How much is Tim Duncan better than David Robinson?

[Micku]

If you look at David Robinson regular season stats, it's almost silly to suggest that Tim Duncan is better. David Robinson was better at scoring, blocking shots, and he dealt with more competition in his position with Shaq, Hakeem, Ewing, Mutombo and other good centers of the 90s.

David Robinson not only lead the league in scoring at one point, but he also has a DPOY in his belt, beating out Hakeem, Pippen, Jordan, and Rodman. He is also on record of having 71 points in a single game.

Despite all of this, Tim Duncan is still better. But how much better is he? One of the difference between them is that David Robinson was more of a disappointment in the playoffs and his stats would take a drop while Tim Duncan would either stay consistent or get better. Duncan was better rebounder too.

But is Tim Duncan a better offensively player than David Robinson was in his prime? Was Duncan a better defensive player than the Admiral? Is he just consider better because of his playoff performances? Do Duncan just make his teammates better than David Robinson, but David Robinson was the better individual player?

[28renyoy]

Robinson was easily the better regular season player and a top 5 regular season player all time. But the guy just flat out choked in the playoffs.

[Harison]

Robinson in his prime was a better player than Duncan, and even though his game didnt translated that well to Playoffs, his "choking" is obviously exaggerated.

Its all about perception: Robinson's Playoffs numbers were usually a bit lower than regular season's, while Duncan's vice versa. And yet due to much better DRob Regular seasons numbers, even improved TD numbers just closed the gap, and wasnt really much better than Robinsons, plus we should remember DRob was a better defender.

Then we have timing of the eras. Place Robinson in current NBA, and he would tear league apart, place Duncan in the Golden age, and if anything, he would be remembered as a "choker" Or famous series vs Hakeem, Duncan would have lost just as well, nor he would have been MVP in the 1st place.

Then we have 'career numbers comparison', while forgetting Robinson played till 37, and had serious injury at 31. TD numbers after 3 years will naturally be lower. And even as it is now - at 34 Robinson in the Playoffs had 23.5/13.8/2.5, while Duncan with 12.7/10.5/2.7 was killed by 8th place as 1st seed.

[Pushxx]

It's not unreasonable to put DRob over Duncan, but Duncan was a better playoff performer and arguably contributed more to his team as a leader.

For me it's a clear edge to Duncan over his career. He just flat out accomplished more.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Duncan was a much better player with his back to the basket than Robinson, which is why I prefer him offensively and why his game translated better to the playoffs.

Robinson had a good mid-range jumper and was so quick that combined with his ability to hit the shot, he could almost always drive to the basket vs his man, making him a deadly face up big man. Except he did seem to play softer in the playoffs.

Aside from that, he ran the floor as well if not better than any big man I've seen and was about as good of a player for lob passes as you'll find. But less easy baskets like that are available in the playoffs when the game slows down and defenses tighten up.

Very good passer, though I'd say Duncan was better in this regard. Good rebounder, though I'd favor Duncan slightly in this area.

Defense is where David was every bit as good as advertised, but Duncan was also pretty much as good as it gets.

His playoff numbers are even less impressive when you factor in who the few big offensive series(statistically) came against.

1 was the 1990 Nuggets who defined the run and gun style.

27.7 ppg, 59.3 FG%, 63 TS% (pace in the series was 108.8)

The next series vs Portland he was down to 22.9 ppg on 50.4 FG%/55.8 TS%

Not bad, but not great and among the better series from his prime.

His playoff numbers also benefited from the run and gun early 90's West when he faced the Run TMC Warriors. When you see his numbers, you'll think he dominated.

25.8 ppg, 68.6 FG%, 76 TS%

But watch the series and not only will you see that he wasn't taking over those games, but you'll hear the commentators mention that his numbers seemed quiet. And then keep in mind that the Warriors were the 5th worst defensive team in the entire league and that Robinson's 55 win Spurs lost to the 44 win Warriors.

In fact, it was very normal for stars to put up huge numbers against the Warriors of this era. And this is one of the cases where the numbers look a lot better than the impact, as evidenced by him losing in 4 games to a team that won 11 fewer games.

The 3rd big playoff series offensively came against the '96 Suns when he averaged 30 ppg on 55.6 FG%/62 TS%, but similar to Golden State in '91, Phoenix was the 7th worst defensive team in the entire league(in a league with several expansion teams), and the worst in the entire playoffs. You'll see the drop vs Utah in that same playoffs.

