Did David Robinson revolutionize basketball?

[Obstructed_View]

But those gaurds that got defensive player of the year didn't simultaneously lead the league in scoring.

No they didn't. Leading the league in scoring isn't revolutionary. Someone does it every year. DPOY isn't revolutionary. Someone does it every year. Doing both is impressive, but it's not revolutionary. The only reason Kareem didn't win multiple DPOY is because the award didn't exist.

Jordan was the most dominant player on both sides of the ball. He wasn't a seven footer that only had to guard the paint, that's crazy. Jordan's the GOAT and every player will be compared to him until someone is clearly more dominant (which may never happen).

Agree with all of the above, though Jordan only won the DPOY once, so calling him the most dominant defender is probably a stretch. Many people suggest he wasn't even the best defender on his own team. Regardless, none of that revolutionizes the game, in my opinion. Tiger Woods revolutionized golf because everyone had to change the way they prepared, to get into good shape and hit the weight room in order to compete. Bobby Hull invented the curved blade on the hockey stick. Jordan didn't change the game. Jordan didn't even force rule changes like many other players did. One could make a case that Jordan took advantage of a window of time where the illegal defense rule prevented teams from being able to stop him.

[SPURt]

No they didn't. Leading the league in scoring isn't revolutionary. Someone does it every year. DPOY isn't revolutionary. Someone does it every year. Doing both is impressive, but it's not revolutionary. The only reason Kareem didn't win multiple DPOY is because the award didn't exist.


Agree with all of the above, though Jordan only won the DPOY once, so calling him the most dominant defender is probably a stretch. Many people suggest he wasn't even the best defender on his own team. Regardless, none of that revolutionizes the game, in my opinion. Tiger Woods revolutionized golf because everyone had to change the way they prepared, to get into good shape and hit the weight room in order to compete. Bobby Hull invented the curved blade on the hockey stick. Jordan didn't change the game. Jordan didn't even force rule changes like many other players did. One could make a case that Jordan took advantage of a window of time where the illegal defense rule prevented teams from being able to stop him.

It's true about the illegal defense, but Jordan also played when hand checking was legal. People think that was a defensive advantage for Pippen and Jordan, but he had to play offense against it too. I believe Jordan had a similar impact on the NBA that Tiger had to golf. NBA players get paid the way they do now because of Jordan. Jordan has done more for the game of basketball globally and locally than any professional athlete has done for any sport. Jordan had no weakness in his game and wasn't a 7'1 freak of nature. Tiger was inspired by Jordan, he taught all athletes what greatness looks like and monetized his brand to an unimaginable place. But if you think Jordan didn't change the game of basketball and had he never played the game of basketball, basketball would be exactly where it's at today, cool, but I respectfully disagree.

[SPURt]

No they didn't. Leading the league in scoring isn't revolutionary. Someone does it every year. DPOY isn't revolutionary. Someone does it every year. Doing both is impressive, but it's not revolutionary. The only reason Kareem didn't win multiple DPOY is because the award didn't exist.


Agree with all of the above, though Jordan only won the DPOY once, so calling him the most dominant defender is probably a stretch. Many people suggest he wasn't even the best defender on his own team. Regardless, none of that revolutionizes the game, in my opinion. Tiger Woods revolutionized golf because everyone had to change the way they prepared, to get into good shape and hit the weight room in order to compete. Bobby Hull invented the curved blade on the hockey stick. Jordan didn't change the game. Jordan didn't even force rule changes like many other players did. One could make a case that Jordan took advantage of a window of time where the illegal defense rule prevented teams from being able to stop him.

Also, Jordan is the only player to ever be a scoring champ and DPOY for any position. That may never happen again. Kareem only was scoring champ once, so saying he should've had more opportunities is overstating a bit.

[Obstructed_View]

It's true about the illegal defense, but Jordan also played when hand checking was legal. People think that was a defensive advantage for Pippen and Jordan, but he had to play offense against it too.

No he didn't. The rules were changed in 1979. Jordan never played in an era where hand-checking to impede progress was legal. Again, that gives him an advantage, not defenders. Defenders couldn't impede his progress on the perimeter and teams couldn't double team him without the ball. If you were going to design a player to take advantage of those two factors, you couldn't build one better than Jordan.

I believe Jordan had a similar impact on the NBA that Tiger had to golf. NBA players get paid the way they do now because of Jordan. Jordan has done more for the game of basketball globally and locally than any professional athlete has done for any sport.

I've acknowledged the financial impact he had, but selling shoes doesn't change what happens on the court. I maintain that the only reason he even had an opportunity to do so is because Magic and Bird captured the imagination of the world when they were in college, bringing the NBA out of the shadows. Before Tiger you had guys like Craig Stadler and Fuzzy Zoeller earning money and winning tournaments without even being in shape. Tiger changed the way every golfer trained, prepared and played.

