If you had to chose one David Robinson or Tim Duncan

[BlackVVaves]

I love all this "Robinson was a better [blah blah] TALENT."

Yeah great. Duncan went in and won championships. Duncan went in and won championships and I don't think ever once had an all-star level player on his team. And he did this in the 00s Western Conference, which was famously stacked. There were years when 50-win teams would be an 8 seed in the West and he got 5 titles. He had good supporting cast and the best coach ever. Perhaps if he'd had a mediocre coach and uncooperative teammates, or a Tmac-in-Orlando situation, he never would have developed into the solidest and maturest player in the modern era. But he did.

Using facts is always more preferable than just making things up. Makes you look either stupid, or ignorant.

[DatAsh]

I wouldn't say he was a better defender. I'd say, in terms of impact as the achor of the Spurs' team defense, Duncan and Robinson were equal. Robinson was a more prolific shot blocker, but Duncan was a tremendous help and team defender. He just always knew where to be and when, and when his body was still healthy, he'd seem to occupy the entire interior everywhere at once.

To me, Robinson has a clear edge on he defensive end, but it's certainly close. The reason I'd take Duncan over Robinson has more to do with the fact that Duncan's offensive game translated better into playoff basketball. Robinson was very athletic and relied on a lot of transitional opportunities to get his buckets. Those opportunities are harder to come by in the playoffs, and it's a big reason why Duncan was the better playoff performer in my opinion.

[wang4three]

David Robinson was a scoring champion, once scored 71 points in a game, and somehow people are thinking Duncan was a more versatile and complete offensively? How does that work?

Tim Duncan has about 5 post moves. And that's being generous cause he goes to about 3 of them 90% of the time. Granted they're effective as hell and nearly unstoppable, but let's not make it seem like he has this gigantic library of offensive skills. He can make a bank shot and an elbow jumper every now and then.

I've seen David do things that Tim can only dream of. Both offensively and defensively. I've seen David a lot of time go up to block a shot then block the 2nd attempt on the way down. I've seen more face up moves and just as many post moves. He had a more solid jump shot too in my opinion. Tim is a better leader? David was Navy trained and one of the most respected members of the NBA All-time. What leadership qualities did Tim have that David didn't? Tim seemed socially awkward and shy to be infront of people. This may have not affected his leadership to his teammates, but I don't get the impression that what he was doing was any better than David. They're both gracious and push away individual accolades in favor of team success.

Maybe Tim loved the game more than David. That I can believe and can concede. But I don't buy that Tim was better offensively, defensively, and a better leader. I don't buy it one bit.

[Anaximandro1]

Duncan was a superb technician with above-average athleticism and his BB IQ is off the charts ;Robinson was a phenomenal physical specimen and a great man and teammate.

I think Robinson was a better M2M defender.Duncan is a more dominant offensive player in half-court.

Duncan's era was crap for big men.

Shaq,KG,Dirk or Sheed are crap?

Imagine if he had to go against Ewing and Rodman and Hakeem all the time whenever he got far into the playoffs.

I don't have any imagination

He's still one of the greatest ever, but he should not be understood as "dominant." He's a rock, he's consistent, he beats you with his teammates like few ever have.

Consistency only wins regular season games (Spurs 2011 and 2012)

He's still one of the greatest ever, but he should not be understood as "dominant."

Individual dominance wins playoff games and championships.Of course you need to stay healthy (Duncan missed the 2000 playoffs) and help (Robinson,Elliot,Avery,Pop,Bowen,Horry,Manu,Parker ...).However those contributions would have been wasted without Duncan's postseason dominance.

He's a GREAT defensive player. But his "offensive dominance" wouldn't even have been noticed in the 90s.

Too bad we don't have a time machine.

H2H - Playoffs (Prime vs Prime)

Duncan vs Shaq (1999 - 2004)

1999 (Spurs 4 - Lakers 0)

Duncan 29.0 pt,10.8 rb,3.3 as,2.0 blk

Shaq 23.8 pt,13.0 rb,0.5 as,1.8 blk


2001 (Lakers 4 - Spurs 0)

Shaq 27.0 pt,13.0 rb,2.5 as,1.3 blk

Duncan 23.0 pt,12.3 rb,4.3 as,4.3 blk

2002 (Lakers 4 - Spurs 1)

Duncan 29.0 pt,17.2 rb,4.6 as,3.2 blk

Shaq 21.4 pt,12.2 rb,3.2 as,3.0 blk

2003 (Spurs 4 - Lakers 2)

Duncan 28.0 pt,11.8 rb,4.8 as,1.3 blk

Shaq 25.3 pt,14.3 rb,3.7 as,2.8 blk

2004 (Lakers 4 - Spurs 2)

