O.J Mayo
10-06-2010, 10:17 PM
Lately, we have some idiots posting on this board lately. Usually, when I say idiots, I mean Laker fags. Now, does being a better defender mean squat when it doesn't produce impact? This tool called tbonewalker, also known as dcocksucka, claimed that Dennis Rodman was a better defender in his prime than Tim Duncan in his prime, which is a cool story and all because he got more championships and DPOYs, which goes back to my thread of does championships magically make one a better player, which makes Laker fags look extremely retarded.
The only support he got were fans of teams that had Rodman on their team before, namely the Piston fans, Bulls fans or Duncan bashing tools like the stinky paki.
Clearly, the only thing that matters is defensive impact, because no matter how good a player is at individual defense, if he doesn't produce any results for his team, it is pointless because it still leads to scores for the other team. When comparing to all-time great defenders, Dennis Rodman had a career best of 97 DRtg playing 35.7 minutes per game with the 1998 Bulls and a 7.0 defensive win shares playing 40.3 minutes in 1992 with the Detroit Pistons. Now, I have to admit that this is fantastic for Rodman. Now, lets go to Tim Duncan.
And for course, like the idiot troll points out that every stat has flaws, does hat mean we shouldn't use them? Based on this context, we should use them. Tim Duncan had 10 seasons of DRtg better than a 97 with a career best of 89 while playing 36.6 minutes in 2004. Per 100 possessions, when Tim Duncan was out there on the court, his team allowed 8 points lesser than when Dennis Rodman was on the court. For context, the top 11 in point differential for a championship team in league history is 10.3 points (Those 11 teams all won at least 60 games). Assuming 100 possessions, per game, Tim Duncan's defensive impact alone is enough to make a huge difference in any NBA game.
As if comparing Tim Duncan's defensive impact on DRtg isn't enough damning evidence that Tim Duncan is a better defensive player than Dennis freaking Rodman, Duncan's defensive win shares were higher than Rodman's in 4 separate seasons, with a career best of 7.2 DWS while playing lesser minutes than Dennis Rodman. For the sake of context, comparing Duncan's contemporaries on defense in his era, Ben Wallace peaked at 9.1 DWS. His 2nd highest and 3rd highest were 7.9 and 7.2 respectively. He never really came close to that after that one outlier season. Kevin Garnett peaked at 8.0 DWS, his 2nd highest was 6.2. He never came close to his peak ever since. Both Wallace and Garnett were great defenders at their peak, but they also never had a consistent career like Tim Duncan on the defensive end.
For the sake of impact, Dennis Rodman doesn't even come close to what Tim Duncan did on the defensive end of the court for his team. The difference is steals percentage is negligible, blocking percentage had Dennis Rodman peaking in 1987, his rookie year at 2.4 percent. He could double that amount and still not reach 4 of Tim Duncan's seasons. Throughout Tim Duncan's career, all of his block percentages are way higher than Dennis Rodman's career high.
So, where are the Laker fags now?
The only support he got were fans of teams that had Rodman on their team before, namely the Piston fans, Bulls fans or Duncan bashing tools like the stinky paki.
Clearly, the only thing that matters is defensive impact, because no matter how good a player is at individual defense, if he doesn't produce any results for his team, it is pointless because it still leads to scores for the other team. When comparing to all-time great defenders, Dennis Rodman had a career best of 97 DRtg playing 35.7 minutes per game with the 1998 Bulls and a 7.0 defensive win shares playing 40.3 minutes in 1992 with the Detroit Pistons. Now, I have to admit that this is fantastic for Rodman. Now, lets go to Tim Duncan.
And for course, like the idiot troll points out that every stat has flaws, does hat mean we shouldn't use them? Based on this context, we should use them. Tim Duncan had 10 seasons of DRtg better than a 97 with a career best of 89 while playing 36.6 minutes in 2004. Per 100 possessions, when Tim Duncan was out there on the court, his team allowed 8 points lesser than when Dennis Rodman was on the court. For context, the top 11 in point differential for a championship team in league history is 10.3 points (Those 11 teams all won at least 60 games). Assuming 100 possessions, per game, Tim Duncan's defensive impact alone is enough to make a huge difference in any NBA game.
As if comparing Tim Duncan's defensive impact on DRtg isn't enough damning evidence that Tim Duncan is a better defensive player than Dennis freaking Rodman, Duncan's defensive win shares were higher than Rodman's in 4 separate seasons, with a career best of 7.2 DWS while playing lesser minutes than Dennis Rodman. For the sake of context, comparing Duncan's contemporaries on defense in his era, Ben Wallace peaked at 9.1 DWS. His 2nd highest and 3rd highest were 7.9 and 7.2 respectively. He never really came close to that after that one outlier season. Kevin Garnett peaked at 8.0 DWS, his 2nd highest was 6.2. He never came close to his peak ever since. Both Wallace and Garnett were great defenders at their peak, but they also never had a consistent career like Tim Duncan on the defensive end.
For the sake of impact, Dennis Rodman doesn't even come close to what Tim Duncan did on the defensive end of the court for his team. The difference is steals percentage is negligible, blocking percentage had Dennis Rodman peaking in 1987, his rookie year at 2.4 percent. He could double that amount and still not reach 4 of Tim Duncan's seasons. Throughout Tim Duncan's career, all of his block percentages are way higher than Dennis Rodman's career high.
So, where are the Laker fags now?