David Robinson and the NBA Playoffs [Archive]

Nikos

11-26-2005, 09:46 PM

ZStomp

11-26-2005, 10:08 PM

I love DROB..because of the person he is.

The answer to that, I believe is:

Basketball wasn't his first love. That wasn't the most important thing in his life.

Nikos

11-26-2005, 10:20 PM

I love DROB..because of the person he is.

The answer to that, I believe is:

Basketball wasn't his first love. That wasn't the most important thing in his life.

Why was he so good in the regular season if he didn't love the game?

dbreiden83080

11-26-2005, 10:25 PM

Nikos

11-26-2005, 10:32 PM

Robinson played a lot like Garnett, great player, great athlete, not a dominant low post game. He could never demand double teams like Timmy can. In the playoffs it was harder for him to make his mates around him better as a result.

I think the whole 'not having a dominant low post game' is way overstated. David Robinson put up some of the best regular seasons in the history of the NBA, and his average years were about as good statistically as Tim Duncan's best.

It's not like David Robinson was averaging 1.0apg and 4.0TOpg, he became a reasonable passer while remaining a dominant force on offense. Bottom line: he was one of the best offensive players in the league every season before Tim Duncan came along, along with being one of the best defensive players ever.

Were his teamattes just really bad? Was it just a fluke he played so poorly in 3-4 playoffs?

whottt

11-26-2005, 10:33 PM

How come Drob's playoff numbers kicked ass his first 2 years in the NBA? Think it has anything to do with those being the most talented and best coached teams he played on?

Figure it the fuck out.

Drob'd best regular season was the 93-94 season, easily one of the best seasons by a C since the merger...

Yet his playoff numbers were the absolute worst of his pre Duncan career...

Now why do you think that is? Drob was feeling a little less love than usual? A little bit softer than usual? A little more chokier than usual?

Or maybe, just maybe, any team that has Vinny Del Negro as it's starting PG, is an absolute shit team, and the only reason that team was in position for Drob to get gangraped by the Jazz in the playoffs, is because fucking DRob lead the team in just about every single category in the regular season, including steals and assists...

Nikos...I applaud your pursuit of knowledge, you show me a lot more than the, "rings are all that matter" drones...but keeerist...I been telling you this shit for 2 or 4 years now...Drob's playoff numbers are directly reflective of the talent surrounding him...specifically his perimeter talent, and other than his first 2 years, it just wasn't that great...I don't care how much heart AJ had, he was lacking in the talent dept and his big man took the brunt of it.

And all this crap about basketball not being DRob's first love so that's why he wasn't one of the greats, is just that, crap...

You think basketball is Tim Duncan's first love? I seriously doubt it..I seriously doubt Duncan beats himself up over not winning a title.

Barkley had love for the game, Malone had it...

Just because Drob wasn't a balla does not mean he wasn't playing just as hard, trying to win just as hard, as some guy who whole goal in life was to win a title...DRob is a remarkable person because of his ability to commit himself to something and finish the job...regardless of whether or not it's something he wants for himself..or something he feels obligated to provide...Drob was willing to give up credit to bring SA a title...he could have been a horses ass about it, most would have, and most would not have won a title out of that situation.

People are clueless about DRob, about how fucking good he was on the court, about how commited he was to winning...it's their loss that they don't realize it.

And DRob saw as many, if not more, double and triple teams as any of the great C's in recent memory, including Shaq...yes he lacked a post up game...but he could also smoke any bigman in the league in a one on one iso situation...double teaming him was effective, maybe more effective than it would be against Duncan or Hakeem...but that had as much to do with the deficincies of DRob's teams as it did deficiencies in DRob's game.

Sickeningly under-rated...and he deserves a more knowledgable fanbase than people that parrot cliched ESPN critiques of his game.

Spurminator

11-26-2005, 10:39 PM

He could never demand double teams like Timmy can.

He was double teamed every time he sniffed the ball.

Production dropoff is not uncommon for most great players in the Playoffs, with few exceptions. The game slows down, and opponents have several games to learn your strengths and weaknesses.

Nikos

11-26-2005, 10:46 PM

How come Drob's playoff numbers kicked ass his first 2 years in the NBA? Think it has anything to do with those being the most talented and best coached teams he played on?

Figure it the fuck out.

His playoffs numbers were excellent, but they certainly didn't kick ass by his standards, considering he had solid support and lost to a clearly inferior team in 1990-91 in Golden State. Golden State won 44 games that season and generally was not a great team. Why did the Spurs lose in 4 games to them?

Drob'd best regular season was the 93-94 season, easily one of the best seasons by a C since the merger...

No doubt. But I will go even further. It was one of the best seasons in NBA history by ANY player. If you factor in his defensive presense, he basically had a Jordanesque impact that year (actually for a few seasons for that matter). Hakeem never had that good of a regular season.

Now why do you think that is? Drob was feeling a little less love than usual? A little bit softer than usual? A little more chokier than usual?

I don't know. I guess he was unlucky and had poor support? But that is part of why I ask the question in the first place. Why the loss to Golden State? Why the loss to Utah in 1996? Was it poor coaching as well?

Or maybe, just maybe, any team that has Vinny Del Negro as it's starting PG, is an absolute shit team, and the only reason that team was in position for Drob to get gangraped by the Jazz in the playoffs, is because fucking DRob lead the team in just about every single category in the regular season, including steals and assists...

I don't doubt his support was awful on the perimeter in 1994, but why was he so good in the regular season, and why did the team have success then and yet play awful in the playoffs? Why didn't Drob put up 24-11 on poor shooting in the regular season if he had so little help? Did teams simply not design game plans for him because they didn't have time to the regular season?

Nikos...I applaud your pursuit of knowledge, you show me a lot more than the, "rings are all that matter" drones...but keeerist...I been telling you this shit for 2 or 4 years now...Drob's playoff numbers are directly reflective of the talent surrounding him...specifically his perimeter talent, and other than his first 2 years, it just wasn't that great...I don't care how much heart AJ had, he was lacking in the talent dept and his big man took the brunt of it.

People are clueless about DRob, about how fucking good he was on the court, about how commited he was to winning...it's their loss that they don't realize it.

I don't doubt Drob was great. I am just dumbfounded as to why his stats never measured up in the playoffs and why in 1990-91 and 1995-96 he underacheived as well? Drob if you go strictly by the regular season was one of the best players of all time in his prime. Statistically he was better than Olajuwon, about the same as Shaq (better probably if you factor D), better than Ewing, Barkley, Malone etc..... There were seasons where these guys didn't have great help either but managed to put up decent numbers I beleive (Hakeem, Bark, and Ewing). Was it just freak luck that David Robinson couldn't put up better stats in the playoffs with minimal support?

whottt

11-26-2005, 10:47 PM

Anyone ever look at Wilt Chamberlain's playoff stats?

Spurminator

11-26-2005, 10:54 PM

I love how there is this contingent of Spurs fans out there, that are in total denial of the fact that TD is a better player than DR ever was. TD fetched Robinson 2 rings, Robinson was very good still in 99, he was all but shot in 03. Spurs had a ton of 50 plus win season's in D-Rob's prime, they never even made the finals. It is not like the Knicks who had to go against MJ and the Bulls every year. Name me the dominant western conference foe that dropped the Spurs out of the playoffs year after year in the 90's.

Was there a particular reason you quoted me before you decided to make this the same tired Duncan vs. Robinson debate that's already been rehashed countless times here?

FromWayDowntown

11-26-2005, 10:57 PM

8600+ posts, Spurm? Get a life! (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=624430&postcount=29)

Oh yeah -- the point

He was double teamed every time he sniffed the ball.

Production dropoff is not uncommon for most great players in the Playoffs, with few exceptions. The game slows down, and opponents have several games to learn your strengths and weaknesses.

I think that's the biggest reason, along with the reasons that are hidden somewhere in whottt's tirade.

David could be doubled every time down the floor because his teammates were generally the types of players that other teams would allow to beat them. Said differently, teams had no difficulty doubling off of most of David's teammates for many of those years because they were so limited. For years, AJ couldn't hit a jumper or go right. For years, Del Negro was asked to be a playmaker when his best attribute may have been his shooting (which isn't saying much). David played with a number of offensively-challenged power forwards between Terry Cummings in his prime and Tim Duncan. All of those things made it very easy for teams to close down on David.

David didn't help matters a great deal by his inability to handle double-teams the way that guys like Olajuwon and Duncan have at playoff time. But that's like saying you don't like Cindy Crawford because she has a mole.

I also think part of the discrepancy arises from the nature of playoff games. David's greatest strength relative to other big men of his era was his ability to get out and run in transition -- to get easy buckets by beating guys down the floor. In regular season games, a player can roll up a ton of points just by running hard on the break. A big man like David, who was THE most athletic center of his day, could get several dunks a night just by running hard. In the playoffs, though, transition opportunities don't arise as frequently -- teams run harder to get back and will more often foul guys going to the rack rather than concede the layup or the dunk. You take away those several transition dunks, and a player's production will diminish (as will his shooting percentage).

I think the combination of defensive commitment to stopping Dave (aided by his poor supporting casts), coupled with taking the break largely out of his scoring arsenal, played a huge role in David's diminished playoff numbers.

whottt

11-26-2005, 11:01 PM

His playoffs numbers were excellent, but they certainly didn't kick ass by his standards, considering he had solid support and lost to a clearly inferior team in 1990-91 in Golden State. Golden State won 44 games that season and generally was not a great team. Why did the Spurs lose in 4 games to them?

Well it damn sure wasn't because Drob shot 25PPG on 68% shooting.

The Spurs blew the Warriors out of the water in the first game...they got over confident IMO, and Nelly...ummm...he Nellied them.

Believe it or not it was Don Nelson that devised the formula for stopping the Drob lead Spurs...take DRob out of the game and force his teamates to beat you.

I don't know. I guess he was unlucky and had poor support. But that is part of why I ask the question. Why the loss to Golden State?

They lost to Golden State from over-confidence and Don Nelson outcoaching Larry Brown.

You gotta realize...in that 90-91 season...Jordan was the guy that couldn't win the big one, no one was penciling him in as the champ that year...while just about everyone was picking a Spurs Pistons final in the pre season.

Why the loss to Utah in 1996?

Dude...as much as it pains me to admit it...Utah was fucking good and they knew playoff ball...and Utah would literally collapse their whole team on DRob...5 men foul Drob, only one, or none, get called for the foul.

Utah also beat the Duncan and Robinson Spurs...they beat the Shaq Lakers, when they had NVE, Eddie Jones, and the core of their 3 time championteam...in fact the Jazz swept them. I believe they also did in Houston on more than one occasion.

The Jazz were fucking good...look at some of those teams they had...even without Stockton and Malone. Tom Chambers, Jeff Hornacek...

I don't doubt his support was awful on the perimeter in 1994, but why was he so good in the regular season, and why did the team have success then and yet play awful in the playoffs? Why didn't Drob put up 24-11 on poor shooting in the regular season if he had so little help? Did teams simply not design game plans for him because they didn't have time to the regular season?

Exactly...not to mention that the teams in the playoff, on average are better.

But yes of course...in the playoffs the first thing a team will do is take away the best player...if you have a one dimensional team you are going to get bounced...

Ask Hakeem, Kareem, Shaq, Jordan....

I don't doubt Drob was great. I am just dumbfounded as to why his stats never measured up in the playoffs and why in 1990-91 and 1995-96 he underacheived as well? Drob if you go strictly by the regular season was one of the best players of all time in his prime. Statistically he was better than Olajuwon, about the same as Shaq (better probably if you factor D), better than Ewing, Barkley, Malone etc..... There were seasons where these guys didn't have great help either but managed to put up decent numbers I beleive (Hakeem, Bark, and Ewing). Was it just freak luck that David Robinson couldn't put up better stats in the playoffs with minimal support?

