My hypothesis is, "If you do one thing superbly, you always have a tool in the NBA. But if that one thing you do superbly is all that you do, then your toolbox has got only that one thing in it and how difficult is it to take it from you?"
Duncan Robinson is, Spoelstra said it his first year, "one of the best shooters on the planet." More specifically, Robinson is one of the best three point shooters on the planet. That is, he doesn't penetrate, he's only an average passer (but how would we know?) and is a below average defender. Shooting from range, in other words, is all Duncan does. So, as a defender, all you have to do is chase Duncan around the perimeter (or make sure a teammate switches onto him). You don't have to worry about overcommitting and having Duncan all of a sudden blow by you to the rim. If you take away his three-point shot you've taken the entirety of his toolbox. Now, who is the best shooter in the history of the NBA? Steph Curry. And Steph is of course known best for his three-point shooting. But Steph doesn't stay on a circuit 23' 9" and shoot. He penetrates and he launches surreal bombs from the logo. Steph catches defenders off guard with those logo shots, with his penetration, you never know when to pick him up or how close to get to him.
Now to test my theory I am going to use the only analytical tool I have ready at hand. I'm going to see how many of Duncan Robinson's shots are from three-point range and how many are two-pointers. Une momento por favor...Okay, the only figures readiest at hand are those from the current season. Duncan has taken 86 shots this season; 77 of them have been treys. 89.5%. Those numbers, to me, are astounding. 89.5%. By contrast 65.6% of Steph Curry's shots are treys, and Curry does more--brings the ball up frequently, drives, dishes, and has range on his long shots beyond that of any shooter in Association history. It's pretty easy to make a fool out of me on any subject, and on this one I will consider your case made if you can point me to another starter on a .530 or better team who does only this one thing well and who does it 89.5% of the time.
Duncan's prominence as a starter in an Erik Spoelstra offense is completely contrary to the offensive philosophy Spoelstra invented, positionless basketball. Duncan can't defend positions 1 through 5 on the floor, he doesn't even do three and D, he does three and no D. At just an idiot level (which is the angle I have) how hard is it to play against a guy who is of average NBA height, who isn't a playmaker, who doesn't have a repertoire of shots, and who isn't an elite defender? If given alternatives, e.g. Curry, Kevin Durant, BEN SIMMONS, who would you rather play against?
