Most Athletic Center of All Time? David Robinson or Dwight Howard

[JamStone]

athleticism has nothing to do with a post game.
McHale was great in the post, I wouldn't call him overly athletic.
Stromile Swift was very athletic, and yet he doesn't have much of a post move.

Robinson's athleticism gives him unusual speed for a man of his size, the best way for him to utilize it is to face up and blow past his man for a dunk/layup.

Being athletic or not being athletic doesn't determine whether a player has a good post game or not, but I wouldn't say athleticism has "nothing" to do with a post game.

It takes some level of athleticism to be effective in the post. It doesn't mean the best athletes are great post players or players that don't have great overall athleticism can't be good in the post, as you already alluded to. But, being effective in the post requires agility, balance, coordination, reaction time, quick hands and quick feet, upper body and lower body strength and using any combination of those aspects of athleticism along with some skill to be an effective low post scorer. Yes, it also takes some level of skill, but athleticism is very much a part of it as well.

Obviously, David Robinson was a great athlete. That's not at issue. He had great quickness for his size, good balance as suggested by his hand walking story, natural coordination as is shown in his above average free throw shooting for a big man who whottt says never worked on his game, and what most would agree is great upper body strength. Now, the aspect of athleticism that may have affected his ability to be an effective low post scorer could be the strength and bulk in his lower core, his rear end and thighs, which is required to effectively back down other big, strong athletes in the post. That has to do with athleticism. You add that to perhaps (and I'm just guessing) some lack of skill in the low post, understandable since, again as whottt stated, David never ever worked on his game, and maybe some of those other aspects of athleticism where David was very good but not great in, and those give insight why David could be an effective and even dominant big man in the game without being a consistent low post scorer. Maybe it even speaks more highly about his athleticism because he didn't have a great low post game and was still such a great player.

But I still wouldn't say athleticism has "nothing" to do with a low post game.

[ambchang]

When he mentioned that he was "soft", I think he was referring to his style of play. For all of Robinson's physical advantages, he still preferred to play outside of the paint and shoot jumpers (I believe the poster alluded to hating this when he watched him), as opposed to banging down low with folks (David never really had a great low-post game). The difference between Shaq and Kobe offensively, and Robinson and T-Mac is that the first pair seem to initiate contact more...while the latter shied away from it more. No better way to explain a center who you swear is the most athletic ever living on the perimeter.

If I had a live simulator of Robinson and he was isod on someone and needed a bucket, I see him deciding to shoot a jumper rather then go down low, even though he had all of these physical advantages that folks here are mentioning.

This doesn't explain the fact that Robinson finished #1 or #2 in FTM and FTA in every full season he played right up until his back gave.

Robinson drove the lane and got fouled over and over again. He played in the paint the way a guard or a SF would play in the paint, and that is to drive and score. He doesn't have much of a post game, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't make a living in the paint.

Tony Parker had no post game, but he most definitely made a living in the paint and take a ridiculous amount of beating.

[ambchang]

To JamStone: Fair enough, perhaps I should say Robinson's lack of a post-up game had nothing to do with his athleticism, or lack thereof.

[JamStone]

In your opinion, why did David Robinson not have a strong post up game?

[ambchang]

In your opinion, why did David Robinson not have a strong post up game?

Some players just do not have the touch or the understanding of a post game to be effective. His biggest asset has always been his quickness, and he has worked more on blowing past his man than posting them up and scoring over them.

I personally don't think it was a lack of lower body strength, as he has demonstrated he had a strong lower body on defense, where he could stay his ground against the Shaqs and the Mournings.

[JamStone]

This is the part I just don't get.

If having a good post game requires both skill and athleticism, many would agree that David Robinson had the physical tools required. You even believe it's not a matter of lower body strength. That being the case, it would have to do more about skill. But, skill can be developed, improved and especially with the physical tools David Robinson possessed.

So, I'm left to wonder why David never did in fact get better in that area. Look at other great HOF players like Michael Jordan and Karl Malone, who had great physical tools. Early on in their careers, they used their physical advantages to be great players. It didn't stop Michael from developing his mid post game and fade-away shot or Malone from becoming a better free throw shooter and midrange jump shooter. So, why did it prevent David Robinson from becoming a better low post scorer, in a game where once your physical tools and athleticism start to decline, you'll be less effective without improved skill?