Um...Drob played harder night in and night out in the regular season than any of the so called ballas...Drob always fucking did his job, whether he loved the game or not...because of that, he was able to pull off some remarkable regular season achievements...

And he was also able to fool a lot of people into thinking shitty lottery teams were actual title contenders...

Drob is the John Elway of the NBA...just good enough to get his team in way over their heards...as with Elway...when DRob got a talented team, he did whatever it took to win, even giving up top billing....and he got a ring, on a team far less talented than the ones Barkley and Malone failed to win rings with.

Nikos

11-26-2005, 11:04 PM

I think the combination of defensive commitment to stopping Dave (aided by his poor supporting casts), coupled with taking the break largely out of his scoring arsenal, played a huge role in David's diminished playoff numbers.

I agree that the lack of supporting cast, decrease of easy transition buckets allowed in the playoffs may have played a big part of Drob's decreased production. Maybe he was just unlucky in some of the years to put up poor numbers, but he did have support in 1995-96 with Sean Elliot and the team underacheived in that series as well. Question is why?

Was David just extremely unlucky from a team personel standpoint? Poor teamattes most of his prime seasons, mediocre coaching, etc....?

How might Duncan play if he had similiar support?

spursfaninla

11-26-2005, 11:14 PM

Whattt are you talking about?

I guess Drob never had an all-star with him in his prime...no wait, he had an all-star level player in Sean Elliot playing with him in the 92-3, 94-95 and 95-96 seasons, with 2 all-star game appearances in 93 and 96. Sean was scoring between 17 and 20 ppg, shooting lights out at the 3 pt line (around 40%), and at the high point was getting 5rpg.

Sounds pretty good to me.

Avery Johnson not talented, huh? I remember that, but this jumped out at me from the Spurs official website:

Dynamic point guard Avery Johnson rejoined the team after a year with the Golden State Warriors and averaged 13.4 points and 8.2 assists. He increased his scoring average for the seventh consecutive season, and his .519 field-goal percentage ranked third among NBA guards.

Here is what they say about the poor supporting cast of the spurs that year they fell to houston:

Sean Elliott, reacquired from the Detroit Pistons in a trade for draft pick Bill Curley, lit up the scoring charts with an average of 18.1 points per game and drilled 136 of 333 three-pointers for a .408 percentage (18th in the NBA). Rodman's look remained unique and his rebounding unmatched. Despite missing 33 games, he led the league in rebounding for the fourth consecutive season (16.8 rpg) and was named to the All-NBA Third Team and the NBA All-Defensive First Team. Vinny Del Negro assumed the starting off guard job and averaged 12.5 points on .486 shooting from the field. Chuck Person joined the team and knocked down 172 three-pointers as a hired gun off the bench.

They sure do sound like a one-man team :rolleyes

Well, in 1995, when Rodman left, the talent was poor on Spurs team, right? Again, that same website disagrees:

The move paid off in the regular season, where the Spurs didn't miss a beat. They completed the season 59-23 to capture their second straight Midwest Division title, only three games off their record-setting pace of the previous year. Team chemistry was remarkable, and according to coach Bob Hill "the best I've ever been around. The talent was equally extraordinary. Sean Elliott and David Robinson represented the West at the All-Star Game, and the backcourt of Vinny Del Negro and Avery Johnson posted the league's best assist to turnover ratio. They shored up their front line with the acquisition of Charles Smith and Monty Williams from New York in February. In March, they posted a perfect 16-0 record, tying them with the 1971-72 Los Angeles Lakers for the best month in NBA history. "

I'm afraid David has to shoulder the blame for the lack of playoff success for his team. Just as he get the credit for the regular season wins, he get the blame for coming through when it counts. I don't doubt the Spurs coaches of that time got owned, but its not from a lack of talent that David couldn't get it done.

Nikos

11-26-2005, 11:16 PM

Well it damn sure wasn't because Drob shot 25PPG on 68% shooting.

The Spurs blew the Warriors out of the water in the first game...they got over confident IMO, and Nelly...ummm...he Nellied them.

Believe it or not it was Don Nelson that devised the formula for stopping the Drob lead Spurs...take DRob out of the game and force his teamates to beat you.

Anderson, Strickland, Cummings, and Elliot weren't exactly shooting under 40% that series either. Their defense must have been awful to lose to Golden State, not to mention the Warriors defense was horrible that year. They were basically like the Sonics of last year offensively with no bruisers to rebound. Golden State was basically a perimeter oriented offensive team. They likely had no business winning that series.

They lost to Golden State from over-confidence and Don Nelson outcoaching Larry Brown.

Hard to prove or dissaprove. If everyone but Drob was sucking you might have a good point, maybe the coaching didn't devise a good plan to get players good shots, nor did they emphasize defense against Golden State's firepower? But it's not like Drob's support was shooting under 40% and were naturally horrible on D. The team was elite on defense that year under Larry Brown

You gotta realize...in that 90-91 season...Jordan was the guy that couldn't win the big one, no one was penciling him in as the champ that year...while just about everyone was picking a Spurs Pistons final in the pre season.

Completely irrelevant that he couldn't WIN the big one. Jordan's numbers never took a huge hit in the playoffs no matter how bad his support was. Jordan was still leading supporting casts equal or worse to Drob to 45+ wins. This is something they have in common to Drob's credit. Both have led a team to 47 wins or more with basically poor support. Difference is Jordan put up great numbers in the playoffs that nearly mirrored his regular season outputs.

Dude...as much as it pains me to admit it...Utah was fucking good and they knew playoff ball...and Utah would literally collapse their whole team on DRob...5 men foul Drob, only one, or none, get called for the foul.

This might be true somewhat, but Drob did have Elliot who had an all star calibur regular season. Where was he? Does he not count as reasonable help?

Utah also beat the Duncan and Robinson Spurs...they beat the Shaq Lakers, when they had NVE, Eddie Jones, and the core of their 3 time championteam...in fact the Jazz swept them. I believe they also did in Houston on more than one occasion.

The Jazz were fucking good...look at some of those teams they had...even without Stockton and Malone. Tom Chambers, Jeff Hornacek...

Utah did beat SA, but they had a major experience and chemistry advantage. Plus Duncan was a rookie. Even so, Duncan still played respectably that series despite Malone being the better player.

Tom Chambers was never that good at a Jazz player.

Utah did sweep LA, which was impressive, but they were a much better offensive team that year due to Malone having a carrer year and Hornececk and Stockton playing as well as ever in their roles. 64 wins in 1996-97, in 1995-96 they still hadn't made the NBA finals and didn't have homecourt over the Spurs in that series.

But yes of course...in the playoffs the first thing a team will do is take away the best player...if you have a one dimensional team you are going to get bounced...

Ask Hakeem, Kareem, Shaq, Jordan....

Of course. But this still doesn't answer why when Drob had reasonable support his teams underpeformed excessively or Drob simply didn't put up a respectable playoff output relative to regular season performance (91 Warriors, 96 Jazz)? Could it be a combination of bad luck: running into better teams. not having a consistent and solid supporting cast?

FromWayDowntown

11-26-2005, 11:18 PM

I agree that the lack of supporting cast, decrease of easy transition buckets allowed in the playoffs may have played a big part of Drob's decreased production. Maybe he was just unlucky in some of the years to put up poor numbers, but he did have support in 1995-96 with Sean Elliot and the team underacheived in that series as well. Question is why?

I'd dispute that Elliott as a stand alone would amount to "support" in a playoff series. Sean was a nice complimentary player and could occasionally rise to an All-Star level, but even with Sean on board, teams had 3 other options on the floor to use in trying to neutralize David. Sean, however, couldn't take the heat off of David by dropping 30 on a given night or

Was David just extremely unlucky from a team personel standpoint? Poor teamattes most of his prime seasons, mediocre coaching, etc....?

David didn't play with a lot of great teammates. His best supporting casts were clearly 1989-90 (Elliott, Cummings, Anderson, Strickland) and 1994-95 and, not coincidentally, those teams went the deepest of the DRob teams before Duncan. Other than his first two seasons, with Larry Brown, he never really had very good coaching -- and he certainly didn't have good playoff coaching. The injury to Terry Cummings, Willie Anderson's injuries and fall from grace, the Strickland saga, Larry Brown's wayward ways, the Elliott trade, and a chameleon in Rodman never really helped the cause of building continuity from year-to-year, either.

How might Duncan play if he had similiar support?

It's not easy to say. Tim is far better than David ever was at dealing with doubles and still finding ways to score. But, in large part, that works because his teammates have generally been capable of scoring when Tim kicks the ball back out. I guess you get close to the same scenario with something like the 2002 playoffs. But Tim went for 27.6 ppg, 14.4 rpg, 5.0 apg, and 4+ blocks per game in that playoff run.

In the end, I think trying to compare the two is unfair to both.

Nikos

11-26-2005, 11:26 PM

I'd dispute that Elliott as a stand alone would amount to "support" in a playoff series. Sean was a nice complimentary player and could occasionally rise to an All-Star level, but even with Sean on board, teams had 3 other options on the floor to use in trying to neutralize David. Sean, however, couldn't take the heat off of David by dropping 30 on a given night or

Elliot was a 20ppg scorer whose production dipped to 15.5ppg on a measly 40% shooting in the playoffs (but he did get to the line alot which means that number is deflated more than it has to be).

Avery seemed to play reasonable basketball, Del Negro and Chuck Person were on fire from downtown. What happened in that Utah series considering they had the homecourt edge? Maybe Utah was just a little better, and Drob was simply unlucky that year along with not having a stable and solid supporting casts in his tenure pre-Duncan?

David didn't play with a lot of great teammates. His best supporting casts were clearly 1989-90 (Elliott, Cummings, Anderson, Strickland) and 1994-95 and, not coincidentally, those teams went the deepest of the DRob teams before Duncan. Other than his first two seasons, with Larry Brown, he never really had very good coaching -- and he certainly didn't have good playoff coaching. The injury to Terry Cummings, Willie Anderson's injuries and fall from grace, the Strickland saga, Larry Brown's wayward ways, the Elliott trade, and a chameleon in Rodman never really helped the cause of building continuity from year-to-year, either.

Agreed that he didn't have great stability around him. But the years I am having trouble understanding are 1991 and 1996 in the playoffs. Cummings was still solid, the team still was good in the regular season on defense and as a whole. Maybe I am reading too much into those seasons, maybe it was just coincidence he didn't do GREAT. But it is tough to ignore when all his other playoffs his statistics were drastically low, even despite not having tons of help. I mean there have been players who were dominant in the regular season, who had no help in the playoffs and still put up a solid fight.

It's not easy to say. Tim is far better than David ever was at dealing with doubles and still finding ways to score. But, in large part, that works because his teammates have generally been capable of scoring when Tim kicks the ball back out. I guess you get close to the same scenario with something like the 2002 playoffs. But Tim went for 27.6 ppg, 14.4 rpg, 5.0 apg, and 4+ blocks per game in that playoff run.

In the end, I think trying to compare the two is unfair to both.

I think it makes for an interesting debate, not only about Tim and Dave, but about playoff success in general when franchise players have good support vs bad and stable chemistry year by year vs no chemistry. And it makes for good debate on regular season vs playoff performance, and why players might perform as well as they do (or as poorly as they do) etc....

FromWayDowntown

11-26-2005, 11:42 PM

Agreed that he didn't have great stability. But the years I am having trouble understanding are 1991 and 1996 in the playoffs.

