David Robinson or Tim Duncan....Best Spur Ever?

[ambchang]

BTW, I think one thing I have to say is, Robinson embodies what the Spurs are about. I can't think of one single player who represents a team more than Robinson represents the San Antonio Spurs. Not even Michael Jordan can represent the Bulls more than Robinson represents the Spurs.

Who else can you say, "If it wasn't for that particular player, there wouldn't be that team."? There is none! You can't say that for Jordan and the Bulls. If it wasn't for Jordan, the Bulls would suck, but they wouldn't disappear. Besides, who can forget the constant fighting Jordan had with Krause throughout his career, the Kukoc fiasco, the Wizard hiatus, and the embarrasing HoF induction speech?

You can say it to some sense that Magic and Bird represents the Lakers and the Celtics because they saved the league, but the fact is, the Spurs, other than the Iceman and Duncan, doesn't really have players of the calibers of the Chamberlains (didn't start with Lakers), Jabbar (didn't start with Lakers), Havlicek, Russell, Cousy, Cowens, or West did. In other words, as much as I hate to say it, the Spurs simply didn't have the history of the Lakers and Celtics.

Robinson have the Iceman and Duncan as his "compe ion", but as a San Antonio Spur (and not just a Spur), Robinson has no equal.

[spursfaninla]

In this poll, I have to go with David Robinson without a second thought. Seems like very few around here actually had an opportunity to watch David play. David Robinson was a stud on both ends of the floor. As great as we know Tim Duncans defense to have been in his prime, David Robinson was better. He was a more intimidating presence in the paint than Duncan and for a big man he was an amazing ball thief.

The most blocks Tim Duncan has ever made in a single season was 237. David Robinson eclipsed this number 7 times over the course of his career including 3 300+ block seasons. Robinson's career average in steals has to be around 1.5 where Duncan likely is below 1.0. Over the course of his prime, Robinson was a 25ppg player while Duncan has remained consistently at around 20ppg. Robinson has a 70+ point game under his belt (granted.... it was a bit inflated), as well as one of the leagues 4 recorded regular season quadruple doubles.

David Robinson played and excelled in a league dominated by extremely talented PFs and C's. The likes of Olajuwon, Malone, Ewing, Mourning, Shaq all in their youth and prime. These are players who's game dwarfs the likes of a Pau Gasol.

I've followed San Antonio since '87 and obviously the careers of both Spurs greats. I may be wrong, but I think a lot of people who so easily dismiss Robinson either did not get an opportunity to see him on the court, OR caught him toward the end of his career which unfortunately was hampered by foot and back injuries.

As Spurs fans, we are lucky to have been able to transition from David Robinson immediately to Tim Duncan. In a few short years we'll be able to look back at the last 20 or so years and come to the realization that this franchise has spoiled by treating us to two dominant forces that few other teams have been able to provide their fans.

Whichever you choose, be it Tim Duncan or David Robinson... I don't think there is really a 'wrong' answer to this.

I started watching the NBA during D-rob's rookie year, 1990. As I said earlier, I think it is hard to compare. Put more simply, Drob was a stat machine that TD never came close to, but TD has proven to be more clutch, and to have a more well-rounded game.

Athletically it is obviously not close. And because TD had arguably more talent on his teams, and arguably faced less talented bigmen while in his prime, yet achieved WAY more championship success, it becomes hard to decide.

On the other hand, DR had an all-star in Sean and a defensive monster rebounder in Rodman, had plently of 3pt shooting during his career, and had AJ to give him plently of assists. David had a talented mings (although limited from injuries).

Even so, TD had sidekick D-rob, and 2 all-star quality guards to help him.

If it were prime d-rob instead of td those years? Impossible to know, huh?

[LoneStarState'sPride]

BTW, I think one thing I have to say is, Robinson embodies what the Spurs are about. I can't think of one single player who represents a team more than Robinson represents the San Antonio Spurs. Not even Michael Jordan can represent the Bulls more than Robinson represents the Spurs.

