Peaks project update: #16

[GeorgeMarcus]

For the love of 95 D Rob, somebody make this right

If you want him in argue for him. Don't just pray he'll pick up enough voters, actually discuss why we should vote him in.

Now I'm not flipping on him because I don't care about regular season wins, but if there's no good arguments for him here why would anyone vote for him?

It's one thing to make a comparison between 2 or 3 players, but to type out an (effective) argument about why X player is better than every other is too tedious and time consuming for me. It also sets the stage for cherry picking in my experience.

That said, it's truly baffling that D Rob has fallen this far. Further proof that he has become the most underrated All-Time great of all time. Not only is his playoff lapse overrated because of the Hakeem show down, but his RS production gets wrongfully swept under the rug. Not trying to be a dick but "I don't care about regular season" is such a BS thing to say imo, given that it's a far greater sample size. Data that includes both RS and PS (as data should) puts the Admiral in the master class of impact (for example: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VSPxw_RVZ-WBOHM5J434efmLjMYGVYi8CrA59WS7GuA/edit#gid=2018314684O ). I've mentioned this countless times, but the Spurs production with and without him on the court is way too much to ignore. They instantly went from bottom tier to top tier team (in true LeBron fashion), and vice versa when he got hurt in 96. It's not like he's a Draymond Green type either where his box stats are less impressive than his impact.

[DatAsh]

1. 2009 Wade - very comparable to 2009 Lebron. Impact metrics are very impressive around this time and his box score metrics are up there with the bests. Also one of the best SG defenders.

2. 2015 Paul - Lead the Clippers to second best SRS. Arguably the best defensive PG ever, and up there with some of the best offensive players ever, maybe a slight step down. Top tier impact metrics, consistently. Arguably the best impact player after Lebron and KG, and that includes guys like Duncan and Shaq. I actually thought he was a bit better in 2014, but oh well.

3. 2006 Wade - Neck and neck with Paul for me, but I'll go with Wade. One of the best playoff performances of all time. I don't think he was quite as complete as he was in 2009.

[GeorgeMarcus]

I hope my post above qualifies as an argument for 95 D Rob at #1.

I'd probably follow that up with 83 Moses and 11 Dirk but I don't have arguments prepared.

[GeorgeMarcus]

Every iteration of +/- data that I've seen available during the mid 90s paints D Rob as the most impactful player in the league, in some cases by quite a lot.

[DatAsh]

My problem with Robinson is the massive drop off from regular season to postseason.

I tend to judge players on the likelihood that they win a championship with a random team, and I think the better team tends to win out in a 7 game series, regardless of home court advantage. There are exceptions of course, so regular season play is a factor in championship odds, but it's small. I'd say my weighting is 90% playoffs 10% regular season.

Depending on the player, though, regular season can be incredibly useful, as it presents a much greater sample size. "Depending on the player" is the important part, though. For players like Lebron, Duncan, Shaq, or Kareem, regular season stats and impact metrics play a huge role in how I evaluate them, as they are basically the same player in the playoffs, so I can treat the regular season as an extended sample size for their playoff value(where the majority of championship odds are generated).

For other players, though, like Harden, Curry, or worst of all Robinson, who decline heavily in the postseason, regular season stats and impact metrics are a bit meaningless, as we're essentially dealing with an entirely different player in the postseason.

So for a guy like Robinson, I tend to discard his regular seasons completely, as I see him as a different player in the postseason, where 90% of my player value comes from. I would say the same for Hakeem, only in the opposite direction.

All that said, I think Robinson's defense is probably second to fourth best all time, and he consistently led some of the best playoff defenses. Given that I had Russell's peak as #2 all time, I think Robinson's peak is worth consideration here based on his defense alone.

[ardee]

Any questions and I'm 100% down to answer.

What do you say to the fact that adding Moses to the Sixers only resulted in a +3 SRS jump?

I don't think they were going 100% in the regular season. Their postseason level of play was just well over what they did in the regular season. They damn near swept the playoffs and played at a +11 level, I think that's their real level of play.

2009 Lakers were +13 in the postseason, Kobe led a clearly worse supporting cast than Moses did. Shouldn't be be receiving consideration by that line of thinking?

[liamliam1234]

I will reiterate DatAsh’s point: it stops being a question of sample size when it happens to Robinson every year in the playoffs.