I'll respond to the rest later, or just jump in after others have responded to your points. But I did want to address 1991 for one second. David had a great series in 1991 -- he improved on his regular season numbers almost across the board. The Spurs lost that series, though, because they couldn't match up with Don Nelson's munchkin lineups, which were fueled by great play by Run-TMC.

After Game 1 of that series, in which the Spurs scored 130 points and had a dominating lead after 3 quarters, Nellie went exclusively with a very small lineup, playing Tim Hardaway, Mitch Richmond, Chris Mullin, Sarunas Marciulionis, and Mario Elie. At the time, Hardaway, Richmond, and Mullin were pretty exceptional against anyone, but the Spurs couldn't do anything with Marciulionis because they didn't have small guys who could matchup across the board. The Spurs' numbers look okay in black and white today, but they are inflated by some huge performances in Game 1 that were never repeated in the later games of that series.

On top of that, the Golden State series in 1991 was highlighted by a Rod Strickland meltdown that rivals Dennis Rodman's implosion in 1995. By the time the series moved to Oakland, the Spurs were discombobulated on the floor and dealing with distractions off the floor, and the Warriors just took advantage. I don't think anything that happened in that series should reflect negatively on David Robinson.

whottt

11-26-2005, 11:42 PM

8600+ posts, Spurm? Get a life! (http://www.spurstalk.com/forums/showpost.php?p=624430&postcount=29)

Oh yeah -- the point

I think that's the biggest reason, along with the reasons that are hidden somewhere in whottt's tirade.

David could be doubled every time down the floor because his teammates were generally the types of players that other teams would allow to beat them.

And double teaming the Admiral was the best way to defend him. If you stuck a single defender on him, especially a key player, you were looking at the guy riding the pine for most of the game. This was true even of the old Drob. You look at the stats of Drob's relatively short career as a superstar...his stats are pretty impressive, but not among the all time greats who had the really long careers, except in 2 categories, FTA and FTM, he ranks among the all time greats in career totals in these categories, and therein lies the main reason that he was double teamed extensively in the playoffs...Post up game or not, he was a real bitch to defend with one man, especially your garden variety C, even Hakeem...he may not go off for 50 on them game in and game out...but have their ass on the bench, and out of the game, with 4-5 fouls by the 3rd quarter...that he could do game in and game out...to anyone. Why in the world would any one cover him with a single defender when he was always 2 steps away from the basket and 1?

His passing was under-rated as well...but it's not like he had a lot of options to kick it out too...still Drob had the defining trait of all the truly great players, he made his teamates better, he got guys open. People can say, "yeah but he never won the big one", but I'd say just making the post season with some of those teams, forget never fininishing lower than second in the division, matches anything any of those other guys did...then again...I can clearly see that Manu is a better SG than Vinny D..and I don't think many others can...at least that's the way it seems in every Drob V Hakeem argument. Thinking Drob one of the greatest ever does not make me the homer...thinking Vinny D was a championship caliber 2 guard is what makes someone a homer.

FromWayDowntown

11-27-2005, 12:00 AM

And double teaming the Admiral was the best way to defend him. If you stuck a single defender on him, especially a key player, you were looking at the guy riding the pine for most of the game. This was true even of the old Drob. You look at the stats of Drob's relatively short career as a superstar...his stats are pretty impressive, but not among the all time greats who had the really long careers, except in 2 categories, FTA and FTM, he ranks among the all time greats in career totals in these categories, and therein lies the main reason that he was double teamed extensively in the playoffs...Post up game or not, he was a real bitch to defend with one man, especially your garden variety C, even Hakeem...he may not go off for 50 on them game in and game out...but have their ass on the bench, and out of the game, with 4-5 fouls by the 3rd quarter...that he could do game in and game out...to anyone. Why in the world would any one cover him with a single defender when he was always 2 steps away from the basket and 1?

I agree; unless you did it the way that Nellie did in 1991. He ran a parade of virtual nobodies -- Alton Lister, Tyrone Hill, Jim Peterson and company -- at David for the last 3 games of that series and basically told them to employ the Pat Riley strategy of foul a lot because the officials won't call all of them. And Nellie didn't care if those guys piled up fouls because the Warriors successes didn't depend on any of them being available for long stretches. The Warriors were committed to allowing David to have his way (for the most part) while causing monumental problems elsewhere for that Spurs team.

CharlieMac

11-27-2005, 12:05 AM

I'll keep it simple.

It was usually D-Rob vs. the Jazz/Warriors/Suns/Rockets/Trailblazers in the plaoffs. That's why. He didn't play poorly, he just played alone at times.

whottt

11-27-2005, 12:05 AM

Whattt are you talking about?

I guess Drob never had an all-star with him in his prime...no wait, he had an all-star level player in Sean Elliot playing with him in the 92-3, 94-95 and 95-96 seasons, with 2 all-star game appearances in 93 and 96. Sean was scoring between 17 and 20 ppg, shooting lights out at the 3 pt line (around 40%), and at the high point was getting 5rpg.

Sounds pretty good to me.

My bad...I guess he had one. Once. The guy who missed the game winning FT's in game 1 of the 95 WCF...you remember...that's the game where Robert Horry hit the game winner....Robert Horry being the same guy who stuck 21 points up the Pistons ass in a 4th quarter and a half of game 5 of last years finals...Damn that brought back memories of Sean tearing it up in the playoffs.

Avery Johnson not talented, huh? I remember that, but this jumped out at me from the Spurs official website:

Oh shit...well if the Spurs media guide says it then you know it must be true...I mean that Spurs media guide is designed to be an unbiased view if ever there was one.

They sure do sound like a one-man team rolleyes

Keep rolling those eyes...it might do you some good.

Well, in 1995, when Rodman left, the talent was poor on Spurs team, right? Again, that same website disagrees:

Does that same website tell you that Rodman missed about half the season the year the Spurs nailed down the best record in team history?

DRob always had decent front court help...He had TC, and TC was damn good, Rodman was easily the second best player on the team...but it takes perimeter talent, or at least clutchness to win an NBA title...and the Spurs never had it with DRob...The Rifleman was about as close as they ever got to having it.

I'm afraid David has to shoulder the blame for the lack of playoff success for his team. Just as he get the credit for the regular season wins, he get the blame for coming through when it counts. I don't doubt the Spurs coaches of that time got owned, but its not from a lack of talent that David couldn't get it done.

And I'm afraid you're wrong...go take a look at how your boys Sean, AJ and Vinny did the year the Admiral missed the season...it's easy to find...go to google.com and type in "worst record in Spurs history"...then tell me how much Drob has to apologize for...and if you are really feeling adventurous, go look at the Spurs record in DRob's prime without DRob in the lineup...hint...

They didn't go 15-8 like the Spurs did last year without Duncan.
They didn't challenge for the conference title like the Bulls did when Jordan retired...
And they didn't rip off a 19 game winning streak like the Rockets did when Hakeem got his face smashed in...

What they did was suck ass, and suck ass badly...but hey, at least we got Tim Duncan out of the deal.

ducks

11-27-2005, 12:06 AM

YOU KNOW WHAT DUNCAN AGAINST PISTONS HAD SUPBAR GAMES BECAUSE They doubled team him.

and you know when rockets played the spurs the dream had help most of the time guarding david

I also would bet david loved the game of basketball more then 90% of the players today

and people rember duncan LOVES SWIMMING
I bet he loves swimming more then basketball

ducks

11-27-2005, 12:08 AM

half the problem was david robinson's teamates would just watch david and not move without the ball
they just stood in awe of him

whottt

11-27-2005, 12:14 AM

I agree; unless you did it the way that Nellie did in 1991. He ran a parade of virtual nobodies -- Alton Lister, Tyrone Hill, Jim Peterson and company -- at David for the last 3 games of that series and basically told them to employ the Pat Riley strategy of foul a lot because the officials won't call all of them. And Nellie didn't care if those guys piled up fouls because the Warriors successes didn't depend on any of them being available for long stretches. The Warriors were committed to allowing David to have his way (for the most part) while causing monumental problems elsewhere for that Spurs team.

I remember Tom Tolbert being a part of that pain in the ass rotation but I could be off...

You say it was Riley...I say it was typical Nellieball...just liked he pulled on us with the Mavs 3 years ago...thank god for Steve Kerr.

ShoogarBear

11-27-2005, 12:32 AM

Tolbert was part of Nellie's goon squad that year.

FromWayDowntown

11-27-2005, 12:50 AM

Tolbert was part of Nellie's goon squad that year.

Yeah, Tolbert played 15 minutes per game and shot nearly 50% from the floor (8-17), but had more fouls (12) than rebounds (5).

Brutalis

11-27-2005, 02:14 AM

xcoriate

11-27-2005, 05:32 AM

Couple of things,

Ducks Duncan didn't like Swimming he did it for his mum, when she dies he stopped. He loves basketball more than swimming.

Secondly Whottt knows what his on about, he may be the biggest D-rob homer of all time but his respect is well placed and he raises great points.

MI21

11-27-2005, 05:41 AM

Duncan didn't like Swimming he did it for his mum, when she dies he stopped. He loves basketball more than swimming.

Duncan stopped swimming when Hurricane Hugo destroyed the local pool. I belive he didn't play basketball until he was around 16/17.

polandprzem

11-27-2005, 09:27 AM

Duncan stopped swimming when Hurricane Hugo destroyed the local pool. I belive he didn't play basketball until he was around 16/17.
But he dropped swimming with ease, coldly. He mainly was swimmimig because of his mom (who was a part of that) and because he was a competitor.

Than he strated to play basketball and guess what? He one of the best in that discipline. Starting at 14 of age.
Everybody knows the story ...

MI21

11-27-2005, 10:11 AM

14 was it, I could of swore it was later than that.

I know for a fact that he gave it up when Hurricane Hugo destroyed his training pool, I've heard that on many different Tim Duncan features.

spursfaninla

11-27-2005, 11:54 AM

Whott, go ahead and dismiss the Spurs official website. But TRY to at least stick to the facts.

The year Drob was out, Sean was also injured for a significant part of the year;

I went to a clippers game to watch the Spurs that year, and they were both out.

thanks for playing.

whottt

11-27-2005, 01:44 PM

Whott, go ahead and dismiss the Spurs official website. But TRY to at least stick to the facts.

What do you mean at least try to stick to the facts? What you are quoting from the Spurs official website is called fluff...not fact.

You want facts...find something on the Spurs official site that mentions the rape allegations against David Wingate.

The year Drob was out, Sean was also injured for a significant part of the year;

I went to a clippers game to watch the Spurs that year, and they were both out.

thanks for playing.

Thanks for playing?

There is nothing worse than a tool who doesn't realize he is a tool...

Here are your facts...why don't you take a look at what Drob did in the 93-94 season on a team WITHOUT AJ and Sean Elliott...what was the team record, where did they finish in the division, and who eliminated them from the playoffs...

Then you can fucking tell me how much AJ and Sean brought to the team in those days...come to think of it..why don't you look at what they did on teams without David Robinson...then tell me who was more responsible for whose numbers.

And as I said earlier...why don't you go look at the Spurs record without Drob in the lineup-during Drob's prime...go ahead and exclude the 96-97 season by all means...then tell me how in the hell you can make any sort of claim that those teams minus Drob would have been anywhere near making the playoffs...I want to see that evidence...I want to see those facts....but more importantly, I want you to see them, so you can realize the enormity of what you don't know, and how badly you fail to realize the extreme degree to which David Robinson carried this franchise, and kept it out of the toilet...AJ, Vinny, and Sean be damned. Then after you do all of that, come and talk to me and I'll help you get that horse back in front of the cart...

polandprzem

11-27-2005, 03:33 PM

14 was it, I could of swore it was later than that.

I know for a fact that he gave it up when Hurricane Hugo destroyed his training pool, I've heard that on many different Tim Duncan features.