Again, whottt suggested David Robinson never worked on his game, which I still find ridiculous. David was obviously a hard worker when it came to his health, conditioning, physical fitness, strength. But, when it came to his career, he was lazy? He wouldn't work on his basketball "skills?" I don't believe that. A guy with his work ethic and discipline not working on his basketball skills that were important in his professional career? So, what was it? Was he just not ambitious like guys like Jordan? Not concerned with improving or expanding his basketball game? Is that really it?

It simply can't be. And, you can't tell me David Robinson simply lacked an "understanding" of having an effective post game. Robinson wasn't/isn't a stupid person.

To me, it had to do with something regarding physical abilities/athleticism. He had size and strength and length and quickness and balance and coordination. So, why couldn't he be a good low post player? And when he started having back problems and couldn't rely on his pure athleticism, why couldn't he improve his post game then? Did Tim Duncan stunt David Robinson's ability to improve his basketball game? I think it did have something to do with his athleticism. David's superior athleticism helped him in the open court, when it came to outrunning other big men, or quickness when he faced up defenders to get by them. But, when you put him in the post, the quickness is somewhat neutralized because defenders had to cover less ground. Maybe David Robinson didn't have particularly quick feet despite being quick in general. Maybe his reaction time/timing didn't suit low post scoring. And, I still think his lower core had something to do with it, perhaps more about having lower body bulk/mass than strength in order to back down defenders better.

Whatever it was, I really can't believe that it had nothing to do with athleticism. I don't think David Robinson lacked for work ethic or discipline to improve his skill. I don't think he wasn't smart enough to grasp an understanding on how to be an effective low post scorer. I don't think he lacked a "touch" for it. I think while he had great athleticism, his particular athletic traits didn't completely apply well to low post scoring. Otherwise, it's a matter of shying away from contact over and over again. Not wanting to bang. And, most of you would never argue he wasn't tough enough to bang if he wanted to.

[Extra Stout]

In your opinion, why did David Robinson not have a strong post up game?

Apparently he never worked to develop one. I guess blowing by people from the high post for a layup or dunk was more expedient (and fun) than learning positioning and footwork down on the block. And if you can be the MVP and the scoring champion on sheer athleticism, it may take 8 or 9 years in the game to figure out that champions do it the hard way for a reason. By the time that lesson sunk in for Robinson and he developed a passion to get better, he already had Tim Duncan, and Duncan's offensive game was more polished on Day 1 of his career than Robinson's, so Robinson focused on defense.

[Extra Stout]

Whatever it was, I really can't believe that it had nothing to do with athleticism. I don't think David Robinson lacked for work ethic or discipline to improve his skill.

Au contraire. That was always the knock on 5-0.

[JamStone]

Apparently he never worked to develop one. I guess blowing by people from the high post for a layup or dunk was more expedient (and fun) than learning positioning and footwork down on the block. And if you can be the MVP and the scoring champion on sheer athleticism, it may take 8 or 9 years in the game to figure out that champions do it the hard way for a reason. By the time that lesson sunk in for Robinson and he developed a passion to get better, he already had Tim Duncan, and Duncan's offensive game was more polished on Day 1 of his career than Robinson's, so Robinson focused on defense.

Au contraire. That was always the knock on 5-0.

I guess I didn't know enough about David Robinson then to know that he was knocked for lack of work ethic and discipline. I wouldn't have guessed that, assuming that couldn't be the case from a military guy who worked that hard on his physical fitness and conditioning.

But, if that's the case, ok.

[diego]

there are thousands of examples of players (whatever sport) who have the tools to play a certain way but dont.

i agree with extra stout, that Robinson didnt realize he needed a post game till it was too late (because of duncan, but also because of his back).

as for the soft thing... no doubt Robinson took plenty of hits, on both ends of the court. but its one thing to take a hit, and another to dish one out. Wilt and Russell talked about that in the interview before, and I think you could put Robinson in the same boat- he liked to play "the right way" more than he liked to win "the wrong way". and to a lot of people that is soft (the opposite mentality example would probably be KMalone). Robinson got the rings on Malone but a lot of times it doesnt work out that way. Personally I think its a little stupid, a little naive, especially in a compe ion that has human referees (that inevitably make mistakes), but I think its more admirable than reprehensible.

[kingmalaki]

This doesn't explain the fact that Robinson finished #1 or #2 in FTM and FTA in every full season he played right up until his back gave.

Robinson drove the lane and got fouled over and over again. He played in the paint the way a guard or a SF would play in the paint, and that is to drive and score. He doesn't have much of a post game, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't make a living in the paint.