Who else can you say, "If it wasn't for that particular player, there wouldn't be that team."? There is none! You can't say that for Jordan and the Bulls. If it wasn't for Jordan, the Bulls would suck, but they wouldn't disappear. Besides, who can forget the constant fighting Jordan had with Krause throughout his career, the Kukoc fiasco, the Wizard hiatus, and the embarrasing HoF induction speech?

You can say it to some sense that Magic and Bird represents the Lakers and the Celtics because they saved the league, but the fact is, the Spurs, other than the Iceman and Duncan, doesn't really have players of the calibers of the Chamberlains (didn't start with Lakers), Jabbar (didn't start with Lakers), Havlicek, Russell, Cousy, Cowens, or West did. In other words, as much as I hate to say it, the Spurs simply didn't have the history of the Lakers and Celtics.

Robinson have the Iceman and Duncan as his "compe ion", but as a San Antonio Spur (and not just a Spur), Robinson has no equal.

THIS

[Trimble87]

I started watchingthe NBA seriously in the mid 90's and therfore grew up seeing more of Tim Duncan then I had of David Robinson. But I don't think there is any question that Duncan is the better basketball player. I'm not sure how San Antonio fans can claim that Duncan got his rings because of a better supporting cast. Robinson was 33 Duncan's rookie year, he was still good but past his prime for sure. And by the 03 Championship Robinson was a s of himself who found a fountain of youth in the playoffs and played spectacularly. The FO has done a great job of getting role players for the team, but when all is said in done Ginobili and Parker probably wont be top 50 players all time. I certainly think Manu has the talent, but lack of years in the NBA and injuries will hurt his numbers and I don't think Parker is as good as manu. Duncan, especially in his prime, had the amazing ability to put up consistently great numbers and make everyone else around him better. Since D-Rob retired he had the likes of Nazr and Rasho and Oberto next to him on the front line and 1 dimensional role players filling out the roster. I would argue the best team mate he had during the championship years was Bowen, Parker didn't really become an elite pg until 07 and Ginobili certainly exploded in 05. But the reason we won in 99, 03, 05 and 07 is because Tim Duncan is one of those special players who just knows how to win, without him we may have never won any les, when he retires we may never win again.

David was and is one of the greatest people I have ever met. By far the most humble and well spoken athlete of my lifetime. He has done more for this city then any athlete, or really many other people in general will ever do. And, oh yeah, he saved the franchise from being moved to another city. On the court he was a physical stud, he had all the tools to be one of the top 3 NBA players of all time... but he just wasn't. He never had MJ's maniacal need to win, and almost shrank from the moment. I remember all of the amazing plays D-Rob made, but I also remember the times he looked hesitant and unwilling to take the game over at the end of the fourth quarter. David is a top 20 player of all time, he had the potential to be much much more...

In terms of Basketball there is no question its Duncan, in terms of being a "San Antonian" its David without question.

[smrattler]

I would also add the coach (Popovich) and the front office TD has enjoyed his whole career as part of the better "supporting cast". Robinson was a rookie and had Larry Brown as a coach. That was no small part in their amazing turn around from the previous year. But it's nothing compared to the overall culture the Pop regime brought in.

TD stepped in to a much better situation than Robinson enjoyed early in his career.

Again, greatness is all TD. But he walked into a nice situation that allowed him to put all of his focus on what he does best out there.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Duncan has more les, more MVPs, more points, more rebounds, more assists etc.

[dastrey]

Imagine if Dwight Howard turned into a dominant scorer. That would be David Robinson. Unfortunately, Robinson in his prime had some weak talent surrounding him. You give him Parker and Manu-level talent in '95-'98 and he would have no doubt won a championship. Robinson alone was worth 50 wins a season. Timmy is one of the greatest of all time, but Robinson is not very far behind.

[Blackjack]

All the arguments for David Robinson being a better player than Tim Duncan are really just a testament to why David Robinson is the No.1 Spur of all-time.