The Huracaine destroyed almost everything there. And the fact is the swimming pool with the olympic size was too far and Tiimy doesn't want to train in the ocean because of the Sharks :)
But if you are good at something and you love it you would definately find a way to train.
He just gave up. This wan't the same without mom.
and then Lawery, Oden, and so on

conqueso

11-27-2005, 04:34 PM

DRob got onto himself for getting to into games and losing his temper. And he didn't even lose it that much. He would rarely cuss, and I know for one I read somewhere how an undying Christian he is, he punishes himself for it.

He is just really a Godly man I guess. So nice of a guy it hurt him in the clutch clutch moments. He got a little help and did it. That 99' year he had like 20/10 I believe and earned that title.

He was just big ole cute soft teddy bear is all!

I hate to get back into one of these Robinson discussions, especially when Obstructed_view isn't there to prove me wrong, but I've heard this kind of critique for years, and I just don't understand it.

I know David's a Christian or whatever, but what do you think was going through his mind? "I love Hakeem so much that I want him to do well so I won't play as hard and let him win it"? Or "I just love people too much to want them to fail, so I'll fail instead and let them succeed"?

I mean, how do you get hurt in clutch moments by being too nice of a guy? The only way that makes sense is if you explain his "choking" or whatever as a consequence of wanting to sacrifice parts of himrself to help others. If you levy that kind of complaint, you would have to admit that Robinson wasn't trying to win, he was trying to let his opponents win. I just don't believe that was the case.

What makes more sense to me is that Robinsons just didn't care as much as some of these other guys. That has nothing to do with him being a nice guy or a Chrisitian or whatever. It has to do with him not placing as much importance in a silly game as his peers. It has to do with him having other things in his life that fulfill him, things outside basketball that confirm his self worth. Basketball just wasn't the most important thing in the world to him like it was to MJ or Larry or Magic or anyone else who can't function in a competent capacity outside the game. Sure, this makes Robinson less of a basketball player, but it also makes him more of a man.

But even this explanation doesn't do it for me. I remember the post game interview with Robinson after the game 6 loss to the Rockets. Obviously dejected and heart-broken, he said "I haven't felt anything like this since I've been in sports." I think Robinson did care...he cared a whole lot. So how do you explain his repeated post-season failures? This question has a larger scope than just David Robinson in the '90s...it applies to Keving Garnett, Wilt Chamberlain, and Oscar Robertson, among many others. Why couldn't any of these amazing players, some of the best to ever play the game, win without help? Why did they fold in the face of adversity time after time?

P.S. I can already anticipate people arguing with me about Wilt and Big O, so here's why they were failures in the same way DRob was:

K.G., considered one of the best PFs of all time, has only advanced past the first round of the playoffs once in his 11 year career, even though his regular season stats have been consistently dominant. History of choking in the clutch playoff games.

Robertson's only title was with Milwaukee in '71 (his eleventh year in the league). He was the second leading scorer on the team (19.4 ppg). The leading scorer? Kareem Abdul-Jabar (31.7). All the teams that he led in the sixties either missed the playoffs or were bounced out in the first or second round by the Celtics or Sixers.

When Wilt won the title in '67, there were two other players on the team who were Top 50 of All Time (Hal Greer and Billy Cunningham). Also, Red Auerbach had retired the previous year, and Bill Russell was the Celtic's coach when they lost to Philly in the ECF. That '67 Sixers team was one of the top 5 in history, and they would have won the title even if I had been their starting center. The '72 Lakers were even more stacked, and Wilt was the fourth option on that team, behind West, Goodrich, and Jim McMillian.

spursfaninla

11-27-2005, 07:26 PM

ambchang

11-27-2005, 11:07 PM

Jordan had Pippen.
Magic had Worthy/Kareem
Kareem had Magic/Robertson
Malone had Dr.J and Bobby Jones, and ... well, a lot.
Wilt had West
Wilt had the whole freaking 6ers
Hakeem had Drexler / a whole team of shooters built around him.
Duncan had Robinson/Manu/Parker
Shaq had Kobe
Robinson had Terry Cummings, Rod Strickland, Dennis Rodman, Sean Elliott, Avery Johnson, Bob Hill/Tark as coach. I mean, it's not even that hard to see, the Spurs didn't underachieve in the playoffs, they always overachieve in the regular season. In the playoffs, when a team has days and days to draw up offenses and defenses, the opposition's weaknesses are going to be exposed quite easily, and trust me, the Spurs of those days have very very notable weaknesses that could be easily exploited. They include:
Lack of perimeter shooting.
Zero play-makers (Remeber Lloyd Daniels as the saviour? Haha!)
Weak rebounding outside of Robinson. (JR Reid? Charles Smith? Please!)
No offensive sets (I am talking about Lucas, who just lets everybody freelance)
Besides, look at how Malone can't win a championship even with Stockton, and later Shaq, Kobe and Payton. See how Barkley never won one with Kevin Johnson and Jeff Hornacek, how Ewing never won one with Starks and Oakley. Winning a championship isn't that easy.

whottt

11-27-2005, 11:55 PM

Whatt, reduce the level of bile and increase inteligability; its a trade-off, trust me.

*snicker*

David had Rodman the year in question (93-4), who changed the team into a defensive monster (2nd best defense ppg allowed), along with the best offensive rebounding team in the league. His rebounding freed david to score more, allowing him to get the scoring title. I would say his contribution that year was pretty impressive, and a big part of their success. Rodman was named to all-defensive teams and so on... Rodman got 17! rpg that year. The scoring on that team was weaker than on the future spurs teams, true. I wont deny that was an offensively weaker team than any Tim has had.

Ok so Rodman allowed Drob to get the scoring title...to be the first C in about 20 years to win one in fact...Did Rodman also also DRob to lead the team in assists, steals, and blocks etc?

Shit, he never had that kind of impact for Bill Wennington or Bill Lambeeir...

Hey...after the Spurs got rid of Rodman who lead the NBA in total rebounds that year?

Let me make sure I understand, your "dumbfuck" POV...when the Spurs were good without AJ and Sean it was because of Rodman, this constitutes a talented team to you, a team good enough to win a title...When they were good without Rodman it was because of AJ and Sean...Drob is just basically this piece of shit that was given every thing he needed to win a title and was just too much of a pussy to do it...

You are fucking dumbass if that is what you think...you are dumbass if you think Avery Johnson was a talented PG, you are a dumbass if you think Vinny D was a championship caliber 2 guard, and you are a dumbass if you think having Dennis Rodman and David Robinson, surrounded by absolute utter scrub shit, consitutues the Spurs surrounding him with enough talent to win a fucking title, or even win 55 games.

Do you deserve to be talked to this way? Why yes you do...Why? You seem to be able to type well enough, so obviously you aren't as retarded as you dumb fucking POV on basketball would indicate...so yeah I see no reason to be sympathetic or nice to someone who deliberately choses to be a dumbass when they have other options and they are getting pounded over they numbfucking skull with the absolute and utter truth.

David went from 55 wins (without sean and aj) to 62 wins (next season with them), so I think thats pretty significantly in my favor.

7 wins does not a championship make...

Using your logic, a team with the immortal and incredibly gifted Avery Johnson, balling Sean Elliott, and godlike, I can make a C a scoring champion, Dennis Rodman, ought to be able to win a title all by themselves, even if they have to drag that pussy pice of shit Drob, kicking and screaming along with them.

BTW, I figured out your thought process: Make an argument that you figure no one will look up; get faced with the facts that contradict it; make a different arguement and belch out bad language and jokes to distract from the slide of hand; repeat.

You haven't figured squat...my logic is simple...know the truth, know you are right, and if you make points and you have some dumbass refusing to acknowledge simple facts that take nothing more than a little common sense to understand, talk to them like the stupic fuck they are chosing to be.

So what's your spin on the 91-92 season?

It's too difficult for you to go to basketball reference and see what the Spurs record was without Drob in the lineup during his prime? Live in ignorance then. I have already heard your arguments and checked your facts long ago...years ago. You are the one chosing to not investigate mine...a shame really, perhaps the additional fact checking is part of what lead me to form the opinion that I have....

The truth is simple...

David Robinson never had the talent to win a title, given the talent on the other elite teams in the NBA, except for maybe his first 2 years in the NBA. I guess you could say the 94-95 team had the talent to do it...provided they could beat the defending champions, who incidentally, no one else beat either...Might have been helpful if Sean hadn't fucking choked the game winning FT's in game 1...might have been helpful if AJ hadn't gotten buttfucked by Sam Cassell for 30 points...and yes, it just might have been helpful if Drob hadn't been expected to shut down Hakeem and carry the offense against a double team, all the while staying out of foul trouble...IOW, it might have been nice if the Spurs had something, anything, going for them other than David Robinson, unfortunately, they really didn't...and sadly, way too many Spursfans are just too fucking stupid to realize it.

spursfaninla

11-28-2005, 01:06 AM

Yes, when you can't beat my take, go ahead and turn it into a strawman so you can feel like ARE beating something resembling an arguement.

I don't recollect saying David was any of the things you remarked, such as a pussy, a piece of shit, or so on. I never said he was anything other than an amazing athelete, a good person and my favorite Spur, certainly the reason I started watching the Spurs out of HS (he first year in the NBA, in fact).

Nevertheless, none of your attempts to distract take from my original arguement; David had plenty of talent around him. Sean was an all-star, he had an all-nba defender in Rodman the front court with him, AJ shot over 50% one year and handed out 8 assists. David had good 3 pt shooters in Person, Dale Davis and Sean.

Sure, some of them failed to come through in the playoffs. But great players are sometimes predicated partly on their partners, and somehow are still asked to take responsability for the team's failures, it is part of the burden of greatness. Jordan never said, "Well, I let Paxton take that last shot, and he just didnt' come though when it counted. I guess I didn't have enough talent around me."

it's too difficult for you to go to basketball reference and see what the Spurs record was without Drob in the lineup during his prime? Live in ignorance then. I have already heard your arguments and checked your facts long ago...years ago. You are the one chosing to not investigate mine...a shame really, perhaps the additional fact checking is part of what lead me to form the opinion that I have....

I hate to repeat myself, but I already noted that Sean missed most of that season, too. And they had shipped off Rodman by that time, IIRC. We were running an old Domonique in there, and AJ had no one else to pass to. Lastly, I don't, and never did, deny David's impact during the regular season. He holds the 2nd record for best turnaround in a season his rookie year (Duncan's return has the best, but its not fair b/c david came back that year too.)

Hakeem had an aging Drexler who was good but no longer at his peak. It was Hakeem who made incredible, off-balance fade-aways that David could NOT stop. David was double-teamed, but he also had plenty of chances one-on-one, and could not match his production.

And no excuses, your bad attitude is worse than rude, it lacks class.

whottt

11-28-2005, 01:25 AM

Beat your take? What, giving credit for sucess to the revolving cast instead of the man most responsible? Claiming that the Spurs would have been a playoff team without David Robinson? You are wrong. To be a champion you have to have a playoff caliber team without the best player...and the Spurs never had that without David Robinson. In 91-92, that team still had the core of the best teams Drob played on...Willie Anderson, Terry Cummings, Sean Elliott...

What happened when Drob got injured for the last 14 games? 5-9,
The fewest wins of the Drob era. And those 5 wins were the pinnacle of those Spurs without DRob. I believe they were winless in every other game he missed in every other season of his prime.

Yes Drob got let down by his teamates...Robert Horry hits game winners for Shaq and Hakeem...and Duncan...Rod Strickland makes a no look pass to the goal post...Sean Elliott misses two game winning FT's.

