If David Robinson and Tim Duncan Switched...

The "David never performed well in the playoffs argument" I always thought was a cop out for fans who only look at the stats and/or are too young to have seen the 90's playoff games. Playoff teams would double and triple David and dare someone else to beat them: a strategy that worked for most teams. A guy like Vinny Del Negro might make you pay one game for doubling DRob, but not for four games. Playing with Avery Johnson as your PG put David behind the 8 ball too many times. Teams regularly used his man to double the Admiral. Look at the teams that knocked David out; they had multiple, reliable weapons on offense:

1990: 2nd Rnd lost to Portland in 7, who had Drexler, Porter, Kersey, Duckworth (who was an All Star in 89), a rookie Cliff Robinson, and young Drazen Petrovic (Spurs were a bad Strickland pass way from Conf Finals)

1991: 1st Rnd lost to Warriors in 4 (3-1): Mullin, Hardaway, Richmond (all over 20ppg) Robinson averaged 25pts, 13reb, 1.5stl, 3.8blks (he did all he could, but the rest of the team folded after performing well in Game 1)

1992: 1st Rnd lost to Suns (3-0): Robinson out with injury for playoffs

1993: 2nd Rnd lost to Suns (4-2): Suns roster had Barkley, Kevin Johnson, Majerle, older Chambers, young Ced Ceballos. David averaged 25pts, 11rebs, 1.7stl, 3.3blks in that series (up from 23 ppg regular season) while an older Dale Ellis and a young Sean Elliott under performed in that series. Both averaged 17ppg in reg season but 15 ppg (Elliott) and 12 ppg (Ellis) vs the Suns. Elliott shot 11% from 3pt and Ellis shot 33%. Cummings and Anderson had been derailed that season by injuries and were never the same.

1994: lost in 1st round to Jazz (3-1): David nemesis Karl Malone & Stockton did a number on the entire team. Yes David's production fell off (20ppg on 41% shooting vs. 30ppg on 51% in reg season) but no one else on the team stepped up when he was being doubled by Malone & Felton Spencer. No other starter shot over 39% that series or scored more than 10ppg. This was also the series where they made Rodman sit out a game because of his antics.

1995: lost in Conf Finals to Houston (4-2): everyone saw the video with the MVP Robinson getting schooled by Olajuwon, no need to rehash this one.

1996: lost to Utah in 2nd Rnd (4-2): Robinson faced double teams again from Malone and Spencer, but no one made them pay. While Robinson scored a disappointing 19pts on 47% FG (compared to reg season #'s of 25pts on 51%) Starting PF Charles Smith averaged a whopping 5pts and 3 rebs vs Utah and "All Star" Sean Elliott averaged 14pts on 33% shooting and 25% from 3pt (after averaging 20ppg and 46% Fg and 41% 3pt in the regular season). Not to mention that Del Negro shot 40% FG and Avery shot 38% FG in that series.

1997 is when the injuries derailed Robinson's career and he was never the same player.

As for Duncan, teams couldn't afford to double Duncan as liberally as they did David in the 90's because Duncan has had guys around him (90% of the time) that made teams pay consistently for doubling him. Whether that be an older Robinson, Elie, Parker, Manu, etc. he had other guys that could step up when teams are intent to stop him . I think of the 2003 1st rnd series vs Marbury, Marion, and Stoudemire's Suns. They doubled Tim relentlessly. Tim averaged on 18pts in that series (compared to 27ppg in the other 3 series), but had 5ast per game in that series because guys like Stephen Jackson made them pay for doubling Tim.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying the admiral is better overall than Tim. Just saying people don't give 5-0 enough credit for the fact that he carried those 90's teams while Duncan had more reliable sidekicks who performed under pressure when teams try to make someone else beat them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPURt

This analogy works in that Russell had better teammates, but Wilt still got a chip in 1966-67. There was also only 10 teams in the league that year.

