PDA

View Full Version : Switch David Robinson and Tim Duncan's careers



valade16
05-07-2014, 04:42 PM
The question is simple: If you had switched when they were drafted (Duncan drafted in 89 and Robinson in 98) would the Spurs have won a Championship before David Robinson got there?

Thinking critically, does Robinson's inability to win a title without Duncan hurt his legacy and is it fair if you don't believe Duncan could have done it either.

Who do you think the better player is between Duncan and Robinson and why do you think that if not championships?

SPURSFAN1
05-07-2014, 04:47 PM
Tim with 4 rings. Robinson with 4 rings.

valade16
05-07-2014, 04:49 PM
Tim with 4 rings. Robinson with 4 rings.

How many are won without each other (or are you implying they win 4 rings together)?

As a Spurs fan what makes you say that?

SPURSFAN1
05-07-2014, 04:52 PM
2 in Tims younger career and 2 with young Robinson. Then Robinson wins 2 more as the man. He just never had good players playing with him that could take over in short bursts.

Bruno
05-07-2014, 04:52 PM
prime Robinson in place of Duncan in 2003 doesn't get past the Lakers. in a world where Duncan is old and Robinson is the young guy- they'd be competitive. I think they compete strongly in 2005 and win 2007 with prime Robinson instead of Duncan.

valade16
05-07-2014, 04:57 PM
2 in Tims younger career and 2 with young Robinson. Then Robinson wins 2 more as the man. He just never had good players playing with him that could take over in short bursts.

What years do you think they win it? Do you think a Tim Duncan led Spurs in the 90's could have knocked off Jordan's Bulls or Hakeem's Rockets?

SPURSFAN1
05-07-2014, 04:58 PM
prime Robinson in place of Duncan in 2003 doesn't get past the Lakers. in a world where Duncan is old and Robinson is the young guy- they'd be competitive. I think they compete strongly in 2005 and win 2007 with prime Robinson instead of Duncan.

Young robinson was better than prime shaq. Young robinson >>2003 shaq.

SPURSFAN1
05-07-2014, 04:59 PM
What years do you think they win it? Do you think a Tim Duncan led Spurs in the 90's could have knocked off Jordan's Bulls or Hakeem's Rockets?

Possibly. It's not like duncan has never beaten stacked teams.

Method28
05-07-2014, 05:37 PM
prime Robinson in place of Duncan in 2003 doesn't get past the Lakers. in a world where Duncan is old and Robinson is the young guy- they'd be competitive. I think they compete strongly in 2005 and win 2007 with prime Robinson instead of Duncan.

Young robinson was better than prime shaq. Young robinson >>2003 shaq.

What in the....

Chronz
05-07-2014, 05:45 PM
Its a great question and one I've asked here in the past; http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?348814-What-IF-Duncan-had-entered-the-league-before-The-Admiral



Side note: While looking for that thread, I found another in which you chastise me for not valuing rings as much as I should.


Why do you use advanced stats like they are always 100% right and tell the entire story? You know EVERY stat is flawed right?

Larry Bird is 18th all-time in PER, do you really think he's the 18th best player?

Heck, Elton Brand is 35th!

Good fun tho...




Anyways, on topic. One thing I realized is that, because D-Rob was drafted before he finished his Navy duties, his absence allowed San Antonio to continue rebuilding before adding their final centerpiece. This gave them a more developed D-Rob and a young Sean Elliot, which led to such a huge turnaround season for them. But assuming they somehow switch years perfectly, Duncan enters the league at a much younger age and thus has a longer window of dominance (which is what we are seeing today) but also, hes not as developed as a guy who was basically in his prime from day 1 so you're not likely to win anything at that juncture. We also have to assume that Duncan stays in San Antonio when he does fail, which without D-Rob early on, was far from a guarantee.

And with less success, comes different draft picks and who knows how that plays out. But, for the sake of the argument, lets assume everything stays picture perfect with regards to their teammates, this is how I project their careers.

From 89-93, they dont win jack, maybe they're a lesser regular season team but not too different from what D-Rob accomplished in terms of playoff success.

But by year 5, thats when things look slightly different. Duncan was a star from day 1, but his prime absolutely began in his 5th year. Thats when I noticed the guy who you used to be able to get away with single coverage on became a guy who required constant doubles. He wasn't an overwhelming offensive player, but definitely one that could be the fulcrom of an elite offense if the support was right.