Jordan had no weakness in his game and wasn't a 7'1 freak of nature. Tiger was inspired by Jordan, he taught all athletes what greatness looks like and monetized his brand to an unimaginable place. But if you think Jordan didn't change the game of basketball and had he never played the game of basketball, basketball would be exactly where it's at today, cool, but I respectfully disagree.

I agree with much of this. I didn't say Jordan didn't change the game, I said he didn't revolutionize the game. He was an amazing player with an amazing work ethic, and he was a 6'6" freak of nature.

[wildbill2u]

[QUOTE=GSH;8354112]....The league had already seen Mikan and Chamberlain change the game at C. ...Honestly, I'm not so sure Chamberlain revolutionized the game, so much as he dominated. Mikan forced the league to widen the lane and outlaw defensive goaltending. He also had a lot to do with the implementation of the shot clock. He didn't dominate in the same way Wilt did - his career EFG% was something like 40%. But when you force rule changes, and even the dimensions of part of the court, you've revolutionized the game. (The change to the width of the paint was known as the "Mikan Rule")

I think you made a mistake about Mikan. He wasn't the one who forced the lane widening. According to NBA.com's "Appreciation of Wilt Chamberlain" Chamberlain is the reason the NBA's foul lane is 16 feet wide. It was 12 feet when Chamberlain entered the league in 1959, and the 7-foot-1, 275-pounder captured both Rookie of the Year and Most Valuable Player honors by setting up shop in the low post, then using his strength to lean in on opponents and lay the ball in the basket with his soft finger-roll.After five years of watching Chamberlain score virtually at will, the powers-that-be added four feet to the width of the lane to make it a little tougher on him. Chamberlain responded by perfecting a turn-around jumper.
Chamberlain is responsible for changes in rules as well as court dimensions. When he was playing college ball at Kansas, his teammates' favorite play was to lob the ball toward the basket, hoping simply to get it in the vicinity of the rim. Chamberlain would roll to the hoop, catch whatever came within his enormous wingspan and slam it home. His rivals couldn't stop him, so the rules-makers outlawed offensive basket interference, preventing Chamberlain from touching the ball in the cylinder above the rim. That rule remains in effect to this day, in both the college and pro games, though it is widely ignored in today's offense-starved NBA when it comes to alley-oop passes, many of which are caught in the cylinder.
Rulemakers also banned the practice of lobbing the ball in from the baseline directly over the backboard so a player — read: Chamberlain — couldn't catch it near the basket in position for an easy score.

I think Chamberlain also was responsible for the rule that says a player cannot dunk a foul shot. He was a notoriously bad FT shooter, so he tried taking a couple of steps from behind the FT line and jumping to dunk the FT. (Long before someone started doing that in the slam dunk contest). That was banned almost immediately with a new rule.

[SPURt]

No he didn't. The rules were changed in 1979. Jordan never played in an era where hand-checking to impede progress was legal. Again, that gives him an advantage, not defenders. Defenders couldn't impede his progress on the perimeter and teams couldn't double team him without the ball. If you were going to design a player to take advantage of those two factors, you couldn't build one better than Jordan.


I've acknowledged the financial impact he had, but selling shoes doesn't change what happens on the court. I maintain that the only reason he even had an opportunity to do so is because Magic and Bird captured the imagination of the world when they were in college, bringing the NBA out of the shadows. Before Tiger you had guys like Craig Stadler and Fuzzy Zoeller earning money and winning tournaments without even being in shape. Tiger changed the way every golfer trained, prepared and played.


I agree with much of this. I didn't say Jordan didn't change the game, I said he didn't revolutionize the game. He was an amazing player with an amazing work ethic, and he was a 6'6" freak of nature.

I believe handing checking was eliminated 1994 and the forearm stearing in 1997:
http://www.nba.com/2009/news/feature...idge.defenses/

I'm not sure what date you're getting. Also, Jordan was the main attraction of the dream team and everyone wanted "to be like Mike". I agree Magic and Bird brought the NBA to a larger American stage, but Jordan made the brand global. You mentioned Tiger's conditioning, the number one thing I see former players mention about Jordan other than his drive to win is his strength. Jordan's dogfights with the Pistons drove him to real greatness. I'm also a big Jordan homer for beating the Jazz so much. I appreciate you keeping the debate civil, this may be the longest running back and forth I've had on Spurstalk without it devolving into name calling, thank you!

[Obstructed_View]

I believe handing checking was eliminated 1994 and the forearm stearing in 1997:
http://www.nba.com/2009/news/feature...idge.defenses/

I was going by http://www.nba.com/analysis/rules_history.html It mentions that they stopped allowing defenders to impede progress. Hand checking was eliminated in specific places in 1994, but good defenders weren't relying on it at all by that point IIRC.