Only Spurs fans would have trouble differentiating between the two on the court in terms of greatness.

[urunobili]

Robinson

[Cant_Be_Faded]

Without question Tim Duncan.

No matter what argument you make, fact is David caved in like a fetus when he was awarded his MVP trophy. He never had a knack for pulling out clutch solo performances in the playoffs.

Tim Duncan was the first player in ages to get back-to-back MVPs, and single handedly destroyed the Lakers Dynasty in the fourth quarter of game 6 of the LA series going 1 on 1 against Shaq every possession offense and defense, subsequently making Rapist Bryant cry like the spoiled he was.

David is amazing, but come on people. Tim is a classic case of the student surpassing the teacher.

[TD 21]

Unfair as it may be most people i feel put Robinson in the same class with guys like Barkley and Ewing. In that they feel he never wins a ring without Duncan (Which is true) but i feel he is a better player than both Ewing and Barkley..

I seem to remember years ago suggesting Ewing and D-Rob were close and the reaction around here was lets just say less then kind..

I'd put Robinson in the class of Barkley, but not Ewing. Ewing was overrated because he played in New York. He's definitely a top 50 player all-time, probably closer to a fringe top 40 player, but Robinson and Barkley are in the top 25 all-time.

Robinson was highly influential in convincing Timmy to stay when he was a free agent.

Robinson 1a
Duncan 1b

I know he was, but at the end of the day, Duncan still had to make the decision for himself, which people always seem to forget.

All the arguments for David Robinson being a better player than Tim Duncan are really just a testament to why David Robinson is the No.1 Spur of all-time.

Only Spurs fans would have trouble differentiating between the two on the court in terms of greatness.

No, it's a testament to people being sentimental and/or nostalgic and not being able to take emotion out of this. To be fair, a few in this thread have done just that and said that despite Robinson being their favorite player of all-time, Duncan is the best Spur of all-time. Too bad more can't bring themselves to do the same.

[greyforest]

timmy

[ffcommish]

Without question Tim Duncan.

No matter what argument you make, fact is David caved in like a fetus when he was awarded his MVP trophy. He never had a knack for pulling out clutch solo performances in the playoffs.

Tim Duncan was the first player in ages to get back-to-back MVPs, and single handedly destroyed the Lakers Dynasty in the fourth quarter of game 6 of the LA series going 1 on 1 against Shaq every possession offense and defense, subsequently making Rapist Bryant cry like the spoiled he was.

David is amazing, but come on people. Tim is a classic case of the student surpassing the teacher.

When roasting David, you conveniently forgot about the Lakers playoff series where Duncan folded like a paper towel in 2001 and 2002. The Lakers went 8-1 against the Spurs against what should have been a prime Duncan. Duncan was getting shut down by Shaq and Robert Horry.

Duncan was clearly the more skilled player but Robinson played stronger throughout his career. Robinson was helped by having a prime Duncan take the pressure off. Duncan in his prime, was helped by having David do everything on defense.

Dwight Howard shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as David. He's nowhere near the player David was and didn't come near Robinson's unwordly athleticism. Howard can barely score. David could score on anyone. David's athletic ability was near that of Lebron's overall ability.

Ewing was a joke built on his own hype.

Spurs = David. Tim gave the championships but David is where the Spurs began.

[Phenomanul]

I'd put Robinson in the class of Barkley, but not Ewing. Ewing was overrated because he played in New York. He's definitely a top 50 player all-time, probably closer to a fringe top 40 player, but Robinson and Barkley are in the top 25 all-time.



I know he was, but at the end of the day, Duncan still had to make the decision for himself, which people always seem to forget.



No, it's a testament to people being sentimental and/or nostalgic and not being able to take emotion out of this. To be fair, a few in this thread have done just that and said that despite Robinson being their favorite player of all-time, Duncan is the best Spur of all-time. Too bad more can't bring themselves to do the same.

