healthy, then it wouldn't be a discussion. Longevity is great though. It just seems weird to me that Admiral and Wade have one MVP while Malone and Nash have 4 MVPs. When someone looks back at that in the future, they'll miss the truth.

[penbeast0]

Monster finals performances in both 1970 and 1973 where he was clearly the best player out there

I think his best finals performance against the Lakers was actually the year when they lost, 1972 - 23/8/8 on 58.5% FG, and locked down Jerry West (West averaged just 19.8 on 32.5% FG) - that's unbelievable.

I see that I'm a little lower on Frazier than penbeast, though, as I don't think he's better than Wade or Nash, but I still have him pretty high, around 25. Frazier is IMO pretty similar to Wade and Robinson in the sense that his peak/prime was GREAT, but his longevity is lacking, compared to some other comparable players. I know that I'm inconsistent with my criteria though, as I have Frazier slightly ahead of Stockton, despite his way inferior longevity, and not THAT much higher peak (and Stockton certainly played defense, too), and have Nash ahead of both as I really believe that Nash is one of the GOAT offensive players, with higher impact than Stockton, despite his much worse defense. It's just very difficult for me to be satisfied with whatever criteria I'd choose.

There are a few posters around here that like to claim that PG defense is unimportant. I never bought it; there may not be many game changing defenders at PG today between the rarity of truly great defenders and the increased initiation of offense from the wing, but throughout NBA history, there is a long tradition of PG dominant teams (including Nash's Suns) and if you can take the ball out of Nash's hands or harass him into being appreciably less efficient for himself and his teammates in the manner of a prime Gary Payton or Walt Frazier, I think you really disrupt that All-time great offense.

I rate Stockton slightly higher than Nash because I think pushing Eaton/Oberding/Byron Russell and co. to the offensive heights he did was actually as or more impressive than pushing Amare/Marion/Bell and co. to the level Nash did. Then you add defense . . .

The difference between either of them and Frazier though was that Frazier was given the opportunity to showcase his skills at the highest level and between 70 and 73, was just a dominant force in three NBA finals on both ends of the floor. The others never had that opportunity and we will never know if they could step up to the same degree -- few, even among the greats, have ever stepped up on the finals stage like Frazier.

[batmana]

My vote goes to Karl Malone.

He is a truly great player, a No. 1 option and that's what separates him from Stockton (to answer an above poster), Malone's impact is the impact of a franchise player. Stockton was a great 2nd option but I don't know whether he can handle being a 1st option at all.

Karl Malone was a very consistent player, you knew what you'll get from him night-in, night-out. That's how his career stretched forever and while most of his career was prime years, it's sometimes hard to pinpoint his peak. Some think it's when he peaked physically (in his 20s), others - when he was already a smarter wiser player who knew how to play to his strengths in his mid 30s. Malone was a great mid-range shooter but also a very good passer and a solid to great defender (certainly has less "popularity" All-D votes than Kobe Bryant and I'm not picking on Kobe, it's just an established fact).

Moses Malone peaked higher than Karl but for shorter. Outside of an amazing but short peak he was fine with a prime that looked very good statistically but I question whether he was always conductive to winning and to team success like in those 2 or 3 occasions where he really delivered at the highest stage.

The other players I have below those two, The Admiral is probably leading the way. He probably peaked higher than Karl Malone but the injury (and entering the league a little later) cut his prime shorter; he was a great 2nd option on a championship team and then a defensive presence despite being on his last legs on another championship team; unfortunately I can't give him credit for leading his team to the title which could have pushed him above the Mailman.

[lorak]

My vote goes to Karl Malone.

He is a truly great player, a No. 1 option and that's what separates him from Stockton (to answer an above poster),

How do you know who was 1st option? Was Nash also second option when he played with Amare? If not, then what is the difference?

[Notanoob]

I'm leaning Robinson, but the post regarding his postseason defense are too concerning to cast my vote right away. Can someone who watched Robinson play a lot shed some more light on his post-season defense during his peak/prime?

[batmana]

My vote goes to Karl Malone.

He is a truly great player, a No. 1 option and that's what separates him from Stockton (to answer an above poster),

How do you know who was 1st option? Was Nash also second option when he played with Amare? If not, then what is the difference?

I see where you are coming from with this and I have to say it's difficult to draw a line since it wouldn't be fair to only limit 1st options to guys who score. Instead, it's guys who make buckets happen for their team and you have a point with Nash or Stockton. To me, being a 1st option is the closest thing to a guy who gets his no matter what, in any circumstances, while not hurting his team but actually helping his team win, and I feel Malone was such a guy. I also believe Stockton is a player who you can game-plan around and make him change his game (for instance, limit his passing opportunities and turn him into a shooter or scorer). And I feel that he didn't have the needed aggression to make teams pay. Malone was a guy who you could throw your best defender at, and he might have a bad game, sure, but more often than not he'll give you around 20+/10+ and even though I have little evidence to support this, I believe he would have done close to this in another situation (w/o Stockton, or Sloan, or any of the supporting cast).