You can subtract all the guys DRob played with...and they all were at one point or another...and the Spurs never won fewer than 49 games...they never got swept, they never finished lower than second in the division, regardless of the case, when he joined the team it set an NBA record for the greatest single season turn around in NBA history...when he got inured it set the record for the biggest negative single season turn around in NBA history...

He did whatever his team needed to win, scoring, defending, rebounding, he never complained and for the first 5 years of his career he was statistically the best player in the NBA in terms of helping his team win.

And what is his reward for being dutybound and showing up to work every night and carrying teams better than any of those so called heart of a champion guys? He gets called soft, people say he didn't want to win...

It's just crap. Drob was a one of a kind player and talent, and he worked as hard on the court night in and night out as anyone...including guys that are just barely hanging on to careers.

Nah DRob is an amazing man, and basketball player, and frankly he was wasted on some very unappreciative and unknowledgable fans here in SA. I can forgive ESPN for making the comments they made...after all, they didn't see Drob as much as the people of SA did...but I don't see how anyone can claim that Drob was the reason those Spurs teams didn't win titles...he was the only reason they were even in the playoffs, and all you have to do is look at the games and years when he was subtracted to see the impact he had on his teams.

Hell...look at what he did in College.

Your loss, not mine.

callo1

11-28-2005, 05:27 AM

FromWayDowntown

11-28-2005, 12:50 PM

I don't think you can look at the regular season accomplishments of guys like Avery Johnson, Vinny Del Negro, and Sean Elliott and conclude from those numbers that they comprised even a good supporting cast at playoff time -- particularly in the mid 90's.

Elliott was the closest thing to a legitimate running mate that David had between a pre-injury Terry Cummings and Tim Duncan. But Elliott's game was good, not great. He was a guy who could score a lot (sometimes) as a complimentary piece, but Sean wasn't the type of guy who could take over a game and dominate by imposing his will on other teams. In the mid-90's, Elliott was at his peak, but he didn't have the sheer force of presence to take over games when teams tried to take David away.

I don't think AJ's regular season numbers in the mid 90's mean a great deal. AJ shot a good percentage during those regular seasons, but that was a function of his playing off of David and the difficulty that teams had in defending David in the context of regular season games. AJ's regular season shooting percentages look good, but they were the product of lots of easy layups created by the Spurs pick and roll offense. In the playoffs, teams in the mid 90's were repeatedly able to exploit the fact that AJ's game was very, very limited. Teams were able to push AJ to his right hand on his drives, at a point when Avery struggled to finish with his right hand, and were willing to concede jumpers from 15 feet and out to AJ because they knew that he wasn't going to hit a good percentage of those shots.

Think about it -- part of what made Avery's game-winning shot in 1999 so remarkable is the fact that he actually hit a jump shot from more than 15 feet. Even in 1999, teams would concede jumpers to Avery because he was never a great jump shooter. To say that he was some sort of remarkable shooter in 1995 or 1996 and that he was capable of making defenses give up their doubles on Robinson is a complete fiction.

I think there are fuzzy memories, glazed by what happened in 1999, about the talent on the Spurs teams of the mid-90's. Other than David, the most important piece of those teams was Dennis Rodman, who was significant in the playoff mostly because his offensive rebounding gave the Spurs opportunities to attack defenses that were out of position and unable to implement game plans to stop David. Rodman was far from being an offensive threat that teams had to account for in half-court sets, which allowed opponents to easily bring a second big to double David in the post. You can discount the Rodman distractions if you want, but from a basketball standpoint, Rodman's decisions to jack up random 3 pointers in Game 2 of the 1995 WCF or his decisions to play selfishly at other points in time adversely affected David Robinson in a direct fashion because it took away the possibility that the Spurs could take advantage of scramble situations and get David more heavily involved.

Ultimately, this discussion comes down to 1 series (maybe 2) in which the Spurs failed. Mostly, the discussion is about why the Robinson-led Spurs couldn't put down Houston in 1995, while the Duncan-led Spurs have gone 3 for 4 in West Finals. I think the truth lies in the supporting casts and it's amazingly difficult to argue that David's supporting cast was ever better than the talent on the teams that defeated them.

Take 1995 and 1996 for instance. Take a step back to objectivity and ask yourself who would you take in each of the following comparisons:

1995:
Avery Johnson/Kenny Smith
Vinny Del Negro/Clyde Drexler
Sean Elliott/Mario Elie
Dennis Rodman/Robert Horry
David Robinson/Hakeem Olajuwon
Chuck Person/Sam Cassell

1996:
Avery Johnson/John Stockton
Vinny Del Negro/Jeff Hornacek
Sean Elliott/Bryan Russell
Charles Smith or Will Perdue/Karl Malone
David Robinson/Greg Ostertag or Antoine Carr or Felton Spencer
Chuck Person/Chris Morris

Those Spurs teams were built for regular season play and racked up gaudy regular season numbers, but without a second star on the roster, and without consistent threats at other positions, they weren't built to defeat teams with those characteristics. The composition of those Spurs' rosters made it easy for teams to focus their defenses on David, which made it easier for them to make David less effective in a playoff context than he had been in the regular season. And when you could limit David Robinson, it was fairly easy to defeat those Spurs teams.

bobbyjoe

11-29-2005, 04:08 AM

I think the whole 'not having a dominant low post game' is way overstated. David Robinson put up some of the best regular seasons in the history of the NBA, and his average years were about as good statistically as Tim Duncan's best.

It's not like David Robinson was averaging 1.0apg and 4.0TOpg, he became a reasonable passer while remaining a dominant force on offense. Bottom line: he was one of the best offensive players in the league every season before Tim Duncan came along, along with being one of the best defensive players ever.

Were his teamattes just really bad? Was it just a fluke he played so poorly in 3-4 playoffs?

Absolutely 100% not. The whole 'not having a dominant low post game' is not overstated one iota.

Let's look at 6 contemporary excellent superstar players:

David Robinson, Tim Duncan, Shaquille O'Neal, Kevin Garnett, Hakeem Olajuwon, Dirk Nowitzki

What do Duncan, O'Neal, and Olajuwon have in common? All 3 have won multiple titles as #1 options. All 3 have dominant post games. All 3 maintain or exceed their regular season #'s in the postseason, particularly Olajuwon.

What do Robinson and KG and Dirk have in common? Quite a bit actually. The similarities between Robinson and Hakeem and KG and Duncan are just uncanny. Neither Robinson nor KG enjoyed much playoff success as #1 options. Robinson got to the WCF once, same for KG. Both had well rounded games, but weren't post scorers. KG's #'s are similar to Duncan but is he as good? Hell no. Same for DRob vs. Hakeem.

It's real simple, really. In the playoffs, things slow down pacewise and scoringwise, opportunities for cheap buckets which Robinson lives off of in the regular season decline. So much of Robinson's game was about his athleticism and beating bigs down the court and scoring in transition. These hoops arent there in the postseason. The postseason game is so much more about half court.

In the halfcourt, if you have a hakeem or duncan with about 6-7 postmoves, they can always get off a high % shot. Same with O'Neal with his brute force. In the halfcourt sets Robinson's only real options are beat you with the face up jumper which was very good, but not lethal or drive to the hoop. That's why you see Robinson's and KG's #'s dip so much in the postseason. It's really a different game after the reg season.

The emphasis on half court basketball in the postseason is also why teams like the Mavericks and Suns who rely so much on transition based games in the regular season just don't win titles. Same for the old Warriors and Suns teams, although the Suns with Barkley did have a post presence.

It's completely naive to say that a player's performance is completely based on his teammates and not on his own talent, skill, and drive. Robinson's teammates definitely did not suck. In 95, he had an all star SF and Rodman at PF. At the time, many felt it may well have had the potential of being one of the best frontlines in league history.

bobbyjoe

11-29-2005, 04:34 AM

His playoffs numbers were excellent, but they certainly didn't kick ass by his standards, considering he had solid support and lost to a clearly inferior team in 1990-91 in Golden State. Golden State won 44 games that season and generally was not a great team. Why did the Spurs lose in 4 games to them?

No doubt. But I will go even further. It was one of the best seasons in NBA history by ANY player. If you factor in his defensive presense, he basically had a Jordanesque impact that year (actually for a few seasons for that matter). Hakeem never had that good of a regular season.

I don't know. I guess he was unlucky and had poor support? But that is part of why I ask the question in the first place. Why the loss to Golden State? Why the loss to Utah in 1996? Was it poor coaching as well?

I don't doubt his support was awful on the perimeter in 1994, but why was he so good in the regular season, and why did the team have success then and yet play awful in the playoffs? Why didn't Drob put up 24-11 on poor shooting in the regular season if he had so little help? Did teams simply not design game plans for him because they didn't have time to the regular season?

I don't doubt Drob was great. I am just dumbfounded as to why his stats never measured up in the playoffs and why in 1990-91 and 1995-96 he underacheived as well? Drob if you go strictly by the regular season was one of the best players of all time in his prime. Statistically he was better than Olajuwon, about the same as Shaq (better probably if you factor D), better than Ewing, Barkley, Malone etc..... There were seasons where these guys didn't have great help either but managed to put up decent numbers I beleive (Hakeem, Bark, and Ewing). Was it just freak luck that David Robinson couldn't put up better stats in the playoffs with minimal support?

Robinson was not statistically better in the reg seasons than O'Neal or Hakeem. Maybe even, but all 3 were really quite similar stats wise in the reg season and dominant players. ONeal and Hakeem retained dominance in the post season and DRob didnt. Look at Hakeem 94 or Duncan 03 if you think it's impossible to win a title without a 2nd star or star studded supporting cast. It can be done if you're great enough, which isnt' a slight at all on DRob that he wasnt at that level.

Also, who on earth goes on only the regular season as you say? You don't win a title even if you go 82-0 in the regular season. All that matters in the end is the playoffs. Period. That's the time where you face the better competition and something of substance is on the line. Who gives a flip about Horry's regular season mediocrity when he's great enough in the postseason to win 6 rings?

Pro Sports are full of athletes who were great regular season players who's games declined in the playoffs. Think Peyton Manning, Jeff Bagwell, Craig Biggio, Barry Bonds, Karl Malone, etc.

Then there are guys like Michael Jordan, Hakeem Olajuwon, Tim Duncan, Troy Aikman, Tom Brady, ROBERT HORRY, who's games elevate in the postseason or at least maintain (which is harder to do since competition level rises).

David Robinson just isn't in the 2nd group. He's in the first. Some guys have "it"

Looking at Robinson's postseason failures, it really shouldn't be 95 which stands out, even though it's the most discussed, even a decade later. Robinson ran into a 7 foot Michael Jordan that postseason, a guy who was playing at a level that maybe 2-3 players at most in league history ever reached. Hakeem also killed Ewing and ONeal in that 2 yr stretch where he was at a Jordanesque level.

It's really the losses to the Jazz in 94 and 96 where Robinson really underachieved as the Jazz weakness' was at the Center position, something Houston was able to exploit in 94 and 95 when they beat Utah because Hakeem was just killing the Jazz.

The question you should be asking instead of microanalyzing and cherrypicking stats is Did David Robinson honestly ever dominate the NBA like Hakeem did 93-95 or Shaq did 00-02 or Duncan is doing now? And the answer to that is absolutely no.

bobbyjoe

11-29-2005, 04:50 AM

Whatt, reduce the level of bile and increase inteligability; its a trade-off, trust me.

David had Rodman the year in question (93-4), who changed the team into a defensive monster (2nd best defense ppg allowed), along with the best offensive rebounding team in the league. His rebounding freed david to score more, allowing him to get the scoring title. I would say his contribution that year was pretty impressive, and a big part of their success. Rodman was named to all-defensive teams and so on... Rodman got 17! rpg that year. The scoring on that team was weaker than on the future spurs teams, true. I wont deny that was an offensively weaker team than any Tim has had.