And then there are these other series from Robinson's '90-'96 prime.

1993 1st round vs Portland- 19.3 ppg, 42.6 FG%, 48.7 TS%
1994 1st round vs Utah- 20 ppg, 41.1 FG%, 47.1 TS%
1995 1st round vs Denver- 19 ppg, 42.9 FG%, 49.3 TS%
1996 semifinals vs Utah- 19.3 ppg, 47.5 FG%, 52.6 TS%

Shows you that he was never as good of a scorer as his regular season numbers suggest. I also think that Duncan's numbers would receive a bit of a boost if he switches place with prime Robinson.

[magnax1]

Robinson in his prime was a better player than Duncan, and even though his game didnt translated that well to Playoffs, his "choking" is obviously exaggerated.

Its all about perception: Robinson's Playoffs numbers were usually a bit lower than regular season's, while Duncan's vice versa. And yet due to much better DRob Regular seasons numbers, even improved TD numbers just closed the gap, and wasnt really much better than Robinsons, plus we should remember DRob was a better defender.

Then we have timing of the eras. Place Robinson in current NBA, and he would tear league apart, place Duncan in the Golden age, and if anything, he would be remembered as a "choker" Or famous series vs Hakeem, Duncan would have lost just as well, nor he would have been MVP in the 1st place.

Then we have 'career numbers comparison', while forgetting Robinson played till 37, and had serious injury at 31. TD numbers after 3 years will naturally be lower. And even as it is now - at 34 Robinson in the Playoffs had 23.5/13.8/2.5, while Duncan with 12.7/10.5/2.7 was killed by 8th place as 1st seed.

Mostly agree with this. I think Duncan was a better defender, but it's true that Duncan basically closed the gap in the playoffs. The gap between the two overall is pretty small.

[The_Yearning]

Then we have 'career numbers comparison', while forgetting Robinson played till 37, and had serious injury at 31. TD numbers after 3 years will naturally be lower. And even as it is now - at 34 Robinson in the Playoffs had 23.5/13.8/2.5, while Duncan with 12.7/10.5/2.7 was killed by 8th place as 1st seed.

Funny thing, at 34 he had Tim Duncan playing alongside him, drawing most if not all of the attention. Tim Duncan has been the undisputed man his whole career.

[Kblaze8855]

Im guessing the 23/14 is when they got beat(perhaps swept) by "Backcourt 2000" when Duncan went down before the playoffs.

[ShaqAttack3234]

Im guessing the 23/14 is when they got beat(perhaps swept) by "Backcourt 2000" when Duncan went down before the playoffs.

They won 1 game, though Kidd himself didn't return until the final game, iirc due to broken foot or broken ankle.

[Big#50]

Duncan had that extra gear few players have.
MJ
Shaq
Hakeem
TIM
Robinson had all the talent in the world but he was a softie. DROB would rather read you his favorite bible story than bang with you in the post.

[PTB Fan]

Tim Duncan was better than David Robinson IMO. Consistency, rebounding, defense, post offense, accomplishments, clutch, leadership all favor Timmy to be ranked ahead the Admiral.

[Shepseskaf]

DRob was more physically gifted than Duncan. In truth, he had more physical tools than 99% of the league, but Duncan was a better player.

I never got the feeling that Robinson really loved the game, like, say, Patrick Ewing did. He basically played because he was 7' and unbelievably quick. If Robinson was 6', I'm guessing that he would have become an engineer, whereas some -- like Ewing -- would probably have been playing ball despite lack of size.

[Rake2204]

Mostly agree with this. I think Duncan was a better defender, but it's true that Duncan basically closed the gap in the playoffs. The gap between the two overall is pretty small.

I disagree. I believe David Robinson is the better defender.

I thought they were both great though. And to have David Robinson willingly allow Tim Duncan to slowly take over the spotlight in San Antonio was one of the coolest things ever. I think some of the criticisms Robinson tends to receive in terms of his mindset and/or softness is actually what allowed his team to ultimately succeed. A clash between aging superstar and new guy would have led San Antonio right where they'd been the previous ten years. Instead, David accepted and flourished in any role required.

[Dragonyeuw]

David Robinson's legacy mainly suffered from one thing: the 95 playoff series against the Rockets and Hakeem. I have a feeling if you take that series away, he'd be far more respected than he is.

[Kblaze8855]

They won 1 game, though Kidd himself didn't return until the final game, iirc due to broken foot or broken ankle.

Last time Penny looked like Penny.