ronnymac2 wrote:I keep seeing Malone comparisons, but they make absolutely no sense to me. Again, Robinson's jumper isn't as good, and he's not nearly the passer or power post-up threat. Malone has a very strong back-to-the-basket low post game to pair with a jumper. Malone is even better as a pick-n-roll option because he can dive toward the rim like Robinson, hit a jumper better than Robinson,
That's all not true. Robinson was able to drive toward the rim better than Malone and was comparable jump shooter to Malone. The main difference is who created opportunities for them and that affected their percentages. NBA.com has data since 1997 season and since then Malone's FG% from midrange was 42.6 and Robinson's 39.4. So at first glance looks like Karl was better, but lets look at context:
1. Malone played with Stockton and Hornacek: one great and other very good offensive player. On the other hand Robinson played with Avery, old Terry Porter and young Tony Parker. Guess who had more good, open looks created?
2. To follow up point above: Spurs perimeter players were so bad, that Duncan as a rookie was among top 2 players who the most often assisted Robinson - in a couple of seasons he was even the one with the most passes to DRob.
3. Malone was assisted on 79.1% of his baskets, Robinson 68.5%. So it's consistent with observation from watching the tape, that DRob had to create more often for himself, while for Malone most of the work was done by Stockton (who past his prime assisted Malone as often as prime Nash assisted Amare) and Hornacek.
So in fact Robinson as a scorer is even more impressive than Malone, because he played with worse offensive perimeter players, who were unable to create so often and so good looks as Stockton and later Hornacek for Malone. It's really impressive that in that environment DRob was +20 ppg scorer and 58.3 TS% players (better than Malone!).
---------------------- Another point to discussion about Stockton and Malone (really sad most Malone's voters ignores Stockton). I've looked at clutch (5min, +/- 5pts) from nba.com and while Karl's scoring was basically the same as during regular season, Stockton's role clearly increased, what IMO suggests that he was more important than some of Malone's voters think.
It's really amazing how much Stockton's role as a scorer increased in the clutch (5 more true shots attempts!), while at the same time he was still elite creator. And on the contrary to popular opinion Malone was quite good in the clutch, in some years he even shot +80% from FT line.
1. The point about who was creating looks each is relevant. Malone did have an edge there, but think also about spacing. Malone and Stockton had to share the floor with perhaps the worst batch of offensive centers in NBA history for a dynamic duo. Eaton to Felton Spencer to Ostertag and Adam Keith or whoever he is. That hurts a pick-n-roll. It's amazing they did what they did. Robinson had some solid 3-point shooting teams from 1994-1996. I also think you underrated Avery Johnson a little bit, but no doubt Stockton is superior.
2. I don't need to tear down Stockton to make Malone look good. I'm not even a huge Stockton fan, but I understand he was a great player, and the synergy he and Malone had contributed greatly to the Utah Jazz being a contender for a decade.
Pay no mind to the battles you've won It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle Open your heart and hands, my son Or you'll never make it over the river
Im aware its not a good thing in a direct comparison, but considering how relatively few games they played against each other in the overall scope of their careers, you can understand me wanting to look beyond the H2H match in determining who I think is the better player. And since part of the knock against David is his relatively poor playoff performances I wanted to test the theory to see if he was dominating against inferior players in the RS, but struggling when he faced the best big men.
But that's not what Im finding. He outplayed both Dream and Ewing in the RS, so I don't think thats the issue. Maybe he can't handle the pressure, maybe his lack of a solid #2 option hurts more in the playoffs, etc. I'm in search of more data.
Im debating between these 2 guys so I don't want to over-react to the H2H.
When he faced Malone and Olajuwon in the playoffs, he was outplayed pretty badly. Like, really badly.
When he faced the Portland Trailblazers and their 4th ranked defense in 1993, San Antonio's offense was at a level below where they were in the REG SEA, with Robinson averaging 19 points on 48.7%TS. To be fair, he averaged 4.8 assists and only 2 turnovers. Still, that scoring efficiency went down, and Portland didn't exactly have a Malone or Olajuwon.
He didn't play many playoffs series in his prime to be honest. Only a rook in 1990, went out to a gimmicky team in 1991 (funny enough, similar situation Malone and Stockton were in in 1989...played well, team lost, not their fault), injured in 1992, struggled against Portland and did well against PHX in 1993, and then we have the 1994-1996 debacles.