So in 94 (Year 5) the Spurs have given Duncan the joy of Dennis Rodman. Now you could argue that Duncan would have commanded more respect from Rodman, but from what I can remember, the guy didn't respect Pop all that much either, so lets just be fair and say Rodman remains the same cancerous player he was for them.

I see the Spurs being better in 94/95 but ultimately losing to Dream and the Rockets in much the same way.



By 96-97, D-Rob was injured and the Spurs had to deal with a lottery season. Does this happen for Duncan or do we just assume that the Spurs continue their winning ways and somehow land D-Rob?


Since I dont want to over think this, Im going to skip this season altogether.


In 97-98, the Spurs add a prime 25 year old D-Rob to a 29 year old Duncan. At this stage in Duncan's career, he was battling with severe plantar fasciitis all year and it only dissipated come playoffs. As a result it was a down year regular season wise for him but the dude tore it up in the playoffs (losing in 7 to Dirks Mavs) and was still very much in his peak/prime form, its why the Spurs wound up winning it all the next year.

Back to the 98 Playoffs.

Do you take a Y1 D-Rob+Duncan+Avery and absolutely no shooters (thanks to Sean Elliots Kidney disease) over a Jazz team that made the Finals? What about a very vulnerable Bulls team with a hobbled Pippen?


I say no, their best chance of winning comes in 99, which they won anyways. The difference is that both D-Rob and Duncan are in their primes.

In the shortened season of 99, I see this duo (along with a recovered Sean Elliot) absolutely CRUSHING the league. As it was, I feel like those Spurs are underrated. They won 46-7 in their final stretch (which includes playoff competition), the only reason they were slow off the gate was because this was the year D-Rob needed some games to get going again. So they win in 99, probably have the All-Time winning% IMO, but its still obviously Duncan's team.



After that, it gets really interesting. Duncan is no longer the superstar he once was but D-Rob is clearly not the same type of playoff performer as prime Duncan. Is that enough to beat the ensuing powers to come? I think this post is long enough for now.

SPURSFAN1
05-07-2014, 05:48 PM
What in the....

I guess you're not smart. Robinson was winning MVP by his 6th year in the league.

Chronz
05-07-2014, 05:49 PM
prime Robinson in place of Duncan in 2003 doesn't get past the Lakers. in a world where Duncan is old and Robinson is the young guy- they'd be competitive. I think they compete strongly in 2005 and win 2007 with prime Robinson instead of Duncan.

Agreed, but in 2003 Robinson isn't playing with a shell of Duncan, hes getting a Tim Duncan that was still an All-NBA caliber player. Is that enough?

SPURSFAN1
05-07-2014, 05:53 PM
37 year old Duncan is ALL NBA first team. HAHAHAHAHA

Hawkeye15
05-07-2014, 06:16 PM
Young robinson was better than prime shaq. Young robinson >>2003 shaq.

you might have the honor of being the biggest homer on this site.

Hawkeye15
05-07-2014, 06:18 PM
I guess you're not smart. Robinson was winning MVP by his 6th year in the league.

yeah, when he was 29, and he was given the trophy just in time for Hakeem to literally destroy him in the WCF's.

valade16
05-07-2014, 06:37 PM
Its a great question and one I've asked here in the past; http://forums.prosportsdaily.com/showthread.php?348814-What-IF-Duncan-had-entered-the-league-before-The-Admiral

Side note: While looking for that thread, I found another in which you chastise me for not valuing rings as much as I should.



Good fun tho...


I did not see this quote (nor the quote to me "chastizing you for not valuing rings") nor do I see how the quote you posted here in anyway says what you claim it does.

SPURSFAN1
05-07-2014, 06:48 PM
yeah, when he was 29, and he was given the trophy just in time for Hakeem to literally destroy him in the WCF's.

I'm tired of your hating. You act like its fu...ing easy to get MVP. DROB was great and you can't take that away from him. Is that homerism or your hate for the Spurs excellence?

Chronz
05-07-2014, 06:49 PM
I did not see this quote (nor the quote to me "chastizing you for not valuing rings") nor do I see how the quote you posted here in anyway says what you claim it does.

Stop lying

Hawkeye15
05-07-2014, 06:51 PM
I'm tired of your hating. You act like its fu...ing easy to get MVP. DROB was great and you can't take that away from him. Is that homerism or your hate for the Spurs excellence?

hating? Robinson is a top 15 player ever, but to say in his youth he was better than prime Shaq is utterly ridiculous. He was 29 freaking years old when he won his MVP, and you act like he was a spring chicken on his way to better or something.