See, the thing with being a 1st option is that you may sometimes have to take bad shots, or force the issue. And I could be mistaken but it's easier to prevent a playmaker from finding his teammates for good shots than to prevent a good scorer from scoring.

I'm curious, do you believe Stockton and Malone were equally relied on to be 1st options or do you have a different look on what being a 1st option is, or do you not determine that at all when trying to judge a player's impact? Because frankly I haven't seen too many people argue Stockton was on the same level as Malone as an overall player even though it's pretty much accepted they are responsible for each other's success as much as for their own.

[DannyNoonan1221]

I'm curious, do you believe Stockton and Malone were equally relied on to be 1st options or do you have a different look on what being a 1st option is, or do you not determine that at all when trying to judge a player's impact? Because frankly I haven't seen too many people argue Stockton was on the same level as Malone as an overall player even though it's pretty much accepted they are responsible for each other's success as much as for their own.

For me it's not a matter of was Karl the first option. I would say he was the first option. But I don't think that means he was necessarily the more important player. To me the real question is how important was Stockton for Karl Malone? How much of Karl's individual success was a result of having Stockton as his point guard?

Some people have touched on it- there was a quote about Karl not being able to create his own shot at the end of important games if the defense focused in on stockton. To me that is far more telling than any information that will come out regarding who was option 1a and 1b for the team.

[ronnymac2]

Vote: Karl Malone

I'm voting for Karl Malone because he gives me the best chance to win over the course of his career. He gives you many options as far as how to build your team because he's above average or strong in many areas. You've got many great years with him as either a top-tier superstar or an ultra-portable role player. In his prime, he can take on an enormous usage — as high as some of our finest offensive wings — and drive strong offenses, even against formidable defenses in the playoffs.

Being receptive to John Stockton's elite passing/playmaking should not be seen as a detriment. This is 5 vs. 5 basketball, so if Malone didn't move well without the ball, didn't have amazing footwork on the pick-n-roll, didn't have magnet hands for catching, and didn't have the hustle/heart/energy to run the floor, he wouldn't work well with a great player like Stockton. The fact that Malone possesses those qualities made Malone and Stockton quite a tandom for 18 years, and Utah had tremendous success.

Many of the teams they lost to had GOAT players or were truly dominant teams.

1988 Lakers, 1994 and 1995 Rockets, 1997 and 1998 Bulls...all champions.

1990 Suns (7.09 SRS, #1)
1991 Blazers (8.47 SRS, #2)
1992 Blazers (6.94 SRS, #2)
1993 Sonics (6.66 SRS, #1)
1996 Sonics (7.39 SRS, #2)
1999 Blazers (5.67 SRS, #2)
2000 Blazers (6.37 SRS, #2)

Only 1989 is a disappointment, and that's when Stockton and Malone were young and Mark Eaton's horrible offense and crap speed made him a detriment against a gimmicky outside shooting run-n-gun Golden State team. Utah consistently ran up against dominant teams from that point on all the way until 2001, when Malone and Stockton weren't the same and the supporting cast was poor.

I also saw what Dave Halberstam said...well it's easy to create looks for yourself when you're being defended by Jeff Hornacek, Byron Russell, and Shandon Anderson. Utah from 1994 on had crap defensive wing players, which is why Clyde Drexler, Michael Jordan, and Scottie Pippen took them apart. Karl Malone had to create looks for himself against Dennis Rodman with basically 0 help from his centers. Karl Malone had crap offensive centers for his entire prime. Chicago put Pip on Ostertag and basically played off him and shut Utah's offense down in a game or 2 in 1998. Think about that.

To get back to Malone off-ball and his relationship with Stockton...Malone is actually a bit like Michael Jordan when it comes to off-ball play in terms of their decisiveness and ability to immediately read what the defense is doing upon catching the ball. Their reactions are sharp and swift as scorers. After catching an entry passer, Malone/Jordan don't just wait to see how the defense reacts. They catch and boom, they go. It's either shoot, drive, or thunder through the lane for Karl Malone. Not a lot of waiting around. I can see why Stockton's assists would be so high. Check this game out:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVVRn3UpmJc[/youtube]

Note this is early Malone, not close to his peak yet. He's got the jumpers, he's got the power post game that is going underrated here, and he's got the off-ball movement and hands and transition offense. He's great at catching on the block and then immediately dribbling to the middle, getting his elbow past the post defender so they can't get ahead of him, drawing contact, and finishing. He does it swiftly.

Ay his peak, he was an elite passer for his position. Despite taking on way more duties as a creator, his turnovers go way down, and Utah had strong-to-elite offenses during Malone's peak.