Pay no mind to the battles you've won It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle Open your heart and hands, my son Or you'll never make it over the river
Can somebody explain to me how David Robinson is a great offensive player? I don't see it. Average portability (only gets to average based on being unselfish and without ego and being willing to do what he needs...if you only analyze his on-court talent for portability, he doesn't impress at all), average as a first option in the playoffs. What's he great at?
I keep saying Garnett comparisons, but they make absolutely no sense to me. Robinson has a vastly inferior jumper because he lacks the range out to 20 feet, he's not as good at passing, and he can't handle the ball as a pressure release guy. Heck KG has played PG at times. His back-to-the-basket game is inferior to KG's. Average passer from that position. Garnett has vastly superior offensive portability.
I keep seeing Malone comparisons, but they make absolutely no sense to me. Again, Robinson's jumper isn't as good, and he's not nearly the passer or power post-up threat. Malone has a very strong back-to-the-basket low post game to pair with a jumper. Malone is even better as a pick-n-roll option because he can dive toward the rim like Robinson, hit a jumper better than Robinson, and make a quick, decisive read/pass upon catching the ball from the ball-handler in the pick-n-roll. Malone has vastly superior offensive portability and is a much, much better offensive first option.
GC Pantalones wrote:
Spoiler:
He's like super Bosh without the range. I know his numbers are off the wall but numbers aren't close to everything.
In the playoffs from 94-98 (his 5 year peak IMO) he shot 45% from the field only topping 50% in 96 when he got badly outplayed by Karl Malone (averaged 19/9/3 on 47% shooting). He's way closer to Ewing than the centers already in and Ewing (from 90-98) was about as good as Robinson in the postseason.
Chuck Texas wrote:
Spoiler:
Sure I think most people would agree that offensively Admiral's edges over KG are primarily a better face up and post game and much much better at drawing fouls. But many of us are convinced that Robinson had signficantly more defensive impact than KG and its hard to argue considering every defense Admiral was ever on was at least good, most were great, and several were elite. KG of course led great defenses in Boston, but we never saw this in Minny and while I think most of would agree Robinson had slightly better defensive teammates pre-Duncan compared with KG in Minnesota not to the degree that would suggest the vast gulf in team defensive results.
But more importantly I think the comparisons to KG are less stylistic than they are 2 guys who spent the bulk of their prime playing on flawed rosters with limited talent around them. And both forced to be primary offensive options when that's probably not ideal for either one. And when you look at how their teams performed, David looks really strong in comparison with KG prime for prime and peak for peak. In fact I could make a case that David Robinson has 4-5 regular seasons every bit as good at KG's 04 which is continually lauded on this board as an all-time great year.
Now the ideas of longevity and portability are part of why KG is voted on already and Robinson isn't, but if we are taking both guys at their best 1 year, 5 years, 8 years its hard for me personally not to take Admiral.
DayofMourning wrote:
Spoiler:
Good stuff. Admiral is forever above KG. I appreciate what KG has done, but Admiral is one of a kind. He has KG's ass in defense. Isn't that supposed to be KG's trump card? Offensively, did KG lead the league in scoring? Drob didn't want to, but he did. Admiral is an icon. KG is damn good though.
Thoughts on David Robinson and Karl Malone (and KG and Bosh) on offense only
Per usual, I'm trying to find the time to flesh out a marathon post (this one another comparison of Robinson and Karl Malone), but it's not cooked yet. In the meantime, there's been some interesting discussion about Robinson and Karl on offense in this thread such as the quotes I listed above. And in some ways, Kevin Garnett and Chris Bosh are good comparison foils to try to tease out what different folks are talking about when they say "offense". Because often, when people say "offense" they mean "scoring"...and more specifically, "scoring volume" and/or "scoring efficiency". But there's more to offense than this, and that's important when comparing the offenses of Karl and Robinson.
Karl is obviously one of the greatest volume scorers in NBA history. David Robinson showed that he could flirt with the 30 ppg plateau and, as DayofMourning pointed out, lead the league in scoring. Garnett also has a season where he led the NBA in total points scored (2nd in ppg). And Bosh in his Toronto days showed himself capable of socring at good volume and efficiency.
But when folks say that Robinson isn't a great offensive player, they're usually not referring to scoring totals or regular season accomplishments (like the scoring crown). It's not even necessarily about (just) their scoring volume/efficiency in the postseason. It has been well established that both Robinson and Malone (and to a lesser extent Garnett) saw their scoring volumes and/or efficiencies decrease by a significant margin in the postseason and/or against difficult defenses. But even with those decreases, both Robinson and Karl are still scoring comparably but a bit better than Garnett (see comp below, including Moses Malone). In the postseason across their primes Karl scored higher volume than KG on similar efficiency, while Robinson scored similar postseason volume on slightly higher efficiency.