Again, you are completely irrational about your team. Extreme homers of any team annoy me, and many.

In no universe can a case be made for Robinson being ranked ahead of Shaq.

SPURSFAN1
05-07-2014, 06:57 PM
hating? Robinson is a top 15 player ever, but to say in his youth he was better than prime Shaq is utterly ridiculous. He was 29 freaking years old when he won his MVP, and you act like he was a spring chicken on his way to better or something.

Again, you are completely irrational about your team. Extreme homers of any team annoy me, and many.

In no universe can a case be made for Robinson being ranked ahead of Shaq.

Let me let you down early since you keep derailing the thread and keep name calling. Wolves don't make the playoffs again next year or for the next 10 years. Good luck being a lottery team.

Hawkeye15
05-07-2014, 06:58 PM
Let me let you down early since you keep derailing the thread and keep name calling. Wolves don't make the playoffs again next year or for the next 10 years. Good luck being a lottery team.

haha, who is derailing?

Again, you made an idiotic claim, that you have no way of backing up.

SPURSFAN1
05-07-2014, 06:59 PM
haha, who is derailing?

Again, you made an idiotic claim, that you have no way of backing up.

Please stop. You're embarrassing yourself.

Method28
05-07-2014, 07:00 PM
hating? Robinson is a top 15 player ever, but to say in his youth he was better than prime Shaq is utterly ridiculous. He was 29 freaking years old when he won his MVP, and you act like he was a spring chicken on his way to better or something.

Again, you are completely irrational about your team. Extreme homers of any team annoy me, and many.

In no universe can a case be made for Robinson being ranked ahead of Shaq.

Let me let you down early since you keep derailing the thread and keep name calling. Wolves don't make the playoffs again next year or for the next 10 years. Good luck being a lottery team.

Can we vote this guy off like Sterling?

SPURSFAN1
05-07-2014, 07:02 PM
:clap:

valade16
05-07-2014, 07:13 PM
Stop lying

The quote you posted says you can't use stats for everything, there is nothing in that quote that mentions or says rings; so assuming it is about rings alone is inference on your part.

Where is the other quote?

IKnowHoops
05-07-2014, 07:24 PM
Because Tim Duncan has such a long career, I'm going to give my projection. In 97 when Tim is what 27 years old. David is 24. They still get Toney Parker, Manu Ginobli, and Pop is coaching. They go on the most dominant 8 year run in history and win 8 titles in a row barring no injuries. Admiral would have 6 of those MVP's while Tim would have maybe the first 2.

I'm probably off on the ages a lil but you get my drift. The fact that David came off injuries and deteriorated so badly once Tim got there is the reason they only won so few. But switching the roles assuming Tim keeps his epic longevity. They are really able to be together and dominant for like 10 years. Noone is messing with those two. Jordans Bulls would of gotten the biz in my opinion.

Hows that for homerism. I'm dead serious though. Nobody is messing with a prime Duncan and young David. David came into the league averaging like 24 and 12 and almost 4 blocks. Playing with a Prime Duncan at that point would of been murderous and more dominant than any version of Drob and Duncan that won a ring. Way tougher. And then Assume David is learning from Tim instead of Tim learning from David.

Greatest team of all-time period. Booooooooom!

SPURSFAN1
05-07-2014, 07:28 PM
Because Tim Duncan has such a long career, I'm going to give my projection. In 97 when Tim is what 27 years old. David is 24. They still get Toney Parker, Manu Ginobli, and Pop is coaching. They go on the most dominant 8 year run in history and win 8 titles in a row barring no injuries. Admiral would have 6 of those MVP's while Tim would have maybe the first 2.

I'm probably off on the ages a lil but you get my drift. The fact that David came off injuries and deteriorated so badly once Tim got there is the reason they only won so few. But switching the roles assuming Tim keeps his epic longevity. They are really able to be together and dominant for like 10 years. Noone is messing with those two. Jordans Bulls would of gotten the biz in my opinion.

Hows that for homerism. I'm dead serious though. Nobody is messing with a prime Duncan and young David. David came into the league averaging like 24 and 12 and almost 4 blocks. Playing with a Prime Duncan at that point would of been murderous and more dominant than any version of Drob and Duncan that won a ring. Way tougher. And then Assume David is learning from Tim instead of Tim learning from David.