Tony Parker had no post game, but he most definitely made a living in the paint and take a ridiculous amount of beating.

You are basically saying that your C was playing like a SF. I think you are displaying why the poster was calling him soft. I'm assuming that poster preferred to see his centers play like centers.

I'm not really gonna call Robinson soft, because he did show a willingness to bang defensively. He just didn't show that same willingness offensively. I think for a scoring pivot, you can get away without having a post game for a while but once the playoffs go into the late rounds it becomes more necessary (see Dwight Howard last season as an example). When I watched him play, it just seemed like he was more comfy on the perimiter then in the paint. Granted you have seen more Spurs games than me and that doesn't exactly explain him leading the league in foul attempts...although I think some of the attempts had to do with his popularity. I always recall him getting the ref benefit more than Hakeem for example.

[Brazil]

No problem. 60s basketball is my favorite era. It really is amazing how little people know about the past. For example there was no flash and thrill in the 60s, it was all fundamental. Every player in the NBA at that time had to have a complete all around game. They had to be able to shoot, pass, dribble, defend, run, jump and everything else. Now a days we are amazed at players like Manu who have the all around package, but few remember that it was standard in the 60s and 70s.

As for my all time list. I might strike up more conversation, but here it is:

Wilt
Kareem
Jordan

To make it simple I think Wilt is by far the best player to ever play the game and I have millions of reasons why. It was not too long ago someone challeneged me to a Jordan vs Wilt arguement via private messages here on this board. I am not sure if I made that person think Wilt was better than Jordan, but I did make him have a 180 in terms of the way he thought about 1960s basketball and Wilt to where I might have changed his mind.

Wilt and Kareem played in a bigman oriented league where the big man thrived (mostly because of there being no 3 point line). Once the NBA merged with the ABA the NBA changed entirely, and for the better if you ask me. As I said before 60s basketball was fundamentals with no flash, the only flashy team back then was the Globetrotters. Now the ABA was very similar to a whole league of Globetrotter teams in terms of how the game was played with rim shaking dunks and afros. The individual player was advertised more. With the exception of Russell/Chamberlain it was always 6ers vs Knicks, or Celtics vs Lakers. No one player was really put out in a huge market for their teams like Kobe, LeBron and Wade are today. The NBA of today is basically a bigger version of the old ABA with less crazyness.

I've gotten slightly off the point though, sorry. But with this ABA/NBA merger the guard became more important with the style of play. When the 3 point line was introduced this fact became more clear. The 3 point play is one of the most important plays in the game today. Sure it is only one more point, but that 1 more point means a lot now a days. It spreads the floor helping the big man and is very exciting, but it also limited the big man's importance.

The point of basketball is pretty simple, get the easiest shot possible. Would there really be much of a reason to shoot from 23 feet back in Wilt and Kareem's day? Now lets rephrase slightly, would there be much of a point to shoot from 23 feet with Wilt or Kareem on your team? 2 points under the basket is the same on the scoreboard as 2 points from a made half court shot, only the half court shot is much easier.

For the most part I think I have made my point. If not please say so or PM me and I would be happy to explain.

How Wilt number would be translated today ? I know it's an impossible task to evaluate but I would like to have your feeling considering he would have less opportunity of scoring due to the 3 pts introduction etc... He would be what ? a 25 / 15 / 5 center ? 30 / 15 / 5 ? for scoring it's safe to imagine above 30 pts, he was also a good passing big a 5 to 7 asp maybe but for rebounds I don't know, I imagine at least 15 but can we imagine more than that ?

I was also surprised to see that you rank kareem so high, in my mind MJ / Magic / Russel to give just 3 names are above him.

[The Franchise]

And you are quite simply on dangerous amounts of crack if you think Hakeem was a better athlete than Drob was. Hakeem had about the same level of athleticism as Tim Duncan. Duncan might even be more athletic, and he's been playing on one knee since the 2000 season.

WOW!! This is some re ed !!

[whottt]

Ok just to get this back on track...I see a lot stupid being said in this thread.

#1. David Robinson didn't need a freaking post up game. The MF could draw double teams with what he could do, and he could foul men out. David Robinson was one of the greatest scoring bigmen to ever step foot on a basketball court, period.

What David could do, was draw double and triple teams, what David could not do, was kick it out to anyone, the primary way of beating them, for anyh bigman, because he had no one to kick it out too.