Regular season, 10 year primes per100 possessions Moses Malone (1979 - 88): 31.5 pts (57.2% TS), 17.4 reb, 2 asts, 4.4 TO Karl Malone (1990 - 1999): 36.8 pts (59.3% TS), 14.5 reb, 5 ast, 4 TO David Robinson (90 - 2000): 33.3 pts (58.8% TS), 15.9 reb, 4 ast, 3.9 TO Kevin Garnett (1999 - 2008): 30.2 pts (55% TS), 16.8 reb, 6.6 ast, 3.7 TO Chris Bosh (2006 - 1009): 31.1 pts (57.9% TS), 13.4 reb, 3.5 ast, 3.2 TO
Playoffs, 10 year primes per 100 possessions Moses Malone (1979 - 88): 28.9 pts (54.5%), 16.8 reb, 2 asts, 3.4 TO Karl Malone (1990 - 1999): 35 pts (52.9%), 15 reb, 4.4 asts, 3.7 TO David Robinson (90 - 2000): 30 pts (54.6%), 16.1 reb, 3.8 ast, 3.7 TO Kevin Garnett (1999 - 2008): 29.5 pts (52.3%), 16.8 reb, 5.9 ast, 3.9 TO Chris Bosh (2006 - 1009): 28.5 pts (52.3%), 12.5 reb, 4.2 ast, 3.2 TO
No, the main knock against Robinson in the Garnett comparison isn't his scoring volume/efficiency. It's (essentially) everything else. Garnett was a major offensive initiator and distributor in his prime. In the boxscore stats that only shows up in the assist column, but there's a lot of eye-test and +/- data to support this: Garnett was absolutely elite among big men in his ability to play this role. And it was a valuable role, because it allowed him to carry a heavier offensive load than scoring would indicate.
Karl Malone, especially later in his career, also showed the ability to play a larger role as a distributor/iniitiator. Not perhaps to the level that KG did, but still enough to (in conjunction with his scoring) make him a mega impact offensive player (see his 1998 ORAPM, for example, which is as high as we saw from pretty much any big man from 1998 - 2012).
Robinson, on the other hand, rarely showed those abilities. He was an ultra finisher in the regular season, but not much of an offense initiator or a distributor...which is where the super-Bosh comment starts to make more sense. Robinson showed in the 1995 regular season that he had some passing ability, but it wasn't nearly as consistent or effective under pressure as late-Karl or Garnett showed. And every +/- study indicates that offensive initiation/distribution plays a huge part in huge offensive RAPM scores, seemingly (from my admittedly non-rigorous perusal) far beyond what you see from finishers (here's another good place to put my Larry Bird vs Hakeem Olajuwon team offense theory/using RAPM as evidence post:
drza wrote:
Spoiler:
Quotatious wrote:I'm not really that impressed with pre-1984 Bird (at least when I compare him to other top 10 players), because while his all-around game was already there (and he was likely better at D in the early 80s when he played PF), but his scoring was very inconsistent. Bird averaged just 20.5 PPG on 50.5% TS, and had 19.9 PER/16.6 WS/48 over his first 44 playoff games between 1979-80 and 1982-83, and many people still have some doubts about pre-1993 Olajuwon...He averaged 26.5 PPG on 58.0% TS, had 26.0 PER and 22.3 WS/48 in 50 playoff games before the 1992-93 season (so a pretty similar sample size) - that's a HUGE difference, and I think that Olajuwon's poor passing pre-93 is a way, way smaller problem than Bird's relatively poor scoring, considering that both of these guys were #1 options on their teams. I'm not even sure if pre-84 Bird was a better RS performer than pre-93 Olajuwon, to be honest.
(snip)
Obviously numbers don't tell the whole story with Bird, as his insane basketball IQ allowed him to make CRITICAL plays in the most important moments of a game, but they don't tell the whole story about Olajuwon, either, because of what he brought to the table defensively. RAPM would tell us much more about that. Yeah, I can dream...
I'm using this post as a way to get back into the conversation, piggybacking on my other post from this thread. Because I really think there is something to this "help offense" notion that I mentioned, and that Bird and Olajuwon might be the ideal players to catalyze a discussion on it.
As you allude to in the later part of your quote, RAPM is good for teasing out/quantifying value that isn't well measured in the box scores. Very often, this is done for defensive players since the box scores do such a poor job of covering the defensive stats. However, RAPM is good for identifying non-boxscore impact on offense as well. Of course, we have no RAPM for either Bird nor Hakeem (especially the pre-1993 Hakeem that has gotten so much attention here). However, I do think it's fair to look at trends from the RAPM data that we DO have (1998 and after) to see how certain offensive styles tend to measure out.