Pre-injury Robinson averaged .260 WS/48 and 8.6 BPM in the regular season. In the playoffs, that respectively dropped to .189 and 6.6. Still good, sure, but clearly not someone who can translate his regular season impact to where it matters most (although I will admit those metrics almost certainly undersell his overall defensive impact). And maybe that would be more forgivable if he were not the worst case of playoff underperformance in the entire top forty. I think most people here recognise him as a top twenty all-time player because of his regular season value and his second-option postseason value, but that does not guarantee him a top peak spot. Acknowledging his postseason inadequacies is neither unfair nor disrespectful.

[Mavericksfan]

I havent been as active due to trying to research more players and methods for evaluating players. I’ve come to the conclusion that boxscore production is generally overrated and what matters is how much you help your team. Portability is also important as is your ability to raise your team’s ceiling or floor.

With that said I think one guy is probably a bit above everyone else.

1)1995 David Robinson-
He has all the boxes checked except one. Won MVP, has insane boxscore production and impact metrics. Was an anchor on both ends and led a top 5 offense and defense. 5.90 SRS indicates they were a legit contender but he was famously cooked by Hakeem. Hakeem is also in the top 10 and seeing Garnett so much higher despite playoff scoring woes makes me believe D-Rob is being underrated.


2)2011 Dirk-
Misses 9 games and has a pedestrian regular season in terms of boxscore production. Has great impact stats and led the Mavs to a dominant win % when he played. Absolutely insane playoff production leading the Mavs against two championship caliber teams(almost 6 SRS Lakers, almost 7 SRS Heat). Bonus points for portability as he can fit any offense.

3)Kobe Bryant 2008-
A top player according to impact, boxscore metrics and the his team results speak for themselves. Beat two championship caliber teams in the Spurs and Jazz while having an overall solid playoffs.

[liamliam1234]

Why 2008 Kobe over 2006 Wade? And Kobe definitely was not at the “top” of impact metrics.

[cecilthesheep]

It was much easier for West to stand out amongst offensive players than it is today, it was him, Oscar and Wilt as far as all time offensive players. Today Harden regularly has had to compete with Curry, Lebron, Westbrook, Cp3, KD, Kawhi, AD, Lillard, etc.

How easy is it to stand out from the crowd against those guys?

1. The league was much more difficult for offensive players, particularly offensive perimeter players to excel. To show just how much West/Oscar were for outliers, Oscar and West were routinely the only guards in the top 10 in PER.

2. Defenses were much better due to rules and no 3-point line. This made life difficult for perimeter players and favored the giants over the smaller players; though West and Oscar both had impact in the same capacity as the Giants.

3. You dont even mention Bob Pettit, Elgin Baylor, Walt Bellamy, John Havlicek, Rick Barry, Earl Monroe, Jerry Lucas, Walt Frazier and Willis Reed.

You have a clear biases against early era's which is fine. It takes time and effort to research the era, more time than most of us have. It is not an excuse to downplay the era since you don't understand the era to any capacity worth discussing on this forum. It would be like me going onto a baseball forum and discussing the current game; Im not qualified thus I don't do it.

tl;dr don't downplay something you know nothing about

This seems needlessly combative, so i’m going to ignore the ad hominem attacks and focus on the actual rebuttals.

1. Oscar and West standing out is only strengthening my point here, the guard competition was weaker than it is today, so i mean they are all time great, yay? Never argued otherwise.

2. Defenses were not really tougher so much as offenses weren’t nearly as developed.

3. All those guys were fine players, but really none are offensive savants, and i was talking about West’s numbers in comparison to others. Using West’s production relative to peers is not a strong argument for him over Kobe or Wade. That’s giving him an unfair bonus because of less perimeter competition. Also, most of those guys’ primes didn’t even overlap with West’s anyhow.

Players get better over time, and the talent is growing, West being ahead of his time isn’t a reason to say assume he’s better than Wade and Kobe.

Elgin Baylor, Rick Barry, Hondo, Walt Frazier, not offensive savants? Man.

Wrt the idea that offenses weren't as "developed" ... there's two main things going on here, the dribbling rules and the three-point line. When you have to keep your hand on the top of the ball, it's much harder to break anyone down off the dribble, and when there is no three-point line, the paint gets crowded in a way we'd never, ever see today, and penetration gets even more difficult. So no, offenses aren't able to do the same kinds of things they do today.

You can see that as primitive, or you can see it as professionals at the top of their games playing under different rules. Sure, we run more pick and roll stuff today, for instance. But that's not because nobody understood how to run a pick and roll back then. It was just a less efficient option - no spacing means less room for the roll man to crash the rim, and tight dribbling restrictions mean the ballhandler is more likely to give the ball up. It was harder to make that work in a stricter environment, so they did other stuff.

