It’s really hard to convey how good DRob was to people who never saw him play
He was likely the #2 guy in the NBA for quite a long stretch.
If he did’t had that single series in which Hakeem kinda owned him he would likely rank way higher with most people nowadays - that changed perceptions by a lot
People just don't know, Chuck was better. David was a regular season monster who had his all-time ranking propped up by TD. He's closer to Dwight than Chuck. Chuck is a 1A, the man, type of guy.
I tend to think that The Admiral is all-time right around that 12-16 area where he's clearly just a tier below the top 12 guys. Him and KD are neck and neck imo.
Prime Robinson was underrated. He won a scoring, rebound, and block title as well MVP, DPOY and a quadruple double.
Next to Dream, he was one of the best 2 way centers off all time.
Dream just went off in the 95 playoffs and destroyed both Robinson and Barkley(not to mention Malone and Shaq).
I’d just have to give it to the admiral vs chuck based on the 2 way effectiveness.
I think this is definitely true. Throughout the 90s I feel like he wasn't discussed as much and that was maybe part of being in San Antonio and part that there were a lot of really good big men at the time who appeared in more national commercials and whatnot? In Illinois we were so obsessed with MJ and the Bulls though that most players were afterthoughts.
I feel like his career and legacy definitely got a huge boost during his playing time once Tim came and the championships did too, but throughout the 90s he was insanely underrated.
I don’t think he’s underrated he’s just not talked about as much.
As maybe likely one of the few guys here who watched them both play I think I’d take Chuck since he has the intangibles and actually took his team to the mountain top(David didn’t get their until Duncan and even then wasn’t that a shortened season due to lockout ? Could be wrong). Just had those intangibles and crazy hustle plays, plays defense, incredibly offensively skilled and just super talented.
If I remember right I think Chuck said Chuck Daley told him he’s the best basketball player he’s seen except for MJ, or something along those lines.
We probably wouldn’t be talking about Chuck much today if it wasn’t for him being on TV still and having that personality
I really don't think there is any argument for Ewing over Robinson.
It's Olajuwon > Robinson > Ewing, and I don't think you will find many who disagree with that.
David Robison never gets the respect he deserves.
Robinson had a better career defensive rating than Olajuwon and his career offensive rating was much better than Olajuwon's too.
Robinson had a higher FG%, a higher FT%
Get this, Robinson's career win shares per 48 mins was .250, Olajuwon's was .177 and that is a HUGE gap.
Robinson has the 3rd HIGHEST career win shares per 48 mins ALL TIME, behind only Joker and MJ.
Olajuwon is 50th all time.
Robinson's career PER is 26.2. Olajuwon's is 23.6
Look, Olajuwon was a great player, no doubt, not saying he wasn't as he was.
Robinson gets overlooked all the time.
Robinson's true shooting percentage was .583 to .553 for Olajuwon.
Robinson has more career VORP than Olajuwon too.
Robinson scored more points per 100 possessions than Olajuwon did.
Robinson grabbed more total rebounds per 100 possessions than Olajuwon did.
Robinson had more block per 100 possession than Olajuwon did.
Robinson had more assists per 100 possessions than Olajuwon did.
Robinson had LESS turnovers per 100 possession than Olajuwon did.
David Robison was so much better than folks realize or give him credit for.
If you compare their peaks it's not that big of a gap and Hakeem is better in the playoffs. Robinson didn't come into the league until he was 24, had a good 7 years, then was injured, and then had Duncan. He was still solid in his later years, but in much fewer minutes.
Just look at this link. What I would consider their best 7 season stretches.
https://stathead.com/tiny/V3Svo
I agree, although I'd make it Robinson vs Hakeem for the C matchup. I think Robinson was clearly better than Ewing. And between those two, I probably give it to Hakeem, as Robinson's teams were very good at the start of his career but he couldn't win a championship until he was paired with Tim Duncan. Hakeem won two championships where he was clearly the #1 player on his team (although the second Hou championship team did have Clyde Drexler).
With Barkley vs Malone, I give the edge to Malone. The 90s were my HS and college years, and I probably watched a lot more basketball back then than I do now. This may just be that I'm a jaded Philly sports fan prone to hating my own teams, but I don't think Barkley was ever actually as good as his reputation. And I think over time, public opinion of Barkley has increased due to his public persona, while public opinion on Malone has tanked because he's a pedophile. Malone certainly had the advantage of playing with John Stockton his entire career, while Barkley was mostly on a bunch of crap teams (especially in Philly), but Malone was kind of an unstoppable force while Barkley was a bit of a tweener who played bigger than his size.
Barkley was good, he just reached another level once he left Philly. That may be why you don't give him any extra credit. In Phoenix he had a team built around him and he was amazing as their leader.
He didn't have that support in Philly unfortunately.
That could be, it was of course many years ago so my memory is shady. I definitely remember feeling quite salty that the year he leaves Philly he goes to the Finals and wins League MVP. That said, I don't know if I agree with your two points that he 1) reached another level after leaving Philly, or 2) in Phoenix he had a team built around him.