For Bird, here are some of the things that we know to be in his offensive toolbox: excellent scorer, excellent court vision and passing, deadly and timely jumpshot, excellent off-ball talent (Doc MJ's off-ball savant post details well).
For Hakeem (especially pre-93) we know him to be an excellent scorer, outstanding scoring production from the post and paint, more raw as a passer. He had an assist/turnover ratio below 1 every year of his career up until '93, then he was slightly above 1 from 93 - 96, then was back below 1 for every other year of his career except '98.
Now, let's pan out and look at the trends. For Bird, I would compare him on offense to other forwards with a) great shooting range, and/or b) excellent playmaking. For Olajuwon, I would compare him on offense to other big men with a) good scoring volume and b) a great post game.
For Bird, the two most obvious comps (IMO) are LeBron and Dirk. Neither are perfect matches, but between them they tend to be most similar to Bird's offensive gifts. According to Doc MJ's RAPM spreadsheet (prior-informed, year-to-year from 1998 - 2012, normalized by year-to-year standard deviation), LeBron and Nowitzki are the two forwards with the highest 5-year peaks in normalized Offensive RAPM (average +8.1 and +7.0 in those 5-year peaks, respectively). The next two forwards with the highest marks are Antawn Jamison (+5.9) and Kevin Garnett (+5.3), one of which scored at volume with long shooting range and the other with a mixture of volume, range and playmaking. If you sort the spreadsheet for 1-year peaks instead of 5 (to help with players that might not have 5 full years in the '98 - '12 range), the next 5 highest forwards that weren't previously mentioned are Karl Malone (+7.3 from '98 - 2000), Charles Barkley (+7.5 from '98 - 2000), Carlos Boozer (+6.9 over his two All Star years of '07 and 08), Detlef Schrempf (+7.0 in '98), Scottie Pippen (+7.0 in '98) and Grant Hill (+6.3 from 98 - 2000). While I wouldn't comp Bird with the pure 4s (Malone/Barkley/Boozer), I would say that Schrempf (big tweener 3/4 with range), Pippen (point forward) and Hill (do-everything-forward) all have enough similarities to be reasonable comps.
For Hakeem (especially pre-'93) the player who I'd be most comfortable comping him to on offense would be Tim Duncan (5-year peak average offensive RAPM +4.8). Shaq is the highest rated post player (+7.6), but I really don't see a lot of overlap between Hakeem's approach and Shaq's so I don't see that as a comp. There really aren't a lot of volume-scoring back-to-the-basket pivots that measure out very well in the '98 - 2012 RAPM data. Perhaps that's due to a talent gap (e.g. there just might not be very many talented post big men this generation). I tried to think of bigs that do their damage in the paint that regularly averaged 20+ points with assist-TO-ratios less than 1, I think of some of these names:
Shaq (1998 - 99, after 2003): +6.6 (98, 99, 04, 05, 06) Duncan (1998 - 2000; by 2002 he regularly had A/TO well over 1): Offensive RAPM + 3.7 from '98 - 00 Zo Mourning (98 - 2000): +3.7 from '98 - 00 Amare Stoudemire: +2.9 5-year peak Dwight Howard: +2.8 5-year peak Zach Randolph: +2.3 5-year peak Yao Ming: +1.9 5-year peak Al Jefferson: +1.0 5-year peak
Food for thought: Normally I call this section 'conclusions', but I didn't put enough here to really conclude anything. This is just food for thought. It seems to me that, generally speaking from the RAPM data that we have since '98, there are an awful lot of players that have similar qualities to Bird that measure out extremely well in the offensive RAPM studies. Meanwhile, the players that seem to play most like pre-93 Olajuwon just don't seem to measure out nearly as well on offense.
Some will look at this post, see "RAPM", and immediately tune it out. I can't do anything about that. But for those that have read this far and at least have an open mind about it, I ask you to consider a few things:
1) Is it plausible (likely, even?) that there really is a "spacing" effect that stretch forwards bring to the table that benefits the offense simply by forcing defenders to account for them further out?
2) Is it plausible (likely, even) that there really is a version of a defensive "warping" effect that volume scoring players have that draws defensive attention (usually from more than one source) to them? And that if there is such a locus around that player, that having the locus on a dynamic or perimeter-based player might distort the defense away from the rim and thus increase the probability that the other offensive players might get higher percentage shots?