[Mavericksfan]

Why 2008 Kobe over 2006 Wade? And Kobe definitely was not at the “top” of impact metrics.

Kobe over Wade due playing more minutes during the regular season.Both have an incredible playoff run (imo virtually even) but I think the gap between their playoff runs is smaller than the gap between their regular season. Kobe gives you 300 more minutes and 7 more games played. Splitting hairs at this point.

And thanks for the catch. That was supposed to read “A top player” not “top player”. He was ranked around top 5 in RAPM.

[No-more-rings]

Why 2008 Kobe over 2006 Wade? And Kobe definitely was not at the “top” of impact metrics.

Kobe over Wade due playing more minutes during the regular season.Both have an incredible playoff run (imo virtually even) but I think the gap between their playoff runs is smaller than the gap between their regular season. Kobe gives you 300 more minutes and 7 more games played. Splitting hairs at this point.

And thanks for the catch. That was supposed to read “A top player” not “top player”. He was ranked around top 5 in RAPM.

I think for a small gap in minutes to matter, you’d have to make the case they were basically even as players. Not saying it isn’t debatable, but may need more than just “he was around top 5 in RAPM”.

We heard Dirk’s playoff case i’d like to hear Kobe’s now in this case 08.

[E-Balla]

I got one.

In regards to Westbrook, i’m curious to why you take his peak this high if you put high weight on ability to lead a team to the championship.

I think he was the best player on the 16 Thunder, but he was still kind of bad in those last 2-3 games against the Warriors leading to their demise and a blown 3-1 lead. Like Westbrook in no fathomable way has been a better playoff performer than Wade, Kobe, West, or Dirk. Maybe he’s not far off, but certainly not better.

Good question, and the answer is mainly that overall from 13-17 Westbrook's postseason production is top level overall and I think he improved enough in 2017 with his shooting finally not being a major weakness to make what happened in 2016 no longer a realistic expectation for him. I also want to mention, his best series in his career to me is that series against Houston also, so I look him having his best series in his best season and think it's totally reasonable to think he could've outplayed previous versions of Westbrook with a similar supporting cast which is similar to the boost I give 09 Wade from knowing his performance probably would've scaled up if he needed to.

Let's look at his production in the playoffs from 13-17 vs that of the periods around peak Wade, Kobe, West, and Dirk:

13-17 Westbrook: 44 games, 2 CF appearances, 27.5/7.6/9.5, 52.4 TS%, 110 ORTG, +5.2 net rating, +20.3 on/off
06-11 Wade (minus 07 because of his injury): 56 games, 2 Finals appearances, 1 FMVP, 27.5/6.2/5.3, 58.7 TS%, 113 ORTG, +3.3 net rating, +8.7 on/off
06-10 Kobe: 79 games, 3 Finals appearances, 2 FMVP, 29.8/5.7/5.4, 57.0 TS%, 114 ORTG, +3.7 net rating, +7.0 on/off
64-70 West: 82 games, 5 Finals appearances, 1 out of 1 FMVP, 32.5/5.0/6.4, 55.9 TS%, other numbers non existent
09-12 Dirk: 41 games, 1 Finals appearance, 1 FMVP, 25.0/7.8/2.4, 61.5 TS%, 119 ORTG, +4.4 net rating, +9.3 on/off

Overall his numbers support him being in his class, even if his wins and losses don't. If we ignore his crazy +/- splits in 2017 his +/- numbers are more in line with the class over these guys in the postseason, than these guys. I think OKC caught a few bad breaks and that's why they lost, but that most of these guys in similar circumstances would've failed in the same way (outside of Wade and West who I do think are better postseason performers). Adding to that if we talk 17 specifically his series against Houston is on the level of these guys undeniably and one of the best series I've seen an individual play.

I try to ignore winner's bias and I can't help but to think the reason we don't hold Westbrook up with everyone else is because he never won a ring, not because of his individual performances. That's why he really shot up my peaks list over the last year or two and why Alonzo Mourning is well over a lot of bigs I used to have over him.

[E-Balla]

For the love of 95 D Rob, somebody make this right

If you want him in argue for him. Don't just pray he'll pick up enough voters, actually discuss why we should vote him in.

Now I'm not flipping on him because I don't care about regular season wins, but if there's no good arguments for him here why would anyone vote for him?