David Robinson was not the reason his teams did not win les, he was the only reason they were even in the playoffs, as evidenced by the season he wasn't healthy.

And he didn't finish in last freaking place when he was surrounded by crap either.


The only way to stop David, was to double him, whether he had a post up game or not.



#2. And this is the really stupid claim I see being made, that David needed to be more physical on offense. The man's primary way of scoring was drawing a foul, this is like basketball 101 that is the most phyical way to score. Leading the league in FTA means you were physical, look at the other guys on the list that did it if you do no get this simple fact.


Just so you guys asking for more physicality get this, Hakeem Olajuwon played 18 seasons, 4 more than David, and took 600 fewer free throws. Then consider the fact that David only played half the court for pretty much the last 3rd of his career.

He's taken about 2000 more than Tim Duncan.

David Robinson is on the short list of the greatest players in history at getting to the line, he ranks #12 and I think Karrem, Moses, Shaq and Wilt are the only C's ahead of him(and only Wilt played in as few seasons). Karreem and Moses played 20 years apiece, and unlike Shaq and Wilt, they didn't foul David intentionally, because he was a good FT shooter...in fact he was a better FT shooter than the PG he played the majority of his career with(he was also a better 3 shooter but that's another debate).

It's stupid to say he wasn't physical when he got the hacked out of him by ing Karl Malone, among others. David got his ass beat every year of the playoffs because he didn't have anyone else that could take over a game. Period. He took an asskicking and people don't get that.

You know why you don't get it? Because David didn't whine about it, that's why.

I mean you guys saying this must have never played a game of basketball or something.


Stupid arguments. David was plenty physical, that's why his career was short and he was usually taking the toughest assignment on both ends of the court.


This man was not soft...and those criticisms are bull .

[whottt]

And one other thing...without a doubt Wilt is the greatest basketball player ever. I don't even see how this is debated, whether he was a product of his era or not, there's still no one even close. Whether he's the greatest athlete or not(and Drob is definitely in the debate with him whether anyone likes it or not)

That said, he played the same number of years as Drob, and he's got the same number of les, and don't tell me he didn't play with anyone either. Jerry West...

Nate Thurmond, the only big besides Hakeem and Drob to record a quad double...the original twin towers combo, and he won no le with him.

And Jam, Drob never broadened his game, because he didn't have to. He got the job done and did what was asked of him, no matter what it was, and no matter which side of the ball they were asking him to do it on.

Drob and Michael Jordan, only players to win a DPOY and scoring le.
Drob and Kareem, only players to lead the leage in blocks, scoring and rebounding.
Drob and Wilt, only C's to score over 70 points in a game.

Lead the NBA in FTA, multiple times,.
Lead the NBA in rebounding, multiple times.
Lead the NBA in dunks, multiple times.
Top 5 finish in steals.
Scoring le.
Lead the league in blocks.
Lead his team in assists.

GTFO if you think this guy wasn't good enough to win a le, every freaking time he stepped on the court.

Right up to the last game he played, which incidentally clinched a championship, with him as the starting C.


ETC...

There is one strong parallel between Wilt and Dave that is never mentioned...

Everyone always mentions David's numbers going down in the post season, Wilt's did often too. Especially when he had no help...those double and triple teams are a killer, when you are surrounded by ....that is of course excluding the years Wilt's team finished in last place and missed the playoffs, something David's never did.

David never finished below second place in the division.

[Cry Havoc]

Realistically I'd say Wilt would still probably average around 20 rebounds assuming he still played 45+ minutes per game. The points and assists are question marks. I can actually see him averaging near 10 assists per game because of the way he would demand double teams and he could easily pass out to the open shooters. The points would be in the high 20s early 30s because of his ability to run the floor and score in the low post would make him the ultimate scorer in today's game. Plus as Wilt said himself in his video the players of today couldn't touch him without drawing a foul. Back in Wilts day he could be hammered all the time from all directions by a lot of players. Something that we might think is an obvious foul today might have sporatically been called in the 60s.

Now in terms of where I rank Russell on the all time great list? That is a tough question. If I were to play a pick up game with the all time greats standing on the line I would go with Wilt Jordan etc. My opinion on Russell as a team mate is different though. I think Russell is bay far the greatest leader of all time. He elevated the play of his team mates and was unselfish. The last thing I mentioned, unselfishness, is probably the most important. Russell always had great players around him, unlike Wilt, and with that talent around him it made it easier for Russell to do what he did best which in turn made things easier for the rest of his players.