David went from 55 wins (without sean and aj) to 62 wins (next season with them), so I think thats pretty significantly in my favor.

BTW, I figured out your thought process: Make an argument that you figure no one will look up; get faced with the facts that contradict it; make a different arguement and belch out bad language and jokes to distract from the slide of hand; repeat.

Great post. I think if you asked Hakeem or Shaq or Duncan to have a guy like Dennis Rodman as their front court help, they'd be pretty dang happy about it. Having a guy like that who excels at all the dirty work, pounds the offensive glass, defends so well, is a luxury. Look at what he did for the Bulls 96-98? He was instrumental in containing Malone both Finals years and defending O'Neal in 96. And a very good scorer like Elliott as well. No way was that a weak supporting cast.

Look at Bruce Bowen. If you only looked at his stats, you'd think he was a scrub, but he's such a vital piece of what the Spurs are as a team. Rodman has been that piece for 2 different championship teams in DET and CHI. You can't just look at a guy's offensive output when analyzing his value. SA wouldn't have won so many reg season games if the team was just 11 scrubs surrounding Robinson. Or even gotten to the WCF in 95.

bobbyjoe

11-29-2005, 04:52 AM

I love DROB..because of the person he is.

The answer to that, I believe is:

Basketball wasn't his first love. That wasn't the most important thing in his life.

You certainly shouldn't fault or criticize Robinson for this, even if it is true.

Nikos

11-29-2005, 04:53 PM

Absolutely 100% not. The whole 'not having a dominant low post game' is not overstated one iota.

I still think it is, especially in David Robinson's case.

What do Duncan, O'Neal, and Olajuwon have in common? All 3 have won multiple titles as #1 options. All 3 have dominant post games. All 3 maintain or exceed their regular season #'s in the postseason, particularly Olajuwon.

All three have also failed in several playoff series as #1 options, even when they had decent supporting casts. All three have also succeeded at times when they had elite second superstars -- Kobe Bryant and Clyde Drexer were basically elite calibur players in the seasons in which their respective teams won titles. Duncan also had Ginobili, and to a lesser extent Tony Parker -- along with very good defensive role player support, while also having the luxury of geling a few seasons together (Horry, Bowen, Rasho etc..).

What do Robinson and KG and Dirk have in common? Quite a bit actually. The similarities between Robinson and Hakeem and KG and Duncan are just uncanny. Neither Robinson nor KG enjoyed much playoff success as #1 options. Robinson got to the WCF once, same for KG. Both had well rounded games, but weren't post scorers. KG's #'s are similar to Duncan but is he as good? Hell no. Same for DRob vs. Hakeem.

Faulty logic. KG never had a great second star or a consistent supporting cast from year to year. The one season he had an excellent second banana in Sam Cassell, he ended up getting injured by the Laker series.

KG is pretty darn close to Tim Duncan. Duncan has more experience and is more well rounded as a scorer near the basket, and likely the better defender -- but their overall values as players in the NBA are nearly identical.

It's real simple, really. In the playoffs, things slow down pacewise and scoringwise, opportunities for cheap buckets which Robinson lives off of in the regular season decline. So much of Robinson's game was about his athleticism and beating bigs down the court and scoring in transition. These hoops arent there in the postseason. The postseason game is so much more about half court.

Maybe on average the playoff game does slow down, but it is not something that happens all the time. The Spurs beat the Suns by playing THEIR fast paced game. It's all about balanace. A lot of NBA teams that play face paced basketball that happen to be elite offensively fail in the playoffs because they aren't balanaced on both ends of the court, not because they don't play SLOW basketball.

In the halfcourt, if you have a hakeem or duncan with about 6-7 postmoves, they can always get off a high % shot. Same with O'Neal with his brute force. In the halfcourt sets Robinson's only real options are beat you with the face up jumper which was very good, but not lethal or drive to the hoop. That's why you see Robinson's and KG's #'s dip so much in the postseason. It's really a different game after the reg season.

Sure its different, but KG's numbers weren't that bad in the NBA playoffs. As a rule, players stats fall in the playoffs, especially if they have minimial support and play against elite teams. Robinson is an extreme case of someones stats dropping come playoff time relative to the regular season, but KG's stats are not that extreme in terms of dropping from reg season, to post season.

The emphasis on half court basketball in the postseason is also why teams like the Mavericks and Suns who rely so much on transition based games in the regular season just don't win titles. Same for the old Warriors and Suns teams, although the Suns with Barkley did have a post presence.

They didn't win because they weren't good enough defensively. In other words they weren't balanced as a team.

Supergirl

11-29-2005, 05:30 PM

I love D-Rob, I think he was one of the best centers to ever play the game, certainly the best in Spur history.

But he lacked some sort of intangible that Duncan has. It's the reason why, despite some spectacular seasons, D-Rob never won a championship before Tim came along. Tim, on the other hand, has won without David.

ambchang

11-29-2005, 05:30 PM

Absolutely 100% not. The whole 'not having a dominant low post game' is not overstated one iota.

Let's look at 6 contemporary excellent superstar players:

David Robinson, Tim Duncan, Shaquille O'Neal, Kevin Garnett, Hakeem Olajuwon, Dirk Nowitzki

What do Duncan, O'Neal, and Olajuwon have in common? All 3 have won multiple titles as #1 options. All 3 have dominant post games. All 3 maintain or exceed their regular season #'s in the postseason, particularly Olajuwon.

What do Robinson and KG and Dirk have in common? Quite a bit actually. The similarities between Robinson and Hakeem and KG and Duncan are just uncanny. Neither Robinson nor KG enjoyed much playoff success as #1 options. Robinson got to the WCF once, same for KG. Both had well rounded games, but weren't post scorers. KG's #'s are similar to Duncan but is he as good? Hell no. Same for DRob vs. Hakeem.

It's real simple, really. In the playoffs, things slow down pacewise and scoringwise, opportunities for cheap buckets which Robinson lives off of in the regular season decline. So much of Robinson's game was about his athleticism and beating bigs down the court and scoring in transition. These hoops arent there in the postseason. The postseason game is so much more about half court.

In the halfcourt, if you have a hakeem or duncan with about 6-7 postmoves, they can always get off a high % shot. Same with O'Neal with his brute force. In the halfcourt sets Robinson's only real options are beat you with the face up jumper which was very good, but not lethal or drive to the hoop. That's why you see Robinson's and KG's #'s dip so much in the postseason. It's really a different game after the reg season.

The emphasis on half court basketball in the postseason is also why teams like the Mavericks and Suns who rely so much on transition based games in the regular season just don't win titles. Same for the old Warriors and Suns teams, although the Suns with Barkley did have a post presence.

It's completely naive to say that a player's performance is completely based on his teammates and not on his own talent, skill, and drive. Robinson's teammates definitely did not suck. In 95, he had an all star SF and Rodman at PF. At the time, many felt it may well have had the potential of being one of the best frontlines in league history.

With that I present Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing and Karl Malone as low post players with no rings.
Not to say that a low post game wouldn't have been beneficial to Robinson's game, but to say that he never won a title is because he didn't have a low post game while dismissing his weak supporting cast (or at least non-title contending support cast) is quite weak.
Oscar Robertson had a great back to the basket game, you don't see him winning a title without Kareem. Wes Unseld does even have any moves, and he wona title.

SA Gunslinger

11-29-2005, 06:23 PM

I will focus on the ’94-‘95 season because that was the year, the Admiral was the closest to winning the title. I am going by memory on most of this from games I watched and listened to in regards to the guys that surrounded the Admiral in ‘95.

Sean missing those free throws against the Rockets in the opener hurt. I remember thinking we absolutely had to win the first two at home to win the series. Sean seemed shaky in most pressure situations up until the MDM. He had that nice first step and drive to the bucket but he didn't exactly breakdown guys off the dribble well.

Vinny was money during the regular season but he disappeared in the playoffs. most of his time with the Spurs, from what I remember. He didn't defend well, even though he was a competitor. And compared to Manu, Vinny was a sloth. I remember we used him at point guard which just used to kill me. He was so slow and his ball handling made me hold my breath at times. I am not sure if used him at the point in '95 but I think we did.

The Rifleman wasn't always consistent but he did hit some big shots. I always felt confident when he was in the game with the game on the line. And when Person was streaking, he was like Vinnie Johnson. He could fill it up in a short time.

A.J. had no midrange game to speak of prior to 1998 or so. Not that he was reliable from the perimeter after 1998 but he would at least take the shot with confidence and knockdown a few. He was very clever on penetrations, similar to TP, but he wasn't as tall or as quick. I did like how AJ managed the games and he was definitely a better passer than TP. Overall, AJ’s game was limited in '95 because he couldn't or wouldn’t stroke it from the perimeter.

Rodman played great. I loved the way he played. I just wished he would have cutout some of his antics. But I lived with it because he was fun to watch and dominating on many nights.

Overall, I think Dave had some good players around him in ’95. But the weaknesses of Vinny Del Negro and Avery Johnson were too glaring for him to take the Spurs to the promised land.

Obstructed_View

11-29-2005, 06:56 PM

Funny that Vinny and AJ are the ones you blame when Rodman was the one not covering Horry at the three point line.

SA Gunslinger

11-29-2005, 07:13 PM

Funny that Vinny and AJ are the ones you blame when Rodman was the one not covering Horry at the three point line.

I would blame coaching for that. Hill left him in the game.

So you blame Rodman for the losing that series? I don't. They wouldn't even have been in that position without Rodman.

ambchang

11-29-2005, 08:06 PM

bobbyjoe

11-29-2005, 08:17 PM

With that I present Charles Barkley, Patrick Ewing and Karl Malone as low post players with no rings.
Not to say that a low post game wouldn't have been beneficial to Robinson's game, but to say that he never won a title is because he didn't have a low post game while dismissing his weak supporting cast (or at least non-title contending support cast) is quite weak.
Oscar Robertson had a great back to the basket game, you don't see him winning a title without Kareem. Wes Unseld does even have any moves, and he wona title.

Charles Barkley, Pat Ewing, and K Malone weren't on the same level as Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan, Wilt, Kareem.

Ewing was FAR from dominant; Barkley was great offensively but a weak defender and Malone wasn't a pure low post guy by ANY STRETCH. Malone's game was basically pick n roll, transition hoops, and a deadly 18-20 foot wing jumper.

bobbyjoe

11-29-2005, 08:28 PM

did they go on a 15 game winning streak without rodman? or was it the year after that?
anyways, i don't understand the logic. the Spurs only reliable PF was rodman, he could be an amazing defender if he wants to, and he is an absolutely dominating rebounder. now he acts up. refused to guard Horry on the perimeter, what was Hill supposed to do? Put in JR Reid? Cummings (who was like 82 years old then)? Moses Malone? Man, the more I think about that lineup, I more I think about how in the world did that team win 62 games, and how was it possible that that team was supposed to be a title contender.
I mean, look at it: Sean Elliott was an great perimeter defender and scorer who can't create; Avery Johnson has good court vision but no outside shot; Del Negro is at best a 2nd string combo guard (kinda like a poor man's, no make that a broke man's Brent Barry); Rodman is amazing when he decides to play, which he decided not to during the Rocket's series; the bench was a retirement home - Terry Cummings, Moses Malone, Doc Rivers.... man, 62 games and taking the Rockets to 6 games with that squad, no wonder Robinson was the MVP that year.

Robinson technically was MVP that year but Hakeem was far and away the best player in the NBA that year and the MVP when it mattered in the playoffs, torching Robinson then O'Neal.

Saying that Sean Elliott couldn't create is simply asinine. Did you even watch the guy play? He averaged 18.1 ppg in 94-95, then 20 ppg in 95-96 and constistently shot a good FG%. He had a really good first step and could attack the basket.