I'm not sure what date you're getting. Also, Jordan was the main attraction of the dream team and everyone wanted "to be like Mike". I agree Magic and Bird brought the NBA to a larger American stage, but Jordan made the brand global.

Couldn't agree more. Saying that he didn't revolutionize the game is in no way intended to take away from what he did. What he did off the court may never be matched in sports. He ushered in a completely new era for athletes to market themselves. On the court he was just a really really good player. He wasn't the first to dunk, he wasn't the first to play great both ways, he wasn't the first to improve every year, and he wasn't the first to be driven to win, but he probably put all those things together better than anyone maybe ever in sports.

You mentioned Tiger's conditioning, the number one thing I see former players mention about Jordan other than his drive to win is his strength. Jordan's dogfights with the Pistons drove him to real greatness. I'm also a big Jordan homer for beating the Jazz so much.

To some extent that's probably true. Great players make their compe ors better, and that knife cuts both ways. There were literally fat guys winning PGA events before Tiger came along, and there weren't many fat guys dominating the NBA before Jordan came along. Barkley wasn't in good shape when he came into the league, but Moses Malone told him to get his fat ass into shape.

I appreciate you keeping the debate civil, this may be the longest running back and forth I've had on Spurstalk without it devolving into name calling, thank you!

Ditto. I'm not always successful at keeping the discussion civil. I try more now than I did when I was younger.

[Obstructed_View]

[QUOTE=wildbill2u;8358040]

....The league had already seen Mikan and Chamberlain change the game at C. ...Honestly, I'm not so sure Chamberlain revolutionized the game, so much as he dominated. Mikan forced the league to widen the lane and outlaw defensive goaltending. He also had a lot to do with the implementation of the shot clock. He didn't dominate in the same way Wilt did - his career EFG% was something like 40%. But when you force rule changes, and even the dimensions of part of the court, you've revolutionized the game. (The change to the width of the paint was known as the "Mikan Rule")

I think you made a mistake about Mikan. He wasn't the one who forced the lane widening. According to NBA.com's "Appreciation of Wilt Chamberlain" Chamberlain is the reason the NBA's foul lane is 16 feet wide. It was 12 feet when Chamberlain entered the league in 1959, and the 7-foot-1, 275-pounder captured both Rookie of the Year and Most Valuable Player honors by setting up shop in the low post, then using his strength to lean in on opponents and lay the ball in the basket with his soft finger-roll.After five years of watching Chamberlain score virtually at will, the powers-that-be added four feet to the width of the lane to make it a little tougher on him. Chamberlain responded by perfecting a turn-around jumper.
Chamberlain is responsible for changes in rules as well as court dimensions. When he was playing college ball at Kansas, his teammates' favorite play was to lob the ball toward the basket, hoping simply to get it in the vicinity of the rim. Chamberlain would roll to the hoop, catch whatever came within his enormous wingspan and slam it home. His rivals couldn't stop him, so the rules-makers outlawed offensive basket interference, preventing Chamberlain from touching the ball in the cylinder above the rim. That rule remains in effect to this day, in both the college and pro games, though it is widely ignored in today's offense-starved NBA when it comes to alley-oop passes, many of which are caught in the cylinder.
Rulemakers also banned the practice of lobbing the ball in from the baseline directly over the backboard so a player — read: Chamberlain — couldn't catch it near the basket in position for an easy score.

I think Chamberlain also was responsible for the rule that says a player cannot dunk a foul shot. He was a notoriously bad FT shooter, so he tried taking a couple of steps from behind the FT line and jumping to dunk the FT. (Long before someone started doing that in the slam dunk contest). That was banned almost immediately with a new rule.

There's a written exception in the rules for alley oops. Something about a player being near his own basket and legally touching the ball.

[Sean Cagney]

Jordan was a great scorer and a great compe or, but he didn't do anything on the court to change the game.

Come on man, everyone is labeled as the next Jordan all the time. He was the biggest icon the game had ever seen.

That wasn't only due to terrible coaching though. Rockets had great shooters around Hakeem, which forced the Spurs to stay on them and leave DRob without help, whereas Rockets could afford to throw bodies at Robinson cause no one on the Spurs could really hurt them and the Spurs also had one guy who didn't bother to focus. Very poorly constructed team. The fact they even got there and made a series out of this was a testament to Robinson's individual brilliance.

I agree with this.

[Obstructed_View]

Come on man, everyone is labeled as the next Jordan all the time. He was the biggest icon the game had ever seen.

Very true. I agree. Don't know why you guys keep throwing the obvious at me as though it changes what I said. He dribbled, he posted up, he shot jumpers, he slashed to the basket, he played defense. All been done before. Great. Best ever. Not revolutionary.

