penbeast0 wrote:IF it was a regular season only list, David Robinson would already be in. My concern about him is how much his playoff performance drops off. The Garnett supporters made a variety of arguments, some I sort of bought into, some I was skeptical of, about how he continued to impact at a MVP candidate level in the playoffs. I haven't seen that for Robinson, even for his defense. I had previously thought his defense was still dominant in the playoffs from watching him, but posters have put up numbers that put that in doubt. Anyone able to convince me? My support for Julius Erving is definitely getting shaky with Robinson the main candidate to move up.
Cool 2-part question, here. You mention Garnett and Robinson's playoff defense. I had started some comps on this that I planned to present earlier before KG went in, but I was traveling and didn't get the time. I think they are relevant here. What I did ended up being similar to the Wilt's team playoff defenses chart that someone (70sfan?) presented back in thread 5. I went through every playoff series for both KG and Robinson, and for each I looked at the regular season DRtg for their team, the regular season ORtg for their opponent, the league average, and identified what the expected O-Rtg would be for that opponent in their playoff match-up. I then measured how much the playoff opponent's O-Rtg changed from the regular season, and also how much it differed from the expected value. I found the results interesting.
Both Garnett and Robinson had 2 main epochs of their careers: 1) early years (including peaks) where they had to do everything, and 2) later years where they got to focus more on defense. Both Garnett and Robinson are on the short-list of best defenders of all-time.
But, one of the main areas that vocal critics of Garnett go after him on is that, in Minnesota, his team defenses generally measured out around league average or slightly better while with Robinson, before Duncan, he often still led team defenses that finished at/near the top of the league. Even outside of going into more context of the teams (which of course, I tend to do), the team playoff results from their prime/peak years works counter to that narrative.
From 1999 - 2004, Garnett's Wolves:
*Average team defense rank: 12.7th
*Opponent reg sea ORtg: 107.2
*Opp ORtg avg vs Wolves: 105.5
Difference from regular season: -1.7
Difference from expectation: -0.5
From 1990 - 1996, Robinson's Spurs:
*Average team defense rank: 4.6th
*Opponent reg sea ORtg: 110.3
*Opp ORtg avg vs Spurs: 108.8
Difference from regular season: -1.5
Difference from expectation: +1.6
So, a few things. First, in their prime/peak years, Robinson's team defenses in the regular season tended to be ranked solidly better than Garnett's team's defenses in the regular season.
However, both KG's Wolves and DRob's Spurs held their opponents to similar numbers of points/100 possessions below their season averages.
But while that was a bit of an over-achievement vs expectation for KG's squads in the playoffs, it was a bit more of an under-achievement for Robinson's Spurs. Now, let's look at their team's performances in their later years.
From 2008 - 2013 (minus 2009), Garnett's Celtics:
*Average team defense rank: 3.2nd in league
*Opponent reg sea ORtg: 108.9
*Opp ORtg avg vs Celtics: 102.5
Difference from regular season: -6.4
Difference from expectation: -0.3
(2009, w/ no Garnett in playoffs, opponents scored 0.8 points fewer than regular season, which was 5.2 points more than expectation).
From 1998 - 2001, Robinson's Spurs:
*Average team defense rank: 1.5th in league
*Opponent reg sea ORtg: 105.8
*Opp ORtg avg vs Spurs: 97.7
Difference from regular season: -8.1
Difference from expectation: -2.1
(2002, Robinson played only 4 of 10 postseason games at 20 mpg, after playing 78 reg season games at 30 mpg. Opponents scored 5.7 points fewer than regular season, which was 0.9 points fewer than expectation)
A few things about this portion of their careers. First, both of them were leading dominant regular season units that absolutely destroyed their postseason opponents on defense. In this time window, the Celtics slightly outperformed expectation (by about the same margin as the Wolves had) while the Spurs now outperformed expectation to a larger degree.
Also, in these time windows, the Celtics played one full postseason w/o Garnett (2009) while the Spurs played one postseason with very little of Robinson (2002). The Celtics' defense held their opponents to 0.8 points fewer than regular season, which was way (5.2 points) worse than expectation. The Spurs defense, though, did still have Duncan and Bowen to lean on so they still held opponents to 5.7 points fewer than regular season which was 0.9 points better than expectation.
Finally, in that time window, the Spurs played one full postseason with Robinson but without Duncan (2000). The Celtics didn't really have a true 2nd defensive anchor, but Perkins and Rondo are credited with being solid defenders in that era, and in 2013 neither of them played in the postseason for Boston. In 2000, the Spurs held their opponent to 12.6 points below their season average, which was 7.1 points better than expectation (even without Duncan). In 2013, the Celtics held their opponent to 11.3 points below their season average, which was 8.7 points better than expectation.
Conclusions:
After going through this, it (to me) strengthens some of the positive things that were said about Garnett, especially compared to Robinson, that Garnett maintained his own big defensive impact in the postseason across his career. If Robinson leading top defenses in the regular season while Garnett was leading average units in Minnesota is held against Garnett, then to be fair these results support that in that portion of their careers Garnett was leading his teams to playoff defenses of similar impact to Robinson's playoff defenses, but his team was overachieving in the playoffs to do so while Robinson's were underachieving.
But, for Robinson specifically, his late-career results were pretty darn impressive. He was still the defensive leader of those Spurs, even with Duncan on board. And those defenses CRUSHED opponents in the postseason, led by Robinson. Their defense is what made them contenders. And while in 2002 (with Robinson physically fading and Duncan at his peak) the Spurs were able to maintain a strong defense even with Robinson hobbling, in 2000 when Robinson was still near his prime, the defense in the postseason was stifling even with Duncan out.
This overall body of evidence might help support KG's status as a GOAT level defender, over career and in the playoffs. However, taken as a whole, it doesn't IMO disqualify that Robinson was also playing outstanding defense in the playoffs as well. When asked to do it all in his prime, Robinson may have struggle a bit to maintain his regular season level as a defender (keeping in mind that we're looking at team results here, so there's some level of uncertainty how much of this should be attributed to Robinson)...but his team defenses as a whole were still solid in the postseason in those years. And in his later years, he was leading historic level defenses that, if anything, stepped it up in the playoffs. And he was able to do so, even in the year that Duncan sat the playoffs.
Finally, there's the argument that some (including me, to some extent) have put forth that Robinson's ideal role would have been more like what he had later in his career and that maybe that should play a bigger role in how his career is evaluated. That if the Spurs would have built around him adequately in his prime, he could have maximized as a defensive anchor, and played a more secondary role for his team on offense. Since this role would actually be ideal for the vast majority of bigs in NBA history...even known scorers like Wilt only really excelled in that role. An thus, that in a vacuum vs other players in a vacuum, Robinson's playoff performance late in his career is more indicative of what he would have been had his teams supported him with better talent/fit in his prime. And that they didn't, forcing him to have to try to do more than most superstars are ever called upon to do, shouldn't be held against him at this point in the rankings.