3) Is it plausible (almost certain, even) that players that can intelligently floor general/act as an offense initiator for their teams can really put their teammates into great positions to score with the way that they run the offense?
If so, then I would argue that these three things are all elements that can make up great "help offensive" players.
My follow-up theory that I'm working through is that, just like help defense vs. 1-on-1 defense, that "help offense" can have a larger impact on the team's offensive results than 1-on-1 offense. And since the elements of help offense don't rely upon game-to-game scoring efficiency, I'd argue that Bird (even in his 20.5 ppg/50.5% TS days) could have been having a (potentially much) larger positive offensive impact on those early Celtics playoff teams than pre-93 Olajuwon was having on the Rockets.
As I said...it's food for thought. I've been working through this "help offense" thought process over the last thread or so, and I don't know that it's something that anyone has ever researched (perhaps the "offense created" work that ElGee was doing?). But I do think there is something to this, and whether it affects this particular vote or not (likely not) I still hope to at least get a few thoughts considering the possibility that scoring rate and efficiency are really not (close to) sufficient to determine someone's offensive impact.
Bottom Line Anyway, the point is that Robinson and Karl both saw their scoring volume and efficiency drop off in the postseason. But the argument can be made that Karl, especially later in his career, was still carrying a heavier offensive load than Robinson (and having a larger positive offensive impact) due to his ability to be more of an initiator and creator for others in addition to his own scoring. That he was a better "help offense" player.
On the flips side, though, I question just how long Malone had this initiation/creation ability. He was a much better passer later in his career than he was early. As I''ve mentioned in the last couple of threads, I have trouble seeing a whole lot of difference between early Karl and early Robinson on offense. Karl has a longevity edge, but I want to make sure that I don't blur his long prime with his late-career role as more of an offensive hub. I could say the late-career offense giving Karl an offensive edge over Robinson, but I don't believe that this advantage was there for the entirety of Karl's career. Which is something I hope to tease out in the afore-mentioned marathon post, if/when I finish it.
Something kind of interesting imo (and to be clear I'm not using Olympic accolades in the argument, but using what he did in the situation to speculate what he could have done if he had better supporting casts):
David Robinson was the leading scorer for the gold medal team in the 1996 olympics. In the final game, he led the team to a 95-69 victory, scoring 28 pts. The Yugoslavian team made a big push for a good portion of the game and the U.S. was actually outscored when Robinson was out of the game (Hakeem played most of the remaining minutes at C). Small sample obviously but interesting nonetheless. Also interesting is that the team ran quite a few pick and rolls with Stockton and Robinson to great success. Here are the videos of the game (most of Robinson's success comes in the 2nd half):
One other thing to mention regarding Robinson that doesn't get brought up enough in my opinion is how often he was able to get to the line. He got there at the 5th best rate in NBA history, and that's a huge reason I consider him to be such an exceptional offensive big (he was also able to maintain this in the playoffs - he ranks 7th all time here with a similar fta/100poss). I don't think he was as good offensively as Karl Malone fwiw, but I think Robinson's defensive advantage is far bigger than Malone's offensive advantage.
ronnymac2 wrote: When he faced Malone and Olajuwon in the playoffs, he was outplayed pretty badly. Like, really badly.
Im aware you think this, but what do you think about those RS #s I posted with Admiral/Dream? Over a much larger sample size, he dominated Dream. I can't give any weight to the playoff numbers if I ignore the RS.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
I don't get voting Bill Walton here at all. How is he better than David Robinson? I'm not even sure if his 77 season is better than Robinson's 95 season
ronnymac2 wrote:Can somebody explain to me how David Robinson is a great offensive player? I don't see it .
I don't either. He's got Garnett's scoring flaws without the range or playmaking (and at least KG has an elite go-to move with his turnaround). He doesn't provide much offensive lift when he's not scoring at an elite clip, and in the post-season he can't be counted on to do this consistency. I feel like most of the posters singing his praises are doing so solely on the basis of regular season box-score data.
I've personally got it as Barkley, Malone, Moses, D-Rob, but I could see flipping Karl/Chuck and Moses/David.
ronnymac2 wrote: When he faced Malone and Olajuwon in the playoffs, he was outplayed pretty badly. Like, really badly.
Im aware you think this, but what do you think about those RS #s I posted with Admiral/Dream? Over a much larger sample size, he dominated Dream. I can't give any weight to the playoff numbers if I ignore the RS.