It's one thing to make a comparison between 2 or 3 players, but to type out an (effective) argument about why X player is better than every other is too tedious and time consuming for me. It also sets the stage for cherry picking in my experience.

That said, it's truly baffling that D Rob has fallen this far. Further proof that he has become the most underrated All-Time great of all time. Not only is his playoff lapse overrated because of the Hakeem show down, but his RS production gets wrongfully swept under the rug. Not trying to be a dick but "I don't care about regular season" is such a BS thing to say imo, given that it's a far greater sample size. Data that includes both RS and PS (as data should) puts the Admiral in the master class of impact (for example: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VSPxw_RVZ-WBOHM5J434efmLjMYGVYi8CrA59WS7GuA/edit#gid=2018314684O ). I've mentioned this countless times, but the Spurs production with and without him on the court is way too much to ignore. They instantly went from bottom tier to top tier team (in true LeBron fashion), and vice versa when he got hurt in 96. It's not like he's a Draymond Green type either where his box stats are less impressive than his impact.

But the argument against him isn't that he's not impactful in the regular season. It's that in series where he went against top level opponents he wasn't at all good as a franchise player. I made this argument in another thread but Draymond Green is tied for 1st in postseason RAPM since 1998 with a high offensive impact and a high defensive impact, and in 2016 he was the most impactful player by all metrics, but no one is mentioning him because he's not seen as a first option type. Alonzo Mourning had amazing impact numbers and strong postseason performances at his best but he hasn't been grabbing votes. Dwight Howard has way more success in the postseason as a first option and has amazing regular season impact numbers at his best, but he's not getting mentions yet.

There's guys that can be argued as having better impact numbers than Robinson, so if you're taking him over them is it not because of gaudy boxscore numbers? And if you're taking him for the gaudy boxscore, is it not relevant that he failed consistently to perform in the playoffs against tough competition and those gaudy numbers looked pedestrian EVERY TIME he saw a tough team in the postseason? Do you believe Robinson as your franchise player gives you more of a chance to win than Draymond, Alonzo Mourning, Dirk, Wade, Kobe, etc?

And it's not BS to acknowledge the postseason and regular season are completely different animals. If you want to talk sample sizes we have a lot of examples of David Robinson failing to perform in the playoffs from 93 to 98. More than enough of a sample size to know there's an issue with his game that makes it not as effective in the postseason.

[E-Balla]

What do you say to the fact that adding Moses to the Sixers only resulted in a +3 SRS jump?

I don't think they were going 100% in the regular season. Their postseason level of play was just well over what they did in the regular season. They damn near swept the playoffs and played at a +11 level, I think that's their real level of play.

2009 Lakers were +13 in the postseason, Kobe led a clearly worse supporting cast than Moses did. Shouldn't be be receiving consideration by that line of thinking?

The standard deviations of net ratings aren't even across era. As 3 point shooting becomes bigger there's more outliers in both directions. The 71 and 72 Bucks, 73 Knicks, and 61 Celtics are the only teams with a higher net rating in the postseason than the 83 Sixers that came before them. All of those teams were super stacked just like the Sixers. That's also why the 83 Sixers had a +7.5 SRS and led the league by a distance (+5.3 was next) while the Lakers were 3rd with their +7.1 SRS in 09.

Also the Lakers were only +12.0 in that postseason for a slight correction, but Kobe does have a strong argument right under Moses IMO along with Russ, Tracy, Wade, West, etc.

[LA Bird]

Final totals as at the deadline are:

1) 09 Wade = 14.0 points
2) 95 Robinson = 12.5 points
3) 06 Wade = 9.5 points
4) 69 West = 8.5 points
T5) 15 Paul = 7.5 points
T5) 66 West = 7.5 points

09 Wade wins.

Spoiler:

GeorgeMarcus didn't include reasoning for his #2 and #3 picks so his vote wasn't counted.

[GeorgeMarcus]

If you want him in argue for him. Don't just pray he'll pick up enough voters, actually discuss why we should vote him in.

Now I'm not flipping on him because I don't care about regular season wins, but if there's no good arguments for him here why would anyone vote for him?

It's one thing to make a comparison between 2 or 3 players, but to type out an (effective) argument about why X player is better than every other is too tedious and time consuming for me. It also sets the stage for cherry picking in my experience.