Greatest team of all-time period. Booooooooom!

I love you. hahahhaahaa But in seriousness, I agree wholeheartedly.

IKnowHoops
05-07-2014, 07:32 PM
Because Tim Duncan has such a long career, I'm going to give my projection. In 97 when Tim is what 27 years old. David is 24. They still get Toney Parker, Manu Ginobli, and Pop is coaching. They go on the most dominant 8 year run in history and win 8 titles in a row barring no injuries. Admiral would have 6 of those MVP's while Tim would have maybe the first 2.

I'm probably off on the ages a lil but you get my drift. The fact that David came off injuries and deteriorated so badly once Tim got there is the reason they only won so few. But switching the roles assuming Tim keeps his epic longevity. They are really able to be together and dominant for like 10 years. Noone is messing with those two. Jordans Bulls would of gotten the biz in my opinion.

Hows that for homerism. I'm dead serious though. Nobody is messing with a prime Duncan and young David. David came into the league averaging like 24 and 12 and almost 4 blocks. Playing with a Prime Duncan at that point would of been murderous and more dominant than any version of Drob and Duncan that won a ring. Way tougher. And then Assume David is learning from Tim instead of Tim learning from David.

Greatest team of all-time period. Booooooooom!

David goes down in history as the GOAT. Not because his stats say so, because they almost already do, but because now he has the hardware which people cherish so much.

Something like 8 Rings/6 MVPs/6 Finals MVPs and Done. He and his stats would of just come around at the perfect time to garnish such accolades.

Chronz
05-07-2014, 07:40 PM
Crazy what if huh

IKnowHoops
05-07-2014, 07:40 PM
Now I am not going to say he is better than Shaq, because Shaq was just so unstoppable, statistically, his best year is better than Shaq's best year. And I have put my all-time starting 5 down many times....

PG Lebron
SG Mike
SF Durant
PF DRob
C Shaq

....And as you can see, I have Drob on there, and I value him super high. Shaq to me is the only one of his kind. Where David I feel is on the Wilt/Dream level. So one Shaq ever, but maybe 3 Davids ever. But I like David better than the other two for me, but I would still put them all on a similar level.

Hawkeye15
05-07-2014, 08:33 PM
Now I am not going to say he is better than Shaq, because Shaq was just so unstoppable, statistically, his best year is better than Shaq's best year. And I have put my all-time starting 5 down many times....

PG Lebron
SG Mike
SF Durant
PF DRob
C Shaq

....And as you can see, I have Drob on there, and I value him super high. Shaq to me is the only one of his kind. Where David I feel is on the Wilt/Dream level. So one Shaq ever, but maybe 3 Davids ever. But I like David better than the other two for me, but I would still put them all on a similar level.

DRob was incredible, but Shaq/Dream were simply better when they had to be. That is what creates the distance between them and DRob for me.

What year do you think his stats bettered Shaq's peak?

I mean, right off the bat, we know DRob is the only one of the three that was not a #1 option on a chip team.

IKnowHoops
05-07-2014, 11:57 PM
DRob was incredible, but Shaq/Dream were simply better when they had to be. That is what creates the distance between them and DRob for me.

What year do you think his stats bettered Shaq's peak?

I mean, right off the bat, we know DRob is the only one of the three that was not a #1 option on a chip team.

93-94 higher PER and Winshare48 than Shaq ever had in any year

IKnowHoops
05-07-2014, 11:59 PM
DRob was incredible, but Shaq/Dream were simply better when they had to be. That is what creates the distance between them and DRob for me.

What year do you think his stats bettered Shaq's peak?

I mean, right off the bat, we know DRob is the only one of the three that was not a #1 option on a chip team.

All about circumstances to me. Under the circumstances of this thread, that would totally not be the case.

Hawkeye15
05-08-2014, 12:01 AM
All about circumstances to me. Under the circumstances of this thread, that would totally not be the case.

sure, but it matters at the end of the day when ranking all timers. It just does.

Statistically, Shaq was also better in the playoffs during some of his runs.

Look, DRob is a top 15 player all time to me, but he doesn't make the cut when it comes to Dream/Shaq or a couple other centers. Nor his own teammate, Duncan.

IKnowHoops
05-08-2014, 12:02 AM
Remember Pop didn't even start coaching till Tim got drafted, so David never had the luxury of having the best coach in the world. Larry Brown coached him for one year but the team had very low talent in which Terry cummings was the second best player, and not much else after that.