The Celtics best advantage in the 1960s was Red. He was crafty and he knew most of the collegic coaches at all levels. This made things easier when drafting players. Scouts were not as widely used as they are today and Red used his connections to know who the best players were. The diamonds in the rough. He asked around and found out about players like Sam Jones that he drafted late in the first round. That coupled with loads of luck made the Celtics great.

I respect a lot of things you've said, and I agree that Wilt is one of (if not the) most athletic NBA player of all-time, but I don't see any possibility of him averaging 30/20/10 a game. Sorry, I think that's just you being quite a bit of a homer. Saying that Wilt would average 10 assists against today's defenses is a massive reach and I think it reveals a lot about how biased you are in this argument. I don't mean to insult -- but to suggest a player would put up that kind of triple-double numbers today is kind of ridiculous.

I would say something like 28/14/6 would be the statline I expect from him. You can say I'm a hater all you want, but that's an all-world statline.

I just DO really, strongly, intensely feel that today's level of NBA compe ion far surpasses what Wilt faced in his day, and to me there's not really even a debate worth having about this. Just from the talent pool alone of millions upon millions of players now vs. in the 60s when there was so much less scouting and so much less money involved... it's a different game now.

[whottt]

Wilt is so dominant, I mean not only is there no one close in his era, but no one has even come close to being as dominant in any other era. He's unquesionably the greatest player, even if a product of his era.


But athleticism is different, don't even try to freaking tell me the level of athletecism in the sixties is what it is now....when there are 7 foot shooting guards in the league.

Not only would he have to contend with more big bodies, he'd have to contend with more guys capable of keeping up with him. He'd definitely notice the difference in eras.

[Cry Havoc]

Wilt is so dominant, I mean not only is there no one close in his era, but no one has even come close to being as dominant in any other era. He's unquesionably the greatest player, even if a product of his era.


But athleticism is different, don't even try to freaking tell me the level of athletecism in the sixties is what it is now....when there are 7 foot shooting guards in the league.

Not only would he have to contend with more big bodies, he'd have to contend with more guys capable of keeping up with him. He'd definitely notice the difference in eras.

You could also make the argument that David and LeBron as well would make fantastic sprinters in their own right. I'm unsure about Dave, but James timed a 4.40 40 yard, which equates out to a sub-10 second 100 meter dash. I'm pretty sure if he actually tried, Lebron could be hovering right around 10 seconds or maybe just over.

I know this topic was originally about centers, I'm just suggesting that Wilt's athleticism is not vastly superior to the best in today's NBA, if at all.

[mathbzh]

Realistically I'd say Wilt would still probably average around 20 rebounds assuming he still played 45+ minutes per game. The points and assists are question marks. I can actually see him averaging near 10 assists per game because of the way he would demand double teams and he could easily pass out to the open shooters. The points would be in the high 20s early 30s because of his ability to run the floor and score in the low post would make him the ultimate scorer in today's game. Plus as Wilt said himself in his video the players of today couldn't touch him without drawing a foul. Back in Wilts day he could be hammered all the time from all directions by a lot of players. Something that we might think is an obvious foul today might have sporatically been called in the 60s.

I think you are a bit optimistic there.
First, no coach would allow Wilt to play that much. Last season no player broke the 40 mpg mark. In 61-62 they were 7. This is not about stamina or durability it is about coaching. I guess Wilt would play 40 mpg at best.

Then the rebounds. In 61-62 Wilt Wilt averaged 27.2 rpg. This is great but it is just 36% of the team rebounds, and the warriors were not even the best rebounding team. With 36% of the Lakers rebounds, Wilt would reach 16 rpg, probably less because he would not play 48 mpg, would not have the same physical advantage and with the 3pt line I suppose there are more long rebounds.

The 30 ppg would not be so surprising. I guess he would have no problem to reach the 25 ppg mark, then it is open for discussion.

10 apg is also very unlikely. First he never did it back in the 60s. And when he reached his best mark (8.6) he was not anymore a 30 ppg player. I guess he would be a good passing big man somewhere in the 3-5 apg range.

If he was as dominant as in the early 60s, I bet he would be a 30 ppg / 15 rpg / 4 apg in 40 minutes player and probably a good amount of blocks. This would already be a great statline comparable with Shaq best years (with much more rebounds). We will never know how dominant he would have been but
30/20/10 is out of the realm of reality.