This lesson in objectivity coming from a guy/gal who's username happens to be "TD 21"...

The reason the debate is close it's because both players are THAT great....

Most people in here never even saw Robinson play day-in, day-out from his rookie season to the time Duncan came on board...

[TD 21]

When roasting David, you conveniently forgot about the Lakers playoff series where Duncan folded like a paper towel in 2001 and 2002. The Lakers went 8-1 against the Spurs against what should have been a prime Duncan. Duncan was getting shut down by Shaq and Robert Horry.

Duncan was clearly the more skilled player but Robinson played stronger throughout his career. Robinson was helped by having a prime Duncan take the pressure off. Duncan in his prime, was helped by having David do everything on defense.

Dwight Howard shouldn't even be mentioned in the same sentence as David. He's nowhere near the player David was and didn't come near Robinson's unwordly athleticism. Howard can barely score. David could score on anyone. David's athletic ability was near that of Lebron's overall ability.

Ewing was a joke built on his own hype.

Spurs = David. Tim gave the championships but David is where the Spurs began.

Since when are players considered to be in their prime in seasons 4 and 5 at the age of 25 and 26? Prime is often considered to be 27-32.

Duncan was playing against either the best or second best player in the league during that time and either the third, fourth or fifth best player in the league. Who did he have for a sidekick? Not a single reliable scoring threat on the perimeter and a one-time perennial All-Star who had clearly become a role player. That the Spurs even got to the Lakers in those seasons was a testament to Duncan's greatness.

I like how you just gloss over the fact that "Tim gave the championships", like it's some minor detail.

I knew the media would downplay Duncan's greatness as time went on, but Spurs fans themselves? It was only three years ago when he was widely considered to still be the best player in the game, yet many have apparently forgotten or act like he really wasn't that great. The way this is going, in three years we're going to hear idiots comparing Gasol to Duncan, pretending as if there's a legitimate case for Gasol.

Phenomanul, the truth is if anybody even pretended this were a legitimate debate on a non-Spurs message board, they'd instantly have no credibility. Duncan is one of the consensus ten best players of all-time; Robinson is a consensus fringe top twenty player all-time.

[Phenomanul]

Since when are players considered to be in their prime in seasons 4 and 5 at the age of 25 and 26? Prime is often considered to be 27-32.

Duncan was playing against either the best or second best player in the league during that time and either the third, fourth or fifth best player in the league. Who did he have for a sidekick? Not a single reliable scoring threat on the perimeter and a one-time perennial All-Star who had clearly become a role player. That the Spurs even got to the Lakers in those seasons was a testament to Duncan's greatness.

I like how you just gloss over the fact that "Tim gave the championships", like it's some minor detail.

I knew the media would downplay Duncan's greatness as time went on, but Spurs fans themselves? It was only three years ago when he was widely considered to still be the best player in the game, yet many have apparently forgotten or act like he really wasn't that great. The way this is going, in three years we're going to hear idiots comparing Gasol to Duncan, pretending as if there's a legitimate case for Gasol.

Phenomanul, the truth is if anybody even pretended this were a legitimate debate on a non-Spurs message board, they'd instantly have no credibility. Duncan is one of the consensus ten best players of all-time; Robinson is a consensus fringe top twenty player all-time.

I think it's even sadder that Spurs fans gloss over Robinson's talent and fault him for not having the same caliber surrounding talent, and coaching that that Championship squads need to have in order to excel... talent that Duncan's teams (fortunately for us Spurs fans) have had...

You had to live it to understand it... I doubt you were even a Spurs fan back in the early 90's...

[8FOR!3]

Ian Mahinmi is clearly the best Spur ever, bar none. BAR NONE.

[BadMotorscooter]

Would someone say the difference between Duncan and Robinson on the floor is much, much less than the difference between the two off the court and what they've done for the community and the Spurs organization in general? Because if thats the case, its gotta be Robinson. He covers all bases as Best Spur ever. The at ude,The fans, the city, the organization, the talent. I have yet to hear any Tim voters say anything that Duncan has done for the city once the season ends or at any other point in time. You have to take all aspects into the equation, not just basketball skill.

