Reply With Quote
Most blocks all time, top 10 in steals, better peak. Better scorer, better free throw shooter. Listen, if it was all about advanced stats, Chris Paul would be a champion already.
No question. There's no debate about it being one of the great runs of all time or him being one of the great players of all time, but there's nothing credible to suggest he was better than Duncan.
Most blocks all time, top 10 in steals, better peak. Better scorer, better free throw shooter. Listen, if it was all about advanced stats, Chris Paul would be a champion already.
Relying on counting stats in 2016.
Paul is the greatest small guard in the history of the game, but there's only so much a 6-0 player can do. He can't do what '94 Olajuwon or '03 Duncan did, which is drag an otherwise unworthy roster to a championship and he's never quite had a real championship caliber roster around him.
This is what I'm saying. Paul's career high in win shares is more than Duncan and Hakeem, and a better PER than Duncan or Hakeem. Does that mean he is better than them? This is exactly why advanced stats are not the end all be all.
Paul is the greatest small guard in the history of the game, but there's only so much a 6-0 player can do. He can't do what '94 Olajuwon or '03 Duncan did, which is drag an otherwise unworthy roster to a championship and he's never quite had a real championship caliber roster around him.
No, because he couldn't have the all around affect that they did.
Individually, none are the end all be all, but if damn near everyone points in favor of one player over the other and they're similar players and played in somewhat similar eras . . . just admit it's nostalgia and aesthetics.
It's funny how all the antiquated/casual fans underrate Duncan's ability to score because he was unselfish and in his later years played on a team that didn't need him to score big or play major regular season minutes. He's also a better shot blocker than given credit for because he didn't seek them out.
Yes he could if he was a winner. Curry is a PG and has won a ring...A PG can at least get his team to the WCF. Nash had done it. So, if Paul's advanced stats are not a criteria to determine that he is better than Duncan, then neither are Duncan's advanced stats a criteria to use to say he was better than Hakeem.
I still don't understand why any of you respond to da sun fans. He is a troll, and a ty one at that. Plus why should anyone take anything a ing Suns fan says seriously.
He's got ya's snortin' that for sure.
Good to see you defending your fellow Suns fan Dale.
Absolutely. Me & da go back decades.
H2H MVPs when they have overlapping primes? Sure. It's not like you are comparing players in different eras or different primes.
As for the numbers, one or two may not support it, you put it all together and Duncan most definitely belongs there. Nobody other than Jordan, Kareem or wilt have these consistently stellar numbers across so many categories.
Too bad we are talking career and not peak only. Duncan had slightly lower peak than shaq but did it for much longer and much more consistently.
Chang loves advanced stats with Duncan but even here its easy to prove Shaq was better (because he WAS). Lets look at who had the highest peak numbers:
Peak Vorp Winner: Shaq (9.4)
Peak BPM Winner: Shaq (9.7)
Peak Win Shares/48 Winner: Shaq (.283)
Peak Win Shares Winner: Shaq (18.6)
Peak PER Winner: Shaq (30.6)
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...onealsh01.html
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...duncati01.html
Shaq had higher peak advanced stats in every single category.
Bummer Chang.
Fact that shaqs peak was considered one of the best of all time and Duncan's numbers were very close to those just showed you Duncan's prime was great, contrary to what you tried to as you claim earlier on.
Bummer dsf
You are wrong again. Duncan did not do it much longer. They averaged around the same in their latter years. And no, Duncan's prime was nowhere close to.Shaq's.
Future generations will dismiss Duncan like current generations dismiss Wilt Chamberlain and Oscar Robertson.
Laker fan making being wrong a science.
WS > 10: Shaq 9 seasons, Duncan 12 seasons
WS/48 > .2: Shaq 9 Seasons, Duncan 11 seasons
BPM > 5: Shaq 10 seasons, Duncan 10 seasons
VORP > 5: Shaq 6 seasons, Duncan 7 seasons
With their primes pretty much overlapping each other, Shaq led the league in WS twice, so did Duncan.
Shaq led the league in BPM twice, Duncan once
Shaq led the league VORP once, Duncan once.
Do advanced stats show Shaq needed to be triple teamed? What about averaging 40 PPG in the finals?
Advanced stats should also show why Duncan couldn't stop the threepeat right?
Cause nobody triple teamed Duncan.Do advanced stats show Shaq needed to be triple teamed? What about averaging 40 PPG in the finals?
Cause Duncan didn't get a near triple double in the finals.
Your arguments are and I just want to let you know.
He did. By putting up 37/16 h2h vs shaq.
I think what you meant was how no one was able to stop shaq from a three peat.
Although having 20+FTA differential in two elimination games doesn't help, either.
No he did not stop the threepeat. Or are you dumb?
Amb is maddddddddddddd
See above edit. Your sentence could have been interpreted as stop the threepeat team led by shaq, which Duncan actually did.
What you meant was to stop shaqs team from three peating.
One thing though, given how shaq was clearly greater than Duncan because of the threepeat (your primary and only argument), how would your username ring true? Your argument of shaq > Duncan due to the threepeat already admitted shaq led those lakers team, meaning Kobe was the beta.
Default response when your arguments are destroyed.Amb is maddddddddddddd
Look, somebody is mad so I win. Not sure if you realize how re ed it makes you look.
Just like a Spurfan, lose an argument then bring up Kobe...Without Shaq, Duncan has won a total of 1 games against Kobe in the playoffs...
http://www.basketball-reference.com/...vs-lakers.html
Just pointing out the logical contradiction of your argument and your own username.
Hey, Kobe was 2-1 vs Nash, does Nash own Kobe or is Nash > Kobe? Maybe both?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
