Defense is the key to this question. Jordan and Stockton could no longer defend their position if they came back.
I would have to say Robinson because of his height. This is the one thing that you just cannot teach (or retrain) Also, the league is loaded with talented point and shooting guards, but talented big men are few and far in between. (The first three that come to mind are Yao, Dwight and Gasol) Therefore, Robinson wouldn't have to go up against All-Star level talent that often. He'd be facing the Erick Dampiers of the NBA. Not much talent there.
I'm in a toss up between Stockton and Jordan. Robinson relied too much on athletic ability when he played, Stockton and Jordan relied on their brains and crafts a lot more than their athleticism at least later in Jordan's Career.
If either Stockton or Jordan came back to the league, their competition would devastate them. Given this era's crop of subpar centers, if Robinson came back, it's not farfetched to think he'd be better than half of his competition.
That's true, since the best center race only consists of two people. Don't know David Robinson wasn't healthy in 2003, had a hurt back most of the season so I don't think he would be effective, but he would be effective for his position.
WHy'd you leave out hakeem? Sure he got old and worn out with the raptors but he was more efficient than Ben Wallace is now Maybe Stevey Franchise if he worked har enough like T-mac
I could envision all three being effective players still. Jordan could still score, grab a board or two, have a few assists. I think he'd struggle defensively, but then there are tons of NBA players who get 20 mpg as scores only. Stockton could definitely still run a team, distribute, hit open shots. He would struggle as much, if not more than Jordan, defensively, though. Just picturing Stockton trying to guard a Paul, Williams, etc. is laughable. But, as with Jordan, there are plenty of teams in the league that would gladly take another point guard to fill out their roster and get some playing time. Robinson would be the least effective offensively, but could likely still grab some boards, get some blocks, play some decent defense. In 2006-2007, when Alonzo Mourning was 37, he played 20 minutes per game, scoring 8.6 points, 4.5 boards, 2.3 blocks per game. He played in 77 games. I can't envision any of the three getting any more than 15-20 mpg MAX, and I'm not entirely sure any of the three would contribute enormously or consistently to wins. But as a need a guy of the bench to throw out there and keep the score neutral, all three could have a shot. If I had to choose one to be most effective, it would be Stockton. He was the most durable near the end, was playing the best for his age near the end, and was the one who relied on athleticism the least in the first place.
Disagree. You need to realize how Mourning and Robinson got their respective points. Mourning's points came close to the basket. It's logical that in the twilight of his career, as his physical advantages declined, his offensive game suffered. On the other hand, Robinson's most frequently used weapon was his mid-range jumper. That option should still be available for him, and if the opposing center chooses to guard him at that distance, Robinson's teammates would capitalize on attacking an unprotected basket.
He was already down to 8.5 ppg in his last year, while still playing a full 26 minutes per game. This was when he was 37. Now he did still grab 8 boards and block 1.7 shots per game. Stockton, on the other hand, at 40, still averaged 10.8 points per game and 7.7 assists per game. And his minutes per game were down to 28, so not much more than Robinson. Jordan is Jordan. At 39 he still averaged 20 ppg, 3.8 assists per game, and 6.1 rebounds per game. Granted, he played in 37 minutes per game. Offensively, of the three, Robinson would undoubtedly be the least effective.
Undoubtedly be the least effective? Hardly. Jordan may have averaged 20 ppg, but it took him 18.6 field goals and 37 minutes per game as the team's first option to get that. Do you really find that more impressive than Robinson's 8.5 ppg on 6.6 fga at 26 mpg? You shouldn't. In addition, you're totally ignoring the roles that the players had on each of their teams. When Stockton and Jordan were on the floor, the ball was generally in their hands. They would either set up plays for others or make the plays themselves. Before you decide to use stats as your ultimate barometer, you need to realize that Stockton and Jordan did not sacrifice their numbers nearly as much as Robinson did. Think about it. Robinson announced that the 2003 season would be his last. Is it really so hard to believe that a guy who previously deferred to emerging star Tim Duncan would now defer to emerging players such as Tony Parker, Stephen Jackson, and Manu Ginobili for the betterment of the team? And remember...you can't teach height.
um...yes. Perhaps Jordan wasn't as effective as he had been in the past, but he still scored 20 ppg...AND had 3.8 assists per game. If we want to get into some of the more "complex" stats, Jordan had a 19.3 PER his final year, when he as 39, compared to Robinson's 17.8, when he was 37. Stockton's PER his final year was 21, when he was 40. Yes, because they were offensive playmakers...I don't see how this helps support your position?? If D-Rob could have created offensively (either for himself or others) like they did, he'd have the ball in his hand more frequently....he couldn't and didn't. True. The Spurs had a better team than either the Wizards or the Jazz. And D-Rob probably would have gotten more time on a lot of other teams, the Wizards and Jazz included. But it also works both ways. Wouldn't it be easier to score more efficiently when you are option #4 or 5, instead of #1. I still contend that of the three, his impact offensively, today, would be the least. Keep in mind the age differences as well. Stockton and Jordan were both a few years older than Robinson in their final season. True, but with few exceptions, as big men get older, especially considerably older, they lose their effectiveness in the offensive game more relative to their continued use as a rebounder and defender.
Actually, you missed my point entirely. All you see is Jordan's 20 ppg and automatically assume its more impressive than Robinson's 8.5 ppg. However, on a per-shot basis, Jordan averaged 1.075 points per shot while Robinson averaged 1.28 points per shot. So Robinson is actually the more efficient scorer. Don't you think PER is rather irrelevant here? PER is largely based on offensive performance, and as I said before, Jordan and Stockton ran the offense when they were on the floor whereas Robinson relegated himself in to being the 3rd or 4th option. Not to mention PER ignores blocks. You're using Robinson's individual statistics against him. My point is that because Jordan and Stockton controlled the ball for their teams, their individual stats would logically be higher than Robinson's. You totally underestimate Robinson's selflessness. When Duncan joined the Spurs, Robinson still had the ability to dominate. However, he saw Duncan's potential and deferred to him. The same thing happened in his final year. He announced he was going to retire at the end of 2003, and during the course of the year, deferred to the emerging players for the betterment of the team. Not always, and I don't think Robinson was ever consistently the #4 or #5 option. You may believe that, but you have no relevant logic to support your belief. You speak of performances that occurred 7 years ago. Did you see how fat Jordan was at his HOF induction? Of course, we're assuming he gets back into shape, but I doubt he can even regain the physique he had when he was with the Wizards. After all, he's 7 years older and his metabolism is much slower. I believe Robinson would be the most successful and I cite the league's weak crop of centers as the main reason. There's probably only a handful of centers who would give Robinson problems, but the league is stacked at the pg/sg/sf position. There's no way Jordan or Stockton could compete.
John Stockton. He won't be affected too much by lack of athleticism because he's mainly a passing point guard, contrasting Jordan and Robinson.