Shaq 22.5 pt,14.5 rb,2.0 as,4.3 blk

Duncan 20.7 pt,12.2 rb,4.1 as,2.4 blk


Duncan 40 + pt --> 1 game

Duncan 30 + pt --> 7 times

Shaq 30 + pt --> 4 times

-------------------------------------


Duncan vs Dirk (2001 - 2006)

2001 (Spurs 4 - Mavs 1)

Duncan 27.0 pt,17.4 rb,3.6 as,2.0 blk

Dirk 23.0 pt,8.6 rb,1.2 as,0.8 blk


2003 (Spurs 2 - Mavs 1) - Dirk missed three games

Duncan 35.3 pt,18.0 rb,6.0 as,3.3 blk

Dirk 25.3 pt,11.3 rb,2.0 as,0.7 blk


2006 (Mavs 4 - Spurs 3)

Duncan 32.3 pt,11.7 rb,3.7 as,2.6 blk

Dirk 27.1 pt,13.3 rb,2.7 as,0.4 blk


Duncan 40 + pt --> 2 times

Duncan 30 + pt --> 8 times

Dirk 40 + pt --> 1 game

Dirk 30 + --> 4 times
-------------------------------------

Duncan vs KG (1999 - 2001)

1999 (Spurs 3 - Wolves 1)

KG 21.8 pt,12.0 rb,3.8 as,2.0 blk

Duncan 18.8 pt,10.8 rb,3.3 as,3.0 blk

2001 (Spurs 3 - Wolves 1)

Duncan 22.5 pt,13.0 rb,3.5 as,2.0 blk

KG 21.0 pt,12.0 rb,4.3 as,1.5 blk

Duncan 30 + pt --> 1 game

KG 30 + pt --> never

Dirk vs KG (2001)

2001 (Mavs 3 - Wolves 0)

Dirk 33.3 pt,15.7 pt,0.7 as,1.3 blk

KG 24.0 pt,18.7 rb,5.0 as,1.7 blk


Dirk 30 + pt --> 3 times

KG 30 + pt --> 1 game

Shaq vs KG (2003 - 2001)

2003 (Lakers 4 - Wolves 2)

Shaq 28.7 pt,15.3 pt,3.7 as,2.8 blk

KG 27.0 pt,14.2 rb,5.2 as,1.7 blk

2004 (Lakers 4 - Wolves 2)

KG 23.7 pt,13.5 rb,4.5 as,1.2 blk

Shaq 20.7 pt,15.7 pt,2.8 as,3.0 blk


KG 30 + pt --> 3 times

Shaq 30+pt --> 2 times

H2H-Average

Duncan (48 games)
Duncan 26.7 pt,13.4 rb,4.1 as,2.3 blk FG (50.2%)

Opponents 23.8 pt,12.6 rb,2.5 as,2.1 blk FG (50.6%)


Shaq (37 games)
Opponents 25.6 pt,12.6 rb,4.3 as,2.1 blk FG (48.6%)

Shaq 24.1 pt,14.1 rb,2.7 as,2.8 blk FG (53.6%)


KG (23 games)
Opponents 24.4 pt,14.4 rb,3.0 as,2.6 blk FG (50.9%)

KG 23.8 pt,13.8 rb,4.6 as,1.6 blk FG (47.1%)

Dirk (17 games)
Opponents 29.9 pt,15.5 rb,4.3 as,2.4 blk FG (53.3%)

Dirk 26.7 pt,12.1 rb,1.8 as,0.7 blk FG (48.7%)

40 or + pt --> Duncan 3,Opponents 1

30 or + pt --> Duncan 16,Opponents 8

[Crown&Coke]

I love me some Timmy

both prime would be a good question. But I take Timmy due to his versatility on defense. He could check a player on the perimeter, or bang with Shaq Diesel one on one. That is sick as hell

But Robinson is a top 50 player in his own right. A very good player, but I take Duncan.

Pop put Duncan on Mark Jackson in one of his early years, when Mark Jackson would take pg's down on the block and terrorize the Spurs from the post. Even Mark Jackson was surprised when Duncan called out "I got Jackson," he was looking around to find another Jackson on the court

[Poetry]

Duncan has the team accolades, but Robinson is the better individual talent.

[swi7ch]

Timmay.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Duncan, and I don't have to think twice. Defense is pretty negligible, we're talking about 2 of the absolute best. Robinson was still a comparable defender to Duncan as late as 2001 in his defense.

But I'm taking Duncan because of how much more I like his skill set, especially for the playoffs, which goes hand in hand with Duncan's superior play in the bigger games.

I know both of their games well, I watched Duncan throughout his career and saw a lot of Robinson's.