[ronnymac2]

I'm curious, do you believe Stockton and Malone were equally relied on to be 1st options or do you have a different look on what being a 1st option is, or do you not determine that at all when trying to judge a player's impact? Because frankly I haven't seen too many people argue Stockton was on the same level as Malone as an overall player even though it's pretty much accepted they are responsible for each other's success as much as for their own.

For me it's not a matter of was Karl the first option. I would say he was the first option. But I don't think that means he was necessarily the more important player. To me the real question is how important was Stockton for Karl Malone? How much of Karl's individual success was a result of having Stockton as his point guard?

Some people have touched on it- there was a quote about Karl not being able to create his own shot at the end of important games if the defense focused in on stockton. To me that is far more telling than any information that will come out regarding who was option 1a and 1b for the team.

That's what they say about Kevin Durant when Russell Westbrook can't deliver him the ball at the end of playoff games. It's not a legitimate critique of either Kevin Durant or Karl Malone.

[shutupandjam]

Vote: David Robinson

I think Robinson is the best remaining player, and I'd take him over anyone else who's still around if I'm trying to build a championship team. He's the only elite two way big left, capable of anchoring both his team's offense and its defense. He's probably a top 5 defensive player of all time and one of the game's best offensive bigs ever as well. He never had much help until Duncan came along, at which point he collected two titles in 6 years despite never playing with a great wing. His numbers suggest he's one of the very best in the history of the game, and here's a breakdown:


Elite Box Score numbers
Robinson was absolutely dominant in the box score. In his first NBA game, he had 23 pts, 17 reb, and 3 blk, and he went on to capture the following box score "accolades":

Regular Season
#3 all time in career estimated impact (after LeBron and Jordan)
#2 all time in career ws/48 (after Jordan)
#4 all time in career PER (after Jordan, LeBron, and Shaq)
#7 all time in career ASPM (after LeBron, Jordan, Barkley, Bird, Magic,and Paul)

Playoffs
#10 all time in career estimated impact (after Jordan, LeBron, Hakeem, Magic, Duncan, Shaq, Durant, Bird, and Wilt)
#7 all time in career ws/48 (after Jordan, Mikan, LeBron, Magic, West, and Wilt)
#15 all time in career PER

His playoff failures are clearly overstated - though he wasn't the incredible force he is in the regular season, he was still an elite playoff performer, and probably better than anyone else still on the board. It's also worth noting that the small playoff sample size make the drop less significant than you might think.

Elite On/Off numbers
Though we don't have RAPM for Robinson's prime, he was comparatively dominant in his later years. In fact, he has the second best average "30s" npi rapm (ie average of every year played at ages 30-39). Here's the top 5:

1. Stockton, +4.3
2. Robinson, +3.8
3. Garnett, +3.8
4. Ginobili, +3.5
5. Dirk, +3.5
(Shaq, Duncan, and Nash come next)


Additionally, Robinson missed significant time in 2 separate seasons in his prime, 1992 and 1997, so we can look at the effect his absence had on his teams in those years.

In 1992, Robinson missed the final 14 games of the season. With him the Spurs had a +4.5 adjusted net rating (for comparison, the 2014 Heat were a +4.7). Without him, the Spurs plummeted to -5.1 (the 2014 Lakers were -5.2). That's a (huge!) swing of 9.6, and according to ElGee's WOWY charts, the Spurs were on pace to win 24 fewer games without him.

In 1997, Robinson played only 7 games. In those 7 games,the Spurs were a -0.8. In the 75 games without him, they were -8.4, a swing of 7.8. Robinson's absence in 1997 also helps explain how the Spurs went from a 59 win team in 1996 to a 20 win team in 1997.

It's also worth mentioning that in 1989, the year before Robinson's arrival, the Spurs won only 21 games, then won 56 in his rookie year.

This all suggests that Robinson can lift a bottom feeder to contender level. It's a shame we never got to see what he could do with a great wing.

Concluding Points
David Robinson gets beat down all the time for "failing" in the playoffs and getting embarrassed in his matchup with Hakeem. But the truth is he was an absolute force. He was capable of protecting the rim as good as anyone ever, his superb quickness allowed him guard the pick and roll at a very high level and be all over the floor on defense. His offense was terrific as well - he averaged over 25 four times, and in 1994 he averaged 29.8 pts and 4.8 ast. He got to the line at a rate higher than all but four players in NBA history.