That said, it's truly baffling that D Rob has fallen this far. Further proof that he has become the most underrated All-Time great of all time. Not only is his playoff lapse overrated because of the Hakeem show down, but his RS production gets wrongfully swept under the rug. Not trying to be a dick but "I don't care about regular season" is such a BS thing to say imo, given that it's a far greater sample size. Data that includes both RS and PS (as data should) puts the Admiral in the master class of impact (for example: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1VSPxw_RVZ-WBOHM5J434efmLjMYGVYi8CrA59WS7GuA/edit#gid=2018314684O ). I've mentioned this countless times, but the Spurs production with and without him on the court is way too much to ignore. They instantly went from bottom tier to top tier team (in true LeBron fashion), and vice versa when he got hurt in 96. It's not like he's a Draymond Green type either where his box stats are less impressive than his impact.

But the argument against him isn't that he's not impactful in the regular season. It's that in series where he went against top level opponents he wasn't at all good as a franchise player. I made this argument in another thread but Draymond Green is tied for 1st in postseason RAPM since 1998 with a high offensive impact and a high defensive impact, and in 2016 he was the most impactful player by all metrics, but no one is mentioning him because he's not seen as a first option type. Alonzo Mourning had amazing impact numbers and strong postseason performances at his best but he hasn't been grabbing votes. Dwight Howard has way more success in the postseason as a first option and has amazing regular season impact numbers at his best, but he's not getting mentions yet.

There's guys that can be argued as having better impact numbers than Robinson, so if you're taking him over them is it not because of gaudy boxscore numbers? And if you're taking him for the gaudy boxscore, is it not relevant that he failed consistently to perform in the playoffs against tough competition and those gaudy numbers looked pedestrian EVERY TIME he saw a tough team in the postseason? Do you believe Robinson as your franchise player gives you more of a chance to win than Draymond, Alonzo Mourning, Dirk, Wade, Kobe, etc?

And it's not BS to acknowledge the postseason and regular season are completely different animals. If you want to talk sample sizes we have a lot of examples of David Robinson failing to perform in the playoffs from 93 to 98. More than enough of a sample size to know there's an issue with his game that makes it not as effective in the postseason.

There really isn't though. His impact data (which includes playoffs) is so far ahead of every other player left on the board. You mention that he struggled against tougher competition, but D Rob was *30-12* against Hakeem outside of that single series people love to glorify. He ate Hakeem for breakfast, lunch and dinner on a regular basis, holding him to a woefully underwhelming 48.9 TS%. Now that's a sample size I can work with.

D Rob's overall playoff record was 70-53 so I just fundamentally disagree that he declined in the PS as much as you seem to think. Want to know Hakeem's? It was 76-69. Everybody loves a good narrative though, and playoff D Rob is one that wrongfully stuck.

[cecilthesheep]

There really isn't though. His impact data (which includes playoffs) is so far ahead of every other player left on the board. You mention that he struggled against tougher competition, but D Rob was *30-12* against Hakeem outside of that single series people love to glorify. He ate Hakeem for breakfast, lunch and dinner on a regular basis, holding him to a woefully underwhelming 48.9 TS%. Now that's a sample size I can work with.

D Rob's overall playoff record was 70-53 so I just fundamentally disagree that he declined in the PS as much as you seem to think. Want to know Hakeem's? It was 76-69. Everybody loves a good narrative though, and playoff D Rob is one that wrongfully stuck.

I agree with you on one thing, and that's that the one series against Hakeem isn't indicative of much. You had all kinds of things going on there, most notably Rodman flat out refusing to play help defense, against his coach's game plan. Not many guys would have been able to hang with Hakeem on an island.

That said, using team playoff record to say something about an individual player's performance seems kind of sketchy to me. It is undeniably true that the Admiral's scoring was seriously diminished in the playoffs. This is not necessarily a function of Hakeem so much as game planning. Robinson was a great floor-runner, roll man, and had a good catch-and-shoot jumper from the elbow. He was not someone who you could just throw the ball to and expect a bucket from. Once you get to the playoffs, defenses lock in and take away all the easy stuff, that shows. His volume and efficiency both go down, no matter how you slice the data - pre-injury, pace-adjusted, whatever.

Now, there's a conversation to be had about how much of a difference that actually makes - David still maintained his defensive value which was probably more important anyway - but that's still a detriment. I guess my point is just that it's not really possible to say Robinson was as good in the playoffs as the regular season. He was not as much of a letdown as many people act like when they talk about that '95 series, but he wasn't just a victim of circumstance either. His production did go down.