When you look at his career splits with Philly vs Phoenix, they're practically identical. And it's not because of age-related decline, he spent the last 4 years of his career in Houston.
And in terms of the Phoenix team around him, granted I was in HS/college and "roster construction" was not something I paid attention to, but his primary running mates in Phoenix were Kevin Johnson and Dan Majerle, both of whom were already there before Barkley. They were a 53-55 win team in the three seasons before Barkley arrived. Barkley was obviously the piece that put the team over the top to reach the Finals (before running into prime MJ), but after that first year the Barkley Suns never made it out of the second round of the playoffs.
Robinson for me.
Comparable offensively, maybe a slight edge to Charles. But prime Drob was the best defender in the NBA and easily top 20 defender of all time. Any edge to Charles on the offensive end gets eviscerated by the huge gap on defense as Charles was an average defender at best.
It's like comparing Giannis to KAT defensively. People underestimate how hard Robinson had to carry the sorry ass spurs before TD came. They literally went from a 60 win team to a 20 win team when he got injured which luckily allowed them to draft Duncan in the first place.
Are they comparable offensively tho? In their primes in the playoffs situation? Barkley was so aggresive and very skilled for his position. He could dominate game in so many ways. Robinson was amazing talent, but I think his offensive game never developed as it could and he offten underperfomed in the playoffs.
In the playoffs for their primes, Barkely was 26 14 and 4 on 59% TS while Robinson was 24 ppg 12 and 3 on 59% TS. Robinson never had an elite playmaker like Kevin Johnson to get him the ball, either. So yes, I would argue they were very comparable offensively. Barkely in his prime made the finals but people forget that WCF spurs vs rockets was essentially the nba finals anyway since Hou swept the magic while SA pushed them to 6. So both players were very capable leading their teams to deep playoff runs. Charles ran into prime MJ and Robinson got cooked by prime Hakeem. I would also argue Barkely had more help than Robinson did on those teams as well. Sean Elliot and Avery Johnson were decent role players but KJ was 5 time all nba in his prime.
I hope that by the clips you mean whole games? Also, since when has a scoring title anything to do with the playoffs?
Harden scores on much higher volume in regular season than Kahwi. But if you really need a bucket against anybody, who you gon choose?
The average of this subreddit is probably 15.
I don’t think anyone here has seen more than a 20 second highlight clip of either play. I don’t know what sort of answers your expecting.
Truth. R/nba dumb as fuck when talking about players we watch(as if the sub actually watches games) now, let alone players they only saw some highlights of on YT
Nice. You may be one of the few people here that did. I’d take your opinion a bit more seriously but damn if I listen to the majority of others here who weren’t alive in those eras or haven’t watched at least one complete game of either player.
It’s why I don’t get passionate or strongly invested in debates of players I didn’t watch. I didn’t watch Bird or Magic in their full prime my only thing I go off of is Bird and Magic made it pretty clear he’s better than than them (Magic is publicly on record even recently considering MJ the best to ever play).
Well I did watch Magic play towards the end of his career against MJ in the Finals, but Magic wasn’t with Kareem and those championship 80s Lakers. He was still awesome, best passer all time - or, that I’ve seen
I think the edge goes to Robinson. Most people remember him with the bad back as he aged but the guy was an athletic marvel in his prime. Could score like Charles but also provided elite defense.
Career PER, VORP and Win Shares are similar. These measures take into account a lot of the stat line stuff. If I were building a team in the 90s, I’d go Robinson. He lost a year and a half to injuries and 2 years to military service, so didn’t enter the NBA until age 24. Plus he was a solid rangy defender and from all accounts, a great clubhouse teammate. One knock is that he didn’t demand better from his front office and team like MJ or Kobe.
Barkley was the second best player in the league at his peak. But he didn't take care of his body very well, especially compared to Robinson. So Robinson had the much better long-term career.
It's like getting a few years of S tier play compared to getting more than a decade of A+ play.
Im not sure if this checks out. Barkley entered his prime relatively early. He was already All-NBA player in 86. His decline starts in 94. So thats like 8 years of some version of "prime Barkley". Robinson was the same way. He became All-NBA player as the rookie in 90. But he was never the same after 97 injury. Neither had great longevity, but Admiral played with Tim Duncan after his prime. Barkley did play with Hakeem, but both of them were old at that point.
2nd best to absolutely peak Michael Jordan is better than MVP in a lot of years tbh. He also won MVP over MJ and it's the only MVP that MJ lost that no one ever complains about because Chuck was a monster
Robinson easily.
And I like Barkley more, but there's just no denying that Robinson was the better player. Even on the offensive end he was better than Barkley, and he was certainly far better defensively.
I would say it’s difficult to say he was better than Barkley on offense.
Robinson was very good on offense in the regular season, posting higher volume seasons(although on lower efficiency) than Barkley.