People fault David for not having good teammates and losing to the Rockets in 1994-95. The star oting 5 that year was David, Rodman, Del Negro, Avery, and Elliott. The bench was basically Doc, JR Reid, Person, Cummings and Anderson. Who on that team could create and penetrate to make David's life easier on offense? Sure, Rodman helps on defense, but his man practically can ignore him on the other end. Prime Hakeem could focus on shutting down the Spurs only offense threat then come back to the other end with likes of Drexler, young Horry, Kenny Smith, Ellie, and Cassell spreading the floor. Of those 5 shooters, only Drexler shot less than 40% from three those playoffs. The Spurs only had one guy shoot over 40% from three (Del Negro).

How can people say David wasn't as good a teammate? As soon as really gifted player on both ends joined the team (Timmy) he handed the reigns over after Tims rookie year, helped him become the all time great he is. David would have happily passed the ball or elevated a real talent had there been one earlier in his career.

---

Its all debatable but I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that Russell may actually be the best player of all time. He was the best player on a team that won eleven titles. Sure there weren't as many teams and basketball wasn't as popular but we're talking eleven. And one thing else that doesn't get mentioned is that they only stopped getting rings because Russell retired. Ifhe wouldn't have how many more would they have won? As for Russell having better teammates, where's the proof? Good players make those around them better. If Russ would have been like Wilt what's the use of having anybody else on your team? You are doing everything. When you absolutely take care of your duties, and if you are a center that's rebs and blocks, but defer to others to let their talents shine, you have a well oiled machine. This is what Duncan does. And as I said, Robinson may be as good a teammate as Duncan or better but I don't think he understands how to think as a unit as much.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPURt

What? So Chris Paul is a more "transcendental" playoff performer than Duncan? David Robinson's playoff PER is above Magic's and Bill Russell is 61 on the list. The thing that separates them is rosters. The entire ethos of the "Spurs Way" was established with Robinson. Did the people criticizing Robinson's playoff production not experience seeing D Rob pre-Duncan?

---

Never said that, you don't need to get defensive because of it. Just used PER because the OP used it trying to prove that D-Rob was better than Duncan. But in the playoffs the history is different. Not only in PER, but overall efficiency as well.

Great players sustain their level and their efficiency when it comes to playoff games. That's why Karl Malone should never be in the same conversation of Tim Duncan, despite having monster RS numbers.

D-Rob numbers are way better in the regular season, it's a fact and very easy to be proved.

Bill Russell having a low PER is not a surprise since PER mostly benefits great offensive players and it doesn't measure well defense.

The "Spurs way" could have been established by Robinson, but SA was only able to reach greatness when Duncan arrived.

D-Rob was probably the greatest defensive player of all-time along with Russell, but he was not in the same level of Duncan offensively. No shame on that. Duncan is probably a top 5 player of all-time, D-Rob is not.

Duncan has been great and he was great in the era of big men. Robinson would've had more success if he had better teammates. In his prime, he only played with one borderline all star in Sean Elliott. I guess two if you count Rodman, but he did more harm than good. The front office and coach is also way better under the Tim era than the Duncan era.

I find it mildly comical that certain "fans" can critique a player they never saw play (especially during his pre-injury prime). Been a fan of the Spurs since Robinson entered the league... There are games where Robinson outplayed a certain Michael Jordan in his respective prime. That's how great he was. Jordan had a hand in selecting the Dream Team and personally lobbied for Robinson to be the starting center --> Respect. Unfortunately David never had the consistency in coaching, or the continuity of talent and chemistry that Duncan has been blessed with his entire career. For that matter, the ownership transfer to Peter Holt also makes a big difference - previous owners failed to surround David with the players he needed to make the Spurs a championship squad - simply because they didn't want to spend.

Talk of David not being as good a teammate as Duncan obviously have no clue about what they're talking about.

Let's try this strawman based on the same theory that Robinson failed in the playoffs.

- Michael Jordan was 1-9 in the playoffs without Pippen.
- He won six titles with Pippen.
- Jordan just failed when it counted the most and needed Pippen to win titles.