[GeorgeMarcus]

There really isn't though. His impact data (which includes playoffs) is so far ahead of every other player left on the board. You mention that he struggled against tougher competition, but D Rob was *30-12* against Hakeem outside of that single series people love to glorify. He ate Hakeem for breakfast, lunch and dinner on a regular basis, holding him to a woefully underwhelming 48.9 TS%. Now that's a sample size I can work with.

D Rob's overall playoff record was 70-53 so I just fundamentally disagree that he declined in the PS as much as you seem to think. Want to know Hakeem's? It was 76-69. Everybody loves a good narrative though, and playoff D Rob is one that wrongfully stuck.

I agree with you on one thing, and that's that the one series against Hakeem isn't indicative of much. You had all kinds of things going on there, most notably Rodman flat out refusing to play help defense, against his coach's game plan. Not many guys would have been able to hang with Hakeem on an island.

That said, using team playoff record to say something about an individual player's performance seems kind of sketchy to me. It is undeniably true that the Admiral's scoring was seriously diminished in the playoffs. This is not necessarily a function of Hakeem so much as game planning. Robinson was a great floor-runner, roll man, and had a good catch-and-shoot jumper from the elbow. He was not someone who you could just throw the ball to and expect a bucket from. Once you get to the playoffs, defenses lock in and take away all the easy stuff, that shows. His volume and efficiency both go down, no matter how you slice the data - pre-injury, pace-adjusted, whatever.

Now, there's a conversation to be had about how much of a difference that actually makes - David still maintained his defensive value which was probably more important anyway - but that's still a detriment. I guess my point is just that it's not really possible to say Robinson was as good in the playoffs as the regular season. He was not as much of a letdown as many people act like when they talk about that '95 series, but he wasn't just a victim of circumstance either. His production did go down.

Generally speaking, playoff record needs a lot of context to generate worthwhile discussion. There's 2 reasons I believe it's useful regarding D Rob/Hakeem:
1) Regular season D Rob would be a consensus favorite over regular season Hakeem; Hakeem would need to make up a lot of ground in the playoffs to get to a point where he's ranked 9th overall while Admiral doesn't crack the top 16 (and counting...)
2) For most of his career, D Rob played with an underwhelming supporting cast. The team won a whopping 21 games immediately before his rookie season, where they won 56 games. Fast forward to 97 when he got hurt: the Spurs won a whopping 20 games that season (immediately following a 59-win year and immediately before a 56-win year). Yes he had Duncan in his later years, but it's not so different from Hakeem having Barkley/Drexler. There isn't a significant difference between the talent they played with, yet D Rob wound up with the better playoff record despite getting knocked heavily for playoff performance.

Honestly I think it's similar to the Embiid criticisms. People focus so much on PS scoring that they overlook offensive gravity/transcendent defensive impact which play a bigger role when determining the impact of all-time great bigs.

[cecilthesheep]

Generally speaking, playoff record needs a lot of context to generate worthwhile discussion. There's 2 reasons I believe it's useful regarding D Rob/Hakeem:
1) Regular season D Rob would be a consensus favorite over regular season Hakeem; Hakeem would need to make up a lot of ground in the playoffs to get to a point where he's ranked 9th overall while Admiral doesn't crack the top 16 (and counting...)
2) For most of his career, D Rob played with an underwhelming supporting cast. The team won a whopping 21 games immediately before his rookie season, where they won 56 games. Fast forward to 97 when he got hurt: the Spurs won a whopping 20 games that season (immediately following a 59-win year and immediately before a 56-win year). Yes he had Duncan in his later years, but it's not so different from Hakeem having Barkley/Drexler. There isn't a significant difference between the talent they played with, yet D Rob wound up with the better playoff record despite getting knocked heavily for playoff performance.

Honestly I think it's similar to the Embiid criticisms. People focus so much on PS scoring that they overlook offensive gravity/transcendent defensive impact which play a bigger role when determining the impact of all-time great bigs.

What makes you say regular season Admiral would be a consensus favorite over regular season Hakeem? I still take Hakeem and I don't think it's that close, even as a Spurs die hard. Hakeem is just better at practically everything, even the stuff Robinson's great at; the only battle Robinson definitely wins is athleticism.

The Embiid comparison is not really making me see this differently. Embiid has been genuinely bad in the playoffs compared to the RS, way worse than David I think. All the imperfections in his decision-making and conditioning become glaringly apparent. I think we must just be prioritizing this stuff in fundamentally different ways.