It's great that Robinson was able to do that. I personally don't find it to be very meaningful because
1. The maybe 10% of the regular season per season that Robinson faced Olajuwon isn't a huge factor towards one's contribution to a title.
2. REG SEA games have less game-planning. Playoff games are where a player's strengths and weaknesses are dissected and used for and against the team and opponent. Olajuwon showed he could remain a potent offensive weapon in that scenario. Malone did as well. Robinson did not far too many times for my taste.
Pay no mind to the battles you've won It'll take a lot more than rage and muscle Open your heart and hands, my son Or you'll never make it over the river
I believe his 'throwing up shots' to get OReb does not account for the large gap he has on the #2 all time OReb. Not a defensive anchor but a tough one-on-one match up, which means he is not a liability at that end. As DQuinn has pointed out along with Naismith, he was the best player for a 4 year stretch, winning MVPs, FMVPs and a team title. I get that people want to argue those 4 years were in between other player's primes, but I think that reasoning is a stretch. First of all not every player's prime can even be agreed upon, and secondly how many players that have been voted in match up their prime perfectly with another guy who has received votes? If Moses won 3 MVPs and was the only superstar in the league, fine. But he had Kareem (who Moses' play against has been documented here in his favor), Magic and Bird- Bird who was only one year younger than Moses.
To me, he showed his dominance during those 4 guys who were voted #2, #8 and #10.
I'm not sure what else you would want out of him. You can argue that he was traded over and over, but that's another one of those Bill Simmons' things that aren't definitive/opinion. Which is fine. Just think you would have to go through each trade scenario and look at things that we don't have access to in order to see if Moses himself was really the reason he played for 9 different teams. It's not fair to Moses to say, "well it happened so often it has to be his own fault". And if it is his own fault, I think it's pretty damn impressive that he was able to be as successful as he was. The confidence it would take to not let thoughts such as "How valuable am I if I'm always being moved" creep in and affect your game is unbelievable.
Karl played 14 years with same great coach for the same organization with the same All-time great PGs. I would argue that Karl's path to his career success was easier than Moses', but Moses still received more accolades. Again, I don't mean that accolades are the definitive judgement nor do I think that Karl had a cakewalk experience in the NBA and thats the only reason he got to where he is- just that they are both factors when trying to separate two guys who are damn close.
Okay Brand, Michael Jackson didn't come over to my house to use the bathroom. But his sister did.
Owly wrote:By the metrics (used here) Robinson has the best peak, whilst Karl has the longevity.
You voted for Robinson, so presumably that means you favour peak over productivity. I am a massive fan of David, and voted for him in an earlier round of this project. But the thing I found when I looked closer was that at David's peak (94-96), Karl Malone was demonstrably better.
In 94 they met each other in the playoffs, with Karl winning the series and individual matchup decisively. In 95 they each were dispatched by Hakeem, but Karl performed far better in his loss than David did (the infamours 'MVP' series). In 96 they again met in the playoffs, and again Karl won the series and the individual matchup.
That's the period that is the reason why you are choosing David over Karl Malone.
And that's the reason why I changed my vote from David Robinson to Karl Malone.
Well to be clear the boxscore metrics aren't everything that was one angle and we've seen others from drza and shutupandjam in this and previous threads.
But I'd very strongly disagree that the above information shows Malone to be "demonstrably better". Firstly because it throws out a seasons worth of data to focus on a single series per year. Secondly phrase the "individual matchup" implies mutual defensive coverage (perhaps single coverage). I don't know the full story and haven't watched the series but ... in '94 I believe Malone covered Robinson, I don't know if Robinson covered Malone, from snippets I've seen I think Rodman was his primary defender, which would make sense. in '95 I don't know if Malone or Olajuwon covered one-another. in '96 "it was a collective effort, Utah's swarming double- and triple-teaming, that flustered "The Admiral"" according to Rick Barry's Pro Basketball Bible. I believe Malone was his man-defender, I don't know if Robinson covered Malone.
Those aren't great years for Robinson in the playoff (though in '96 he massacred the Suns, and given the apparently aggressive coverage his numbers don't actually look to bad, TS% is adequate (certainly not good, but better than the next three guys in fga and with considerably more defensive attention so it's not like he was harming the team) the low points total is somewhat misleading in terms of the low pace for the series (of course this helps the Mailman too), ditto for rebounding and he has solid block and steal numbers and didn't turn the ball over too much given significant defensive attention), but as I noted there a lot of things going on other than individual ability affecting boxscore output in the playoffs.
Like I said I didn't watch most of this and was just getting in as a fan, had very limited access to games so people can put me right on details.