[TD 21]

I think it's even sadder that Spurs fans gloss over Robinson's talent and fault him for not having the same caliber surrounding talent, and coaching that that Championship squads need to have in order to excel... talent that Duncan's teams (fortunately for us Spurs fans) have had...

You had to live it to understand it... I doubt you were even a Spurs fan back in the early 90's...

People make it sound like Duncan played on the 80s Lakers or Celtics, like he was surrounded by first ballot Hall-of-Famers his entire career. Granted, they played well during the '05 and '07 runs respectively, but the man won championships with Mohammed and Oberto as starting centers. He won in '99 without a single reliable perimeter scoring threat. To a lesser extent, the same thing in '03. Sure, Parker had big games and Ginobili showed flashes, but they weren't yet reliable second and third options on a championship team.

Even if you want to say Duncan had more talent surrounding him, they still wouldn't have won championship even with an All-Star PF replacing him. Put Garnett, Webber or Nowitzki in his place in those years, do you think the Spurs win those championships? I don't.

Now you're making assumptions. You don't know how old I am or when I became a fan and it's irrelevant anyway. I never saw Russell or Chamberlain play, does that mean I can't say they were great players?

Would someone say the difference between Duncan and Robinson on the floor is much, much less than the difference between the two off the court and what they've done for the community and the Spurs organization in general? Because if thats the case, its gotta be Robinson. He covers all bases as Best Spur ever. The at ude,The fans, the city, the organization, the talent. I have yet to hear any Tim voters say anything that Duncan has done for the city once the season ends or at any other point in time. You have to take all aspects into the equation, not just basketball skill.

I think people overvalue off the court and in the community. At the end of the day, this should be first and foremost about what they did on the court and on the court, Duncan was hands down a better player.

[ffcommish]

Since when are players considered to be in their prime in seasons 4 and 5 at the age of 25 and 26? Prime is often considered to be 27-32.

Ok, so he was a year off on what is generally considered his prime. Great point here. Duncan had gone to four years of college already and was already an NBA Finals MVP where he had abused the league all season. He was about as prime as he got in 99 anyways. After he got injured dunking on Pollard, his game was never the same.

Duncan was playing against either the best or second best player in the league during that time and either the third, fourth or fifth best player in the league. Who did he have for a sidekick? Not a single reliable scoring threat on the perimeter and a one-time perennial All-Star who had clearly become a role player. That the Spurs even got to the Lakers in those seasons was a testament to Duncan's greatness.

A very similar argument could be made for David when he got torched by Hakeem. The Rockets were stacked and David was trying to guard the whole team while manning an unstoppable Hakeem 1-1. Then he was supposed to score all the Spurs points.

I like how you just gloss over the fact that "Tim gave the championships", like it's some minor detail.

So by your logic "David is where the Spurs began" was glossed over too.

I knew the media would downplay Duncan's greatness as time went on, but Spurs fans themselves? It was only three years ago when he was widely considered to still be the best player in the game, yet many have apparently forgotten or act like he really wasn't that great. The way this is going, in three years we're going to hear idiots comparing Gasol to Duncan, pretending as if there's a legitimate case for Gasol.

Duncan was great but so was David. I'm not arguing against Tim's greatness. He was the baddest man on the hardwood for a few of his early years. The question is who was the best Spur ever and David is the answer.

A prime Duncan vs a prime Robinson, I take Duncan on my team. Duncan was unstoppable in his early ears save for those Lakers series. I had to bring those 2002, 2003 teams up because someone said David curled up into a fetus. If you're making an argument TD VS DR, you can't forget Duncan did too. He was scared of the Lakers for that span.

[ffcommish]

Sure, Parker had big games and Ginobili showed flashes, but they weren't yet reliable second and third options on a championship team.