It's not Elliott's playoff #'s which have the dramatic decline. Avery Johnson's #'s increase in the postseason. In the 95, WCF if not for Avery it's a sweep by Houston. Avery averaged over 20 ppg that series. Ask Karl Malone or Shaq or MJ or any of the Bad Boys opponents if Rodman wasn't a bigtime playoff performer. He has FIVE rings. It's Robinson who's #'s decline so dramatically in the playoffs and it's crazy to make every excuse in the book BUT cite his own shortcomings as a player for that fact.

As for Rodman, expecting him to be able to guard Horry is what's crazy. Rodman was a great interior defender who's strength wasn't guarding the 3. Maybe if Robinson hadn't gotten twisted around like a pretzel on every Hakeem fake, Rodman wouldn't have had to help down low and could try to cover his man.

Doc Rivers also played very well in that 95 Series. It was Dave who was just dominated and that was far and away the #1 reason for the loss, but like I said no one could contain Hakeem in that period.

However, why didn't Robinson abuse a team like Utah who had stiffs at Center in 94 and 96? He did not play well against them at all on either end. I remember the Jazz would put Malone on Robinson and he would just take Big Dave out of his game by playing so physically.

bobbyjoe

11-29-2005, 08:34 PM

I still think it is, especially in David Robinson's case.

All three have also failed in several playoff series as #1 options, even when they had decent supporting casts. All three have also succeeded at times when they had elite second superstars -- Kobe Bryant and Clyde Drexer were basically elite calibur players in the seasons in which their respective teams won titles. Duncan also had Ginobili, and to a lesser extent Tony Parker -- along with very good defensive role player support, while also having the luxury of geling a few seasons together (Horry, Bowen, Rasho etc..).

Faulty logic. KG never had a great second star or a consistent supporting cast from year to year. The one season he had an excellent second banana in Sam Cassell, he ended up getting injured by the Laker series.

KG is pretty darn close to Tim Duncan. Duncan has more experience and is more well rounded as a scorer near the basket, and likely the better defender -- but their overall values as players in the NBA are nearly identical.

Maybe on average the playoff game does slow down, but it is not something that happens all the time. The Spurs beat the Suns by playing THEIR fast paced game. It's all about balanace. A lot of NBA teams that play face paced basketball that happen to be elite offensively fail in the playoffs because they aren't balanaced on both ends of the court, not because they don't play SLOW basketball.

Sure its different, but KG's numbers weren't that bad in the NBA playoffs. As a rule, players stats fall in the playoffs, especially if they have minimial support and play against elite teams. Robinson is an extreme case of someones stats dropping come playoff time relative to the regular season, but KG's stats are not that extreme in terms of dropping from reg season, to post season.

They didn't win because they weren't good enough defensively. In other words they weren't balanced as a team.

KG is not even close to Tim Duncan just like Robinson wasn't close to Hakeem. KG is extremely passive in the clutch playoff moments where Duncan wants the ball and has had success and multiple go to moves he can count on. KG, like DRob, had no go to move.

When you think of Hakeem, you think of that turnaround which absolutely no one could stop or takeaway. With Duncan, he's pretty money in the post with either the bank shot, hook shot, or other post moves. With Robinson and KG, you don't think of them hitting big time shots in the clutch moments because it just didn't happen.

Duncan and Hakeem and O'Neal are in a tier clearly distinct from Robinson and KG.

Robinson's 95 supporting cast was defintely better than what Hakeem had in his first title (K. smith and maxwell, a journeyman backourt no better than aj-del negro and Horry/Thorpe weren't nearly as good as Elliott/Rodman) or Duncan's supporting cast in 03.

Super Great players just don't see their #'s decline so dramatically in the postseason like Robinson's did. Even the yrs Jordan's teams weren't that great, he was still out there dropping 40 a game in the playoffs, doing all he could to help his teams win. The beef with Robinson is moreso that his individiual performance declined so much in the playoffs.

ambchang

11-29-2005, 10:30 PM

Charles Barkley, Pat Ewing, and K Malone weren't on the same level as Hakeem, Shaq, Duncan, Wilt, Kareem.

Ewing was FAR from dominant; Barkley was great offensively but a weak defender and Malone wasn't a pure low post guy by ANY STRETCH. Malone's game was basically pick n roll, transition hoops, and a deadly 18-20 foot wing jumper.

I find it amusing how you would quote stat in the later post about how better numbers = better play, yet claim Ewing was far from dominant. Not that I am saying he is on the level of Hakeem et al, but he did once average 28.6. Just want to point out why stats != dominance.
And yes, I agree that none of those players are as good as Hakeem and such (and I still won't put Shaq and Duncan in that group), but Barkley DID have a great low post game, and even dominant, but he never won a ring. Malone did have a low post game, he did turn into a jump shooter later on in his career, but in the late 80s, early 90's, he had a strong post game to go with his pick and rolls and fast breaks.

ambchang

11-29-2005, 10:39 PM

Robinson technically was MVP that year but Hakeem was far and away the best player in the NBA that year and the MVP when it mattered in the playoffs, torching Robinson then O'Neal.

Saying that Sean Elliott couldn't create is simply asinine. Did you even watch the guy play? He averaged 18.1 ppg in 94-95, then 20 ppg in 95-96 and constistently shot a good FG%. He had a really good first step and could attack the basket.

Eddie Jones was a 20 point scorer with a decent FG% too, he had a great first step too, but he doesn't create.

It's not Elliott's playoff #'s which have the dramatic decline. Avery Johnson's #'s increase in the postseason. In the 95, WCF if not for Avery it's a sweep by Houston. Avery averaged over 20 ppg that series. Ask Karl Malone or Shaq or MJ or any of the Bad Boys opponents if Rodman wasn't a bigtime playoff performer. He has FIVE rings. It's Robinson who's #'s decline so dramatically in the playoffs and it's crazy to make every excuse in the book BUT cite his own shortcomings as a player for that fact.
Rodman could be a big time performer, he is a great role player when he chose to play his role. He didn't in the 1995 playoffs. He left Horry wide open for perimeter shot game after game after game. And yeah, Avery, Elliott and such got wide open jumpers and no defensive attention, I wonder why.

As for Rodman, expecting him to be able to guard Horry is what's crazy. Rodman was a great interior defender who's strength wasn't guarding the 3. Maybe if Robinson hadn't gotten twisted around like a pretzel on every Hakeem fake, Rodman wouldn't have had to help down low and could try to cover his man.
Funny thing is, every time I see Hakeem in that series, he was singled! Usually, you don't even see Rodman within the vincinity, because he was hanging around the basket waiting for rebounds. And Rodman is not just a great interior defender, he could be a great perimeter defender too, that's what's so amazing about him. He can guard anyone from 2 to 5. That is, if he chose to.

Doc Rivers also played very well in that 95 Series. It was Dave who was just dominated and that was far and away the #1 reason for the loss, but like I said no one could contain Hakeem in that period.

However, why didn't Robinson abuse a team like Utah who had stiffs at Center in 94 and 96? He did not play well against them at all on either end. I remember the Jazz would put Malone on Robinson and he would just take Big Dave out of his game by playing so physically.
It's very easy to contain a guy when you don't have to play his teammates. Haven't you been reading? You double Hakeem, Smith, Maxwell, Drexler and Elie are going to make you pay with 3 points. You double Robinson, Johnson, Elliott and Del Negro, are, at best, going to get two points. Why give the other team two points from 10 feet, when you can force them to shoot it from 18?

NASHville

11-29-2005, 10:47 PM

When it comes to someone of the character of a David Robinson, you can throw the stat sheets out the window as far as I am concerned.
I cannot think of an athlete and person who more warranted an award named after them.
The definition of what a "pro athlete" should be in the eyes of today's youth.

Nikos

03-24-2006, 03:44 PM

Just wanted to revisit this topic by bringing up David's playoff play season by season.

1990 - Sizable drop in production, but was a rookie, and still was an excellent force on both ends while losing to the WC champs, barely. Overall a normal first playoffs. He had "decent" support: an excellent scoring Terry Cummings at PF, and a solid wing in Willie Anderson who was solid in the playoffs, but generally just a solid guard (nothing special).

1991 - lost to the Warriors? A team that had good perimeter scorers and not much else, had no business really winning the series, but did anyway. David did great in the playoffs, about as good as he was in the regular season. Not his fault neccesarily, support was shaky. Cummings wasn't as good this season, Strickland was solid but not great. Elliot was solid, but not special.

1993 - His weakest offensive season until he was on the decline in 1999 -- Had a couple decent starters in Carr, Elliot, and Ellis -- hardly any standout support. Avery was a solid floor general, but didn't get starters minutes and wasn't as good as he would eventually become. Playoff time, Drob didn't get too much help, he himself had a subpar playoffs to his regular season standards, but considering his mediocre support it wasn't exactly a 'bad' playoffs.

1994 - Had one of the best regular season outputs in NBA history. Poor playoffs against the Jazz, team lost 3-1. Why? Drob's production was not good against the Jazz, horrible relative to his regular season standards. Maybe if he had more help, his numbers would have normalized. But he still didn't take over enough against Utah. Overall a bad playoffs for Drob despite having a monumental regular season.

1995 - Was a little better than Hakeem during the regular season, and he deserved the MVP that he got. Did much poorer in playoffs that regular season, not neccesarily just against Houston. Overall a poor performance for Drob. Had decent role player support, Elliot was very good but didn't step up. Rodman was very valuable, but didn't have scoring ability. Every single Spur's production pretty much went down in the playoffs, except Rodman -- but he was nothing special either. Looks like the team overacheived in the playoffs. But it would have been nice if Drob could have produced a little more. Overall a poor playoffs for Drob when measured against his regular season. Hakeem had better support, but he also stepped up in his role as an MVP calibur player.

1996 - Lost to Utah again. Drob had a good playoffs, but again, weaker than his regular season efforts, but not by a huge margin (but still large enough). Elliot was horrible in the playoffs again. Avery was solid in the playoffs. All the rest of the Spurs underperformed AGAIN. Utah was more balanced considering Karl had Stockton AND Hornaceck who were better than any Spur supporting player -- but Spurs had homecourt, and Drob still probably could have produced more statistically. But overall was probably unlucky again with lack of team support.

1998 - Drob began to decline, but was still elite when Duncan came in as a rookie. Their support was still relatively weak. Drob again didn't produce near his regular season level. Avery did real well in this playoffs. Duncan wasn't nearly as good as his regular season. Del Negro was OK relative to reg ular season, but not an impact player nonetheless. Lost to Utah again, WHY didn't Drob and Duncan do better? No support? Overall not a great showing for Drob.

1999 - Drob was about as good as he was during the regular season. Overal a great second banana in this playoff run.

2000 - Did a great job in the first round, but didn't have the support with Duncan out. A good playoffs for Drob. Why did he do well in this playoffs with minimal support, and not in years past? Drob was slightly declining in this era.

2001 - Great playoffs until the Lakers came to town. Had a good game or two during that series, but generally was ineffective in the other games. Why did he do so poorly vs LA. True Duncan did too at times, but why couldn't they figure it out together? No Derek Anderson? Old weak supporting cast? Yeah Shaq and Kobe were good, but they never repeated that success/dominant after that year even though Kobe wasn't in his prime then. Dissapointing ending despite very productive stats from Drob and Duncan.

Overall it seems a combo of bad luck, poor support. But still Drob has a pattern of not dominating when he doesn't have the support like MJ, Shaq, Hakeem did more often then not (but not always). Bird had some bad playoff years as well.

So was Drob just unlucky? Is he really a Top 10 player of all time in disguise? His regular season dominance can't be ignored.

jcrod

03-24-2006, 04:50 PM

Drob never had the support Duncan has now, plain and simple. Why argue this fact. You put a prime Drob on this TEAM and they dominate.