Or this one:
- Lebron couldn't get over the hump without Wade and Bosh.
- Lebron wins 2 rings in Miami, makes two other finals.
- Lebron leaves Miami and fails to ring.

Yes, it's an extreme, but you have to look at the depth of the team and competition (once the Kobe-Shaq Lakers flamed out, things opened up considerbly). Duncan is one of the top 5 players of all time, but the Spurs were lucky enough to have another top 15-20 guy in the Admiral and at his peak, the best player not named Jordan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

I find it mildly comical that certain "fans" can critique a player they never saw play (especially during his pre-injury prime)...

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Phenomanul

Talk of David not being as good a teammate as Duncan obviously have no clue about what they're talking about.

---

Exactly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by elemento

Never said that, you don't need to get defensive because of it. Just used PER because the OP used it trying to prove that D-Rob was better than Duncan. But in the playoffs the history is different. Not only in PER, but overall efficiency as well.

Great players sustain their level and their efficiency when it comes to playoff games. That's why Karl Malone should never be in the same conversation of Tim Duncan, despite having monster RS numbers.

D-Rob numbers are way better in the regular season, it's a fact and very easy to be proved.

Bill Russell having a low PER is not a surprise since PER mostly benefits great offensive players and it doesn't measure well defense.

The "Spurs way" could have been established by Robinson, but SA was only able to reach greatness when Duncan arrived.

D-Rob was probably the greatest defensive player of all-time along with Russell, but he was not in the same level of Duncan offensively. No shame on that. Duncan is probably a top 5 player of all-time, D-Rob is not.

---

I'm not sure if you saw Robinson play, he holds the single game record for most points scored in a game by a Spur and that includes the Ice Man and Duncan. Robinson also achieved a quadruple-double, something Duncan hasn't accomplished. I agree Duncan has had a better career, but the question was "what if Robinson and Duncan switched places?"

I don't think anyone is implying that Robinson wasn't a great teammate or leader; he just wasn't the leader Duncan is.

Tim, along with Russell and Magic, elevated the play of his teammates more than anyone else ever has.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skulls138

Its all debatable but I'm slowly coming to the conclusion that Russell may actually be the best player of all time. He was the best player on a team that won eleven titles. Sure there weren't as many teams and basketball wasn't as popular but we're talking eleven. And one thing else that doesn't get mentioned is that they only stopped getting rings because Russell retired. Ifhe wouldn't have how many more would they have won? As for Russell having better teammates, where's the proof? Good players make those around them better. If Russ would have been like Wilt what's the use of having anybody else on your team? You are doing everything. When you absolutely take care of your duties, and if you are a center that's rebs and blocks, but defer to others to let their talents shine, you have a well oiled machine. This is what Duncan does. And as I said, Robinson may be as good a teammate as Duncan or better but I don't think he understands how to think as a unit as much.

---

It's totally legit to pick Bill Russell as the GOAT. He was a beast. But, I still say Duncan has had the better unit to think for.

so, even though Drob has better advanced stats in the 2 big ones, PER and winshare/48, ST still considers Tim better?

Robinson isn't as good as Tim was on the block. Robinson had a servicable jump shot, but he was more of a face up and blow by you for a dunk player. His size and speed were most unguardable. Even greats like Hakeem and Shaq struggled to guard him one on one. And stats don't say everything about Robinson in the playoffs. When teams had time to game plan, they could focus on stopping him knowing that no one on the team other than Robinson was capable of being a high scorer. Since Robinson was really the only high end scorer on the Spurs, and since teams focused on stopping him without worrying about the other Spurs, it is logical that he would have a lower PER. It's harder to score i the playoffs anyway, but compound it with an inability to get space because your teammates can't play that great only shows why he struggled in the playoffs. Obviously Robinson's defense didn't struggle in the playoffs, but that makes more sense since he was double and triple teamed on offense, not on defense. And while Duncan has nothing left to prove in his career and has established himself on that list of all-time greats, he has benefited during the latter years of his career by playing on great teams and facing low-end centers and power forwards. Early in his career, Duncan played against beasts like Wallace, Dirk, Garnett, Shaq, etc. But late in his career, he has been going against light weights like Howard and DeAndre Jordan, and the fodder on other teams which are way worse than Jordan and Howard. He can probably play another 3 years against the crappy big men in the NBA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T_L_P

I don't think anyone is implying that Robinson wasn't a great teammate or leader; he just wasn't the leader Duncan is.