Robinson's biggest flaw was that he did not have a real go to move or a reliable back to the basket game. He could rack up points in the regular season because he ran the floor better than any 7 footer I've seen, an ideal target for lob passes and he could face up and drive past most big men. When he added a reliable mid-range jumper, it really made him tough facing up, which is why he could get to the line at will. He was also a very good passer from the high post, the Spurs ran much of their offense through him there, particularly in '94. And be became a pretty nice passer from the low post.

So all these skills allowed him to rack up points in the regular season and get to the line at will, and still score in the postseason. But defenses got better in the playoffs, he drove less aggressively, there were less opportunities to run the floor for easy baskets and he didn't have much a back to the basket game to fall back on.

Duncan on the other hand had a very good back to the basket game and he was also a real threat when he faced up in his prime. I'd say he was mid-range shot was better than Robinson, even though he wasn't as quick or athletic(but not lacking in that area either contrary to some of the revisionist history on this board).

Duncan stepped up and was often more aggressive in the playoffs, the polar opposite of Robinson and that is huge, imo.

Granted, there's a difference between having your best years with Gregg Popovich as your coach(one of the 2 best in my time watching the NBA along with Phil Jackson, imo) and a clown like John Lucas who was a set of pom poms away from being a cheerleader.

But I have to go with Duncan. Robinson was a remarkable talent, and I'd have to say he was regularly a top 5 player from his second season on, top 2 in '94 and top 3 in '95 and '96. So this isn't to say Robinson wasn't elite. But there's no way I'm taking Robinson over Duncan to lead my team to a championship, and that makes it impossible for me to call Robinson the better player.

Robinson was much better regular season player, Duncan was slightly better in the Playoffs. However considering David was a better defender, its a draw in the Playoffs, and a clear edge for DRob in the RS.

Duncan wasn't "slightly" better in the playoffs, he was clearly better. And Robinson wasn't much better in the regular season either.

Majority is picking Duncan simply because of the perception of winning, ignoring different circumstances. Swap them, and the same majority would see them in a completely reversed light. Duncan wouldnt had won anything in the Golden age (no rings, no MVPs, no DPOYs), Robinson would had dominated current era much more than Duncan did (DRob would be a perennial MVP, DPOY, and as many rings as Duncan if not more).

It's not even about championships.

Robinson regularly lost with home court advantage.

1991- 55 win Spurs lost in the 1st round to a 47 win Warrior team
1994- 55 win Spurs lost in the 1st round to a 53 win Jazz team (Robinson was shut down, often by Karl Malone and embarrassed)
1995- 62 win Spurs lost to 47 win Rockets in WCF (Records are deceptive, that Rocket team beat other teams that won 60, 59 and 57 games so I'll add that, but Hakeem torched Robinson and really embarrassed him)
1996- 59 win Spurs lost to 55 win Jazz in semifinals (A repeat of '94 vs Utah as Robinson's performance was embarrassing again)

I don't need rings to compare them in the playoffs. Duncan's performances were consistently better. He was in a better situation to win titles, but

[code green]

This has been an argument my friend and I have had with each other literally for years. He's more of a general sports fan to be honest, and is convinced it's David Robinson. I, of course take Tim Duncan. I just don't see how Robinson wins this. He was a bigger defensive presence, yeah, but that's about it.

To give a little perspective on how bad about it was, this year is our 5th annual fantasy football league with pretty much all the same people. I guess this disagreement must have started around the time we started, because the name of the league he created has named "Tim Ducan is a bitch" from the get-go. I always bring up how bullshit it is each year at the draft, so this year he got a custom made professional draft board with the name printed in huge letters across the top. I wonder what the guy whose job it was to print it thought of it.

[bizil]

In my opinion, u could actually go either way. But for me I would go Duncan because he was the most dominant and skilled PF on the block besides McHale of all time. And Timmy also had the midrange faceup game andwas a skilled dribbler for a big man. Timmy athleticism when he was younger was also underrated. He wasn't a freak athlete like Dave, but in my book still very athletic. They are evenly matched in other areas in terms of boards, defense, and passing (even though Dave's assist numbers are better across the board). Scoring wise, Dave put his foot on the gas more throughout the duration of the game.

Timmy on the other hand played more in the flow. But when it was time to takeover or when he DAMN WELL felt like it, I feel Timmy turned into a killer in a heartbeat. So for me the clutch factor and back to the basket game inclines my to go with Timmy. But Big Dave redefined the center position and in the all around sense I think Walton, Dave, and Hakeem are the best centers ever. If somebody picked Dave over Tim, I wouldn't complain to loudly.

[Clifton]

sing facts is always more preferable than just making things up. Makes you look either stupid, or ignorant.