[romain.star]

i think you are a bit optimistic there.
First, no coach would allow wilt to play that much. Last season no player broke the 40 mpg mark. In 61-62 they were 7. This is not about stamina or durability it is about coaching. I guess wilt would play 40 mpg at best.

Then the rebounds. In 61-62 wilt wilt averaged 27.2 rpg. This is great but it is just 36% of the team rebounds, and the warriors were not even the best rebounding team. With 36% of the lakers rebounds, wilt would reach 16 rpg, probably less because he would not play 48 mpg, would not have the same physical advantage and with the 3pt line i suppose there are more long rebounds.

The 30 ppg would not be so surprising. I guess he would have no problem to reach the 25 ppg mark, then it is open for discussion.

10 apg is also very unlikely. First he never did it back in the 60s. And when he reached his best mark (8.6) he was not anymore a 30 ppg player. I guess he would be a good passing big man somewhere in the 3-5 apg range.

If he was as dominant as in the early 60s, i bet he would be a 30 ppg / 15 rpg / 4 apg in 40 minutes player and probably a good amount of blocks. This would already be a great statline comparable with shaq best years (with much more rebounds). We will never know how dominant he would have been but
30/20/10 is out of the realm of reality.

+1

[Obstructed_View]

I am a Chamberlain fan, I have seen more of his interviews than you, believe me I know when he is far off. My overall knowledge of 60s basketball is among the best on this board.

Yet you said he was "never" far off, which is stupid. You know damn good and well that, absolutely great as he was, he stretched the truth many times, and even made up on occasion. If you know so much about him, I'm not sure why you'd even bother to argue this point.

[Obstructed_View]

Francisco Elson could outrun Wilt. That isn't trolling or sarcasm either.

Nope, just straight stupidity right from the moron-messiah.

[mathbzh]

There is a problem with your theory about assists.
In 1967-1968 the average team assist was almost 23 apg.
In 2008-2009 it is just under 21 apg.

Maybe it was more difficult to score an assist, but the higher scoring (122 ppg for the Sixers, 109 for the Bulls) made the assist numbers slighlty better than they are now.

But this is a bit far from the initial subject. I agree Wilt was great then and would be great now whatever his stats would say.

[polandprzem]

Wilt wasn't doing what Jerome James was doing on the court athletically either. You provided the explanation for why that happened, and it was simply because alley-oops were not being used during the days Wilt was playing.

Is that really so difficlut to acknowledge the diference in:
Was doing
Was NOT doing

?

Yes would. Because saying Jerome James is more athletic than Wilt Chamberlain would be quite stupid.

Where did you lost your sarcasm detector?

[ambchang]

You are basically saying that your C was playing like a SF. I think you are displaying why the poster was calling him soft. I'm assuming that poster preferred to see his centers play like centers.

It really is no secret that Robinson was born more of a 7' SF or PF than a real center. He never really had a center game, but that doesn't make him soft, it just makes him play out of position his whole career, and achieved all the accomplishments he did.

I'm not really gonna call Robinson soft, because he did show a willingness to bang defensively. He just didn't show that same willingness offensively. I think for a scoring pivot, you can get away without having a post game for a while but once the playoffs go into the late rounds it becomes more necessary (see Dwight Howard last season as an example). When I watched him play, it just seemed like he was more comfy on the perimiter then in the paint. Granted you have seen more Spurs games than me and that doesn't exactly explain him leading the league in foul attempts...although I think some of the attempts had to do with his popularity. I always recall him getting the ref benefit more than Hakeem for example.

Robinson would get hacked all game long in the playoffs with no calls for him. There is just no way a referee is going to foul out an entire front line game after game in the playoffs, and that is what the opposition figured. Another thing is that Robinson couldn't finish as well with contact as the other great ones. Hakeem and Duncan would get hacked around the basket and still score, but Robinson just couldn't, and that really hampers him during the playoffs, when contact is expected.

His game was to drive to the basket and dunk it, but the lanes close in the playoffs, and teams force you beat them inside. The Spurs didn't really have anyone who could consistently nail down open jumpers to open up the lane, and that allowed teams to double and triple Robinson, daring the other Spurs to beat them.

When your starting PG's biggest achievement in life is nailing down an open 18-foot jumper, and was waived multiple times by the Rockets as a 3rd string PG, you know you never had really good point guards.

BTW, Robinson got a lot less calls than he should have gotten, check any playoff games, he would be hacked multiple times on the same play, and there would be no calls.