Tim, along with Russell and Magic, elevated the play of his teammates more than anyone else ever has.

---

Yeah, how great did Magic have to be to "elevate" the play of Jabbar and Worthy? Or Scott and Cooper? And Russell had some all-time greats. Who's the best player Robinson played with in his prime? Sean Elliott? That's the point.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tholdren

so, even though Drob has better advanced stats in the 2 big ones, PER and winshare/48, ST still considers Tim better?

---

Tim has a higher Playoff PER, a slightly lower Playoff WS/48, and a higher Playoff Box +/-.

How about in their primes (99-07 for Tim, 91-96 for Robinson)?

27.0 PER, .227 WS/48, 7.8 Box +/- for Duncan

24.1 PER, .189 WS/48, 6.6 Box +/- for Robinson

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tholdren

so, even though Drob has better advanced stats in the 2 big ones, PER and winshare/48, ST still considers Tim better?

---

I remember someone tried to use this argument for Robinson over Hakeem on realgm... Didn't end well

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by T_L_P

I don't think anyone is implying that Robinson wasn't a great teammate or leader; he just wasn't the leader Duncan is.

Tim, along with Russell and Magic, elevated the play of his teammates more than anyone else ever has.

---

So you're saying Robinson should have been able to elevate the play of Sean, Avery and Vinny to a level of Manu, Parker and Bowen?? That's quite a stretch.

I don't think Tim elevated their play much at all. Those are just two other Hall of Famers and a premier perimeter defender.

...

DRob was a gazelle. Light and fast, compared to Timmy. Same with Garnett. Both of their numbers (Robinson and Garnett) look good - because they are good. But Tim's bulk and strength made him more of a force in the blocks. He trimmed down a few years ago, to save his legs and prolong his career. But he used to play at around 275 lbs. Robinson was around 235 lbs. That's a big difference when you're rooting for position.

Robinson was a great player, no doubt about that. But if I was starting a franchise and had to pick one or the other (at their prime) to be the anchor, it would be Tim.

see most of yall are still underestimating Duncan's value to this organization. Even spurs fans don't appreciate him. Outsiders who argue against Duncan on the all time list, also use the argument that if you plug in kg, malone, or webber the spurs win the same amount of championships. A lot of u seem to believe the same thing if Drob was plugged in.
:cry Duncan was lucky to have stacked teams and great coaching. but but my favorite allstar did not :cry
the hardwork, dedication to the game, that competitive drive even after winning multiple championships separates Duncan from most.
18 years as the spurs cornerstone cannot be replaced by anyone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnpaulwall21

see most of yall are still underestimating Duncan's value to this organization.

---

Nobody said "value to the organization". The question was who was the better player? If not for Robinson, there might not BE a franchise in SA. Without Robinson, Tim probably might not be the same player. But you have to admit, Tim has been pretty valuable, too. Value as a player is a little easier to quantify, and Tim was just more dominant in the low blocks. Basketball is, and always will be, a big man's game. Duncan was bigger, and just as talented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by johnpaulwall21

see most of yall are still underestimating Duncan's value to this organization. Even spurs fans don't appreciate him. Outsiders who argue against Duncan on the all time list, also use the argument that if you plug in kg, malone, or webber the spurs win the same amount of championships. A lot of u seem to believe the same thing if Drob was plugged in.
:cry Duncan was lucky to have stacked teams and great coaching. but but my favorite allstar did not :cry
the hardwork, dedication to the game, that competitive drive even after winning multiple championships separates Duncan from most.
18 years as the spurs cornerstone cannot be replaced by anyone

