Who's the greater Spur, Parker or Robinson?

[Dragonyeuw]

Duncan is the greatest player at this position...ever. Robinson is not.

Robinson: 2 rings, no FMVPs, 10x all-star, 1x MVP, RotY, DPotY, 4x first team, 4x defense first team
Duncan: 5 rings, 3x FMVP, 14x all-star, 2x MVP, RotY, 10x first team, 8x defense first team

Duncan's major advantage are his rings, but in terms of individual accolades it's not an apples to apples comparison. For one, there's only one spot for centers on the all-NBA /defensive first team whereas there are two forward spots, which literally doubles Duncan's chances at getting picked. Robinson was battling some all-time great centers in the 90's for a single position on the all-NBA team, same for the defensive first team, battling players like Mutombo, Hakeem, and Morning, all all-time great defensive centers, for that honor through the 90's. Hell, Dwight Howard has the same number of all NBA/defensive teams. Would that suggest that he's an equal player to Robinson? Only if one chooses to ignore the context that Howard has considerably less competition in his era among centers.

Duncan has the superior game down low, otherwise as an overall player I don't believe he holds any significant advantages over Robinson as a player. The Admiral was a more prolific scorer and shotblocker, and comparable rebounder.

[ThePhantomCreep]

No way is Robinson the greatest Spur. He shit the bed too many times in the playoffs and lacked longevity--7 elite seasons and one great one (1998). His peak production was arguably higher than Duncan's though.

1992: 26/13/3/3/5(blocks!!)
1995: 28/11/3/1/3

Parker is several tiers below Robinson. The 1995 WCFs pretty much erased what a beast this guy was in his prime.

[rmt]

I fail to see why some people see only the physical - ignoring the whole player - the intangibles, the mental, emotional, drive, competitiveness, etc. Yes, DRob was bigger, faster, stronger but basketball was not the be-all that it is for Duncan. DRob had a lot of interests, and God was most important to him. Duncan is much more single-minded (on basketball) and competitive. It amazes me that at this age, TD has re-dedicated himself to eating right, keeping the weight off the knee, still performing at a high level, etc. when he could have hung it up a long time ago.

As far as Parker vs DRob, it's DRob hands down.

[Aussie Dunker]

Robinson was a better player, and better Spur, than Parker and Gervin.

Gervin was a better player than Parker,

But Parker is a better Spur, than Gervin...

I know that logic is somewhat flawed - but it feels kind of right...

[ThePhantomCreep]

Robinson was a better player, and better Spur, than Parker and Gervin.

Gervin was a better player than Parker,

But Parker is a better Spur, than Gervin...

I know that logic is somewhat flawed - but it feels kind of right...

"Parker > Gervin" is like arguing "Worthy > Baylor"

Just no.

[Legends66NBA7]

"Parker > Gervin" is like arguing "Worthy > Baylor"

Just no.

Agreed.

Chip counting alone can't overcome Robinson and Gervin were much more productive players on the floor than Parker. Same with Baylor. Just because the Lakers lost all those times in the Finals doesn't mean Baylor wasn't going down without a fight. He was actually amazing in a lot of them, just didn't win.

[T_L_P]

I agree if we're talking about how much one player meant to the franchise as a whole, Robinson has a legitimate argument. But I'm still picking Duncan; if he doesn't get drafted the Spurs are just another team that never won a ring or never made a Finals, because: no Duncan = no Pop (would have been fired) = no RC (Pop made him a GM). And without Duncan, Pop and RC, the Spurs are not winning anything.

But as players and careers? It's clearly Duncan. Robinson was broken down after about 10 years, and even in his prime he wasn't a better player than Duncan (Duncan scored more points, grabbed more rebounds, and dished out more assists on better efficiency).

Robinson was a bit like KG. He thrived as the second guy (I'd argue that he was the best role player ever in 01). But, as I'm sure he'd admit at sometime, basketball wasn't everything to him. He had his religion, his family, his charity organisations. All that meant basketball was his profession, not his obsession.

My personal rankings go:

1. Duncan
2. Robinson
3. Gervin
4. Parker
5. Manu

EDIT: HM to a personal favourite Sean Elliott.

[miles berg]

Duncan
Robinson
Iceman
Parker
Manu

[D-FENS]

1. Duncan
2. Robinson
3. Gervin
4. Parker
5. Manu

[FPJ]

OP, many people with actual bball knowledge (who also know how to use advance stats) have Robinson in the top 10 OAT.

[L.Kizzle]

Robinson was a better player, and better Spur, than Parker and Gervin.

Gervin was a better player than Parker,

But Parker is a better Spur, than Gervin...

I know that logic is somewhat flawed - but it feels kind of right...

Is Sam Jones a better player than Larry Bird?

10 rings > 3 rings right?

[KOBE143]

1. Robinson
2. Gervin
3. Parker
4. Ginobili
5. Duncan

[T_L_P]

1. Robinson
2. Gervin
3. Parker
4. Ginobili
5. Duncan

Terrible troll.

[TheWINdyCity]

Terrible troll.

always has been

[bukowski81]

Parker was instrumental in four championships and won 1 Finals MVP. Robinson was instrumental in one championship and role player in another. Robinson is a better individual player, but Parker is a better Spur.

Robinson was the Spurs for a lot of time, he was the only reason the Spurs were on the map for most of the 90s, you cant say the same about Parker.

Robinson is a better player and a greater spur by quite a good margin.