You replace TP with Avery/sleepy Floyd, Manu with Del Negro/Anderson.

Nikos

03-24-2006, 06:15 PM

Phenomanul

03-24-2006, 08:22 PM

Don't forget Rodman's ill-fated sabotaging of the team in his last playoff stint with the Spurs.

Sec24Row7

03-24-2006, 09:40 PM

Duncan lets the Spurs play inside out...

Robinson was not as effective in the playoffs because, just like with sheed on duncan, you could put a very good physical defender on him and single cover.

Amuseddaysleeper

03-24-2006, 09:44 PM

i'm confused, how did rodman sabotage the spurs in the playoffs? did he just refuse to play??

Sec24Row7

03-24-2006, 09:53 PM

You know... a lot can be said too for our defensive system that we put into place in the wake of pop's arrival here too.

I was looking for a stat on NBA.com but I couldnt find it...

Someone that has more access maybe can. What were the spurs best Fg% against and ppg allowed ranks in league pre pop and pre duncan?

sanman53

03-24-2006, 10:45 PM

Growing up in WV, I was never blessed like you all to watch many DRob games. Those I did have the opportunity to watch, I was in awe of his speed as a big. That MAN was amazing! I obviously do not have many insights like many of you have, but this thread has been a good read. One area that cannot be denied, the man had some huge guns!

THANKS TO YOU D-ROB!

jcrod

03-24-2006, 10:58 PM

This might be true. But Drob himself consistently underperformed in the playoffs. Most of it is likely due to teamattes, but it makes me wonder when I see his production drop drastically in 80% of his playoff appearences. True most of his support choked most of the time as well, but Avery Johnson did play well in 2-3 of those playoffs (at least for his standards). Elliot seemed to be the biggest underacheiving support player who played with Drob.

His performance did drop off, because in the playoffs when you have just one superstar and sub supporting cast. They take away the superstar and make the supporting cast bet them. Well, shit Avery, Del Negro or even Sean could not take over a game and take pressure off David.

And he also didn't have a coach as good as Pop. A good coach makes a difference and they always had revolving door on coachs back then. No stable enviroment.

jcrod

03-24-2006, 11:00 PM

i'm confused, how did rodman sabotage the spurs in the playoffs? did he just refuse to play??

Rodman was only good at one thing....Rebounding. He never rotated out to his player or someone else's. He would stay close to the basket to get the rebound. Thats why he was traded the following season.

callo1

03-25-2006, 01:05 AM

FWD got me thinking when he made the post about Drob's ability to hedge on the pick and rolls better than Tim Duncan. Overall Drob was likely the better defender given his quickness, excellent help and man defense. The steals and blocks show how active and disruptive Drob was.

Obviously Drob was an excellent offensive player as well during several regular seasons. Sure he didn't have a bread and butter move and all, but he still got by and scored 30ppg one season. Something even Hakeem couldn't do.

Question is, why did Drob play so poorly in the NBA playoffs before Duncan? The stats show a HUGE drop off from his regular season stats. I don't have them handy at this moment, but if you look on www.basketball-reference.com you can see nearly every year his statistical output wasn't near his regular season. Question is why? How come he had so much regular season success individually and with the team, and yet struggled in the playoffs so much?

The answer is very simple. The Spurs didn't have any real talent around D'Rob except for Shawn. As soon as the playoffs started, teams would double and triple David and make other people beat them. The Spurs were FAR from athletic and could not put the ball on the floor and get to the rim and make teams play for their double teams. Look no further than the Spurs in '02 against the Lakers to see a team that was very similar...Terry Porter, Steve Smith, Parker (rookie), Cherokee Parks, Danny Ferry, and Bruce Bowen (before he could shoot). In that series, the Lakers packed it in, then ran at the shooters and the Spurs had no athleticism to put the ball on the floor and make them pay.

bobbyjoe

03-25-2006, 05:43 AM

What talent did MJ around him before Pippen? Did that stop him from dominating individually in the playoffs and matching or exceeding his regular season excellence? Absolutely not. He was still exploding for 50 point games in the playoffs.

What talent did Hakeem have after Sampson-Lloyd-Wiggins left and before the 94-95 teams? Did that stop him from individually excelling in the playoffs? Absolutely not. He still had ridiculous playoff series against Seattle and Dallas in those years surrounded by the likes of Buck Johnson Sleepy Floyd, etc.

The notion that if you're teammates aren't all-stars, your playoff performance is going to decline from regular season is absurd. Great players make others around them better, not vice versa. Great players step their games up in the playoffs.

Guys like David Robinson and Kevin Garnett are great regular season players who decline in the playoffs. It's not about "luck" or making excuses. Facts are simply facts. If you choose to deem it "unlucky" you are just in denial.

Nikos, what team has ever won a ring for anything that happened in the regular season? All that matters in the end is the playoffs, period. That's the only time anything is on the line. Jeff Bagwell would be one of the 20 best baseball players ever if great regular season success made up for playoff failures. Tom Brady would be inferior to Peyton Manning if all you looked at was regular season. Etc. Postseason is when you make your fame. Who gives a rat's ass who had the best regular season wins if you dont win it all?

Nikos

03-25-2006, 03:38 PM

Guys like David Robinson and Kevin Garnett are great regular season players who decline in the playoffs. It's not about "luck" or making excuses. Facts are simply facts. If you choose to deem it "unlucky" you are just in denial.

Nikos, what team has ever won a ring for anything that happened in the regular season? All that matters in the end is the playoffs, period. That's the only time anything is on the line. Jeff Bagwell would be one of the 20 best baseball players ever if great regular season success made up for playoff failures. Tom Brady would be inferior to Peyton Manning if all you looked at was regular season. Etc. Postseason is when you make your fame. Who gives a rat's ass who had the best regular season wins if you dont win it all?

Teams don't win rings for the regular season, but the best teams that usually win titles are also excellent regular season teams. Post-season is of course where you can cement your legacy, but sometimes certain franchise players don't have the horses to get the job done. You call Garnett a loser, yet the Wolves were easily title contenders that year when Cassell was healthy. It would be like asking Shaq to win a title without Kobe, that is how valuable Cassell was to them that season. How convenient of you to simply omit that from your KG analysis. True KG hasn't been great in all playoff's, but he isn't been as bad as a Drob has been. Both Drob and KG have had minimal support for most of their careers, this is a big reason why they never have competed for a title.

You simply dismiss Drob because he failed in the playoffs, but by that logic Manu Ginobili was a better player than Drob because he played excellent in the playoffs in 2005. The reason is because his stats were simply superior, so were Tim Duncan's. Actually I could name a bunch of leaders and second/third banana's of playoff teams who have had players do better statistically than Drob did. Does that make them better players because they were given beter circumstances (i.e. better teamattes and more opportunities to have successful playoff runs with several teams).

Now I am not saying Drob is better than Hakeem or Shaq per se, and I do think he did fail a bit in the playoffs -- but it doesn't make him a horrible player in comparison. Regular season is a great indicator of the quality of a basketball player. Even Larry Bird had a bunch of horrible playoff series, but because he makes a few clutch plays and is given excellent support every season, he is remembered as a Top 5 player of all time in most people's eyes. Same with Magic, even though he had a few playoffs that were substandard.

Context does account for something. Maybe Drob was a weaker player in the playoffs, but that doesn't completely eradicate the fact that he had some of the best regular seasons of any NBA player in history.

ZStomp

03-25-2006, 03:47 PM

Robinson rocks man!!!

kris

03-25-2006, 05:23 PM

David Robinson was better than Garnett. Now that he is gone, you can see how truly awesome he was. He made Duncan worlds better.

He was the most athletic center there will ever be.

He wasn't an overly physical player and did not have the great foot work that Hakeem had and Duncan used to have, but he was still a very effective offensive player.

Think about Shaq though, Shaq has a horribly skilled offensive game if you think about it.

In the playoffs, the games would tighten up and the Spurs would try to win games on David's athletic ability alone.

Vinny Del Negro??? Please, that guy wouldn't even make the Spurs roster today.

Avery Johnson was an overachiever who probably should have been a back up point guard. His personality and persistance made him a starter, not his talent.

Sean Elliott fed off of David to become an all-star, but he was mostly a one-dimensional player. He was a great slasher with a quick step and a fair shot. He was a decent compliment, but not nearly enough. See his Detroit career.

JR Reid? Antoine Carr? Chuck Person? Monty Williams? Lloyd Daniels? Charles Smith? Negele Knight? Sleepy Floyd? Willie Anderson? Dale Ellis?

These are the guys the Admiral regularly went to battle with. His best teammates were Rod Strickland, Terry Cummings, and Dennis Rodman, and Sean Elliott.

The other teams that won the championship during David's tenure always had a second star and supporting cast that would put those guys to shame.

Garnett has had way more to work with. Part of the problem maybe Garnett himself. He is much more selective on who he wants on his team than David and is harder to get along with.

Another thing you can't say for Garnett is that he always took his teams to the playoffs. With David, any team would be guaranteed the playoffs.

bobbyjoe

03-26-2006, 06:13 AM

Teams don't win rings for the regular season, but the best teams that usually win titles are also excellent regular season teams. Post-season is of course where you can cement your legacy, but sometimes certain franchise players don't have the horses to get the job done. You call Garnett a loser, yet the Wolves were easily title contenders that year when Cassell was healthy. It would be like asking Shaq to win a title without Kobe, that is how valuable Cassell was to them that season. How convenient of you to simply omit that from your KG analysis. True KG hasn't been great in all playoff's, but he isn't been as bad as a Drob has been. Both Drob and KG have had minimal support for most of their careers, this is a big reason why they never have competed for a title.

You simply dismiss Drob because he failed in the playoffs, but by that logic Manu Ginobili was a better player than Drob because he played excellent in the playoffs in 2005. The reason is because his stats were simply superior, so were Tim Duncan's. Actually I could name a bunch of leaders and second/third banana's of playoff teams who have had players do better statistically than Drob did. Does that make them better players because they were given beter circumstances (i.e. better teamattes and more opportunities to have successful playoff runs with several teams).

Now I am not saying Drob is better than Hakeem or Shaq per se, and I do think he did fail a bit in the playoffs -- but it doesn't make him a horrible player in comparison. Regular season is a great indicator of the quality of a basketball player. Even Larry Bird had a bunch of horrible playoff series, but because he makes a few clutch plays and is given excellent support every season, he is remembered as a Top 5 player of all time in most people's eyes. Same with Magic, even though he had a few playoffs that were substandard.

Context does account for something. Maybe Drob was a weaker player in the playoffs, but that doesn't completely eradicate the fact that he had some of the best regular seasons of any NBA player in history.

David Robinson didnt play his whole career surrounded by scrubs. Dennis Rodman has 5 rings, is a HOF player. Robinson played with him. Sean Elliott was a 18-20 ppg very quick SF who could create his own shot and was all star caliber. Guys like Dale Ellis, Chuck Person, etc could fill it up from the outside. And AJ was an underrated PG who was a very good floor general and dangerous in transition.

You need a back to the basket big in the playoffs to win a title, a Hakeem, Shaq, Kareem, or TD. Those are the guys who create wide open looks for teammates because you have to collapse on them in the paint. DRob and KG are different kind of players, the kind who just dont win titles as #1 options.

The next team to win anything in the REGULAR SEASON will be the first.

Do you think anyone will give a damn after this season who had the best record in the NCAA or will people only remember the team who wins the tournament? Playoffs are ALL that matter in the end. Robinson fell short more often than the true all-time NBA greats did in the postseason. He had some really poor playoff outings against Utah and Houston.