But why look only at that, their career playoff boxscore stuff says Robinson is better (in the playoffs) and boxscore metrics have a trouble quantifying D, where Robinson has the edge. And by looking exclusively at his best RS years, we ignore how gracefully Robinson aged as a postseason performer with a seemingly huge defensive impact in his years with Duncan through '01.
For me my only concern with Robinson (at this point, I'd consider him higher depending slightly on criteria and there I'd need more reassurances on the offensive playoff slip, but here I'm basically okay with it) is if his D was worse against good teams during his pre-Duncan period (though afterward would be interesting too). There has been some evidence for a team level drop against good teams in the playoffs. See an earlier discussion linked to by fpliii
Owly wrote:
lorak wrote:
Owly wrote:I don't know which set of Robinson defense numbers to trust, but on these ones I'd suggest that there is not a "rather clear" pattern.
Spoiler:
[This section initially snipped but reinserted here just to highlight that Robinson's defenses don't seem to have fallen generally in the playoffs in the pre-Duncan era] Over 11 series the (unweighted) net is 2.1 over (over being bad) expectations, or 0.190909091 per (unweighted) series, which I would suggest is near enough to exactly on expectations.
IF (a not inconsiderable if) we say that SA's poor defense versus Golden State was a result of coaching (including gimmicks to keep Robinson away from the basket despite which his boxscore defense looks good) and his perimeter guys getting killed (especially games 2-4; and note the negative impact their missed shots have in forcing SA to play D live versus after a made basket) and his inability to impact opponent free throws (GS 85% for the series) and we wipe that Golden State series then that turns from a neglibile negative (that is a positive number showing slightly reduced performance) to a neglibigle positive (-2 over 10 series -2÷10= -0.2; negatives number showing positive performance).
There's also an argument that that Dennis Rodman's antics and alleged decreased focus on basketball (rumblings of Madonna stuff in '94, one man revolt in '95) in general (and perhaps defense in particular, instead chasing rebounds - though this may not have been playoff specific) in the playoffs would cause Robinson's defensive impact to be underestimated
So I will elaborate (and if you don't trust my numbers, then check it by yourself ). The same data as above, but with opponents regular season ortg relatively to league average:
So Spurs defense usually played above expectations only vs barely average offensive teams - with one exception in 1990 (PTB). Other than that their defense was awful against teams with offenses with at least 1 ortg point above league average. And that's that clear pattern I'm talking about, because Robinson's consistent failures against good teams is something what many people hold against him. Sure, we can say that in 1991 it was Brown's lack of adjusments or in 1995 it was Rodman's bad influence, but it still leaves us with other series and I honestly doubt we can use excuses for every one of them. That was just essential flaw in DRob's game - both on offense and defense - that he wasn't able to perform constantly at good level vs better opponents and his game was exposed in the playoffs.
To clarify (don't know if this is necessary, but feel I should) the trust thing was with regard to multiple people posting different numbers based analysis.
The fuller explanation of the pattern is appreciated because, as I noted previously, the overall impression given by the first set of numbers was that the Spurs met expectations defensively.
Now I'm still not full convinced but this is interesting. My problems/queries: 1) Is your hypothesis that his lesser defensive impact (versus good teams) is playoff specific or more general or do you think it happens in the RS too (and if so do you have evidence for this?)?
2) Isn't team Drtg a rather blunt tool for individual D on fairly small samples (which is another reason I'd be more comfortable with a "defensive impact fell versus good teams" conclusion if had a larger - i.e. regular season - sample.)
3) Do we have comparisons for other defensive anchors with reasonable sample sizes (I'd imagine a good D should be more reliable than a good O in the playoffs - good Ds typically require other positive indicators that help elsewhere good communication, teamwork etc, though perhaps this wasn't happening with Rodman, but I digress - so elite offense maybe should cede to good defense. But do we have evidence on this. Do we have evidence where (the goodness of the) defense is basically all on the anchor (which, with the exception of Rodman, it typically was).
Massive tangent here, do we know Rodman helped the Spurs on D? It's certainly imperfect because of roster turnover, but in 92-93 in a Robinson down year (including defensive statistics) and with coaching turmoil their relative Drtg is -1.2; the next year it's -1.7. Not a huge visible (defensive) impact.
I might be clutching at straws because I like Robinson; but really I'm just curious and want to know more.
ronnymac2 wrote: 1. The point about who was creating looks each is relevant. Malone did have an edge there, but think also about spacing. Malone and Stockton had to share the floor with perhaps the worst batch of offensive centers in NBA history for a dynamic duo. Eaton to Felton Spencer to Ostertag and Adam Keith or whoever he is. That hurts a pick-n-roll.