[Sean Cagney]

Very true. I agree. Don't know why you guys keep throwing the obvious at me as though it changes what I said. He dribbled, he posted up, he shot jumpers, he slashed to the basket, he played defense. All been done before. Great. Best ever. Not revolutionary.

I disagree on that last part but hey it's your opinion.

[Thomas82]

Also, Jordan is the only player to ever be a scoring champ and DPOY for any position. That may never happen again. Kareem only was scoring champ once, so saying he should've had more opportunities is overstating a bit.

David Robinson was also a scoring champ and DPOY, just not in the same season.

[SPURt]

David Robinson was also a scoring champ and DPOY, just not in the same season.

I should've added in the same season, as that was my intention. That's my bad

[TheBestEver]

He revolutionized choking and bible-thumping, that's for sure.

[NameLess Scrub]

Very true. I agree. Don't know why you guys keep throwing the obvious at me as though it changes what I said. He dribbled, he posted up, he shot jumpers, he slashed to the basket, he played defense. All been done before. Great. Best ever. Not revolutionary.

I started following the NBA in the 90s, so I've always been under the impression that Jordan was a pioneer in guards post ups and fade-aways.
Being a 6'6" SG, he also seemed to be physically superior to other guards, which kind of brought the need to have bigger SGs that could dominate at the position.

Was there other stars so mid range oriented too?

My impression is that Jordan changed the way guards wanted to play, the most evident example being Kobe.

Of course I could be wrong since I didn't watch pre 90s NBA..

[Obstructed_View]

I started following the NBA in the 90s, so I've always been under the impression that Jordan was a pioneer in guards post ups and fade-aways.
Being a 6'6" SG, he also seemed to be physically superior to other guards, which kind of brought the need to have bigger SGs that could dominate at the position.

Was there other stars so mid range oriented too?

My impression is that Jordan changed the way guards wanted to play, the most evident example being Kobe.

Of course I could be wrong since I didn't watch pre 90s NBA..

Oscar Robertson was an amazing post player, and he was a 6'5" point guard. I remember Jordan's post game developing over his career. I don't think he arrived with that turnaround. He was physically superior to almost everyone, plus he had an incredible drive to win and a work ethic that was second to none. He certainly raised the bar for everyone in the NBA with the things that he did, but nobody has come close to duplicating what he brought to the game, which is why I say dominant and not revolutionary. It's simply not intended as a slam on a goat player.

[NameLess Scrub]

Oscar Robertson was an amazing post player, and he was a 6'5" point guard. I remember Jordan's post game developing over his career. I don't think he arrived with that turnaround. He was physically superior to almost everyone, plus he had an incredible drive to win and a work ethic that was second to none. He certainly raised the bar for everyone in the NBA with the things that he did, but nobody has come close to duplicating what he brought to the game, which is why I say dominant and not revolutionary. It's simply not intended as a slam on a goat player.

I understand.. it's my thoughts on Steph Curry. Right now I don't see him turning the game into a bunch of 3pt shooters.
He seems like too much of a video game shooter for that.

[wildbill2u]

I started following the NBA in the 90s, so I've always been under the impression that Jordan was a pioneer in guards post ups and fade-aways.
Being a 6'6" SG, he also seemed to be physically superior to other guards, which kind of brought the need to have bigger SGs that could dominate at the position.

Was there other stars so mid range oriented too?

My impression is that Jordan changed the way guards wanted to play, the most evident example being Kobe.

Of course I could be wrong since I didn't watch pre 90s NBA..

Everyone was a mid-range shooter until the ABA started the 3pt. shot--and the NBA scoffed at the new league and the "circus" it created with the crazy red,white and blue ball, the athletes (mostly black) who were changing the game by doing things like dunks from way up in the air, and the 3pt. shot. The game became more wide open and entertaining with the ABA teams and players, so the NBA changed and also brought a few ABA teams like the Spurs into the NBA.

However, even with the introduction of the 3pt. shot, there were only a few at first, mostly ABA players who specialized in it. The mid range jumper still ruled in both leagues for a while. The Spurs had one of the best, James Silas, AKA Captain Late who got the ball isolated on his man at the end of close games and was almost a guarantor of a win with a mid-range jumper at the last second of the game.

[Obstructed_View]

I understand.. it's my thoughts on Steph Curry. Right now I don't see him turning the game into a bunch of 3pt shooters.
He seems like too much of a video game shooter for that.

Time will tell, but with the way Curry has worked to increase his distance, you might start to see other guys training the same way. If that changes the way guys shoot, then you could call that revolutionary. I remember when the Rockets went with the inside out offense, and guys started hitting a consistently high percentage of threes over the course of a game. The only reason nobody had done it up to that point is that nobody really thought it was possible.