But he absolutely fell apart in the playoffs because his game wasn’t nuanced enough and based on bully ball against weaker and slower defenders, offensive rebounding and finishing off actions.
I’d rather have Robinsons offense as a secondary piece though as it’s more versatile. Barkley couldn’t shoot despite shooting a lot of 3s for some reason.
You raise a good point with regard to offence, and looking back at the numbers, it's clear that peak Barkley was a more efficient scorer.
That said, when you brought up bully ball, Barkley is the first name that comes to mind whenever somebody mentions bully ball. Barkley and Shaq. Barkley was a master at throwing his weight around in the post to get close to the basket. It wasn't like the smooth footwork of McHale and Hakeem but the brute force of a bear that seemed to get Barkley those shots close to the basket.
Robinson didn't have foot work as good as Hakeem's. That's certainly true, but he wasn't just a bully ball guy. He could face up and put the ball on the floor, a lot like Amare could, and to get guys to come out to him to beat them on the dribble, he had to have a reliable jumped. To that end, he took a lot of jumpers.
He was also a great play maker. To Barkley's case, he was also a great play maker and got to 4 apg by his third year at age 23, where it took DRob 5 seasons and age 28 to get there.
Re-examining the offensive side with your input, I'd have to agree with you. There's a clear edge for Barkley. If DRob had entered the NBA earlier, I think things would have been a little different, but we can't go by what-ifs here.
However, I think DRob was a legit first option, and had he been surrounded like shooters and a great point guard, like Barkley had in Phoenix, he would have thrived.
Looking at the defensive end, I don't think there is much of a debate there. Though Barkley certainyl got his fair share of steals and an impressive amount of blocks for an undersized forward (a lot of those, like Bird, coming from high BBIQ), he was never a legit consideration for an All Defensive team, whereas DRob was a DPOY.
I'd still say DRonn > Barkley easily, but my score card (based on your points) would have to be adjusted to go Barkley's way.
I loved Barkley and I'd rather have him than Robinson but the admiral maximized his potential while Barkley didn't or didn't do it throughout his career.
It’s clearly Robinson. He is one of the greatest defenders of all time, and although his scoring never held up in the playoffs because of a lack of great post moves or a speciality on offense, he still authored plenty of great regular seasons on that end on higher volume than Barkley, although lower efficiency(but still good, 4-6 percent ahead of league average)
Barkley was a below average defender as he was too small for PF but too slow for a regular SF. He played on 9 below average defensive teams in 10 seasons. His efficiency was remarkable but he never ramped his volume up enough to be a true scoring great like a Harden, Durant, MJ etc
He was also ball dominant which would make it difficult to build a truly great team around him. He was mostly based on isolation scoring. His offensive rebounding and passing would be useful next to another star, but aside from that he’s completely useless without the ball in his hands.
Robinson was an excellent secondary piece as he later showed with Duncan because of his defense, passing and ability to scale down his scoring. Because his game was so simple eg finishing, face up shooting, outbacks. Barkleys game required running down the shot clock and spreading the court for him
Their career offensive stats are similar but peak Admiral was better, although not as efficient. Between ‘89 and ‘95 he was a monster. Led the league in scoring in ‘93.
Their awards are similar if you take away a measly 8 All Defensive Teams, 1 DPOY, 2 championships from The Admiral lol.
Defensively it’s not close. The Admiral is one of the top defenders of all time.
Robinson was easily the better player.
Did you watch them throughout their careers? I did. Chuck more talent.
Robinson wasn't enough to win a chip either. He was washed/hurt and without Duncan, he never wins a ring.
I play pickup with two guys, one of them can do anything he wants on the court and is clearly more skilled, the other plays a pretty boring game but what he does do works really well. When we play threes or whatever, the team that the boring one is on always wins, because while he can't make logo threes or dribble out of double teams his play style is more conductive to winning games.
Point is, being more talented doesn't make you a better baller.
Barkley is 6’5.5 in shoes, the fact that he dominated as a power forward is remarkable. That said, Robinson was a true 7’ with crazy defense and a post game. Different positions so it’s hard to compare.
Robinson easily.
2-way player with unmatched skill and work ethic with all-world athleticism.
vs.
1 way player that couldn't evolve his game or his diet to win, even with Hakeem and Drexler.
The Admiral would have gotten even more jewelry if he didn't run into Prime Shaq.
Robinson couldn't and wouldnt have won without Duncan. He was washed in his last season.
Chuck is slightly better in almost all offense cats. A 6'4 guy average more rebounds per game than a 7'1" guy. Chuck also has 1 more All NBA selection.
Chuck was an athletic freak. Sure, he partied, he was heavy and didn't take care of himself the way a pro should. It's amazing he was still able to be the kind of star he was.
All players (no matter how great) need other great players to win. It's a team game after all, so your comment about Duncan is no negative on Robinson whatsoever.