---

Jesus Christ...THANK YOU!!! I just sit back and laugh at some of this stuff. "Spurs fans" always whine and cry about the disrespect the media and regular nba fans show for Duncan and the Spurs yet its present all over these boards. Duncan is THE GREATEST FRANCHISE PLAYER OF ALL TIME!!! He has proven to be THE single most coachable uber legend ever...he has proven to be a staple of MULTIPLE systems that produced championships and perennial contention at worst. He has been an allstar...all nba player for different changing eras. He is by FAR the lowest maintenance upper echelon legend of all time. He isn't era dependent like others. He isnt tied to one system (triangle etc)...and his dominance has spanned TWO freaking decades. I love Robinson but people need to really take a look at one pattern often overlooked. Robinson as mentioned earlier was a freak of absolute nature. Gazelle is perfect. He was also high IQ...great teammate and tremendously talented. He was, to me, a better blend of talent/skill and athleticism than Duncan. You know who else was...Garnett. THeyve always shared striking similarities (KG and David). And that's where much of the problem lies. Look at most of the prominent "freaks of nature" and you'll see KG, David, Lebron, Barkley and Dirk. They all were supremely skilled etc...but youlll interestingly find that they all (minus Barkley) share the same common excuse...and that's teammates.

The problem is the facets of their game were that of a "tweener" and those are historically more difficult to build around. Lebron...part SF put essentially a PG. Garnett...played SF for crying out lout early in his career. Dirk...SG..SF...and PF. David...while certainly a dominant center...suffered the same issue and that's that he preferred his face-up game in key moments as opposed to the effiecient back to basket game sported by the anchors of championship teams historically. Again, David absolutely should have and had better talented teammates. But its VERY lazy and uncertain whether it STILL wouldve meant that "better success" would mean championships are falling short still. Duncan has done it through EVERY variable imaginable. EVERY SINGLE ROAD to our success leads back to Duncan. Its reinforced by any and everyone. He simply was a better bball player and was much easier to build around. Also, MOST of Duncan's help, let's be real...developed UNDER him and their effectiveness amplified BECAUSE of him. So I've always found it very lazy to say...oh uh Duncan had better teammates...without the context of HIM being directly responsible for their being "better".

Duncan better teammates
Tp is greater then an
Plus David played with vinny

DRob was an amazing athlete in his prime; one of the best ever, regardless of the sport. He was incredibly fast, could jump out of the building, could block shots and beat everyone down the floor for an alleyoop, etc. BUT..Tim Duncan was by far the better basketball player. To this day, Tim's footwork, offensive repertoire and basketball acumen exceeds many other big men who have played the game. In his prime, he would have found a way to win regardless of who his teammates were. He was that good and almost still is. Just a marvel.

I believe his lack of athleticism (i.e. jumping ability) has actually played a part in allowing him an extended career.

Back to David for a moment: Take 3 minutes and enjoy this compilation of highlights that show his athleticism. Take special note of how fast he could recover on defense or help bail a teammate out with a blocked shot.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lQXxRJ-zrU

It must have been maddening for his coaches that he didn't dedicate himself to learning better footwork or post moves. In the playoffs, he could be marginalized both physically and mentally - even by smaller or shorter players. As someone else mentioned, he rarely upped his game to new heights when the stakes got higher. Case in point - during the regular season in 1990 he OWNED the GS Warriors. He was unstoppable and just dominated. As soon as they matched up in the playoffs, scrubs like Tyrone Hill kept him in check with small ball. To this day, that series was one of the most embarrassing and humiliating losses in my memory. Spurs lost the series as the 2nd seed by losing 3 straight games to the Warriors. The team of the 1990's had a reputation for being "soft" and that label was directly attributed to DRob. Fair or not, the perception stuck. Karl Malone and Charles barkley bullied him around and David backed down.