Well, I've checked the rosters, and what you usually have is Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili as the top 3 scorers, and then a bunch of defensive-minded role players and guys who can hit open 3s. Parker had ONE 22/7 year (which are stats that the likes of Mike James have achieved) but for the most part Parker scored between 16 and 18 a year, and Ginobili between 14 and 18. If you go back to 2003, then you start to see other names above the big 3. Stephen Jackson gave Duncan 12 a game in 03; Steve Smith the same in 02, and then to pre-Parker times: in 2001, Derek Anderson gave him 15/4/4 and David Robinson 14/9. In 99 and 00, Robinson gave him 16/10 and 18/10 respectively.

Now when I say "all-star level player," I don't mean a guy who is a good player on a very good team and made the all-star game. I mean a guy who is all-star level, period, who an all-star game without him would be a mistake. I'm talking about prime Paul Pierce. In today's league, I'm talking about the likes of Westbrook, Deron Williams, Dirk. I don't mean Lebron and Durant; I don't even mean Paul and Dwight and Kobe. I mean the level below that. I submit that Duncan never once in his career had someone on that level. Never had a Russ Westbrook. He had guys on the level below that all throughout... but guys like that are not rare. Manu was better than Parker and better than his numbers... but even he was not there. He was a Joe Johnson not a Paul Pierce, and yes there is a big difference. These players get credit because they played well in a great system with a great player and a great coach. But anyone could've done it. And I think that's credit that should be given more to Duncan than to Parker, Ginobili, and Old David Robinson.

[bizil]

Well, I've checked the rosters, and what you usually have is Duncan, Parker, and Ginobili as the top 3 scorers, and then a bunch of defensive-minded role players and guys who can hit open 3s. Parker had ONE 22/7 year (which are stats that the likes of Mike James have achieved) but for the most part Parker scored between 16 and 18 a year, and Ginobili between 14 and 18. If you go back to 2003, then you start to see other names above the big 3. Stephen Jackson gave Duncan 12 a game in 03; Steve Smith the same in 02, and then to pre-Parker times: in 2001, Derek Anderson gave him 15/4/4 and David Robinson 14/9. In 99 and 00, Robinson gave him 16/10 and 18/10 respectively.

Now when I say "all-star level player," I don't mean a guy who is a good player on a very good team and made the all-star game. I mean a guy who is all-star level, period, who an all-star game without him would be a mistake. I'm talking about prime Paul Pierce. In today's league, I'm talking about the likes of Westbrook, Deron Williams, Dirk. I don't mean Lebron and Durant; I don't even mean Paul and Dwight and Kobe. I mean the level below that. I submit that Duncan never once in his career had someone on that level. Never had a Russ Westbrook. He had guys on the level below that all throughout... but guys like that are not rare. Manu was better than Parker and better than his numbers... but even he was not there. He was a Joe Johnson not a Paul Pierce, and yes there is a big difference. These players get credit because they played well in a great system with a great player and a great coach. But anyone could've done it. And I think that's credit that should be given more to Duncan than to Parker, Ginobili, and Old David Robinson.

I agree with u! Most of the dynasties in NBA history had MULTIPLE HOFers, not just All Stars. The Showtime Lakers had five HOFers in Magic, Worthy, Wilkes, Kareem, and McAdoo. All five were in their primes, even McAdoo in the tailend sense. Look at the Lakers with West, Wilt,and Gail. Knicks with Frazier, Reed, Monroe, Dave D. and Bradley. Even the Big Three Celtics with Allen, KG,and Pierce. Duncan never really played with these kind of casts. Now I actually wouldn't be surprised if Tony and Manu make the HOF. Because of team success. But if they were on other teams that NEVER won a ring, would they be in the HOF? Timmy would have been an HOFer if he NEVER won a ring!

When certain guys happen to win a ring, they can become overrated to a degree. I think that's the case with Manu and Tony. Manu is injury hobbled. While Tony is finally starting to grasp the concept of dropping dimes at the PG. And while a very good-great scorer at PG, he's not on that Westbrook-Rose level in terms of being a dominant scorer.

[bukowski81]

I really like David Robinson, but I take Duncan. Cant believe a lot of people see Robinson as the most talented, thats just not true, he was more athletic and a bit more flashy than Duncan, thats it.

And regarding Popovich, he is no doubt a great coach but IMO Duncan has more to do with his success than the other way around.

[JMT]

This isn't even debatable, why start a thread about a topic that is probably nearly unanimous in opinion OP?

Well, it does give him a chance to discuss a player he barely saw play. ISH can always use more of that.

[Clifton]

And regarding Popovich, he is no doubt a great coach but IMO Duncan has more to do with his success than the other way around.

It's tough to say. Can anyone give an account of either one of these guys without the other? When was Pop hired as Spurs coach? What did he do before that? How was Duncan at Wake Forest? I know he was damn good, but what *kind* of damn good was he perceived as?