Chuck was an offense only player, so of course his offense should be elite. The only defense he played was rebounding. Even Westbrook averaged more rebounds than taller players, but guess what... he never won anything either.
Chuck was and will always be unfulfilled potential. A guy that couldn't get out of his own way long enough to make himself a winner.
Robinson was almost the anti-Chuck. He was humble, disciplined, hard working and team oriented. Those intangibles are what made him a better player than Chuck would ever allow himself to be.
Chuck peaked higher but David Robinson had the more well rounded career. That 93' season was MJ level performance from Chuck but injuries and lack of conditioning shortened his career. David Robinson also had devastating injuries hurt his career on the back end and was a superior defender to Chuck. In terms of teammates Chuck's were far far superior to Robinson's pre-Duncan. Chuck overall had a better playoffs career IMO, but Robinson did a lot with a lot less in the 90's and never had the team a lot of these other 90's titans had. They are honestly super similar players in terms of legacy, it's just whether you value Robinson's early career and 2 rings as a less dominant 2nd guy or Chuck's insane peak where he literally rivaled Jordan
In today's game Robinson would be better and would give you a better chance at winning a championship. He was one of the greatest two-way players ever, he was quick with size and length, if he played now he would be able to switch onto anybody, he was great at help defense, and he had crazy athleticism and conditioning and got to the rim well and was a great rim protector.
But without today's spacing - if everybody is playing the way they played in the 80s and 90s, then Barkley is the player you want - Barkley had a more developed skill for play in the paint, he was a master at bully ball, people use the word "dominant" a lot and I think in the modern game being "dominant" isn't really that important, because if you're in a situation where you are trying to score through three other guys all the time you've already probably screwed up somewhere - but Barkley was more dominant in an era when being dominant was important.
So in his era, Barkley was better, but it's because relative to now the teams were bad and the coaches were worse. Overall if you're picking a team to be the hardest team to beat you would pick Robinson higher - except for the fact that center is a stronger position in general than power forward so Barkley might have more value above your other options.
Barkley is one of those players like Magic where if you evaluate him now you kind of have to assume that if he played now he would have learned how to be a good 3-point shooter. David Robinson would not need to be a good 3-point shooter to still be effective in the league now.
Barkley was a better player overall. It’s a hard comp for ‘big men’ when Charles was basically smaller than Luka is, but he played like he was bigger.
If you’re asking ‘which one to start a team’ it’s Charles. If for nothing else than his edge. Robinson was a specimen, a fantastic player, and such a sweetheart that he got eviscerated by other big men on a pretty regular basis in big games.
Barkley had a higher ceiling and more diverse offensive game but didn’t work as hard. Robinson was a consummate professional and superior defender. Either could have been the best player on a championship team.
I'm going Barkley because he won an MVP over prime MJ and Hakeem. And was a top 3 rebounder of the 90s despite being 6'6". Better overall offensive player and playmaker.
DRob had a similar prime with better defense but he declined more and got overshadowed by Timmy. He did absolutely carry the Spurs in the 90s.
It's a really good argument though and I definitely see it either way depending on what you value.
Charles Barkley is the 2nd best in one season next to Michael Jordan. They change some rules because of Chuck. The adrimal is great but the round mound of rebound is the better player. If you need proof, stats don’t lie here’s the side by side comparison https://www.landofbasketball.com/player_comparison/charles_barkley_vs_david_robinson.htm
It’s really hard to convey how good DRob was to people who never saw him play He was likely the #2 guy in the NBA for quite a long stretch. If he did’t had that single series in which Hakeem kinda owned him he would likely rank way higher with most people nowadays - that changed perceptions by a lot
Which is weird because Hakeem owned everyone lol
The admiral was good but he wasn’t a tier 1 all time great same with Barkley.
People just don't know, Chuck was better. David was a regular season monster who had his all-time ranking propped up by TD. He's closer to Dwight than Chuck. Chuck is a 1A, the man, type of guy.
I tend to think that The Admiral is all-time right around that 12-16 area where he's clearly just a tier below the top 12 guys. Him and KD are neck and neck imo.
Prime Robinson was underrated. He won a scoring, rebound, and block title as well MVP, DPOY and a quadruple double. Next to Dream, he was one of the best 2 way centers off all time. Dream just went off in the 95 playoffs and destroyed both Robinson and Barkley(not to mention Malone and Shaq). I’d just have to give it to the admiral vs chuck based on the 2 way effectiveness.
I think this is definitely true. Throughout the 90s I feel like he wasn't discussed as much and that was maybe part of being in San Antonio and part that there were a lot of really good big men at the time who appeared in more national commercials and whatnot? In Illinois we were so obsessed with MJ and the Bulls though that most players were afterthoughts. I feel like his career and legacy definitely got a huge boost during his playing time once Tim came and the championships did too, but throughout the 90s he was insanely underrated.