IKnowHoops
05-08-2014, 12:05 AM
sure, but it matters at the end of the day when ranking all timers. It just does.

Statistically, Shaq was also better in the playoffs during some of his runs.

Look, DRob is a top 15 player all time to me, but he doesn't make the cut when it comes to Dream/Shaq or a couple other centers. Nor his own teammate, Duncan.

Well Tim had better coaching and better players around him to take the pressure off of him. Plus Davids stats kill Tims stats so that holds a lot of weight with me especially considering the sample size.

FlashBolt
05-08-2014, 12:06 AM
All about circumstances to me. Under the circumstances of this thread, that would totally not be the case.

With all due respect, win shares and PER alone doesn't make you the best player.

Hawkeye15
05-08-2014, 12:14 AM
Well Tim had better coaching and better players around him to take the pressure off of him. Plus Davids stats kill Tims stats so that holds a lot of weight with me especially considering the sample size.

If you want to measure players on paper, that is one thing. But to not take into account context on how their playoffs, or even regular season dynamics worked, that is another.

Statistically speaking, Barkley is a top 6-8 player ever. But in reality, he is a top 15 player by most peoples standards.

Pierzynski4Prez
05-08-2014, 12:16 AM
If you want to measure players on paper, that is one thing. But to not take into account context on how their playoffs, or even regular season dynamics worked, that is another.

Statistically speaking, Barkley is a top 6-8 player ever. But in reality, he is a top 15 player by most peoples standards.

Karl Malone too, but most years he took a **** in the playoffs. Still had good numbers, just below his season averages along with much poorer shooting.

Hawkeye15
05-08-2014, 12:22 AM
Karl Malone too, but most years he took a **** in the playoffs. Still had good numbers, just below his season averages along with much poorer shooting.

replica of KG honestly. Its why I have both Duncan, and Barkley above KG/Malone in the PF argument. KG and Malone simply didn't sustain their regular season play when the games got important.

FlashBolt
05-08-2014, 12:52 AM
replica of KG honestly. Its why I have both Duncan, and Barkley above KG/Malone in the PF argument. KG and Malone simply didn't sustain their regular season play when the games got important.

Why not have Dirk over Barkley? He also stepped his game up.

Shlumpledink
05-08-2014, 01:11 AM
Duncan would not have as great of career numbers, or success, until later on when Duncan was the older guy and Robinson was the young'n. Duncan's decline is much better than Robinson's, but you can argue that Robinson went through a lot of battles with some really epic bigmen.

Would Duncan be guarding Hakeem? If not, then whom? Hakeem would put Duncan to shame, I'm afraid, and he would have trouble on a lot of the other bigmen.

But old Duncan and young Robinson as his center? That is probably the best frontcourt that would have ever been assembled.

David Robinson with Tony Parker and Manu Ginobilli, and other great role players would make the Spurs a very dynamic team on their own.

Hawkeye15
05-08-2014, 01:32 AM
Why not have Dirk over Barkley? He also stepped his game up.

Barkley's numbers are just stupid is why

scissors
05-08-2014, 01:56 AM
People might be overrating Duncan's slow decline in comparison to Robinson. Here is an age by age comparison accounting for the 4 year difference based on season by season comparison:

Duncan's rookie year Robinson was 32. So we will start with Robinson at 32 and Duncan at 28

Robinson 32yr - 27.8 PER, 21/10, 2.8 blk in 33mpg **led league in WS/48 and Drat**
Duncan 28yr - 27.0 PER, 20/11 2.6 blk in 33mpg **led league in Drat**
-------------------------------------------
Robinson 33yr - 24.9 PER, 15/10, 2.2 blk in 31mpg **led league in WS/48 and Drat**
Duncan 29yr - 23.1 PER, 18/11, 2.0 blk in 35mpg **led league in Drat and DWS**
--------------------------------------------
Robinson 34yr - 24.6 PER, 17/9, 2.3 blk in 32mpg **led league in Drat**
Duncan 30yr - 26.1 PER, 20/10, 2.4 blk in 34mpg **led league in Drat and DWS**
--------------------------------------------
Robinson 35yr - 23.7 PER, 14/8, 2.5 blk in 29mpg **led league in WS/48**
Duncan 31yr - 24.4 PER, 19/11, 1.9 blk in 34mpg
-----------------------------------------------
Robinson 36yr - 20.3 PER, 12/8, 1.8 blk in 29mpg
Duncan 32yr - 24.4 PER, 19/10, 1.7 blk in 33mpg

I think the real advantage isn't the "slower" decline by Duncan. Its more the fact that young Robinson was so much more killer than young Duncan - and that's without a veteran superstar big giving the league hell right next to him like Duncan had in Robinson. So I think Robinson probably wins between 6-9 rings in the scenario described.