Similar to Garnett, he gets knocked quite a bit for not winning in his prime, but no one would have won a title with his teammates, and he still managed to lead his team to at least 49 wins every healthy year he had before Duncan. And when he finally got a great teammate - even though the guy played the same position as him - it only took a year before he won a championship. His years with Duncan have always been very underrated, and I looked at them a bit last thread:

Spoiler:

A few people have been asking about post-injury (1997) David Robinson. Lots of evidence suggests that from 1998-2001 he was a clear top 10 (and likely top 5) player in the NBA and neck and neck with Duncan (I think there's an argument to be had that he was just as important as Duncan to the 1999 championship run, though it seems like he never gets due credit there). After 2001, Robinson's age started showing and Duncan hit his absolute peak, but it's clear that Robinson was still a productive player, particularly on defense.

Here are some numbers for post injury Robinson:

1998
npi rapm
Robinson: +3.6 (#15 in the nba)
Duncan: +4.0 (#9)

estimated impact
Regular season:
Robinson: +5.7 (#3)
Duncan: +3.4 (#8)

Playoffs:
Robinson: +4.7 (#4)
Duncan: +3.1 (#8)

ws/48
Regular season:
Robinson: 0.269 (#1)
Duncan: 0.192 (#9)

Playoffs:
Robinson: 0.183 (#9)
Duncan: 0.155 (#18)

PER
Regular Season:
Robinson: 27.8 (#3)
Duncan: 22.6 (#5)

Playoffs:
Robinson: 24.1 (#6)
Duncan: 20.4 (#13)


1999:
npi rapm
Robinson: +6.6 (#1)
Duncan: +3.1 (#15)

estimated impact
Regular Season:
Robinson: +5.0 (#2)
Duncan: +4.4 (#6)

Playoffs:
Robinson: +4.9 (#2)
Duncan: +5.1 (#1)


ws/48
Regular Season:
Robinson: 0.261 (#1)
Duncan: 0.213 (#7)

Playoffs:
Robinson: 0.243 (#3)
Duncan: 0.243 (#2)

PER
Regular Season:
Robinson: 24.9 (#3)
Duncan: 23.2 (#7)

Playoffs:
Robinson: 23.3 (#8)
Duncan: 25.1 (#5)


2000
npi rapm
Robinson: +3.4 (#17)
Duncan: +3.8 (#11)

estimated impact
Regular Season:
Robinson: +4.4 (#4)
Duncan: +4.8 (#3)

Playoffs:
Robinson: +4.1 (#3)
Duncan: DNP

ws/48
Regular Season:
Robinson: 0.238 (#3)
Duncan: 0.218 (#6)

Playoffs:
Robinson: 0.220 (#2)
Duncan: DNP

PER
Regular Season:
Robinson: 24.6 (#5)
Duncan: 24.8 (#4)

Playoffs:
Robinson: 25.6 (#4)
Duncan: DNP



2001
npi rapm
Robinson: +4.1 (#9)
Duncan: +6.6 (#1)

estimated impact
Regular Season:
Robinson: +4.2 (#5)
Duncan: +5.0 (#2)

Playoffs:
Robinson: +3.2 (#12)
Duncan: +4.6 (#3)

ws/48
Regular Season:
Robinson: 0.246 (#1)
Duncan: 0.200 (#9)

Playoffs:
Robinson: 0.207 (#7)
Duncan: 0.173 (#15)

PER
Regular Season:
Robinson: 23.7 (#10)
Duncan: 23.8 (#9)

Playoffs:
Robinson: 24.6 (#7)
Duncan: 25.4 (#3)


2002
npi rapm
Robinson: +3.2 (#17)
Duncan:+5.3 (#2)

estimated impact
Regular Season:
Robinson: +2.9 (#16)
Duncan: +5.9 (#2)

Playoffs:
Robinson: +0.6 (#46 - low MP)
Duncan: +7.9 (#1)

ws/48
Regular Season:
Robinson: 0.211 (#5)
Duncan: 0.257 (#2)

Playoffs:
Robinson: 0.102 (DNQ, 82 MP)
Duncan: 0.247 (#2)

PER
Regular Season:
Robinson: 20.3 (#20)
Duncan: 27.0 (#2)

Playoffs:
Robinson: 12.6 (DNQ, 82 MP)
Duncan: 31.8 (#1)


2003
npi rapm
Robinson: +3.2 (#14)
Duncan: +6.2 (#1)

estimated impact
Regular Season:
Robinson: +1.5 (#46)
Duncan: +5.9 (#1)

Playoffs:
Robinson: +1.9 (#25)
Duncan: +7.3 (#1)

ws/48
Regular Season:
Robinson: 0.172 (#23)
Duncan: 0.249 (#4)

Playoffs:
Robinson: 0.204 (#4)
Duncan: 0.279 (#1)

PER
Regular Season:
Robinson: 17.8 (#47)
Duncan: 26.9 (#3)

Playoffs:
Robinson: 17.7 (#28)
Duncan: 28.4 (#2)

I know he's not the most popular, but if I'm trying to build a championship team there's no way I pass up on David Robinson in favor of anyone who's left.