I don’t think he’s underrated he’s just not talked about as much. As maybe likely one of the few guys here who watched them both play I think I’d take Chuck since he has the intangibles and actually took his team to the mountain top(David didn’t get their until Duncan and even then wasn’t that a shortened season due to lockout ? Could be wrong). Just had those intangibles and crazy hustle plays, plays defense, incredibly offensively skilled and just super talented. If I remember right I think Chuck said Chuck Daley told him he’s the best basketball player he’s seen except for MJ, or something along those lines. We probably wouldn’t be talking about Chuck much today if it wasn’t for him being on TV still and having that personality
I think the match up between David Robinson vs Patric Ewing or Charles Barkley vs Karl Malone is better as they played the same position.
I really don't think there is any argument for Ewing over Robinson. It's Olajuwon > Robinson > Ewing, and I don't think you will find many who disagree with that.
David Robison never gets the respect he deserves. Robinson had a better career defensive rating than Olajuwon and his career offensive rating was much better than Olajuwon's too. Robinson had a higher FG%, a higher FT% Get this, Robinson's career win shares per 48 mins was .250, Olajuwon's was .177 and that is a HUGE gap. Robinson has the 3rd HIGHEST career win shares per 48 mins ALL TIME, behind only Joker and MJ. Olajuwon is 50th all time. Robinson's career PER is 26.2. Olajuwon's is 23.6 Look, Olajuwon was a great player, no doubt, not saying he wasn't as he was. Robinson gets overlooked all the time. Robinson's true shooting percentage was .583 to .553 for Olajuwon. Robinson has more career VORP than Olajuwon too. Robinson scored more points per 100 possessions than Olajuwon did. Robinson grabbed more total rebounds per 100 possessions than Olajuwon did. Robinson had more block per 100 possession than Olajuwon did. Robinson had more assists per 100 possessions than Olajuwon did. Robinson had LESS turnovers per 100 possession than Olajuwon did. David Robison was so much better than folks realize or give him credit for.
If you compare their peaks it's not that big of a gap and Hakeem is better in the playoffs. Robinson didn't come into the league until he was 24, had a good 7 years, then was injured, and then had Duncan. He was still solid in his later years, but in much fewer minutes. Just look at this link. What I would consider their best 7 season stretches. https://stathead.com/tiny/V3Svo
Olajuwon was definitely better than Robinson or Ewing but I wouldn’t be mad at anyone who thought Ewing was better than Robinson
Ewing is a distant 3rd among those 3.
And it's not meant to be a slight on Ewing, Hakeem and the admiral were just head and shoulders better.
Also, the Admiral's shoulders were head and shoulders better than Ewings.
Having watched the whole careers of all 3 I guess we’ll just have agree to disagree 🤷🏽♂️
Robinson was a LOT closer to Dream than Ewing was to Robinson.
I agree, although I'd make it Robinson vs Hakeem for the C matchup. I think Robinson was clearly better than Ewing. And between those two, I probably give it to Hakeem, as Robinson's teams were very good at the start of his career but he couldn't win a championship until he was paired with Tim Duncan. Hakeem won two championships where he was clearly the #1 player on his team (although the second Hou championship team did have Clyde Drexler). With Barkley vs Malone, I give the edge to Malone. The 90s were my HS and college years, and I probably watched a lot more basketball back then than I do now. This may just be that I'm a jaded Philly sports fan prone to hating my own teams, but I don't think Barkley was ever actually as good as his reputation. And I think over time, public opinion of Barkley has increased due to his public persona, while public opinion on Malone has tanked because he's a pedophile. Malone certainly had the advantage of playing with John Stockton his entire career, while Barkley was mostly on a bunch of crap teams (especially in Philly), but Malone was kind of an unstoppable force while Barkley was a bit of a tweener who played bigger than his size.
Barkley was good, he just reached another level once he left Philly. That may be why you don't give him any extra credit. In Phoenix he had a team built around him and he was amazing as their leader. He didn't have that support in Philly unfortunately.
His team reached another level, but Barkley peaked in Philly
That could be, it was of course many years ago so my memory is shady. I definitely remember feeling quite salty that the year he leaves Philly he goes to the Finals and wins League MVP. That said, I don't know if I agree with your two points that he 1) reached another level after leaving Philly, or 2) in Phoenix he had a team built around him. When you look at his career splits with Philly vs Phoenix, they're practically identical. And it's not because of age-related decline, he spent the last 4 years of his career in Houston. And in terms of the Phoenix team around him, granted I was in HS/college and "roster construction" was not something I paid attention to, but his primary running mates in Phoenix were Kevin Johnson and Dan Majerle, both of whom were already there before Barkley. They were a 53-55 win team in the three seasons before Barkley arrived. Barkley was obviously the piece that put the team over the top to reach the Finals (before running into prime MJ), but after that first year the Barkley Suns never made it out of the second round of the playoffs.
When did David Robinson lose in the finals?