FlashBolt
05-08-2014, 02:11 AM
Barkley's numbers are just stupid is why

True. Can say the same for Dirk, though I agree that Barkley was an absolute machine.


People might be overrating Duncan's slow decline in comparison to Robinson. Here is an age by age comparison accounting for the 4 year difference based on season by season comparison:

Duncan's rookie year Robinson was 32. So we will start with Robinson at 32 and Duncan at 28

Robinson 32yr - 27.8 PER, 21/10, 2.8 blk in 33mpg **led league in WS/48 and Drat**
Duncan 28yr - 27.0 PER, 20/11 2.6 blk in 33mpg **led league in Drat**
-------------------------------------------
Robinson 33yr - 24.9 PER, 15/10, 2.2 blk in 31mpg **led league in WS/48 and Drat**
Duncan 29yr - 23.1 PER, 18/11, 2.0 blk in 35mpg **led league in Drat and DWS**
--------------------------------------------
Robinson 34yr - 24.6 PER, 17/9, 2.3 blk in 32mpg **led league in Drat**
Duncan 30yr - 26.1 PER, 20/10, 2.4 blk in 34mpg **led league in Drat and DWS**
--------------------------------------------
Robinson 35yr - 23.7 PER, 14/8, 2.5 blk in 29mpg **led league in WS/48**
Duncan 31yr - 24.4 PER, 19/11, 1.9 blk in 34mpg
-----------------------------------------------
Robinson 36yr - 20.3 PER, 12/8, 1.8 blk in 29mpg
Duncan 32yr - 24.4 PER, 19/10, 1.7 blk in 33mpg

I think the real advantage isn't the "slower" decline by Duncan. Its more the fact that young Robinson was so much more killer than young Duncan - and that's without a veteran superstar big giving the league hell right next to him like Duncan had in Robinson. So I think Robinson probably wins between 6-9 rings in the scenario described.

I don't think the league today would fit Robinson's style as much as it did when he played. Centers were the go-to guy during his day but now, it's all about the PG position. With that being said, people forget that Tim Duncan is a much better playoff performer than Robinson. Just look at the numbers. Tim Duncan is one of a handful players who turn super saiyan in the playoffs.

arlubas
05-08-2014, 06:15 AM
Young robinson was better than prime shaq. Young robinson >>2003 shaq.
I could debate this with actual stats and facts but seeing how you continued replying to Hawkeye I think I'll just leave this here and get it over with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztvmf228wvQ

SPURSFAN1
05-08-2014, 06:42 AM
I could debate this with actual stats and facts but seeing how you continued replying to Hawkeye I think I'll just leave this here and get it over with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztvmf228wvQ

:laugh:

IKnowHoops
05-08-2014, 06:57 AM
Chill everyone, this is a hypothetical. I think Robinson would benefit greatly being coached by Pop during his whole career and prime years and playing along side Duncan. As good as David was, he would of been even better in this scenario and he would of had a lot more success than he did. I really don't think thats debatable.

bagwell368
05-08-2014, 07:49 AM
replica of KG honestly. Its why I have both Duncan, and Barkley above KG/Malone in the PF argument. KG and Malone simply didn't sustain their regular season play when the games got important.

When KG played on a team with some options that wasn't true. For the other times for both they faced much more D than the average top player on a deep team. That has to be factored in - and it seems not to be way too often around here.

arlubas
05-08-2014, 07:53 AM
Chill everyone, this is a hypothetical. I think Robinson would benefit greatly being coached by Pop during his whole career and prime years and playing along side Duncan. As good as David was, he would of been even better in this scenario and he would of had a lot more success than he did. I really don't think thats debatable.
I saw someone else mention this before too about D-Rob becoming a better player with Pop coaching him from day 1. While that may be true you can't just overlook the fact that this would also mean that Duncan would go through the same coaching in his early seasons that Robinson went through, which consequently means he might not have been as good of a player as he eventually did with Pop as his coach from the get go.