Parker had big games and Ginobili showed flashes?

Tim Duncan is an all-time great but like Kobe, Michael, Magic, Shaq and all the rest, he had a lot of help.

Duncan never had a roster with the slim pickings David had.

[BadMotorscooter]

TD 21- This isnt a knock against Timmy in any way. You can tell people love him just by the difficulty in trying to choose between the two. This will actually be a fun topic in about 15 years when young kids today grow up and debate it when none of them ever got to watch either of them or know anything about them.

[TD 21]

Duncan was great but so was David. I'm not arguing against Tim's greatness. He was the baddest man on the hardwood for a few of his early years. The question is who was the best Spur ever and David is the answer.

A prime Duncan vs a prime Robinson, I take Duncan on my team. Duncan was unstoppable in his early ears save for those Lakers series.

This makes no sense. A lot of people are saying this and it's nothing more than a cop-out. Duncan was a better player and has been just as loyal to the organization, which means this shouldn't even be a debate.

Parker had big games and Ginobili showed flashes?

Tim Duncan is an all-time great but like Kobe, Michael, Magic, Shaq and all the rest, he had a lot of help.

Duncan never had a roster with the slim pickings David had.

I'm talking about the '03 run specifically, not their entire Spurs careers.

He had help, just not as much as many claim.


You look at Lakers fans, they compare Bryant to Johnson, a consensus top five player all-time. That's the type of regard they hold him in. Then you got Spurs fans comparing a consensus fringe top twenty player all-time to a consensus top ten player all-time.

At this point, I'm sure it comes off this way to some, but I'm honestly not trying to demean Robinson. The guy was a great, great player and by all accounts, an even better person (a term thrown around far too often, but fitting in this case). But saving the organization first, being great in the community, character, etc. only goes so far. How can on court performance not be the number one criteria? Plus, it's not like Duncan isn't cut from the same cloth as Robinson in many ways.

[Blackjack]

No, it's a testament to people being sentimental and/or nostalgic and not being able to take emotion out of this. To be fair, a few in this thread have done just that and said that despite Robinson being their favorite player of all-time, Duncan is the best Spur of all-time. Too bad more can't bring themselves to do the same.

That's essentially what I was saying.

On the court, there's no debate between the two in any other part of the basketball world but with Spurs fans. And that sentimentality and nostalgia you describe is part of it, but to say it as dismissive as your post reads misses the point: David Robinson engenders such sentimentality, nostalgia, admiration and whatever else you want to call it, because of what he's meant to the Spurs' franchise and community. Like I said before, there might not be a single player that's ever played the game that had a bigger impact on his team and community.

That's what makes David the No.1 Spur of all-time, even if Tim is the Spurs' greatest basketball player of all-time. And that's why people come up with arguments or statistical breakdowns to say David was a better player, even if all it is is rationalizing or just being blinded by their love for the man; a love he's earned.

[TD 21]

That's essentially what I was saying.

On the court, there's no debate between the two in any other part of the basketball world but with Spurs fans. And that sentimentality and nostalgia you describe is part of it, but to say it as dismissive as your post reads misses the point: David Robinson engenders such sentimentality, nostalgia, admiration and whatever else you want to call it, because of what he's meant to the Spurs' franchise and community. Like I said before, there might not be a single player that's ever played the game that had a bigger impact on his team and community.

That's what makes David the No.1 Spur of all-time, even if Tim is the Spurs' greatest basketball player of all-time. And that's why people come up with arguments or statistical breakdowns to say David was a better player, even if all it is is rationalizing or just being blinded by their love for the man; a love he's earned.

How can Duncan be the best Spurs player of all-time, but not the number one Spurs of all-time? Those two things don't always have to be one and the same, I agree, but in this case, I don't see how they're not.

They've both spent their entire careers here, both have outstanding character, both are good in the community, both saved the franchise, etc. The difference is, one was a better basketball player on top of all that.