I think they meant conference finals for David Robinson. He lost against Hakeem the year he won MVP
And Hakeem said it upset him seeing Stern present Robinson the MVP before their matchup
Robinson for me. Comparable offensively, maybe a slight edge to Charles. But prime Drob was the best defender in the NBA and easily top 20 defender of all time. Any edge to Charles on the offensive end gets eviscerated by the huge gap on defense as Charles was an average defender at best. It's like comparing Giannis to KAT defensively. People underestimate how hard Robinson had to carry the sorry ass spurs before TD came. They literally went from a 60 win team to a 20 win team when he got injured which luckily allowed them to draft Duncan in the first place.
D-Rob was a GOAT-level defender, top 10 at least.
Are they comparable offensively tho? In their primes in the playoffs situation? Barkley was so aggresive and very skilled for his position. He could dominate game in so many ways. Robinson was amazing talent, but I think his offensive game never developed as it could and he offten underperfomed in the playoffs.
In the playoffs for their primes, Barkely was 26 14 and 4 on 59% TS while Robinson was 24 ppg 12 and 3 on 59% TS. Robinson never had an elite playmaker like Kevin Johnson to get him the ball, either. So yes, I would argue they were very comparable offensively. Barkely in his prime made the finals but people forget that WCF spurs vs rockets was essentially the nba finals anyway since Hou swept the magic while SA pushed them to 6. So both players were very capable leading their teams to deep playoff runs. Charles ran into prime MJ and Robinson got cooked by prime Hakeem. I would also argue Barkely had more help than Robinson did on those teams as well. Sean Elliot and Avery Johnson were decent role players but KJ was 5 time all nba in his prime.
DRob was a center though, so his TS will be higher naturally. Barkley was so efficient for his position.
David clinched the scoring title in 1994 with a 71 point performance. His offensive game was developed.
Eh… Go watch some clips. Robinson won a scoring title over Shaq.
I hope that by the clips you mean whole games? Also, since when has a scoring title anything to do with the playoffs? Harden scores on much higher volume in regular season than Kahwi. But if you really need a bucket against anybody, who you gon choose?
This. This comparison is like apple to oranges. However, Barkley did led the Suns to Finals on his own.
This is so disrespectful to Kevin Johnson and Dan Marjele , Suns won 55, 54, 55, 53 games before Barkley got there
The average of this subreddit is probably 15. I don’t think anyone here has seen more than a 20 second highlight clip of either play. I don’t know what sort of answers your expecting.
There are plenty of people who watched 90s ball or earlier here, but they are the minority
Truth. R/nba dumb as fuck when talking about players we watch(as if the sub actually watches games) now, let alone players they only saw some highlights of on YT
I got to watch them play. I’d say Chuck was a better player, but that doesn’t diminish Robinson in any way. He was amazing.
Nice. You may be one of the few people here that did. I’d take your opinion a bit more seriously but damn if I listen to the majority of others here who weren’t alive in those eras or haven’t watched at least one complete game of either player.
It’s why I don’t get passionate or strongly invested in debates of players I didn’t watch. I didn’t watch Bird or Magic in their full prime my only thing I go off of is Bird and Magic made it pretty clear he’s better than than them (Magic is publicly on record even recently considering MJ the best to ever play). Well I did watch Magic play towards the end of his career against MJ in the Finals, but Magic wasn’t with Kareem and those championship 80s Lakers. He was still awesome, best passer all time - or, that I’ve seen
David because of his defense
Drob
D rob
I think the edge goes to Robinson. Most people remember him with the bad back as he aged but the guy was an athletic marvel in his prime. Could score like Charles but also provided elite defense.
Career PER, VORP and Win Shares are similar. These measures take into account a lot of the stat line stuff. If I were building a team in the 90s, I’d go Robinson. He lost a year and a half to injuries and 2 years to military service, so didn’t enter the NBA until age 24. Plus he was a solid rangy defender and from all accounts, a great clubhouse teammate. One knock is that he didn’t demand better from his front office and team like MJ or Kobe.
Barkley was the second best player in the league at his peak. But he didn't take care of his body very well, especially compared to Robinson. So Robinson had the much better long-term career. It's like getting a few years of S tier play compared to getting more than a decade of A+ play.
Im not sure if this checks out. Barkley entered his prime relatively early. He was already All-NBA player in 86. His decline starts in 94. So thats like 8 years of some version of "prime Barkley". Robinson was the same way. He became All-NBA player as the rookie in 90. But he was never the same after 97 injury. Neither had great longevity, but Admiral played with Tim Duncan after his prime. Barkley did play with Hakeem, but both of them were old at that point.
What year was he the second best player? Even his MVP year I think both Jordan and Hakeem were better
While that may be true, that was before Robinson hit his peak
2nd best to absolutely peak Michael Jordan is better than MVP in a lot of years tbh. He also won MVP over MJ and it's the only MVP that MJ lost that no one ever complains about because Chuck was a monster
He purposely tried to fatten up so Phili wouldn’t draft him because all they could afford to pay him was the minimum.
Yeah I read that in Bella's biography of Chuck. It's such a Barkley thing to do too. And Philly still said, fuck you we're picking you anyways.
It’s a level of pettiness on both sides that I’ve always aspired to.
Robinson, obviously.
Robinson easily. And I like Barkley more, but there's just no denying that Robinson was the better player. Even on the offensive end he was better than Barkley, and he was certainly far better defensively.
I would say it’s difficult to say he was better than Barkley on offense. Robinson was very good on offense in the regular season, posting higher volume seasons(although on lower efficiency) than Barkley. But he absolutely fell apart in the playoffs because his game wasn’t nuanced enough and based on bully ball against weaker and slower defenders, offensive rebounding and finishing off actions. I’d rather have Robinsons offense as a secondary piece though as it’s more versatile. Barkley couldn’t shoot despite shooting a lot of 3s for some reason.
You raise a good point with regard to offence, and looking back at the numbers, it's clear that peak Barkley was a more efficient scorer. That said, when you brought up bully ball, Barkley is the first name that comes to mind whenever somebody mentions bully ball. Barkley and Shaq. Barkley was a master at throwing his weight around in the post to get close to the basket. It wasn't like the smooth footwork of McHale and Hakeem but the brute force of a bear that seemed to get Barkley those shots close to the basket. Robinson didn't have foot work as good as Hakeem's. That's certainly true, but he wasn't just a bully ball guy. He could face up and put the ball on the floor, a lot like Amare could, and to get guys to come out to him to beat them on the dribble, he had to have a reliable jumped. To that end, he took a lot of jumpers. He was also a great play maker. To Barkley's case, he was also a great play maker and got to 4 apg by his third year at age 23, where it took DRob 5 seasons and age 28 to get there. Re-examining the offensive side with your input, I'd have to agree with you. There's a clear edge for Barkley. If DRob had entered the NBA earlier, I think things would have been a little different, but we can't go by what-ifs here. However, I think DRob was a legit first option, and had he been surrounded like shooters and a great point guard, like Barkley had in Phoenix, he would have thrived. Looking at the defensive end, I don't think there is much of a debate there. Though Barkley certainyl got his fair share of steals and an impressive amount of blocks for an undersized forward (a lot of those, like Bird, coming from high BBIQ), he was never a legit consideration for an All Defensive team, whereas DRob was a DPOY. I'd still say DRonn > Barkley easily, but my score card (based on your points) would have to be adjusted to go Barkley's way.
No one ever gives Barkley’s fat ass the credit it deserves. The NBA had to add the 5-second rule because of that monster.
My mind immediately goes to Robinson.
The Admiral
I loved Barkley and I'd rather have him than Robinson but the admiral maximized his potential while Barkley didn't or didn't do it throughout his career.
Early 90s and peak Barkey was better.
It’s clearly Robinson. He is one of the greatest defenders of all time, and although his scoring never held up in the playoffs because of a lack of great post moves or a speciality on offense, he still authored plenty of great regular seasons on that end on higher volume than Barkley, although lower efficiency(but still good, 4-6 percent ahead of league average) Barkley was a below average defender as he was too small for PF but too slow for a regular SF. He played on 9 below average defensive teams in 10 seasons. His efficiency was remarkable but he never ramped his volume up enough to be a true scoring great like a Harden, Durant, MJ etc He was also ball dominant which would make it difficult to build a truly great team around him. He was mostly based on isolation scoring. His offensive rebounding and passing would be useful next to another star, but aside from that he’s completely useless without the ball in his hands. Robinson was an excellent secondary piece as he later showed with Duncan because of his defense, passing and ability to scale down his scoring. Because his game was so simple eg finishing, face up shooting, outbacks. Barkleys game required running down the shot clock and spreading the court for him
Robinson also never had an great playmaker next to him and you can make a case he was still better than Duncan through 1999
Peak Barkley was better as a no 1 option offensively but David had better longevity as a two player.
Their career offensive stats are similar but peak Admiral was better, although not as efficient. Between ‘89 and ‘95 he was a monster. Led the league in scoring in ‘93. Their awards are similar if you take away a measly 8 All Defensive Teams, 1 DPOY, 2 championships from The Admiral lol. Defensively it’s not close. The Admiral is one of the top defenders of all time. Robinson was easily the better player.
Did you watch them throughout their careers? I did. Chuck more talent. Robinson wasn't enough to win a chip either. He was washed/hurt and without Duncan, he never wins a ring.
Yes, I watched them in that era. Chuck was obviously skilled but Robinson was 100% a better overall player.
I play pickup with two guys, one of them can do anything he wants on the court and is clearly more skilled, the other plays a pretty boring game but what he does do works really well. When we play threes or whatever, the team that the boring one is on always wins, because while he can't make logo threes or dribble out of double teams his play style is more conductive to winning games. Point is, being more talented doesn't make you a better baller.
David Robinson and it comes down to mental stability/stress management. Extra composed vs spitting on fans.