Again I'm not saying this is de facto but you can't talk about the one (D-Rob being better) without the other (Timmy experiencing mediocre coaching for a few seasons).

JasonJohnHorn
05-08-2014, 08:38 AM
Robinson was FAWKING AMAZING! I'm not sure Duncan would have been able to win with those rosters/coaches.

Maybe in 90 or 91 under Brown, but the best roster was like 95 or 96, but with Hill as the coach, I'm not sure they would have been able to pull it together.

Chronz
05-08-2014, 10:18 AM
When KG played on a team with some options that wasn't true. For the other times for both they faced much more D than the average top player on a deep team. That has to be factored in - and it seems not to be way too often around here.

Duncan/Chuck didn't need that same excuse, when going up against far superior clubs, they still destroyed them. KG faltered despite the easiest of circumstances, even in his run to the Chip, his performance declined with every advancing round. Dude didn't handle the pressure as well IMO, much like D-Rob, his game wasn't as transferable against the great teams in the playoffs. He needed more help to be able to perform up to sniff than guys like Duncan/Chuck.

PurpleLynch
05-08-2014, 01:48 PM
I could debate this with actual stats and facts but seeing how you continued replying to Hawkeye I think I'll just leave this here and get it over with.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ztvmf228wvQ

:D,that was nasty!
Anyway I agree,I can't put Robinson over Shaq:I think that generally speaking the Admiral was a better defender than Shaq,while Shaq had the best offense.But Shaq was more dominant in the playoffs,that's just a fact,if you want to bring stats,just look at playoffs stats of both:
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/o/onealsh01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/players/r/robinda01.html
Shaq wins.

todu82
05-08-2014, 01:53 PM
More than 1 title.

Hawkeye15
05-08-2014, 03:34 PM
edit

Hawkeye15
05-08-2014, 03:37 PM
When KG played on a team with some options that wasn't true. For the other times for both they faced much more D than the average top player on a deep team. That has to be factored in - and it seems not to be way too often around here.

yeah but Duncan and Barkley didn't need those circumstances to dominate in the playoffs. Hell Dirk beat KG up forever until he was shipped out east. And even in Boston, it wasn't like KG was a dominate playoff force.

There is no way, under any circumstance, someone can say KG stepped up his game come playoff time. In fact, it regressed. We are not talking fall off a cliff, Joe Johnson type stuff, but when you are ranking top 20-25 players ever, that stuff starts to factor in.

jerellh528
05-09-2014, 05:02 AM
Peak Robinson might've been a tad better than peak Duncan, but Duncan's consistency is key

IKnowHoops
05-09-2014, 07:18 AM
David missed out on at least 5-6 really good years due to Navy and injuries. The injuries slowed him down later i his career. Without those injuries and the Navy his already unbelievable statistics look even better.

EastCoastRaptor
05-09-2014, 08:20 AM
Haha to Spursfan1 or whatever your name is look in the mirror you are embarrassing yourself. You are using a MVP win to back up your claim lol. AS someone who actually watched Shaq and D-Rob's careers it isn't very hard to see that Shaq was better in his prime. Again D-Rob was was a class act, one of my fav players back then, and a all time great but Shaq my have had the was dominating prime EVER.

flea
05-09-2014, 08:36 AM
Duncan would probably win as much in any era. His teams are always right there because of how consistent and flawless his game is. Playoffs expose guys who have weaknesses, and almost every player does. But Duncan doesn't. Even a lot of the greats need a good situation.

MJ needed Pippen, Alcindor needed Magic/Robertson, Shaq needed Wade/Kobe, and all those players needed teams that catered to them and how they played. Duncan won in a twin towers look, a more traditional post-oriented offense, and in small-ball era. Put Shaq next to another dominant big and I doubt they win it all.

NoahH
05-09-2014, 10:51 AM
Duncan would have been in his 9th season when D Rob was drafted which means he had 4 more 'peak' years and then another 6 or so years at his current clip (assuming he'll play for a few more years) which means him and D Rob would have had 10 full years together instead of just 6. I think they would have won at least 5 or 6 rings from 98-2008 (at which point Duncan would have retired at the age of 40)

SHoot i misread the question. How man does Duncan win without D Rob. Im thinking ZERO. From 89-98 the competition was too stiff (Bulls / Rockets). It wasn't D Rob's fault back in the day.