David Robinson was the superior athlete he had a lightening quick first step and great hops. Those are two things Duncan never had but Duncan physically had things that David didn't possess. Duncan had great hands, broader shoulders, and a bigger body frame. Duncan was a very physical player at the beginning of his career and during his prime but people forget that because his career coincided with Shaq's career that people didn't noticed that aspect of his game. Duncan was a very forceful player on the offensive end that he would aggressively back down guys until he was able to get the position he wanted. I know a lot of people would say Shaq was like a tractor trailer due to his force and I would say Duncan was like god damn Crane with his length and size. Duncan was also a more cerebral player than Robinson in the sense that Duncan knew how to utilize the strengths and weaknesses of his teammates on both ends of the court.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SPURt

I'm not sure if you saw Robinson play, he holds the single game record for most points scored in a game by a Spur and that includes the Ice Man and Duncan. Robinson also achieved a quadruple-double, something Duncan hasn't accomplished. I agree Duncan has had a better career, but the question was "what if Robinson and Duncan switched places?"

---

Yes I do know, but so what ? How exactly a career high in the RS proves anything ?

You do realize that Duncan was 2 blocks short from quad-double (unfairly because they missed 2) in the Final game of a freaking NBA Final right ?

Some of you fellows look like those KG apologists (no offense) always trying to blame Minnesota, with "what if questions" but never willing to accept that maybe KG wasn't good enough as a 1st option offensively in the playoffs.

Look, I'm not trying to dismiss D-Rob here. I'm a fan too and he is probably the classiest and the nicest player SA has ever had. A great teammate and a great player too.

But he just wasn't as good as Duncan. If you guys are willing to accept it or not is another issue. At this point of Duncan's career and after all he has done for this franchise, I don't even know how this is debatable tbh.

I'll answer your question with another one. Would D-Rob be able to carry this team to a title ? (Don't look at the names, simply look at the way they performed in a NBA Final).


http://i61.tinypic.com/xqdqab.png


This team by no means is superior to that 95 team that D-Rob had around him. Avery was flat out better than Parker's sophomore version (remember Pop so pissed with him that he was benched for Claxton) and Sean was better than any perimeter player of that 2003 team.

24ppg/17rpg/5apg/5bpg @ 54%TS 32 PER. Duncan had more points, rebounds, assists and blocks than anyone on the team. Bruce, rookie Manu, Parker and Jackson all shooting below 40%fg.

The 2003 title pretty much seals any doubts about Duncan's greatness. And pretty much ends any discussion with pathetic KG fans when they try to bring up the supporting cast excuse. Duncan's supporting cast was worse than what KG had in 2004 and he still won. And the same can be said about D-Rob's team in 95.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tholdren

If Tim and David Switched eras they played, and all other things stayed the same (teammates/opponents/etc) would the franchise have won more or less rings and who would have had the better career?


I would assume that a majority think Tim is the better player due to rings?

Interestingly enough David is 4th all time in PER, while Duncan is 13

Win Shares Per 48 has David 2nd all time behind Jordan by .0003, while Duncan is 12.

Numbers wise Robinson looks to be well ahead of Tim...

Thoughts?

---

I think the only way to answer the question is to look at the Spurs before 97 and ask if Duncan could have carried any of those teams passed where they ended up. With Duncan, could the '90 Spurs get passed the Blazers, Lakers and beat the Bad Boy Pistons. An argument could be made for that ring but I would say Duncan gets them at least to the Finals. What about the embarrassing follow up where the 91 Warriors throttled the Spurs who had the 2nd best record and everyone back only to let Run TMC punk them out? Duncan at the very least gets that team deep in the series. '93 vs the Suns I think another argument could be made there. I say Duncan gets that team to the Finals vs the Bulls. '95? Duncan gets the 62 win Spurs passed the Rockets and the Spurs beat the Magic. Now after 03 without Duncan since we're substituting Robinson do the Admiral led Spurs get passed any of the teams the Duncan led Spurs couldn't? No fucking way. If anything you can forget '05 the Spurs don't beat the Pistons. '14? An argument could be made the Spurs still win but it's definitely not an annihilation.