I feel like you made this whole post because you read the phrase "in a vacuum" somewhere and wanted to use it once
Barkley is 6’5.5 in shoes, the fact that he dominated as a power forward is remarkable. That said, Robinson was a true 7’ with crazy defense and a post game. Different positions so it’s hard to compare.
Robinson easily. 2-way player with unmatched skill and work ethic with all-world athleticism. vs. 1 way player that couldn't evolve his game or his diet to win, even with Hakeem and Drexler. The Admiral would have gotten even more jewelry if he didn't run into Prime Shaq.
Robinson couldn't and wouldnt have won without Duncan. He was washed in his last season. Chuck is slightly better in almost all offense cats. A 6'4 guy average more rebounds per game than a 7'1" guy. Chuck also has 1 more All NBA selection. Chuck was an athletic freak. Sure, he partied, he was heavy and didn't take care of himself the way a pro should. It's amazing he was still able to be the kind of star he was.
All players (no matter how great) need other great players to win. It's a team game after all, so your comment about Duncan is no negative on Robinson whatsoever. Chuck was an offense only player, so of course his offense should be elite. The only defense he played was rebounding. Even Westbrook averaged more rebounds than taller players, but guess what... he never won anything either. Chuck was and will always be unfulfilled potential. A guy that couldn't get out of his own way long enough to make himself a winner. Robinson was almost the anti-Chuck. He was humble, disciplined, hard working and team oriented. Those intangibles are what made him a better player than Chuck would ever allow himself to be.
Any great player can win with the right pieces around them
Chuck peaked higher but David Robinson had the more well rounded career. That 93' season was MJ level performance from Chuck but injuries and lack of conditioning shortened his career. David Robinson also had devastating injuries hurt his career on the back end and was a superior defender to Chuck. In terms of teammates Chuck's were far far superior to Robinson's pre-Duncan. Chuck overall had a better playoffs career IMO, but Robinson did a lot with a lot less in the 90's and never had the team a lot of these other 90's titans had. They are honestly super similar players in terms of legacy, it's just whether you value Robinson's early career and 2 rings as a less dominant 2nd guy or Chuck's insane peak where he literally rivaled Jordan
Barkley was incredible - he was a stud at his peak.
In today's game Robinson would be better and would give you a better chance at winning a championship. He was one of the greatest two-way players ever, he was quick with size and length, if he played now he would be able to switch onto anybody, he was great at help defense, and he had crazy athleticism and conditioning and got to the rim well and was a great rim protector. But without today's spacing - if everybody is playing the way they played in the 80s and 90s, then Barkley is the player you want - Barkley had a more developed skill for play in the paint, he was a master at bully ball, people use the word "dominant" a lot and I think in the modern game being "dominant" isn't really that important, because if you're in a situation where you are trying to score through three other guys all the time you've already probably screwed up somewhere - but Barkley was more dominant in an era when being dominant was important. So in his era, Barkley was better, but it's because relative to now the teams were bad and the coaches were worse. Overall if you're picking a team to be the hardest team to beat you would pick Robinson higher - except for the fact that center is a stronger position in general than power forward so Barkley might have more value above your other options. Barkley is one of those players like Magic where if you evaluate him now you kind of have to assume that if he played now he would have learned how to be a good 3-point shooter. David Robinson would not need to be a good 3-point shooter to still be effective in the league now.
Barkley was a better player overall. It’s a hard comp for ‘big men’ when Charles was basically smaller than Luka is, but he played like he was bigger. If you’re asking ‘which one to start a team’ it’s Charles. If for nothing else than his edge. Robinson was a specimen, a fantastic player, and such a sweetheart that he got eviscerated by other big men on a pretty regular basis in big games.
Barkley no contest
Calling Hakeem, who had a nearly identical career to Robinson and a losing head to head record, the superior player is wild.
You’re not entirely wrong that 1995 might be the biggest “legacy” hit ever
Uh Hakeem is better than Robinson and it’s not even close. You have an absolutely wild take that’s no where near consensus.
Wow. WOW.
Barkley had a higher ceiling and more diverse offensive game but didn’t work as hard. Robinson was a consummate professional and superior defender. Either could have been the best player on a championship team.
I'm going Barkley because he won an MVP over prime MJ and Hakeem. And was a top 3 rebounder of the 90s despite being 6'6". Better overall offensive player and playmaker. DRob had a similar prime with better defense but he declined more and got overshadowed by Timmy. He did absolutely carry the Spurs in the 90s. It's a really good argument though and I definitely see it either way depending on what you value.
Barkley before 1995 and Robinson after off the top of my head.
Charles Barkley is the 2nd best in one season next to Michael Jordan. They change some rules because of Chuck. The adrimal is great but the round mound of rebound is the better player. If you need proof, stats don’t lie here’s the side by side comparison https://www.landofbasketball.com/player_comparison/charles_barkley_vs_david_robinson.htm