It's not worse than Rodman, Reid or Perdue...
It's amazing they did what they did. Robinson had some solid 3-point shooting teams from 1994-1996.
And Malone had even better in second half of the 90s as from 1995 to 2001 Jazz 6 times were in top 10 in 3P% (and that includes 4 finishes in top 6).
Overall Malone had better spacing and better creators on perimeter. We can't ignore that when we compare his offensive numbers to Robinson. And yet, despite worse team situation DRob was still better scorer than Karl.
Interesting take on that Ronny. I guess you side with Dirk over KG then as well? Because just like Robinson more of his worth stems from the defensive side, but like David in the first half of his career he was asked to carry the load offensively and often failed to so in the postseason and when he matched Dirk, Dirk dominated him.
I think the forum was able to take a wider view of KG and thus he ended up pretty high. Im curious if you think that was a mistake or why you don't want to look broader at Admiral?
And I only compared their RS H2H numbers to see how they compared since you were stressing the playoff match so much. If I look at their entire RS performance, Admiral's peak and prime pretty clearly exceed that of Malone. He compares very favorably offensively despite that being the worse aspect of his game and dominates what Malone brings defensively.
I hate having to be an Admiral apologist here when Im not yet sure I'd take him over Malone, but Im confused a little by what you are emphazing in this particular comparison. But I have lots of respect for you so Im engaging in an attempt to better understand it.
ThunderBolt wrote:I’m going to let some of you in on a little secret I learned on realgm. If you don’t like a thread, not only do you not have to comment but you don’t even have to open it and read it. You’re welcome.
colts18 wrote:I don't get voting Bill Walton here at all. How is he better than David Robinson? I'm not even sure if his 77 season is better than Robinson's 95 season
More reliable offensive player, David Robinson is very one dimensional. It would mean something if Robinson was unstoppable in that one dimension, but he clearly isn't. Walton is a hub for an offense, he can impact the court from both high post and low post, and he's a much better passer than Robinson.
drza wrote:but I want to make sure that I don't blur his long prime with his late-career role as more of an offensive hub.
This is a great point actually, I could definitely see myself being guilty of this. I'd say though, that from '94 onward his efficacy in this area is clearly a tier or two above David's. And Malone from '94 on is like...David's entire career. So even if this is the case, it's got to be REALLY REALLY significant to outweigh all of that extra added value (speaking on pre-'94 Karl there if that wasn't clear).
I know there was someone on here who was voting based solely on peak, but can't remember if it was one of you two. If that isn't the case, I don't see how walton is deserving at all here. His prime simply isn't long enough. Even if you want to be generous and give him a 3 season prime, he missed an avg of 24 games per seasons during that span. I also think if you're voting solely on peak, that should be a separate project, but in the end it probably won't affect the results.
I know there was someone on here who was voting based solely on peak, but can't remember if it was one of you two. If that isn't the case, I don't see how walton is deserving at all here. His prime simply isn't long enough. Even if you want to be generous and give him a 3 season prime, he missed an avg of 24 games per seasons during that span. I also think if you're voting solely on peak, that should be a separate project, but in the end it probably won't affect the results.
If I was voting solely on peak he would be higher than 17, and other than that - what exactly are we supposed to be voting on? There is no criteria.
I know there was someone on here who was voting based solely on peak, but can't remember if it was one of you two. If that isn't the case, I don't see how walton is deserving at all here. His prime simply isn't long enough. Even if you want to be generous and give him a 3 season prime, he missed an avg of 24 games per seasons during that span. I also think if you're voting solely on peak, that should be a separate project, but in the end it probably won't affect the results.
If I was voting solely on peak he would be higher than 17, and other than that - what exactly are we supposed to be voting on? There is no criteria.
I know everyone has different criteria, but I just think walton's tiny sample size (relatively speaking) of elite play doesn't make him a top 20 player of all time. Most people take prime and longevity into account. How they weigh it depends on the person.
Do you realize he only played 14447 minutes in his entire nba career (regular season + playoffs)? David Robinson played almost 3 times as many minutes and Karl Malone played more than 4 times as many. Walton had exactly ONE season between ages 24-29 (the age range of most players' prime) where he was healthy for the playoffs! He played over 2000 minutes (rs + playoffs) exactly once in his career! What he actually did is probably close to his ceiling (one title as the man, one title as a bench player), and that took some serious strokes of luck.
). The same data as above, but with opponents regular season ortg relatively to league average:
